Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fritzpoll (talk | contribs) at 21:15, 17 February 2010 (→Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/0/0/3): r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Ikip   17 February 2010 {{{votes}}}
ChildofMidnight   15 February 2010 {{{votes}}}
Transcendental Meditation movement   15 February 2010 {{{votes}}}
Proofreader77 blocks   15 February 2010 {{{votes}}}
Asgardian   13 February 2010 {{{votes}}}
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 14 Dec 2024 04 Jan 2025
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024

Requests for arbitration


Ikip

Initiated by Scott Mac (Doc) at 14:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • Requests from multiple editors on his talk page, and on the project pages in question to cease and desist.
  • Link 2

Statement by User:Scott MacDonald

My activities wrt the deletion of unsourced BLPs have not been universally popular, but these have already been examined by the committee. The upside of that whole drama is a productive community discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. At its best this has been productive and cathartic, with the community examining what the issues are and what can be done about them.

Unfortunately, Ikip/Okip, has been continually disrupting that community discussion with long, personalising, posts - spouting bad faith accusations and making personal attacks unrelated to the community policy discussion. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Also, blocked for edit warring on the page [7]

He has been asked by various editors to desist, but seems intent to continue. [8] [9] [10] [11]

I took my eyes of the RfC for some days, and was upset to see numerous posts about me personally, each one selectively misquoting me, and linking my name to shadowy secret mailing lists and some form of conspiracy linked matters concerning MzMcBride that arbcom has already examined, and in which I was never a party. (See the posts above and amazingly his asking Durova if I'm a member of a mailing list, when he's not even raised any questions with me directly

I have indicated to Ikip that the correct way to call my behaviour into question is either to ask me about it (he never has) or to file a user conduct RfC (he declines to do this). I regard his posts as personal attacks, full of unevidenced innuendo, in effect poisoning the well of an important community discussion. His latest post to the RfC offers to "retract" but then repeats the same accusations and bad faith irrelevancies.[12]

His attacks on me, I view as scurrilous (without evidence) and cowardly (he's not willing to confront me directly nor instigate an appropriate community discussion where I get to respond and his "evidence" gets examined). Rather than debate with my consider opinions, he runs about repeating one ill-advised post I retracted, even after I've corrected him on several occasions. But that's not the point. This isn't about my reputation or about personal attacks, it is about one user attempting to derail a community process.

I am asking for a topic ban at least, possibly a namespace restriction, and others may have evidence of more problematic behaviour for arbcom to consider.

Given the policy tensions on the page, I would submit the community will find this hard to deal with, and a speedy resolution would be in the wider interest. --Scott Mac (Doc) 14:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@RyanP. Two points in response to your demands for an RfC. 1) It is patently obvious that Ikip is not responsive to criticism. Some of those attempting to get him to curtail his behaviour have been wholly uninvolved, and have been badmouthed as part of the "conspiracy". 2) We need to look at the context here, this isn't just the usual disruption. This RfC is pretty critical to the smooth running of wikipedia and particularly to the vexed issue of BLP, and that's currently being de-railed by what looks like a mischievous attempt to poison the well or to filibuster in the face of an emerging consensus. Perhaps an RfC on Ikip's general behaviour would be the way to go in examining that (although I suspect it may degenerate into a real shitstorm), but we do need an immediate solution to allows the BLP RfC to run smoothly. Hell, the policy issues are vexed enough without this crap. Bottom line, I'm happy to withdraw this request in favour of a more wide-ranging RfC, but I would ask for an interim motion restricting Ikip from continuing to disrupt the RfC. 240 editors have apparently taken part in this, 1 editor should not be allowed to steal the show. Would the project not be better off without Ikip's participation in this field? There's plenty of other well-behaved and articulate editors who share his perspective here.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hold for a few hours. In response to some of the comments here, I've asked for a community page ban at WP:AN#Page ban for Ikip from the BLP RFC. If this meets with consensus, this RfArb can be withdrawn and an RfC on his behaviour considered later. If the community can't do something to protect the BLP RfC then I'd suggest that arbcom at very least issue some restraining order by motion. An RfC on his behaviour is fine, but we do need an immediate halt to the disruption of the BLP RfC. (I trust I will not be accused of forum shopping here, this was in response to concerns raised on this page).--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

Please reject this case, even if on purely procedural grounds. There is no emergency which needs the committee to disregard their requirement of previous attempts at dispute resolution. "Requests from multiple editors on his talk page, and on the project pages in question to cease and desist" is not valid attempts at lesser methods of dispute resolution. There should at the very least be a user conduct request for comment to give Ikip the opportunity to respond to concerns - that isn't merely an attempt to put a hurdle in the way, it's procedural fairness and would give Ikip the opportunity to listen to 'official' feedback from the community and change his ways if needs be. I see no reason to move from that requirement simply because of the current heat surrounding the BLP debate. Before even an RfC, I'd like to see a discussion on the admin noticeboard to let Ikip gain some unofficial feedback. Would the committee accept this case if the behvaiour from Ikip was happening in another discussion unrelated to BLP? I doubt that very much. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Scott MacDonald

Whilst I respect that Ikip's behaviour here is less than ideal (and I would suggest to him that the basic fact that a fellow editor feels the need to file a request for arbitration against him should lead him to examining his own behaviour with a view to changing his ways), I still don't feel there is a need to move away from our traditional dispute resolution hierarchy. If his conduct is so egregious that you believe a project space ban (or page ban) is needed, then raise it on the admin noticeboard. That could be done without an RfC on his actions, but I don't like the idea of the committee getting involved unless they absolutely have to. Ideally, you would give him a chance to change his course of actions via an RfC - there's plenty of people who would be willing to certify it, but there is also the community sanction route you could take if you feel it needs it (although I would personally like to see an RfC first). Only after you had tried those two steps would I agree a case (or motion) from the committee is needed. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 16:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Steve Smith

Basically ii and iii. I believe that unless there's an emergency, or a prolonged discussion on a noticeboard, ArbCom shouldn't step in to look at individual user conduct. I also believe in this case there are a lot of people willing to give sage advice to Ikip and if he didn't heed the advice and calm his ways after an RfC, he'd be rather silly. In short, I think an RfC could work. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Durova

Here's the reply I gave at my talk page.[13] I did not solicit the question; please leave my name out of this. The recent fashion is of bypassing preliminary dispute resolution in the attempt to sanction people is becoming worrisome: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ikip. Ryan is right; please reject and refer back to the community. Durova412 16:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr.Z-man

I'll save extended commentary for evidence if this case is accepted or referred elsewhere. Ikip/Okip has been blocked twice for disruption related to this RFC. During phase 1, he was blocked for mass-spamming on user talk pages for an "invitation only" project to come up with proposals for the RFC under the guise of "new user welcome." He was blocked again recently for edit warring relating to moving comments around. Neither block has had the effect of significantly toning down his comments (it arguably got worse after the first block). Much, if not most of his comments relating to the RFC in the past several days have been little more than out of context quoting, allegations with no evidence, wikilawyering, smears, and even veiled threats.

In June 2009, on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black, Ikip was "warned to refrain from making large-scale edits which may be interpreted as canvassing or making rude comments to users he’s in dispute with." He's done almost exactly that in this RFC. In addition to the previous warning from ArbCom and lack of change from the 2 blocks, the most recent block was overturned without any consultation from the community or the blocking admin, so I have little confidence that anything other than drama would result from an AN thread. Mr.Z-man 17:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@SirFozzie (and others noting a lack of prior dispute resolution): In a previous ArbCom case (linked above), Ikip was warned about making comments like [14]. I fail to see how that is significantly different from comments like [15] (referring to the "... weren't you the editor ..." part) to the extent that the warning would be inapplicable now, less than a year from the last case. Mr.Z-man 18:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wikidemon

I urge that this case be rejected. This is yet another ripple of the recent unsourced BLP article debacle, and having waded in a few times already and now left the matter to the community, I don't think it would be wise for Arbcom to wade in again at this point. What Ikip is arguing seems to be essentially true, if misplaced. Per the this ArbCom case MZMcBride, the editor who started the RfC, was collaborating with a site-banned editor in a breaching experiment to vandalize (for lack of a better word) various unwatched BLP articles in an effort to demonstrate that they could be vandalized without detection. MZMcBride also started and apparently ran a private forum (per this) where some of those agitating for deletion of unsourced BLP articles coordinated their efforts. The recent deletion and tagging / nomination of unsourced BLP articles can be seen a comparable process violation, so it's understandable that editors unhappy with it would want to know what happened and who else is involved. This looks like a page from the playbook of past past mass deletion adventures like this one, with some of the same players. If there is something to it, it taints the RfC process for some to know that the originator and some of the proponents at one side of the debate are doing things behind the community's back while seeming to participate in a consensus resolution. If not, then some editors have been unjustly maligned. I am not personally familiar with either incident, so I just don't know. The parties have been less than forthcoming about their involvement, and getting to the bottom of things has been a rather arduous process of hammering away at inconsistent statements and disingenuous denials. If there is nothing to it, it would be easy enough to simply deny.

What does this all have to do with Ikip? Nothing, really. He is simply voicing a reasonable concern, although one that the community has probably grown tired of, too loudly, and in the wrong place. Those under scrutiny are trying to get him to stop, and relatively uninvolved people like me have counseled Ikip to tone it down and take it to a more appropriate forum rather than fomenting discontent on the RfC pages. Even if ArbCom could hone in on Ikip's behavior and that of the editors he's accusing, without getting into the underlying subject of BLP deletions, I don't see that we need ArbCom's help to deal with the matter at this time. Whether ArbCom says this or others, we need to keep the RfC going until consensus coalesces behind one approach or another to go through the backlog of unsourced BLP articles. I don't think Ikip is going to derail that, and once we have a solution any lingering dissent will naturally die down. Hanky panky on one side, and indignation on the other, are both detrimental to reaching a smooth consensus. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow-up, if someone can propose a modest editing restriction, like "I will not post complaints about other editors relating to the BLP matter on the RfC or other process pages", maybe a neutral editor can broker a voluntary resolution. - 17:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Peregrine Fisher

I'm not sure that arbcom should do anything here. It's going to die down on its own, I think. Arbcom said they weren't going to look into the BLP message board thing, and Okip decided that he would do it. He's emotionally involved, and his comments have been over the top because of this, and seriously annoyed a number of users. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Coffee

Ikip is showing a continued lack of understanding and a constant want to make this into an issue that doesn't exist. I would greatly appreciate if the Arbitration Committee put forth some type of motion to prevent Ikip from continuing to get out of hand. His most recent comments at the RFC trying to make the RFC invalid just because of something MZMcBride did, is just more drama mongering. I'm certain that Ikip knows that the RFC wasn't created solely by MZMcBride and that its results would have been the same no matter who had opened it; he's just trying to make it appear that there was some sort of secret system working in the background to make his opinions on the matter not be the consensus.

If Ikip can't accept reason and sensibility in these discussions, he should be removed from them.

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/2/3)

  • Recuse - I am one of the editors who has already given Okip/Ikip my personal feedback that his behaviour is inappropriate on his talk page. Risker (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse - similar reasons as Risker. I warned Ikip about this behaviour Fritzpoll (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I left a comment on the BLP discussion that I thought that Okip would be better served by continuing towards working for a BLP policy we all can live with, not just one HE can live with and forget those on the other side, but he continued on. I can sympathize with those wanting this to be handled at the higher levels here, but the other comments are right. This is not an "unusually divisive issue amongst administrators" which is the exception to bypassing previous DR attempts. If, after an RFC (to be focused only on Ikip/Okip's actions, and not to be used as a proxy to re-litigate the BLP RfC, please), there still needs to be further action, then bring it back here. But right now, I'm not seeing it as acceptable. That may change, however.. I will leave it as a comment for now, not a decline. SirFozzie (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Want to correct something, Peregrine. We haven't decided "not to investigate sofixit", it's that there's no way for us to investigate. It is private, members-only, and to the best of my knowledge, no arbitrators are members, and again, to the best of my knowledge, no one has come forward with anything stronger then allegations of possible collusion amongst the unknown members of that forum. Serious accusations require serious evidence, and we just do not have it. If anyone does have anything more then allegations, please feel free to mail ArbCom or to present it as eveidence. Until then, we're not going to chase after ghosts. SirFozzie (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for those urging an RFC: Are you suggesting an RFC because i. you think this has a reasonable chance of being resolved by an RFC, ii. you think that an ArbCom case will proceed more orderlarily if issues have been hashed out at an RFC first, and/or iii. you believe on principle that ArbCom shouldn't take cases until the community has clearly failed to resolve them? That's an earnest question, incidentally, and any sarcastic-seeming undertones are unintentional (I don't need to make clever sarcastic points now that I'm an arb; I can just decree stuff, sort of like how I decreed that "orderlarily" is a word). Steve Smith (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Wikidemon sums up the situation very well. Some modest editing restriction may well be in order. But I would not support anything at this time beyond that. Regarding the secret forum, we are generally without knowledge. We have heard rumors, but have not examined anything in relation to is as some have suggested. If someone were to bring a case, we would consider it as we do all cases. KnightLago (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ChildofMidnight

Initiated by Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter at 20:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

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

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

I wish to bring to the attention of the Arbitration Committee the conduct of ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as I believe we have issues which need the involvement of the committee. ChildofMidnight injects himself into just about every single high drama discussion on Wikipedia. Instead of helping to resolve the dispute, he flings personal attack and cries of admin abuse left right and centre. His recent RfC documents this quite well with a long list of unsourced accusations against other editors and general defamation of other contributors. The RfC showed extremely strong support towards the filer with a large number of contributors helping to certify the RfC and few people commenting in support of ChildofMidnight - this shows that his behaviour is viewed as unacceptable by a large proportion of the community. Since his RfC, he has continued his battleground mentality in the global warming topic (and that is clearly one which needs calm minds rather than a "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality). This has led to a long thread currently on the administrators' noticeboard (see here for the discussion) which was started because ChildofMidnight was blocked. Whilst the block for a specific incident was in my opinion (and a few others) viewed as poor and he was swiftly unblocked, the long thread that has ensued shows that ChildofMidnight has continued to display his problematic behaviour despite his recent RfC.

It should be pointed out that ChildofMidnight was subjected to two remedies in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles - He was topic banned from Obama articles and admonished and restriced. Putting this together with his problematic conduct in the global warming field, this is clearly an editor who is disruptive in a number of high drama areas and I believe the Arbitration Committee are the best people to look over his conduct and decide on appropriate remedies. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

CoM should feel free to add his statement above this, I'm more of an observer here. I just wanted to point out that the list of parties does not really reflect the breadth and depth of disputes in which CoM is involved, but the list of certifying parties and statements on the RfC is quite compelling. Durova, in particular, is these days a torch-bearer for WP:AGF. Several people have opined that CoM could save an awful lot of trouble by just ditching the hyperbole and superfluous rhetoric, but the reverse seems to be happening. Even if it did happen I see a user who is not right enough of the time to justify the tenacity with which they approach every single dispute; fights seem to be picked almost at random and based largely on the admins involved not the merits or otherwise of the individual case.

I think a topic ban on climate change (to add to Obama) and an injunction against becoming involved in other people's disputes is probably the only way short of an outright siteban to reduce the massive time-sink caused by this user. It's been steeply downhill since he Godwinated a discussion last year and I don't see any way out of that hole without forcibly separating him from all his current conflicts and stopping him taking on any new ones. That is, of course, if the committee even thinks he's worth one last final last last final last chance after all the others... Guy (Help!) 22:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bigtimepeace

I suppose I know as much about this situation as anyone, having initiated the RfC about ChildofMidnight after months of interactions that were, to say the least, nettlesome. It should be said at the outset that ChildofMidnight views me quite negatively, so no one should take on faith what I have to say here as I cannot be described as a completely disinterested observer, though I think I've generally been pretty objective throughout this ongoing problem and have genuinely worked in the spirit of "resolving a dispute."

I've really hoped to avoid an ArbCom case, and I'd still like to do that. If others deem it necessary and the committee wants to take the case then that's fine too, but I still can't help thinking that we should be able to resolve this outside of a case. I particularly draw the committee's attention (and that of other editors) to this subthread of the discussion on WP:AN already referenced by Ryan, where User:Spartaz has proposed a possible remedy that has gained the support of a couple of other people. Unfortunately that conversation seems to be flagging and possibly does not have enough eyes, but some sort of community-imposed remedy regarding ChildofMidnight seems more ideal than an ArbCom case (for one thing we haven't tried it yet), though I understand the argument for coming straight here instead.

At base I view this as a sad and completely avoidable situation. The consensus of the RfC was clear—ChildofMidnight does a lot of good work and is valued as a contributor to this project but also has caused an unacceptable amount of disruption. The latter could be corrected very easily by simply adopting a different approach to interactions with other editors, which would in part require a healthy injection of assume good faith into ChildofMidnight's approach to Wikipedia matters. C of M has in the past raised complaints which are valid, but often (not always, which is why there is hope) does so with such vitriol and the-other-fella/lady-is-evil mentality that it proves enormously disruptive to collaborative editing. What is sad to me is that this is completely unnecessary, yet numerous good-faith efforts to steer ChildofMidnight onto the straight and narrow have fallen on deaf ears (the helpful comments here are just the latest example).

ChildofMidnight undoubtedly thinks I have it in for him and unfortunately I cannot convince him otherwise, but in no way is that the case. My involvement in all of this is completely by happenstance and goes back to doing admin work on the Obama articles last spring, and at this point I just want the problems so clearly documented (and agreed to) in the RfC to stop and for ChildofMidnight to continue editing as they do 80-90% of the time—constructively and in good faith. If ArbCom can come up with remedies that help (and personally I would not even consider supporting anything as drastic as a ban or lengthy block at this point) then I'm all for it. If the community can come up with a workable approach on the WP:AN thread then that's great too. The status quo is not working though. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the scope, while I agree with JohnWBarber that there are a lot of problems with the global warming editing nexus, I don't think that should be rolled into an ArbCom case about ChildofMidnight if we have one. Examining other editors who have had significant contact with ChildofMidnight could of course be appropriate, but if we need an Arb case for AGW articles that should be completely separate as it goes well beyond ChildofMidnight, and ChildofMidnight's issues go well beyond global warming articles. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JohnWBarber

It's a bit of an odd time to be filing this against CoM, because he hasn't done anything even worth a block recently, he's taken a break and he's taken back some of the statements he made that others objected to. Nevertheless, the issues surrounding him go way back and it's difficult for any single person to read through the huge history. Numerous friendly editors have asked CoM to chill out, and I'm willing to chat with him about this in private in order to keep the situation calm.

Ryan Postlethwaite writes: battleground mentality in the global warming topic (and that is clearly one which needs calm minds rather than a "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality). True, and therefore RP's focus is too narrow. CoM is far, far, far from the only editor at the AGW ("anthropogenic global warming") articles with sharp words coming from his keyboard. The focus of this should be broadened to include the continued problems at those articles. The general sanctions regime has helped move some of the incivility and personal attacks off the discussion pages and onto the sanctions reports page, which is an improvement, but accusations that admins are playing favorites may be true. Over at A/N, I haven't been able to get a good explanation from User:BozMo about his differing treatment of CoM and William Connolley.

The focus of this should also be broadened to include behavior by editors who attack CoM, repeatedly, without provocation. CoM's own reaction to these attacks is sometimes unfortunate, but the attacks against him are real, provocative and hurtful. It'd be in the best interests of Wikipedia to straighten out User:Tarc, User:Mathsci and probably others. I've posted some diffs about those two at the A/N discussion and I've got a few more to add here when I have time. (Tarc vs. CoM: [16] [17] [18] Tarc's attitude at AN/I [19] and at warning admin's talk page [20] and later [21] MATHSCI vs. CoM: here's a combination of many edits by CoM, minding his own business back in October [22], and here's a sudden visitation from William Connolley [23] and hot on Connolley's heels is Mathsci to revert all of CoM's work [24], that Oct 8, 2009 edit is the only time Mathsci ever had an interest in editing Honey; more: [25] [26], read this short thread and edit summary from Dec 15 [27] M's reaction is to what looks like friendly raillery based on M's Dec 5 announced [28] participation in his "bacon challenge"); then, twelve days [29] and thirteen days [30] after the Dec 15 dust-up, CoM is fine for Mathsci to chat with. Then it's back to antagonism later. If Mathsci was friendly with CoM for a while, what made him so upset with CoM later? If M's participation in CoM's "bacon challenge" wasn't friendly, why did M say he would participate? If M finds CoM so obnoxious, why did M chat with CoM on his talk page in late December, two weeks after the last tiff? Mathsci was either disturbingly erratic or playing some kind of weird, taunting game with CoM. Either way, it's spooky a wild rollercoaster of friendliness and intensely angry words that, if it were directed at me, would bother me mostly for its bizarre swings; but I don't know everything that was going on, and perhaps CoM is/was fine with it. It seems to me it would make the environment stressful.

No editor should have to put up with Tarc's and Mathsci's behavior (most of which is outside the AGW article area).

When CoM complains about being unfairly treated, he's right in at least some occasions I've seen and probably wrong at other times. Admins get upset at him and some of his statements invite that. Postlethwaite calling him a "drama-loving troll" at the top of his A/N posting, a statement that was totally unnecessary to RP's stated purpose for the thread, is a small example of bad admin behavior. User:BozMo's block seems to be another. It might be worthwhile for ArbCom to appoint volunteer admins to handle the AGW general sanctions regime: I don't know if the accusations of biased conduct against admins there are true, but in principle it would be easy for biased admins to be attracted there for just the same reason that biased editors are. If biased admins are found to be a problem, ArbCom could appoint very seasoned, even-tempered admins who can keep their own POV out of the picture. Wikipedia sucks at covering big, controversial, hot topics, and this is one way of improving the picture. The AGW brouhaha is heading back to ArbCom anyway. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)promised diffs about Tarc and Mathsci added -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • @RyanPostlethwaite For someone complaining of CoM's unsourced accusations against other editors where was the sourcing for "drama loving troll" in the statement you refuse to take back [31] days after you posted it? Come to think of it, how exactly would one source that broad, vague insult (at the top of an A/N thread, no less)? If ArbCom takes the case, use it as an opportunity to remind admins not to sink to the level they're accusing others of stooping down to. JohnWBarber (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mathsci -- refactored, replacing "spooky" with what I meant by it. I certainly hope I'm misreading the history; no personal attack intended. Tension between Mathsci and CoM is the only relevant subject here and all I have to comment on regarding Mathsci. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tarc

Barber's name-dropping jabs aside... it is regrettable that it has to come to this; ChildofMidnight perceives a great many editors, admins, and ArbCom members lined up against him, but in reality, his greatest opponent is himself. AN and AN/I have been tried. Topic bans, interaction bans, Arb Enforcements, Amendments, blocks imposed, some stick, some get rescinded. An RfC concluded with overwhelming opinion that CoM needed to change his ways, and he wrapped it up by launching broadsides against the completely uninvolved admin who closed it. This has been a long and steady downward spiral ever since last year's case, and it seems that another ArbCom is an inevitability. Tarc (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum; this really should not be viewed through just the narrow lens of the global warming mess, as this are behavioral issues that far predate that. All of the stuff going on in that topic area is probably heading to ArbCom sooner or later all on its own by the looks of it. Tarc (talk) 03:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ZuluPapa5*

I've recently encountered Child of Midnight (CoM) in the Climate Change articles, which are under probation. There are concerns about maintaining a NPOV, incivil article ownership and bias Probation Enforcement [32] [33]. Fortunately, CoM is one of the few who has made efforts to raise awareness to help improve the article environment (this is in my motivation here too); however, he was then caught up in a bad (maybe bias itself) block that preceded this Arbitration request. I believe this editor has fair and meritorious intentions for Wikipedia. His style has upset others; however, he has demonstrated good humor and diligence to go in where others run away, or are driven off, so as to benefit this project and .... the other editors who may be suffering a bad wrap. Admonishing his tone of language might be beneficial; however, I believe restricting his topics will not help Wikipedia. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to CoM's statement

Following CoM's statement above, it seems as if the editor is saying the reason this case is requested, has to do with the environment in the Climate Change general sanctions [34]. I agree with this. There was a Bad Block placed on CoM after commenting there, then while being 1 week blocked, there was a General Sanction enforcement request place on CoM. Then an ANI notice to release the block for the General Sanction enforcement request to proceed (which was released). Then this ArbCom request followed and overlapped. That's three actions (4 total) which overlapped this one [35], which is now suspended pending the result here. I would say the Bad Block started this recent chain; however, CoM is obviously not immune from folks wishing to complain. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

I don't think the listed parties would need any assistance to turn this case into an exceptionally ugly one. So if there are other means of resolving the issues, I strongly advise to bang the parties heads together and make them use those methods; the sense of urgency probably only adds more heat than light in the disputes (plural) being raised in this request. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mathsci

JohnWBarber is an alternative account of Noroton, an editor with a history of incivility on wikipedia and the use of multiple accounts. He left a message on my talk page informing me of his contribution above. Noroton is not an editor in good standing. What he has written is an inflammatory and inaccurate diatribe, which I am now disregarding and which would normally merit a block.

ChildofMidnight has not understood the message of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight. Several arbitrators have already commented on the problematic nature of his contributions on project pages. CoM is a likeable wikipedian whose articles, particularly on food-related topics, are a very positive contribution to wikipedia. However, on project pages, he displays a different kind of behaviour which is highly disruptive, sprinkled with inflammatory and often inaccurate statements. This has become particularly problematic on the Climate Change probation pages, where he seems set on targeting a series of good faith editors and administrators. I do not edit GW articles, nor have I ever expressed a view on the subject on wikipedia. Since the community has not been able to find a mechanism to get CoM to tone down his behaviour in project space, hopefully ArbCom can now find a way forward. CoM has much that is constructive to contribute to wikipedia, but can occasionally be his own worst enemy when he lets himself get carried away. Mathsci (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Durova

JzG has developed a skill for diplomacy. Not sure if I deserve his kind words, but here goes. We've all been concerned that this was headed toward either arbitration or a community sanction. ChildofMidnight is a prolific article creator mostly on encyclopedic and uncontroversial subjects, but has become better known to the community at large for two hot button political topics and for noticeboard participation which is often counterproductive.

CoM can be responsive to feedback when it's provided respectfully and gently. A few days ago a community consensus agreed that the most recent block on CoM was unnecessary, then CoM announced a wikibreak. That break is a very good idea. Although the break and that degree of responsiveness probably aren't enough to resolve the problems, they are steps in the right direction.

The best long term results usually happen when we encourage steps in the right direction. We have all seen the occasional administrator who blocks an editor shortly after the editor makes a retraction: it discourages the editor from attempts to be reasonable--why even try to do things right when one is going to get it anyway? The same effect holds true for arbitration. So although this case request is meritorious in many ways, it's also timed and framed in ways that undermine its chances of any good outcome and filed by someone whose recent statements have been heated.[36][37]

Where is this headed? Suppose one takes Ryan Postlethwaite's opinion at face value; the counterargument is that trolls thrive in muddy waters and this is messier than it needs to be. I view CoM as a very good writer of culinary articles who runs a malfunctioning wheat-from-chaff separator and is equally sincere about whichever result it produces. If my Wiki Witch Crystal BallTM is working, CoM will view Ryan's filing as a vendetta, and will react with an indignation that will appear--from Ryan's perspective--to confirm Ryan's worst opinions while leaving the Committee with very few options for remedy. Meanwhile a chorus of global warming skeptics will claim biased treatment and those complaints will resurface at the next global warming arbitration. Child of Midnight may need arbitration soon and perhaps another filing will happen next month or next summer. If so it would probably start on a better footing. If you want to do anything other than siteban CoM, please reject this case.

Statement by TS

I suggest that the most timely and drama-free way to address the problems would be to extend existing remedies by motion noting the community's feelings about the disruptive aspects of this otherwise valued volunteer, and curtailing his undesirable pot-stirring. --Tasty monster 19:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC) (Tony Sidaway on phone)[reply]


Statement by BozMo

Personally I sympathise most strongly with both of Guy and Durova above. At times CoM seems to make insightful comments and be an interesting contributor and at others he seems almost to be throwing a tantrum; accusing any authority of abuse without any differentiation. As a parent, I have learned that patience and positive feedback work better in the long run than sanctions but as a parent I have both stronger obligations and also a better foundation of relationship than exists for dealing with an editor like CoM on Wikipedia. Whether we should move to ban CoM from certain areas or behaviours or try to rebuild mutual trust per Durova in the end is a reflection on whether you think Wikipedia is a community or a project. The answer to this question is not trivial. --BozMo talk 20:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beeblebrox

There have been some very insightful statements made here already, and I'm only marginally involved so I'll be brief. CoM is a great contributor of content in many areas, but he often responds in an overly-defensive manner if he feels attacked and has repeatedly failed to AGF with his fellow editors. However, he is far from the only user involved in what he has correctly characterized as a "toxic environment" surrounding climate change related articles. This situation is becoming a real embarrassment to the project, and I think stricter, swifter enforcement of the already existing sanctions in this area, and possibly expanding those restrictions is something the committee should also consider. Many users, including myself, don't want to touch these articles with a ten foot pole at this point because of all the acrimony on the talk pages, and the never-ending TLDR circular debates that never seem to be resolved. I realize the matter under discussion is CoM's behavior, but there is also a larger issue to consider here. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aymatth2

CoM is an original and prolific editor who has started many useful articles and improved many others, often pushing the boundaries and adding a lot of value. CoM sometimes tries to remove perceived bias from articles on controversial subjects. That can lead to kickback from editors with different opinions, and to passionate, heated and sometimes futile debates. When my children were small they often got into arguments with each other. My advice to them was "I don't care who started it, quit fighting". Years later, we are still on good terms. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to example [38]

I looked at this diff, which was puzzling. Then I scrolled down and looked at the exchange: typical of CoM. See User talk:ChildofMidnight/Archive_15#EWUB. Maybe I am just as bad, which is why I don't see the problem. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by ChildofMidnight

I apologize for the delay in my response. The hounding and attacks have gotten to be a bit much for me so I'm taking a break. I'm not sure when I'll get back on Wiki, but when I do return I plan on focusing my time on article work and am going to do everything I can to minimize my time spent dealing with this kind of clusterfuck of smeary attacks, inimidating threats, and hounding insults.

This request comes from someone I have no dispute with whatsover. They've engaged in couple of broad smears that were rather vicious. These were particularly unhelpful as they came when I was dealing with a bad block, but I don't see any evidence of a dispute with Ryan. The lack of diffs is telling. I don't even have any involvements with Ryan and can't recall any areas where we edit together, but he's most welcome to bring any concerns or issues he has to me so we can discuss them collegially. I will note that while he invokes the Obama Arbcom atrocity, there isn't any recent dispute in that topic area that I'm involved in, and it's a subject where I continue to make useful article improvements in a productive and collegial manner. So it's clear that he doesn't have much idea what he's talking about.

It's also disturbing to see Arbs saying things like "let's make sure we focus solely on CoM". Fuck that. You better believe you'll have to answer for why an activist on Climate issues who operates an off-wiki attack site where he disparages those he disagrees with is allowed to bring those efforts on Wikipedia in order to distort our climate articles and smear article subjects he disagree with.

You'll also have to explain why Tarc and Mathsci have been allowed to relentlessly seek out conflict with me over issues where they have no onvolvement and why they continue to be allowed to engage in attack after attack after attack on me without any of you saying a thing.

And you'll have to explain why repeated violations of Arbcom's restrictions on those who have a long history of stalking and antagonizing me are allowed on Bigtimepeace's talk page, where he continues to engage with editors trying to harasms me via proxy since they're no longer able to do so directly. This goes on even though Bigtimepeace isn't working on any articles where I'm active.

There's also the problem that Risker, Coren and Rlevse have already expressed prejudicial objections to my being very open about the disdain I have for their assaults on Wikipedia's traditions of openness and transparency, and for their antagnoistic pursuit of editors they disagree with, a clear breach of the trust the community has put in them.

I agree with the editors who have noted that this filing is fundamentally flawed and that there are better way to deal with the issues being thrown together. I'm a good faith editor who works on lots of subjects with many editors. In contentious areas there are those who create disruptions and attempt to intimidate and harass those they disagree with in order to chase them off, but this kind of thuggery should never be allowed or encouraged.

I don't recall Ryan's ever approaching me with a concern, so the idea that he's pursued dispute resolution is preposterous. If collegiality, civility and fairness mean anything, this case will be denied so we can all get back to improving the encyclopedia, but if it is to be heard, let's be absolutely clear about what we'll be discussing:

The civility problem on Wikipedia is the harassment, intimidation, and hounding that's allowed, tolerated, and sometimes encouraged.

If this case is accepted by Arbcom the committee members will have a lot of explaining to do about why these behaviors have been allowed to continue. The lack of appropriate actions to address these problems, and the outrageous sanctioning of victims of these improper behaviors has encouraged the most grotesque of Orwellian toxic environments. Dealing with these problems is long overdue. The bullying and nastiness from those trying to pervert our article content against policy and consensus needs to be stopped.

If the committee chooses to accept this case, despite no evidence of any dispute between Ryan and myself, despite his making grotesque attacks on me which I responded to with laudable restraint (only to find that he reiterated the same attack) you will all have awful lot of explaining to do. No mediation has been attempted by Ryan, no dispute resolution, and no communications with me directly. I'm not sure what he's upset about exactly, but as far as I can tell he's a good editor who appears to just be going through a rough patch, and I think it's best to let it go at that. 20:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.
  • Just noting that it may be a while before a response is posted as on the 13th ChildofMidnight felt that a short break was in order, posted here. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Accept Now that CoM has made his statement, there are issues that ArbCom is necessary for here. SirFozzie (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transcendental Meditation movement

Initiated by MuZemike at 19:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Involved administrators
Involved non-administrators
Involved IPs and IP ranges
209.152.112.0/21
69.18.0.0/18
63.162.80.0/23
76.76.224.0/20


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

Statement by MuZemike

Further information: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TM editors/Archive

After communicating on-wiki and with a couple of editors privately about this quickly-escalating issue regarding articles related to the Transcendental Meditation movement (including some BLPs that have been reported in the past to the BLP noticeboard). I see many parallels with the Scientology ArbCom case (WP:ARBSCI) in which I think it's now time for the Committee to help sort out. According to the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TM editors/Archive and the various checks that were run during the course of this SPI case and before, there is also some private matters and evidence by a few editors in which I believe the Committee will have to look at and sort out. In my capacity, I have been involved in giving advice as to what should be done here. I recommended that we go through with the SPI to see if it would have been possible for the community to handle this without resorting to Arbitration. After seeing the latest CheckUser results and now fully realizing the complexity of this situation, I do not think that will be possible, and I believe the Committee will need to step in and help out here. After a very lengthy SPI case which has gone on for over two weeks, it is of my opinion that any single administrator cannot and should not sort this out alone.

In a nutshell, this is about a group of editors involved with articles regarding the Transcedental Meditation movement (TM). Many of these editors and IP ranges are from Fairfield, Iowa and Maharishi Vedic City, Iowa, which is home to the Maharishi University of Management, who runs the TM movement. As said in the SPI case and as with the Scientology case, many of the editors seem to be single-purpose (see proposal 10.1 in the ARBSCI case) and likely meatpuppetry (see proposals 11 through 14 in the same ARBSCI case) with the possibility of some sock puppetry going on.

I have listed all users and IPs (including ranges) involved in the SPI case as well as all those who participated in the SPI case, including those CheckUsers involved in running the various checks. –MuZemike 19:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Will Beback

The Transcendental Meditation movement is often considered a new religious movement, has been called a cult, and has been accused of promoting fringe theories and pseudoscience, including dubious medical treatments. It is an international movement with real estate valued at over $3.5 billion.

The TM editors have engaged in POV pushing, [87] [88] [89] [90] tag team editing, [91] tendentious editing, and have bitten newcomers [92] [93] and driven away even established editors. Their COI issues have been raised repeatedly, but they have rebuffed previous complaints.

While many accounts have been found to be using the same IP range, nine accounts have been significantly involved in TM articles recently. (Note: there have also been other accounts tied to the movement that edited the articles heavily in the past but are now inactive: Nima Baghaei, Lumiere/-Lumière/Étincelle, Peterklutz/85.30.186.206, Maharishi International Publications Department/212.178.127.50, Sparaig)

  • Bigweeboy
  • ChemistryProf
  • Haworth777
  • Hickorybark
  • Keithbob
  • Littleolive oil
  • Luke Warmwater101
  • Roseapple
  • TimidGuy (sometimes editing logged-out as 76.76)

These nine accounts have dominated the TM-related articles. Their POVs are indistinguishable from one another.

Article Total article edits By TM editors Percent Talk page edits By TM editors Percent
John Hagelin 1141 619 54% 762 478 63%
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi 2960 826 28% 1375 411 30%
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic University 84 74 88% 7 4 57%
Maharishi School of the Age of Enlightenment 195 157 81% 13 11 85%
Maharishi Sthapatya Veda 227 160 70% 61 36 59%
Maharishi University of Management 1046 575 55% 394 209 53%
Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health 1047 661 63% 870 480 55%
Maharishi Vedic City, Iowa 287 104 36% 58 31 53%
Maharishi Vidya Mandir Schools 138 122 88% 22 14 64%
TM-Sidhi program 1279 770 60% 1812 979 54%
Transcendental Meditation 6639 2579 39% 9352 4074 44%

In addition to being the lead editors on topics directly related to TM, some of these editors have also been strongly involved in promoting the movement's POV on tangentially related articles such as What the Bleep Do We Know!? and Flipped SU(5).

A leaked document posted on an "anti-TM" blog describes a plan to coordinate responses by TM insiders to blog threads that concern TM.[94] It refers to the existence of "team captains" who can coordinate a team response, including handing off issues from one person to another in cases of disputes. It seems likely that, at a minimum, the same coordination is occurring regarding Wikipedia editing.

Background: In 1971 the newly formed Maharishi International University (now called Maharishi University of Management or MUM) bought the campus of a defunct college in Fairfield, Iowa. Since then that small town has become a "magnet" for TM practitioners and the adjoining settlement of Maharishi Vedic City, Iowa is the literal capital of the movement's Global Country of World Peace. Members of the movement are well-known for frequently repeating that "over 600 studies" have proven the benefits of TM and other products and techniques taught or sold by the movement.[95] Most of those studies have been conducted by the faculty of MUM. While the MUM does not actually run the movement, the movement in the U.S. is run from Fairfield/MVC by people such as Bevan Morris and John Hagelin who work at MUM.

@Timidguy: Logged out edits show that some editors have used IPs registered directly to the Maharishi University of Management (MUM). Using the MUM network, and perhaps using MUM computers, while asserting that one has no conflict of interest regarding MUM strains credulity. Is it possible to be a member of the 57-person faculty of MUM and be neutral about it, its research, or its cause? That has yet to be proven. It's worth noting that LISCO, the ISP which supplies MUM and WP editors with their Internet access, is also owned by a TM practitioner.[96]   Will Beback  talk  09:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Atama: There is a significant difference between rank-and-file adherents to a movement and hard-core members. There probably aren't any people in Fairfield who "just happen" to be TM practitioners. People have moved there to be with other serious practitioners, and many of them engage in the most involved and important rituals, including Yogic Flying. The faculty of MUM are among the most central and committed members of the movement. That's nothing like a single person practicing meditation in their den.   Will Beback  talk  09:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Dreadstar: I believe that Dreadstar may qualify as an involved admin in this topic due to his edits and involvements with engaged editors. If so, some of his actions may not have been properly independent.   Will Beback  talk  09:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruinia: I hadn't expected to see any comments from the other accounts also included, yet this comment seems especially worthy of note. Here is a relatively committed member of the movement, right in Fairfield, who is concerned about the integrity of the WP articles due to the activity of the MUM group. I agree that the MUM/TM editors are here acting in good faith with the best of intentions rather than with malicious intent. But having good intentions is not the most important criterion in encyclopedia writing.   Will Beback  talk  09:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jmh649 (Doc James)

I agree with the above. This has been an ongoing issue of a COI / POV editing by a small group of persistent editors. This needs to be settled. I first edited this topic area Jan 19 2010 after coming across a discussion at WP:MED[97]. My first edits were adding a 2007 review article which was somehow missed in favor of primary research from the 1970s. [98]. The main issues since then has been multiple attempts to obscure and / or misrepresent the conclusions of this review by editors from TM movement.

Attempts include

Most of the results of the review were removed from the lead here and the remaining bits were reworded to make it less understandable by Olive [99] Again Olive tries to change the meaning of the text to make it sound like this review is limited rather than the evidence it is based upon being limited. [100] and again [101] An attempt to reword it so that the review does not appear to related to TM [102] Here TimidGuy attempts to obscure the conclusions of the review [103] And again [104] and again [105] Here he claims a different review is an update of the 2007 review which it is not [106] Here Chemistry Prof attempts to weaken the conclusion [107] And again [108] And again [109]

I subsequently added a Cochrane collaboration which was not in our article. Here TimidGuy adds text not in the summary of this review in what appears to be an attempt to weaken the conclusion [110] And again [111] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by J.delanoy

I was asked privately to look at several accounts involved in this back in early January. I don't actually remember much about what I found (transferring to a new university does not have a beneficial effect on one's memory), but based on what I wrote, I had decided that it was too complicated for me to deal with. I can forward my half of the conversation to arbcom-l if desired. J.delanoygabsadds 20:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fladrif

I concur that this is a matter that will take ArbCom to deal with. The Scientology ArbCom decision is directly on point and controlling precedent for this situation. Prior attempts at informal dispute resolution have been numerous and utterly fruitless. Direct instructions from Admins to COI Editors that they not edit the TM-related articles at multiple WP:COIN discussions are openly and defiantly ignored. Sockpuppetry/meatpuppery is rampant, as noted above. More to come, I expect. Fladrif (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources and links already provided by others provide ample support for accepting the Arbitration request, so I'll not expand on those. The Fairfield sockdrawer editors can speak for themselves as to whether they think that the request should be accepted, but I note that one of them recently expressed a strikingly enthusiastic desire that this go to Arbitration. [112] Fladrif (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jpgordon

This does seem to me as exactly analogous to the Scientology cases. I've not analyzed any behavioral evidence, but the technical evidence I have seen warrants ArbCom's attention. I recommend accepting the case. --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Durova

As filing party on the two most recent Scientology arbitrations, agreeing with Will Beback's assessment. Unlike the recent Chabad Movement case which was a content dispute with no tangible evidence of conflict of interest, this time technical evidence links a large number of accounts to a very narrow set of IP addresses.

The fact that these happen to be small religious/spiritual movements is relevant only to the extent that a firm distinction deserves to be expressed: adherence to a belief system does not in itself generate conflict of interest. Individual adherents of belief systems--old or new, large or small--are all welcome to edit Wikipedia and need not fear sanction when they edit in accordance with policies.

It does, however, generate a conflict of interest to edit from organizational computers and Internet connections. That holds equally true for spiritual organizations, manufacturing firms, political parties, etc. Whenever a large number of accounts appear to be editing with the same organizational WP:COI toward the same promotional goals, and normal community attempts to curb that behavior fail, we should respond with equivalent and appropriate firmness no matter who they are. Durova412 20:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Keithbob

  • I am an independent editor. I am not a sock puppet or a meat puppet. I am in fact a neutral editor who abides by WP:COI. I urge the Committee to accept this case so that I may have the opportunity to present evidence to demonstrate this.
  • There are two Users who edit almost exclusively on the TM article(s). One (Kala Bethere) has been cited in two diffs submitted by Will Beback in his statement above.[113][114] Curiously, both these users, Kala Bethere and Tuckerj1976, are absent from the Involved Parties list and so I have added them to that list and notified them of this proposed Arbitration case.-- — Kbob • Talk • 02:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dreadstar

I agree that this case should be accepted by ArbCom, primarily to settle the endless stream of COI accusations once and for all. Other issues also need to be investigated and addressed; including the behavior of editors involved in the TM articles who are constantly engaged in incivility, personal attacks, and tendentious and disruptive behavior; as well as addressing what appear to be other sockpuppets and SPA accounts, all editing from what seem to be an "anti-TM" pov. Any evaluation of claims that certain editors appear to be “promoting” TM should also take into account the continual addition of negative content by "anti-TM" editors, which may make it superficially appear that the others are “promoting” instead of abiding by NPOV. I'm also concerned that we are apparently indicting as "TM promoters," the entire city of Fairfield, Iowa and all the IP address ranges of the local ISP. It seems a bit too broad of a scope to me.

I would also like ArbCom to look further into the issue of what has been termed "pseudo-outing"; where an editor had previously posted personal information, but later redacted it, only to have it repeated by other editors on multiple article, user and noticeboard talk pages. ArbCom partially addressed this in Wikipedia:ARBMAC2#Outing, but in light of potential safety and peace-of-mind concerns from real-life, off-wiki harassment due to the revealed personal information, I hope ArbCom can tighten the restrictions on repeating redacted personal information. If there is a need to use the redacted personal information, then that use should be restricted – to emails to Arbitrators or possibly administrators working on an issue that requires it, but it should never, ever be re-posted on Wikipedia. And we certainly shouldn’t be gauging how to handle those who repeat redacted personal information by the very narrow scope of WP:COI. Dreadstar ☥ 03:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sole Soul

SirFozzie, imagine a judge say what you've said before hearing from all the parties. I'm sure you will be open minded, but you have to send that message to the involved parties. Sole Soul (talk) 03:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Olive

I would ask that this case be accepted for Arbitration. Consistent and constant mischaracterization, incivility, harassment, clear agenda, as well as systemic bias have become the editing norm on some of these articles. These systemic biases, perceptions that are underlying and I hope are unconscious, skew and set the scale for what is neutral. Such a standard, set over time because of the consistent and repeated accusations, and the inability of editors to rebut or refute the numerous accusations on numerous articles, becomes a created and eventually accepted truth. This is a dangerous standard and modus operandi for any collaborative project. The environment on many articles has increasingly deteriorated and become almost untenable, and at this point it would seem only clear directions from arbitration could remedy the situation.

I am not a sock or meat puppet. I am, as I have stated numerous times, a neutral editor and stand by my editing record.

I would suggest that the similar IPs are a result of internet providers that supply bandwidth not only to SE Iowa, but also to the university, and uses dynamically assigned IPs.

I would assume that this case will be dealt with on its own merits and not as has been suggested on several ocassions by the some editors here, to its perceived parallels to Scientology, an unfair position that creates and establishes bias.(olive (talk) 06:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by BigweeBoy

I am not a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. I am a neutral, independent editor who endeavors to followed Wiki guidelines and to be civil to other editors, while focusing on the content of the articles. --BwB (talk) 12:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome arbitration. My understanding is that the focus of the process is to determine if the listed editors above edit the TM related articles with a COI, and will not be focused on whether or not the TM technique is a religion, or TM-Sidhi related research is pseudoscience, or if the TM Movement is a cult, or if the Maharishi is a saint or scoundrel. Since I have no control over the Wiki activities of other editors, I request that my individual edits be judged on their own merits. --BwB (talk) 12:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Timidguy

My Internet service provider (Lisco) uses DHCP, such that I am assigned various IPs. I noticed last August that it seems to assign a different IP number every day, which I don't think is typical for DHCP, though I don't know much about this. I asked technical support about it, knowing it could cause a problem in Wikipedia down the road. They confirmed that it was happening, said that it was unusual, and said they didn't know why it so frequently assigned a different IP. Since Fairfield is a small town, it's quite likely that an IP assigned to me today would at some point be assigned to another Lisco customer editing here. I've never edited TM-related articles from another account and no one other than me has ever edited using the TimidGuy account. Quite a few of the accounts listed above have never done any TM-related editing. Since these accounts aren't implicated in any way, I think it's unfair to these editors to make public the city in which they live. By the way, Lisco's DHCP server seems to only assign a different IP after a period of hours of inactivity. You won't, therefore, find instances of an IP editing from one account shortly thereafter editing from another account, as a sock puppet would do. The meat puppet question is a separate issue, and it will be good for Arbcom to look at the evidence.

I welcome arbitration. Will has raised many points I'd like to contest, but I'll mention just one: the science. It's true that many studies have been done by MUM researchers, but it's also true that there are many by unaffiliated researchers. One such study, for example, was a 2006 randomized controlled trial involving over 100 subjects that was published in Archives of Internal Medicine, a journal published by the American Medical Association. The study was conducted at Cedar Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. The first four authors of the study have no affiliation with TM. Authors 5-7 do, but their role was limited to making comments on a draft of the study. This study was deleted from the TM article.[115] because per WP:MEDRS it's considered a primary source. MEDRS says that secondary sources should be used, such as research reviews, meta-analyses, and medical textbooks. I can understand the deletion of the primary source, but I don't understand the deletion in subsequent days of these secondary sources.[116] [117] [118] [119] [120] And even as they were deleting these secondary sources, editors opposed to TM were adding science material sourced to a blog [121] to a newspaper (in violation of MEDRS)[122], and to a website by magician James Randi in which he refers to it as crackpot science.[123] The latter was added to the lead. TimidGuy (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kala Bethere

I'm one of the newer editors here. Early on it was obvious there were COI / POV issues. The group of editors from MUM / Vedic City / Fairfield, IA were all not only heavily pushing a TM Org POV, but they were posting large amounts of TM Org-based or TM Org sponsored meditation research, mostly Primary sources. Thus a large part of fixing up these entries was compiling lists of the questionable sources and removing these non-compliant sources, dozens of them.

Any edits seemed short-lived however, as the POV editors would slowly change them back to what they wanted. Until this situation is rectified, it will be virutally impossible to attain NPOV on these various entries.--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Luke Warmawater 101

I see no other solution that going through with arbitration, I am really itching to say a few things about what has been going on, but I will wait for the case to begin. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tuckerj1976

To be honest, I would normally not get involved in this sort of thing but an invite has been sent to me and I am deeply concerned about what has/is happening with this article. I will not repeat what has already been said above by Willbeback, etc but simply support it. However, it is obvious from the recent investigation that many editors on this page appear to be part of/work for an orgainisation that has been named both a "cult" and religion. It is an a multi-billion dollar organization with a clearly defined psychological, social, economic and political goals (it funds its own political party) while manufacturing its own currency and founding its own universities, schools, TV broadcasting company, publishing company, etc. Till recently the articles were little more then an extended advertising pieces making the most amazing pseudo-scientific claims appear valid (such as practicing the techniques this organization sells will allow a person to fly, walk through walls, become immortal, cure all manner of illnesses,live longer and be able to to stop all crime simply with the power of their mind!!).

If WIKI is to be considered a real source of reliable information then this sort of manipulation simply must stop. Tuckerj1976 (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I am unsure if it is the correct etiquette (and if not please delete this) but in response to Timidguys's comments regarding research material being removed or only, what he considers "negative", research material being added, there are two reasons for this:
1 Much, if not nearly all of the "positive" (should that term even be used in scientific research?)is funded by the TM movement, conducted by TM movement researchers or considered of low research quality by independent researchers. The general scientific or medical community does not share it's viewpoints. (For an example much of it has/is conducted by David Orme-Johnson whose latest paper supports a theory that "proves" that users of TM can stop wars with the power of their minds (or something similar) [[124]]
2 Many editors claim research is "positive" about TM even when it clearly is not.

I believe further reasons why this needs to be reviewed here. I would be happy to be "banned" from editing this article if the review here meant that the "pro" TM POV was removed and the balance that should exist in a wiki article was in place Tuckerj1976 (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ruinia

I don't really have anything particularly useful to say, but I got an arbitration notice so I feel I ought to say something. I practice TM/Sidhis, live in Fairfield, and attended MSAE and MUM. I've felt uncomfortable for a while about the way pro-TM people seem to treat Wikipedia, and I'm glad this is happening. From what I know of people in Fairfield, a stern talking-to to make clear the nature of Wikipedia's policies and to make clear that this is Serious Business is likely to be better in the long run than the banhammer; most likely the offending editors are clueless rather than malicious, but are also likely to take offense easily if banned. I'm not familiar with the history of this dispute and what has already been tried, but I would have started with restricting the users from editing particular pages, and maybe semi-protecting the pages in question.

I hope this works out. If there is to be unbiased information on the TM movement anywhere, it's likely to be Wikipedia. Ruinia (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Atama

My involvement in this matter has been somewhat limited, in the past my main contribution has been to comment on the potential conflicts of interest that arise from TM editors who contribute to TM articles at the conflict of interest noticeboard. My opinion was much like Durova's above; having a particular religion or belief system does not and should not ever constitute a conflict of interest, and I've championed that viewpoint frequently at that noticeboard. But I also share concerns that there may be some sort of collusion/meatpuppetry. I don't know what can be done, I believe in the Scientology case it was possible to identify IPs that were assigned to Scientology, in this case we're dealing with IPs for a town. Can we put sanctions on a town? That's for better people than me to decide, but I worry about the collateral damage from such a move, and innocent editors getting caught up in it. But clearly, based on how often these articles appear on noticeboards and the drama surrounding them, something should be done. -- Atama頭 20:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ChemistryProf

I feel an open-minded arbitration process could be helpful in this situation. It is obvious that two sides have formed on several articles having to do with this meditation technique. As an occasional editor on WP, I have been struck by something that must be obvious to most editors on topics that generate controversy. When a disagreement arises between any two editors, there is often a tendency for their different positions to be taken up by others so that pretty soon polarized “sides” of editors have formed. There could be a number of reasons for this to happen, but the most obvious is that one or both these sides feel they have access to information or to a point of view that the other does not, and each side feels its POV to be the correct one. In most cases, it seems that one side represents individuals whose main field of study is close to the topic of the article and would tend to qualify them as “experts” in the field. In such cases, it is hardly surprising that those editors will tend to fall into one group and those who have had less experience in the field will tend to fall into the other group. It is understandable also that each group would tend to see in the other’s edits a concerted effort to express a particular POV, and each of these more or less opposite perceptions may be correct, based on each editor’s individual experiences. This kind of situation must come up often on WP, and there must be some process that can help to break these deadlocks. I support this request for arbitration and hope arbitration will be that deadlock-breaking process. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (8/0/0/1)

Proofreader77 blocks

Initiated by Hell In A Bucket (talk) at 02:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

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

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

I first came across Proofreader77 in December on Jimbos talkpage while arguing against admin abuse and the corrupt nature of arbcom's process. He was experiencing some ownership issues there and IMO parading a large donation on Jimbos page. He was blocked for the first time on a two year account. He had two following blocks for minor disruption that boiled down to being iritating. He contested each block vigorously and has been threatening to file a Arbcom case for admin malpractice. This has resulted in two ANI discussion on an indef block with no consensus. Today his 2 day block was abruptly changed by Gwen Gale for no explained reason other then a vague disruption reply. The resulting discussion today boiled down to personal irritation with the threat to come here and actually resulted in malpractice by an admin. Either way we need this case to be resolved to end the threats of review by Arbcom or finally nail down a consensus on a editor with a 38% article mainspace edit rate. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum, The actions of tonites block extention was out of process and the blocking admin refused to provide resons or raqtionale for extended block other then vague disruption comment. Suggest temporary removal of mop until she is willing to discuss blocking rationale to community who entrusted her with the tools to begin with. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I furthur question yet another block indefinite length because Proof filed here. I think this yet again displays that the curent sanctions are based on personal distaste. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Preliminary) statement by Proofreader77

Unblocked (initial comments)
  1. My apologies to the Arbitration Committee that this version of an RfAR regarding "Proofreader77 blocks" has consumed some of your time. (I see at ANI the idea for this came from one of my edit summaries on my talk page ... via Pcap ... to Hell In A Bucket ... to here.)
  2. The RfAR I was planning (but waiting for the BLP/MZ issues to clear your plate) was to cover all three of my blocks — but there are now some complications due to a twice-modified fourth (A/B/C) which is a somewhat different matter.
  3. A recent "Notification" on my talk page by Tan has also complicated the issue. (Tan would not have been a named party in my RfAR, but this notice changes that — if possible, I would like to see if there is a way to remove Tan from the matter — just to save him time and energy.)
  4. An email discussion of an issue (alluded to by Casliber) is also a complicating factor, which would be fine to discuss in a public forum as far as I am concerned.
Requesting slight delay

I would like to ask a clerk a question or two as I process how to proceed.

Meanwhile

Having read the responses here so far, I would like to give anyone who is interested, my perspective on recent events, as well as a broader perspective as to the "motives" of Proofreader77.


Regarding the context of block 4[a/b/c] and broader context of Proofreader77's "motives" (in 10 rhetorical [not poetry] Shakespearean form sonnets composed during most recent block)

{ACA.001.01} ____ AN ADMIN MARKED their user page "{{deceased}}."
{ACA.001.02} ____ BEFORE THAT, they said "fuck you," "gone," "goodbye."
{ACA.001.03} ____ Proofreader must have killed them! Wretched beast!
{ACA.001.04} ____ He Python-mocked them, said "Hear hear!" BUT WHY?

{ACA.001.05} ____ Proof saw the admin acting strangely rude:
{ACA.001.06} ____ Unnecessary lecturing some fun.
{ACA.001.07} ____ No need to stomp in darkening the mood.
{ACA.001.08} ____ PROOF'S RHETORIC is mockery. Just one.

{ACA.001.09} ____ THE RUDE-MOOD ADMIN strangely then explodes.
{ACA.001.10} ____ Proofreader rolls his eyes and says "Hear hear!"
{ACA.001.11} ____ (and mocks himself as "nitwit"). Silly goads
{ACA.001.12} ____ should not make all good sense just disappear.

{ACA.001.13} ____ The admin's strange behavior made me check
{ACA.001.14} ____ their page and see two words we don't expect.

{ACA.002.01} ____ WHAT WERE THE ODDS the template was a fact?
{ACA.002.02} ____ A statement of intent to carry through.
{ACA.002.03} ____ Should you assume the best? Or should you act?
{ACA.002.04} ____ "I'll take it to AN. That's what I'll do."

{ACA.002.05} ____ Perhaps another admin is a friend.
{ACA.002.06} ____ Someone who knows their number, and can check.
{ACA.002.07} ____ What are the odds the worst case would amend?
{ACA.002.08} ____ I PONDER THIS before I stick my neck ...

{ACA.002.09} ____ ... into a noose, by posting at AN
{ACA.002.10} ____ a topic without name, and just a link.
{ACA.002.11} ____ DETRACTORS WAIT to try me for each sin
{ACA.002.12} ____ they say Proofreader's guilty of, they think.

{ACA.002.13} ____ BUT IF A LIFE IS SAVED by some slim chance
{ACA.002.14} ____ it's worth a waltz: The block-Proofreader dance.


{ACA.003.01} ____ THE VALENTINE'S DAY MASSACRE, take two!
{ACA.003.02} ____ How many admins did Proofreader slay?!?!
{ACA.003.03} ____ I heard he would not stop — kept spouting poo!
{ACA.003.04} ____ He should have stopped and cried and ran away!

{ACA.003.05} ____ How many admins has he killed this year?
{ACA.003.06} ____ He's down to thirty-eight percent in red.
{ACA.003.07} ____ He should be making articles appear!
{ACA.002.08} ____ Disruption is the one thought in his head.

{ACA.003.09} ____ What are his motives? Surely nothing good.
{ACA.003.10} ____ This is not Myspace. See his userpage?
{ACA.003.11} ____ There's work to do, if only that he would.
{ACA.003.12} ____ Would you go get a job — get off the stage!

{ACA.003.13} ____ All fodder for the Musical we'll write.
{ACA.003.14} ____ A Wikiped'a Western barroom fight.


{ACA.004.01} ____ BUT SURELY "RUDE-MOOD" ADMIN had been kind
{ACA.004.02} ____ on Valentine's — Proofreader's seeing things.
{ACA.004.03} ____ NO, earlier ol' RUDE-MOOD had opined
{ACA.004.04} ____ a fan should "get a life." How flat that rings.

{ACA.004.05} ____ But, good for them, the fan shot back "no thanks."
{ACA.004.06} ____ No, no-life fans don't give RUDE-MOOD respect.
{ACA.004.07} ____ Their only power is their un-do spanks.
{ACA.004.08} ____ I'm being mean, but meanness does infect ...

{ACA.004.09} ____ ... us all from time to time, And so I mock.
{ACA.004.10} ____ Not hard and long, but quick and to the point.
{ACA.004.11} ____ I do not wind up for a mighty sock.
{ACA.004.12} ____ Don't get your hot fudge sundae out of joint.

{ACA.004.13} ____ Proofreader did not drive an admin nuts.
{ACA.004.14} ____ Knock off the bullshit. No ifs, ands, or buts.


{ACA.005.01} ____ BUT WHEN RUDE-MOOD EXPLODED, why "Hear hear"?
{ACA.005.02} ____ Each "hear" deserves a day-long block, of course.
{ACA.005.03} ____ Why not apologize to your sad peer?
{ACA.005.04} ____ BECAUSE IT'S BETTER not to ride that horse.

{ACA.005.05} ____ Don't act as if your peer just lost their mind.
{ACA.005.06} ____ Keep smiling, laughing, as if nothing's wrong.
{ACA.005.07} ____ Give them a chance to smile, shift in the wind.
{ACA.005.08} ____ Most times they will — a much, much better song...

{ACA.005.09} ____ ... than "I'm so sorry, you're so pitiful."
{ACA.005.10} ____ "Come here and let me soothe your furrowed brow."
{ACA.005.11} ____ "We'll dress in sack cloth." Come on, cut the bull.
{ACA.005.12} ____ I understand you wiki-folks can't plow ...

{ACA.005.13} ____ ... the fields of rhetoric as well as I.
{ACA.005.14} ____ I walk on water ... swoop into the sky. :-)


{ACA.006.01} ____ WHICH BRINGS US BACK TO AN, where the pack —
{ACA.006.02} ____ Proofreader ankle-biters — bare each fang.
{ACA.006.03} ____ Well just the one to start, most in the sack.
{ACA.006.04} ____ Dismissing life and death, just want to hang ...

{ACA.006.05} ____ ... Proofreader and his sonnets with bullshit.
{ACA.006.06} ____ Apologize. Why don't you? You're so bad.
{ACA.006.07} ____ I bet they made fun of you... yeah yeah, spit.
{ACA.006.08} ____ They do not care at all if RUDE-MOOD's sad ...

{ACA.006.09} ____ ... enough to be offline with gun in hand.
{ACA.006.10} ____ Oh no, he's just pissed off, says fang-dog one
{ACA.006.11} ____ who's never scraped one word within the sand
{ACA.006.12} ____ of RUDE-MOOD's talk page. Nothing to be done.

{ACA.006.13} ____ Someone might die because of fang-dog's barks.
{ACA.006.14} ____ The social pack is hungry for its marks.


{ACA.007.01} ____ PARIAHS MUST BE SILENT while they bite.
{ACA.007.02} ____ We've heard enough now! Not another word.
{ACA.007.03} ____ Disruptive troll. Shut up! You have no right
{ACA.007.04} ____ to speak what we don't like, you stinking turd.

{ACA.007.05} ____ VILE ONLINE BULLIES grow within the vats
{ACA.007.06} ____ of ANI and AN ... socialized
{ACA.007.07} ____ to go along with their pack-leader rats.
{ACA.007.08} ____ No, none can stand if they are criticized.

{ACA.007.09} ____ They cannot bear you save the diffs they make.
{ACA.007.10} ____ All bad cops want the video turned off.
{ACA.007.11} ____ BUT THERE ON HIS OWN TALK PAGE eating cake
{ACA.007.12} ____ Proofreader's keeping track of ev'ry cough.

{ACA.007.13} ____ He's trying to chill bullying! God damn!
{ACA.007.14} ____ Can we siteban Proofreader? Hell, yes mam!


{ACA.008.01} ____ A POWER POINT AT GOOGLE shows the facts.
{ACA.008.02} ____ So online bullies are how this thing works?
{ACA.008.03} ____ Just part — most folks avoid the dungeon racks
{ACA.008.04} ____ and clusterfucks and halls of ArbCom clerks.

{ACA.008.05} ____ There's not that many of them who pretend
{ACA.008.06} ____ to be the whole "community" — so few
{ACA.008.07} ____ it shocks you when you watchlist end to end
{ACA.008.08} ____ and see how small the number. Just say boo ...

{ACA.008.09} ____ ... and some three hundred jump, but often less.
{ACA.008.10} ____ One hundred gets you almost all the crowd
{ACA.008.11} ____ you ever have to deal with. Not a guess.
{ACA.008.12} ____ I watch them all say howdie do. Not loud.

{ACA.008.13} ____ What do most of those do? Condemn the rest.
{ACA.008.14} ____ The pleasure of condemning. Welcome, guest!


{ACA.009.01} ____ SO WHY ARE YOU AMONG THEM? Self-defense.
{ACA.009.02} ____ If ever I am famous, I can run
{ACA.009.03} ____ an AfD on me, and spare expense
{ACA.009.04} ____ of watching my damn page till time is done. :-)

{ACA.009.05} ____ BUT MAYBE THERE IS HOPE ... and here I be.
{ACA.009.06} ____ If they cannot bear me, I can assure
{ACA.009.07} ____ the whole thing will collapse. Oh yes, I see
{ACA.009.08} ____ trajectories of how and what will cure ...

{ACA.009.09} ____ ... the social maladies that make things die.
{ACA.009.10} ____ There is a window now to shift some flows.
{ACA.009.11} ____ To transcend myths — to go beyond the lie
{ACA.009.12} ____ or two that most folks think is how it goes.

{ACA.009.13} ____ THE ROLE OF ARBCOM in this magic time?
{ACA.009.14} ____ BE OPEN to strange prophets and their "crime." :-)


{ACA.010.01} ____ PROOFREADER'S CRAZY. Have you seen the diff?
{ACA.010.02} ____ And writes those sonnets! We don't need that here.
{ACA.010.03} ____ And see all of that format code, as if
{ACA.010.04} ____ someone who's not a moron would appear ...

{ACA.010.05} ____ ... at ANI and dump all that at once.
{ACA.010.06} ____ That's something called design — which does not yet
{ACA.010.07} ____ have much cachet 'round here. Nor Google hunts.
{ACA.010.08} ____ But with a BOKE, DESIGN is what you get.

{ACA.010.09} ____ The ArbCom logo's on my mind these days.
{ACA.010.10} ____ I spoke with a photographer to ask
{ACA.010.11} ____ that he release an image to rephase
{ACA.010.12} ____ our vision at this moment for the task ...

{ACA.010.13} ____ ... of making sure our souls are not sucked dry.
{ACA.010.14} ____ You may not think I am — but I'm your guy.

-- (signing all of the above) Proofreader77 (interact) 00:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Donations and blocks (timing)
Note: Block #1 (by Gwen Gale) was for posting re $1,000 donation to Wikipedia
(NOT, as presumed, responding to Hell in a Bucket in another topic, as Hell knows)

Note: Block #4b (escalation to indef by Gwen Gale) followed a request for a standard blocking template, and documenting the diff of its decline.
(Returned to initial 48 hours by Tanthalas39 [#4c])

Trans Date Post Date Type Description Transaction Number Amount

01/02/2010 01/04/2010 Sale WIKIMEDIAFOUNDATION(Other) 5542... $700.00

12/29/2009 12/31/2009 Sale WIKIMEDIAFOUNDATION(Other) 5542... $200.00

12/23/2009 12/24/2009 Sale WIKIMEDIAFOUNDATION(Other) 5542... $100.00

  • (4c) 02:01, 15 February 2010 Tanthalas39 (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Proofreader77 (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 43 hours (account creation blocked) ‎ (reinstating original block)
  • (4b) 22:16, 14 February 2010 Gwen Gale (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Proofreader77 (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) ‎ (Disruptive editing: trolling, harassment)
  • (4a) 21:04, 14 February 2010 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs) blocked Proofreader77 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (trolling, harassment)

 

  • (3) 05:19, 21 January 2010 MBisanz (talk | contribs) blocked Proofreader77 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Edit warring)
  • (2) 21:57, 8 January 2010 Zscout370 (talk | contribs) blocked Proofreader77 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours ‎ (Disruptive editing)
  • (1) 23:03, 29 December 2009 Gwen Gale (talk | contribs) blocked Proofreader77 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (Disruptive editing)
    See text reverted by Gwen Gale

-- (table/list data) Proofreader77 (interact) 06:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


(Block #4a) for posting as subtopic at AN after improper warning above
Addendum documentation for ArbCom regarding recent Administrator user page message [timestamps from Proofreader77 SandboxA] (Not main case, but illustrates need for addressing previous issues: "Three bad blocks") Proofreader77 (interact) 20:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(12 hours later) the admin reverted their message

(Now, we can consider the matter of what happened.)

  • [Aftermath note 2.a]: I may be incorrect, but I do not believe Equazcion had sufficient knowledge of the history of the administrator to simply dismiss the matter. Unfortunately, there may be more to discuss about the interaction above, but let us first clarify if I am correct or incorrect with regard to Equazcion's knowledge of the administrator history (especially recent communications/interactions). Proofreader77 (interact) 19:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Aftermath note 2.b]: In the interaction above Equazcion has characterized my interaction with the administrator (on User talk: Jimbo Wales) prior to the administrator's user page replacement message. Before we discuss this further, perhaps Equazcion may wish to reconsider the characterizations. Proofreader77 (interact) 19:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(I will immediately notify Equazcion of the notes 2.a and 2.b above so they may comment. Proofreader77 (interact) 19:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

===Question(s) for administrators regarding the user talk message===
The big question, of course, do we need to follow up regarding this?
Executive summary (light version)

That (dastardly!) Proofreader77 mocked an administrator to virtual death with one silly message and a follow-up "Hear Hear." — should any administrator who can be mocked to virtual death so easily retain the bit? :-) Proofreader77 (interact) 19:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Executive summary (heavy version)

-- Proofreader77 (interact) 06:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bigtimepeace

There's no need for an ArbCom case here, unless we want to have one about Proofreader77, their behavioral problems, and whatever they want to complain about (and I don't think we want to have that). Proofreader was blocked (uncontroversially) by Future Perfect at Sunrise for 48 hours. After some talk page comments Gwen Gale then extended that block to indefinite. It got taken to ANI to review where a number of editors supported the indefinite block (including me) and an equal number opposed it. Tanthalas39 then cited a lack of consensus explanation/rationale on the part of Gwen Gale for the original extension to indef and reduced it back to 48 hours. It's all still being discussed here though it's winding down. Gwen Gale could have provided a better rationale for extending the block but it was not abuse of tools, and Tan39 could have probably let discussion continue rather than hastily reversing the block but it was likewise not abuse since consensus seemed to be lacking. Neither deserve to go to ArbCom. Proofreader77 is still a problematic editor and we'll see what happens when the block expires, but probably the community can handle this. ArbCom should decline this request swiftly. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Statement by Tanthalas39

My official statement: "For crying out loud." Tan | 39 03:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by semi-uninvolved Coldplay Expert

I only asked for an unblock at the ANI. Per Tan, "For crying out loud." Is this really necessary? IMHO, this is a huge waste of time.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 03:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by semi-involved Fut.Perf.

Just for background, I'll document the reasons that led to my 48hrs block of Proofreader which preceded Gwen's indef. Proofreader inserted himself in a thread at User talk:Jimbo Wales with an unprovoked attack personally disparaging another user, Rodhullandemu, for no apparent reason [130]. When Rod – apparently for personal reasons of real-life stress – reacted seriously upset, Proofreader kept taunting and baiting him [131]. His decision to then report Rod's (admittedly exaggerated) reaction to ANI, in this context, was another act of provocation. It was suggested to him that instead of dragging Rod to ANI he had better apologise to him [132][133]; instead he kept stirring things up [134]. I warned him to keep out of the matter [135] and when he still persisted in re-posting "evidence" diffs about Rodhullandemu [136], I blocked him for "trolling and harassment".

I stand by the reasons for this 48-hour block. I didn't take a position on Gwen's indef-block. However, reviewing Proofreader's prior contributions, it appears to me that the amount of drama caused by his tendentious editing on one set of articles (the Roman Polanski dispute), together with repeated episodes of fortuitous drama-stirring just for the sake of it, and his bizarre communicative habits, is hardly outweighed by any non-trivial positive content contributions. He apparently wants an Arbcom case, so unless the community decides on a permanent sanction against him before that, it's likely that he will cause one, one way or other, now or later. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Seeing Proofreader's statement on this page, I have re-blocked him, indef. This statement, with its extensive verse rant, again attacking and mocking Rodhullandemu, means a return to just the same disruptive behaviour as what I blocked him for the other day. He seems determined to not heed any warnings to improve his communication style, and this shows we cannot expect to see rational dispute resolution behaviour from him in this forum any more than in others. This seems deeply entrenched.
Arbitrators and arbcom clerks are of course free to lift this block if they disagree, but I would recommend they don't – if a case gets accepted after all, it will be better if he is made to submit his input through a more filtered way, such as the Arbcom mailing list. Allowing him to continue participating in an Arbcom proceeding would likely only mean giving him a forum for yet more of the same. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Mathsci

ArbCom should reject this case. Proofreader77 has been gaming the system, being disruptive in his own very idiosyncratic way, and adding very little of value to the encyclopedia. Yesterday he was deliberately WP:BAITing Roddhullandemu, even when he was warned by FPAS and others to desist. This is unfortunately typical of the way he edits. His ongoing preparation for a future ArbCom case seems to be what he considers WP to be about - disruption as a form of performance art. The best thing is that this performance takes place off-wiki after the community decides it is not beneficial to the writing of an encyclopedia. It does appear that various users are amused by Proofreader77's antics and might try to argue that his behaviour is admissible. In that case, it might be necessary for ArbCom to step in. Mathsci (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Casliber

For the record, I have sent an email with some issues about this which are not appropriate to be discussed openly. I ask the arbitration committee to review and consider this in thinking of a way forward from here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Collect

Again, if the committee takes up this case, I would ask that it consider fully the rationales for "indefinite blocks" which I consider a Sir Walter Raleigh solution as used far too often. This committee has the ability to set forth specific rules and guidelines for use of such acts. Collect (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from uninvolved SarekOfVulcan

Whether or not the case is accepted, Proofreader77 should be strongly discouraged from posting "documentation for Arbcom" sections in discussions, as here. While this is technically not a WP:NLT violation, as pointed out in the AN/I thread, it has a similarly intimidating effect. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gwen Gale

A month and a half ago I lifted the restrictions put forth in Proofreader77's RfC because they weren't bringing the hoped-for outcome. In the aftermath he was blocked four times by four admins (me among them).

As I said in the ANI thread, one only has to click by happenstance on any 20 edits made by Proofreader77 over the last two months to quickly understand the depth and breadth of his disruption, which among other things seems meant to draw a very wide audience. Most of his article contributions in this time have been simple reverts or undo edits, which at least seem meant only as token contributions to the project, as cover for what he's truly doing. Why it has all gotten so much worse over the last few months, I don't know.

Proofreader77's posts following the latest block were both wikilawyerish and taunting, carrying no hint his disruption would stop when the block was up. In lengthening the block to indefinite I was hoping to save lots of volunteer editors a lot of time and meanwhile, allow a window through which we could come to a more thorough understanding of why Proofreader77 has been doing this and what might be done to nudge him towards building an encyclopedia. In saying this I keep in mind, it could be that from Proofreader77's outlook, what so many editors take as wanton disruption is his way of building an encyclopedia towards his own notion of what it should be and if so, I thought lengthening the block to indefinite might at last be a means of stopping the disruption and getting to the pith of what he wants.

I don't think the reversal of my action had consensus in the ANI thread, but I believe the reversal was done in good faith by an admin who didn't agree with me on how to handle the root problem and my only worry as the thread wound down was, this disruption will most likely carry on unabated. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Scieberking

In my honest opinion, an unexplained and abrupt indefinite block by any administrator is severely harsh, and evidently violates the blocking policy. Scieberking (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cube lurker

Arbcom may not take this case, yet there is some disturbing behaviour here. Blocking is a serious matter, and indef blocking even more so. When an admin has been asked why they made a block, they should be able to clearly answer. Refusing to clearly answer falls short of an admins responsibility to communicate reasons for their actions. This may fall short of a case, but there is reason for concern here.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by probably-uninvolved Gladys J Cortez

Some thoughts: -The issue of Proofreader's "tendentious editing" on the Roman Polanski articles was mentioned; would it be possible to see some diffs to support that? I'd looked into a related issue, and at the time I wasn't seeing amy violations. Now, anything's possible during the interim, so I'm open to being convinced...
-The initial block was appropriate--although I think it should, perhaps, be noted that Proofreader had no knowledge, when he made the original remark, of Rodhullandemu's situation--however, when Rod had explained, in an obviously-upset tone, what had happened, Proofreader should have said "woo--sorry..." and slunk quietly away feeling like an ass (you know, like anyone else would at that point.) The fact that he kept going, even once he knew he'd hit a wrong note was what made FuPaS's 48-hr block perfectly all right.
-Gwen Gale's escalation of the block to indef may or may not have been appropriate; none of us has any way to know, however, since anyone who asked for diffs, explanations, reasons, etc. was given vague, generalized answers with no diffs. "Look at the history," was one of the common answers: "he's disruptive/games the system/is annoying/does this, does that, does the other." And yet no diffs. It's my understanding that when you block for misconduct, you should be prepared to give diffs in which that conduct is displayed--not to exhort concerned users to ferret out that information for themselves. We have no way of knowing which episodes, exactly, Gwen considered disruptive enough to justify changing an existing block to indef with minimal discussion. Given that the evidence is not being provided, and until direct diffs are obtained from the blocking admin, questions will still remain about the legitimacy of this block.
-Notice: despite my Wiki-quaintance with Proofreader, I'll admit to being disappointed with his conduct during this episode--as I said, most of us, encountering Rodhullandemu's response to the initial snark, would have slunk away feeling stupid; faced with a choice between a contrite reply and another display of verbal swordsmanship, went with (IMHO) the wrong choice. However, I don't believe that choice was worth an indef block. Generally, even with incorrigible POV-pushers and egregious drama-magnets, we usually require a recent and egregious action which would in itself be indef-worthy before we impose an indef. I'm not seeing that here, and thus must oppose any reinstatement of this indef until such time as solid evidence for its return.
Thank you.... GJC 21:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Oh, god. Proof, Proof, Proof, there are people here who are seriously trying to keep you from getting sitebanned; and then--despite all the exhortation to realize that there is a time for sonnets and other times at which sonnets are most emphatically discouraged (hint: NOW IS ONE OF THEM), you come to speak your piece at this RfArb and do what? Write a frickin' sonnet, of course. :::headdesk::: I asked GWEN for diffs of you being difficult/disruptive; I surely didn't mean for you to provide your own! Per whomever asked, below, and per my own eternal desire to have ONE place in the world where I don't look like a total ass more than 50% of the time...I beg you: PLEASE redact, refactor, rethink. Please! GJC 18:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by now (reluctantly) involved Rodhullandemu

Diffs will be made available on request, but I detect that so far the Arbcom shows no willingness to take this case. I'll admit that, as an admin, I am not perfect, and may misjudge a situation; however, I am also human, and should not be judged by extremes but by the totality of my contributions here.

As regards the incident that sparked this situation, an editor from came to Jimbo Wales' talk page to see if he could get help as to why he was blocked. After a response that showed that he was not personally blocked, there were some responses from other editors making light of his situation, referring to the Spanish Inquisition, or possibly to a comedy sketch which is now about 40 years old, which I didn't think helped that editor to understand his block. The response I got from User:Proofreader77 in not only dismissing my good faith attempt to assist this editor, but traducing me in the process, in common parlance, "fused my tree". There is a rule of liability in both criminal and civil law, in the jurisdiction in which I have practised, that "you take your victim as you find them"; it is known as the "thin skull rule" and his attack was not only badly timed, but repeated, even after warnings. However, not only did Proofreader77 fail to resile from the situation, and fail to apologise, as suggested at WP:ANI, but has continued to make light of it, and me, by writing poetry. The question is whether this editor is a net benefit to this project. Whereas he may be eccentric, and his talkpages more resembling MySpace than anything else, the bottom line is that in recent months, Proofreader77's contributions have become less and less focused on building an encyclopedia, and more and more in ego-building and bizarre record-keeping, with associated subtle threats, to no apparent, yet chilling, effect. This should stop, and it should stop right now, for the long-term benefit of the encyclopedia. Although Gwen Gale's reasons for indeffing were less than convincing, were I not involved, I would have come to the conclusion on ratio of contribs alone, especially since December 2009, and that allowing Proofreader77 to continue editing here would not, on balance, be a benefit to Wikipedia. I see little if nothing in the way of understanding of our processes by Proofreader77, or a willingness to comply with them, or admit mistakes. Enough. Rodhullandemu 01:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request from MBisanz

Proofreader's statement is now 2,200 words over the limit, could a clerk please ask him to redact it to the proper length? MBisanz talk 06:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/6/0/1)

  • Decline: On further review, I concur with Newyorkbrad. If Proofreader77 wishes to file a request for arbitration, we should deal with that separately. I don't see anything with respect to the blocks noted above that requires the attention of the Arbitration Committee. Risker (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Although events could have moved more slowly, I see no evidence of misconduct by any administrator. (We continue to have some ambiguities about what degree of consensus is warranted before one either blocks or unblocks, which I wrote about sometime last year in a talkpage comment that I will try to track down, but that does not require our opening a case on the matter.) The current status is that Proofreader77 is serving a 48-hour block, which I do not feel called upon to review. Once the block expires, Proofreader77 can file a new case if he has reason to do so; I have seen little evidence thus far that he has a meritorious claim, so I am not encouraging him to file a case; but I haven't comprehensively reviewed his allegations and will of course keep an open mind until he presents them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In light of Proofreader77's "statement" above, change to accept, primarily to address Proofreader77's ongoing bizarre behavior. We may be able to address this matter by motion without a full case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline While, like Brad, I do have concerns about heat of the moment issues spiraling out of control, I don't see any need for ArbCom review here. SirFozzie (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that Proofreader77 has been indefblocked again. Don't see any reason to change vote at this time. SirFozzie (talk) 08:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asgardian

Initiated by Nightscream (talk) at 21:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

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

Statement by Nightscream

Over the past few years, many members of the community have attempted unsuccessfully to resolve the issue of User:Asgardian's serial violations of WP:OWN, WP:WAR, WP:ES, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:EDSUM, WP:SOCK, WP:POINT, and WP:CIVIL, and his use of WP:GAME-type behavior when said community attempts to address these offenses. His refusal to respond in an honest or civil manner during these attempts at resolution, most recently during his RfC, make it clear that the only way to prevent future abuse by him is to ban him permanently from Wikipedia. While I would not be averse to allowing him to return in say, a year, I would only favor this if he openly discusses the inappropriate nature of the behavior I have described here, directly answer questions about it, and agree to abandon that behavior, sincerely, and without further evasion. Barring this, he should be permanently blocked from editing. Evidence of his policy violations, both during edit disputes, and when his behavior is called into question, is copious, and will be furnished by me (and presumably others) when the case is opened.

Statement by NuclearWarfare

I am just idly asking, but is there any reason why this cannot be handled by an uninvolved administrator issuing an indefinite block if they feel that is appropriate, and defending it at ANI if necessary? NW (Talk) 23:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Master&Expert

I was about to ask the same thing as NuclearWarfare above. I think if the community has lost patience with Aagardian, it may be worth discussing over at one of the noticeboards. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I came here because when I asked User:Newyorkbrad about banning, he informed me that the two paths that could be utilized for banning would be to either start a discussion at AN/I, or bring an arbitration case. Since Asgardian has already been the focus of a number of AN/I threads (a couple of which I participated in), which only served to perpetuate the problem, much as the recent RfC, it seemed reasonable to take the matter here. I have prepared a detailed summary of the problem, and its focuses not only on the precipitating policy violations, but also the behavior Asgardian exhibits when his edits or his behavior is disputed, including the counterclaims that I (correctly) anticipated Asgardian would employ, such as the ad hominem "grudge" claim, the non sequiturs about Red Hulk, the Beyonce Knowles matter, the inconsistency in his statements, his reliance on one outsider editor who seemed to indicate that he didn't read the RfC in depth, while dismissing the 18 long-tenured editors who wrote or endorsed summaries against him (8 of which are administrators), etc.
I was prepared to post it here before I saw that the instructions indicate that this is not the place to prove the case, but to merely summarize it succinctly, and that the evidence in question is to be presented after the case is opened, which I intend to do. If I have not adequately followed the instructions or procedures for situations like this, or provided enough information for a decision on your part, I would be more than willing to address any other clarifications or suggestions that anyone has. Nightscream (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, the most recent block applied to Asgardian by neutral admin Xavexgoem (and retracted by said admin) was as a result of an AN/I thread. I agree with Nightscream that AN/I is not likely to solve this, and has been tried more than once before. I need to get my thoughts together before I go into detail. BOZ (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Off2riorob

I came across this user by mistake at the Beyonce article, he inserted a coatracking addition attaching the Libyan bombing on to the Beyonce Knowles biography, she had preformed a concert for Gadaffi's son and his addition was imo and others opinion excessive coatracking, he reverted until I asked for a third opinion and some editors commented there and yet he would not listen, he began again saying he was compromising with this and that and was simply reverting to his favoured position again which was against the RFC comments and against consensus on the talkpage, his editing and repeating reverts brought me to give in and take the article off my watchlist, other editors began also to remove his preferred version, amongst all this I found him to not care about wikipedia process such as request for comment, what is the point in requesting a comment when the other editor in the dispute refuses to acknowledge the comments, all in all an editing issue the type that moves other editors to just move on and give up. Off2riorob (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Asgardian

I'll respond here with an insert as I wasn't sure where to post.

I have to say that I find this development baffling and unfortunate. Nightscream would seem to have issue with the fact that the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Asgardian didn't go the way he intended. In fact, I can simply address his very general and non-specific points raised above by asking all to refer to the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Asgardian, where I was also supported by one editor in particular (Scott Free, who noted that there was an element of "gangpiling" ([137]). The RFC also shows examples of some of the issues I have had to deal with in regards to some of the more inexperienced editors.

Further to this, Nightscream persisted at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Asgardian, but the focus has become about him and his conduct, which seems to be a driving desire to see myself somehow "punished". This is highlighted here [138], where WhatamIdoing states

"Nightscream, I'm finding that your comment above:

You don't remove them against policy, find a source months later, and then say it "resolves" the issue. It may resolve the the need for sources, but that does not mean that it resolves the issue of an editor violating policy months prior...

is fairly telling.
First, anything that's well and truly resolved in the mainspace really is entirely resolved as far as building the encyclopedia is concerned (i.e., why we're all here, right?). Apologies and self-abasement and promises to do better and so forth about the imperfect process don't change either a jot or a tittle in the mainspace.
It seems to me that if you (and others) didn't have such a fraught history with Asgardian, then this incident really would have been "resolved" as soon as a source was produced. The fact that you want something more to be done, while acknowledging that there is nothing else to be done in the mainspace on that point, indicates to me the depth of the interpersonal dysfunction."

This whole section ([139]) seems to have become about trying to educate Nightscream (who is an administrator) about Wikipedia. As I noted in the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Asgardian, I don't understand the intensity of Nightscream's claims given that we have not edited together on the same article - Red Hulk - for months. What makes this even more bizarre is that Nightscream actually supported me just days ago on an edit at Beyonce Knowles ([140]); supported me on the relevant Talk Page ([141]) and then after I thanked him ([142]) for the support acknowledged the thanks: [143]. This then begs the question, why is this request being introduced?

On an aside the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae was from 2007, and a great deal has changed this then, which I indicated at the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Asgardian.

I've made peace with many of the editors I have disagreed with in the past (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Asgardian), and am now collaborating with many of them on other issues (eg.[144]). I am also even now trying to compromise with a fairly inexperienced editor (who was also recently banned for attempting blind reversions with a sockpuppet on my edits): [145]; [146] as opposed to just edit warring.

To conclude, I feel a request for a "permanent side-wide ban" is completely unnecessary; extreme and also (sadly) smacks of a grudge. I am also concerned about the fact that Nightscream has unilaterally chosen to speak for Tenebrae and BOZ - listed above - without actually waiting to see if they wish to participate.

I bear Nightscream no ill will and would just like to see this resolved. I enjoy editing, and have made many, many productive edits in recent years (a very recent example being the many hours I've put in here [147], as the sources can only be of benefit).

For your consideration Asgardian (talk) 04:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Addendum: Unfortunately, Nightscream's assertion that there are "18 long-tenured editors who wrote or endorsed summaries against him (8 of which are administrators)" actually doesn't paint the whole picture. Many of these editors are very inexperienced and/or have been cautioned or blocked and one had admitted that his level of experience in these matters is limited (and that's nothing I hold against said person, who has been very fair and is simply trying to keep the peace). I touch on this at the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Asgardian. Almost everything presented is in regards to the distant past, and in recent times there has only been any real conflict with two inexperienced editors, whose conduct I also touched on. I've also tried to reach out to these two editors, and hopefully reach some middle ground.

I am still, however, curious as to why there is a sudden request for a "permanent ban" - or any kind of sanction for that matter - given I have been making every effort to work with others (numerous examples) and better articles (numerous articles). It goes back to my point about there being no "smoking gun", although there still being an insistence (see my earlier comments with the link) for something to be done. I am also concerned about what Scott Free called "gangpiling" ([148]) over perceived - and not necessarily actual - issues. This is the third attempt for a sanction against myself, and it is becoming rather stressful. I'm happy to provide information to independent parties, or alternatively, simply do so if this is adjourned to the Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Asgardian which has not closed.

  • Something I should also add is something like 90% of the time my edits are unchallenged. I now avoid edit warring as much as is possible, and actively seek solutions to issues.

For your consideration Asgardian (talk) 11:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For your consideration Asgardian (talk) 11:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Statement by BOZ

  • I'd like to respond to BOZ's comments. He had been a voice of reason throughout this entire process, and I thank him for his kind words and impartiality. I acknowledged BOZ ([149]) had a point when discussing editing issues, and also admitted fault for previous mishaps (albeit from some time ago) at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Asgardian. As I said above, these days there is really only conflict when dealing with inexperienced editors. I pointed this out to BOZ, and he agreed : ([150]). Scott Free also supports this view ([151]) and stated:

"In a way it's understandable that Asg. gets complaints; because he gets his feet wet and does add a lot of content to articles, but they're usually not major articles, and they don't necessarily have a lot of traffic."

That said, while 90% of what I edit is a non-issue, I do require assistance with the other 10% from time to time. There were issues with one editor at Juggernaut who was making blind reverts, but thanks to the assistance of two other editors we've reached a nice compromise, which hopefully everyone will endorse, thereby ending the issue ([152]; [153]).

The only other burning issue is getting some assistance from time to time with DavidA. Being completely honest, it is more likely I will have conflict with this person more than any other due to his conduct (which in fact I have just had to report at Wikiquette ([154]) and the fact that he makes blind reverts and wipes valid information ([155]; [156]). This is where the only real edit warring involving myself occurs, and not by choice. Perhaps the best thing to do in future is just ask for 3rd party opinions on the relevant Talk Pages.

I probably should have done this all along (a lession I've just learned when dealing with inexperienced editors who are more fans than "Wiki scholars", such as at Beyonce Knowles, where several editors backed a poorly worded paragraph with the wrong focus and made a few threats). I'd also be receptive to the idea of BOZ mediating/mentoring when this person is involved, although of course he may not wish to. DavidA's contributions also appear to be dropping away so it may be a non-issue over time.

I'm also open to the idea of a mentor, which shouldn't be a demanding role given that most of the time few have issue with my contributions as they have only bettered the articles. Asgardian (talk) 04:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly-involved statement by Daedalus969

I don't think an arbcom case is necessary. All we need is the thread I created at ANI for the topic ban and editing restrictions.— Dædαlus Contribs 04:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BOZ

It's been brought up by a few people that maybe this case should have gone to WP:AN/I first. I think I understand why Nightscream came to ArbCom instead of AN/I; Asgardian has been the subject of numerous Admin noticeboard threads already: Oct 26, 2006, Dec 10, 2006, Jan 14, 2007, Mar 18, 2007, Mar 24, 2007 (named party only), May 2, 2007, May 21, 2007, Jun 16, 2007, Jun 22, 2007, Jul 6, 2007, Jul 24, 2007, Dec 27, 2007, Jan 7, 2008, Feb 13, 2009, Sep 2, 2009 (named party only), Sep 4, 2009, Oct 8, 2009, and Jan 3, 2010. I'm assuming we've been down that road plenty of times already, but if it's ArbCom's decision that AN/I is the way to go, then I will have to recommend that Nightscream approach from that angle.

As to this case, I know that more than one person besides Nightscream has sought an indefinite block on Asgardian before; I don't personally see that he has done anything to earn such a block, but I can see why "getting him out of one's hair" would have an appeal. As a pure content editor on comic book character articles, Asgardian is tough to match. But, then there are those other concerns brought up in his current RFC/U, and that makes one wonder whether his contributions outweigh the disputes he so often finds himself in. However, I will not weigh the merits of placing any type of block on Asgardian, as that is something I am not concerned with.

I made a suggestion not long ago (I forget to whom, and when) that perhaps the best way to deal with all the problems that have arisen over Asgardian and other editors interacting badly is to approach ArbCom to seek a sort of mentorship for Asgardian, to help him out when he finds himself in dispute with other editors. This might take the work of more than one experienced, uninvolved editor (who had best be well prepared before wading into this situation!), who knows the dispute resolution system well and can keep an eye out for disputes when they arise, and point him and the other editors in the right direction. I don't know how practical, or even possible, such an arrangement is, but I'd like to consider adding that to the table as an alternative on the indefinite block proposal. If this arrangement is attempted and does not work, then I assume we come back here looking for some long-term blocks, or appropriate topic bans. BOZ (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to clarify that I am definitely not opposing, nor supporting any type of block or ban - I am neutral on that idea, and leave that up to the wisdom of others. My suggestion is merely that; if Asgardian is not to be put on long-term block, then what I mention above is what I would like to see. BOZ (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be coupled with my above suggestion, as a mentor alone may be inadequate to deal with all the disputes that arise, I would like to propose that several long-term topic bans be considered on articles where Asgardian's editing has been the most contentious. Looking at his top namespace edits, you'll find several articles with over a hundred edits each. Whereas many of these edits are likely to have been productive ones, many of them undoubtedly consist wholly of reverting (fully or in part) to his prior version. I think an examination of the articles in this list will reveal the most contentious examples.

Asgardian, I feel, does his best work on the articles of less popular comic book characters - they are rarely edited by anyone else, and he can do a good job without getting into a dispute with anyone. Articles such as Thor, Galactus, Ms. Marvel, and Juggernaut, to come up with examples off the top of my head, are another story. I think it would be good for him to focus on articles on which he has not had a long history of fighting over content. I find that I am not alone in giving up editing "Asgardian's articles", echoing Peregrine Fisher's comments below, because it is frustrating to try to edit when it feels like most of your contributions to an article will be dismissively removed. BOZ (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Peregrine Fisher

Asgardian is quite the character. He likes his articles a certain way, and to my knowledge, will not stop until they are that way. Like Off2riorob mentions, he can take on a (very) large number of editors and best them all. All you can do is take the article off your watchlist. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/4)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=344686708"