Dispute resolution (Requests)
Tips
Assume good faith Use etiquette Be civil Be open to compromise Discuss on talk pages Failure to discuss Help desk (Request)
Content disputes
Third opinion (Request) Mediation Noticeboards Request comments (Request) Resolution noticeboard (Request)
Conduct disputes
Administrator assistance (Request) Arbitration (Request)
v t e

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Initiated by Rubén Mar (talk) at 11:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rubén Mar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zape82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Varano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

I´ve notified both user via their discussion pages.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

I´ve discussed the issues with Zape82 and Verano without reasonable responses or explanations that are factual. I´ve also raised the issue with an editor that commented on the issue; no resolution.

José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero shows the history of edits and comments. Juzgados de Violencia sobre la Mujer (Courts for Violence against Women) is being deleted by Varano and so all the history comments are not visible. The mirror site in English is Spanish Courts for Violence against Women.

This issue relates to both Spanish and English sites of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, in which Zape82 is refusing to allow inclusion of the issue of the crisis in the Constitutional Tribunal that occured as a result of Zapatero´s policies and is very widely documented in the Spanish press, and the Spanish site of Juzgados de Violencia sobre la Mujer, in which Verano has been deleting the site since I included the public remarks made by the president of the Constitutional Tribunal which are highly critical of Zapatero´s government.

Zape82 is claiming there is no adequate source mentioned, but I´ve included a link to the article published by ABC News, which is repeated across the media - El Mundo, El pais, etc. He says the comment is a "rant" when it is well known fact. He also tried the same tactic with the English site "Spanish Courts for Violence against Women" last month, saying it was a rant and unsourced, but other editors decided he was wrong and refused his deletion request. Zape82 has said he is a political science professional/ex-student based in Madrid.

Verano has been deleting the site Juzgados de Violencia sobre la Mujer, and I´ve not seen any normal voting process take place. At first he was putting the comment "plagiarism", and then after I removed the directly quoted press item I had added, is now just deleting the site without specific comment, and has so far failed to explain what the problem is; this started only since I added the recent well publicised comments made by the president of the Constitutional Tribunal which are highly critical of the current government.

I hope that Wikipedia articles would reflect current information that is balanced and not politically biased, as such, as there is currently a major crisis in the Constitutional Tribunal, which it´s president has stated is caused by political actions and manipulation of the current government without "reflection to judicial regulations", and given that she said its the most severe crisis affronting the Tribunal in its history, I think its relevant information, especially as if the Tribunal is allowed (its currently blocked by the politicians´ challenges to 5 of its members) to release its report on the constitutionality of the laws passed by Zapatero´s government, there really will be a crisis, and people need to know - well, that´s if you believe in democracy of course!

• As per my talk page I have not received any communication.
• Claims edited by Rubén Mar regarding the Spanish law and politics, are unencyclopaedic and in many cases even delusional. Most of the edits done by this user are poorly edited and in many cases they are visually hurting (ie. excessive use of bold letters). And highly non NPOV, trying to use WP as forum or a loudspeaker for his intentions or political ideology. On the other hand as i said in Talk:José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero the CGPJ crisis is no caused by this editors claims but by the ending of the mandate of it's members, crisis that has affected the CGPJ designated members of the Constitutional Court of Spain.
• Independently of any ideology I contribute to the English WP mainly for a good understanding of the Spanish politics and polity, with >500 edits all trying to keep neutral and encyclopaedic on the issues related, User:Rubén Mar is far from this purpose.
• As stated by arbitrator Kirill it's a content dispute.

--Zape82 (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please speedily reject I was a central figure in the last Zapatero dispute (completely different) and still watch the article, hence my amazement to see this. Since Oct 1st there has been one comment on the talk page, by Zape82 and one has to ask, why go to arbcom before using the talk page. This looks like a complaint that needs discussing on the Zapatero talk page and thus should be speedily rejected by arbcom as way premature. Thanks, SqueakBox 08:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Reject, content dispute. Kirill 13:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject, content. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject, content dispute. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by Viridae^Talk at 03:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• MONGO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Viridae (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Dtobias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alecmconroy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Amarkov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Krimpet (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Tom harrison (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Crum375 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Spryde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Thomas Basboll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• MONGO: [1]
• Dtobias: [2]
• GTBacchus: [3]
• Alecmconroy: [4]
• Amarkov [5]
• SchmuckyTheCat [6]
• Krimpet [7]
• Tom harrison [8]
• Crum375 [9]
• Spryde [10]
• Thomas Basboll [11]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO
• Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO 2
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO 3
• [12]
• WT:NPA

Personal attacks

There has been recent disputes at WP:NPA over whether a section on external links is appropriate or necessary. There are people who are passionately arguing both sides, which I believe (despite accusations otherwise by commenters on the RfC) to be a good thing. However what is not good is the massive amount of personal attacks from MONGO, largely dismissing people’s opinions because they are either members of either The Wikipedia Review or Enclopedia Dramatica. MONGO has a history of this kind of behaviour. Approximately a year ago MONGO was desysopped by arbcom. As part of their findings of the arbcom stated “In many instances he has reacted inappropriately to such harassment and events, freely characterizing opponents in a derogatory manner…” This behaviour continues to this day. He has disparaged his opponents for perceived biases:

• “the only dispute is by those who contribute to WR” [13]
• "revert, known ED contributor" [14]
• "rv another ED contributor..." [15]
• “so it certainly is a disgusting COI when partiticipants in those websites try and argue against not being able to link to them” [16]
• “OH...hahahahaha! I don't participant in a website that is a capricious pile of shit like WR...you do! Yet you oppose banning links to it...okay...well, shucks golly gee...surely that's not a COI...surely.” [17]

This is despite WP:NPA stating “Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views [is never acceptable] -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.” and “Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done.”

After all this, Alec started an RfC in an attempt to resolve the situation (linked above) which MONGO has refused to participate in, stating “I won't be party to your Rfc...I see it as blatant harassmen". In addition to MONGOs rejection of appropriate dispute resolution, those people that certified the RfC were accused of: being vindictive (Guy), harassing him (Guy, Crum375 three times, DHeyward, Slim Virgin), using the dispute resolution process to gain leverage in the NPA dispute (Addhoc), baiting him (rogerd), using the RfC to create drama (DHeyward). There is no alternative but arbitration, all avenues have been exhausted. MONGO has a history of uncivil behaviour that is well known on the project, and is constantly being enabled by others who are often equally uncivil. I do not wish to see MONGO banned as part of this arbcom, I simply want to be able to discuss the NPA policies in an adult manner without being constantly attacked.

Related edit warring

After a massive amount of edit warring (eleven reverts over four days) including 3 sets of three reverts on three different days by MONGO as part of a massive 27 reverts (if I have counted correctly) from the 17th of October when the policy page was unprotected to the 22nd of October when I re-protected and including one 24 hours period of protection. This means that over a third of those reverts were performed by MONGO.

This part of the dispute can be detailed if necessary, or sent to a member of Arbcom if they would prefer.

Please note that this abr request has been limited to the very recent behaviour surrounding one issue. If the arbitrators felt it to be more appropriate it could be expanded to cover all the incivility and personal attacks since the last arbitration case, for which he has been constantly taken to task with no visible change in behaviour (as evinced by the most recent bout). Viridae^Talk 03:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification for the committee RE

Drama

This is the last point in the dispute resolution process. If you reject this it will erupt elsewhere at a later stage, such is the history of MONGO's interactions with the community. MONGO has been found to be uncivil and prone to overreaction and personal attacks by arbcom since the case in which he was desysopped in 2006. If this gets rejected, there is nowhere for it to go. A large subset of the community showed extremely bad faith inthe RfC, which voiced legitimate concerns. This won't increase drama, it will put it to rest. Viridae^Talk 20:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer not to be a party to this request. I have no dispute with MONGO, and I think things are working out (albeit very slowly) over at WT:NPA. I thank Viridae for his good-faith efforts, and I may have comments along the way, should the arbitration be accepted, but I don't see any reason for me to be a named party.

As far as the complaint in this case, it's entirely related to one content dispute over at Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I think we can work out the content dispute without the need for arbitration, if there's enough will to do that, and if we can put aside all of the name-calling and accusations of bad-faith. I guess whether or not ArbCom should take the case depends on the size of those two ifs. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum from GTBacchus

I notice the assertion being made below that people who contribute to certain websites are "trying to weaken our external links policy", or that people are "working to allow external links to certain sites". As far as I can tell, that's false. Under the "weakest" version of the policy being considered, linking to harassment is still unacceptable and easy to deal with. Under the "strongest" version of the policy being considered, it will still be true that ad hominem arguments will be bad ideas that tend to increase drama. Whenever I've pointed out that we can still block people under the "weak" policy, or that abusive purges will still be disruption under the "strong" policy, I've either been ignored, or told that people will wikilawyer (as if that's going to be prevented by a cleverly worded policy). The fact that we don't have to put up with wikilawyering is of course ignored.

It's not a policy problem, but a behavior problem, and thus those seeking a policy solution from either side are taking a misguided approach.

I'd just as soon stay out, but if I have to be a party to this case to insure that these points aren't missed, then so be it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To add to what has been said above:

This cases is NOT about a policy dispute. The policy dispute over BADSITES is being resolved through the normal consensus building process, and there have been major strides in that direction. Arbcom is not being asked to settle the policy dispute-- the community is working on it, and will continue to. Though I don't know what the finished product will look like, I have confidence the community will be able to reach a consensus any content/policy disputes are under discussion. Indeed, two weeks ago, it had APPEARED we had reached consensus-- so clearly, the policy dispute resolution is coming along fine.

This case IS about a specific pattern of behavior by a singe user, MONGO, which is longstanding, disruptive, and frankly, deeply upsetting. MONGO has a documented history of engaging in disruptive and incivil behavior. This is a pattern has has, regrettably, continued.

Mongo continues to engage in disruptive editing. He repeatedly (19 times!) reinserted his own controversial views into Wikipedia Policy pages, without achieving any consensus for them. He continues to sling personal insults, making a habit of "commenting on the contributor, rather than the content" and attempting to "use others' affiliations (often imagined affiliations) to discredit ideas". With me personally, he continue to falsely imply or suggest that I have some connection to the website "Encyclopedia Dramatica", despite my frequent insistence that, outside of the Wikipedia policy dispute, I have no connection to the site whatsoever. I do not support the site, I do not approve of the site, I do not edit the site, and except in my capacity of a Wikipedia editor, I have never even READ the site.

I've tried everything I can think of to bring his behavior to a stop, nothing has worked.

• We've discussed MONGO's behavior extensively, in multiple different forums.
• I've personally, sincerely, and repeatedly apologized to him for any times that I've inadvertently upset him, hoping what would solve the problem of MONGO's behavior.
• I intentionally did not present any evidence about MONGO's behavior problems in the Attack Sites Case, hoping that after clarification from Arbcom, MONGO'S problematic behavior would cease.
• I wrote an essay urging the cessation of personal attacks in the policy dispute, hoping that would end the problem of MONGO's behavior.
• Along with others, I filed an RFC on MONGO's behavior in the hopes that that would settle the issue. Regrettably, most of the responses seemed to agree that the RFC was unlikely to solve the situation and that this should go forward to ArbCom.

I know we all loathe yet another case related to this matter, but I don't know what else to do. --Alecmconroy (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum

For those who oppose Arbcom taking the case now, let me ask: when SHOULD we come back with a case?

Mongo has, without consensus and usually without discussion, readded his proposal to the policy page NINETEEN times, over SIX months: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]

No matter what anyone thinks of the merits of his proposal, we all agree that policies pages should only contain text that already has achieved consensus. Nineteen attempts to circumvent consensus, combined with rampant incivility, is a problem.

I think it's a problem that needs to be stopped immediately. But a couple people, who I truly do respect, suggest it's not yet a problem that Arbcom needs to solve.

So I'd ask this: If nineteen controversial reinsertions-into-policy without consensus isn't a problem Arbcom should look into, tell me just how many reinsertions MONGO should get before it does becomes such a problem, so I'll know when to come back. 20 reverts? 25 reverts? 30? 40? 50?

On the personal attacks-- Mongo is frequently incivil. Off the top of my head, I can think of at least SIX different long-term editors who MONGO has personally attacked: GTBACCHUS, Gentgee, Luna Santin, Me, DanT, and Viridae. I'm sure there are many more. Now if attacking six different editors isn't enough to constitute a problem worth Arbcom looking into, tell me just how users MONGO can personally attack before it IS a problem worth Arbcom looking into, such that I'll know when to come back. 10 users attacked? 15 users attacked? 20? 30?

I'm not trying to cause trouble, I swear. We all wish we could just not deal with the situation and hope it would get better. But this incivility and disruption has been going on for, I'm told, nearly two years, and we have to face it sooner or later. Today's as good a day as any.--Alecmconroy (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum 2

I'm deeply confused by the belief, uttered people who know far more than I do, that avoiding this case will result in less drama. I firmly believe MONGO's problems are far beyond any one specific policy dispute. If the NPA policy debate were to reach consensus today, tommorow, or two weeks ago--- would that really be the end of MONGO's incivility towards others? (me included)

If you really think dodging for a time will resolve the situation, that's okay-- ya'll should know best. But speaking for myself, I don't understand the logic. Dodging the case now is just putting off the inevitable. Until we, as a community, succeed in communicating some firm boundaries to MONGO, I believe his behavior will continue unabated.

Looking at this situation in the LONG term-- if we want decrease drama, we should deal with underlying disease (incivility & personal attacks) , rather than fixating on particular symptom of that disease (NPA dispute).

As the old saying goes-- it's easier to put on slippers than to carpet the whole world. There will never be any shortage of people who MONGO finds himself in conflict with. His pattern began long before the NPA dispute ever occured, and unless we can find a way to communicate with him, I'm suspect his incivility will continue long after the NPA dispute is over. --Alecmconroy (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And in fairness-- if I am the problem, that argument still holds. If I really am SO completely off-base that I'm the one causing all the problems but am just too blind to see it-- well, if that reallly were the case, ya'll might as well deal with me sooner rather than later. --Alecmconroy (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum 3

Mongo has now added Spryde, Thomas Basboll, and admin Krimpet as parties in this dispute. None of these parties have ever edits NPA. (Although Krimpet has protected NPA). This should be a strong single that this dispute goes way beyond a mere NPA policy dispute, but instead involves a longstanding pattern of disruptive and incivil behavior. --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is MONGO not a problem that merits going through the dispute resolution process? His pattern goes far beyond any specific incident. Consider this edit in which he engaged in personal attacks and racial (or national) stereotyping) when he made an revert with the summary revert vandalism by anon IP, soon ot end up blocked...shoul we belive than an editor from Brunei Darussalam is not anti-American? I think not. Such despicable personal attacks are going to cause endless drama until they are dealtwith. MONGO IS going to Arbcom-- he can go today in this case, or he can go in some future case, but there is a problem here-- a big one. --Alecmconroy (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need for this. With progress being made now on the talk page, this is more likely to stir things up again. Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the committee does accept this, I hope they consider the behavior of everyone involved, including conflict of interest and the use of admin tools. I rely on anyone unable to do that to recuse himself. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not if opening this case will cause drama. It will. But refusing to accept it, when people on both sides are begging Arbcom to step in and stop it, is stupid. -Amarkov moo! 17:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly like to see an immediate and substantial de-escalation of rhetoric by several editors involved in the attack-page links/NPA controversy, which has received, by this point, a completely disproportionate amount of attention. Unless I am missing something, though, there seems to be a de facto consensus as to how most of these links are being handled in practice at the moment, while discussion of wording of formal policy language continues. While I respect the good faith of the filing party, I don't see opening another arbitration case at this stage as likely to assist with any aspect of the problem. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Dorftrotel, I will point out that if the case is accepted, the selection of a casename by the case clerk (which wouldn't be me) is just a shorthand identification for the case and does not limit the scope of the Arbitration Committee's review. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about content (in the form of the NPA policy) it is about user behavior. Unfortunately, because multiple other admins are very vocal in their support of this user, no other admins are willing to address the behavior.

The only thing Arbcom needs to do is make a clear, and enforceable, statement that MONGO will be held to the same standard as every other Wikipedia editor. The "special rules for MONGO" have been well known for at least two years now. Time to end it.

There are two bad behaviors here:

1. Incivility and personal attacks by MONGO. That MONGO has been incivil and makes personal attacks has been the basis of previous Arbcom cases; has been a side issue in other Arbcom cases; and has been the issue in several rejected cases. MONGO continues to be incivil and make personal attacks. Blocks on MONGO based on his behavior have been the basis of wheel warring by admins. Contrary to discussion on the failed RfC, MONGO has not been baited or provoked (which does not excuse it anyway).
2. Edit warring, lack of discussion and ignorance of consensus by MONGO. MONGO's edit warring on the NPA page has gotten it protected multiple times. He has clearly gamed 3RR in his revert warring. He made a voluntary commitment to 1RR then broke it at the next opportunity. When discussion on the page turned towards a consensus to a minimal statement MONGO made no objection. MONGO then inserted a much longer statement against the emerged consensus without any discussion - and of course edit warred to keep it. I'm sure other editors could provide evidence (and may already have) of this behavior.

The first is an indisputable part of the Arbcom records. The second doesn't seem to be disputed either, when it is brought up his supporters simply talk past it and/or blame the other parties. But how many different parties have attempted ANI discussion, or RfC, or RFAR with MONGO? It's ALWAYS the other party.

Rebuttal of Tom Harrison

First, this is not about content, it is about user behavior. What actually happens on that policy page is an entire side issue. Second, any progress being made on the talk page is for appearances only, as we have seen multiple times. The NPA policy page gets protected by edit warring. The talk page becomes active and the BADSITES crowd says they can work together. The page gets unprotected. Everyone else says "we think this minimal statement provides all we need" and nobody disagrees. The BADSITES crowd stops talking. A week later MONGO places an entire new section into the policy without any previous discussion. The BADSITES crowd revert wars to maintain it with no talk page discussion. The page is re-protected. This cycle has now occurred multiple times and there is no evidence the cycle will not continue if the bad behavior of edit warring and ignorance of previous discussion is allowed to continue.

Comment to Newyorkbrad

This arbcom filing is unlikely to assist with any aspect of the problem if the problem is seen as the NPA policy page revert war. That is not the problem, the problem is MONGO's continued incivility and insults to other users, and edit warring and lack of discussion for his version of content. Arbcom would do well to ignore the battleground where this is occurring and focus on the behavior of those involved. The actual content can resolve itself when bad behavior is addressed.

SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Let me just say that if this case is accepted, I hope the focus will include the actions of all involved users. That's why I also think the title of this request is a bit unfortunate, to say the least. |dorftrottel |humor me 18:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping that the arbitration committee will indeed examine all parties. I am considering adding one or two more names to this case in the next 24 hours. As far as some other comments here...yes, I do think we are nearing a more adequate wording on the NPA policy in the wording primarily regarding external links, and no, I'm not engaged in any subterfuge in conversations there. I have made it clear that I do not believe that a few websites need to be linked to, but have stated that I also understand that the prolinks or WP:LINKLOVE crowd will not permit that to be acceptable in wording. I understand some, such as Alecmconroy, have long argued, for over a year now that we should link to almost everything, and I can understand his reasoning for that, but I don't agree with it and have stated this plainly. A few days ago, I added a new wording to the NPA page that didn't mention anything about websites...it mentioned only links to harassment...I then posted a short comment on the NPA talkpage and have been engaged (as I have been for some time, though not everyday) in ongoing discussions there. I then did one revert back to my version after I was reverted...so no, I did not violate my self imposed 1RR restriction on that page. I also want to state that some, but certainly not all WP:LINKLOVE advocates are participants in websites that have been known to engage in less than useful critique of our contributors. I see this as a COI when they then make arguments in favor of linking. Others have stated that they feel I may be overreactionary due to my previous (and ongoing, mind you) harassment by one website in particular and/or previously banned editors...and that I also have a COI whenever I discuss such matters...maybe this is the case, I do not know...I do try to remain clear headed as much as possible on this matter, though it may not always appear that way. My primary purpose on this website is to write and enhance our articles and I have proven that numerous times. I do get involved in several other issues as they arise, but there are generally peripheral to my main focus. I have been called on to help work on difficult areas and those areas do have a tendency to draw out the worst in all of us.--MONGO (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to add that Alecmconroy is a very problematic editor, who has repeatedly threatened me with being banned from this website...as if HE has that authority. The level of harassment I have had to endure at the hands of this editor needs to be examined. He has called me a liar repeatedly, has badgered me about the ED website links I removed, and has mischaracterized my contributions and commentary. He has been dead set on "getting me" for some time, and I am tired of it. I hope that the committee allows him to get his chance, and also allows me to demostrate what kind of editor would make so many wild accusations, threats and insults as Alecmconroy has. This needs to stop. Viridae has abused his admin tools repeatedly and has a number of other violations I can evidence. He is a contributor to wikipedia review and has argued in favor of linking to websites that attack our contributors...that is a COI. SchumckyTheCat has been engaged in a long standing effort to get back at me stemming from old disagreements we had regarding the article that used to exist on ED. He is an admitted ED administrator who has a serious conflict of interest by arguing about linking to websites that attack our contributors....that is a COI. Thomas Basboll is a single purpose account who has, slowly and to our detriment, worked to minimize factual evidence regarding the events surrounding 9/11/2001 and cautiously worded articles to try and minimize the known evidence. He has been a in a long standing feud with me, has filed a RFC and attempted an arbitration case against me in the past, but it was declined. I hope the committee permits him to have his day in court and I hope they examine my evidence of his misuse of the dispute resolution process to gain an advantage in an editing dispute, as well as his ongoing mischaracterizations and POV pushing. Krimpet is a problematic administrator who, after tossing an overly hostile block warning my way, blocked me for the excessive amount of 72 hours solely because I removed her warning from my talkpage...there are other issues regarding this editor that also need to be examined, and the abuse of admin tools I have found as well.--MONGO (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are, in my view, several parts to this dispute.

• The continued pursuit of MONGO by a small group of detractors.
• The constant rehashing of BADSITES, even where the proposal in play is clearly a compromise and not a hard-line anti link position
• An element of "We disagree with this editor but he won't shut up"
• A failure of some presumably well-intentioned people to understand the real effects of harassment (see Dan's "rutabaga" comment in the attack sites arbitration)
• A goodly dollop of trolling from single-purpose accounts and sockpuppets of sundry undesirables
• The continued pursuit of MONGO by a small group of detractors.

Especially the first and the last. I'd say that the anti-BADSITES people have developed a siege mentality and are having difficulty breaking out of it. Not too surprising.

It's not unreasonable to describe Miltopia as an ED contributor - he was. He's also banned for disruption, in case we all forgot. The fact that he was so adept at pushing MONGO's buttons was a good part of that. Perhaps if people stopped pushing MONGO's buttons, life might be a little quieter?

Nineteen edits over six months? Slightly below one a week? Not exactly a fast burning edit war, and the edits are not all the same. I'd say that with a bit more patience a consensus will be reached, but I am an optimist.

But here is a question: what should we do about people who, by sheer obduracy, cause others to lose their temper? Guy (Help!) 23:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have had nothing to do with the WP:NPA debate, the BADSITES debate, ED, or Wikipedia Review. I have had past experience with MONGO and observed some of the editing patterns outlined by other users above. As I have argued before, MONGO has made very large contributions to this project which should not be forgotten or ignored. There are, however, also severe problems with his behavior that come up repeatedly in forum after forum (ArbCom, RFC's, AN/I) and are pointed out by a significant number of editors in good standing. The issue is not, as JzG argues rather cheekily, the "continued pursuit of MONGO by a small group of detractors" anymore than it is the "continued defense of MONGO by a mid-sized group of supporters" (likewise while I agree it would be nice if fewer people pushed MONGO's buttons, it would also be nice if MONGO had fewer buttons to push). The issue is MONGO's persistent incivility--something which, I think, very few people deny. That incivility is sometimes directed at users who are admittedly quite problematic and sometimes directed at perfectly legitimate users with whom he disagrees. Whatever the cause and whoever is on the receiving end, his behavior is a significant distraction from writing the encyclopedia and a clear violation of a core policy which applies to all users regardless of the extent and value of their past contributions (both of which are, again, very significant in MONGO's case).

In an unrelated ArbCom case which closed exactly one month ago, evidence was presented which seemed to clearly demonstrate a problematic pattern of incivility on MONGO's part. Perhaps because it was deemed tangential to the central question of whether or not another user was violating a ban (or because the evidence was presented by said user, who was indeed violating a ban), the committee chose not to directly address the issue of MONGO's behavior, which is the only reason I bring it up here. Unsurprisingly, the problem has come up once more in a completely different part of the encyclopedia involving completely different users. I would hope that the committee deals with the issue now, lest it crop up yet again in one, two, or six months.

Because I'm familiar with it I have confined my comment to MONGO's behavior, but of course it goes without saying that the behavior of other editors in this dispute may well warrant equal scrutiny--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not endorse brusque behavior by any editor. That said, Viridae's request for arbitration largely hinges on a questionable interpretation of WP:NPA. Surely that policy is not intended as a cudgel to silence legitimate WP:COI concerns. There is a commonsense problem when editors from two websites that host blatant insults of Wikipedians engage in a long term campaign to weaken Wikipedia's external linking policy, then utilize their preferred policy version to link to insulting material of little or no encyclopedic value. Although the principle of free expression gained some broader support during the BADSITES discussions, that principle ceases to drive their reasoning when the question turns to free expression for MONGO. What takes its place is a very hard line WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA applied with a selectivity that demonstrates genuine chutzpah. If the Committee accepts this case I urge the examination of all involved parties' conduct. Durova^Charge! 08:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to Thatcher's comments, in my eyes it's less a matter of whether certain individuals actually create such links themselves and more a contrast of the extremely lenient WP:NPA scope they extend toward those who do, versus the extremely stringent WP:NPA interpretation they advance regarding those who oppose the practice. It simply isn't tenable to endorse inconsistent policy interpretations that ensure one person gets baited, then hold him solely responsible for taking the bait. Taking bait is wrong, no question about that. So is the creation of an unequal playing field. Durova^Charge! 20:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Viridae's quotation from WP:NPA stands in direct opposition to the Conflict of interest guidelines. If we consider the external affiliations of editors who make content edits that violate the principles of neutrality, verifiability, and so on, then can't we also consider the external affiliations of editors who make policy changes that are driven by those affiliations? That said, if this case is accepted I would like to see evidence that Viridae and Dtobias actually have introduced harassing links under the umbrella of their preferred version of the links policy, as opposed to assertions that they intend to do so. Thatcher131 12:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was added to this RfArb despite minimal involvement, but here is my perspective. From what I can tell, there are some admins and contributors from vicious attack sites that regularly engage in attacking, harassing, and attempted outing of Wikipedia editors. That these individuals are actually allowed to edit on this site is unacceptable to me, as their promotion of their external attacks clearly violates WP:NPA and WP:COI. They appear to have taken charge as a group of WP:NPA, and prohibit any change in its language to inhibit linking to the material on their attack sites, as a form of harassing our editors here. They also regularly bait User:Mongo, who has been viciously attacked by one of their sites in the past, and who is valiantly trying to hold off their gradual dilution of the NPA policy. This situation is appalling, requires action, and I hope ArbCom can act to bring it to an end. Crum375 (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My involvement in this case stems from my participation in the NPA discussion and more specifically, the external links debate about what language should be included. I admittedly came late to the "party" but I immediately saw something wrong with the language that was trying to be inserted into the paragraph (this was, and still is, my opinion until all my questions are answered in a straight forward manner). I had a problem with the content and no issue with any particular editor. I stayed out of the debate until I saw the attacks based on "who" was inserting "what" instead of "what". The core part of NPA and we state it boldly at the top of the page is "Comment on the content, not the contributor." and ironically enough, this was most certainly not being done in discussion of the language at WT:NPA.

I am not going to link the same paragraphs as above as that would be rehashing old news. My concerns stem from the recent re-addition of the language without discussion and the subsequent actions by a few people on the side wishing to insert the language back into the article. This starts on or about October 31st where both sides of the debate, including MONGO, agreed to a version of the language to be included. This calmed tensions and it seemed the issue was finally settled after 6 months of debate. The NPA page was unprotected, the agreed upon language was inserted and two weeks of peace and calm pass with no incidents relating to this surfaced, were discussed on ANI or other noticeboards, etc. (and none have been provided by those wishing to insert the language). On November 15th, MONGO claimed WP:BOLD and added back in a reworded version of the same language that was the heart of the dispute for nearly six months. This reignited tensions as those on each side started debate all anew.

We now are at a standstill again with the same issues that were debated for six months, a NPA page protected, and some people flinging accusations all around. All throughout the recent NPA debate, one side has tried to frame the other as supporting links to harassment , commenting not on the content but the affiliations of those who are involved in the debate, accusing the other side of harassment, accusing the other side of trolling, etc. The other has asked good faith questions of which some have been answered, some answered vaguely, and others ignored. Based on the prior behavior in this debate and the edits that triggered the new edit war, an RfC was filed on MONGO because of the behavior displayed during the past six months of this issue that may or may not continue into the future, not to gain an upper hand in the debate on the NPA issue. I participated in the RfC mainly because of the manner of which the text was reinserted. WP:BOLD states that editors should act bold (revert and discuss to follow). People who act bold often fail to read the rest of the guideline. The rest states, "… but don't be reckless. ... The admonition "but do not be reckless" is especially important in other namespaces." with the last portion from "Non-Article Namespaces". MONGO is not a stupid person (far from it). He knew this would touch off yet another edit war as the previous version took nearly six months to develop. This is the very definition of disruptive editing.

I have asked questions throughout the current discussion and have yet to have anyone supporting the new text answer this very simple question: "What changed?". This question merely asks what happened in the last two weeks to prompt such a bold change to this very contentious section. Two other important questions have yet to be clearly answered by anyone supporting the inclusion of the next text are "What is deficient about the previous version?" and "What situation would the previous version allow and the proposed version not?". I can't speak for others but I have been discussing in good faith with the other editors despite their very blatant display of lack of good faith. Few have even asked us why people are objecting to the wording. They are spending their time attacking the contributors through direct comment and by attempting to frame the debate as those who support linking to harassment versus those bravely standing in their way^[36]. I can't speak for others but I am trying to get a clearer picture of what is going on to prompt this change from the previously agreed upon version and getting mud and other brown substances flung at me in the process.

This leads me to the fiasco that was and is the RfC. I have participated and brought good faith issues to the table as well as Alec and others. Others have called the actions and those who brought forth and certified the RfC:

• "harassers" or the RfC constituted harassment: [37],[38],[39],[40],[41],[42],
• "baiting" [43],[44]

And this in my opinion is the most disgusting comment of all^[45] :

“	This RFC has been useful only insofar as it provides us list of all the ED-aligned nogoodniks who need to be watched and dealt with. Thanks!	”
— FeloniousMonk

This absolutely shows the lack of good faith by some users in this whole process. By the very definition of WP:NPA, this is a comment that this person is basing their judgment not on what content and comments people provide but the comm enters themselves. The fact that this came from an Admin shocks me to the core. Clear evidence has been provided. Dispute resolution has been tried. One side has consistently mocked the process and the contributors while others tried to resolve differences without resorting to this ArbCom. It is very telling when people jumped into the RfC and supported the two positions that this is harassment and to have it closed immediately also did not support the most common sense item that every Wikipedian should stand for^[46]:

“	Civility, and No Personal Attacks, if they are to be meaningful, must be applied in an evenhanded manner. The fact that somebody has made great contributions to Wikipedia, and/or has lots of friends, does not give them a blank check to be uncivil and abusive and then dismiss all criticisms of their behavior as "harassment". Conversely, the fact that somebody is less well-liked does not give anybody else a blank check to engage in namecalling aimed at them; not even banned users should be publicly attacked as "moronic trolls" or such. Somebody who is insistent that parts of NPA be enforced strictly or strengthened should be especially careful not to violate other parts of it themselves; he who is without sin should throw the first stone.	”
— *Dan T*

I am here to edit an encyclopedia. I have stated the principals I believe. I have even codified why I believe WP is here and why I am here in the first place on my user page. I want to be able to edit in peace without worrying that even good faith actions will be acted upon by those hellbent on purging WP of every last item and person they do not like. It is clear that ArbCom needs to deal with this issue and the behavior of more than just MONGO.

Addendum 1

Crum375's statement reinforces my statement through example. He is not commenting on the content but on the contributors of the content both on WT:NPA and here as well. I have never been involved with the ED cases nor ED itself (except as a reader to familiarize myself with all the background on this issue). Crum375 continues to lump myself and Alec into this group when I have expressed what my true concerns are (the content of this encyclopedia).

I'm away on vacation for this (American) Thanksgiving week, and had intended to make it a more-or-less "Wikibreak" as well; not the somewhat pompous sort where I would make a long "goodbye and good riddance" rant (and soon be back anyway), but just a decision to quietly cut back my participation here (especially in politically-sensitive areas) because doing so has such a tendency to get me angry, and anger is not a good emotion to have while you're participating in a cooperative venture.

However, I seem to be dragged into this thing here, so I'd better make some sort of a statement. I don't need to say much, since others have made my point pretty well already (including even bringing in some of my own prior statements). The point here is not to rehash or reargue the BADSITES debate; that's the subject of a recently concluded ArbCom case and we certainly don't need another one. And the point is not to "harass" MONGO or anybody else; calmly discussing whether somebody's behavior is helpful or harmful to the project is not harassment. People keep saying that I cheapen the concept of harassment by the things I've done to ridicule BADSITES, but I think others are doing a fine job of it themselves when they apply the label to any instance of somebody saying something they don't wish to hear. Even a discussion on the mailing list of whether it might be desirable ever to have an article about Encyclopedia Dramatica, should appropriately reliable sources for its notability emerge, has been labeled as "harassment" of MONGO despite his not being either a subject or a participant of this discussion. Clearly, the concept has been stretched very far.

To answer some other points alluded to above, I don't believe that I've added any links (in recent months since BADSITES became a big issue) to the so-called "attack sites" in question (save for, in a few cases, reverting what I considered unjustified deletion of links others had added, usually in very old archives). A long time ago, I sometimes linked to those sites for the purpose of ridiculing them (I sometimes used names like "Wiki Whiners" to describe them); this is not the most civil of attitudes for me to have taken, and not necessarily anything to be proud of, but it wasn't aimed at Wikipedians, but at the anti-Wikipedia sites and the people on them. Saying that my opposition on principle to BADSITES and anything like it is out of desire to link to this stuff for the purpose of harassment is a huge and unjustified stretch, especially since I supported the wording in NPA that explicitly said that linking for the purpose of harassing is wrong and prohibited. MONGO also supported that wording, so I ask too "What changed since then?"

If anybody thinks I'm taking the position "I'm right; I'm perfect; Those other guys are wrong and bad!", then far from it. I know I'm imperfect. You don't have to dredge up old mailing list postings of mine to show it, as some have; I know that I've said and done things that don't live up to the high ideals I sometimes preach. Maybe I'm not the one to "throw the first stone". But somebody ought to look, in a fair and evenhanded manner, at the behavior of MONGO and some of his friends... and also at the behavior of his enemies and opponents... yes, at mine too. I really hope it can be accomplished without anybody getting banned (no, I'm not seeking a ban for MONGO), since there's been way too much banning going on lately. The concept recently being promulgated from up high (originating with Jimbo himself) to ban for "low-level trolling", a vague and subjective concept that can cover any activity that is found annoying by people of higher status than the one being examined, is a very disquieting thing and puts everyone in fear that they'll be the next to bear the brunt of it. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't have any interest in getting further involved with this dispute. I seem to have been added to this case because I protected WP:NPA after the last revert war. There's been a lot of immaturity and lack of decorum on both sides of this dispute, and I really wish people could grow up, stop the personal attacks and mindless edit warring, and work together on forming a policy acceptable to the entire community. --krimpet⟲ 19:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided that it simply isn't worth investing my diminishing sanity in another round of this and am therefore rescinding my statement. Mangoe (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm frankly appalled at the reasons being given for rejecting this case, because as far as I can see rejecting this case is authorization for more drama, not less. Yes, NPA was developing a consensus; but this whole incident arose because MONGO charged in, ignored that consensus, and simply put the whole thing, text and discussion, to back before the whole BADSITES case. If that's OK, then the matter is doomed to be a perpetual battle. And if it's OK, and MONGO manages to swing things around to his POV, then it is OK for me to BOLDly drag the text back to the current-consensus version, without regard to the huge fight that will undoubtedly ensue. Mangoe (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea what all the fuss and fighting is over. I suspect that the Committee is for the most part equally ignorant on this, for Wikipedia policy on attacks is quite clear, whether we have it written down or not. We don't permit Wikipedians to attack one another on the wiki, and it doesn't matter what weapons they choose to use for the purpose: whether by direct accusation, by sly innuendo, or by reference to purported external information of a venomous rather than informative nature, whether vaguely adumbrated or directly quoted. It would be sensible to adopt this case for the sole purpose of reiterating this policy, however obvious it may seem. --Tony Sidaway 22:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that I've been misread. If this case is to be taken, it's solely to reiterate that this is a policy matter and a very strong one too. We're not helping ourselves by turning these necessary discussions into conduct disputes. The Committee really does need to give guidance here. I think that's unavoidable. Attack policy should be dictated if that's what it takes to kill the drama. --Tony Sidaway 23:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My experience with MONGO in other contexts (see MONGO 2 RfC)suggests that arbitration is probably necessary. The RFCs that have dealt with his behaviour (and the editing controversies that these have resulted from) have the distinct appearance of a battleground. This is no doubt not MONGO's fault alone; he has allies and enemies to share the blame with. The result so far has been that neutral editors, i.e., those who are neither friend nor foe, have been pushed off the articles, and often after being unfairly lumped into one or another camp. I have long hoped that ArbCom would take a stand on this problem. In my opinion, Wikipedia does not need a "war against trolls". Right now, however, that's what we've got. MONGO may ostensibly be on the "right" side, but he is not likely to win a peace.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 08:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: The above was written before MONGO added me to the list of involved parties. If the scope of this arbitration is in fact to be extended then the MONGO 2 RfC should probably also be counted as a previous attempt to resolve the dispute [update: Alecmconroy has now done so--Thomas Basboll (talk) 11:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)]. At that time, a number of us certainly did raise concerns about MONGO's incivility along similar lines as the MONGO 3 RfC. As in this case, we had a hard time getting commentators to concentrate on the behaviour itself rather than the issues that occasioned it, and the targets it was directed at.[reply]

His defenders argued mainly that, given the targets, his sometimes (regrettably) aggresive posture was generally warranted. MONGO himself maintained that he "had done nothing to warrant" the RfC, which struck me as odd because surely the act of requesting comments is not itself punitive. The RFC in any case closed with the following diplomatic summary: "MONGO should please refrain from being overtly rude to vandals, POV-pushers and trolls, however richly they may deserve it, but as complaints go this one has no legs." Whether or not I richly deserved to be treated rudely was left a bit vague, though I got the sense that I was thought of mainly as unavoidable collateral damage in a noble and at times somewhat epic struggle.

It should be emphasized that if the summary had said simply "MONGO should stop being rude to editors he thinks are vandals, POV-pushers, or trolls, regardless of whether he is right to think so" (a rather small difference in wording) it would have granted my complaint pretty much all the legs it desired (though "rude" is a bit of understatement). If the Arbitration Committee could make a statement to that effect in this case (with some sort of enforcement to back it up) Wikipedia would certainly become more enjoyable for serious editors and, I suspect, less fun for vandals and trolls. MONGO's approach to conflict (whatever the issue may be, it seems) simply encourages drama.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the committe should take Tony Sidaway's recommendation. Rejecting this case will not prevent drama, it will most likely put the drama elsewhere for a short time before it comes here again. There is a adage that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. It applies to this dispute in two different metaphorical senses. Unless experienced editors take on board the notion that "Civility and no personal attacks begins with me and those I agree with" and the old warning about removing the beam in our own eye before working on the mote in someone else's we are going to have problems. GRBerry 18:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly predictably, we now have an example of the drama to point at. [47] followed by [48], and later discussion here GRBerry 22:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking my self imposed wiki-silence to simply state that this case goes to the root of why I withdrew from taking an active role in Wikipedia. The Project has lost many more productive contributors because of the actions of a small group of over-bearing and over-zealous admin. And while this group of admin have been an aid to the project, their continued aggressive and anti-social behaviors have far outweighed their contributions.

It is hard to understand an arbitration committee that would punt this case when it could be solved by such a simple and clear finding. The Civility policy applies to all contributors of the project, regardless of their standing in the project, and that such behavior by an admin will result in suspension of their admin powers at the least. Admin who become overheated may benefit from some time to cool down. Admin who habitually break the fundamental policies of the project should not be Admin.

I firmly repeat my reasons for leaving the project, that a clique of admin kept up a line of hostility and zealotry that made contributing to the project unbearable. Wikipedia as a community has tolerated, and in some cases fostered, bullying. To be frank, a project designed to inform and educate can not succeed when it's run by people acting like immature school children. The arbitrators who have voted to refuse this case have failed their responsibility to protect the project, and are fostering further 'drama' and bullying.

Again, I will not contribute to this project until the tolerance for bullying and incivility has ceased. --Barberio (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After working out the numerics of the vote due to the 'four net votes' rule, there is no way this case can ever be accepted with the current active members so long as a minority of three holdouts refuse the case. Even if every other active member of the committee votes to accept, this case would not be accepted as there would not be sufficient 'net votes'.

This is a simply abhorrent state of affairs, and I appeal to the common decency of the committee members. Rule by minority because of manipulation of the rules, to protect the clique of administrators who want immunity from the civility policy, would be a grave and probably mortal blow to the project.

Failing that, I appeal to the community. Please reject the arbitration policy as failed if a minority of committee members can game the system this way. And just to make it clear. Yes, I am questioning the competence of this Arbitration Committee, to have let things get to this point. --Barberio (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am appalled at Matthew Brown's statement. As I read it, this amounts to a threat of taking action against people who ask the arbitration committee to do their job! --Barberio (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tony Sidaway and GRBerry. There is a general perception that civility applies differently to long time experienced users than it does to others. It is important for the committee to clarify if this is the case. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some people are harrassing MONGO. Yes, that is a problem. But how MONGO reacts to the harrassing is also a problem. Even when people are not harrassing him, when people want to communicate with him in good faith, he thinks they are harrassing him. He makes a lot of personal attacks and gets into edit wars. We must stop him or he will cause more drama in other places. We must also deal with those who harrass him. So ArbCom, please accept this case. --Kaypoh (talk) 03:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is something wrong. MONGO has been blocked for a total of 2 hours, 15 minutes, 1 second since June 2005, yet it appears to be acknowledged that he has a long history of disruptive editing, whether or not he was "provoked" being irrelevant.

Considering the amount of disruption revolving around MONGO, I was surprised to see that his block record is the following:

1. June 8, 2005 - blocked for 24 hours - [49] [50]
2. June 25, 2005 - blocked for 15 minutes - [51]
3. September 24, 2006 - blocked for 12 hours [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] - unblocked 1 hour later[57]
4. September 27, 2006 - blocked for 1 second - [58]
5. February 21, 2007 - blocked for 24 hours [59] [60][61] [62] - unblocked 20 minutes later [63] [64][65][66][67]
6. October 17, 2007 - blocked for 72 hours[68] - unblocked 30 minutes later[69] - ANI "discussion" - [70]

Since June 2005, MONGO has been blocked 5 times. Not counting the first block of 24 hours in June 2005, MONGO has been blocked for a total of two hours 15 minutes, 1 second.

My attempt to understand this under "Discussion" in the RfC was used by at least one admin to attack another editor and only one editor's answer was responsive to my concern.

It appears that it is not possible to block MONGO regardless of his behavior. If the Arbcom is going to reject the case, as seems to be the situation at this point in time, then there must be a means of interrupting MONGO's uncivil and disruptive behavior when needed and to treat him as other editors are treated rather than as a perennial "special case". Otherwise, Wikipedia is without viable means to stop his edit-warring, personally attacking behavior , given the history above that a block never lasts more that 1/2 hour. I am not understanding how the current state of affairs is helpful to Wikipedia. Mattisse 15:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there have been:

1. Likely violation of wikipedia policy (as Arbcom members have stated), and
2. There are a lot of editors who want this case to go forward...

• Why is the Arbcom hesitating to accept this case?

This is the only reason I can personally figure out:

Many members of the Arbitration committee are loathe to upset the community again by sanctioning Mongo further.

I really don't blame the Arbcom for not taking this case. No wikipedian would ever want the same condemnation of the same dozens of influential wikipedians who condemned the incredibly unpopular Mongo desop.

As I write this, despite the rule violations on all sides, no arbitor seems to want to be the pivotal fourth arbitrator to accept this case.

So like the US Supreme Court often does with incredibly controversial and explosive issues, the arbitration committee may well "punt" by voting to not take this case, and let the "mob" hopefully solve the problem. Jim Wales may simply ban the ED editors. Admins may eventually block or ban both parties, and the Arbcom avoids upsetting influential fellow wikipedians.

Travb (talk) 07:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could the filing party please clarify how Dtobias and GTBacchus, who are listed as parties, are involved? Picaroon (t) 03:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both have been attacked by MONGO in the same manner as he has attacked Alec and myself, attacking their affiliations. Viridae^Talk 03:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject. I'm certainly not comfortable with some of the language used; robust debate is OK, but everyone should be aware that edged weapons of rhetoric do not build consensus. On the other hand, we all know that the basic issue has been very divisive, and yet a working consensus of the place of WP:NPA in the context of external linking and WP:HARASS seems to be emerging. This is what the ArbCom would prefer, to having to intervene again to deal with ad hominem arguments (which are not always fallacious). Charles Matthews (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Mongo's behaviour has been problematic. Paul August ☎ 20:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. This endless infighting needs to stop, voluntarily or otherwise. Kirill 20:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Echo Charles's comments, but sadly I feel that appealing to that participants not to attack each other will fail to work. James F. (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject per Charles. Our main mission is to decrease disruption so that folks can go about their work here. I don't think opening another case on this topic will help us achieve this mission, instead it will promote more drama. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject per Charles and Flo. Pure drama dance. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject per Charles, Flo, Jpgordon; note that if the drama does not stop all involved editors may be subject to sanction in future if they have gone too far. Consider this a final warning from me. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Place requests for clarification on matters related to the Arbitration process in this section. Place new requests at the top.

Can the Arbitration committee please clarify their position on the application of these policies. There seems to be notable general feeling that past rulings by the committee have set precedent that 'Standing', ie history of contributions and administrative work, can be used as mitigation for incivil behavior and personal attacks against other editors. Specifically, I ask if 'Standing' can be used as defense even if past history indicates the editor will continue to make personal attacks and other disruptive incivility, something that policy indicates should result in preventative block. --Barberio (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Standing" should obviously have no effect on findings of fact. Our custom is to allow standing to affect any remedy. If "remedy" is taken literally - the AC actually does try to fix up situations - it should be clear why that is. The process is not punitive, but has regard to the work going on daily on the site. Analogy with criminal proceedings can mislead. If you are asking whether the AC should apply remedies it knows in advance are likely to fail, the answer is "no"; though of course we are allowed to take a more optimistic view than self-appointed prosecutors. And mixing in policy is an odd thing here; certain kinds of disruption are within the remit of any admin, quite independent of what the AC says. But it is true that an AC case ought to be considered to have 'dealt with' past history, given in evidence. After all, blocking productive editors is a loss to the project. Generally it is not that helpful if ancient incidents are brought up against people. Charles Matthews (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply, however I'm not sure you clarified the point I was asking about. I find your statement that "certain kinds of disruption are within the remit of any admin" very confusing.

You also seem to contradict the policy by saying past history of personal attacks should not be considered. To quote WP:NPA : "Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered 'disruption'. Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment. A block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks." This seems to me clear indication that someone with an obvious past history of personal attacks, who makes no effort or only token efforts to reform, and continues to make personal attacks may be blocked as a preventative measure regardless of their 'standing'.

I'm not entirely sure if you are saying that an editor who habitually makes personal attacks, and thus could be preventively blocked, can be a productive editor. It would seem to me that such an editor is being counter-productive. --Barberio (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The statement about admins is consistent with what you quoted from policy, no? "Recurring" needs sensible interpretation; once a week, yes, if you go back six months, no. Admins do have some discretion here; blocks for disruption are always in some measure judgement calls. You asked how the AC sees it, and I am of course speaking for myself here. But the AC tends to work from principles, not detailed policy wording (which is always very much subject to mission creep). "Preventive" blocking; I think we'd not be happy to see indefinite blocks, but "cooling off" blocks are within admin discretion, assuming they are proportionate to the situation. On your last point, it seems clear that some productive editors do also indulge in personal attacks. There is no "entitlement"; what actually happens is that the AC is only happy to take cases on this alone (loudmouth stuff) when there is something fairly definite to point to. One final point is that civility paroles are a standard remedy, which the AC will use in cases (and if we don't, it is some indication). Charles Matthews (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This raises the question of someone who after being warned about Personal Attacks, 'cleans up their act' for six months, but then reverts back to making personal attacks with signs they will continue. By your standard, we should not consider their history as it's 'the far past'. It is notable that application of 'civility parole' could lead to cases of this type arising where the editor returns to bad behavior some time after the period of parole is over.

This is explicitly not the standard that is applied to other cases of disruptive behavior such as edit waring. In those cases past history has been considered when an editor reverts to that behavior and appears ready to continue doing so. I'm confused as to why you feel this should not be applied to NPA and civility?

I'm afraid I must strongly disagree with you on your point that 'productive editors' may engage in personal attacks. By definition, productive editors are those who make contributions to the project. Making personal attacks significantly and strongly detracts from the project. Editors who are making personal attacks are not productive members of the project, and shouldn't be treated as if they are. A plumber who unclogs my toilet, repairs my shower, fixes my sink, then smashes all my windows; was not being productive. --Barberio (talk) 11:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) That's anyway not what I said. I said there is no entitlement to be incivil, whatever an editor's contribution. And you were asking about the AC's collective view, which I have tried to explain. Personally I'm a hawk on incivility - I always vote for civility parole remedies, as you could see from my voting record. I would answer your point by saying simply that the AC's real expertise is in the field of editor behaviour. We are expected to take everything into account, case-by-case. Your hypothetical plumber would be a vandalism case, not an incivility case. We are expected to place decisions in some sort of framework. That's what the principles are for. There are some relevant principles, but not what you are saying. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to restate, or link to, those principles you feel express the opinion of the ArbCom on this issue? --Barberio (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm requesting a review on my placement under supervision by User:Ryan Postlethwaite for the following reason. The AA2 remedy #2 states: "Any editor who edits articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility may be placed under several editing restrictions." Ryan Postletwaite claims that "Although I don't see any incivility, the scope of the remedy was supposed to cover disruption via incivility or edit warring". I don't see the word OR, which Ryan felt so strong about that he made it appear bold.

This is what Thatcher131 told me month ago: "So far, no admin including myself has found that you yourself have edited these articles in an "aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility" and so you have not yet been placed under the restrictions described here. Thatcher131 01:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)"[71]

Am I being compared to E104421 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Previously indef banned for edit warring, who was simultaneously edit warring with me and another user [72], [73], [74], . Who breached WP:3RR [75], [76], [77], [78], Who kept insisting (by reverting) that its gonna be his way and no other? even by reverting my minor edits [79]. Who generally disregarded the talkpage and is yet to give justification for most of his POV reverts. Was I wrong, when I tried to compromise and only reverted partially? Was I wrong when I tried to keep the article as neutral as possible? As I said before, even though I was not under the restriction and supervised editing, I never reverted without justification, always explained and justified my edits in the talkpage. Most importantly my edits were not marked by incivility.

In fear of turning this board into another "he said she said" I request that only administrators respond to this request. VartanM (talk) 05:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration remedies are not meant to be carte blanche for administrators unless they explicitly provide for such authority. Ryan's interpretation of the decision here is incorrect; the remedy is applicable only to cases where the editor is incivil. Kirill 05:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about many other users, such as User:Aynabend and User:Baku87, who were placed on parole without any prior warning, while they both had a clean block log and never made any incivil comments? I don't think E104421 was incivil either. Both VartanM and E104421 were placed on parole for edit warring on Shusha article, since they made 3rvs each. VartanM had a previous official warning from another admin to stop edit warring, otherwise he would be placed on parole [80]. So I think we need a clarification here. Can admins place users on parole for just edit warring, or they need to be engaged in both edit warring and incivility to be placed on parole? If the latter, then parole of some users has to be lifted. Grandmaster (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Krill for a super fast reply. Grandmaster the answer to your question is most probably that they need to personally come here and make their case. Assuming good faith on GM's part for ignoring my kind request. Good night to all. VartanM (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need to clarify the general principle of application of this remedy. If it applies only for incivilty, then User:E104421, User:Aynabend and User:Baku87 should be all relieved of it, since they never violated any civility rules, and the latter 2 editors have no previous blocks, warnings, etc, unlike User:VartanM. Grandmaster (talk) 09:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill, User:VartanM is violating Users national background and neutrality principle by engaging in edit warring and POV pushing across several articles without restriction. We are yet to see how you address that by giving him a green light to continue doing what he is doing. And if VartanM's behavior was not marked by incivility, then how did the ArbCom address these [81], several counts of incivility not ever supervised, restricted or paroled? And if the VartanM's continuous editing conduct allows for interpretation against supervised editing, then how would supervised editing apply in case of the other user User:E104421, whose edits were not incivil. Based on POV pushed by User:VartanM throughout Wikipedia without any review or restriction, and paroles being deliberately applied only to contributors of certain one side, lifting the supervised editing is a delibreate violation of neutrality. Atabek (talk) 09:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And why does VartanM cross out administrator's decision [82] when this should be done either by administrator or arbitrator? Atabek (talk) 09:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The ArbCom notice reads: "Notice: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, any editor who edits articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility may be placed under several editing restrictions, by notice on that editor's talk page." I edited the Shusha article for the first time yesterday. I did not edited in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility. I provided sources, cited the references, commented on the talk pages and edit summaries. On the other hand, VartanM deleted the new section, references and quotatins on "cultural life" added by myself from cited references. VartanM's POV is focused on my previous block-log due to my long term conflicts with Tajik on Nomadic Empires related topics. My last block is dated 1 April 2007. That case was closed. I edited for the first time an Az-Ar related topic in my life (just 4 times + 1 minor spell check), but it's claimed that i have history of Az-Ar related topics. Now, i was placed under the parole, but VartanM's parole is removed. What kind of double standard is this? Deletion of referenced material constantly is not regarded as edit-warring, but addition of "new section and references" are claimed to be edit-warring. What happened to the basic Wikipedia policies: "WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:DR"? Regards. E104421 (talk) 10:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks Kiril for the response here. I was under the impression that this remedy tried to stop disruption in all forms (i.e. edit warring or incivility) due to the history of editing on these pages. Whilst I see that both users here have edit warred on the pages, I fail to see any incivility coming from them, so unless there's evidence of that, I'll remove both names from the supervised editing log. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both User:Aynabend and User:Baku87 were placed under the same parole for a single page edit and without any incivility cited. So please, review their paroles as well. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed Baku87 and VartanM for now - I'll wait for a response from the administrators that put E104421 and Aynabend under supervised editing before removing their names. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ryan. Atabek (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill, if I get this right, the remedy implies that the editors are free to edit war on topic related articles as long as they remain civil? If not, what the arbcom remedy proposes to stop edit wars, which were the reason to 2 arbcom cases in the first place? Thanks. Grandmaster (talk) 05:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I share a similar concern with this remedy. Given the scale of the disruption on this topic, I don't think it's a good idea that users must be incivil with edit warring. Edit warring is disruptive on its own and this does seem to advocate edit warring on the pages provided that the users remain civil. I think when a case like this goes to arbitration twice, administrators should be given a little bit more freedom to interpret decisions because per the clarification from Kirill yesterday, I've had to remove five names from the supervised editing list that should all most probably have had their editing placed under supervision, but can't because of a technicality. In many ways it seems it's a way to game the system. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last month I requested a RfC on the apparent arbitrary extensions of the powers that the RfA Armenia-Azerbaijan2 remedy created. Being out of the country for 4 weeks, I did not have the opportunity to see its result. Where (if anywhere?) would the archive of that discussion material be stored? I must point out to the initiator of this RfC, that remedy 2 does not actually contain the words he has quoted. The fact that it does not, was the crux of my RfC. Meowy 18:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On November 11, the main elements of the ruling Everyking 3, first imposed two years prior, expired. However, an AN discussion followed in which two arbitrators (Raul654 and Jpgordon) denied that some elements of the ruling had expired (remedies 5 and "X"), on the basis that those elements were not listed by name as expiring this November in the amended ruling of July 2006. However, I think that, because the amended ruling says that my previous restrictions (those imposed in November 2005) expire in November 2007, this logically must include everything that was imposed in November 2005, because it did not provide for any exceptions.

(The following, which could be interpreted as a violation of one of the prohibitions claimed to still be in effect, was approved for posting on WP:RFAR by Raul654.)

One of the prohibitions which I believe should now be considered expired deals with a certain user with whom I had a series of disagreements in 2005. This user has now left Wikipedia, with a parting message that gives every impression of finality. The practical reason I have sought to have my restrictions removed is not that I want to do the things they prohibit me from doing, but that the restrictions serve as a kind of "scarlet letter", and a case where I am prohibited from discussing or interacting with a user who has left Wikipedia is a perfect example of this: no benefit can come to that user from my restriction, since he has left, but I continue to suffer from the stigma of having that restriction formally applied to me.

I request, therefore, that the ArbCom determine whether the restrictions in question should be considered to have expired or to remain in effect, and if the answer to that is the latter, then I request that the ArbCom lift the restriction described in the previous paragraph. Everyking (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I request that the Committee enact a motion expanding the enforceable remedies in the Dalmatia case. While Giovanni Giove has continued to edit aggressively, he is not alone. Raguseo (talk · contribs) and Aradic-en (talk · contribs) are both relatively new accounts that edit solely on this topic and advance the same Croatian Nationalist POV. In addition, Raguseo has been abusing sockpuppets. Ghepeu (talk · contribs) (Italian side) and Kubura (talk · contribs) (Croatian side), while more experienced editors, have also participated in aggressive biased editing, although to a lesser degree that Giovanni Giove and DIREKTOR. DIREKTOR communicates extensively with Kubura and to a lesser degree with these other editors, frequently in Croatian [83] [84] [85] [86].

I request these additional remedies, patterned on RFAR/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2:

1. Any editor who edits articles related to Dalmatia (broadly construed to include ethnic and nationalist disputes between Italy and Croatia) in an aggressive biased manner may be placed on Supervised Editing and Revert Limitation by any uninvolved administrator. Editors under revert limitation are limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism, and must discuss all reversions on the talk page. Editors on supervised editing may be banned from any or all articles relating to Dalmatia (as above) for aggressive biased editing or incivility. Violations may be enforced by blocks as described. Before any penalty is applied, a warning placed on the editor's user talk page by an administrator shall serve as notice to the user that these remedies apply to them.

Thatcher131 01:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to hold off acting on this for a bit; the current Macedonia case may wind up resulting in restrictions of some sort imposed over the entirety of Balkan topics, which would supersede anything imposed here. Kirill 02:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you'll patrol WP:AE for me, right? Dalmatia topics are going to get messy if Ragueso, Aradic-en, Kubura and Ghepeu are left unencumbered. Thatcher131 03:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further note, Ragueso and Aradic-en 's first edits are just days before the Dalmatia case was accepted, so they missed the case by being too new at the time it was filed. Thatcher131 03:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I need clarification on this instruction. My concern is that the other party has taken this instruction as a license to own articles; do I need to avoid any article he edits, and stop editing whatever articles I edit if he edits them too? As the arbitration came to a close he immediately went to one of the disputed pages and made the exact same changes that I and several other users had been protesting. Is this behavior considered reasonable, and am I expected to just ignore any page he chooses to edit? Or are his actions considered a violation of the spirit of this instruction? csloat 04:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ArbCom instruction was that we are "instructed to refrain from interacting with or commenting about each other in any way." But we might need a formal practical rule on that. So I proposed the following: "I will not edit any articles where you made any edits before me, however minor these edits might be; and you promise do the same with regard to articles I have ever edited." [87]. Is that reasonable? So far I followed exactly this rule. It is easy to see who of us edited an article first. We are both treated equally. This has nothing to do with own, since all remaining WP users are very welcome to edit any article in question. It is not possible to edit the same article without communication. Biophys 20:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not believe that is reasonable; it smacks of ownership of articles. Especially when one party to the arbitration has immediately taken the close of arbitration as a license to return to the extremely objectionable behavior of the recent past. I would like an arbitrator's view on the matter. (I would also like clarification on whether even this particular interaction violates the instruction; I don't think so but it is vague enough that it might). csloat 21:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only said that I am not going to follow edits of another user (as ArbCom requested) and asked for the same in return. If that is not reasonable, some clarification may indeed be needed.Biophys 22:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Biophys proposes is reasonable; neither one of you should edit an article the other is already engaged in editing. Splitting the articles formerly in conflict is somewhat arbitrary. If you guys can live with dividing them by which of you edited them first, that's fine. The alternative—which I suspect will be less to your liking—will be to restrict both of you from editing any article you've been in conflict over in the past (as was done in the WLU-Mystar case). Kirill 04:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only articles where there was a significant problem were Communist terrorism and Operation Sarindar -- I would be ok with the solution that neither of us edits those two articles. csloat 16:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list of articles that we edited both is much longer, including Criticism of Bill O'Reilly, Intelligence Summit, California in focus, and others. So, let's follow the official ArbCom decision as clarified by Kirill. We do not need ArbCom sanctions as in WLU-Mystar case.Biophys 17:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are simply articles you stalked me to -- none of them were articles were we had actual substantive conflicts. I am asking for clarification of the arbitration decision; I think for the two articles named a better solution will be necessary as I have significant substantive problems with your use of original research on them. csloat 00:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that we had a conflict in all articles that we both edited, and there are too many of them. So let's follow good advice by Kirill.Biophys 01:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No; we had no substantive conflict over the other articles. The substantive conflicts were over those two articles and I will agree to leave them alone if you agree to the same. But I do not think it is a good idea to say that you "own" those two articles. csloat 07:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted evidence in this case. Upon resolution, Biophys proceeded to undo all of my contributions to Operation Sarindar. We will hear no more of this, should both parties refrain from editing said two pages. Something, obviously, not for me to decide. smb 21:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding all article where they have both made significant contributions in the past sounds like the best solution to me. Divvying up mutually-edited articles based on who edited first isn't an optimal solution in my opinion. Picaroon (t) 23:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean a "significant contribution"? Are we going to dispute here our contributions to all articles? We need a formal and simple criterion. There are only two simple options. Option 1: we divide all articles that we both edited, as has been suggested above (note that we both are treated equally). This option is consistent with current ArbCom decision, as clear from the statement by Kirill. Option 2: we do not edit any articles that we both previously edited, however all our newly edited articles would still be divided according to Option 1. Then a new decision by ArbCom is needed, and we do not want that.Biophys 17:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "significant contribution" standard seems clear enough to me. My interpretation of this would be any article in which both of us took a stake in the outcome, which can be determined by looking at edits. If you or I just came there to revert the other one a couple of times and didn't participate in talk, it would not be considered a significant contribution. But if we both made substantive changes to the article and participated in talk, it would be considered a significant contribution. This is an easily enforced standard, and we can clear it up right here. In my observation, the only articles where there is that much overlap is the Communist terrorism article and the Operation Sarindar article (which you have again changed the name of). I don't think you could make that case for any other article. csloat 21:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys wrote: There are only two simple options. Fallacy of the excluded middle. Biophys and csloat can refrain from editing any article the other has made significant contributions to while at the same time both avoiding the two problematic pages that brought us here. Namely, Operation Sarindar and Communist terrorism. Fair and simple. There is no contradiction here at all. smb 21:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are two options noted by ArbCom member Kirill, and I agree with him.Biophys 22:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually those are two that you made up, which are different from what Kirill suggested. One of Kirill's options is the option I have advocated here. csloat 22:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's move by little steps. Do you agree not to edit any articles that I have edited after this ArbCom decision and will edit in the future? I can promise you the same if you agree.Biophys 06:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't think such an arrangement is appropriate - the issue is the articles we've edited in the past where we actually had conflicts; arbitrary restrictions based on any edits in the future are useless here. And I'd rather not give each party an incentive to make meaningless edits on as many pages as possible to drive the other editor off pages. Perhaps if we simply agree to interact civilly with each other when we have to do so, we can avoid such arbitrary restrictions. If you are willing to do so I will certainly agree to that. The point is to actually address and resolve conflicts, not to draw arbitrary boundaries around them. csloat 08:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you suggested would be a reasonable solution in the past. But right now we have ArbCom instruction to avoid each other, and we must follow that instruction. Not only you refused to stop following my edits in the past, but you just refused to stop following my edits made after this ArbCom decision, and instead suggested to single out several articles based on your choice.Biophys 16:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This back-and-forth between the two of you is ridiculous. The arbitrators reviewed the evidence of prior hostility between you and could have imposed substantial restrictions on both of your editing. Instead, they decided that fortunately, things were not so bad as in other cases that come before them and settled for asking you to avoid each other and stay out of each other's way. There is no reason why with a modicum of good faith, the two of you could not accomplish that. Instead, you are here practically begging the committee to impose much stronger sanctions against each of you. I suggest that you both stop this nonsense right now. Newyorkbrad 20:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for that. I agree to stop immediately, to consider this matter resolved, and to follow exactly the ArbCom instruction as clarified by Kirill. The instruction was "to refrain from interacting with or commenting about each other in any way". In particular, I am not going to edit any articles that have been created or edited by another side before me. I hope that will be enough to avoid any interaction. Biophys 20:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My only problem is that the arbcom decision was never clarified on this point. I have no desire whatsoever to further interact with the other party and don't plan to, but I also don't plan to avoid articles just because the other party demands that I stay away from them. Another important problem is that the arbcom decision did not address the other party's tendency to own articles, an issue I expect to see brought to admins' attention again in the very near future. csloat 15:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been contacted by User:Certified.Gangsta, who left the project in June 2007 in consequence of the sanctions imposed on him in the Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram RFAR. He was finding it impossible to edit under them, and was feeling very frustrated. User:Ideogram is now under a community ban, where he was found to have baited Certified.Gangsta and attempted to drive him off the project (successfully). CG is thinking about returning, and wonders if he might possibly have his editing restrictions revoked, despite the infractions he has indeed committed. Would the arbitrators like to take a look at this case, please? To remind you of how it went, I've written up a short overview of the circumstances here. Other users should feel free to add their views of the matter at that subpage, or at this notification, whichever works. Bishonen | talk 09:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The Committee is discussing this matter. Kirill 13:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Bishonen | talk 14:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. I would not personally recommend a lifting of the restriction, since Ideogram was not the only editor that encountered his edit warring and I fail to see a pressing need in the absence of his primary antagonist. Giving such a user the extra wiggle room of two to three non-vandalism reverts seems like a poor idea for an established edit warrior. However, I would not be opposed to the editing restrictions being lifted, since the community tends to take a dim view of continued nonsense from editors with a problematic history. If CG were to relapse towards poor behaviour, I'm fairly confidant it would be handled quite quickly without kid gloves. I doubt great harm would result from allowing him the chance to participate in Wikipedia productively without editing restrictions. Additionally, the endorsement of Bishonen and Jehochman for the lifting of restrictions is a strong point in its favour. A bit of thought on both sides of the coin. *hands out grains of salt* Vassyana 00:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Disclosure: I was the blocking sysop for the most recent parole violation.[reply]

Thank you, Vassyana. Some recent developments: in his edits of today, November 10, Certified.Gangsta points (on request) to his positive contributions to the project.[88]. Please note especially his appeal here, and the new section "Contribution" on his talkpage, which he's in the process of adding to. Bishonen | talk 12:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Shortcuts WP:ARM WP:ARBM This section can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions. Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives. Make a motion (Arbitrators only) You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment.