Template:Active editnotice

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 Tznkai (talk) at 00:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• tznkai (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kittybrewster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• ANI thread
• BrownHairedGirl
• Vintagekits
• Kittybrewster

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Previous arbitration
• lengthy ANI thread
• This situation is quickly devolving into a dramafest with ancillary distracting issues including an argument between Giano and Gallglass, an argument about Bishonen and Sandsteins' block and unblocks, and overall involves allegations of conflicts of interest. We are beyond the point where a friendly Request for Comment will help, there is too much baggage.

My involvement in this situation is purely administrative, being neither Irish nor British in ethnicity, citizenship, or persuasion, and it is my opinion as and administrator that this will end poorly without some sort of Arbitration.

The dispute I believe, goes roughly follows. Vintagekits moved a series of Baronet articles, removing their title (Nth so and so and such and such), enforcing what he believed was proper style. Kittybrewster objected by reqeusting BrownHairedGirl to revert and to re-enstate the just expired topic ban. (For the record, I was the enacting administrator on that topic ban). BrownHairedGirl and Vintagekits carried on a lengthy and unpleasant discussion on their talk page while engaging in an edit war over multiple page moves, which eventually ended with with Vintagekits reverting once again, and BrownHaireGirl blocking Vintagekits and then reporting the block for discussion on ANI. In the meantime, both Vintagekits and Kittybrewster opened up ANI threads against eachother, and throughout the course of the dispute, Vintagekits unblocked and blocked several times, and then topic banned by Sandstein Close to the same time, I started a thread proposing a three way topic ban on Vintagekits, BrownHairedGirl, and Kittybrewster, under the theory that all three were too emotionally involved to make useful edits to the area. The threads make the following issues apparent:

• Vintagekits maintained throughout that he was editing within policy, specifically the Manual of Style on naming conventions, but was willing to edit war to maintain it.
• Vintagekits used an accusatory and counterproductive tone throughout, which escalated with blocks and sanctions.
• BrownHairedGirl Edit warred with Vintagekits before blocking Vintagekits over the same issue an example
• BrownHairedGirl's comments in the thread were (in my opinion) emotional, lengthy, nasty, and counterproductive
• Kittybrewster has a conflict of interest.
• There is an overall feeling that this dispute was about politics and personal enmity between these three, instead of garden variety edit warring.

The community consensus that emerged was to topic ban for six months both Vintagekits and Kittybrewster, and for BrownHairedGirl to make no administrative actions in the area. I believe however, that this is a temporary measure at best as none of the issues were actually resolved.

I would like the Committee to examine several issues in particular:

1. Investigate allegations of conflict of interest.
2. Examine the behavior of the named parties, and to determine a solution or containment to their disagreements, especially in relations to the edit warring.
3. Discard, modify, or endorse the extant topic ban.
4. Of course, to examine my involvement in the matter as a named party.

I further request that the committee ignore the ancillary Giano/Bishonen/Sandstein/et al issues.

--Tznkai (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably going to burn bridges here, but, here's my thoughts.

A) Vintagekits is well known to the Arbitration Committee as an instutituion (if not to the individual members of the Arbitration Committee). He has a long and storied history of.. being problematic in certain areas. Please note, I'm not saying he's not useful to the project in other areas, (he's one of the few users I can think of that have a FA to their credit after a community ban that was later modified).However, British Baronetcies is an area where I think VK cannot help but be disruptive. Some would say his "Two weeks till I bring the pain" type comments is evidence of WP:POINT-y behavior. I'm thinking that at least a limited PERMANENT topic ban, specifically in the area of British nobility is probably a good thing.

B) Kittybrewster is another user who has.... a history in this area. A lot of it mirrors that of Vintagekits, I cannot imagine two more people diametrically opposed in worldview. I do not know if he has a COI regarding baronetcies, considering the rank he holds. He does have a strong POV in these areas (not saying he's wrong or he's right, just that he has one). Combined with the voluminous past history (of which the Troubles ArbCom is not a full record), perhaps a topic ban from the area as well is for the best, encyclopedia wise

C) BrownHairedGirl... I can only think of two editors who have been knee deep in this whole thing as long as she has that are still administrators (Those are John and Rockpocket, for future reference). Even the two of them would tell you that they would really rather not deal with these areas any further then absolutely necessary. I think that it's time for me to echo some advice that was given to me, BHG, you've fought the good fight for so long, perhaps it would be best to let someone try to keep these areas above water. It's time to rest your arms, and focus on other areas of the encyclopedia that are not so maddening.

If I was to write a dispensatory motion in this case, it would be as follows:

A) The topic bans with regards to British baronetcies and British nobility in general on User:Vintagekits and User:Kittybrewster are confirmed. They are to last a mininum of six months, and the editors in question can submit a private request to the Arbitration Committee to have these sanctions lifted then. Vintagekits and Kittybrewster are advised that the Arbitration committee will review these topic bans no more then once every three months.

B) Due to past history of the use of alternate accounts amongst both Vintagekits and Kittybrewster, both are to disclose to the Arbitration Committee any and all accounts they have or will edit with in the future, and this topic ban applies to all accounts (or, just a straight limiter to one account.)

C) User:BrownHairedGirl is thanked for the amount of effort they have put into one of the most contentious areas in Wikipedia. However, it is the recommendation of the Arbitration Committee that BrownHairedGirl not use their administrative tools in this area any further, and let new blood try to keep the peace.

Just my two cents in the situation. SirFozzie (talk) 04:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Recuse. Risker (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept, from the looks of it this definitely needs addressing. Wizardman 03:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Place requests related to amendments of prior cases, appeals, and clarifications on this page. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at Arbitration enforcement. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the Talk page. To create a new request for arbitration, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Place new requests at the top. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How-to other requests

The process to develop a procedure for deciding Ireland article names has stalled. All three moderators have resigned. However, options for the next phase of the process have been suggested.

I would summarise the comments of those editors participating in the current discussion of the options on the wikiproject talk page as:

Approve option 1 (or a version of it):

1. BrownHairedGirl 02:35, 8 April 2009
2. Fmph 06:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
3. DrKiernan 07:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Kittybrewster 07:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
5. BritishWatcher 10:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Rockpocket 17:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
7. Bastun 11:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
8. Evertype 17:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
9. ras52 11:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

OK with option 1:

1. Jack forbes 10:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose option 1:

1. Redking7 20:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
2. MusicInTheHouse 11:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Concerned with option 1:

1. Mooretwin 10:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC) (because it tackles each problem in turn to try working towards a global solution rather than tackling everything at once)
2. RashersTierney 21:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC) (because it might lead to option 4)

That's at least a two-thirds majority in favour of trying option 1.

I ask:

1. that ArbCom amend remedy 2 with the addition of: If the panel should fail to develop a procedure, then ArbCom will impose one.; and
2. that ArbCom impose option 1 of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration#Options for next phase as phase 2 of a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles, without prejudice to further phases of the mechanism or procedure that may arise in the future in the course of discussion. DrKiernan (talk) 08:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry that the Committee's outline of how a solution to this dispute should be reached, without dictating a result, has apparently not succeeded or led the parties to an agreed resolution. Awaiting further statements before opining on how to proceed from here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• We are currently working to select new moderators for the project. Credit goes to FayssalF for ensuring that this was being addressed. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to Sebastian, PhilKnight, and Edokter for volunteering for the difficult task and wish them well. Please bear with us for a few days while we sort things out. (This does not preclude evidence that another approach may be needed or suggestions for an alternate method of handling the situation.) --Vassyana (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Vassyana. I am concerned, however, that the number of participants in the process and the discussions seems to be declining and is less than in previous iterations that tried to find a resolution to this issue. Any solution to this will not work if there is insufficient participation in both the process and any final naming discussion or vote or other process. Hopefully establishing a new set of moderators will help. Carcharoth (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

I have just discovered that some site called Wikisynergy has, despite the previous withdrawal of the case, been using it to create an attack page on me. [1]

I think it's time we end this farce: The Arbcom has already agreed that all negative findings against me are withdrawn. I hereby ask the arbcom to declare the case completely invalid, and to comment on the unfairness of the way the case was undertaken such as letting a sitting member of Arbcom constantly attack and belittle me and other editors, unsamctioned.

I hate to bring this up again, but as you can see by the link, it has become necessary. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To MBisanz:

I think that we need to remove both. I do not really feel like being an admin again, but I think that we should clarify the text, state tht the Arbcom case should not have been accepted in the first place, that it is completely withdrawn due to the major procedural errors, and so on.

The arbcom have accepted that the case was problematic. While the former Arbcom's actions were not being used to harass me, that was enough. However, it has now become an issue, and I must ask that the Arbcom make it clear: The procedural anomolies and the personal attacks by a sittingg member of arbcom throughout the case page meant that it was impossible for the case to have been fair, one user should not have been singled out for a test case over a single action, due to seeking discussion about it instead of immediately capitulating to a member of Arbcom; and the complete scan of every admin action that he had ever done, in order to find some evidence to use against him was a grand fishing expedition that would have found some evidence about any admin, but it was treated as if it were a random sampling for which more could have been provided, not a complete list.

Furthermore, the RfC was strongly against the removal of adminship, but after calling for the RfC, it was ignored. I believe that I'll just quote from User_talk:UninvitedCompany/archive22#Matthew_Hoffman_case. It's in response to UninvitedCompany's claim about the RfC "My sense was that it wasn't broad based and didn't include substantive participation from people outside the group of SPOV proponents who take a hard line on topics such as Homeopathy. We received some private comments from users who supported some sort of sanctions regarding Vanished user but did not wish to so state publicly."

“

Obviously I can't weigh privately submitted commentary in regards to the RfC. Certainly "hard-line SPOV proponents" were well-represented among those willing to comment on-wiki. Perhaps you count me among them. Still, the views from B, Heimstern, and Durova drew support from a large number of experienced editors and admins with no irons in the SPOV fire. The views favoring a harsh approach to Vanished user were endorsed largely by partisan editors of a different stripe; discarding the input of such editors on both sides, it seemed there was still some usable feedback there, and it dissented from the path taken by the Committee. The Committee is privy to information submitted privately and perhaps has a better perspective on the problem as a whole. At the same time, it is a bit bothersome to have an RfC convened, to develop some useable feedback, and then to have it disregarded without comment. In that regard, again, I do appreciate your willingness to share your thought processes, and I realize you opposed the mid-case RfC to begin with, so I don't mean to put you in the position of defending something you disagreed with from the start. I simply cannot let the irony of your final comment, about the willingness of the community to "circle wagons when well-liked editors engage in misconduct", go unremarked. A member of your Committee, a person occupying positions of great respect and responsibility, engaged in conduct that ought to be unacceptable anywhere on Wikipedia, much less in front of ArbCom. His comments remain unrefactored and, so far as I know, there has been no apology to those attacked, all of whom are easily identifiable in real life by their usernames incidentally. Yet when this issue was raised, the response was, precisely, to circle the wagons. You said "Let's try and leave Charles Matthews out of this" (despite the fact that he initiated the case). Paul said that "The issue at hand is what to do about Vanished user, not what to do about Charles... I can't imagine any reasonable editor thinking that Charles needs anything done about him." You added that any evaluation of Charles' behavior would be a "distraction". You and Paul then both suggested that, despite Charles' role as initiator of the case, anyone thinking his conduct during it should be examined would need to bring a separate ArbCom case. This is actually relevant, though: an editor being attacked in the terms used by this Arbitrator, and facing a proposal to desysop him with extreme prejudice within 12 hours of a case opening in the absence of any prior dispute resolution, will be hard-pressed to stay cool and respond constructively. In the end, Vanished user didn't, but that doesn't mean that looking at other aspects of how this case was handled is a "distraction". To me, at least, they send a much stronger message than the fate of Vanished user's sysop bit. I think there was some wagon-circling going on with regard to Vanished user's defenders. I don't subscribe to that, and I haven't defended his blocks, which were bad ones. But concern about the irregular aspects of this case and the hasty and harsh response to Vanished user's misdeeds is not the same as excusing his actions. And if holding people in positions of responsibility accountable, rather than making excuses for them, is the message behind this case, then it would be more convincing were it applied more evenly and closer to home. MastCell Talk 00:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

”

I still consider the entire case nothing more than official harassment (If nothing else, the committee allowed a sitting member of Arbcom to attack and belittle multiple editors, and when this was complained about, as seen above, they defended his right to do so.) I was willing to agree to a face-saving compromise before, but now that it's being used to attack me, I feel that I must ask you to revisit, and make a stronger statement.

I don't want to say too much about the case: it would simply serve to drag the Arbcom's dirty laundry further into the public eye. I hope that what I've said is sufficient for the Arbcom to investigate this themselves. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Kirril: I'm worried that having it as an Arbcom requirement will open me to more problems of this sort. I'm happy to make a personal agreement, however, or something like that. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Newyorkbrad: I fee l the Arbcom can so soemthing: They can declare that the case should never have been accepted, and that it is completely withdrawn. Matthew Hoffman had already been unblocked - by me - before the case was opened. It's not as if the committee withdrew any restriction from him - that had already been done - it just served to harass the acting admin who had somewhat misread a situation.

Matthew Hoffman is a red herring, this case was about Charles Matthews not getting his way immediately, being upset that I sought opinions other than his because I didn't have time to review the case.

He says as much:

“

Bear in mind, please, my approach. I intended to get Vanished user to correct this mistake, voluntarily, in such a way as could appear a personal realisation that something had not been right, something had been excessive. In such a way that no review process had been needed. An admin had reconsidered an indef block, had read the log - "gosh, that was too strong - a month is enough - didn't mean to put it that way". Unblocks, leaves a Talk page note to MH. Vanished user and I would have had a little secret. End of story: MH might have left the site, but the matter would have ended in no fanfare. Why do we have a test case? For precisely this reason: the indef block was made in such a way as to obstruct this entirely humane and non-accusatory private review, discussed as between colleagues. Now, I would treat the next bad block just the same way: private email; talk page note, "did you have a mail from me?", no topic mentioned; another private mail, saying more clearly waht the issue is; another private mail asking for attention to the matter; a further mail saying you really ought to give this some attention, and, no, we should talk before you take this to any forum. Tell me, please, whether I'm not acting in the interests of everyone? As opposed to - I start an AN/I thread saying "Vanished user blocked badly here, and here's my case", and we get an adversarial discussion. Charles Matthews 21:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC) -Workshop page

”

If the situation was so unimportant that had I given into him immediately and secretly, instead of seeking more input, there would have been no case, but because I did seek more input, there was one, then it's clear the case was only launched because Charles didn't get exactly what he wanted out of an admin he wanted to lord over immediately. Every attack and statement of Charles is all about his bruised ego lashing out, and the Arbcom of the time thought this was A-OK. He's apologised for this, and I don't think we need to look further into his actions, unless there's evidence that similar behaviour is continuing. However, I'm sure you must admit the case was highly irregular and discreditable. The Arbcom should admit this, and withdraw it fully, replacing it with a statement fully pointing out the problems. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Matthew Hoffman case needlessly destroyed the reputation of an imperfect but dedicated and able administrator. It also did significant damage to the reputation of the Arbitration Committee, a situation that became worse over the course of 2008. The withdrawal of adverse findings against Shoemaker's Holiday was a necessary and welcome step forward by the Committee in righting previous wrongs. I strongly urge the Committee members to take the next step and formally recognise the mistakes that were made. This could both address the damage done to Shoemaker's Holiday's reputation and signal unambiguously the Committee's intention to ensure similar mistakes do not happen in the future.

Some of the issues which I believe should be recognised and addressed:

• Allowing a member of the Committee to essentially slander the subject of a case is bad enough, but when other members refuse to even consider the appropriateness of the behaviour sends an appalling signal.
• If a member of the Committee is recused s/he should not be participating in any way off-wiki... in this case, the recused member not only remained on the ArbCom email list but was also reading the evidence. Only the Committee members at the time know what else he may have said behind the scenes, but even if it was nothing the mere fact of his reading confidential case materials when he was a party to the case is bad enough.
• The complete disregard of the RfC - it really looked like disdain for the views of the community.
• The proposal of sanctions by a Committee member before almost any evidence was posted - and the same members disinclination towards accountability, in that he was unwilling to answer questions about his actions or the case.

I believe that the Committee would be wise to vote some principles / findings to be recorded on the case page. Some that might be considered:

• If a member of the Committee is a party to a case (whether as initiator or not), s/he will recuse from decision making and participate solely through channels available to all other parties. The case clerk and the ArbCom list moderators will ensure that case-related materials are only distributed to the non-recused members of the Committee. Recused members are expected to comport themselves with the same decorum expected of other experienced Wikipedians.
• Wikipedia has dispute resolution processes for good reasons, and cases where many or most of them have been bypassed will usually be declined as premature - as the Matthew Hoffman case should have been. If the Committee calls for community input (by way of RfC, for instance), the community views will generally carry substantial weight.
• Committee members who are unable to act with impartiality are expected to recuse. Members of the Committee can and should call on another member to recuse if that member displays apparent bias (such as by voting on sanctions before evidence is presented, or declaring that community input that differs from the member's views should be ignored).
• The Matthew Hoffman case should probably not have been accepted in the first place. The behaviour and actions of the recused arbitrator who brought the case reflected poorly on himself and the Committee. Coupled with other irregularities in the case, there can be no confidence in the reasonableness or accuracy of any findings. The Committee affirms that all findings in relation to Shoemaker's Holiday have been rescinded and he remains a Wikipedian in good standing.

I realise that these are strong statements. I came to be aware of this case fairly early in my time at Wikipedia. As a scientist, I feel I have a lot of knowledge that I can contribute, and yet the difficulties in getting sensible changes made are daunting. The findings of the Matthew Hoffman case were one of the reasons that I ultimately gave up on participating. I've only recently come back and am looking around to see whether the situation has changed. Please show me that the Committee can recognise the mistakes of the past and act to correct them. EdChem (talk) 06:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was a party to this case. Let's not dig up this horse corpse to start beating it again. Jehochman ^Talk 13:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding that most of the people who have examined this case agree that it was incredibly poorly handled. Has the Committee ever considered a motion or finding to that effect? That is, something that says that the case was mishandled or that certain Arbitrators acted inappropriately.

I realize that the Committee vacated part of the decision and I realize that digging up a seemingly buried horse is not always the best thing to do, however being explicit here that mistakes have been made and perhaps even apologizing for them publicly might do a world of good. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't the Committee just swallow its collective pride and offer an institutional apology for helping Charles Matthews fuck over Shoemaker's Holiday? This was an embarrassment to everyone involved, the Committee most of all. Hiding behind procedure and insisting the only thing you can do is cut away more from the original case is crap. Time to own up to it and issue a clear statement: "ArbCom fucked up and we're sincerely sorry for it."--chaser - t 06:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this a request to clarify the text on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman or alter the remaining sanction of the editor identified as "Vanished user" voluntarily agreed to give up his tools and to consult with the Arbitration Committee should he wish to become an administrator in the future? MBisanz ^talk 23:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm, ok, seems like the right heading then I suppose, I've update the open tasks template accordingly. MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to Clerk: Since they've been mentioned or referred to, a Clerk probably needs to notify the editor who filed the Matthew Hoffman case as well as the former arbitrator who drafted the initial decision of this thread. I do not know that they will actually want to comment, but due notice applies to everyone. (I am considering other points raised.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A few points:

1. We have no control over external sites.
2. The Committee has already allowed you to edit under a fresh account, and withdrawn the findings insofar as they reflect adversely on you. What else is it that you want?
3. I for one will not support "declar[ing] the case completely invalid". There are other findings and remedies in the case that are still in effect, and for which there is no cause to withdraw, namely the findings that there is no evidence MatthewHoffman is a sockpuppet, and that the accusations that he engaged in harassment, POV pushing, extreme rudeness, and vandalism are not borne out by the evidence, and the remedy that his block log be amended to indicate that the blocks were not justified.

--bainer (talk) 03:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other findings aren't relevant in any practical sense, I think, since Hoffman never returned from his block. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Recused. --Vassyana (talk) 03:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Stephen Bain's points, and I would particularly emphasize point #1. Risker (talk) 03:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• A question for Shoemaker's Holiday, since I don't quite understand the intent behind "remove both": are you repudiating our earlier agreement? Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• EdChem, there are Committee policy reforms happening over at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Draft policy (and the talk page). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I have reviewed the external page to which Shoemaker's Holiday links. Although Risker is of course correct that we have no control over what use is made of our decisions on external sites (compare the last principle in Mantanmoreland), I feel justified in commenting here on the page in question under these circumstances. I do not understand what specific purpose the page is intended to serve, and I would urge the people responsible for the external site in question to, at a minimum, substantially redact it. If the page is intended as criticism of a particular former Wikipedia administrator, I submit that it is needless, both because the individual in question is no longer an administrator and will not imminently be one, and because as noted above the arbitration findings reflecting upon him, which were determined to have resulted from a flawed process, have been withdrawn. Even were that not the case, the references there to this individual's real-world name (which he has not used on Wikipedia for more than a year) and some of his personal identifying details are completely gratuitous and in some respects appear to be almost intentionally hurtful. Under the circumstances, were I behind the external site in question, I would find maintaining this page in its current form to be a more negative reflection upon that site than upon Wikipedia or one of its contributors. All that being said, however, I cannot imagine that any action by this Committee to vacate or expunge the remaining findings in this 16-month-old case would materially affect either perceptions of the case or the actions of the external site in question. For these reasons and those mentioned by some of my colleagues, with regret, I do not think there is anything more we can do to ameliorate this situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I think NYB pretty much hit the nail on the head. There's not really anything more we can do. I don't like what I see on the site, and i'd like to see it redacted, but as stated above, it wouldn't work out. Wizardman 01:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Newyorkbrad. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The sanctions in this case are being gamed. Editors who are banned start new accounts, which then must receive the mandatory warnings before they can be sanctioned. Please modify the warning requirement so that administrators may place sanctions without warnings on disruptive single purpose accounts that edit within the locus of dispute. For further reading see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Huntdowntheconspiracists and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bov, particularly the checkuser clerk's note on the latter case. Note that I am involved in editing these articles and have been responsible for filing the above two sockpuppet cases as well as a large number of WP:AE requests that have resulted in topic bans. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 13:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rlevse, t's often unclear who the puppetmaster is; there are so many alternatives. It's also somewhat time consuming and difficult to make a case for meat puppetry. We have to dig around and find some sort of off site solicitation. I expect that after we found the most recent incident of meat puppetry, those who use that strategy will be more careful not to leave tracks. It is much easier to say here is a single purpose account, repeating the same tired arguments, please ban it from these articles. Good faith editors are getting worn down trying to repel these accounts. Jehochman ^Talk 20:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A. I'm involved so I'm not blocking anybody. I rely on other administrators, many whom have doubts about blocking somebody unless there is an airtight reason. B. WP:SPA is an essay. In the current climate, any block issued on that basis would have people up in arms. See the Abd and JzG case I filed above as an example of what most admins are fearful of. Jehochman ^Talk 21:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen, has Wikipedia descended so far that Arbitrators feel comfortable making rude (or unprofessional) comments on this page? A checkuser clerk, who seems to be tired of the endless sock cases related to 9/11 asked me to come here for help. So I did. Please address the problem. We have a passel of tendentious sockpuppeteers who can spend 60 seconds to create a new account, while it takes me at least an hour to shut them down via our bureaucratic processes. That's a very unfavorable tradeoff. If you don't like my idea, would you at least investigate what's going on and see if you can propose something helpful or constructive. Blowing me off with a "suck it up" comment is not an option available to you. Jehochman ^Talk 03:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth, it's not in the cards for me to analyze a week of edits. (The economy is bad; my time for editing is limited.) Perhaps User:MONGO could give some stats. This page, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Huntdowntheconspiracists/Archive, shows about 7 days worth of disruptive editors. Notice that at least seven or eight accounts got blocked as a result of that report. Thank you for suggesting more editors to help watch the articles. I posted a request for help to WP:AN a week or two ago. It's easy for arbitrators sitting here to say hypothetically what's the right, and quite another to get your hands dirty and see that the reality is not so neat. People are getting really, really frustrated and need more help. Few reasonable editors are willing to tolerate an endless stream of socks and SPAs attempting to add bogus content to WP. Most get burned out and leave, which is exactly what the troublemakers want. Jehochman ^Talk 05:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayvdb, a large number of topic bans have been implemented, and even more accounts have been blocked as socks. I've done a considerable portion of the work myself (filing complaints; others process them and yes, logging is not perfect). Warnings definitely do not work. I cannot think of even one example of an editor who was warned and then said, Oh right, I see what I was doing has been wrong, and I'll change my ways. Jehochman ^Talk 05:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VirtualSteve, I disagree with picking a friend to do my bidding when I am too involved. Instead, I post to the boards and work with whomever takes up the case. This is less convenient than summoning a minion by Gchat or IRC, but better for Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 12:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VirtualSteve, I do not beat around the bush. If I want to accuse somebody, I do. I am aware that some administrators do use Gchat or IRC to summon others to do their bidding when they are too involved or have a conflict of interest. I reject that, and am concerned that your suggestion is a step on that slippery slope. When I need administrative help, I've learned that the best course of action is to post publicly and then work with whoever responds. Obviously, if somebody is familiar with a matter from previous administrative intervention, it may make sense to go to them first. Jehochman ^Talk 15:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FloNight, your suggestion is useful, though I've already posted in a few placed and asked for help. This page is the latest stop on my tour. There aren't many admins who feel comfortable working on sock puppetry cases. We've seen examples in the past where one mistake lead to the admin being run out of town. How about a slight change to the wording of discretionary sanctions: New editors whose editing is indistinguishable from previously sanctioned editors may be subject to the same sanctions without warning. All I'm asking you to do is encapsulate existing policy, WP:TEAMWORK, in the decision. This will provide a little courage for uninvolved admins to do what's necessary. I'd like something I can point to so they won't be fearful of getting sanctioned themselves in case an apparent meat puppet turns out to be a legitimate editor who had the misfortune of repeating the arguments of somebody who was previously topic banned. Jehochman ^Talk 13:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flo, thank you for requesting additional help. That's what we need. The comments of all arbitrators have been useful. I may point to this thread in the future if any administrators hesitate to block SPA disrupting in this venue. VirtualSteve, if you'd like to help, please watchlist some of these articles. Jehochman ^Talk 15:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mastcell, User:Raul654 has at times camped on particularly troublesome articles to clear out sock puppets. I'd appreciate that sort of service here. I've asked around but there don't seem to be enough checkusers available to provide expedited service in this high-volume sockpuppetry arena. It seems like all the forms need to filed in triplicate, punched, folded, and stamped before anybody can take action. The slowness of processing checkuser requests causes great pain to those of us who must entertain the sock puppets until they are blocked. Jehochman ^Talk 19:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Tony0937 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Tony0937 has been here for 18 months and virtually 100% of his editing is related to promoting 9/11 conspiracy theories. Could one of our intrepid arbitrators please look at their contributions and tell us why this account is allowed to continue stoking this dispute? Jehochman ^Talk 23:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(replying to Cs32en)

That's called removing cruft, per WP:V and WP:NOR. I think it is way, way premature to discuss this at arbitration. Use the article talk page instead. "Rampage"? See also assume good faith. I've written a few good and featured articles. The content I removed would never pass review. Jehochman ^Talk 18:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(replying to Rlevse 20:55, 22 April) See statements by VirtualSteve and Cs32en. They apparently don't agree that disruptive SPA's can be blocked. Sorry for the threading, but I fear you won't see this otherwise. Jehochman ^Talk 23:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(replying to Stephen Bain 07:44, 25 April) Suck it up yourself. That's not what I'm advocating. I am requesting help with WP:SPAs, WP:MEATs and WP:SOCKs violating WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NOT. You're playing WP:ICANTHEARYOU, and I'm violating WP:WOTTA. Jehochman ^Talk 10:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous users have been blocked or banned for espousing unverifiable September 11 conspiracy theories. Any new user who appears on Wikipedia suggesting, in earnest, that the World Trade Center was brought down by explosives planted by "conspiracists", may be reasonably viewed as a meat puppet of one of those blocked or banned editors. As such, they may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator.

Wikipedia is not for publishing counter-factual 9/11 conspiracy theories. We really should say enough is enough. I am tired of all the socks and POV pushers, and the enablers who want to hear them out. Therefore, I have proposed the above common sense approach. Please indicate whether you support this or not. Thank you! Jehochman ^Talk 20:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The most problematic article has had its semi-protection restored. This seems to have reduced the flow of disruptive WP:SPA single purpose accounts to the point that we can get back to work. Jehochman ^Talk 12:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The accounts have regrouped and are now launching an effort to rename the article to their preferred version. I have commented here that we need administrative help to block disruptive WP:SPA accounts, per the fine advice I have been given below. Could you fine arbitrators please have a look at that discussion and see if you know of any administrators willing to close down the SPA/SOCK party that's going on there? Jehochman ^Talk 22:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not read the comment made by Stephen of "suck it up" (below) as being intentionally or otherwise rude but rather as another way of saying "take it on the chin". As admins we all know that dealing with SPAs and block evaders is part of the joy of the job. Blocking as per the evasion rules remains open to all admins (as detailed by Rlevse and others below), and semi-protection is also a suitable resort at times. Further if an admin is involved to the point s/he can't block, those admins have normally developed trusted behavioural collegial links to other admins whom they can ask to look objectively at a particular situation, and have the appropriate action taken.--VS ^talk 07:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Jehochman - When posting your responses to my comments Jehochman I expect a little better from you please. I have never used GChat or IRC in my life and I do not summon a minion (indeed I do have the ego to think of any of my fellow admins as my minions) - hence my use of the words look objectively at a particular situation and my clear indication that I am not asking for a favour but rather for someone else with sufficient tools and knowledge to interpret the situation I find myself in. Whilst I appreciate you do not actually accuse me of summonsing minions your linking of the sentences in your response makes it difficult to see that you are assuming good faith at my suggestion.--VS ^talk 13:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Cs32en has encapsulated well the inherent problems with Jehochman's suggested motion. I also believe that accepting that motion would upgrade the rights of administrators beyond an acceptable level and I oppose the motion.--VS ^talk 22:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So as to provide clarity to Rlevse - Jehochman's comment here and since moved to the appropriate section by Daniel, does not in anyway reflect my thoughts on dealing with SPAs. I do not definitely know the reason behind why he makes this error - but I note again that my words above detail my belief that blocking as per the evasion rules remains open to all admins. That is certainly the approach I have taken and would suggest any admin take in the circumstances described in the request posed by this discussion.--VS ^talk 11:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"We have a passel of tendentious sockpuppeteers who can spend 60 seconds to create a new account, while it takes me at least an hour to shut them down via our bureaucratic processes. That's a very unfavorable tradeoff." This is exactly right. Facile suggestions to follow dispute resolution, ask for an ininvolved admin, or get a buddy to do the block for you (seriously?) don't address the problem. That's why this is again before the committee. I invite bainer to model the behavior he prescribes. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to identify a "go-to" checkuser who would be willing to look at questions of sockpuppetry on this topic on an expedited basis? This would be someone willing to field relatively informal checkuser requests from admins active on the topic, evaluate their merit, and act on them (if appropriate) rapidly. In the past I've found this approach hugely useful in dealing with high-volume sockpuppetry, and it might help here. MastCell ^Talk 19:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited on various subjects on the German Wikipedia, but my edits on the English Wikipedia are, up to this time, primarily on 9/11-related topics. So I am probably an involved editor here.

In my opinion, we seriously need to consider the possibility that flawed judgment and inconsistent reasoning on the part of some established editors have significantly contributed to the situation that we now face. People will not identify with Wikipedia, and thus will more likely tend to use distractive methods, when confronted with unconvincing arguments, or with a situation in which they perceive that policy is being misconstrued to support reverting their edits or blocking their contributions.

One example has been the recent discussion on the deletion of the word "box-cutters" from the article on the attacks of Sept. 11 [2]. While numerous mainstream media have reported this, is has since become apparent that all these reports are based on a single source (Ted Olson). Evidence such as a trial exhibit mentioned in the discussion now strongly indicates that the information from this source has been incorrect. As being published in a reliable source is an indication that a piece of information is WP:V, but not a sufficient condition in itself, the word "box-cutters" was eventually changed to "weapons" [3], along with some other changes in the text. While this discussion led to a result consistent with Wikipedia policy, there were a number of arguments put forward by established editors that clearly are not supported by policy, such as:

• "the reports at the time indicated box cutters" (note that the article did not attribute the claim to the source or used language such as "at the time, it was reported that")
• "Accepting for the sake of argument that it says what you say it does, I don't think we can reasonably use Prosecution Trial Exhibit P200054, a primary source, to over-ride the secondary sources." (i.e. even if we agree that a secondary source - in this case, CNN - is proven wrong, we still need to use it)

Other such arguments, expressed in other circumstances, have been:

• "We really should avoid foreign sources." (in a case where no useful English source was available)
• "Pretty speculative research...how surprising...lets see them get it published in a real journal. I got a bridge to sell ya. [...] Jones and co can maybe see if any of these are interested" (It turned out that this list actually includes Bentham Science Publishers, the publisher of the journal that is being discussed.)
• This was followed by the remark: "rather than arguing with single purpose accounts, why don't you go request some more topic bans over at WP:AE?"
• "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources." (in relation to a claim that a known and self-identified adherent to a fringe theory has published a paper that supposedly supports this theory -- if anything, notability was the issue here, because nobody doubts that the paper exists, and WP:UNDUE had to be interpreted in the context of the fact that the article's subject, as defined by its title, is the fringe theory itself, not the subject of this theory.
• This discussion is a typical example of the editing process on these articles.

If these failures in the editorial process of the articles are being corrected, then all editors could be held to a higher standard with regard to their behavior, and genuine vandalism and trolling would be much easier to isolate, whether by community interaction or by appropriate administrative measures. --Cs32en (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Jehochman has suggested that the policy with regard to 9/11-related articles should be changed as follows:

• "Any new user who appears on Wikipedia suggesting, in earnest, that the World Trade Center was brought down by explosives planted by "conspiracists", may be reasonably viewed as a meat puppet of one of those blocked or banned editors." (proposed motion)

• "New editors whose editing is indistinguishable from previously sanctioned editors may be subject to the same sanctions without warning." (reply to FloNight)

Both proposals imply that administrative actions would no longer be based on the behavior of editors (i.e. whether they engage in constructive discussion, support their suggestions by arguments related to Wikipedia policies, etc.) but on what they think or what they believe in. Calling everybody who shares a certain belief or supports a certain argument a "meat puppet" is not only a misinterpretation of WP:MEAT, but also a thin veil to disguise this approach. --Cs32en (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman's statement that the semi-protection of the article has significantly reduced editing by non-autoconfirmed users is misleading. There have been two edits by non-autoconfirmed users during the time the article was not semi-protected. During the same period of time, there have been approximately fifty edits by Jehochman and three other editors, with very little explanation or discussion of these changes on the talk page. --Cs32en (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the editors involved in the discussion has now been blocked for what are, as far as I can see, valid reasons. It would, however, be very helpful to clearly indicate the specific reasons for which a sanction is being requested. Any controversial discussion is even more difficult if people who take part in it are at the same time unsure as to whether any requested sanctions could be applied to them.

My view of the discussion on the renaming of the article is as follows:

• A recent discussion, resulting in the change of the article's name, lasted for only 24 hours.
• As the discussion was rather short and possible terminated without actually seeking broad consensus, it is legitimate that editors are continuing to discuss the name of the article. (No edit-warring is happening.)
• The current discussion is taking place on the WP:NPOV noticeboard. Given that there is not a broad consensus among the involved editors, and that there are concerns about the correct application of established policies and guidelines on the part of some editors, I consider it appropriate took seek the opinions of uninvolved editors on a community noticeboard and to present the arguments there. — Cs32en (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I am an involved party here and Jehohman's proposal makes me feel very uneasy. He has suggested by that I could be banned for talking about a peer reviewed paper. I suppose I am a SPA and I think that I have heeded the advise posted there. I have read the policy on Verifiability and the Guide Line on Reliable sources and I cannot see the problem. I do not believe I have broken any rules that would constitute a reason for a ban and yet I feel intimidated. Tony0937 (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First things first. The requested motion is flawed on face. It doesn't make any sense to treat new editors with a certain POV as meatpuppets of some ur-conspiracist. It is far more likely that there are several sockmasters, dozens of people unrelated to those sockmasters who intend to disrupt wikipedia, and yet more people who geniunely hold these views and don't have a connection to either of the two previous groups. Applying MEAT to all three groups under the assumption that they are all puppets of the first group will generate bad will, unpleasant but valid unblock requests and consternation over admin overreach.

So we should reject Jehochman's motion to ammend (whatever) the case.

Nevertheless, I'm pretty frustrated with the response he is getting from some members of the committee here. The 9/11 conspiracy articles are under an arbcom ruling because they are the locus of dispute between our editors and editors who have disrupted the encyclopedia, wasted time and don't have any real interest in contributing to Wikipedia broadly. It is the poster child for requiring arbcom actions. Because of the nature of the conspiracy and its adherents, online advocacy of conspiracy theories will almost always outstrip reliable sourcing on the theories themselves. the number of editors involved makes it difficult if not impossible to reach a consensus on the talk page which reflects reliable sourcing on the issue and hold-outs (either SPAs or not) make it difficult to commit an edit to those pages which has less than unanimous support. The nature of the theories themselves cause their exponents to disbelieve reliable reporting on the subject and misconstrue or misrepresent sources which may provide limited support for some facet of the conspiracy.

We know all this. What you are hearing now is an editor who claims that these sanctions are insufficient or at least burden responding administrators too much for the effort required to trigger them. Instead of telling him to "suck it up", why don't you draw up an alternative motion which doesn't BITE the newbies as much? Protonk (talk)

• Comment Why can't you just block a sock as a block-evading sock? No warning needed. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Jehochman: If you can warn based on SPA criteria, why not block on SPA criteria? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Suck it up. If you allege sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, then of course you have to provide evidence to support your assertion. If it can be established that someone is evading a block, a ban, or a sanction by way of puppetry, then they can be dealt with in the normal fashion under the sockpuppetry and blocking policies, there is no need for special remedies. --bainer (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jonathan, if it is unprofessional to defend the fundamental values of the project in response to someone who appears to be genuinely advocating that the criterion for banning should be "that they disagree with my POV", then I welcome the label. --bainer (talk) 07:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Community norms already provide for the blocking of block evading sockpuppets and disruptive single-purpose accounts. The arbitration remedy does not alter those standard practices. Arbitration rememdies must be interpreted within the framework of community norms and with a dose of common sense. All the remedy does is explicitly direct administrators to utilize a full range of sanctions to bring the topic area under control, with basic advice about good admin practices. Generally speaking, giving someone fair warning and some explicit guidance about what to avoid, or how to improve, is hardly controversial as common good pratice before heavy sanctions or blocks. In other words, just follow the usual means of dealing with such potential sockpuppets and SPAs. I have some extended thoughts in a broader context at: User:Vassyana/Splitting Hairs. --Vassyana (talk) 03:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Protonk, with all due respect, you're asking us to do the impossible (unless I am completely misunderstanding you). There is no possible way for us to expand the remdedy while being less BITEy. The remedy already provides completely open-ended authorization to impose sanctions with but a single warning. We could direct administrators to provide new editors with more guidance and more opportunity to prove themselves, but that obviously would increase the burden of enforcing administrators. Alternatively, we could remove the requirement for warnings as suggested by Jehochman, but that obviously would be a good deal more BITEy. However, there is no possible way for us to grant administrators greater leeway to act while simultaneously reducing "bitten" newbies. A significant part of the problem being faced has a great deal more to do with broader community issues than with the arbitration decision. As examples: a) An administrator corps that is not keeping up with the growth of the project. b) A shortage of administrators intervening in difficult areas. c) An increasing tolerance of wikilawyering (and an accompanying slavish dependence on procedure). d) A growing dependence on checkuser in sockpuppet investigations. These are but a few examples of serious issues that have been growing over a long period of time. Unfortunately, there is little to nothing that ArbCom can do about these problems (except perhaps to point them out). For better or worse, solutions to these broader problems will have to come from the community. --Vassyana (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a perennial problem - how to distinguish good-faith SPAs (that need education and pointing to FAQs, and that might become productive editors) from disruptive ones (that need blocking), and how to avoid burnout for those watching an article. The only suggestion I can make is to ask for more assistance in dealing with the topic area, provide the evidence (as bainer says), and to make sure that those appealing blocks are told that this is a contentious area and that they should edit other areas for a set amount of time (probationary topic ban?) before returning to the topic in question (if at all). This might seem like reducing the barrier for new editors to edit, but for contentious topics, this might be needed. Have topic bans restricting editing to the talk page been tried? Carcharoth (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jehochman, could you (or someone else) analyse a week's worth of editing and gets some stats for the scale of the problem? Or failing that, give a rough estimate of numbers of (in your opinion) disruptive accounts? Carcharoth (talk) 03:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, It takes far more than 60 seconds to edit in a way that requires this case to come into play, and the log indicates this decision hasnt been invoked often, which suggests the warnings are doing their job, or people arnt updating the log. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Largely agree with Vassyana. The Committee does not have any additional ways to stop people from using socking or tendentious editing. We are aware that many controversial topics have similar problems. The fresh blood of more uninvolved admins helping in these all these areas is always needed. Placing announcements on AN or AN/I and the wiki-en-l mailing list might help attract some additional assistance. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jehochman, I sent an email to the Functionaries-en mailing list highlighting this thread. Hopefully raising awareness will prompt more uninvolved admins to get involved. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This doesn't seem to need ArbCom involvement.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Per Vassyana, the remedies in the case are additional to those available to administrators generally and do not supersede them. Administrators are empowered to block disruptive single-purpose accounts if they are harming the project. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, agree with Vassyana et al. Wizardman 19:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment; I'm not sure I agree with my colleagues here. I wouldn't blink if SPA that jumped immediately in the fray of an active, controversial dispute be blocked liberally with a good explanation provided they are unblocked if they acknowledge the problem area and agree to steer clear of it. Basically, it's a balancing act between newbie love and preventing disruption to the encyclopedia— and some areas (9/11, I-P, and a few others) are so volatile that the putative benefit gained from a new agenda-wielding editor is entirely offset by the added instability.

  That being said, I don't think ArbCom can do much about it directly. — Coren ^(talk) 03:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Recuse. I live and work in New York City about 4 miles from the World Trade Center site. I will adhere to my practice established last year of recusing myself from any disputes arising from the events of September 11, 2001, in part because I was profoundly personally affected by those events and in part because giving any sustained attention to the so-called, but fantastic and worthless, "controlled demolition hypothesis" as a purported explanation for what occurred on that date invariably leaves me enraged. I will remind all concerned that any suggestion that any identified or identifiable individual played any role in a "controlled demolition" of the World Trade Center buildings represents a BLP violation of the gravest nature. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The Troubles, are not as contentious as they once were, thanks to the tight lid on edit-warring that was created by User:Rlevse here, that subjected the whole subset of articles covered by The Troubles to a 1 RR. This has blunted a lot of the constant edit-warring. However, six months after the fix was applied, someone wants to rip the band-aid off and let the (metaphorical) blood flow anew. User:Sandstein has stated that he will not act on AE requests regarding this remedy, because it is not an ArbCom remedy. We've already seen several folks using IP's to edit war and then when the IP is blocked, use throw-away accounts. The sanctions are needed.. there are 10+ sections in the archives where this is used since December alone.

So, despite my utter distaste of time-wasting bureaucracy such as this, would the ArbCom please vote in the following as a formal ArbCom remedy, as posted by User:Rlevse:

• All editors on Troubles related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions.
• All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related.
  • Clear vandalism may be reverted without penalty
• Blocks may be up to 1 week for first offense, 1 month after the first 1 week block, and then ban options may be considered.
• As there are hundreds of articles potentially subject to this, I leave it to the community to tag the talk pages of the articles and to decide how to go about that. Code for a template that can be used for that is here: {{Consensus|This article is currently subject to '''[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case]]''', as laid out during a previous [[WP:AE]] case that closed October 05, 2008. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out in the above link. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first.}}

List of times the Rlevse sanctions has been brought up on AE (there are another 5-10 where it's been mentioned in passing, but these are the ones that refer to the 1RR rule itself.)

[5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], and the two latest ones on AE. If the Committee would look at the history of AE from archive 30 or so on, usually 2 or 3 or 4 sections per archive will have to do with this series of articles,

I don't believe that a new full fledged ArbCom would do anything more then to spend a couple months of time with the same parties arguing in the same way. Instead, what should be done is apply common sense. Use the Rlevse sanctions, and keep the peace in an area where there will be no peace if not applied.

If one admin chooses not to act on a particular enforcement request, it doesn't stop another administrator stepping in. Whilst Sandstein might not agree and therefore decide not to take action, if another administrator believes the editor in question has broken the case remedies (In this case it is enforcement of discretionary sanctions) then that is up to them and they may block for that. From what I can see, Sandstein hasn't said he'll overrule other administrators and I suspect he wouldn't even challenge other administrators if they made blocks as part of Rlevse's restriction. It looks like Sandstein merely doesn't agree and doesn't feel comfortable enforcing the decision - that's his prerogative and feel free to simply block if someone goes against the 1RR restriction. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm commenting in my capacity as admin patrolling WP:AE and responding to enforcement requests there. Ryan is right in that I won't (and have no authority to) overrule any admin enforcing the "Troubles" case as he or she sees fit. However, the "Troubles" decision does not, as Ryan seems to believe, provide for discretionary sanctions. Instead, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Probation for disruptive editors, it provides that disruptive editors may be put on Wikipedia:Probation and, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Enforcement, that these editors are then subject to 1RR. That is the arbitral decision that can and should be enforced at WP:AE, including by me.

The section entitled Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case, which purports to put all articles in the area of conflict under 1RR, on the other hand, is not an enforceable arbitral decision, since it was apparently never voted on by the Committee. Its author, Rlevse, has confirmed this at [17]. That is why I will not act on enforcement requests concerning it.

I recommend that the Committee:

• remove the section Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case from the case page or leave a comment so as not to cause others to mistake it for an operative remedy, and
• if it feels that this is warranted (I've too little experience in this area to comment on this), properly amend the case to provide for either a general 1RR restriction on the area of conflict, or for discretionary sanctions as with other comparable cases.  Sandstein  05:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment with respect to bainer below

It's good to know that this is a community sanction, although it would have been helpful if this had been noted somewhere. It is probably not advisable to add a sanction of this type to the "log" section of the arbitration page without any indication of its provenance or authority. Still, since WP:AE is not intended for the enforcement of community sanctions and arbitration pages should probably not contain non-arbitral remedies, I maintain my recommendations above.  Sandstein  08:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein has summed up what I was going to say. Perhaps both sanction-schemes would be useful? Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, yes, the community sanction was inappropriately written and logged into the ArbCom case instead of the appropriate location. I do wonder whether there would still be a consensus supporting such a measure if the sanction discussion was more appropriately titled; although I was active at the time, and particularly interested in sanction discussions, I know I wasn't aware of it. If the remedy is needed, ArbCom should vote on it and put it into the case - at least that would resolve the matter re: logging.

Unless the remedy is written into the case by ArbCom (in which case AE is more appropriate), ANI is where complaints should go - as with any other requests to enforce community sanctions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the unlucky administrator who started the long chain of events that lead there, I want to add two things. One, discretionary sanctions do exist in that dispute area, they are editor targeted however. Two, the broad 1RR was proposed as an alternative to using probation. It has, I believed, helped significantly in the topic area, and has set an objective standard for that all users can be held up to. I strongly urge the committee to consider endorsing the community remedy.--Tznkai (talk) 04:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having opposed the sanctions, or I should say how they came about I must concede that they have had a positive effect. They have reduced the edit warring and encouraged discussion. POV warriors have been marginalised with disruptive editing being quickly closed down most of the time. Some Admin’s with a particular bias (admin’s can and do have biased opinions) have been reluctant to address the actions of some editors but the 1RR has proved itself despite this. We all know what the sanctions entail, and have clarified through experience what 1RR is and how it operates. For example, a number of reverts without intermediate edits in between is considered to be 1 revert.

So what I’d suggest is that the sanctions be placed on a separate page with the block log transferred to it. It should include:

• All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related.
• All editors on Troubles related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions.
• Clear vandalism may be reverted without penalty
• Blocks may be up to 1 week for first offense, 1 month after the first 1 week block, and then ban options may be considered.
• As there are hundreds of articles potentially subject to this, it is up to the community to tag the talk pages of the articles and to decide how to go about that. Code for a template that can be used for that is here: {{Consensus|This article is currently subject to '''[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case]]''', as laid out during a previous [[WP:AE]] case that closed October 05, 2008. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines on this talk page first.}}
• These final remedies have been linked to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Irish Republicanism and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case.

It should also include what we mean by 1RR, so there is no ambiguity. If it is felt that criteria no.1 is not clear enough expand it. The template be changed to direct editors to the appropriate page, including a link on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case in case any templates are missed during the page change. That’s my 2 cents worth, as to simply remove the sanctions would be counter productive.--Domer48_'fenian' 09:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Request Could we have links to the 10? related AE threads since Rlevse augmented the case. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  It looks like this community-based remedy is doing the trick. I am happy to leave it as Stephen Bain suggests, or write it into the decision as Sandstein suggests. Could someone please notify the regulars who have been affected by this remedy. e.g. Sarah777, Manticore126, Domer48, BigDunc, and Mooretwin. They may have valuable views to share on how this remedy plays out. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Commment I'm flattered something I wrote that I thought was basic has been so useful. I'm willing to make a motion if it looks like enough arbs will support it. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sandstein is correct that the 1RR restriction is not part of the decision, nor is it a discretionary sanction supported by the decision. Rather, it was a community-based remedy, established by consensus during this discussion. There is nothing wrong with this. There are a couple of issues though:

1. the notice of the 1RR restriction on the case page (and on article talk pages) should be altered to describe it as a community-based remedy, or removed to some other appropriate page, to avoid confusion;
2. there is unfortunately no convenient venue for enforcement requests on such community-based sanctions, personally I have no problem with arbitration enforcement being used just as a matter of convenience, but otherwise ANI would make do.

--bainer (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I see no reason for ArbCom to intervene with a community-imposed sanction. (Indeed, I would encourage administrators and the community to impose sanctions as necessary without the intervention of ArbCom.) Additionally, an administrator could simply warn someone who is edit-warring or otherwise disruptive that the topic area has seen a lot of problems and that disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. (It would be advisable to be polite and clear about the problem, directing the editor to any relevant policy pages and giving a bit of guidance about how to better work with others on Wikipedia.) Upon a repeat performance of disruption, the person can be sanctioned or blocked, without bureaucratic hurdles or reliance upon the particulars of an ArbCom decision. I have no particular objection to issues being raised at AE for areas subject to arbitration enforcement, but ANI would be appropriate if the AE regulars find this undesirable. --Vassyana (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting Carcharoth's comments, I have no objection to logging on the case page, for the sake of a unified log location. However, community based general sanctions can be referenced at WP:SANCTION and community imposed individual sanctions can be referenced at WP:RESTRICT. --Vassyana (talk) 05:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Nothing much further to add. Will vote on a motion to write the sanctions into the case if needed, pending feedback from those John asked to be contacted. But leaving as a community-based sanction (per bainer's description) would also work. Carcharoth (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • One concern with a community-based sanction is the lack of anywhere to log sanctions. It is not acceptable for such restrictive sanctions not to be logged. Future admins or arbitrators trying to review the situation need an accurate log of actions taken and sanctions issued, whether following arbitration cases or using community-based sanctions. Strongly suggest logging (or continuing to log) at the case pages for now. Carcharoth (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment No admin is required to enforce any Wikipedia policy or any sanction (be it an ArbCom or Community Sanction) but that does not stop the sanction from being enforced my other admins. Unless there is a problem with the Community sanction that can not be worked out by the Community, I see no need for action by the Committee. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Concur with Stephen Bain and FloNight (and kudos to rlevse).  Roger Davies ^talk 14:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment; I think that the tenor here is that this community sanction has ArbCom's imprimatur, and that AE is a logical place to bring enforcement (even if strictly out of scope). — Coren ^(talk) 03:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

• Tom harrison (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Thomas Basboll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (acknowledged --Thomas Basboll (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
• MONGO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Last April, User:Thomas Basboll was banned[18] from articles and talk pages related to the September 11 attack. Since then he's hardly done anything else, limiting his work to user pages. He's always civil and articulate; individual edits can seem reasonable. But his goal here has been and remains to get the truth out about the collapse of the World Trade Center. Whatever his motivation, no matter how he describes or intends his edits, their invariable result has been to promote conspiracy theories about 'controlled demolition'. He has shown no interest in contributing in any other area; he's banned from that area; he continues his work in a sandbox, and invites others to edit on his behalf.[19] If encouraging others to apply edits he can't make himself doesn't violate the letter of his topic ban it's at least contrary to its purpose, and continually beating the drum for the 9/11 conspiracy theories is a continuing disruption. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have decided withdraw my opposition to this request, shut down the sandbox experiment, and stop interacting with editors.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 04:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure an all out arbitration is necessary. If the topic-ban applies to user talk pages and my own sandbox then I am in the wrong and will stop immediately. If it does not, I think Tom Harrison needs to provide a bit more evidence that, on balance, the "invariable result [of my edits] has been to promote conspiracy theories about 'controlled demolition'". In the one case where a user has objected to my use of his talk page, I have respected that wish, but otherwise my suggestions have been met with understanding and have been implemented (or not) as the user I contacted chose. I have not asked users to edit "on my behalf"; I have pointed out errors in articles to them and sometimes suggested prose that I believed could express an idea they were defending in talk discussions. I'm really am just trying to help.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to John Vandenberg (below): Since I am not site-banned, I have not considered contacting ArbCom by email. Those two public appeals are the only attempts I have made to have the ban overturned.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments on MONGO's evidence (below): The puzzling thing about the examples is that the changes I have suggested by (arguably) "proxy" remain in the articles, often made by editors on the "other side". I think the policy is clear here, and since I have not recruited new users, meat-puppetry is not at all involved. I have only contacted people who are already interested in the articles, and I have provided information that they could themselves verify. Most puzzling: in the exchange that led to MONGO asking me not to post on his talk, I actually managed to convince him that I was right, and the article has been correct ever since. MONGO himself corrected the error I was indicating [20]. So even though he himself has confirmed my suggestions (as the rules on proxying require) and implemented them, he is now suggesting that my inquiries constitute a violation of the proxy rules, i.e., rules that he himself, by implication, would have been violating by implementing my suggestion.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. As Mongo notes below, his edit involved more than the change I was proposing. But I had not raised any other issues in my exchange with him. So he implemented my suggestion among others. My point still stands: Mongo introduced an error and I pointed his mistake out to him. He then fixed it. The article was improved by my action. Though I don't think I actually broke a rule here, I think this might at least have been an occasion to WP:IGNORE it.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 06:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to John Vandenberg 2 (below): Something like what you propose (editing other parts of WP to establish credibility in the community) has been suggested to me many times before, as Mongo also does on this occasion. I have never understood the argument. My editorial judgment has been rejected at the highest level (when ArbCom rejected my appeal). If that rejection stands in this topic area, why do you assume that I would do a fine job elsewhere? Assuming that my topic ban is justified (i.e., that my judgment is defective), then, the current solution of having my suggestions vetted through editors whose judgment has not been similarly impugned seems quite reasonable. But you will have to forgive me for not finding the place I have been assigned in the community especially motivating in regard to contributing to the larger project.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply to John Vandenberg 3 (below): Okay, it makes sense when understood as pragmatism. But that's why I have stopped editing: the pragmatic reality of Wikipedia is too far from the principled ideal that originally got me interested in the project. I could spend hours, days and weeks trying to prove people wrong by working in other areas or at Wikisource. But, just as you economize with your time, I economize with mine. In any case, please keep in mind that Tom Harrison is asking whether my current actions (my sandbox page and inquiries on user pages) is a violation of the current pragmatic solution, i.e. the topic-ban. While it would be great of you (generous, actually) to use the opportunity to look into the original ban, my view is that even if the ban had been justified what I am doing now is within the spirit, and well within the letter, of the sanctions. Like I say, if that's not the case, I will delete the page and withdraw altogether.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 04:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply to Vassyana and Carcharoth (below): I may as well be clear that I am not interested in any further demonstration of my worth to this project. Two other editors are asking that stricter limits to my contribution to this project be imposed. If they get their wish, you will simply not hear any more from me. Otherwise, I will continue, in my limited way, to assist those editors who want my help in identifying errors, assessing sources, and representing them in prose on a topic that (for reasons that need not concern anyone here) happens to interest me. I will use my account, so long as it is not site-banned, to query editors about their editing decisions so that I may better understand how Wikipedia works. Some editors do want my help; it is their work, not mine, that any further sanctions against me will affect. Those that don't want my input will not notice my presence. My interpretation of being banned "from the September 11 attack article and talk page, and the articles and talk pages of all related articles" as not covering user-talk pages and my own sandbox was made in good faith and I have made no effort to conceal my topic-ban. Indeed, I have made a point of informing all users that I have contacted of the fact that I am banned. I take very serious exception to the idea that I am "gaming" this site. Thank you very much.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 09:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: While I have withdrawn from this dispute, I would like to add a quick comment on Vassyana's answer to this issue. As I undertand the concept of WP:GAMING there is no such thing as doing it unintentionally. So I take it that granting that it may have been done in good faith is a retraction of the charge. If so, I appreciate it. I did not intentionally violate the spirit of my topic ban in order to subvert the project; I made an attempt to improve the encyclopedia within what I believe was a reasonable interpretation on the constraints of the ban. Many of my suggestions have been implemented in full view of the editors who supported my banning. My actions did not cause disruption. If they were unwise it is only because they have, predictably, been used to cast further aspersions on my motives.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question to Carcharoth (below): Are you really suggesting that I can do a bunch of work to write nice clear sentences that might be used in the article but that I am not allowed to discuss that work with people who freely choose to engage in such discussion?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 10:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ban against Thomas Basboll had been based on reasons "described by Jehochman" [21]. However, Jehochman has advised Thomas Basboll as follows: "I think it might be worthwhile to write a crisp version of the article in your sandbox ..." [22]. So this is, in my opinion, best left to the community to sort out, at this point of time. --Cs32en (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More of the same...Basboll has been topic banned from editing all pages related to the events surrounding 9/11...this includes conspiracy pages, where he has been an advocate. Arbcom may not be familiar with this issue, but I surely am, and our server space is not to be used to sidestep topic bans using personal sandboxes or others usertalk to rally a cause for which one has been topic banned...topic bans should mean just that...one is banned from the topic, regardless of the location. I have stated repeatedly that AFTER Basboll was topic banned that, based on his obvious articulateness, that he must be educated and surely...surely, he could and should help out with other areas that are not related to those he is topic banned from. I tried to encourage him to do so...but instead, he continues his fixation on this subject matter...though of course, outside main article space. WP:MEAT applies in this case...a topic banned editor, especially one who has been known to advocate fringe theories, shouldn't be encouraging others of similar POV [23] and discouraging those that base their work on known evidence...as Basboll did to me here...which resulted in my asking him to avoid my usertalk if he was going to use it for his 9/11 issues. Furthermore, major collaborative pieces should be worked on in article space in my opinion...creating sandboxes pages when we already have working long standing pages that can be improved only allows topic banned people a way to avoid sanction from being topic banned...

So can arbcom help clarify for Mr. Basboll what a topic ban implies and maybe succeed where I failed and encourage him to find some other topic to edit? I'm hoping that this is the case...--MONGO 00:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Jehochman below...though I surely appreciate that we don't want to suppress beliefs, Basboll is topic banned...that means banned from editing on that topic...as far as I can see, that means we don't allow them to use likewise thinking fellow editor's usertalks to rally support for their POV, especially a POV that is based on fringe theories that undermine the factual encyclopedic integrity of our articles. Furthermore, setting up sandboxes to update sections, write new articles or alter existing ones related to what the editor is topic banned from seems to be a breach of the purpose of the topic ban...so we have millions of other articles...Wikipedia exists for Mr. Basboll as a platform to advocate his fringe beliefs regarding 9/11...he has had almost zero other interest in any other area...if he can't find another area to edit and repeatedly violates his topic ban...why is he here anymore?--MONGO 03:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Examples where he has been approaching others to alter edits and or comment in articles he is topic banned from...to be fair, some of these are from those he does not share a POV with...[24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [ here he comments at arbcom enforcement regarding the same topic he is topic banned for[30], here he tells one of his fellow (to put it nicely) alternative theorists all about me...[31], here he tries to defend a fellow 9/11 conspiracy theorist that is blocked [32]...I can easily produce more examples of Mr. Basboll violating his topic ban. More needs to be done to tell these single purpose accounts to go find another playground.--MONGO 03:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Basboll above..the link he provides [33] where he claims I changed wording to reflect, as he puts it, the correct wording, only applies to the word "adjacent"..the remaining red changed text was added by me after great arguments and is reflected in the references provided. Regardless, this was part of the exchange that led me to ask him to cease using my talkpage to violate his topic banning.--MONGO 05:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas seems polite and I have been polite in return. If he's not banned from editing is his sandbox, then he is allowed to do so. As I understand, he is free to edit there. Everybody has some sort of POV. We don't ban editors for what they believe; we ban them by how they act. If Thomas supports WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V, I see no problems. If however he's playing me the fool, well, that would be a poor idea. Jehochman ^Talk 02:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration remedy clearly states:

"Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted)"

Thomas's topic ban was a bad ban by an involved administrator: Raul654. Raul654 edited 7 World Trade Center‎ (16 times), argued against editors who support a controlled demolition (at least 8 times), and reverted 7 World Trade Center‎ then protected the page, in violation of Wikipedia:Admin#Misuse_of_tools.

Raul654's "content disputes on articles in the area of conflict"

Thearbitration remedy states: "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted)" Raul654 is NOT an "uninvolved" administrator. Raul654 has edited 7 World Trade Center‎, one of the 9/11 articles. Raul654 edits show that he supports Jehochman's position.[34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49] Raul654 deletes a fact tag on the sentence: "The original 7 World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11 due to the combined effect of structural and fire damage." stating "rv - well known fact" [50] Raul654's talk page comments on 7 World Trade Center‎ where he argues against those who support a controlled demolition. [51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58] Raul654 reverts 7 World Trade Center‎ then protects the page, in violation of Wikipedia:Admin#Misuse_of_tools [59] Raul654 blocks editors he edit wars with This involved block is not a single incident either, Raul654 has a history of blocking editors he is edit warring with, in violation of Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disputes. See also this ANI. Raul654's did not follow the arbcom guidelines Raul654's did not follow the arbcom guidelines, the arbitration remedy states: "...if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process...Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to...amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators" Raul654 did not warn Thomas before the block. The arbitration remedy states also: "Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators" Thomas Basboll used a "communal approach" in a straw poll. Jehochman lost the straw poll, which meant a majority of editors agreed with Thomas's POV. Instead of attempting to build consensus, Jehochman filed the Arbitration enforcement against Thomas.

This text has never been posted before:

What is an "uninvolved administrator"?:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/September_11_conspiracy_theories/Proposed_decision#Discretionary_sanctions under "uninvolved administrator"
  "For the purpose of imposing sanctions under the provisions of this case, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict."

As my edit diffs clearly show, Raul has previously participated in "content disputes on articles in the area of conflict."

Therefore I ask that the topic ban be immediatly lifted, as a highly involved administrator made it.

Raul654 have you ever had a dispute on 7 World Trade Center? The edit diffs above show clear content disputes on 7 World Trade Center. Ikip (talk) 04:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ikip is rehashing - verbatim - the same argument he put forth the last time around - the very same argument that was explicitly rejected by the one and only arbitrator to comment on them ("I see Raul654's actions here as being in line with the AC's decision, and support them." -Morven) To wit - I have edited the 9/11 articles on occasion, and I make sure that they remain free of conspiracy theories and other gibberish, which is fully in line with our policies about verification and neutrality. (That is to say, conspiracy theories do not produce reliable sources - they mostly rely on cutting away context and ignoring all dissenting evidence.) Thomas is an editor whose sole purpose on Wikipedia is to introduce conspiracy theories into our 9/11 articles. While he is polite, his editing on those articles is singularly counterproductive, as Mongo above attests to. I was never particularly active on those articles, and my participation predates Thomas - I mostly stopped editing them by the time he started here. Which means I am uninvolved both in the sense of (a) editing on those articles, and (b) interacting with Thomas. (The arbitration committee, I believe, intended the ban to apply to the latter case). In either case, I am not involved, and fully capable of assessing the utility of a ban application. Raul654 (talk) 05:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, to answer Ikip's question above, my involvement on 9/11 articles has been almost entirely related to 7 World Trade Center. This article is a featured article, and I'm the FA director, which is the reason it's on my watchlist -- I want to keep an eye on it to make sure it doesn't decay. Most 9/11 conspiracy theories center around the destruction of this building, so it's a perpetual favorite target for conspiracy theory SPAs. The consensus on the talk page, predating its FA status and my involvement there, was that because we already have articles on 9/11 conspiracy theories and World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories, the article would briefly mention the existence of conspiracy theories and link to the relevant articles, but not go beyond that to avoid giving them undo weight. (To avoid mentioning them elsewhere in the article so that readers do not get the false impression that they are credible or have evidence to support them.) My edits there have been about enforcing this consensus. Enforcing a reasonable consensus formulated by others before I got there hardly makes me an involved admin. Raul654 (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Ikip's citations of "involvement" include reverting trivia and fixing typos on the talk page, I hope it's clear to anyone reading this that his "evidence" consists of a list of all edits I've made to any 9/11 articles (and talk pages) in the last 5 years, regardless of whether or not they actually involve conspiracy theories and regardless of whether or not they relate to Thomas in any way (which they don't). And given this extraordinarily low bar for "involvement", the fact that he could only come up with about two dozen edits in the last 5 years shows that he really is grasping at straws. Raul654 (talk) 07:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) The historical recostruction by Vandelberg is incomplete: Actually only one arbitrator replied to the request of appeal (and btw this arbitrator was asked two times to explain his position here and here but he didn't reply). Later, when the request was archieved, another arbitrator said that this kind of requests have to be asked to AN/I (so the appeal was not "rejected" but just ignored). Therefore there was a request for a review at WP/ANI where other 3 uninvolved administrators said that:

• there had been "insuffient review and stonewalling of requests for review"
• "a review of the ban decision is probably appropriate"
• "The edit does seem to reduce the overall weight provided to the conspiracy theorists in the article, in addition to moving the detailed statement of the theory out of the lead"
• "there are legitimate questions to be asked about the fairness and propriety of this topic ban"

Positions against Thomas Basboll or against the review of the ban had been expressed only by involved administrators who contributed to the ban. "Unfortunately" this request for a review was deleted by the bot after a period of 24 hours without new messages. And so Thomas couldn't have a review for bourocratic reasons - even if there was a consensus on the necessity of it since the arbotrators didn't express.

1bis) It is very paradoxical that we follow mechanically the rules when the bot delete the request and so leave Thomas banned without appeal and we now instead pretend to apply the "spirit" of the rules - not the letter - when Thomas talk with other users. It looks very much as a persecutory behavior.

2) To say (as Tom Harrison does) that

the invariable result [of his edits] has been to promote conspiracy theories about 'controlled demolition'.

is a personal and disputable point of view of Tom who as far as I can see has never had a "neutral" perception of this matter when he contributed to the pages. Even if the arbitrators would share the same point of view of Tom Harrison about 9/11 it shouldn't be relevant in their decisions: arbitration is not for disputes about article content.

3) To say (as Tom Harrison does) that

continually beating the drum for the 9/11 conspiracy theories is a continuing disruption.

is meaningless because a) nobody has even proved that thomas have been disruptive, the sanction he received was *discretionary* so it was just the personal opinion of the admin which didn't receive any support or even a review by the community, b) it is entirely possible that the suggestions of Thomas are indeed conctructive, you cannot judge them "a priori" just on the ground of your personal POV.

4) Coren says:

As a further note, I don't believe there is any reasonable interpretation of Raul's handful of edits that could lead to count him as "involved" by any sane meaning of the term.

The problem is that the arbcom has explicitely defined the meaning to be given to the term "involved" ("For the purpose of imposing sanctions under the provisions of this case, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict.") and it makes Raul "involved" without a doubt. If this meaning is considered to be "insane" by somebody it is not relevant here.

--Pokipsy76 (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ikip, could you please notify Raul654 since your statement concerns him? Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 04:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Tossing up some background discussions for everyone; no comment yet. At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive20#Thomas Basboll the thread is closed as "Thomas Basboll banned from 9/11 articles, appealing to ArbCom." Thomas, did you appeal to arbcom via email? We can find the email if you can tell us when you sent it. There was a public appeal at WP:RFAR in May 2008, and a later one at WP:AE in October 2008. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thomas, your article contributions over the last 12 months are extremely light on, your userpage says you are retired, and you're doing a lot of chatting. I am seeing more noise than signal. How about you come out of retirement, focus on some supplementary topics, and then appeal the topic ban in a few months. As an example of how you could remain engaged in this topic productively, despite the topic ban, you could work on Operation Northwoods, World Trade Center (PATH station), Minoru Yamasaki, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, etc; or, for something different you could expand the archives over Wikisource (see s:Template:911). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thomas, your editorial judgment has been questioned by editors in the 9/11 topical area, a few admins, and two previous arbitrators (Raul654 and Morven) have found it appropriate to ban you from that topic. The review by arbcom in April 2008 only obtained a single opinion, that of Morven. Morven's motivations may have simply been pragmatic, as the same set of editors opined that they found it advantageous to have you topic banned. Your response to this has been to stop editing; my recommendation is that you prove everyone wrong by editing other areas. If you have problems in another topical area, that would be telling. If you dont have problems in another topical area, that would give us a damn fine reason to re-evaluate your topic ban.
    That said, it is not unusual for a person to have a problem editing in only a limited range of topics; their edits to other topical area's are fine. Even if you did (previously) have a problem editing 9/11 articles, we might decide that we can lift the topic ban because we trust that you are now capable of managing your own POV issues. Note that I am not saying that you do have a problem editing 9/11 topics; I've only spent an hour reading all the comments and looking at a few of your edits.
    Your lack of edits in other area's mean I have no option but to either a) trust the other editors opining here, or b) invest a day (or more) reviewing your edits. Perhaps you can see that pragmatism makes me want to create a third option: you demonstrate that you are able to edit productively in other areas and I will invest the time to review your edits. I do appreciate that you may not want to take this third path; but you cant blame me for trying, right? I also suggested that you come on over to Wikisource for a while, and build our collection of related primary sources. This will give you good reason to collaborate with 9/11 editors here on Wikipedia, and then the comments at the next topic ban appeal will be more favourable to yourself.
    Could someone please notify Raul654 and Morven, as they may wish to comment. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• A topic ban is a topic ban as far as I'm concerned. Using a sandbox and other users as a proxy for engaging in discussion is pretty clearly gaming the system in my eyes. Circumventing, or even dancing around the edges of, a ban is a terrible idea. At the absolute best, it shows an inability to walk away from the topic. Under such circumstances, I would strongly discourage the community and administrators from granting any allowances. Additionally, I would be opposed to any ban relief in the absence of complete separation from the topic and positive contributions in other areas. --Vassyana (talk) 04:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The system gaming may not have been intentional and I can accept that the actions were taken in good faith. However, utilizing a sandbox and other users to continue contributing (and advancing one's views) where topic-banned does amount to circumventing the topic ban, following the letter but certainly not the spirit of such a restriction. (This mechanical interpretation approach has been a rising concern in the community, of which cases like this are but a symptom. 3RR is the most common example, with many editors claiming that a failure to exceed three reverts either does not constitute disruptive edit-warring or is not a blockable offense, contrary to the explicit instructions of WP:3RR.) I would encourage the community to be more explicitly broad when instituting such bans at the community level and (as an individual arbitrator) I will support more clearly broad bans where topic bans are used in arbitration cases. Obviously, a topic ban is of greatly reduced value as an enforcement tool if the targeted editor is still permitted to maintain a POV fork in userspace, use other editors to proxy, and/or still otherwise engage in various discussions about the topic on-wiki. --Vassyana (talk) 05:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• If I recall correctly, I was one of those suggesting (at some point last year) that Thomas Basboll edit in other areas to demonstrate he is interested in building an encyclopedia, and not just a narrow set of articles. Failing that (and it is Thomas's choice alone), I would endorse John's other suggestions. This is not, however, to endorse making SPAs second-class citizens (that opens the door to experts working on single articles being driven off by opponents who have a more diverse editing history). What matters is, as always, the quality of the sources and arguments any editor brings to the table, their editorial judgment, and their ability to work collaboratively with others. That last one is particularly important for all editors working in any topic area. Carcharoth (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following up on what Vassyana said above, I would say that proxying is bad, but a sandbox can be helpful as long as the editor in question doesn't use the talk page as a forum to discuss things with others (who then proxy edit). Carcharoth (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• In general, I would tend to encourage attempts at building consensus about a set of articles where an editor has had previous problems and from which they have been banned. However, the current attempts look more like attempts to seek out and coax possibly sympathetic editors in order to continue the POV campaign by proxy (in particular, I see no attempt to understand the importance of undue weight but only dedication to "get the truth out"). This sort of gaming is not appropriate, and may lead to further sanctions or the extension of the current ones. — Coren ^(talk) 04:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  As a further note, I don't believe there is any reasonable interpretation of Raul's handful of edits that could lead to count him as "involved" by any sane meaning of the term. — Coren ^(talk) 13:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Recuse. I live and work in New York City about 4 miles from the World Trade Center site. I will adhere to my practice established last year of recusing myself from any disputes arising from the events of September 11, 2001, in part because I was profoundly personally affected by those events and in part because giving any sustained attention to the so-called, but fantastic and worthless, "controlled demolition hypothesis" as a purported explanation for what occurred on that date invariably leaves me enraged. I will remind all concerned that any suggestion that any identified or identifiable individual played any role in a "controlled demolition" of the World Trade Center buildings represents a BLP violation of the gravest nature. (I do not suggest that Thomas Basboll or any other specific editor is guilty of this offense.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---