m →Statement by MastCell: sign |
|||
Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
Martinphi has taken the ArbCom case as a complete vindication; he continues his old tactics, but now buttresses them with edit summaries such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Precognition&diff=prev&oldid=162606407 "Rv per ArbCom"]. In fact, he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Martinphi/Links&oldid=162606275#Rv_per_ArbCom_on_the_paranormal maintains a page of edit summaries] citing the ArbCom case, for use in content disputes. The FA page disruption cited by LuckyLouie is another indication that there's a problem here which wasn't dealt with in the previous ArbCom. To me, the bottom line is that this Martinphi views Wikipedia as a [[WP:BATTLE|battleground]] first and foremost; this informs his approach to editing; and he has taken the prior ArbCom ruling as a vindication of his approach, which I think is a serious problem. I would strongly encourage ArbCom to take this case as unfinished business from the previous ruling, looking specifically at the behavior of Martinphi and any other user whom the Committee believes should be scrutinized, myself included. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' <sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 00:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC) |
Martinphi has taken the ArbCom case as a complete vindication; he continues his old tactics, but now buttresses them with edit summaries such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Precognition&diff=prev&oldid=162606407 "Rv per ArbCom"]. In fact, he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Martinphi/Links&oldid=162606275#Rv_per_ArbCom_on_the_paranormal maintains a page of edit summaries] citing the ArbCom case, for use in content disputes. The FA page disruption cited by LuckyLouie is another indication that there's a problem here which wasn't dealt with in the previous ArbCom. To me, the bottom line is that this Martinphi views Wikipedia as a [[WP:BATTLE|battleground]] first and foremost; this informs his approach to editing; and he has taken the prior ArbCom ruling as a vindication of his approach, which I think is a serious problem. I would strongly encourage ArbCom to take this case as unfinished business from the previous ruling, looking specifically at the behavior of Martinphi and any other user whom the Committee believes should be scrutinized, myself included. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' <sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 00:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
==== Comment by uninvolved [[User:Profg]] ==== |
|||
A look at ScienceApologist's contribution history paints a picture of obsessive advocacy and relentless POV pushing, violating the spirit and letter of [[WP:CON|consensus]], [[WP:CIV|civility]], and [[WP:NPA|no personal attacks]]. It seems that wherever he goes, Talk page dispute follows. I believe that ScienceApologist's approach to editing is highly problematic. He's a [[WP:BATTLE|POV-warrior]] first and foremost and has utilized a variety of unsavory editing tactics. As such, his RfA should be viewed in that light. --[[User:profg|profg]] <sup> [[User talk:Profg|<span>Talk</span>]]</sup> 00:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==== Clerk notes ==== |
==== Clerk notes ==== |
Revision as of 00:25, 8 October 2007
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
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.
Please make your request in the appropriate section:
- Request a new arbitration case
- Request clarification or amendment of an existing case
- This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed
- Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
- Arbitrator motions
- Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/How-to
Current requests
Martinphi-ScienceApologist
- Initiated by ScienceApologist at 21:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Involved parties
- Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
Statement by ScienceApologist
User:Martinphi has taken a hardline attack stance towards what he deems is pseudoskepticism at Wikipedia violating the spirit and letter of consensus, civility, and no personal attacks. He has maintained attack pages outside of Wikipedia, has engaged in tendentious editing (as documented in his RfC), has wholesale attacked members of a WikiProject that he maintains membership in to make a point [1], [2], [3] . The earlier arbitration on paranormal did not deal with his specific behavior, but since it has been well documented for some time and does not seem to be abating, it is time for the arbitration committee to take it up. This arbitration was initiated after asking Martinphi to remove a personal attack on Wikipedia: WikiProject Rational Skepticism and receiving nothing more than a brick wall [4]. ScienceApologist 21:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment by uninvolved User:Nealparr
- What ScienceApologist refers to as a personal attack on a WikiProject is nothing more than a parody. A parody is one of the most civil forms of criticism in civilization. --Nealparr (talk to me) 22:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment by User:LuckyLouie
A look at the user's contribution history paints a picture of obsessive advocacy and relentless POV pushing. It seems that wherever he goes, Talk page dispute follows.
One that stands out in particular is his rather lengthy disruption of the FA Talk page which included bizarre accusations of abuse of administrative powers.
Recently I made the mistake of listing my suggestions for improving Electronic voice phenomena as a Good Article review . I wasn't aware that as a former editor, I could not formally review the article. Martin used this as a pretext to accuse me of "bias" and that all my "suggestions and editing have been biased". He also seems convinced that bias stems from being "part of the Rational Skepticism project which has as a goal to bring Skeptic's Dictionary into Wikipedia.".
I have honestly had my fill of Martin's bad behavior. I don't have the time or energy to resist such zealotry. If the community chooses to ignore his continued POV campaign, I will simply avoid articles in which he is involved...as many others have apparently decided to do. -- LuckyLouie 23:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Statement by MastCell
I was asked to comment here by ScienceApologist. As I mentioned in the previous ArbCom case on the subject, I believe that Martinphi's approach to editing is highly problematic. He's a warrior first and foremost and has utilized a variety of unsavory editing tactics. His approach throughout that ArbCom was to minimize his violations, and he clearly came away with the message that "...the Arbitrators have confirmed my understanding of NPOV in the paranormal articles. You need to accept this." I felt then that the case, which was very broad, didn't adequately take into account Martin's behavior. I still feel that way.
Martinphi has taken the ArbCom case as a complete vindication; he continues his old tactics, but now buttresses them with edit summaries such as "Rv per ArbCom". In fact, he maintains a page of edit summaries citing the ArbCom case, for use in content disputes. The FA page disruption cited by LuckyLouie is another indication that there's a problem here which wasn't dealt with in the previous ArbCom. To me, the bottom line is that this Martinphi views Wikipedia as a battleground first and foremost; this informs his approach to editing; and he has taken the prior ArbCom ruling as a vindication of his approach, which I think is a serious problem. I would strongly encourage ArbCom to take this case as unfinished business from the previous ruling, looking specifically at the behavior of Martinphi and any other user whom the Committee believes should be scrutinized, myself included. MastCell Talk 00:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment by uninvolved User:Profg
A look at ScienceApologist's contribution history paints a picture of obsessive advocacy and relentless POV pushing, violating the spirit and letter of consensus, civility, and no personal attacks. It seems that wherever he goes, Talk page dispute follows. I believe that ScienceApologist's approach to editing is highly problematic. He's a POV-warrior first and foremost and has utilized a variety of unsavory editing tactics. As such, his RfA should be viewed in that light. --profg Talk 00:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Clerk notes
- (This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.)
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)
Commodore Sloat
- Initiated by Biophys at 02:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Involved parties
- Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Armon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Notice has been sent to User:Commodore Sloat [5], and User:Armon [6]Biophys 02:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
At least two conflict resolution efforts have recently took place:
- An RfC was filed about User:Commodore Sloat by User:Bigglove [7]
- User:Commodore Sloat and User:Armon participated in a failed enforced mediation effort [8].
- Another RfC about Csloat was apparently filed by User:TDC in June 2006 [9] (see clerk note).
Statement by Biophys
I suggest to evaluate behavior of User:Commodore Sloat who often makes uncivil comments, transforms WP to a battleground, and removes sourced and relevant materials from WP articles in violation of WP:NPOV policy. An RfC by Bigglove and enforced mediation with Armon failed to change the behavior of Csloat.
1. WP:CIV problems (random examples with seven different users): [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16].
2. He transforms WP to a battleground and intimidates other users, as follows from my history of communication with him (in chronological order):
(1) I had no interactions with Csloat except our dispute over article Operation Sarindar [17] Once I tried to edit Criticism of Bill O'Reilly, but Csloat warned me that he will report me to ANI for wikistaling: [18], so I stayed away of any articles he edited. Next time, I restored a more neutral version of article The Intelligence Summit (because it is linked to Operation Sarindar), and Csloat immediately reported me as a "wikistalker" to WP:ANI: [19]. Administrator commented that his ANI report was unfounded [20].
(2) An RfC has been filed about Csloat by user Bigglove [21]. I made a couple of comments in this RfC. Csloat apologized for his uncivil behavior and promised to work in a more cooperative manner. Unfortunately, this did not happen. Instead of cooperating with others, Csloat blamed Bigglove of sockpuppetry, conducted RR war with several users, and finally decided to "take care" of me.
(3) In response to my RfC comments, Csloat came to my talk page with inflammatory claims [22] [23] [24]. I asked him to stop, but he refused. He stopped only after intervention of an administrator: [25].
(4) Then, he came to edit article Communist terrorism that I am currently working with. He never edited this article before. He started making massive deletions of relevant and perfectly sourced text [26], ignoring all objections by others [27] [28], and finally, nominated this article for AfD, exactly as he did previously twice with article Operation Sarindar.
(5) I suggested to Csloat that we should stay away of each other's edits but he refused [29], started blaming me, and again, an uninvolved administrator had to intervene [30]
3. WP:NPOV violations and WP:DE
Let's consider only one last edit by Cslot that he made right now: [31]. In the single edit, he deleted numerous mainstream views on the Communist terrorism taken from reliable sources. He deleted views of (1) Ion Mihai Pacepa; (2) Professor Martin Rudner; (3) Robert Conquest (4) Karl Kautsky; (5) Edvard Radzinsky; (6) Richard Pipes, (7) Karl Marx.
Note that Csoat made such deletion right now and twice [32]. He thinks he can do whatever he wants by making unsubstantiated claims that all the sources he deleted are WP:FRINGE, or that citing such sources is WP:SYN. Csloat provided no valid arguments at the talk page to justify his actions. He did this against consensus, since Hardyplants, Mamalujo and me made their disagreement clear at the talk page or by reverting the unjustified deletions of text. He did this after a warning: [33]. He has been already blocked for 24 hours for offensive modifications of other user comments - at the talk page of this article [34] [35]. He came back from the block and continued the "battle", regardless to this standing RfA request about him.
Csloat deleted referenced and relevant texts from many WP articles, for example here [36] (note that he blames me of WP:SYN but reverts version of W. Frank) or here [37] [38] [39] [40]. In the last example he was involved in RR warring against several users and "won" the "battle" by asking to protect the article. Biophys 00:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Statement by Commodore Sloat
Biophys has completely misstated the dispute. This is a content dispute over Biophys' insertion of original research into Operation Sarindar and Communist terrorism -- a synthesis of unrelated quotes strung together to make a point. Every time I deleted material I explained in the edit summaries and in talk; Biophys refused to engage those arguments -- instead he mass reverts.
I don't see how he tried to resolve this - he has simply edit warred and threatened to take me to arbcom. He has not tried any other form of WP:DR. I believe he is using my previous disputes with other users - most of which have been resolved - in order to escalate this.
Armon should not be included as a party to this dispute. He has not been on either of the articles at hand. It is true I have had disputes with Armon in the past, but I have no current conflicts with him and I do not see how he is involved in this dispute at all. Currently Armon and I have avoided interacting with each other and that has worked out fine. There may be interactions between us in the future but I for one have resolved to approach such interactions amicably and with every assumption of good faith. I simply don't see how he is involved.
Biophys "confirmation that other dispute steps have been tried" is entirely deceptive. He mentions an RfC but does not mention that it was about an entirely different dispute. He also does not mention that the RfC led to an amicable and satisfactory solution. I owned up to poor behavior on my part and apologized unconditionally. Contrary to Biophys' claim, the RfC is an example of dispute resolution actually working! In any case, that RfC was an attempt to resolve a completely different dispute.
His second example of DR -- the failed [CEM] attempt between myself and Armon -- is likewise a completely separate dispute. It is true that CEM did not work out, and I was very upset that it did not. I tried to be very conciliatory during the CEM, but Armon refused to accept any compromise offered by me. One of the admins who got involved in the mediation -- someone who shares Armon's POV on the content dispute -- pointed out his failure to engage constructively. It is truly unfortunate that that CEM did not work out, but it is entirely deceptive to make that dispute part of the current one I am having with Biophys on those two articles.
His third example of DR -- added after he posted his statement -- is likewise bogus. He cites an RfC that is a year and a half old, that had nothing to do with the current situation, that was judged to be without merit by most of the participants to it, and that resulted in a satisfactory resolution.
His list of 6 examples of incivility is deceptive - some of them are 1-2 years old and most represent disputes that have since been resolved. I respond to each in turn -- as well as his other claims and his equally deceptive "case study" -- in my longer statement on the issue. I note there and show evidence for several extremely deceptive statements by Biophys; it is surprising he would bring such a shoddy case to ArbCom.
In short, this RfAr has no merit.
Statement by User:Armon
It's true in a sense that I'm not currently is a dispute with sloat, but that's mainly because I haven't been editing. If I were to edit any page he does, it would be the same old, same old. The only way to remove yourself from a dispute with sloat is to avoid him altogether because any dispute, no matter how minor, will quickly makes you subject to his incivility, personal attacks, and proof by assertion/ad nauseum arguments. It is an utterly no-win situation if you're attempting to work on an article. Improvements to the article itself comes to a standstill, while it's talk page expands into usenet.
If you enter DR with him, as I did when he suggested CEM, that will also go nowhere, because he will be utterly intransigent that articles mirror his opinions no matter how much evidence you present.
There is copious evidence of sloat's TE and treating WP as a battleground, however, the last time I brought up issues with his behaviour, they were dismissed because of my longstanding disputes with him. The problem is, these issues are not simply to do with me, and I think intervention from arbcom is unavoidable. <<-armon->> 15:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Clerk notes
- Here is a link to the deleted history of a previous request on Commodore Sloat. I will restore it temporarily if the case is accepted. Picaroon (t) 03:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/0/0/0)
Iantresman
- Initiated by Iantresman at 14:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Involved parties
- Iantresman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- JoshuaZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Tom harrison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Art Carlson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Bladestorm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- I have notified all the parties listed above. Newyorkbrad 18:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Statement by Iantresman
- Fred Bauder temporarily unblocked me to file this request to arbitrate my 16 July 2007 indefinite community ban (discussion archive). I offer the following points in summary, which I would like opportunity to evidence and comment on, should my case be accepted:
- The Community noticeboard took just 5 hours and 11 minutes from starting the discussion,[41] to banning me.[42] I feel this was insufficient time for the community to fully discuss the matter, including having an opportunity myself to fully participate.
- One editor noted that he has "a bad feeling about this process"[43], and subsequently noted that the banning editor had "refused to justify his block" [44]
- Another editor subsequently noted that "I'm having a hard time finding a single shred of evidence against him here."[45]
- Without having a chance to answer my critics, and with other editors questioning the process, and the lack of evidence against me, I feel that the indefinite ban was misguided and inappropriate.
- Hopefully other editors will not find it necessarily to merely repeat views from the Community discussion here.
- I wasn't sure whether everyone who took part in the Community discussion are "involved parties", and I believe that my "temporary unblocking" restricts my contributions to this page only. --Iantresman 14:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've added the Community noticeboard nominator, and the banning editor as involved parties, plus the two editors I mentioned who queried the process. I could add a dozen other names, but I feel we would duplicate much of what has already been discussed. --Iantresman 15:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- If my RfA appeal is accepted, I will show that JoshuaZ's assertions are unfounded, and he will present no diffs demonstrating "pseudoscience pushing" or improper editing regarding the legitimate description of minority views. --Iantresman 19:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- ScienceApologist below, omits to mention that when I accused him of "untoward behaviour" towards me, it was not only upheld by ArbCom,[46], I provided diffs as evidence, and although ArbCom cautioned him particularly to be civil, he continued to be uncivil toward me,[47] [48] [49] [50]. I have never solicited disruption of Wikipedia on other sites, though I have sought the help of experts, whose advice ScienceApologist subsequently interpreted as the exact opposite to that offered. --Iantresman 22:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- ScienceApologist below, accuses me of "untruths" (yet again, contrary to his ArbCom fingings,[51] and without evidence). He omits to mention that when I asked for advice on the Halton Arp forum (unfortunately the message is no longer available), 20 minutes earlier I also asked for similar advice on the Bad Astronomy/Universe Today forum,[52]... hardly the actions of someone intent on disrupting Wikipedia, but the actions of an editor seeking the advice of experts. --Iantresman 11:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Three editors have now accused User:Soupdragon42 of being a sockpuppet of mine, which I deny as I happen to know his identity, I am happy to work with Arbitrators to establish this (subject to respecting his privacy), showing that such unfounded accusations like this, are another reason why the Community ban was unsafe and unfounded. --Iantresman 11:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC) In addition to Soupdragon42's comments below, editors can further confirm my identity through my personal web site, and the registration of my web/domain, plasma-universe.com,[53] I am not impressed that I have to jump through hoops and provide much personal information as evidence of my innocence, whereas others make unfounded allegations on which there are no demands of evidence. --Iantresman 12:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Statement by User:JoshuaZ
It is possible that the community discussion was too short. However, the generally community consensus seemed to be clear. I do not think that I can do much that would be helpful other than to repeat my original reasons for requesting a ban. As I said then "This user is a general POV-warrior of all sorts of pseudoscience and fringe science ideas who seems to have overstayed his welcome on Wikipedia. His block record includes a 3RR on Eric Lerner, he has repeatedly POV pushing on a variety of articles and harassed editors who do not agree with him. For example, he repeatedly harassed User:ScienceApologist who eventually left the project over a variety of issues, including Ian's behavior. SA was a very productive editor with over 16,000 edits. Ian is now repeating the exact same thing with a relatively new user User:Mainstream astronomy Ian has been placed on probation by the ArbCom which has reduced but by no means eleminated his POV pushing. In summary, Ian is an incorrigible POV pusher and harasser who has in my opinion exhausted the community patience. Since the ArbCom's probation has not stopped him, we should consider a community ban." Nothing in that statement has changed or needs to be qualified at this point. There is no compelling reason for the ArbCom to reopen this matter. JoshuaZ 18:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Statement by Odd nature
Reviewing the events at the community discussion leading to Iantresman's ban, the facts are the block was put in place approximately 6 hours after his case was brought before the community and near 100% support for a ban. The discussion continued there for another 10 days afterward and approximately 90% of the 24 + participants there supported the ban. I see no valid reason for the Arbcom to override the community's decision. Evidence provided at WP:CSN along with Iantresman's block log showing he ignored the probation he received in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience to the point he received a block for violating it and another for trying to drive productive contributors off of Wikipedia are ample evidence that the community got it right. I urge the Arbcom to reject Iantresman's request. Odd nature 20:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Statement by Art Carlson
I stand by my comments made during the previous discussion. My main objection was that neither the specific reasons nor the evidence was clearly laid out. Concerning Ian Tresman, I know that he can be difficult to work with. Part of this difficulty is the energy he puts into Wikipedia and his unorthodox POV. Energy is welcome and an unusual POV can be fruitful as long as everyone is committed to keeping the articles NPOV. I think Ian embraces that commitment and the associated process. I, at least, have always found it possible to reason with him, and he is civil. I think a permanent and complete ban should be a last resort that goes too far in this case. At the very least, I think the supporters of a ban should be required to lay out specific reasons and evidence. --Art Carlson 20:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Statement by ScienceApologist
I think that Ian's presence is entirely too disruptive. His peculiar devotion to his POV which includes catastrophism and opposition to mainstream astronomy has wasted the time and energy of contributors that could be put to better use. He has a tendency to be overly litigious to the point of absurdity: often resorting to recruitment of meatpuppets outside the boundaries of Wikipedia. He has a stated agenda of repositioning Wikipedia to conform to his fringe agenda: a kind of advocacy that has been precedent enough to ban others at this encyclopedia. Since being banned he has also used proxies to continue his advocacy at Wikipedia through his various internet enterprises. A permanent and complete ban is the only recourse when people game the system as much as this user has.
I note the following instances of Ian Tresman using a sockpuppet to argue at Wikipedia:
I also note that Ian has initiated a ridiculous number of attacks against me throughout his time here at Wikipedia. He seems to be obsessed with me accusing me at various times of all manner of untoward behavior. He has advocated outside of Wikipedia at Halton Arp's forum and at the Thunderbolts forum for disruption of this website.
I never understood why he was tolerated here for as long as he was. That we are entertaining allowing him back is extremely unfortunate.
ScienceApologist 21:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I also note that the meatpuppets are out in force below. I encourage anyone interested to review the editing histories of the two users who posted below. ScienceApologist 21:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Ian has now basically perpetuated an untruth regarding his solicitation for outside disruption of Wikipedia. In particular, in the very beginning of my editing activities at Redshift, he posted at Halton Arp's forum encouraging users there to promote their fringe viewpoints in order to get more visibility for their objections to the redshift-distance relationship. I find that his continued evasiveness with regards to the problematic patterns outlined in detail in the arbitration are only more reasons for the community consensus to stand. ScienceApologist 16:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Statement by Profg
As someone who was never a party to any of the noticeboard proceedings, I have gone back and extensively reviewed them. It's obvious that this procedure was rushed, and the "evidence" far from compelling. I urge the Arbcom to accept Iantresman's request. --profg 21:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Statement by Soupdragon42
I have also gone back and extensively reviewed the earlier proceedings. I am dismayed by the entire mess. The banning has a whiff of the Spanish Inquistion about it. I also urge the Arbcom to accept Iantresman's request. --Soupdragon42 22:45, 2 October 2007 (GMT)
Three editors have now accused me of being a sockpuppet of Ian Tresman. This is outrageous, but I can't say that it surprises me given the petty and vitriolic manner in which Ian Tresman has been attacked throughout. It highlights the rash and baseless danger of so many of the accusations being made.
I am amazed that Ian Tresman has maintained dignity and courtesy throughout this whole sorry process.
I am behind the www.plasmacosmology.net web site which focuses on the work of Kristian Birkeland, Hannes Alfven, and Anthony Perratt. The site differentiates between Plasma Cosmology and The Electric Universe, although ScienceApologist does not. He continually removed the links I provided to this site, and then accused me of edit warring! He is a pseudoskeptic to the nth degree; he demonstrates an irrational fear of the emerging electrodynamic paradigm which he perceives as threatening his cherished world view! 12:35, 4 October 2007 (GMT)
In order to put an end to this witch hunt I am happy to work with arbitrators to establish my identity.
- Further comment
No evidence has yet been forthcoming in respect of the Ian Tresman sockpuppet allegations! I have been accused, erroneously, of being one such sockpuppet, and I note that Durova has recognised this fact and, quite reasonably, crossed through the error in his post above. This was after a private message.
At the very least, I expect others to do likewise.
This highlights the danger of making rash and baseless accusations. Such behaviour is not doing the reputation of Wikipedia any good, especially when you consider the courteous and dignified manner in which Ian Tresman has conducted himself throughout.
Science is a competitive and argumentative business, but it cannot progress by consensus as evidence should always trump opinion. It is essential therefore that the likes of ScienceApologist are not allowed to bully those with new ideas, especially when these new ideas have so much to commend them. Integrity and fair play must be maintained. The history of science testifies to the ridicule and suppression of so many meritorious ideas in their day. I have said it before and I will say it again: The treatment of Ian Tresman has a whiff of the Spanish Inquistion about it!
Statement by Michaelbusch
As an uninvolved editor, I have also reviewed the available information, and find that Iantresman has no reason to justify his unblocking, unless he can demonstrate that he has reformed his conduct. This is not evident. Also, based on editing history, User:Soupdragon42 is a puppet of Iantresman, either a meatpuppet or a sock (looks like Apologist beat me to that one). Soupdragon42 has edited only Plasma cosmology, the associated talk page, the account's talk page, and the above. The first edit took place on 2007 April 29, while Iantresman's indefinite block was issued 2007 July 16, with an earlier block 2007 June 22 [54]. Throughout May, Soupdragon42 seems to been coordinating edits with Iantresman to avoid 3RR violations (see history of Plasma cosmology). Michaelbusch 21:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Statement by Tom Harrison
Time spent on this is time wasted. Tom Harrison Talk 22:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Statement by MGmirkin
Feel free to see a number of my statements on the prior ArbCom request for ban. I'll try to boil it down and not rehash too much. I support Ian's request for removing or revisiting the ban decision. At least in part due to the fact that due process didn't really happen. As I recall, FeloniosMonk had leveled an unsupported accusation against Ian, to which he had responded (I believe with an ArbCom request asking FeloniusMonk to explain himself and provide proof) and which was pending at the time the Ban request was made. Generally, said request and or ArbCom issue should have been settled FIRST, as it was the precipitating event whereby Ian was accused of violating a prior ArbCom sanction. However, Ian was banned before the precipitating accusation could be resolved, thus he was banned from participating in his own defense on the original charge. to me that seems to be unfair play by those with a grudge against Ian. That's my personal view of the situation. Mgmirkin 23:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
ArbCom shouldn't be about furthering a grudge or expelling someone who doesn't hold your particular point of view, but rather impartially reviewing evidence and coming to a sensible conclusion. As far as I saw in the banning RfA,it was short on "evidence" and long on "rhetoric" exposing personal grudges of certain involved parties. That really doesn't belong in a proceeding of that sort. I tend to believe that a better system of resolution is needed than polar opposite sides of an issue coming together and voting along party lines to either keep a friend or ban an opponent. Mgmirkin 23:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Aside from which, I do think that the punishment was more severe than the unsubstantiated original accusation [which had not been resolved] warranted. Lesser sanctions than a "complete ban" may have been appropriate. Be that ban-from-controversial-topic(s) and/or probation on that or other topics, or some lesser remedy. Mgmirkin 23:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Just to declare any COI's, I do know Ian in real-life. And generally find him to be a pleasant fellow, and not prone to misbehavior. I think that his edits have generally been in good faith. Long story short, I simply don't think sufficient evidence was presented at the ban request, and as such it should be overturned at least on a provisional basis. And I think that a higher standard of impartiality & evidence should be effected in such ArbCom decisions. I realize WP isn't a court, but that can be problematic if charges can be leveled without evidence being proferred, without users negatively affected being given time to redress charges leveled against them, and said users can thus be inappropriately negatively impacted (by censure or ban). For this reason (Ian's ban w/o appropriate evidence or due process), among others, I've generally avoided WP as an unfriendly place to edit. Though I do occasionally still make what I hope are useful edits from time to time. Mgmirkin 23:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Statement by Raymond arritt
A few have commented on the rapidity with which Iantresman's community ban was enacted. This was not a bolt from the blue, but rather the community standing up and agreeing after someone finally gains the nerve to say "enough!" to Ian's long record of disruption. Yes, Iantresman was singled out. He was singled out for engaging in a broad range of destructive behavior such as badgering other users, relentlessly Wikilawyering even the smallest of points, using sockpuppets, and so on. His statement above shows absolutely no indication whatsoever that he acknowledges any of these problems, and as a result I see no possibility that his participation could be a net benefit to Wikipedia.
Comment by uninvolved ^demon
Whether or not this user needs to be banned, I have no opinion to offer. However, the fact that WP:CSN took less than 6 hours to decide on this upsets me greatly. Bans are not to be handed out lightly, as they are not only a technical restriction on editing, they are also a message to the person being banned that "you are no longer wanted." The fact that only 7 editors (JoshuaZ, KillerChihuahua, Prosfilaes, Odd nature, JzG, SirFozzie, Tom Harrison) participated in the discussion other than Ian, I hardly consider it a "community decision" to ban. I think the usage of WP:CSN to institute these "quick bans" is rather unbefitting to the spirit of WP:AGF. No wonder the community jokingly redirects Wikipedia:Votes for banning to it. ^demon[omg plz] 16:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment by uninvolved Rocksanddirt
While I believe I did participate in the WP:CSN discussion, and agreed that the user's behavior was excessively disruptive, I agree with ^demon. I would not really expect the arb comm to come to a different conclusion, but we do need to make the point clear to those who participate regularly at WP:CSN and those who want to use it as a 'ban my enemy' forum that the discussions cannot be and should not be rushed. --Rocksanddirt 21:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment by uninvolved ChrisO
The short discussion time and limited number of participants in the discussion does not seem very satisfactory, but that doesn't automatically invalidate the decision. Given the circumstances, I suggest that this would be more usefully dealt with by remanding it back to the community sanction noticeboard to be discussed more thoroughly. -- ChrisO 22:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment by uninvolved Durova
Although I prefer community sanction discussions to last somewhat longer than this one did, the process argument appears to be quite weak, particularly so given the strong suspicions (with which I concur) that Soupdragon42 is a sockpuppet of Iantresman. Consensus was swift and nearly unanimous because this editor was a textbook example of disruptive editing. A banned user who attempts no basis for appeal other than process should at least take care that his own actions respect process. DurovaCharge! 05:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Good faith strikethrough of the more serious conduct concerns. I maintain the opinion that something more than a process appeal ought to be needed to raise this to the level of a meritorious appeal. Assumption of responsibility and assurances to avoid repetitions of previous problems would go a long way with me. DurovaCharge! 02:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Clerk notes
- (This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.)
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/0/0/1)
- Accept, probation has to be given a chance to work, if it is going to be effective. It may take a year or two, but that is very different from an indefinite ban. Fred Bauder 00:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- As an aside, I was never especially convinced that "Mainstream astronomy" was a new user, but that doesn't excuse the behaviour. Mackensen (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Accept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Accept. James F. (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Ebionites
- Initiated by John Carter at 15:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Involved parties
- Warlordjohncarter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as initiating party
- MichaelCPrice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Ovadyah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Str1977 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Loremaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Notice has been sent to MichaelCPrice [55], Ovadyah [56], Str1977 [57], and Nishidani [58]. John Carter 16:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
A request for arbritration was filed. MichaelCPrice initially agreed to it, and then withdrew from mediation, as per here.
Statement by Warlordjohncarter
The subject under discussion is the currently FA Ebionites. The article is currently in FAR as per here over concerns regarding the article's stability, neutrality and accuracy. Many of these concerns seem to be over recent additions added by User:MichaelCPrice. MichaelCPrice's in his additions has recently been found, as per this comment [59] by User:Nishidani, to have, and I quote, "forged the evidence, and fobbed it onto Eisenman, with a combination of circular methodology, illegal synthesis, misattribution, and misinterpretation," Eisenman in the quote being a reputable scholar to whom MichaelCPrice has attributed comments from much less reputable individuals. MichaelCPrice has consistently defended the insertion of this fringe theory as being legitimate by the means described by Nishidani above, and had recently through his adamant refusal to work to improve the article and or address the concerns raised by the material he included caused the editor who had been working to keep the article at FA status, User:Ovadyah, to temporarily leave wikipedia, saying here [60] he would leave the article's "carcass to the jackals". Michael's primary defense seems to be based on the idea that this theory which has received little attention by reputable scholars, in part because of the basically non-existent reputation of one of its primary proponents, is somehow required to ensure NPOV, despite the fact that the proponents of the theory are themselves at best dubiously qualified under WP:RS, and ignoring the fact that the amount of space given this fringe argument seems to be in the eyes of virtually everyone else a total violation of WP:Undue weight to what is seemingly very much a fringe theory. John Carter 15:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- I also must agree with MichaelCPrice below that the assumption of bad faith on his part seems to be shared by just about everyone who was worked with him on this article. Make of that what you will. John Carter 23:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Statement by MichaelCPrice
The Ebionite article seems to attract editors with strong POVs but with an unwillingness to allow the presentation of other notable, reliably sourced POVs (such as James Tabor's) in a balanced and fair way, in line with Wikipolicies such as WP:NPOV. Rather than productively debate these substantive issues many editors resort to the consistent presumption of bad faith. This is a long-standing problem that needs addressing. With this bad faith practice stopped I believe the content issues can be resolved.
The most recent, indeed ongoing, example of this presumption of bad faith is User:Warlordjohncarter's example above: in response to User:Nishidani's analysis [61] of a passage (in which the claim is made that I "forged the evidence") I provided some feedback [62] in which I responded to all the points, accepted some changes[63], and suggested that the more appropriate fora for this discussion were other existing sections of the same talk page where these issues had already been discussed. This was to avoid the ongoing problem of text being taken out of context. Despite this, and rather than use the "page-up" keys, User:Warlordjohncarter accused me of bad faith (again) [64].
I withdrew from the mediation when it became clear that the bad faith issue was not going to be addressed. [65] --Michael C. Price talk 19:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I must emphasize that this assumption of bad faith is routinely assumed by all the other parties here, not just User:Warlordjohncarter. If I change my views on something I am accused of shifting like a chameleon, If I don't change my views I am accused of obduracy. If I say I'm undecided I'm accused of egotism. And always the assumption of bad faith (evidenced even on this arbitration page). Needless to say the disputed substantive issues are not as straightforward as presented by others; the continued assumption of bad faith makes it impossible to have a rational debate about them, since the first thing lost when bad faith is assumed is objectively; I have always assumed good faith of the other editors, no matter how we much we disagree over content; all the other editors listed here consistently assume bad faith. One point I agree with Ovadyah about is when he says that the article can only progress "when this user conduct problem is dealt with once and for all." --Michael C. Price talk 07:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Just before I ever edited the article [66] Tabor's POV that the Ebionites were followers of John the Baptist, as well as Jesus, was displayed in the first paragraph of the lead. The second paragraph featured (exclusively) the views of Eisenman. Now the other editors are claiming that these two sources are examples of fringe scholarship (despite an explicit admin judgement to the contrary[67]) or even not reliable sources[68]. All I am trying to do is restore the balance that has been lost and I am accused of bad faith, pushing a fringe POV, not understanding undue weight etc. --Michael C. Price talk 07:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Statement by Ovadyah
Indeed there is a long-standing problem here. However, the problem is not one of bad faith. It is a persistent pattern of editorial synthesis, purposeful misattribution, evasion, and obfuscation. As I have stated elsewhere on the talk page, Michael Price has repeatedly introduced content into the Ebionites article that is knowingly false with the intent to deceive.
[69] [70] [71] [72] He is engaging in an effort to push a fringe POV that is not stated even by the fringe sources he heavily relies upon. It is my hope that the article, now under FAR, can be restored to FA quality. But it can only happen when this user conduct problem is dealt with once and for all. Ovadyah 21:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Assumptions of bad faith, which Michael Price goes on so much about, happen for a reason. They are a symptom, not a problem. They are reactions to ceasless edit-warring, editorial bullying, personal attacks, a stone-deaf ear, and a contemptible regard for the opinions of other editors. As if this were not enough, there is a pernicious mendacity in his editorial behavior that requires other editors to verify his work and root out purposelful mistatements and misattributions. I agree with Loremaster's summary conclusion. This editor must be stopped from doing further damage to the Ebionites article. Ovadyah 12:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Statement by GRBerry
I recollect at least one RfC this summer on the Religion/Philosophy subpage. The evidence issues were beyond my competence to address quickly, and I did not have time for an in depth consideration. I don't know if the community gave any input to the RfC. But I note for the committee that an RfC was also tried, in addition to an RfM. The talk page of the article also demonstrates at least one call on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. GRBerry 21:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Statement by Nishidani
I chanced upon the page, to correct a minor mispelling, and, noting a disagreement between MichaelCPrice and Ovadyah, attempted a mediation, in which at first I gave some backing to MichaelCPrice. Subsequently, I found it impossible, even by extensive analyses, to get MichaelCPrice to at least see both the critical position others held, and to give some reflection to the frailties, extensively documented, of his own positions (I use the plural advisedly because, when he yields on what strikes others, after unnecessarily numerous comments from a majority of other contributors, as untenable, he changes his stance, but only slightly). Ovadyah, I think correctly, likened his attitude in these endless exchanges to the labile chromatic switches proverbially associated with chameleons.
'Michael, I can't help but notice you're constantly shifting positions like a chameleon. First, you made the absolute statement that archaeology supports a settlement of vegetarian Essenes at Qumran. Then you changed your story to Qumran after 31 BCE, then it was not Qumran but Ein Gedi. Now you're saying a whole group of settlements but not Qumran (Masada, Herodium Jericho, Ein Gedi, Ein Boqeq, Ein Feshkha, Kallirrhoe, Machaerus). I think you have no idea, and you are just grasping at any headlines you happen find on the web. From now on, please bring your evidence here in the form of direct quotations that we can read for ourselves.Ovadyah 20:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
To this Michael CPrice replied:-
'I have no problem with changing my mind about things. Glad you noticed.'
I think evidence has been provided that the passage he stoutly defended, while refusing to provide evidence for its several assertions, is definitely a 'synthesis' based on his guesswork, of two distinct books, which he conflated, and then attributed his own OR conclusions back to both authors. The point was obvious from the outset, but required a considerable amount of time and labour to do, and was met with a very late, perhaps last ditch, offer to reconsider a fragmentary part of it. I won't cite my own technical arguments, but conclude with the following exchange, which I think puts the finger on the problem.
'I produced a quotation of exactly what Pliny said about the Essenes, and pointed out to you that Pliny made no remarks about the Essene's vegetarianism. You made no attempt to correct this mistake in the article, even after several days, so I can only conclude that the statement you inserted into the article was knowingly false. Ovadyah 16:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
MichaelCPrice replied.
'I left the quote in because, for the moment, I am undecided.'
That I which I highlight, is the problem. Ovadyah meticulously gave detailed evidence that invalidated MichaelCPrice's claim, MichaelCPrice refused to adjust his post after the refutation, and when asked why answered that he wouldn't withdraw a false claim because (though false) he personally hadn't decided one way or another what he might do about it.
An article that achieved FA standard is at risk of being degraded, and some of its best authors disenchanted of maintaining its quality, predominantly because of difficulties one editor is making, virtually for everyone else. He doesn't appear to appreciate that 'collaboration' on a collective article is not a synonym for getting one's own way by sheer attrition Nishidani 22:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Statement by Loremaster
Months after having worked hard to ensure that Ebionites became a featured article, I chose to permanently stop contributing partly because I was no longer willing to tolerate MichealCPrice's use of wikilawyering to undermine the neutral point of view of the article in order to give undue weight to fringe theories and, worse, his systematic personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with him in order to intimidate them into surrendering to his agenda. Bottom line: This user must be stopped. --Loremaster 00:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Statement by Str1977
It is hard to say anything that has not already been said, so I will try to make this brief: the ongoing problem on Ebionites (and less pressingly other pages) is MichealCPrice's behaviour that has driven of two regular editors and made the Ebionite article unstable. In contrast to what he claims above, no editor has tried to removed Tabor's view from the article - it was rather ensuring NPOV in as much as Tabor's view is not the only scholarly view (that has been achieved), not giving it undue weight (not solved yet) and distinguishing Tabor's view from other views instead of creating a synthesis (not solved yet). Another problem has been the insitence on including things not directly relevant to the article, often creating a POV problem thereby. Recently the problem has been augmented by Michael's refusal to give references (stating that he gave them once upon a time). As for assuming bad faith: certainly some of his opponents hold Michael to be acting in bad faith but that is the result of bad experiences with him, so it is rather concluding bad faith. I personally think that Michael is honestly so much immersed into Tabor's view that he can't see anything else. OTOH, I have seen Michael assuming bad faith on practically every occasion. His withdrawal from the mediation also seems unwarranted as the issue to be solved was content and not behaviour. If we agreed on content, behaviour would no longer be a current issue. His withdrawal prevented this. And this is why we are here. Str1977 (talk) 09:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Clerk notes
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (6/0/1/0)
- Accept. We can help here. Good faith attempts at mediation by impartial editors have failed so I do not think further ordinary dispute resolution attempts will help. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Accept. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Recuse, I reject the idea of a lengthy featured article regarding a subject about which almost nothing is known and for which there are no reliable sources. Fred Bauder 14:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Accept. Paul August ☎ 15:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Accept. Kirill 20:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Accept. James F. (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Accept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Requests for clarification
Place requests for clarification on matters related to the Arbitration process in this section. Place new requests at the top.
Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 Remedy
As the closing clerk, I noticed some interesting problems with the remedy 1 of this case. The remedy 1 puts edit supervision on the editors sanctioned in the original case, however, at least 2 editors sanctioned in the original case was not named as a party to the newer case and was surprised/shocked of the development. I'd like some input from the Committee to explain the ruling on this. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 04:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Also, under this case, other editors who edit in a similar manner to the previously-sanctioned editors may be placed under the limitations of the original Armenia-Azerbaijan case. Do these sanctions expire one year after the editor in question is notified, or are they indefinite as no time limit is mentioned? The supervised editing remedy from the second case appears to be indefinite, as no expiration is mentioned, so my question is whether this is indeed the case and whether the other remedies are still meant to expire after a year, including on other editors brought in under the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 decision. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- I believe this situation requires attention from the committee. Frankly, I was always troubled by remedy number 1, which took all the users who were placed on revert parole (revert limitation) in the earlier case, and now placed them on supervised editing (which I gather is a new term for some form of probation and/or civility parole) as well. This was done despite the observation that although some of the parties to the earlier case had continued to display problematic behavior, others had done little or nothing wrong since the earlier decision, and there was no real reason to be applying additional remedies to them.
- The problem is magnified if, as has been stated, some of the parties to the earlier case were not parties to the newer one. The case was such a sprawl and so many editors were listed as parties (and there was edit-warring over the list for awhile) that the clerk handling the case probably assumed that all the (unbanned) parties to the earlier case had been listed again. (From now on, I will check for things like this in every case myself.) If that didn't happen, then at a minimum anyone who was subjected to a remedy without having been notified of the case should be entitled to have the case reopened and to be heard on this issue. Newyorkbrad 19:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oops. See below.
- As far as the duration is concerned, "until the situation improves" is probably a good rule of thumb. I am content to leave the decision up to the enforcing administrators. Kirill 19:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Replying to NYB, I was also the clerk in the original A-A case. However, this case was opened anew, so I did not add the parties from the old case to the new one. I never assumed that they were listed. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 20:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- To clarify, there was no reason to look for the additional parties or add them at the beginning of the case. However, when a remedy showed up on /proposed decision (or originally in an arbitrator proposal on the workshop) applicable to "all the parties to the prior decision," we should all have checked then to make sure that all of them were parties in or had all received notice of the new case. My fault as much as anyone's. Newyorkbrad 20:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Replying to NYB, I was also the clerk in the original A-A case. However, this case was opened anew, so I did not add the parties from the old case to the new one. I never assumed that they were listed. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 20:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- With due respect to Kirill I think this is a non-issue and his motion is a mistake. Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 provides that any editor who edits disruptively on the topic of "Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area" may be placed on civility parole, 1RR and probation by means of a warning on their talk page. The fact that some editors in the first case were not notified of the second case is easily remedied by a note on their talk page. Passing the motion below would take a small group of editors who were placed on 1RR and exempt them from the civility parole and probation that applies to every other editor on Wikipedia following an appropriate notice. Thatcher131 20:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- They could be placed back on the remedy, yes; but only if they edit disruptively. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt; staying out of the second case does count for something, I think. Kirill 20:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Dren. I missed that remedy #2 still applied. Sorry. Thatcher131 20:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thatcher, I had to look that word up. Clearly I have some remedial TV watching to do. More seriously, Penwhale, could you advise which users subjected to the remedy in the first case were not parties to the new case? (I ask you instead of doing the research myself as you know which users have complained to you already.) Thanks, Newyorkbrad 23:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Not so much of "complaining", but TigranTheGreat and ROOB323 were the ones affected. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 01:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- While User:TigranTheGreat was not included in the list of the parties to the second arbcom case, many users provided evidence of his behavior which they considered to be disruptive. So he was definitely a party to the second case, and he was well aware of it as he provided evidence himself. His non-inclusion was just a mistake, because most users considered all the parties to the previous case to be parties to the second one as well. On the other hand, no one complained about ROOB323, so he should be the only one affected. Grandmaster 06:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- "His non-inclusion was just a mistake" as in "Darn it, I forgot to add his name to the list"? If he (or any editor) was not on the list of involved parties in the second case, nor even told of its existence, then how can he be a party to the part 1 sanctions imposed in the second case? It is that simple, or wikipedia descends into a Kafka-esque justice system. Meowy 02:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- While User:TigranTheGreat was not included in the list of the parties to the second arbcom case, many users provided evidence of his behavior which they considered to be disruptive. So he was definitely a party to the second case, and he was well aware of it as he provided evidence himself. His non-inclusion was just a mistake, because most users considered all the parties to the previous case to be parties to the second one as well. On the other hand, no one complained about ROOB323, so he should be the only one affected. Grandmaster 06:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Not so much of "complaining", but TigranTheGreat and ROOB323 were the ones affected. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 01:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thatcher, I had to look that word up. Clearly I have some remedial TV watching to do. More seriously, Penwhale, could you advise which users subjected to the remedy in the first case were not parties to the new case? (I ask you instead of doing the research myself as you know which users have complained to you already.) Thanks, Newyorkbrad 23:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Dren. I missed that remedy #2 still applied. Sorry. Thatcher131 20:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- They could be placed back on the remedy, yes; but only if they edit disruptively. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt; staying out of the second case does count for something, I think. Kirill 20:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Just a quick note, since contributors in the 2nd ArbCom case ended up there due to pretty much the same disruptions as those in the 1st case, would not it be simpler to just place everyone on 1RR parole? I think this would significantly reduce the reporting and decision overhead, whether something should be considered a civility violation or not. Thanks. Atabek 14:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think it is shocking that ANY editor can fall foul of these remedies without having any prior warning of their existence. If these restrictions are to be fair then there must be an earlier stage to the process where editors are first warned of the existance of these pre-existing remedies and that they run the risk of breaking then if they were to go about editing an entry that falls under those remedies in the same way as they would an "ordinary" entry. A warning should be placed on every wikipedia entry to which these draconian restrictions apply. Meowy 02:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- First, TigranTheGreat was well aware of the second arbcom case, as he was providing evidence on other users, while others were providing evidence on him. [73] His non-inclusion was just a technical mistake. And I agree that some sort of warning would be good, but there are hundreds of articles covered by the remedy of arbcom 2, is it possible to add a warning to every one of them and who should do that? Grandmaster 04:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't a "justice system". Basically, anybody who cannot behave or respect policy is out, justice or no justice. Nobody will be banned without warning, but, IMHO, there are topics that are so severely and systematically disrupted by ultra-nationalists, that need to impose "draconian" measures on misbehaviour by topic, not just by individual account (which are a dime a dozen), in the interest of maintaining a sane editing environment for serious editors. I have been saying this two years ago, and I am glad the arbcom is now seeing the need for this. dab (𒁳) 09:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Any editor who edits disruptively on this topic area may brought under the umbrella of this case by a notice on their talk page. A templated warning is available at {{Armenia-Azerbaijan enforcement}} which explains the situation thoroughly. Rather than apply the notice to thousands of articles, this notice is given to the editors involved (so far 6 in addition to the editors involved in the case itself). If you are arguing for two separate warnings, (i.e., a warning about disruptive editing before the notice about being placed under the remedies can be given) that would be nice, and many admins will do that, but ArbCom didn't require it. Thatcher131 10:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Motions in prior cases
- (Only Arbitrators may make and vote on such motions. Other editors may comment on the talk page)
Extension of remedies in Armenia-Azerbaijan 2
Those parties to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan who were not named as parties to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 and were not given notice of the proceedings are exempted from the extension of existing remedies imposed by Remedy #1 in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. They remain subject to Remedy #2.
- See also discussion above. As there are currently 10 active Arbitrators, the majority is 6.
- Support:
- We messed up here. Kirill 19:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- James F. (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Paul August ☎ 13:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- There is a defect in noticing everyone in, but the remedy should properly apply to everyone. Fred Bauder 13:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Abstain: