Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions

Arbitration​Committee

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
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.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/How-to

Initiated by — Selmo ^(talk) at 00:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Mark Kim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (formerly User:Vesther)
• Crossmr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Crossmr Mark Kim

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mark Kim

I am filing this case after reading Mark Kim's RfC. I feel after analyzing the evidence, that an RfC won't solve this dispute that has been ongoing for over two years because it requires all participants to want to come to some resolution. Mark has shown no interest in listening to others' opinions, as evident here, here, and here. The description from the RFC is as follows.

Mark Kim (previously known as Vesther) has been acting in an uncivil manner for an excessively long time. Several editors have tried to speak with him and help correct his behaviour but all attempts to do so are met with more incivility, denial, and his own assertion that he should be allowed to do whatever he deems necessary to "protect" articles and to get his point across in articles, which includes violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:OWN, as well as threats to edit war. He also maintains a double standard where he thinks its perfectly acceptable for him to do certain things (like try to moderate his user talk page with an iron fist) but then warns other users for doing the same thing (a diff will be provided where he warned a user for removing warnings from his talk page). Mark Kim also maintains that any disagreement with his behaviour is a personal attack of the utmost degree (and has referred to them as "damaging his persona"). This demonstrates his inability to work in a group setting. In a place as large as wikipedia you're never going to be able to avoid coming across someone who disagrees with you. I have never been involved in a content dispute with him. My only observations with him were as a third party recently and a year ago as I stumbled across two disputes he was involved in. After the second I dug a little deeper and found just how prevalent this behaviour was.

— Selmo ^(talk) 00:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Kim has deleted his userpage, and his talkpage currently reads, "Note: Due to excessive disputes, the user has voluntarily cancelled his/her Wikipedia account." Newyorkbrad 20:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept. Kirill 15:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Moreschi ^Talk at 21:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Moreschi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Folantin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(others may add themselves as they see fit)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Done. Moreschi ^Talk 21:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pigsonthewing
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing

Wikipedia is a community project. If someone can't work with others, eventually it has to end in tears.

User:Pigsonthewing, hereafter known as Andy Mabbett, has a long history of problems with the rest of Wikipedia's community. Previous dramas culminated in the requests for comment and arbitration linked above, where he was sanctioned heavily by the ArbCom of the time. He has also been blocked a considerable number of times, including a one-year arbitration committee ban after the initial case. Since then, he has recently accumulated further blocks for revert-warring and repeatedly adding insults against other users to his userpage, after multiple uninvolved administrators had removed the offending material. He has also been in several tussles that have lead to multiple reports to WP:AE, and my personal involvement with this user has come over a move to remove infoboxes, where they are inappropriate, from classical composer and opera-related articles. After a self-evident consensus to do just this was reached, Andy Mabbett has continued to bang the drum against this for months on end, a lone voice in the wilderness, working on the principle that "no consensus == I disagree", and all because a lack of infoboxes mess up his Microformats. Others will go into that in more detail later.

Andy Mabbett has a singularly lengthy and entirely infamous history of disruption to the project. Recent events have brought this to boiling point. Given Mabbett's past history and current refusal to acknowledge, in multiple incidents, when he might possibly be wrong, I am asking the ArbCom to re-open the previous case to consider further sanctions at the very least. An outright indefinite ban, in my opinion, is to be preferred. Thank you. Moreschi ^Talk 21:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second what Moreschi has written. As one of the admins writes in Andy Mabbett's block log, "This user appears to be here to make nuclear war with contributors; not to write an encyclopedia". AM is a belligerent editor who insists disputes cannot be concluded until he has his own way, even though majority opinion is clearly against him. This is true of his activities on the infobox topic (as documented by Moreschi). Mabbett has used various techniques, including violation of WP:POINT, canvassing and forum-shopping to keep that argument going for over two months and has tried to block any moratorium on the subject. I can provide evidence of this if necessary but I think this thread at WP:ANI shows AM's arguing technique in a nutshell [1]. AM refused to remove inflammatory material from his user page, engaged in an edit war and was blocked for 72 hours [2]. The material in question was intended to keep a quarrel he had with User:Leonig Mig still burning, although it is over 18 months old. The first thing he did on his return yesterday was to dig the dispute out of the ANI archives, insisting it was not over, to the frustration of other users involved. This is the same method he has used elsewhere and it is an enormous waste of time for other editors who simply want to get on with writing an encyclopaedia rather than using WP as a battleground. Since AM seems incapable of learning from experience, I think a lengthy (possibly permanent) enforced absence is in order. --Folantin 07:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that ArbCom should pick up this case with an eye to determining how to handle Andy's behavior. He still is insisting that his latest escapades, that it's everyone else that's wrong, not him, and has shown no better behavior now then that which earned him his one year ban already.) He brought the latest dispute out from an archive and insisted on having the last word, refusing to accept what people were telling him. I finally gave up trying to discuss the case with him, because his insistence on hanving the last word. SirFozzie 19:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this come up at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Pigsonthewing and reviewed for myself what was happening. I made a posting on the matter to the thread, noting that PoTW rapidly embroils people in the conflict, when they came to the conflict as uninvolved parties hoping to help resolve the matter. Subsequent to that post of mine, three other editors who responded were attacked by PoTW as being dishonest, making ad hominen attacks and censoring PoTW, which I noted in a subsequent post.

PoTW conducted more than a dozen reverts over several days of the removal of a personal attack from his userpage. Three of the users conducting the removals are administrators. I am deeply troubled that despite being warned he would be blocked for continuing to place what was widely regarded as a personal attack on his userpage [3][4], PoTW once again put the text back on his userpage just three minutes later [5]. When he was blocked for this, he then put the text on his talk page [6], in the process referring to the people against him as "the lynchmob". When this was removed from his talk page, PoTW complained calling it a "totally unacceptable act of censorship" [7]. Even now, he's placed a message on his userpage saying it is being censored and people should review the history of his userpage for what was censored [8].

It is clear from the recent and past record both that PoTW does not respond well to feedback, and insists on taking to task anyone who disagrees with him. He is not amenable to making changes in his manner, and seems singularly incapable of working in a cooperative editing environment when he comes into conflict with other users. --Durin 20:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom cannot ban editors indefinitely. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]}. —freak(talk) 00:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This statement has been made by various arbitrators who have indicated that either as a limitation on the authority originally delegated by Jimbo and/or as a matter of policy, the Arbitration Committee will not issue a ban of more than one year's duration. (Notwithstanding, they have actually done so in a couple of cases). Compare colloquy here (where it was I who asked the question). Newyorkbrad 02:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist, the ArbCom have either endorsed an indefinite community ban, or banned someone indefinitely right off their own bat. Moreoever, in this case, the editor in question has already been banned for a year. Moreschi ^Talk 07:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except very limited circumstances, ArbCom has never outright banned anyone indefinitely on its own. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 17:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept as new case; this can't properly be considered a direct continuation of the old one, considering the other parties involved there. Kirill 15:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Tecmobowl at 20:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Tecmobowl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Irishguy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[9]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Admin Irishguy has violated so many rules and regulations in his blocking and sockpuppetry case of me that I feel his actions need to be reviewed by third parties. Dispute resolution does not really apply as far as i can tell. The best way to simply see what happened is to review my sockpuppet case here. Regardless of whether one feels I am a sock, which i am not, this user acted as judge, jury, and "executioner". He engaged me in a number of issues and then used his power to tilt the situation in his favor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tecmobowl (talk • contribs).

I caught him spamming his own website into articles. That is the only issue I was engaged in with him. He has tried to make it seem as if I was/am involved in a larger problem of general external links in baseball articles, but I have nothing to do with those debates and never did. As noted in the sock report, he and Blacksoxfan are one and the same. Tecmobowl has even gone out of his way to delete all mention of Blacksoxfan's spamming on article talk pages and user talk pages. Other than this issue (and evading his block) I have had absolutely nothing to do with this user and frankly I have no idea why he is still bringing this up. IrishGuy ^talk 20:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This will probably be my last statement for now as I am not sure how this process is to proceed. Again, I am not BlackSoxFan. I have met blacksoxfan in person as I live in the same complex. The situation is simple: regardless of whether or not I am a sock, this user failed in a number of instances (which I will be happy to provide) to follow due process and adhere to the guidelines and policies of wikipedia. While I too may have failed, I am not an admin. This user should not have this type of power over users. Playing judge and jury is wrong and completely inappropriate. I will wait to hear from an uninvolved third party before proceeding any further. //Tecmobowl 21:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the second rejection, it appears that admins here will not review the facts and ignore WP:AGF. I know someone who created a pretty damn useful website for making the content on this site BETTER, that's it! Instead you guys jump to conclusions and toss accusations around. And YOU DON'T READ WHAT PEOPLE WRITE! Irishguy abused his power as an admin! He opened the sock case, blocked me, and then went on to provide all the "reasons" why he was so sure i was a sock. He extended my blocks during this time, and despite my prevoius attempts at discussion on pages like Talk:Kevin Youkilis, he continued his abuse of power. This RFA was taken up over ten days after the event. This is not about cooling of, this is not about my actions. Although I must again preface this (because you guys keep bringing it up) - I am not a sock. I have never used accounts or attempted to be a sock. Regardless, some people have deemed me to have used sockpuppetry at one time - i was punished - and that punishment has been served. THAT IS NOT THE POINT. The point is that this user engaged me in a number of irresponsible ways, failed to recognize MANY guidelines (for example: WP:AGF). He involved himself with me to the point that he had a WP:COI and yet nobody gives a rats ass. Does someone have to hit you guys over the head to see what the point is? I get it, i say things that rile up people. I say things like fuck and shit. Okay, we got it. I am an adament supporter of WP:BOLD and will continue to do so. I guess consider this closed and I'm going back to doing my thing. Bottom line, the ability to make content here is a great thing. I will continue to do so, but i have lost all respect for the group of people that come here. There are individuals who are clearly here to better the content and I will deal with them from now on.//Tecmobowl 13:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Reject. Nothing near a case here. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject. Premature. Follow the routine steps to ask for an unblock. Urge you to take a break and rethink whether there was truly admin abuse that rises to the level that sanctions are warranted. We generally do not sanction admins for attempting to deal with issues even if they do not handle the situation perfectly. FloNight 13:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. Paul August ☎ 16:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Angie Y. at 02:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ned Scott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ckatz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tvoz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vilerocks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ursasapien (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Angie Y. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Matthew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive255#Mass_deletion_of_television_articles_by_TTN

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive255#Mass_deletion_of_television_articles_by_TTN

TTN is charged with mass deletion and redirects of television and video game articles. He is being disruptive, snotty, and very rude to countless editors as well. Most of the cleanup that is done is left on the editors that made the articles, all under the guise of the WP:EPISODE guideline, which he/she believes is a policy.

"Regardless of where one stands on the issue, the manner in which it is being handled is completely unacceptable. At the very least, there should be some sort of discussion regarding WP:EPISODE. A crusade like this, especially with no attempt at discussion, is divisive and will only damage the Wikipedia community. This is *not* how Wikipedia should operate." 08:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"Also, having just read your notice on the main page, I'd add that giving 14 days and threatening to delete the work that many editors have contributed to is not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia." at 21:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

TTN shows no apparent desire to engage in meaningful discussion, rather the user insists on pushing his/her POV. The user shows no desire to accept that Wikipedia works on consensus. I urge he arbitration committee to accept to review this user's behaviour. Matthew 14:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as I get involved with episode articles and notability a lot, I should comment that this isn't RFAR material and should be discussed on WT:EPISODE. In fact, I'm more concerned about Angie's stalking of TTN and use of the anti-deletionist-mergist-immediatist-exclusionist userbox on her user page. Will ^(talk) 15:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Will/Sceptre that ArbCom isn't the proper venue for this discussion. I recommend that this case be rejected and an RfC or other dispute resolution steps be attempted. From my slight involvement (a TfD), the problem does not appear to be one-sided. If this case were to be accepted, it should examine the behavior of several participants, including Angie Y.Chaz ^Beckett 15:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I did have an exchange with TTN about what appeared to me to be arbitrary posting of tags on articles without specificity and with no attempt to evaluate them or discuss his concerns, and I am concerned about this guideline's application, I was not consulted about this arbitration request prior to its posting. I agree that it's premature, but I would encourage the community to take a closer look at the way TTN (and the episode project) has been proceeding, which seems to me to be antithetical to the spirit of the encyclopedia. Tvoz |talk 17:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many editors does it take to realize they are reading the template wrong? Where's Mr. Owl. There is not deletion Angie, please, for the final time, understand that. Also, it isn't a threat to do anything, it's a helpful alert to others that the page is going to be reviewed by many in "at least" (that means no sooner than) 14 days. Please don't misquote or attribute the wrong idea to other users. TTN knows WP:EPISODE is a guideline and not a policy, but it still a guideline and not being followed. TTN is acting based on the consensus of others at the WP:EPISODE page. Angie's personal vendetta against TTN is personally getting annoying. They seem determined to find any oppurtunity to bring TTN to the AN/I (as they have done some previously). Plus their random vandalizing of TTN's user page should be a concern as well. It seems certain people are more concerned with a concensus that goes their way, then one that doesn't, and when it doesn't they demand a recount. TTN's action, although quick, are not the problem here. He's being singled out because he happens to work fast. I personally keep several tabs open and work on multiple projects at once. The spirit of Wikipedia is to have encyclopedic pages, not be a subsititute for TV.com. We have notability guidelines for a reason, not every tiny subject needs its own article. There was a reason merging tags were created.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that I wasn't consulted about this process prior to being named as a part of it, and I am uncomfortable with being associated with it given the manner in which the initiator has conducted herself. While I do feel quite strongly that TTN's goals, approach, and methodology are a problem, I do not think an arbitration proceeding is appropriate at this time. TTN, while determined to continue with his plans, is at least willing to participate in the episode review process. For now, that is the best way to monitor the situation, and I would encourage concerned parties to participate there. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to filing party: Please explain what the dispute is about and why you believe the Arbitration Committee should decide it. Please give notice of this request to each of the other parties by placing a note on their talkpage with a link here. Newyorkbrad 03:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did that. :) Angie Y. 03:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must notify each of the involved parties on their talk page of this pending arbitration request and then posts diffs of the notification here. Thatcher131 14:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject, premature; AN/I is not a form of dispute resolution. Kirill 15:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject, exactly what Kirill said. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject. Premature, no ArbCom case here. Look for help from experienced users, do a RFC, seek informal or formal mediation, or walk away from the issue for awhile. FloNight 16:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline, per above. Paul August ☎ 15:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Drumpler at 17:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Drumpler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - initiator
• Bus stop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cleo123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• T. Anthony (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• zadignose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sefringle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JJay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Moralis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Warlordjohncarter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ttiotsw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nick Graves (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• C.Logan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tendancer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Teapotgeorge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Isotope23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Involved articles

List of notable converts to Christianity

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Compromise[25]
Mediation[26][27]

I was initially made aware of the dispute when a request for help was listed at WP:EAR[28] The issue largely revolves around an editor named Bus stop on the List of notable converts to Christianity article. Bus stop continually reverts editor contributions without discussion because of one individual: Bob Dylan.[29][30][31] As can be seen in the diffs, the user continually makes accusations of anti-semitism. It should be noted that Bus stop has had opportunities to participate in votes to determine consensus, but has opted not to do so.[32] If one checks the diffs, reliable sources abound of Dylan's former Christian status. However, instead of actually discussing, Bus stop repeats pretty much everything he's said in the past and makes little to no effort at communication.[33][34][35] However, a compromise was reached by all other editors where the article would be renamed to make clear that this is a list of people who converted to Christianity and that if their status changed, it would be noted in the footnotes.[36] No one, to my knowledge, has ever tried to portray Dylan as a Christian, but has desired to state that he was a Christian convert and believe the article should reflect that. Likewise, this user has demonstrated behaviour unbecoming of an editor to both mediators[37][38] and an admin[39].

There are at least a few other substantial issues involved. I am not sure whether assisting us in perhaps resolving this disputes falls within the scope of arbitration or not. However, there is some substantial discussion as to whether individuals who have at least appeared to have left a religion they had earlier converted to should be included in the list of converts to the religion they have apparently since left, what the criteria for determining whether or not a person qualifies as such a subsequent convert are, and how such pages as the List of notable converts to Christianity should be formatted. Many of these issues will often deal with living persons, and thus might qualify under BLP. I suppose it might even (technically) be possible to state that all such lists of converts might be violations of BLP rules, at least for the individuals included. I'm not sure whether ArbCom can assist in these matters, but, if it would be possible to have some opinion on these matters of substance involving this article, I at least would appreciate it. But, like I said, I'm not really sure whether this group has the prerogative to assist in those matters, or whether you believe that you would be the best people to address it. I did, however, think that the issues were important enough to at least be mentioned here. John Carter 18:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My involvement in this dispute has been largely peripheral. I protected the page on May 30th and unprotected it a few days later (as mediation was ongoing) with a reminder not to edit war. I then blocked Bus stop (talk · contribs) for resuming the edit war as soon as the protection was lifted. Another mediation was apparently attempted, but I re-protected the article on June 17 due to continued edit warring over the same disputed text. I then unprotected it today when I became aware that there appeared to be a rough consensus. The edit warring resumed and I suggested WP:ARBCOM as the next logical step. While this started as a simple content dispute, I think this has evolved into a situation that ARBCOM is going to need to sort out as it is apparent that while some editors feel there is a consensus, others feel the consensus is contrived or against policy. It is probably worthwhile to expand this a bit from just considering Bus stop (talk · contribs) and the behavior of this editor. A couple of key points that might need to be considered:

1. WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF at Talk:List of notable converts to Christianity and the talkpages of some of the involved editors.
2. The contention that refactoring the name/purpose of the article is a contrivance to allow the inclusion of Bob Dylan
3. WP:BLP; specifically addressing the claim that even though content is sourced and a group of editors assert the source is reliable, it still may run afoul of our policy on negative, poorly sourced claims.

Bus stop has a long history of refusing to work toward consensus or compromise on this article. His input was utterly lacking in the most recent compromise attempt, as well as in the debate over renaming the article in the interest of making it clear that the list includes those who made notable conversions to Christianity, even if they are no longer Christian. His input has largely consisted of repetitively insisting that ex-Christians cannot be included in the list (as if his preferred parameters for the list are the only ones that can legitimately exist), or that Dylan only had a brief flirtation with Christianity (a claim clearly contradicted by multiple reliable sources), or that the people who want to include Dylan have a pro-Christian, antisemitic agenda. His latest reversions excising Dylan from this article, made within 10 minutes of each other, have edit summaries claiming that Dylan is not presently a Christian [40] [41] (irrelevant, according to the agreed-upon parameters of this list, since Dylan did make a conversion), and stating that "antisemitism should be avoided," a thinly veiled accusation which constitutes a personal attack, and which has been repeated by him countless times before. In his latest reversion, Bus stop invites us to "use the Talk page to discuss" the issue of including ex-Christians and Dylan, as if the issue has not already been talked to death for weeks and weeks already. His latest contribution to the talk page includes profanity and the accusation that those who wish to include Dylan are members of a "hate group." [42] While I agreed with Bus stop that former converts should not be listed on lists of converts, it is clear that consensus goes against this preference, and there is no evidence that such consensus is counter to policy. Bus stop's recent reversions to the article constitute disruptive editing, even if he has not technically violated the 3RR. Given Bus stop's long history of reversions and disregarding consensus on this article, I believe intervention is required to prevent interminable and counter-productive dispute. Nick Graves 18:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been terribly involved in the dispute itself, but came into the picture as the second of two mediators. While mediating, any point ceded to the inclusionist side of the debate was responded to by Bus stop with allegations of antisemitism, bias, and contrivance. The first thing I noticed was that he seemed to be repeating himself- he stuck with the same catch phrases and made the same tired point in response to everything anybody else said. It made mediating the discussion frustrating, but we generally just kept talking around him. Eventually, I dropped the mediation, because it seemed that all of the users involved had come to something of a compromise, save for Bus stop and Cleo123. Bus stop's input seemed to be a filibuster, which left Cleo as the only dissenting editor who could be taken seriously.

Since then, the editors involved have taken it upon themselves to set up a series of straw polls and demonstrate consensus. It was only during the last poll that I became an actual party to the discussion: having dropped the mediation, and in the interests of ending the debate, I cast a vote.

So that's my involvement. Most of it's just frustration with the user. I'm not really sure what can be asked of ArbCom in this case, but I'll gladly help in any way I can.

It should be noted, in case it hasn't already, that the result of the final poll (which narrowed it down to two options) was (if I recall) 9 to 4 in favor of moving the page, including the disputed persons on the list, and utilizing footnotes to explain their situation. Of the four users voting for the other option, three have agreed to respect consensus, as it's been clearly established. Neither Bus stop nor Cleo voted.

I think the biggest issue here is Bus stop's apparent obsession with this dispute, and his refusal to budge even so far as to choose new wording for his oft-repeated "rebuttals." It's just gotten out of hand. --Moralis (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to try to give up Wikipedia, but as my presence was requested I'll say a few things here. As long as it is understood that this will likely be the limit of my involvement.

Most of my involvement with him was on the List of notable converts to Christianity. In some areas I have similar criticisms on conversion lists as User:Bus stop. There is a tendency to add names of people whose conversions were simply rumored or were of a brief and questionable nature. I think this dilutes the lists' purposes and I think can be avoided. However he is obviously coming from a very different perspective in other ways.

I think he has core principles that might be admirable in other situations, but they apparently made it almost impossible for him to compromise or discuss matters on lists like these. I found him generally unresponsive and unwilling to get involved in the process of trying to build a consensus. Instead his principles and understanding of logic remained absolute and unbending. I am not entirely unsympathetic with a person like that, but it apparently means he just can not abide by the consensus reached on that article for moral or other reasons. Judging by his most recent actions not getting his way has also made him increasingly strident, insulting, and disruptive. I am not going to say what kind of editor or person he is on the whole, he might be a fine one overall, but for this article I think he has become disruptive and unwilling to obey policy. Whatever is decided I hope he stops editing the list as I intend to do the same. (Probably not the kind of response wanted, but that's my statement)

First, I would like to say the problem here doesn't seem to be so much with User:Bus stop so much as it is with the fact that we cannot come to a consensus to whether or not to include former converts on the article List of notable converts to Christianity. My personal opinion is that we need to be consistent with all other "list of converts to religion X" articles, where only the Christianity one has former christians on it. As most of the editors on the article are Christians, I believe they want to turn the article into pro-Christian ad-populum religous propaganda by making the list longer, and they have outnumbered the opposition; the straw polls show that, and because of that, they have self-declared victory, by saying there is a rough consensus to include former Christians on the list. It is not consensus to simply outnumber us.

As for User:Bus stop. My experience with him/her as an editor goes as far as this article. He is on my side over this issue. I came in between mediations 1 and 2, after Bus Stop put the article up for an Afd. While I am opposed to the deletion of the article, I still see many of the things done to the article as pro-Christian propaganda. Prehaps this case to try to remove User:Bus Stop from wikipedia is to tilt the balance in their favor. He has long attempted to argue this point, as have I and User:Cleo123. There have been everything from accusations of antisemitism to questioning what a "Christian" is and what a "convert" is. Much of this occured while I was on wikibreak or was busy editing other articles, so I have taken a back seat to the mediation. In my doing so, it was assumed by one editor that I made consensus to agree to allow former Christians on the list. There doesn't seem to be much compromise on either side. So my opinion is that Bus Stop hasn't done anything wrong; that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not to include former christians on the article List of notable converts to Christianity.--Sefringle^Talk 04:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The List of notable converts to Christianity is at least the second time I have witnessed Bus Stop committing disruptive behavior. The first time was on the Michael Richards page, where he likewise continuously made edits over the objections of other editors. His m.o. back then was always saying "use talk page" and revert other people's edits, then ignore everyone else's discussion on the talk page even if e.g. it was 5 vs 1 against him--in short, it seems like "use talk page" was just being used as a shield/weapon to revert other users' contributions back to his changes, which often are the very definition of original research. We had content conflicts back then, and he continuously accused me as a sockpuppet including in edit summaries: [43], and WP:STALKed me to another page I frequently edit to revert my changes (in the process reverting a spam link) again using "use talk page" as a false reason: [44].

I participated on the List of notable converts to Christianity after noticing he got blocked twice for 3RR violations on Bob Dylan. [45]. His disruptive behavior seems to have gotten worse, especially now as User:Cleo123 (another disruptive editor whose m.o. is accusing others of "libel" in a very disrespectful tone) whom he befriended from the Michael Richards days) was often prodding and encouraging him, including advising him to refuse moderation and twice attacking mediators ad hominem. His m.o. now seems to have changed from "use talk page" to "anti-semitic" as his reason for discrediting all other's input whom he disagrees with.

In my opinion, Bus Stop is a disruptive editor who fits all criteria in WP:DE to a tee. I do believe he edits in "good faith"--in the sense that he probably doesn't consider himself disruptive and thinks he is making positive contributions to articles--however over the past 6 months his behavior has not changed: he continues to be unable to listen to and work with others, he continues to ignore sources (unless they support his opinions) and insist on committing original research, he does not care about how WP works and treats all articles as a blog for him to voice his own opinions (alarmingly even rhetoric-ed rules should be ignored and it's opinions that matters [46], and when others disagree with his opinions then basically he'll stay there to disrupt--for months if necessary, come hell or high water. I had been thinking that with time, his conduct would become more civil and less original research/soapboxing as there had been occasions where he made positivie contributions on other pages; however consider the rarity of those occasions and the sheer disruption he caused on the Michael Richards and especially List of notable converts to Christianity: we're talking months and hours/day at least half a dozen editors having to address his edits, till eventually even more editors and mediators had to be pulled in...I have to say I think this user may just be irredeemable--he will never believe in WP policies, he'll never believe that WP is for replicating what verifiable sources say and not for him to treat as his blog of his views on the world, and he's better off not editing wikipedia. He just needs his own blog.

I also want to note: Cleo123 and Bus Stop talks to each other offline [47], where I suspect they've been devising strategy on how to filibuster the page. Everytime Cleo is noted an RFC/admin notice is to be submitted against him, he disappears (last time for a week) till the RFC/admin incident fizzles because the user in question seems to have left wikipedia. I wouldn't be surprised is Bus Stop is committing the same ploy on Cleo's advise currently--and even if not he seems to have made sure he shot off several last WP:NPA-violating salvos. [48] I believe whether he's still here or not, wikipedia is better off making sure editors like this cannot ever disrupt and personally attack other users again. Tendancer 15:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have offered to lift the indefinite block on Bus stop if the editor pledges to enter WP:ADOPT and avoid the problematic article for three months. In my evaluation this is straightforward example of disruptive editing rather than a content dispute: particular elements that lead to this conclusion are the editor's combative tone, argumentum ad nauseam comments, multiple policy violations, and two failed mediations. It is my understanding that he or she has edited productively on other topics so the ball's in Bus stop's court about whether to return. Per User:Durova/Recusal I could have headed down a similar path myself so I hope this solution is a fair middle ground. Durova^Charge! 19:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone tried addressing the fundamental mistake Bus stop is making from a purely logical perspective?

Clearly he/she has exhausted the patience of numerous editors, and since this debate appears to be over a month old I can certainly understand why patience is probably a scarce commodity on both sides.

There is a slight chance that this whole situation is a big misunderstanding as a direct result of a simple mistake. The arguments I've read seem to assume Bus stop understands the list is of notable people who at any time in their life converted to Christianity for any period of time. He/she appears to think the list is of current notable Christians, either they are genuinely confused or it's a "dumb" like a fox type tactic. The latter is easy to expose in circumstances like this with some pointed questions, which could be deemed impolite or condescending. In some discussions I've tried to point out such basic flaws in a round about way so as to avoid pointing out the intellectual equivalent of "your fly is open" to another editor and thus any unnecessary conflict. This seems to have had the opposite effect in my experience, the round about points simply frustrate the other editor into repeating themselves while saying I'm repeating myself, by the time I make the basic point they probably think I'm being sarcastic or have tuned me out. I'm wondering if something like that is happening here; editors too polite to say "It's not a list of current notable Christian converts..." Anynobody 08:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it's not such a case of misunderstanding, but rather a refusal to understand or acknowledge. The text of the page's intro has been clarified in order to avoid any ambiguity, the name of the article has been changed for improved clarity, several debates have occured on the talk page specifically on the subject of how to handle people whose faith may have changed since conversion, and Bus Stop has been told repeatedly, directly, by many editors, that the page is a list of people who have converted at some time in the past, regardless of current status. His canned response is to repost the same rant about how this "is" a list of Christians, and any opposition to this point of view is evidence of anti-semitism and Christian prosylitizing. This reposted comment has hardly varied over the last couple of months, and generally does not address nor recognize the comments that preceed it.

I can see how it might appear to be a simple misunderstanding, as each of his posts proceeds from an assumption that directly contradicts the actual contents of the page, and overlooks a major point of the talk page. It seems to be a "misunderstanding" that he plans to stand by. Thanks, though, for trying to temper the debate and offering a voice of reason. zadignose 01:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: It appears there is no further need to arbitrate. The disruptive editor has been blocked and the community is most likely able to handle the resolution of any lingering disputes regarding the article content. zadignose 14:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, there is also a discussion of this user underway at WP:CN. Newyorkbrad 05:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As of June 26, Bus Stop has been blocked indefinitely. Newyorkbrad 16:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject. ArbCom is not going to decide the content dispute; it's the community's job, not ours, to decide the absolutely mission-critical question of whether or not one individual qualifies for membership on one particular list. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject. The community should be able to handle this dispute, both the content dispute and problematic editor conduct. There are simpler and faster ways to deal with this problem than an ArbCom case. FloNight 15:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. Paul August ☎ 14:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject. Kirill 16:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Kamryn Matika at 19:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• CharlotteWebb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jayjg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[49] [50]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Not really appropriate here.

As I'm sure you're aware, on June 15 Jayjg revealed on CharlotteWeb's RfA that she edits via TOR proxies.[51] This caused a pile-on of oppose votes at her RfA and has led to much discussion on-wiki and on the mailing lists as to whether Jayjg's actions were appropriate and within the limits of the privacy policy. On 17 June CharlotteWebb posted a message to her talkpage[52] that claimed that another checkuser had systematically blocked all the IPs she had used in the past three months, TOR proxies or no. This would indicate that there has been an abuse of checkuser privileges. There have been many accusations of checkuser abuse here from Charlotte's supporters and ArbCom is the only place that has the power to issue a finding one way or the other. Kamryn Matika 19:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ombudsman commission is that way. Sean William @ 20:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite claims to the contrary, the Arbitration Committee does have jurisdiction over allegations of improper disclosure of checkuser information. Per the checkuser policy, "Suspicion of abuses of checkuser should be discussed on each local wiki. On wikis with an arbcom, the arbcom can decide on the removal of access."[53]. That being said, Jayjg's disclosure of checkuser information at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CharlotteWebb did not violate the checkuser privacy policy, which restricts only the disclosure of "personally identifiable data". A statement that a user is editing through TOR exit nodes, without providing specific IP addresses, clearly does not constitute "personally identifiable data". Moreover, since editing through open proxies is a clear policy violation, disclosure of such information does not otherwise violate the checkuser policy. Therefore, insofar as this request for arbitration relates to Jayjg's actions, I would suggest that it be rejected. However, the claim that another user with checkuser access has been blocking every IP used by CharlotteWebb, even those that aren't open proxies, may merit investigation by the Arbitration Committee. John254 21:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As said by Sean William, this is outside the scope of the Arbitration committee, given the existence and directive of the ombudsman commission. If you have ethical complaints (not legal, or violation of process complaints), then you'll need to submit them through proper dispute resolution procedures: however given no policy violation exists, it's really a request of the ArbCom to legislate ethics; this is really IMHO the realm of the board. Swatjester 00:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure only the Ombudsman's office has the resources and powers to investigate the properly and take appropriate action. Abuse of checkuser is a foundation issue. --Tony Sidaway 00:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried" - "Not really appropriate here." That's because thie isn't an Arbitration case. As unpleased as I am over what Jay did and his continued refusal to at least accept any responsibility, this is outside the ArbCom's purview. The Ombudsman Commission awaits, though. Should the ArbCom decide to accept this I believe the focus of this case needs to be changed - not on how Jayjg used Checkuser, but rather his conduct in that RFA, and after that, both here and on the mailing list. – Chacor 03:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding Carcharoth's statement

I think that it would not be appropriate for the ArbCom to handle this case if an additional CheckUser - who could well be a sitting ArbCom member, or who at any rate would have access to the mailing list where this would be discussed in "private" - is involved. Unfortunately my trust does not stretch so far as to believe that the ArbCom will act neutrally in such a case. – Chacor 14:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kamryn said that dispute resolution is "not really appropriate here", but ArbCom said this case is "premature". I don't know what the Ombusman thing is, but it sounds even higher than ArbCom. We should not bother Ombusman people if ArbCom can handle this, or maybe ArbCom and Ombusman can work together to deal with this. If ArbCom does not take this case, what should we do? We can't just leave this hanging there.

I think the ArbCom needs to look at five things:

1. Jayjg's telling everyone that CharlotteWeb used Tor

2. Jayjg's conduct after telling everyone that CharlotteWeb used Tor

3. CharlotteWebb's conduct after Jayjg told everyone that she used Tor

4. The blocking of all of CharlotteWebb's IPs - who did it, what can we do about it

5. The policy about open proxies - whether it needs to be changed or cancelled

I am a little disturbed by the entire incident. I would encourage the Arbitration Committee to look into this as a big picture, examining the user conduct of all involved. More focused, was the checkuser information incidental, and released because of its accidental discovery? Was the Requests for Adminship forum the proper place to release this information? Is there a rationale behind CharlotteWeb not receiving a warning prior to the information being released on the forum? Could the proxy machines be blocked without associating this editor with the proxy machine, absent any record of abusive editing? Is this acceptable user conduct all around? Navou 19:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors and committee members should be aware that the role of the WMF Checkuser Ombudsman Commission is limited to reporting to the WMF Board of Trustees regarding alleged violations of the WMF privacy policy. The Ombudsman Commission does not interpret local checkuser policy on individual projects nor does the commission consider other allegations of misuse that do not involve a violation of the privacy policy. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't about this being within the Committee's scope, UninvitedCompany is incorrect about that in his un-focused statement above, and therefore, acceptence below. The Committee can oversea this, but the case should be rejected due to pointlessness. Jay did what he is mandated to do, and the result, as dramatic as it may be precieved and, indeed, propogated by some, isn't worth the Committee's time & effort. El_C 19:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that there are essentially two distinct but closely related issues here. There's clearly a general policy question that needs to be resolved, which I would frame as something along the lines of "is it appropriate to disclose CheckUser data for the purposes of a RfA?". However, I can also see a conduct question, namely: was Jay's conduct appropriate in this particular case, in this particular way and at this particular time, given the predictably explosive effect it had on the RfA?

Regarding the question of jurisdiction, as John254 points out, the CheckUser policy does clearly state that "Suspicion of abuses of checkuser should be discussed on each local wiki. On wikis with an arbcom, the arbcom can decide on the removal of access." This might at first sight be seen to conflict with the remit of the Ombudsman Commission. However, the Ombudsman Commission's role is explicitly stated to be to "mediate between the complainant and the respondent." If CharlotteWebb doesn't make a formal complaint - as far as I'm aware there hasn't been one - I assume the Commission can't act, as I doubt it would accept a complaint from a third party without the explicit consent of the injured party. So this is likely to end up in the lap of the ArbCom anyway. I would suggest to the arbitrators that they accept the case provisionally, on the basis of investigating suspicions of an abuse of CheckUser, but defer to the Ombudsman if a formal complaint is made. -- ChrisO 19:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional comment. Re JzG's statement, it appears from CharlotteWebb's comments on her talk page that her IP addresses have been systematically indef-blocked based on CheckUser data, though the named account isn't blocked. I honestly can't think of any precedent for blocking in such a way. I've certainly never come across a comparable example in nearly three years as an admin. -- ChrisO 23:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg violated both the privacy policy and the checkuser policy. In the privacy policy, Jayjg's conduct likely violates "Policy on release of data derived from page logs"; though 5 might be used to justify his actions, I personally doubt it applies (it could also be said that revealing Tor usage doesn't count as private data, but again, I disagree). He also violated the checkuser policy, especially section "Use of the tool," particularly "The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to check a user. Note that alternative accounts are not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of the policies (for example, to double-vote or to increase the apparent support for any given position)." ArbCom jurisdiction is established in the checkuser policy, "Suspicion of abuses of checkuser should be discussed on each local wiki. On wikis with an arbcom, the arbcom can decide on the removal of access," though it also allows for the Ombudsmen Committee to make a decision, "Complaints of abuse of checkuser or privacy policy breaches may also be brought to the Ombudsman committee." The ArbCom certainly can decide to take the case, though it can also decide to forward the violation of the checkuser policy to the Ombudsmen Committee. Either way, the Ombudsmen should decide on the violation of the privacy policy. --Rory096 21:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christ. RFA fails for using TOR against policy, fair enough - silly, come back in six months, no big deal. Hard-banning a productive user with absolutely no suggestion of evil, using tools provided to root out vandalism? That sucks. Really sucks. Arbs, please take this even if it means you have to escalate it, because I have to say I am extremely uncomfortable about this, even as one who feels that a lot of privacy concerns and checkuser paranoia are overblown. This looks petty and vindictive, even if it isn't, and I believe it is a serious error of judgement. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By strict (if unwritten) Wikipedia policy, members in good standing of the Ruling Clique are not allowed to be criticized, held accountable for their behavior, or otherwise subjected to statements or actions of any sort that are unpleasant to them. Peons who attempt such actions against them, on the other hand, deserve the worst possible treatment. Hence, the proper outcome is to award an entire page full of barnstars to User:Jayjg, and give a permaban to User:KamrynMatika. *Dan T.* 00:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to what CharlotteWebb wrote on talk page, CW is unable to contribute at this point in time. I suggest accepting this case due to the fact that the change in Tor policy effectively prevents a huge amount of editors from editing. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 01:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. If a checkuser is supposed to reveal when there is editing through open proxies, and this is a thing Jayg did, and
2. It was someone other than Jayg who blocked CharlotteWebb's proxies,

Then

1. Is this an arbitration on this absolutely unnamed second checkuser for performing a block without warning?
2. Is it an arbitration on the unnamed second checkuser for acting on a checkuser without a checkuser request?

I'm unclear about the targets, methods, and questions of the arbitration. If it is "Jayg revealed the proxy editing," then there is certainly potential impropriety in that he did not discuss or warn, if he knew this before, but not really that he revealed the policy violation of a person up for RFA. If it is "the user was innocent and blocked," then admittedly policy doesn't have a space in it for "editing through open proxies is wrong, but some people can if...." Perhaps there should be an "if."

As much of a hair trigger as I am about revealing checkuser data, I see really bad form but no revelation of which ISP (for example) or IP numbers used, and editing through open proxies is against policy because it hides identities. I.e. anyone editing through open proxies can't have private data revealed by checkuser, unless checkuser is much mightier than I think it is. Geogre 11:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As John254 said: "...the claim that another user with checkuser access has been blocking every IP used by CharlotteWebb, even those that aren't open proxies, may merit investigation by the Arbitration Committee." See Charlotte's comments here. This blocking of IP addresses that are not open proxies may well be an abuse of the privacy policy. I would ask that the allegations be investigated in private by the ArbCom, and a statement issued clarifying what has taken place here. Carcharoth 14:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Chacor's comment to Carcharoth's statement

I was thinking more along the lines that if there has been a mistake or abuse, then the ArbCom should have an opportunity to make a statement that might clear things up, before those unhappy with what happened take things any further. Carcharoth 15:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CharlotteWebb has posted on Wikipedia Review that she has contacted the Ombudsman commission. This would make this case completely unnecessary and would be beyond the scope of the Arbitration Committee. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser is a very confidential status. The fact that Jay revealed very sensitive CheckUser information in the middle of an RfA which was likely to succeed without any valid reasons of doing so, is of my concern. Thusfar he denied any responsibility at all on the mailing lists. Also, the proxy policy is very confusing right now, and it'd be good if the ArbCom could establish some things about this. The current controversy about CharlotteWebb's RfA seems like enough reason to accept this case to me. SalaSkan 17:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I believe ArbCom should decline to hear this case for the following reasons.

1. Mootness. One of the two parties in the dispute seems to have left Wikipedia for good. (Her account was not blocked. She claims her non-TOR IPs were blocked, but if true, she can request to have these unblocked. So far as I know, she has not. I strongly suspect that the account-holder has no further interest in editing as CharlotteWeb because the account was designed solely to be a sockpuppet admin. Her defensiveness and evasiveness are telling.)
2. Lack of prior steps taken. This is mainly due to point #1, above.
3. Lack of jurisdiction. As explained by others, checkuser is a foundation issue.
4. Lack of evidence of wrongdoing. Some have accused Jayjg of violating checkuser policy, but a cursory look at the (only) diff in question shows that no personally-identifiable information was revealed. Others have accused Jayjg of blocking CW's IPs out-of-process, but the only reason for thinking that anyone has done so is CW's accusation, for which she has chosen to provide no evidence. There is also no evidence that Jayjg was involved in such a block if it occurred, and I don't believe he would make such a block.

In all likelihood, Jayjg's actions prevented another sockpuppet-admin, like User:Runcorn. Even if CW was not an attempted sock-admin, Jayjg's action gave the community useful information to help them decide whether CW should be an admin. He should be commended. If his action had revealed sensitive personal information, that would be one thing, but they only revealed that CW was routinely violating policy for reasons she has refused to explain. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raul654 has recently confirmed "that someone went on a spree and blocked all of... [CharlotteWebb's] IPs, even non-Tor ones". Given that this negligent blocking of IPs involved the misuse of administrative, as well as checkuser, privileges, and in light of the fact that ordinary administrative misconduct is clearly outside the purview of the WMF Checkuser Ombudsman Commission, the portion of this case which relates to the actions of a certain administrator who indiscriminately blocked all of CharlotteWebb's IP addresses should not be rejected on the grounds of preemption by the Ombudsman Commission. Note that prior dispute resolution concerning the negligent blocking of CharlotteWebb's IP addresses is impossible, since, in the interest of protecting CharlotteWebb's privacy, the administrator who is responsible for the IP blocks cannot be named publicly. However, should this case be accepted, I can present substantial evidence of prior misconduct by the administrator who performed the IP blocks to the Arbitration Committee via email. Furthermore, I would find rejection of any of this case on preemption grounds to be rather odd, as a member of the very Ombudsman Commission to whose judgment the case supposedly needs to be deferred has voted to accept this request for arbitration. John254 02:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This case raises several novel and serious problems for Wikipedia, which have not been solved by discussion here or on wikien-L. I believe these issues are serious and deserve a hearing via Arbcom.

Some have argued against Arbcom taking the case given CharoletteWebb's apparent departure from the project. I object; the principles at odds here are of interest to the entire english Wikipedia community. We do not have to have an active participant on the one party for there to be a valid and important issue to arbitrate. It may be convenient as an out, but leaves several now-known incindiary policy disagreements simmering along, and lack of clarity on those will blow up in our faces again sooner or later.

The issues requiring attention are:

1. Whether release of otherwise non-public, but not personally identifying information by a CU constitutes an abuse of community trust. While events appear to have met the letter of the policy, many (including myself) feel that a breach of the spirit of the policy has occurred due to JayJGs initial actions.
2. Whether project members with special rights or powers are held to a higher standard for sensitivity and propriety in discussions. Discussions on Wikien-L following the initial incident raised a secondary question here in that JayJGs' responses were inflamatory and showed lack of concern for "spirit of the rules" issues.
3. Whether a range of IP addresses were blocked (by unspecified others) soley because CW used them, in an abuse of both WP:BLOCK and CU policy.

The ultimate issue requiring Arbcom action is whether the community's trust in a CU user has been violated. It brings me no joy to raise the issue here - Jay is a longstanding highly respected contributor trusted at high levels in the Foundation and project. As pointed out on Wikien-L, the risks of legitimate admins using Tor are real, as are the risks of trojan admins brought up in subsequent discussions. But those do not excuse or outweigh the initial action's consequences or impact. I now question whether it is appropriate to continue his CU access. These questions have to be asked and examined and answered.

There is some contradictory jurisdiction in play, but it is reasonable to assert that the Foundation is unprepared to deal with issues which fall below clear breaches of Foundation CU privacy policy but above normal accepted CU actions, where they may or may not be abuses of the community. That is pretty much the role intended for project-specific Arbcoms or the equivalent. Meta's CU policy explicitly says:

On a wiki with a (Wikimedia-approved) Arbitration Committee (ArbCom), only editors approved by the Arbitrators may have CheckUser status.

If there is an issue here, and many feel there is, you must be the right people to take the issues on, and cannot and should not shirk that responsibility. Georgewilliamherbert 06:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ombudsman committee is for dealing with privacy policy concerns. Revealing use of TOR is almost certainly not a violation of it, but it may cause a lack of community trust. Thus, we need someone else to accept the case. -Amarkov moo! 13:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Meta checkuser policy states, in part, that:

"The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to one or several of Wikimedia projects. The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors..."

In this case, the tool was used to apply pressure on an editor (namely, to apply pressure not to use TOR). There was no indication that CharlotteWebb was engaging in any activity otherwise prohibited, such as vandalism, sockpuppetry, or other disruption. The release of such information, whether found deliberately or incidentally, at a time calculated to cause significant disruption (during an RfA), is of significant concern, especially absent any evidence of wrongdoing. I would urge the Committee to accept this case, to examine whether such a release of information is an appropriate use of privileged Checkuser information. Whether or not information gained through use of the Checkuser tool serves to personally identify an editor, it should be considered clear that such information is privileged and confidential, and should only be released when absolutely necessary. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This might also be a good chance to re-examine the Tor policy as some other statements above have suggested. Armedblowfish, a longstanding contributor and a good friend of mine has been effectively blocked from editing Wikipedia because she runs a Tor exit node on her IP address and there is no system by which non-admins can get exemption from the Tor hardblock. She ran an RfA as a last-ditch attempt but it failed at something like 60-40. The Tor policy is definitely blocking many valid contributors; it would be much more reasonable to simply disable account creation and only allow Autoconfirmed accounts to edit through Tor, for example.

The Checkuser abuse is a seperate topic though and is if anything more worrisome in regards to privacy. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 14:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commenters above should remember that statements should be on why the ArbCom should, or should not, accept this case. Picaroon (Talk) 00:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC), rescinded "opinion," at the behest of El C (talk · contribs), at 16:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recuse from any clerk work at this time due to possible conflict of interest. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 17:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Four net votes to open, noted. To be opened Wednesday (24 hours from the 4th net accept) unless anything changes. Newyorkbrad 18:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject Premature. See no ArbCom case now. FloNight 12:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline pending Ombudsman action. Once they decide or reject the case, we might have more work to do, but given that checkuser status is derived not from ArbCom or the community but rather from the Foundation, we need to defer to them unless they say otherwise. Note that the policy that allows ArbCom to decide these issues is untested, and possibly unworkable, given that half of ArbCom are also checkuser operators. Accept. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject per jpgordon. Kirill Lokshin 18:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC) Accept. Kirill 16:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept in order to clarify this issue. Local checkuser policy is clearly deferred to the arbitration committee, and we should make it clearer. Ombudsman action is limited to breach of the Foundation's privacy policy, which appears to have not occurred, and requires the affected user to complain. Checkuser policy outside of the Foundation's privacy policy is under the purview of the arbcom. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. I would argue that it is hard to localise the impact of privacy issues on WP's reputation as a whole; but it would be good to have the AC look more thoroughly at the point. Charles Matthews 12:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. - SimonP 13:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. There are many import issues here which might profit from an examination by this committee. Paul August ☎ 15:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per this ruling, is this good-faith edit grounds for blocking? Is it acceptable to use said ruling as the justification for this? Kamryn Matika 00:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the link in question contains no personal information or attacks. Kamryn Matika 00:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Only Arbitrators may make and vote on such motions. Other editors may comment on the talk page)

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests (extremely sparse, selective, and unofficial)