Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, there are 11 active Arbitrators (excluding 4 recused), so 6 votes are a majority.

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the Clerks' noticeboard. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method.

Proposed motions

[edit]

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

[edit]

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit]

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed final decision

[edit]

Proposed principles

[edit]

Editor conduct

[edit]

1) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 04:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Although this does not reflect that all or even most of these proscribed behaviors are germane to this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Vassyana (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cool Hand Luke 17:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 17:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Coren (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per Brad, this goes for standardised wordings whenever they are used. --bainer (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Editorial process

[edit]

2) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. This applies to any and all pages on Wikipedia, from Articles to Templates to Project space.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 04:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Vassyana (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cool Hand Luke 17:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 17:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Coren (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. bainer (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Edit warring

[edit]

3) Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with very limited exceptions. The three-revert rule does not entitle users to revert a page three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 04:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Vassyana (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cool Hand Luke 17:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 17:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Coren (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. bainer (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Good faith and disruption

[edit]

4) Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 04:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Vassyana (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cool Hand Luke 17:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 17:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Coren (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Though the choice of sanctions will often be influenced by this factor. --bainer (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Recidivism

[edit]

5) Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 04:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Vassyana (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cool Hand Luke 17:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 17:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Coren (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. bainer (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Administrators

[edit]

6) Administrators are trusted members of the community. They are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained poor judgment or multiple violations of policy (in the use of Administrator tools, or otherwise) may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators are also expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 04:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Vassyana (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cool Hand Luke 17:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 17:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Coren (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. bainer (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Disruption by administrators

[edit]

7) Because of their position of trust in the community, administrators are held to a higher standard of behavior than non-administrators. Sustained disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator. Administrators who repeatedly and aggressively engage in inappropriate activity may be desysopped by the Arbitration Committee.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 04:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Copyedited the title (originally "Administrative disruption", which I think could mean something else), hopefully a non-controversial change. I also suggest adding "or otherwise sanctioned" after "desysopped", though I haven't implemented the change and I don't think it's worth voting on as an alternative proposal, so I'll just ask here if there's support for the change. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Including Brad's suggested change. --Vassyana (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Post-Brad. Cool Hand Luke 17:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 17:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Coren (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. bainer (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Administrators involved in disputes

[edit]

7A) Administrator tools are not to be used in connection with disputes in which the administrator is involved as an editor. In several recent instances, administrators involved in disputes over an issue or with a user have taken sysop actions relating to that dispute and then referred the actions a noticeboard for endorsement or review. This practice generally is not sufficient to comply with policy against action by "involved" administrators. In such circumstances, the administrator should not take the action but should instead report the issue to the noticeboard, perhaps with a suggestion for appropriate action, to be dealt with by another administrator. In limited circumstances, such as blatant vandalism or bad-faith harassment, an involved administrator may act, but such exceptions are likely to be rare.

Support:
  1. Reiteration of the guidance we recently offered in the Macedonia 2 case, with minor copyedits. Additional proposal to 7, not an alternative. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Vassyana (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support as addition. Cool Hand Luke 17:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 17:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I should add that an involved administrator may, but need not act. It is unfailingly better to let someone else act (perhaps after having raised attention to the problem) than act oneself even in what would seem to be clear cases. Only when faced with a serious situation should an involved administrator consider acting at all, and then again only after having tried and failed to get uninvolved help. — Coren (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Though disagree very much with Coren. --bainer (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Baiting

[edit]

8) Editing in a manner so as to provoke other editors goes against established Wikipedia policies, as well as the spirit of Wikipedia and the will of its editors. Editing in such a manner may be perceived as trolling and harassment.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 04:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Although we generally have avoided the judgmental and oft-disputed term "trolling" in our decisions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Vassyana (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Roger Davies talk 17:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 17:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Coren (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Though "trolling" is a poor descriptor; better to describe the behaviour in more detailed terms. --bainer (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Canvassing

[edit]

9) Excessive cross-posting, campaigning, votestacking, stealth canvassing, and forum shopping are inappropriate forms of canvassing. Signs of biased canvassing include urging new editors to take a specific position in a conflict and only contacting one side of a dispute. To protect against rigged decisions, editors participating due to questionable canvassing may be discounted when evaluating consensus.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 04:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I feel Brad has legitimate concerns, but I believe they are applicable to misapplications of this principle, rather than the principle itself. I do not perceive a significant risk of this principle being abused. --Vassyana (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 17:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Canvassing policy is not fully formed, but I don't think this statement is controversial; we even have templates about it. Cool Hand Luke 17:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. That the written policy is in flux does not detract from this principle as generally accepted in its broad strokes. — Coren (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per Vassyana. --bainer (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. As I've mentioned in a couple of recent cases, application of our anti-canvassing policies is in a confused state. There are many times I think that important discussions could benefit from more intra-wiki publicity to interested or affected editors, rather than less. Also, I'm also not certain about the last sentence, although I refrain from opposing because it uses the word "may" rather than "will". If an editor is drawn to a page because of inappropriate canvassing, but once there she offers the best-reasoned argument in support of her preferred position, is the closing administrator really expected to ignore it? Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with canvassing, even if some of the "drawn in" editors bring good arguments, is that it will skew the representativeness of the editor sample trying to attain consensus. If 50 editors strongly biased towards X participate where only 10 that are biased against Y, the probability that good arguments for Y be found and considered is minimal. — Coren (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Using the terminology at Wikipedia:Canvassing, the "message", "audience" and "transparency" factors should certainly be prioritised over the "scale" factor alone. --bainer (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration in dispute resolution

[edit]

10) A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution on Wikipedia. With limited exceptions (such as emergency situations, "unusually divisive disputes among administrators", and matters directly referred by Jimbo Wales), it is expected that other avenues of dispute resolution will have been exhausted before an arbitration case is filed. Arbitration is the last resort for conflicts, rather than the first.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 04:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Roger Davies talk 17:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per FloNight's reasoning for this being included as justification of other matters not being included in this arbitration case. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. In a general sense this is correct. But the implicit application to this case is that the request preceding this case was premature or should not have been brought. I disagree. Firstly, a user that has been blocked multiple times over the course of years for the same problematic conduct has had ample opportunity to reform their behaviour; in the general case, providing such opportunity is a prime reason for not proceeding to later forms of dispute resolution. Secondly, arbitration is, at the end of the day, the only venue where the use of administrative tools can be considered (these days a request for comment about editing behaviour, for example, might result in a community-based editing restriction being applied; there is no mechanism for community removal of administrative tools). In another case I would support this, but including it here would not be apt. --bainer (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per bainer's excellent rationale. --Vassyana (talk) 08:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My support for the principle is because I want to explain why that I'm not supporting the Fof and sanctions that emphasis the concerns about Ikip. The situation with Ikip was the straw that broke the camel's back with regard to AMib, but I don't think that the issue between them and the underlying conflict needs to be addressed in this case for the situation with AMib to be addressed. I don't think we should wade into the inclusion/deletion dispute. The reason that I voted to sanction AMiB related to the Article Rescue Squad was to give the area a chance to regroup with out his involvement, not to address general concerns about that process or the users that are involved with it. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. This is certainly a true statement, but I'm not sure I see the current relevance to this particular case. Will change to support if it's tied in. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, on further review I see that A Man In Black proposed this on the workshop, in response to what he saw as the dragging into the case of several peripheral issues. However, most of these have been (properly) omitted from the draft final decision, so I am still not sure whether this needs to be included. Meanwhile, did some copyediting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I added this to note that this did technically skip an RfC and went straight to us, though normally it doesn't. In hindsight this principle's not really necessary in terms of passage being needed. Wizardman 14:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Newyorkbrad. --Vassyana (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Unclear why this matters in the decision. We accepted the case; it's our responsibility alone to maintain this rule. Cool Hand Luke 17:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. While mostly correct in the general case, I do not see how it applies to this case at all. — Coren (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

[edit]

A Man In Black’s edit-warring and block log

[edit]

1) A Man In Black (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an administrator, has been blocked approximately 12 times for edit warring since his request for adminship in October 2005.[1]

Support:
  1. Wizardman 04:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The block log is confusing to read because of his self blocks and unblocks. I can see either 11 or 12 blocks for editing warring since his RFA. Far too many for an admin, and too many recent instances. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. And amazing it went on this long before getting to arbcom. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Copyedited by hyphenating "edit-warring", adding "an administrator" (as otherwise the reference to his RfA comes out of the blue), and adding "approximately" before "12 times" (per FloNight). Revert if any of these changes are unwanted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC) We might note, though, that only two of the blocks are within the past year, and that as to those, A Man In Black has provided evidence that he had self-reverted and stepped away from the edit-war when he was blocked. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Vassyana (talk) 01:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Roger Davies talk 18:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 14:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I expanded out the unexplained acronym. --bainer (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

A Man In Black-Ikip involvement

[edit]

2) A Man In Black and Ikip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have both been involved in Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron, with their total contributions intersecting 20% of the time as of May 23, including 26 edits to Ikip’s talk page.[2] A Man In Black also made an attack page in his userspace about Ikip, later self-deleted.[3]

Support:
  1. Wizardman 04:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice, prefer 2.1, which drops the last sentence. I credit A Man In Black's explanation on the workshop that the page, while obviously reflecting poor judgment, was intended humorously and that he deleted it quickly. (I have also reflected some copyedits to the heading and text of 2.1 that can be made to 2 also if desired.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 18:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Equal preference with #2.1. --bainer (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. First choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. In extremely poor taste and not civil, but not exactly what I would call an "attack page". Additionally, "later self-deleted" makes it sound like it was around for a while, when it was deleted 44 minutes after creation. In the scheme of things, that's more like "immediately" deleted rather than "later". --Vassyana (talk) 01:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Recuse from findings involving Ikip. Cool Hand Luke 14:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputes between A Man In Black and Ikip

[edit]

2.1) A Man In Black and Ikip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have been involved in a series of disputes involving the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. Their total contributions have intersected about 20% of the time as of May 23, including 26 edits by A Man In Black to Ikip’s talk page. See evidence.

Support:
  1. First choice per above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Equal preference. Wizardman 22:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Vassyana (talk) 01:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Equal.  Roger Davies talk 18:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Equal. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Coren (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Equal preference with #2. --bainer (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Second choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Recuse from findings involving Ikip. Cool Hand Luke 14:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Man In Black’s block of Ikip

[edit]

3) A Man In Black blocked Ikip on April 26 for canvassing, where he claimed himself to be an uninvolved administrator. Ikip was unblocked shortly afterwards in an ensuing ANI discussion, where A Man In Black’s involvement was also discussed.[4]

Support:
  1. Wizardman 04:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice, prefer 3.1, which adds some nuances. Also, should the first sentence read "involved" or "uninvolved"? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second.  Roger Davies talk 18:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice. --bainer (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. First choice. AMiB's insistence of being uninvolved is the main problem. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. --Vassyana (talk) 01:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Recuse from findings involving Ikip. Cool Hand Luke 14:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Man In Black’s block of Ikip

[edit]

3.1) On April 26, A Man In Black blocked Ikip for canvassing in connection with the pending AfD of a fictional television character. A Man In Black then reported his block of Ikip on the administrators' noticeboard and invited review. The resulting discussion resulted in an unblock. [5] In view of their past history, A Man In Block should not have blocked Ikip but, if he had a concern, should have raised it on ANI for attention by other administrators rather than carry out the block himself.

Support:
  1. First choice. Note that we are endorsing the view expressed by many commenters on ANI that A Man In Black had too much negative history with Ikip for it to be appropriate for him to block Ikip, particularly on a matter directly concerning the subject-matter of their disputes. I do not endorse the broader view that a prominent "deletionist" may never block an "inclusionist" or vice versa. I do view it as a mitigating factor that A Man In Black promptly reported the block to ANI for review. While this Committee recently provided guidance that an "involved" administrator should not use administrator tools at all absent a genuine emergency or manifest bad-faith harassment, as reiterated in proposed principle 7A above, we had not yet emphasized our view on this point at the time of the block in question. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice. Wizardman 22:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Vassyana (talk) 01:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. First.  Roger Davies talk 18:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. First choice. "[I]if he had a concern" is rather redundant, as he obviously did. --bainer (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I'm not keen on FoFs which state what someone should have done. Everyone is at liberty to turn off their computer, even when they have concerns, or when the wiki is burning down. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Recuse from findings involving Ikip. Cool Hand Luke 14:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Man in Black's blocks of Jtrainor and MalikCarr

[edit]

3A) In October and November 2008, A Man in Black blocked both Jtrainor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and MalikCarr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) while in content disputes with them relating to the infobox Template:Infobox Mobile Suit and its use in a number of articles:

  1. On 25 October, A Man in Black removed a number of parameters from the infobox, with the edit summary "Dumping a bunch of unencyclopedic in-universe detail..." A Man in Black then proceeded to edit war with TheFarix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Jtrainor over his changes (history).
  2. On 29 October, A Man in Black edited the Gundam (mobile suit) article, to remove several parameters from the instance of Infobox Mobile Suit transcluded there, with the edit summary "Copyvio from http://www.gundamofficial.com/worlds/uc/msg/mechanics/ms_gundam.html" (a page on the "GundamOfficial" site). A Man in Black then edit warred with Jtrainor and Kyaa the Catlord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) over these changes (history).
  3. Also on 29 October, A Man in Black edited the MSN-03 Jagd Doga article to again remove parameters from the infobox, with the edit summary "rm blatant copyvio from http://www.gundamofficial.com/worlds/uc/cca/mechanics/ms_jagdgyunei.html" (a page on the "GundamOfficial" site). He then tagged the article with the {{primarysources}} template, and then edit warred with Jtrainor and MalikCarr over these changes (history).
  4. A Man in Black was aware that the GundamOfficial site was the source of the information in the infobox as early as November 2007 ([6]).
  5. The same users had been involved in a similar edit war in 2007 ([7], [8], [9]) that ultimately ended in a request for mediation.
  6. On 1 November, A Man in Black blocked Jtrainor for 24 hours with the action summary "Replacing copyvio into articles". On 2 November, A Man in Black blocked MalikCarr for 24 hours with the action summary "Trying to force copyvio into MSN-03 Jagd Doga". The blocks were discussed at the administrators' incidents noticeboard.
  7. It was not appropriate for A Man in Black to have performed the two blocks, given his substantial prior history of conflict with the two users blocked, and his involvement with the editorial dispute that led to the blocks (both in the immediate context and a year previously).
Support:
  1. A Man in Black was deeply involved both with the two users and with the particular editorial issue, an involvement stretching over more than a year. The copyright violation argument could certainly be made, but it should not have been acted on by A Man in Black directly. That A Man in Black was aware of the site said to be infringed being used as a source for a long time prior to the blocks, that he described the infobox usage as "borderline-copyvio" and that the copyright argument was only raised several days into the editorial dispute negates any claim to legitimacy despite involvement. --bainer (talk) 03:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This illustrates my opinion that, even in cases which might otherwise have been clearcut, an admin that is involved in the underlying dispute should not use the tool themselves and request independent assessment rather than (instead of after) acting. — Coren (talk) 10:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The copyright aspect makes me pause, but there was plenty of time to have a productive discussion about that aspect, and it didn't need to suddenly become an appropriate reason to block content writers. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Blocks done by an overly involved admin hinder the resolution of the matter. Actions taken by them introduces other elements into the situation that cloud the issues, and make it more difficult to achieve a prompt and broadly accepted resolution of the matter. The urgency to resolve the issue with a block is often do to the over involvement. So while the underlying reasoning for a block is not completely outside of policy, a totally uninvolved admin might have used a different approach with a better outcome. While a single instance of over involvement would not necessary result in an involuntary desysop, a pattern of using the tools when over involved would give weight to the loss of the admin tools. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 20:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Others have already said it best. --Vassyana (talk) 06:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Pattern of involved action. Cool Hand Luke 18:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. This appears to be accurate. I initially held off on supporting for a couple of days so that A Man In Black would have an opportunity to respond to the allegations, but the proposal has now been pending for several days and A Man In Black does not currently seem to be editing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

A Man In Black has engaged in sockpuppetry

[edit]

4) Per private evidence, A Man In Black has abusively edited Wikipedia under more than one identity, which included block evasion upon his IP being blocked.

Support:
  1. Prefer 4.1 Wizardman 04:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Prefer (4.1)  Roger Davies talk 18:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice. Cool Hand Luke 14:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice. --bainer (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. While still a serious violation, this finding makes it sound more extensive, or worse, than the facts suggest. --Vassyana (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Substantially per Vassyana. I credit A Man In Black's explanation in his evidence that this was an isolated incident that started out inadvertently and was compounded by a short-term error of judgment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

4.1) Per private evidence, A Man In Black has abusively edited Wikipedia as an anonymous user, resulting in a medium length block of that IP address. A Man In Black evaded the block by editing as A Man In Black while the IP block was in effect, engaging in the same dispute where the IP was active.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wizardman 11:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice. During the case, this incident was acknowledge by AMIB after the evidence was privately brought to his attention. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Roger Davies talk 18:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Coren (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 14:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. First choice, more descriptive. --bainer (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per my comments on 4 (though I do prefer this to 4). Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I agree with the limited nature per NYB, but I do consider this a serious violation of community trust and abuse of the block exemption granted to administrators. --Vassyana (talk) 08:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Man In Black has used his tools inappropriately

[edit]

5) A Man In Black, despite being involved with Ikip, blocked him, and also twice deleted a template that Ikip had created.[10]

Support:
  1. Wizardman 04:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice, more details. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Vassyana (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. First.  Roger Davies talk 18:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Coren (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Equal preference. --bainer (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. First choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. A Man In Black's explanation of the template deletions in his evidence, while not fully exonerating, bears some weight. In addition, this is partially duplicative of 3 or 3.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Recuse from findings involving Ikip. Cool Hand Luke 14:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Man In Black has used his tools inappropriately

[edit]

5.1) A Man In Black, despite being involved with Ikip, blocked him. [11]

Support:
  1. Equal pref. I think that this alone is enough to show a problem in case others don't see the deletion as a problem. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Equal preference. Wizardman 00:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second.  Roger Davies talk 18:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Equal preference. --bainer (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Incomplete. --Vassyana (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Now duplicative of 3.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Recuse from findings involving Ikip. Cool Hand Luke 14:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Man In Black has a history of edit-warring

[edit]

6) A Man In Black has a long history of edit-warring during his tenure as an administrator.[12][13][14][15]

Support:
  1. Wizardman 04:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Vassyana (talk) 01:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Minor copyedit, changed "as an administrator" to "during his tenure as an administrator" (he wasn't acting as an administrator in the edit-warring, but he was an admin at the time). Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Might be better to combine this with 1 to avoid duplication, though. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Roger Davies talk 18:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 14:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per Brad, could probably be consolidated with #1 (or at least reordered, so that they appear consecutively). --bainer (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Ikip and A Man In Black have edit-warred

[edit]

7) A Man In Black and Ikip revert-warred over inclusion of the sentence "As an editor who actively supports the deletion of many articles, I object to what Article Rescue Squadron is doing" and a response to it at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/FAQ. This was slow-moving edit-warring until May 10. On May 15, A Man In Black removed the wording again [16], sparking an edit-war that lasted from May 15 to 18, involving A Man In Black [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25], Ikip[26][27][28], and others. The edit-war came to an end when AMIB self-reverted.[29] Thereafter, A Man In Black was blocked and and Ikip was cautioned.[30]

Support:
  1. Wizardman 04:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Vassyana (talk) 01:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This was hardly the most disruptive edit-war in the history of the project, but it still does not reflect well on the participants. Wizardman, please check my copyedits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Roger Davies talk 18:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. bainer (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Recuse from findings involving Ikip. Cool Hand Luke 14:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ikip has engaged in uncivil conduct

[edit]

8) Ikip has engaged in attacks and uncivil comments towards A Man In Black.[31][32][33]

Support:
  1. Weakly. Not overly incivil, but you really shouldn’t be taking potshots at other editors. Wizardman 04:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Vassyana (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I believe this is necessary to place things in context. — Coren (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. per Coren. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per Brad and Wizardman, taunting is not comely, but I don't think this rises to the level of an arbitration finding. --bainer (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. I prefer that the first Fof give an overview of the precipitating event that triggered the case and the long term pattern of problematic conduct rather use these individual Fof to explain the context. I don't think that this case should overemphasis the dispute between Ikip and AMiB. The case was brought to address the issues with AMiB being an admin. It worries me that the Community will not bring complaints against admins if we prematurely sanction users that the admin is sparring with. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
True, but not convinced that we need to address this in the case to have a good resolution. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)(Comment stands but moving to oppose). FloNight♥♥♥ 11:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Ikip should take the concerns expressed in this case seriously into account in connection with his or her future behavior, but at this stage I am not certain they need to be addressed in a formal arbitration finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Roger Davies talk 18:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Recuse from findings involving Ikip. Cool Hand Luke 14:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ikip has engaged in canvassing

[edit]

9) Ikip has, on multiple occassions, excessively cross-posted messages aimed at a specific audience with the intent on influencing deletion debates.[34][35][36][37][38]

Support:
  1. Worth recording and mentioning. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. There's a line between maing sure the community is aware of discussions, projects, etc and excessive posting. Similarly, there's a distinction between informing potentially interested editors and gaming up the right crowd. With an overview and hindsight, it's fairly clear that both lines were crossed on multiple occasions. --Vassyana (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Rlevse.  Roger Davies talk 18:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per my vote on 8. — Coren (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Not needed to have a complete case that addresses the core issues of the case. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Flo. Moreover, Ikip's approach to posting messages about Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) didn't seem problematic to me. --bainer (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. per Stephen Bain. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. On the one hand, he violated the “Scale” section of WP:CANVASS. On the other hand, the ANI threads lacked a consensus, and it’s stale evidence. Add for completion’s sake. Wizardman 04:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The scale factor by itself is the least useful factor in the analysis. It stands alone for the sake of neatness, but really it's a factor that compounds the others more than having such a great effect on its own. Putting too much emphasis on it discourages genuine advertising of discussions. --bainer (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my comments on proposed principle 9 and proposed finding 8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Recuse from findings involving Ikip. Cool Hand Luke 14:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

A Man In Black desysopped

[edit]

1) A Man In Black (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)’s administrator privileges are revoked. He may apply to have them reinstated at any time, either through the usual means or by appeal to the Committee.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 04:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Clear cut, given the involved tool use and extensive history of edit warring. --Vassyana (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 18:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. At this point A Man In Black needs to either demonstrate continuing community consensus or at the very least come back to this committee with a solid track record. I understand Newyorkbrad's hesitation due to the relatively limited problematic behavior during the past year, but community confidence in the administrators depend on confidence that the tools are not used to "win" disputes. — Coren (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. For long-term problems, not just the last incident. Cool Hand Luke 15:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. bainer (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Perhaps confirming my reputation as "the lenient one," I am not convinced this is necessary. A Man In Black has made minimal use of administrator tools recently, and his questionable actions in relation to Ikip appear to have been isolated incidents. The history of edit-warring is more problematic, but even assuming that conduct not involving administrator tools can bear on one's fitness for adminship (with which I agree), as noted above only two of the edit-warring blocks occurred within the past year. In each of these instances, A Man In Black self-reverted and appears to have been in the process of stepping away from the disputed page when he was blocked. For what it's worth, my general impression is that A Man In Black gets a bit too involved (using "involved" with its everyday meaning) in pursuit of deletionism, and might be best served by finding another wiki-priority. But I do not find a sufficient case for desysopping and would favor a less severe sanction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

A Man in Black topic-banned

[edit]

2) A Man In Black is topic-banned from the Article Rescue Squadron for one year. A Man In Black is prohibited, broadly construed, from contacting, interacting with, and commenting on, in any capacity or namespace, the Article Rescue Squadron. Should AMiB violate this ban, he may be blocked for the duration specified below.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 04:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Assuming Wiz inserts the missing topic ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 21:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This gets it about right.  Roger Davies talk 18:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have copy-edited this using the suggestion by AGK below in the implementation section. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Overly broad. One-sided treatment in this measure (and overall in this case) unjustly rewards disruptive conduct by other involved parties. --Vassyana (talk) 08:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not convinced that this is necessary, particularly if the revert restriction below passes. If it passes however, the word "about" should be removed from the second sentence or else it will not make any sense. --bainer (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
I support this measure, but oppose a one-sided restriction. Targeting only AMiB unjustly rewards disruption by other involved editors. --Vassyana (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I support a restriction that would prevent A Man In Black from editing the Article Rescue Squadron page or seeking to interfere with its activities. I do not share Vassyana's concern about parallelism in this context, because edit-warring on the ARS's page by a self-identified foe of its mission is particularly unnecessary; the ARS members, though they shouldn't have edit-warred, were probably in their minds simply seeking to preserve a correct description of the ARS's nature and activities. However, prohibiting A Man In Black from even mentioning the ARS's existence—perhaps in an AfD comment such as "the Article Rescue Squadron has done its best to improve this article, but it still lacks sufficient sources" or the like—seems overbroad. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As worded, this seem a little overboard. — Coren (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Too broad. Cool Hand Luke 15:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Man in Black topic-banned 2

[edit]

3) A Man In Black is topic-banned from User:Ikip for one year. Broadly construed, AMiB may not contact, interact with, nor comment on in any capacity, from article space to project space, about Ikip, except for business directly related to the Arbitration Committee and appeals to or from this case. Should AMiB be found in violation of this, he may be blocked for the duration specified below.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 04:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Assuming Wiz inserts the missing topic ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 21:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Roger Davies talk 18:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per 2). Far too open to gaming. --Vassyana (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Clarifying: I feel this restriction should be a two-way street. I fear that a heavily one-sided restriction where both users have acted less than ideally is far too open to abuse and sends a horrible message. --Vassyana (talk) 08:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I would be open to a no-interaction ban on AMiB, but this one is creating a rod for everyones back. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I don't think a remedy of this scale and difficulty of enforcement is necessary, particularly if the desysopping remedy passes. Also, "topic ban" is a bad name for a sanction like this; I believe we've used something like "ban on interacting with..." in the past. --bainer (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I don't know that a "topic ban" is the best description of a restriction on interactions between one user or another. Wizardman, are the remedies imposed in cases like Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abtract-Collectonian or Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WLU-Mystar the sort of thing you have in mind here? Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I meant something along those lines. Wizardman 14:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "Topic ban" doesn't seem right, and is too confusing. — Coren (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This isn't a topic ban. Besides, recuse from findings involving Ikip. Cool Hand Luke 15:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Man in Black restricted

[edit]

4) A Man in Black is subject to an editing restriction for one year. A Man in Black is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should A Man in Black exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, A Man in Black may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below

Support:
  1. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weakly, with reservations as per 2). However, this is fully justified by the extensive history of edit warring. --Vassyana (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Given the history of warring. — Coren (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cool Hand Luke 15:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 23:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. bainer (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Not sure this is necessary at this time, per comments above, though it might become so if A Man In Black does not follow through on his promise that he has strived for improved behavior in this regard. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Brad.  Roger Davies talk 18:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ikip warned

[edit]

5) Ikip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is warned to refrain from making large-scale edits which may be interpreted as canvassing or making rude comments to users he’s in dispute with.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 04:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. (With CE}  Roger Davies talk 18:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This warning is necessary, in context. — Coren (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weakly support. I feel this is a bare wrist slap for extensive issues and strongly encourage to the community to review the behavior of Ikip and other involved editors, as there is a great reluctance from other arbs to expand the scope of this case beyond the review of AMiB. --Vassyana (talk) 08:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If further sanctions are needed, I trust the community to handle it, hence the bare wrist slap by us. Wizardman 14:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it is within the remit and capability of the community to handle, but I also feel that we have an obligation to address behavior before us. This is especially so when it involves an area of long-standing acrimony and community division. Blocking or sanctioning prominent editors in this debate almost always results in overblown drama, wikilawyering and other such nonsense. When someone can pull the "already handled by ArbCom" card, the chance of getting even a mild sanction to stick nears zero (barring some explicit guidance from ArbCom encouraging/authorizing the community to review the matter). --Vassyana (talk) 06:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I think this is timely advice. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Not needed. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my comments on the proposed findings. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per position on the relevant proposed finding. --bainer (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Far too weak. --Vassyana (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Recuse from findings involving Ikip. Cool Hand Luke 15:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

[edit]

Enforcement by block

[edit]

1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a month in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.

Support:
  1. Wizardman 04:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Coren (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cool Hand Luke 15:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. bainer (talk) 12:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit]

General

[edit]

Motion to close

[edit]

Implementation notes

[edit]

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

(For this case, there are 11 active Arbitrators (excluding 4 who are recused), so 6 votes are a majority.)

Passing:

Principles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7A, 8, 9, 10
Findings of fact: 1, 2, 2.1, 3, 3.1, 4, 4.1, 5, 5.1, 6, 7, 8
Remedies: 1, 2, 4, 5
Enforcements: 1

Failing:

Principles:
Findings of fact: 3A, 9
Remedies: 3
Enforcements:

Alternatives:

Findings of fact: (2, 2.1), (3, 3.1), (4, 4.1), (5, 5.1)

Superseded:

Findings of fact: 2 (by 2.1), 3 (by 3.1), 4 (by 4.1), 5.1 (by 5)

Passing and not superseded:

Principles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7A, 8, 9, 10
Findings of fact: 1, 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 5, 6, 7, 8
Remedies: 1, 2, 4, 5
Enforcements: 1

Paul August ☎ 03:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As requested by Paul, I have reviewed the newest implementation votes, and do consequently confirm that I find them to be wholly correct. The following proposals will be taken forward as the final decision (absent further objections):
  • Principles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7A, 8, 9, 10;
  • Findings of fact: 1, 2.1, 3.1, 3A Added 15:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC), 4.1, 5, 6, 7, 8;
  • Remedies: 1, 2, 4, 5;
  • Enforcement provisions: 1.
AGK 19:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FoF 3A added, per recent votes. AGK 15:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: Proposed remedy 2) has some weaknesses in its grammar. The following is a refined version of the proposal (with adjusted phrases highlighted in green):
2) A Man In Black is topic-banned from the Article Rescue Squadron for one year. A Man In Black is prohibited, broadly construed, from contacting, interacting with, and commenting on, in any capacity (in article space and in project space), the Article Rescue Squadron. Should AMiB violate this ban, he may be blocked for the duration specified below.
If the arbitrators would like me to implement this, or another, variant of remedy 2) when closing the case, please offer direction to that effect. Thanks, AGK 19:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks AGK, I've used that, but with the more clear "any .. namespace" to avoid wikilaywering about which namespaces are project space. I'll email arbcom describing the copy-edit so they can object to it if they wish. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

[edit]

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support
  1. Close (again). 3A is passing. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Move to close. I'm satisfied with the case since the request for arbitration involved evaluating AMib's status as an admin. We've written a case that addresses that issue. Wait 24 hours to close in order to update the Implementation note. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Close. Wizardman 14:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The later votes have clarified majorities sufficiently to close this. — Coren (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Close. --bainer (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Close. Cool Hand Luke 21:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Oppose closing, just temporarily for a day or two. Too many paragraphs of the decision are passing by a threadbare majority of 4-to-0 with 4 abstentions. (That calculates as a majority with 11 arbitrators active on the case; the 4 abstainers are subtracted from the 11, leaving 7, and 4 supports is a majority of 7.) We will probably attain more of a consensus if on some of these points, the abstainers circle back and make up their minds—this includes me—and the abstainers might in turn be aided in doing so if the initial drafter were to address a few of their comments. I'll post to the mailing list to ping on this, and in any event I'll change to support closing in a day or two. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Withdraw oppose to close. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until Fof 3A is voted on by the majority of arbs. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Move to support again. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is passing now. --bainer (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A_Man_In_Black/Proposed_decision&oldid=445337090"