Proposed final decision

Proposed principles[edit]

Polls are Evil

1) Voting on something should be avoided and instead be discussed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. See m:Polls are evil. The fact that Ferrylodge's ban was essentially voted is why I'm proposing this. Kwsn(Ni!) 20:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sarcastic side of me feels the need to point out that the arbiters will vote during the decision process. ;) Voting on some things is ok. Voting whether to expel a user is bad, particularly when there is no way to measure whether the voting population is representative of the total population. Community bans either need to be approved by a representative unbiased body (something like arbcom) or by unanimous consent (aka no admin is willing to unblock). --B 21:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they discuss behind the scenes if you look at the arbcom page. Kwsn(Ni!) 23:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And there was a quite a bit of discussion on Ferrylodge too. In fact, there were multiple discussions about him, over a long period of time. It's not like someone one day just said "Oh hai, Ferry can has banz? Vote plzkthxbai." There was discussion. Seems like a finding of fact where one needs not be made. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A case of Considered harmful? My comments regarding FerryLodge at WP:CSN were made under the impression that community discussion is neither a poll nor a vote, but an opportunity for opinions to be heard and consensus possibly reached. Odd nature 19:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. ArbCom should definitely not determine that polls are evil, since this is a contentious issue (some, particularly wikidemocrats, believe that voting is a tool) and not policy. Perhaps a principle like Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Past decisions#Consensus can be adopted, though. Melsaran (talk) 10:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was Winston Churchill who said "democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

What I saw in the Ferrylodge case was a plausible attempt at consensus. What would have been better? An indefinite block made by a single admin? A block issued from a secret committee meeting of anonymous people?

There was discussion of the issues and no plausible defense of Ferrylodge was made. Suggest a better process. --Pleasantville 12:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think an important distinction needs to be made: it's not polls that are inappropriate, but, rather, polls in isolation. If polls have no place at all on Wikipedia — especially polls involving a user — then, obviously, something needs to be done about the current Request for Adminship system. The point is that Requests for Adminship are not solely determined by the number of "support" and "oppose" votes. They are decided upon evidence: the strength of the nominator's statement, the candidate's reply to default and user-submitted questions, and comments which voters may leave. If the RfA process were nothing more than an out-of-context vote, then, yes, there would be an issue with it. However, because RfAs are centred on discussion and the presentation of evidence, they give users a solid basis for considering the candidate and then making a reasoned vote.

In the case of the CSN request, I think it was the discussion, not the vote, which was the basis of FM's decision to go forward with the block. The vote was just a quick show of hands to reaffirm what had already been confirmed by the earlier discussion. It was a tool for getting a sense of the overall directionality of the opinions that had been expressed without having to retread a lengthly discussion.

I do think we are losing sight of the real issue that is at hand, getting sidetracked by considerations of process, and not focusing on the evidence. This is not "Requests for arbitration/Community sanction noticeboard." It isn't the right venue for trying to reform the use of polls on Wikipedia either. The question is whether Ferrylodge has a long history of incivility and disruptive editing, and, if so, what response this warrants. This is what the question was at the time the CSN request was filed and I believe it is what the question being asked now needs to remain. -Severa (!!!) 13:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this process should be about Ferrylodge, not a poll on the evils of polls. --Pleasantville 14:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too broad. There is consensus that the polls on CSN were inappropriate - that's why it was closed - but this case should not be passing judgement on polls in general, it's not within the scope of the case. --Tango 14:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree ... not really needed here.--B 15:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bans are a last resort

2) Bans are a last resort and should be used sparingly.

2.1) Site bans are a last resort and should be used sparingly.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --Tango 14:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of bans? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any kind of bans. Within the category of "bans" there are varying degrees of severity, but you shouldn't use any kind of ban until you've exhausted the alternatives. --Tango 18:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heartily disagree then. A topic ban is not a last resort (instead of a site ban, which one can argue is.)⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, there are degrees of severity within bans. A site ban would come after a topic ban, sure, but a topic ban would come after any non-ban resort. --Tango 22:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed 2.1, more clear, and should be something everyone can agree on. Kwsn(Ni!)

Community ban defined

3) A community ban occurs when a user has exhausted community patience, is indefinitely blocked, and no administrator is willing to unblock them. The community may discuss a ban at a suitable forum, but if an administrator in good faith is willing to unblock, the user is not considered banned and the issue should be remanded to the arbitration committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. This is our ban policy and has always been our ban policy. --B 15:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, that's how I've always understood the policy. The way CSN worked, however, would suggest a rather different interpretation (based on community consensus, rather than opinions of individual admins) - perhaps that's why CSN didn't work... --Tango 17:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, though should it be remanded to additional dispute resolution? as not all cases are going to be ready for arbcomm. --Rocksanddirt 17:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, CSN acts as a form of RFC on the issue. Mediation likely won't work out or has already been tried. I personally see nothing wrong with going from CSN to Arbcom directly; in fact we should consider updating the DR process as such. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As has been discussed from time to time, there has always been some uncertainty concerning the parameters of community banning. One line of thought (supported by at least one ArbCom decision) is that a community ban is in effect only where no administrator is willing to unblock the user, or put differently, all admins (who have actually looked at the matter) support the ban. Another line of thought (supported by at least one other ArbCom decision) is that a community ban is in effect where the overwhelming majority of admins who look at the situation support the ban, even though there might theoretically be some admin willing to unblock.

This is more than a purely technical distinction. If the first definition is used, then any administrator is at liberty to unblock a putatively "banned" user, even if the admin knows that he or she is acting against consensus—which can lead to disputes among admins, and the need to pursue arbitration against users whose disruptive editing could otherwise be addressed "by the community." If the second definition is used, then administrators would be expected to abide by consensus, where there is one, when considering unblocking, as is usually expected in contentious block situations not involving bans. (An exception might be a limited unblock for the purpose of allowing the user to file an arbitration case.)

The distinction also goes to how a ban is enacted in the first place. Under the former definition, a block can ripen into a ban if an admin blocks, someone suggests a ban, and no one then unblocks for the purpose of testing the ban. A "community decision" (in whatever forum such discussions take place in at the time) would not be required. Under the latter definition, a community ban is in place only if there is some form of community consensus in some recognized forum to enact it.

In my mind, I have reconciled these two conflicting lines of thought by assuming that a community ban agreed upon at WP:CSN (or wherever) was of deeper standing, i.e. could not be overturned by a single administrator, than one enacted merely informally. However, I do not believe that this is actually written in policy anywhere.

In any event, the proposed principle is probably a bit of a stretch on current practice. If there is an ANI discussion concerning a user, 99 out of 100 commenting editors support the ban, but one who is an administrator dissents and is willing to unblock, does that mean an arbitration case is needed to address the matter? Newyorkbrad 18:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If 99 editors commenting support the ban and only one does not, I seriously doubt there would be an administrator willing to unblock and if there were, he/she would not be an administrator for very long. But even in that case, the whole problem here is that there is the potential for only one side to be heard from. It would be hard to get 99, but think about the first Daniel Brandt DRV after Yanksox's deletion. It looked like the community overwhelmingly endorsed that action, but really all it meant was that IRC was sending people over here by the truckload to endorse it. If I ask the question, "should user X be banned" and ten people who don't like user X show up and answer yes, that doesn't mean that the community has reached a consensus - it only means that the people who don't like user X did a good job of showing up quickly. That's not enough to infer anything. That's why our court system has a jury make decisions rather than trying cases at a town hall meeting. A community-discussed ban shouldn't be overturned without good reason, but that safeguard needs to be in there, otherwise we are merely AFDing people and bans are determined by the tyranny of the heckler. --B 18:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who does not share Wikipedian-norm beliefs on the appropriateness of concealing identity, I have a hard time understanding how Wikipedia can allow binding and significant decisions to be made by anonymous and/or pseudonymous people individually or collectively. Conflicts of interest and things like outside affiliations among groups can be judged within the context of WIkipedia based only on fragmentary and inadequate information. Similarly, conflicts of interest and affiliations of those subject to such actions, Ferrylodge for example, cannot be openly discussed because as he has stated in the Washington Post, he chooses to remain anonymous. This policy toward anonymity forces subjects that are properly part of any kind of informed community decision making into a sort of Wikipedian collective unconscious.

While the Ferrylodge ban is not the place to define what might be healthier policies on pseudonymity, I think the problematic nature of having processes like these in which a significant portion of the participants conceal their affiliations should be noted at least in passing. Perhaps it should be noted that in the Ferrylodge process a higher proportion than usual of the participants had checkable identities. (SwatJester, Tvoz, and myself, at minimum.) --Pleasantville 18:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't really an alternative. We could require people to give real names and disclose any affiliations, but actually checking them would be very difficult (people can check for themselves if they care enough, but a central check would be pretty impossible), and it would quite likely reduce the number of contributors enormously. (Personally, I don't hide my identity and see no reason to, but I think we are in a minority there.) --Tango 19:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issues concerning anonymous/pseudonymous editing strike me as having nothing to do with the questions presented in this case. Newyorkbrad 00:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I over-react to Ferrylodge's remark about lack of affiliation with any organization (or some such). --Pleasantville 17:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, too easy to game. It's not difficult for even the most trollish of banned users to find a sympathetic admin to unblock them, either because of an ideological alignment or having a grudge or score to settle with the blocking admin or those who brought the proposal to the community. We've seen plenty of examples of both types, even here. Odd nature 21:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The principle is a statement of policy. Do you dispute that it is an accurate summary of the policy, or do you just dispute the policy? It appears to be the latter, in which case, this is the wrong place to be making those comments. --Tango 10:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

4) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Odd nature 20:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supported, and it's not just one sided for this case either. Kwsn(Ni!) 23:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you added # 4.2.8 KillerChihuahua has been uncivil but didn't add # 4.2.9 Ferrylodge has been uncivil, then. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Community Bans A community ban exists if and only if there are no administrators willing to unblock a blocked user

5) That where there are admins who are willing to unblock a banned user, no community ban exists.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is implicit in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Workshop#Community ban defined, but I think it worth separating out. It is of course no more than a restatement of the Wikipedia:Banning policy#Community ban banning policy. Banno 05:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. There is credible evidence presented throughout the course of this arbitration that the definition of a community ban has evolved from "nobody will unblock" to "consensus of the community". ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any such evidence is not reflected in the policy, and would be negated by the closure of CSN. Banno 07:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The definition hasn't evolved, it's just become inconsistent. Some people use one definition, some use another. This principle is intended to make it clear what the definition is. It's important that everyone use the same definition. Both have their benefits, but personally I prefer the original one. A consensus to ban fits the name better (we should consider renaming community bans to "admin bans" or something. How about simply "implicit ban"?), but will inevitably turn into Votes for Banning, like CSN did. --Tango 18:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A name-change might lead to a decrease in this sort of misunderstanding. Banno 21:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The outpouring of vitriol upon User:B after his unblocking of User:Profg demonstrates that many people do not hold this definition of "community ban". If this is indeed the definition that ArbCom believes is correct, then an explicit statement is called for. --BlueMoonlet 01:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to disclose that I previously criticised FeloniuosMonk[10], although my interest in this case stems from my interest in Community bans, rather than any grudge I have towards him. I worked both on the banning policy and on the CSN page in the months before it was closed. Banno 21:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you are requesting here in effect is a change of the policy. Banno 21:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the wording of the heading. I hope that arbcom will support this, so that the policy might be better understood. Banno 20:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's effectively impossible for over 1300 people to reach a unanimous agreement. I think there needs to be some standard beyond "no admin will unblock," because, if the Miltopia case has established anything, it's that it's inevitable that there will be at least one admin who will unblock. -Severa (!!!) 04:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that's why it's good to put it clearly up here. Then the committee can take it or not, as an aside I would recommend everyone on this case go check out WP:BAN and give some thoughts there as well. --Rocksanddirt 04:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should have clear warnings before any block

6) Blocks of any length, and especially indef blocks, should be preceded by clear and specific warnings of increasing severity.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I'd like to draw several analogies between this case and vandalism. With vandals we start with mild warnings, then more severe, then warn them they will be blocked if they continue. Only after several warnings and a final warning will AIV even consider a block. The same principle should hold true before blocking useful contributors. I see no evidence that Ferrylodge was given clear and specific warnings not to engage in whatever behavior led to him being blocked (other than the 3RR blocks). Sbowers3 03:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. Usually vandals are given progressive warnings. But if a new account goes to unusual lengths, such as photoshopping an image, uploading it, and using it to create an article that blatantly violates BLP in a particularly nasty way, I will report them to AIV after one or even no warning, and they will be blocked, and rightly so. - Crockspot 23:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Legal threats in many cases merit an immediate indefinite block with no prior warning. So do some of the most extreme personal attacks on other editors, death threats, outing of personal information, etc. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But this case was none of those that might merit immediate indef block. What was it, incivility? Sbowers3 03:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further, Ferrylodge had the entire Bishonen RFC as well as multiple communications on Killerchihuahua's talk page, as well as communications with me, to serve as warnings that what he did was wrong. This is in addition to the 3RR blocks, for which he was also warned. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to any warnings on his talk page as clear and specific as warnings against vandalism? Any warnings that say, If you continue to do such and such you will be blocked? Sbowers3 03:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of warnings is to ensure that the user knows what they are doing is wrong and that they know the consequences of it. I think it's fair to say Ferrylodge was well aware of our blocking policy and didn't need it spelling out to him. --Tango 09:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, perfunctory and bureaucratic. Furthermore, if public discussion where there's a consensus for a ban doesn't produce improved behavior, would a talk page warning from a single admin do anymore? Likely not in this case given FerryLodge's past behavior and current attitude. Odd nature 20:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indef blocks should be preceded by shorter blocks of increasing duration

7) An indef block should not be imposed until and unless shorter duration blocks have been tried but failed to correct the bad behavior.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

With vandals, after several warnings we impose a short block, typically just one day. If that editor vandalizes again, we issue more warnings, then a longer block, perhaps two days, then three days, then a week, a month, two months, three months, six months, one year, and then finally an indef block. This same principle should apply to blocks for reasons other than vandalism. Sbowers3 03:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, this is against policy. We indef block immediately for username violations, legal threats, death threats, vandalism only accounts, etc. You can't simply make up principles that have no basis in reality. With vandals, if all of their contributions are vandalism we simply immediately indefinite block them as a vandalism only account. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "making up a principle" - I am proposing a principle. This situation is not in any of the categories you mention. As a vandal fighter I have seen a great many vandalism-only accounts that got nothing more than a one-day block - and sometimes got no block. Sbowers3 04:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I worded that improperly. Principles apply beyond just Ferrylodge. They apply to all users on the project. If the principle does NOT apply to all users on the project than it is not actually a valid, existing principle. It therefore is a new creation (policy, guideline, etc), and is not something ArbCom should be dealing with. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're misunderstanding how this works. It does not matter in the principles section if this applied to Ferrylodge or not. Principles apply all the time everywhere. I think what you are looking at is a "finding of fact" that Ferrylodge did not go through the normal block process. That is something completely different. But, as a principle, your suggestion is wrong.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indef blocked shouldn't be used as a first reaction in most cases, but the previous reactions don't have to be blocks. If you give someone the benefit of the doubt the first few times they do something wrong, and don't block them, and they keep doing it, you can jump straight to a long (even indef) block. A principle like this would just force admins to issue blocks for every transgression, rather than taking action appropriate to the situation. --Tango 09:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, too sweeping. There way too many obvious exceptions for this to be a general principle, and FerryLodge may be one of those exceptions. Odd nature 20:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow time for considering community sanctions

8) The time allowed for the community to consider a sanction of long duration should be at least as long as provided for deleting an article. The impact of banning a contributing editor can be the equivalent of several articles. If we allow five days to consider deleting an article, we should allow at least five days to consider banning an editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The CSN that preceded this arbitration was barely one day. Many editors (even very active editors) don't log on to WP every day and had no opportunity to contribute before the final decision. There can hardly be a community consensus when most of the community doesn't even know about the proceedings. Sbowers3 04:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a decision for the community to make, outside the purview of this arbitration. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant, CSN no longer exists. AN/I is a much less structured system and doesn't have or need time limits. --Tango 09:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The goal should be improvement

9) The goal of any sanction should not be just to remove a perceived troublemaker, it should be to improve an editors's behavior so that he or she will be a more constructive editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

It is easy to remove all troublemakers - just ban everybody. But we want editors - we need editors - who will make constructive edits. Humans are imperfect - some more imperfect than others. There is usually good with the bad. Even terrible vandals sometimes convert into useful editors. When editors make mistakes we should try to teach them to improve their behavior - to get more of the good and less of the bad. Banning an editor - especially one who has a history of useful contributions - gives up on any chance of improving that editor. We have tools for teaching editors to be better and we should use those tools before we give up on any chance of improvement. We should start with clear warnings and specific examples of bad behavior, then short blocks, then perhaps probation, 1RR, mentoring, etc. - all of these can teach the editor to be better. Sbowers3 05:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the purpose of a sanction. Sanctions are solely dedicated to "preventing damage to the project". It is not our job to improve other editor's behaviors. It is incumbent upon them to improve it themselves. Time spent improving other editor's behaviors is time NOT spent improving the project. If they cannot contribute properly, they cannot be here. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I question: How many "terrible vandals" actually convert into useful editors? Please provide numbers.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I further note, who is going to do all of this mentoring? Monitor all these probations? How much admin time is spent issuing out these short blocks and warnings and coddling these vandals, when the correct answer, supported by both custom and policy, is to simply block them much more significantly? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to invoke WP:SNOW, but the chance of reforming a disruptive editor is rather low, in comparison to the very high probability that productive editors will be burnt out or driven away if something is not done to rein in disruptive editors. Gain must be weighed against loss. -Severa (!!!) 21:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not understanding what Wikipedia:Snowball clause has to do here. --Ali'i 21:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is related in that Severa is saying that the odds of reforming a disruptive editor are so low that they not worth mentioning. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Wikipedia is not therapy. Odd nature 21:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

10) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

11) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

12) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

No consensus on CSN

1) There was significant, but not overwhelming, support for a ban on CSN. The case was closed too soon for a true consensus to be gauged. Following the closure, many people expressed concern that the closure was premature.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --Tango 13:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: I have no opinion on the speed of closure, but there was little indication that substantial support for Ferrylodge's behavior was emerging. While some expressed concern that closure was premature, this seemed to be a procedural quibble presented in lieu of substantive arguments in defense of Ferrylodge; substantive arguments which had also been lacking in the initial process. Arbcom has already agreed to hear the case, so speed of CSN process is now irrelevant, since the RfA is about whether to un-ban Ferrylodge, not whether to keep the CSN process. --Pleasantville 14:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were multiple people expressing opposition to a ban - according to Odd Nature's evidence, the raw numbers were 14:4 (I haven't counted it myself), that's less than 78%, far from overwhelming. "Consensus" does not mean "majority". Closing a discussion that soon should require overwhelming support, not just large support. This is not about CSN in general, it's about this particular CSN, which is very much what this RfAr is about. The block was made on the grounds that CSN supported it, if that isn't true, then the ban was incorrect and should be overruled. --Tango 14:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True decision-making by consensus, as I was trained in it as a board member of an organization that operated by consensus, is a system whereby a single participant in a discussion can block consensus by refusing to agree with the majority; true consensus can only be reached if those who do not agree with the majority agree to abstain in order to avoid blocking consensus. Wikipedia's version of "consensus" does not adhere to that strict standard; what is referred to on WIkipedia as consensus is in fact somewhere between consensus and democracy. I think that given the way the word consensus is used on Wikipedia, a consensus was reached. --Pleasantville 14:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict)Agree 100% with Pleasantville and that's the whole problem here. The most important thing is that there was no agreement among uninvolved users. Prior to the block, I don't know that anyone who doesn't edit articles from that topic area had even commented on it. There was plenty of support after the fact, but I don't know how much you can read into that other than that people like to pile on. Including uninvolved users is essential - otherwise there is no precaution against an unpopular (as opposed to a disruptive) user being banned or a ban being used as a tool in a content dispute. This is the same reason that criminal trials have a selected jury instead of a jury of whoever happens to show up at the trial. A community ban is either unanimous (or, at least, no admin is willing to unblock) or it needs to come to arbcom. I honestly don't think that this particular finding needs to be included because no community ban actually occurred. Arbcom should instead focus on what, if any, sanctions they would like to impose. --B 15:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)Strongest possible disagree, There was a clear, even overwhelming consensus that Ferrylodge was to be banned. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can you call 78% after a very short period overwhelming? It's not even enough to get through an RFA without raised eyebrows. --Tango 18:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that number that Odd nature proferred is high since there were many editors (as I've outlined on the evidence page) that were also in favor of a topical ban/revert limit. Taking those editors into account, the consensus to ban is not "overwhelming", nor truly "significant". --Ali'i 18:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the Daniel Brandt DRV was snowed, the count was 17-6, or, not similar to this one, and the closing admin was banned for ten days as a result. --B 18:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the closing admin edit warred over the closure - without that, I doubt there would have been a ban. --Tango 19:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. This proposal is flat wrong, ignores easily verifiable facts: At the time FeloniousMonk instituted the ban, the community was 14:4 in favor of a ban: [11]After ~35 hours of discussion showed support for a community ban ran at 15:1: [12] At 48 hours when the discussion was closed total support for a community ban of FerryLodge was 22 in favor and 7 opposed: [13] Odd nature 19:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many of those were users who had little/no contact with Ferrylodge prior to the ban discussion? (And no, unlike the other recent unpleasantness, I would not count myself among that number.) --B 20:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't quote numbers at me. I know the numbers - I referenced them already. I maintain that 14:4 is not overwhelming. I am not ignoring facts, I am interpreting them. --Tango 22:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you would argue that 140 users in favor of something to 40 users against something is not overwhelming support for the "in favor" side? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The changing of the numbers is absurd. It wasn't 140 versus 40. Yes the percentages are the same, but the numbers are waaaaaay different. (We don't have 100 more people in support of something, we have 10) But, the 14:4 number is disputed anyway. As I've evidenced on the evidence page, there were 10-12 people in support of a lesser topical ban/revert limit (depending on if you count KillerChihuahua and the anon IP opinion). --Ali'i 18:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ad yet 140:40 is the exact same percent as 14:4. How can the first one be overwhelming and the second not? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 13:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The margin of error with a small number of votes is much larger than with a large number of votes - see Law of large numbers. --Tango 13:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the criterion is meant to be "consensus", no. If we go by the RFA definition of consensus (as good a definition as any, if you don't like the real one), the minimum required is 75%, so 78% is not overwhelming, it barely enough. 78% after a long and full discussion might be enough to call it a "consensus", but to cut a discussion sort after just 18 people have commented, it would need to be overwhelming, not just barely enough. --Tango 20:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not RFA. We don't have to use RFA numbers. In fact, we don't user RFA numbers. I know of no policy that says that 75% is a consensus. In fact, RFA doesn't even have a hard number: people can and do get promoted at less than 75%. Throwing around this number is misleading here. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 13:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People don't get promoted on RFA with less than 75% except under extremely unusual, and very controversial, circumstances. What number would you suggest? CSN is quite obviously a vote (no-one can claim there was a true consensus, and rough consensus just means supermajority), so there must be a numerical cutoff. I went with the only place where we have a similar situation, RFA, and took the cutoff from there, 75%, if you think CSN should have a different cutoff, what do you suggest, and why? --Tango 13:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ri)Of course there's the RFAR process itself -- 80% works, so what's the real problem? Oh, right it's not 80%. Jim62sch 18:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No support for CSN

2) The closure of the noticeboard shows that the community does not support it as a method of determining consensus on bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --Tango 13:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This makes a certain sense, but under the MfD closing and as I understand the thrust of the discussion, matters that were formerly addressed on CSN will now be discussed on ANI. Other than perhaps greater editor traffic on ANI than CSN attracted, I am not sure how the process of discussion on ANI will differ from that which took place on CSN. Newyorkbrad 13:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, it should be the same. In practice, CSN worked very differently to AN/I, and AN/I should continue to work as it always has - discussion, not voting. --Tango 14:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

disagree. the function of the CSN was remanded to the WP:AN/I simply to avoid the pretense/appearance of the "ban people I don't like" board. The same discussions with same level of consensus are going on now. --Rocksanddirt 17:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. AN/I is now the location of the same process of determining consensus for a community ban. What particular page it was on is irrelevant. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. This proposal is over-reaching and irrelevant. At the time the ban was made WP:CSN had been in operation and accepted for many months and bans resulting from discussion there still stand to this day. Any subsequent MFD of CSN is not relevant to outcomes made there prior. The net functions of CSN, community bans, were simply shifted to where they were made beforehand, WP:AN/I. The venue is irrelevant to the outcome, only the level of community participation and consensus is relevant. Odd nature 20:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree -- see the concept of ex post facto. No, I'm not wikilawyering, I'm pointing out that claiming that x is bad because we just got rid of the process that led to x is asinine -- the process was fully valid and fully in force at the time. Jim62sch 18:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The principle doesn't say otherwise. The fact that CSN was a bad system is still relevant. It doesn't invalidate the ban, but it does cast doubt on it. --Tango 19:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really: It's irrelevant. Odd nature 21:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FeloniousMonk was uninvolved

3) FeloniousMonk was an uninvolved admin when he blocked Ferrylodge.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

FeloniousMonk was not uninvolved. Even if we overlook FeloniousMonk's participation at the CSN prior to blocking Ferrylodge, FeloniousMonk also told Ferrylodge in June: “I suggest that you avoid throwing around inflammatory accusations like ‘KC's edit summary is blatantly false.’ They constitute personal attacks.”[14] Regarding that accusation by FeloniousMonk, please note that KillerChihuahua started using that phrase “blatantly false summary,”[15] and please note that KC’s incorrect summary was ultimately corrected by another editor.[16] In any event, FeloniousMonk was making ~~very serious accusations~~ a very serious and false accusation against Ferrylodge in June, and thus was not uninvolved when he banned Ferrylodge in September.Ferrylodge 14:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. --Tango 13:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(moved)I don't know if I am a "party" or an "other", but I will just say I feel FeloniousMonk was involved.[17][18] And that he was aware that involved admins should recuse themselves from blocking.[19] Is this the right place to discuss this? E kala mai if it is not. --Ali'i 14:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ali'i: You're not listed as a party on the main case page, so I think you're an "other". He was involved in the CSN, he wasn't involved in any of the events leading up to the block - expressing an opinion during a discussion does not make one involved in the subject being discussed. --Tango 14:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it does. If an admin were to delete an article in an AFD he participated in, it'd be sent to DRV almost immediately if someone said keep it. By participating in the discussion, FeloniousMonk can not be considered a neutral admin when he blocked Ferrylodge. Kwsn(Ni!) 15:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Community bans are very different to AfDs. CSN is an advisory process - the decision to ban is with the admin (see the principle about the definition of a community ban if you disagree). In AfD, an admin just determines the result of the AfD, their personal opinion is irrelevant. Look at how similar discussions work on AN/I - an admin comes along and says "I'm thinking of indef blocking User:X, what do people think?", a few people comment, and then the original admin makes the block. CSN being considered as if it were AFD is why it got closed.--Tango 17:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrylodge: An admin giving someone advise about not making personal attacks does not make them involved. Am I not allowed to block vandals after I've put warning tags on their user talk pages? (Yes, simple vandalism is different to an established editor doing something wrong, but the basic principle is the same.) --Tango 17:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. He had nothing to do with the dispute between Ferrylodge and Killer Chihuahua, nor Ferry's tendentious editing. Tango summarizes it VERY well above. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. FerryLodge holds out FeloniousMonk's prior warning to him as proof he was too involved to make the block: [20] Yet that is exactly the sort of warning an admin is expected to make and FerryLodge uses a common tactic some editors try to avoid being blocked by spinning any prior comment into grounds for recusal (The admin blocked me and I don't think I should have been blocked because he warned me once before... he's an involved party!) . This tactic occurs all the time. There's no evidence that FeloniousMonk blocked on anything other than the basis of his reading of the discussion at CSN. That he once warned FerryLodge does not make him an involved party. Odd nature 20:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If FeloniousMonk's support of the ban is taken into account in the "consensus", I can't possibly see how he is uninvolved. --Ali'i 20:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One opinion doesn't make much difference. If 14:4 counts as consensus, then it's reasonable to say 13:4 does too. --Tango 22:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What if two of the people supporting the ban were sock puppets? Is 12:4 sufficient consensus? --B 01:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See why we don't assess consensus numerically? It just doesn't work. --Tango 09:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If B thinks that sockpuppetry among those forming the consensus a real possibility, shouldn't B make a checkuser request? Otherwise B's hypothetical situation is a red herring.

Here is my tally of those supporting. The roster of those supporting a ban in the final poll is: jossi (admin), Odd nature, Pleasantville (real name Kathryn Cramer), OrangeMarlin, Filll, KillerChihuahua (admin), Severa, EdJohnston, ornis, SWATJester (admin) (real name published by the Washington Post & the NYT), Jim62sch, Avb, Tvoz (real name published by the Washington Post), dave souza (admin), FeloniousMonk (admin). Others whose positions could be construed to be supportive the ban at one point or another: Durova (admin), Andrew c (admin), Raymond Arritt (admin), bbatsell (admin), Guettarda.

I don't see where B is getting two possible sock puppets. On superficial inspection, all seem to have substantial track records. Did I miss anyone? --Pleasantville 10:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should be mentioned that a few of those users are also OTRS volunteers and are personally known to the foundation.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not making a hypothetical. --B 03:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I do not recall FeloniousMonk having crossed paths with Ferrylodge during a content dispute. There are 1,355 admins out of 5,600,000+ registered accounts and chances are that any admin with a 16000+ edit count is going to have run into a user with a 8000+ edit count somewhere before. FeloniousMonk registered his concerns with Ferrylodge, but, the point is that the comment was a one-off. It would be a lot different if FeloniousMonk had frequented abortion and pregnancy-related articles or Ferrylodge evolution and intelligent design-related ones — and, moreover, that they had a history of disagreement on these articles. Then the apppropriateness of FeloniousMonk enacting the ban would have been questionable. -Severa (!!!) 01:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrylodge's comment makes no sense. He seems to feel that no admin can take action more than once on a given issue. That is, if I warn someone about disruptive behavior, that disqualifies me from taking action if the behavior continues. Patently absurd. Thatcher131 17:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per clear evidence that Odd nature is a sock puppet of FeloniousMonk and Odd nature is clearly involved. --B 03:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Even going by the least favorable facts to FM/ON (assuming he is a sock), one single additional vote did not change the overwhelming support for the ban; nor does it suddenly make FM "involved".⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 13:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Odd nature is a puppet of FeloniousMonk then we have an admin closing a CSN debate having voted twice in it - that's a far more serious problem than the one this ArbCom case is discussing. Voting twice is blatant puppet abuse, and then closing the CSN turns that into abuse of admin powers as well (I've argued that closing it after voting is ok, but closing it after vote stacking is quite clearly not). There would be no choice but to desysop FM and indef block ON, and possibly ban FM as well. B, are you fully aware of the severity of the accusations you are making? --Tango 14:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, just for starters -- FM was not involved.
B -- the sock accusation is very serious: either you back it up with proof or you retract it, there is no middle ground here. Your credibility is at stake. Jim62sch 19:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proof is a purely mathematical concept. Nothing can be proven beyond all doubt in the real world. The best anyone can do is provide evidence in support, with B has done on the evidence page. --Tango 19:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as evidence goes it's weak, just inferences drawn from timing and topic. Most of Wikipedia:WikiProject intelligent design‎ qualifies as FM sockpuppets by B's criteria. User:B is going to have do better than that to make his case, and as the suspected sockpuppet who in reality is a distinct individual, I can tell you he's barking up the wrong tree. The willingness and quickness in tossing out WP:AGF by Tango and User:B when dealing with those they oppose is troubling. Perhaps that's another issue for the Arbcom to consider. Odd nature 20:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrylodge was unable to respond

4) Ferrylodge was not given enough time to defend himself on WP:CSN

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is important, he said he'd be on vacation at the beginning of the discussion, and thus was unable to properly defend himself. Kwsn(Ni!) 15:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, but I don't know how far arbcom needs to go here. The issue really should be looked at without prejudice. In other words, arbcom should focus on what, if any, sanctions should be imposed on Ferrylodge, not merely whether process was followed. I really despise the CSN board, but I don't want to go invite every troll ever banned there to come back and contest it. --B 15:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the CSN was done correctly, then there is a community consensus to ban, and ArbCom would just go along with that consensus. The validity of the CSN is very much an issue here. --Tango 17:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He did defend himself, so this is simply untrue. Perhaps we wasn't able to defend himself fully, but he did defend himself. --Tango 17:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. First of all, he did defend himself there, he was specifically unblocked for it. Do not confuse him having no defensible position for him not having time to make a defense. Secondly, Ferrylodge's proper time to defend himself was the weeks before when he was being a tendentious editor. Had he behaved himself properly he would never have reached CSN in the first place. Once he was there, it was no longer an issue if he had no time to "defend himself"....he had months to defend himself. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The facts Do Not Support - Ferrylodge added 15,555 bytes of material to the CSN discussion on sept 21 between 5:57 and 6:08. If none of that was a proper defense/counter of the request/explaination of why he shouldn't have participation restrictions what else can be done? --Rocksanddirt 18:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The facts Do Not Support' - Though I disagree that he didn't have time, since he composed a substantial amount of prose during the time available to him, I agree that during that time he did not properly defend himself. Ferrylodge identifies himself as an attorney and so can be reasonably be expected to know that he should have argued convincingly in his own defense. Instead, for reasons I will not speculate on, he did something else. --Pleasantville 20:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. FerryLodge commented 8 times: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] Then FerryLodge ended his participation in the discussion prior to the ban being instituted:[29] Odd nature 20:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. MastCell unblocked Ferrylodge for the purpose of participating in the CSN discussion and he wrote 20 paragraphs in his own defense. However hasty the CSN request closure might have been, Ferrylodge was given the opportunity to defend himself, and moreover he did defend himself. -Severa (!!!) 02:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unable to respond is obviously false. "Did not have have adequate time to address all points" is probably more accurate. Even better would be "there was not sufficient time for a complete discussion" as this covers all bases. --B 02:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Oppose One cannot defend the indefensible even if one has ten years in which t try to do so. Jim62sch 19:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ali'i was incivil

5) User:Ali'i was incivil toward and harassed the administrator who instituted the ban [30] [31] [32] [33] and replied with more incivility when asked to moderate his tone [34] [35] [36] [37]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Odd nature 20:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it matter in this context? I don't know that a finding is needed here regarding anyone other Ferrylodge, the blocking admin, and possibly the one who proposed the ban, but that only if it has some mitigation on Ferrylodge's own conduct. --B 20:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbcom has long taken into account behavior of non-named parties, especially when they gratitiously fan a conflict's flames. Odd nature 23:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance? Pot calling the kettle black? If you have an issue with my behavior, I humbly request that you follow the appropriate course of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and quit maligning my name in the meantime. Mahalo nui loa. --Ali'i 21:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ali'i is not a named party to this hearing. Unless you would like to add the user (and propose to arbcom to add), I think this finding doesn't belong. My feeling is that the user's conduct should be evaluated by a community discussion prior to being added here. --Rocksanddirt 21:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This would only seem to me to relevant if Ali'i were suspected as a Ferrylodge sockpuppet. Is that the case? If not, this is just a distraction. --Pleasantville 21:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Pleasantville. Unless Ali'i = Ferrylodge, this is beyond the scope of the arbitration. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but irrelevant. We can deal with simple incivility without ArbCom's help, this case is for the more serious issues. --Tango 22:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's relevent because it shows FerryLodge's supporters using the same method of harassment and incivility on his behalf and in his stead. Odd nature 23:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrylodge's supporters are not the scope of this Arbcom. Ferrylodge is.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of the above ... only relevant if there is sock puppetry involved, which there almost certainly is not. --B 22:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... if Odd nature has any, any, evidence that Ferrylodge is a sock (or, I guess I would be the sock since he's been around longer), I humbly request that he present that as well. Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's Arbcom precedent that a party's actions make them party to a case, regardless of whether they are named or not. Odd nature 23:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The incivil remarks made by Ali'i to FeloniousMonk do not reflect poorly on Ferrylodge by association. As I stated earlier, this case is about Ferrylodge, so we should concentrate only on incivility by or toward him. Ali'i's incivil comment is worthy of consideration but it should be addressed independently of this ArbCom case. -Severa (!!!) 02:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I agree with Severa. Ali'i has indeed been ~~problematic~~ a bit argumentative at times (but so am I), and that has no bearing on Ferrylodge. Jim62sch 19:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrylodge ban is justified by Ferrylodge's behavior over a long period of time

6) Proposed: Separate from issues of CSN procedure, Ferrylodge ban is justified by Ferrylodge's behavior over a long period of time. --Pleasantville 14:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

That's not a fact for the finding of facts section. --B 15:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, I think it is exactly a finding of fact. It's certainly not a principle or a remedy. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where should I put it? Remedies doesn't seem right. But this is the real core issue. --Pleasantville 15:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is your conclusion, the finding of fact could read something like "Ferrylodge has edited disruptively based on X and Y" or "Ferrylodge has (whatever Ferrylodge did). Then the remedy could be something like "The community ban on Ferrylodge is endorsed" or "Ferrylodge is banned from Wikipedia for a period of (time)". (Again, as above, I'm just suggesting wordings, not commenting on the merits. Although at the end of the day, the arbitrators will come up with the wording, so editors don't necessary need to spend too much time on the little details or remedy wording if the ideas are clear.) Newyorkbrad 15:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this should be split into a fact and a remedy. --Tango 15:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having thought more about it, I think there are separable components to this. I'll see if I can sketch them out below. --Pleasantville 13:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, this has been clearly proved to my satisfaction. Odd nature 20:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

19 hours is not long enough to establish a consensus

7) Whereas Wikipedia has over 5,000,000 editors, and

Whereas Wikipedia has at least 45,000 active editors (based on September 2006 statistics, and a conservative linear rate of growth), and

Whereas active editors do not or cannot always utilize Wikipedia every single day of the week, and

Whereas Wikipedians do not all edit in the same time frame of the day, and

Whereas a Wikipedia:Snowball clause cannot be used based on opposition to a proposal,

Whereas a consensus of editors is a separate and distinct event from a consensus of the entire Wikipedia community,

Be it resolved by the Arbitration Committee that 19 hours is not a long enough time period to establish a true consensus of the entire Wikipedia community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. E kala mai for the style. ;-) --Ali'i 19:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible disagree. Sets WAY too strong a precedent. Can you imagine us having to wait 24 hours before emergency desysopping someone because of this rule? How about an RFA as an accounts first edit? We have to wait 24 hours to Snowball Close that? It's not within the scope of this arbitration to set a bright-line rule as to what the minimum length of time is before a consensus is reached. If 100 people agree with something in 5 hours, and zero disagree, we have a consensus by definition. Furthermore, this would automatically kill the concept of WP:SNOW by placing an arbitrary limit on how long one must wait for a consensus to be reached. Also, we're not writing a UN resolution here.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's a pretty strong disagreement. :-) First, Wikipedia does not run on precedence. Second, I am not placing an arbitrary limit on how long it takes consensus to form... I am simply stating that in order to gauge consensus of an entire community, it takes longer than 19 hours. Emergency de-sysoppng is a red herring. The snowball clause is a strawman argument in this context, and opposed by some Wikipedians altogether. But I'll amend the proposal above. And I believe I am allowed to style my proposal how I please. (Plus I already apologized for it ;-) )--Ali'i 20:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. It is outside of the scope of this arbitration to determine what the appropriate time period for a CSN discussion would be. -Severa (!!!) 19:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not talking about the community sanction board here... I am talking about a "community consensus". Ever wonder why ArbCom/Board votes take a long time? It's because we want to allow everybody a chance to participate, and understand that gauging the consensus of an enormous community should not be rushed through. --Ali'i 20:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is disagreeing with that. It's the wording of the proposal that we don't like - saying "19 hours is not long enough" is far too precise and restrictive. A general principle about not rushing decision making would be fine. --Tango 21:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too general a statement to be so precise. A vaguer principle along the same lines could be written, but this is far too restrictive. --Tango 20:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's outside the scope of this proceding. --B 20:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too restrictive, unnecessary, and outside the scope of this RfAr. Jim62sch 19:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, too general, sweeping. Many indef bans have been put in place with far less discussion. For example, many of the indef bans that came out of WP:AN/I prior to WP:CSN were made with less than 6 hours discussion, a good number with less than 2 hours discussion. Odd nature 20:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KillerChihuahua has been uncivil

8) KillerChihuahua has been uncivil to Ferrylodge on multiple occasions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, see Ferrylodge's opening statement. It is within the realm of the case as KC is a party. Kwsn(Ni!) 23:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. In KillerChihuahua's interactions with Ferrylodge, nearly every single time the incivility was unilaterally coming from Ferrylodge against KillerChihuahua (who is an editor quite a few users consider something of a role model in terms of her friendly spirit and interactions on the project). Any lapses in civility by KC against Ferrylodge (and that's a debatable any) can be chalked up to the incredibly frustrating behavior of Ferrylodge. In fact. KillerChihuahua should be commended for keeping her cool the way she has. Do not confuse bluntness with incivility. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I've seen no incivility on KillerChihuahua's part -- no matter how much ammo FL gave her. Jim62sch 19:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, no evidence. I've seen no evidence presented that KillerChihuahua was incivil, but I have seen evidence that FerryLodge tried to provoke her and others above at the Question_from_Kwsn section. Odd nature 20:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, but only because as a sysop she should be held to a higher standard. Her incivility was rare and mild and usually seemed to be a result of frustration after a length Ferrylodge discussion (which had been civil up to that point). At least one instance was unprovoked when she popped into the middle of a discussion in which she had not previously participated, offered a mildly uncivil comment, then popped out. Again, her incivility was mild but as a sysop, she should ALWAYS be able to stay civil. Sbowers3 06:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odd nature is a sock puppet of FeloniousMonk

9) Odd nature (talk · contribs) is a sock puppet of FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs) per evidence presented [38]

Comment by Arbitrators:

In case it's not clear, checkuser came up negative on this. The two are both in the same major metropolitan area. That's the only relationship I unearthed; everything else is an ice cold

Unrelated. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I have never used sock puppets. I have registered User:FeIoniousMonk as a doppelganger account, but have never edited with it and marked it accordingly per WP:UN. FeloniousMonk 04:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed --B 03:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced based on the diffs, but admittedly I'm awful at understanding them. Suggest that this is premature pending result of a checkuser on FeloniousMonk. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already done ... I don't know what I am allowed to say about the results without violating his privacy - they are not editing from the same IP. I'll defer any further comments on that to the checkuser who did the check or any other checkuser who wants to comment. --B 03:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How ridiculously implausible is this argument? Seriously! Baegis 05:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it comes back as true, then the entire case is blown open. Kwsn(Ni!) 07:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it comes back that one of the involved parties is actually a tiny rodent, that would also blow the case wide open. Alot of things would blow this case wide open. Unfounded allegations are not one of those things. Use your head. I think someone should propose that B be banished from adminship and possibly banned from WP if this allegation is found to be untrue. Baegis 07:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Half right. You are right that this has nothing to do with the case. However; proposing B be desysopped has absolutely nothing to do with this, and is frankly rather insulting. B obviously put a lot of work and thought into his allegation. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 13:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kwsn, with all due respect, I don't think you've thought this through. If Fm and On are socks, it won't affect this case at all. This is a review of Ferrylodge's ban. There would doubtless be consequences, but they would have to do with FM, not Ferrylodge. FM never even edited any of the articles Ferrylodge edits; his only relation to this case is tangential. IMO it is inappropriate to tack this onto this case at all, as it is a separate issue and should be dealt with separately. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Killerchihuahua.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 13:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Were the checkuser definitive this might be have some bearing, but B is arguing that the checkuser is a false negative. It would seem to me that he should file a separate case elsewhere and get someone to read these tea leaves and come back if he's got something. (Why can't all you people be open about your real names? The social acceptability on Wikipedia of absurd levels of pseudonymity makes this place a breeding ground for this sort of intrigue.) --Pleasantville 11:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Pleasantville (at least as far as the false negative goes). This is not really within the scope of the arbitration, which is about Ferrylodge's behavior. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 13:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B, you say a checkuser has already been done - where? There is no sign of it on WP:RFCU. Presumably you asked a CU privately - why? If you intended to make these accusations publicly, it would surely be better to have the CU result public. Also, what do you mean by "I don't know what I am allowed to say about the results without violating his privacy" - why would the CU have given you any private information? CUs give a likelyhood of a match, they don't give out details. --Tango 14:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is within the scope of the case - the case is about Ferrylodge's ban. If the admin that banned him voted twice in the CSN debate, that quite clearly invalidates the ban. There are two things to decide in this case: 1) Was the community ban correctly done and 2) Should Ferrylodge be banned? The status of the blocking admin is very relevant to the first point. --Tango 14:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is relevant here, it is a subpoint of "No consensus on CSN". Can it be moved there? (This is a procedural question.) --Pleasantville 14:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it's a subpoint, although it is a closely related point. It's probably easier to keep it separate - ArbCom can merge things however they like when they move to a Proposed Decision. --Tango 14:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question for B: While your evidence is compelling (particularly the FNMF evidence), can you ask the person that did the checkuser for you if the IP addresses FM and ON edit from are geographically similar? A simple yes is fine, we obviously don't need to know where FM and ON are editing from, just that they are reasonably close. You offer a lot of time based evidence and the ruling on the SevenOfDiamonds case indicates the arbcom puts weight behind your approach (despite a negative via checkuser), just the difference between the SoD case and this one is that the evidence included that SoD was editing from the same geographical region as the user he was accused of being the sockpuppet of. Of course, if a yes can't be given for privacy reasons, that's a perfectly acceptable answer. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is hysterical. So I'm a sockpuppet of FM now? Checkuser will sort this bogus claim out. So what if we edit the same articles, share like viewpoints and support each other's edits? That's the norm with those who belong to Wikipedia:WikiProject intelligent design‎. We also talk offline and know each other. That doesn't make me his sockpuppet. I suppose next I'll be accused of being KillerChihuahua's sockpuppet once checkuser shows that I'm not FeloniousMonk; we've edited the same articles and I've reverted to her versions before too. FM and I have discussed this, and User:B seems to be carrying a grudge against us both and desperate to discredit us. Sad. Odd nature 18:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose there is a logical explanation for your initial edits with this account? Your first edit was to Talk:Intelligent design, one of the last pages FM edited before your account was created. On your first day, you lectured Rbj, pointing out that he hadn't gotten very far. I'm very sorry, but your initial edits really make it quite clear that you are just picking up where someone left off - it's hardly even debatable. --B 18:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B already did a checkuser which did not give him the result he was looking for. He presents the accusation in spite of the checkuser result. --Pleasantville 18:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In spite of it? ON only edits at work and FM only edits during off hours, so it would be impossible for the checkuser to show the same IP in any event. --B 18:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's ridiculous. You've got an answer for everything. Give me a break. Odd nature 18:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it ridiculous? It's what the evidence he posted shows. It also makes sense - it's the easiest way to keep accounts separate. --Tango 18:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tango, can you turn the emotional thermostat down a couple of degrees? The issue of sockpuppetry is best dealt with dispassionately. --Pleasantville 18:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was not the slightest bit emotional. I have no idea what you mean. --Tango 19:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasantville has been known to psychoanalyze people in the past.[39]Ferrylodge 19:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seemed to be encouraging Odd Nature to provide a quick response to a serious allegation. I didn't read it as uncivil, but rather a raising of the emotional stakes which you may or may not have intended. --Pleasantville 20:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FL: You made this claim in the initial CSN as your take on my requests that you be civil. Does repeating it here support your case? ----Pleasantville 20:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually I did not make that claim at the CSN, although I might have if the CSN discussion had not been cut short. And since I did not make that claim at the CSN, I am not repeating it here. But whatever I say here is obviously intended to support my case, so the point of your question escapes me.Ferrylodge 20:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, Pleasantville, you did call him a sociopath (or at least say he has sociopathic behavior) on the talk page. --Ali'i 20:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do see the talk page for my plea that someone please come to the poor man's defense. --Pleasantville 21:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In which case he'll be running off to RFCU to check my account against KillerChihuahua's I guess. Odd nature 18:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the evidence posted, and discussing the checkuser result with B by email, I'm convinced that there is sufficient evidence to warrant ArbCom taking a closer look at these two accounts. There are alternative explanations, but ON being a sockpuppet of FM would fit the evidence, and the evidence is quite compelling. --Tango 18:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As B is aware, I don't think it is unreasonable to examine the Dramatis Personae here for sock puppets. We have chatted about it via email.

However B & co. have found a rather fragile limb to walk out on. Real people have a variety of options available to them for proving that they are separate individuals, many more options than B has, now that he has made the accusation in this venue. --Pleasantville 18:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Color me surprised. We edit the same articles, help each other out when needed and share similar views. Big deal. I welcome the Arbcom's review of my record. Odd nature 18:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you perhaps answer B's question, then, about your first edits? I understand many people edit anonymously before creating an account, so their first edits are not as a complete newbie, but that doesn't explain everything. --Tango 19:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I propose that B is a sock of Profg (or maybe that's the other way around). Anyway, why not? It's as logical as B's blather. No, we can't really discuss desysopping B here, but it's looking like something that needs to be considered outside of this RfAr. Jim62sch 19:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lot of folks are blocked based on much weaker evidence than B has provided. --Rocksanddirt 03:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with what Rocks just said, hell, a recent arbcom case just closed finding that someone was a sock on very circumstancial evidence. Also, this is very troubling. And here's my interesting observation... why hasn't FM made any edits to the case pages other than his statement (this is current at the time of this comment, so that may change in the future)? Kwsn(Ni!) 17:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that FeloniousMonk has not been exactly active since before the start of this arbcom case. It is possible that he is unaware of the evidence presented by B and this is why he has not responded yet and/or whatever is responsible for his inactivity is also preventing him from responding. I've left a comment on his talkpage telling him about the evidence and suggesting that it may be in his best interest to respond.[40] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrylodge's behavior over a long period of time has been the subject of complaint

10) Proposed: Ferrylodge's behavior over a long period of time has been the subject of complaint by many editors. --Pleasantville 13:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Support -- FL has run afoul of many users. Jim62sch 19:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support as one of those users. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, seems clear from the evidence. Odd nature 21:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think it's obvious that there were complaints. I think the question more is, were those complaints warranted in each situation and substantiated by the facts in each case. I don't doubt there is evidence people have provided to this point, but perhaps the wording above needs to be amended. Unless the finding of fact is, "Did Ferrylodge receive complaints?", in which case, the wording is fine. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrylodge has made substantial contributions to Wikipedia

11) Proposed: That Ferrylodge has made efforts that benefit Wikipedia is a point that needs to be argued in detail with specific examples showing the benefits of his contributions. --Pleasantville 13:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

If no one is willing to give detailed & specific examples of his good work, then his ban should not be lifted. --Pleasantville 14:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done on the evidence page basically as you were posting this here. Must be thinking alike. :-) Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I was beginning to think I could do a better job of defending him than his austensible defenders. For example his contributions to Talk:Due process display a constructive attitude. I was beginning to feel that I might go mad and have to write the needed defense myself. --Pleasantville 15:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a reason he couldn't defend himself? Jim62sch 19:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. --Pleasantville 11:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrylodge has seemed unwilling to change his behavior in the face of community objections

12) Proposed: Ferrylodge has seemed unwilling to change his behavior in the face of community objections, thus giving the impression that he is lacking remorse and is unwilling to change his pattern of behavior. --Pleasantville 14:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is, to my mind, the real reason he was banned. It needs to be addressed. --Pleasantville 14:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrylodge's own argumentation on the Evidence page, as of 10/19/07 as of 4:45 PM Eastern Time supports this point. --Pleasantville 20:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Pleasantville's second comment (not the first one, I don't think this is the biggest reason he was banned. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is crucial going forward, particular considering some of the other likely findings (his positive contributions, in particular). If FL can not come to agreement that his actions have been inappropriate on a variety of occasions, then a ban seems an inevitable outcome (not necessarily of this case, but at some point) CitiCat^♫ 01:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The banning process to which Ferrylodge was subjected was flawed

13) There were at least three administrators who were willing to unblock Ferrylodge, and dissatisfaction with this ban was implicated in the closing of the community bans noticeboard [41] If the principle stated above, That where there are admins who are willing to unblock a banned user, no community ban exists is accepted, then the process that resulted in his ban must have been flawed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This in itself demonstrates that the block did not amount to a community ban and that the case was too sensitive to be dealt with by the community noticeboard. It also demonstrates that there was not a suitable consensus in the community for the ban. Banno 05:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a repeat of the first two facts - No consensus on CSN and No support for CSN. --Tango 14:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This version is brief and clear. Banno 21:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree strongly. I do not believe the banning process was flawed, and the adequacy of the banning process is not a matter within the scope of this arbitration. Remember folks, we're discussing Ferrylodge's actions and behavior. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this post does not address the argument presented above. Banno 21:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My impression from reading Ferrylodge's talk page is that the discussion of unbanning Ferrylodge revolved around whether to unban him for the sole purpose of appealing his block. Was this discussed somewhere else? If not, STRONG OPPOSE. --Pleasantville 11:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the evidence section[42], I would have been willing to unblock Ferrylodge on conditions set by the community. Banno 21:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrylodge has been a very productive editor

14) Ferrylodge has been a very productive editor. He made nearly 700 mainspace edits in the month before his block. In the most recent 50 he edited 18 separate articles. Of those 18 articles, he created one and was a major contributor to three others. An examination of 350 edits to those articles showed that almost all of his edits were accepted; his edit summaries were civil; he defended policy and consensus even when he personally disagreed; he interacted with other editors to achieve mutually agreeable wording. His one minor edit war in that period was trying to defend a consensus that had existed for nearly two years. Sbowers3 15:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

There is reason to believe that Ferrylodge has a substantial and undisclosed relationship with Fred Thompson and/or the Fred Thompson campaign and/or related interests.

15) Proposed as per evidence submitted privately. --Pleasantville 14:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Yes, I have a relationship with the Fred Thompson campaign, but I would hardly call it undisclosed. It was reported on the front page of the Washington Post last month.[43] I gave the man $100 as a campaign contribution. I don't know if I'll vote for him, but I thought I'd help give him a chance to launch a campaign. Additionally, I went to his Flickr site to get some images to upload to Wikimedia, and (upon having some difficulty with that process) I left a message at the Flickr site, which led to some very brief communication with the guy who puts images of Thompson at Flickr. That is the entire extent of my relationship with Fred Thompson.

Additionally, even if I did have an undisclosed relationship with the Thompson campaign (which I absolutely do not), how awful would that be? Tvoz (who has participated extensively in this arbitration proceeding) said in the Washington Post article that she's a Democrat, so should we accuse her of harassment and ban her from Wikipedia? She has also extensively edited the Wikipedia page of her husband.[44] Which is fine by me.Ferrylodge 15:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me to mention something else, in the interest of full disclosure. I have been a volunteer contributor to a blog where Fred Thompson has submitted a couple blog entries over the years. I did not know about his blog entries in advance, and did not have any role whatsoever in arranging them. And again, I do not see the relevance.Ferrylodge 16:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

"Related interests"? I imagine Thompson has an interest in stopping terrorism, keeping America safe, letting people live their lives in prosperity, etc... So does basically everybody (you get my picture). I think the wording needs to be tightened up. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it is true, this proposal is totally without merit:

It is an ad hominem argument. This case should be about contributions and behavior, not about outside relationships.
It implies guilt by association.
Ferrylodge was an editor long before Thompson announced any interest in campaigning.
FL has edited more than a hundred articles outside Fred Thompson.
Almost certainly thousands of active editors have some relationship with some candidate.

Sbowers3 15:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Ferrylodge is Fred Thompson himself. In fact, they both start with F, dontcha see? I am Fred Thompson as well. (Posting for my master) Arbeit Sockenpuppe 17:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without evidence (which cannot be examined by others due to the privacy issue), it is hard to comment. But I personally trust FL when he says that he isn't a paid Thompson editor (and I trust that he doesn't work or volunteer for him either). While it would be an interesting turn of events to learn that FL was being paid to keep "Freddie" out of the first sentence of Fred Thompson, I am not convinced that is the case here, and believe that this issue does not relate at all to the alleged incivility, disruptive editing, and "harassment" charges underlying this ArbCom. It is reasonable to assume that editors are going to edit articles and topics that interest them. That said, it is low to turn these accusations onto Tvoz, and bring up completely unrelated matters. Why bring them up at all, and then say "Which is fine by me", if this wasn't an attempt to shift the weight of suspicion on Tvoz? -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Which is fine by me" was a way of saying that there is nothing wrong with users editing subjects with which they might be related. An accusation is a claim of something wrong, but if the claimed action is not wrong then the claim is just an irrelevant conjecture. He was not "turning the accusation back" in that he thinks the claim is no longer an accusation. Sbowers3 00:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrylodge has made use of Wikipedia policies concerning the privacy of pseudonyms to avoid public scrutiny of his 600+ Fred Thompson-related edits both by his fellow-editors and by the Washington Post.

16) Proposed as per evidence submitted privately. --Pleasantville 14:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I have no idea what this accusation is about. It is true that I prefer to keep my real name out of Wikipedia, simply because so many completely baseless charges are made here. The public is free to scrutinize my Wikipedia edits all they want, and I have not sought to avoid any scrutiny whatsoever. Nor have I been in cahoots with "fellow-editors."Ferrylodge 15:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Like the above, this proposal is totally without merit. Any scrutiny of his edits (or any other user's edits) should be based on the content of the edits, not the identity of the editor. It is all too common, but nonetheless disappointing, that people tend to dismiss ideas on the basis of their source, rather than analyzing and debating the ideas themselves. Just as people should "not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" (Martin Luther King), edits should be judged not by the anonymity of the author but by the words themselves. (I would add that one of the more important documents in U.S. History was the Federalist Papers, written under pseudonyms.) Sbowers3 16:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And there is nothing that Ferrylodge or anyone else has done that could avoid public scrutiny of his edits. Every single edit of every single editor is open to public scrutiny by fellow editors or the Washington Post. Sbowers3 16:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internet anonymity is very important to many people, for valid reasons. Accordingly, Wikipedia respects users' privacy. I am familiar with who FL is in real life, and do not believe that his desire to remain private/anonymous should be questioned, or that it is even a valid topic of discussion in relation to a possible ban. We should respect his anonymity. -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I submit that, for example, the general drift of the Washington Post article would have been quite different if Ferrylodge had not invoked Wikipedian anonymity. --Pleasantville 22:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That the ban and block that resulted from the CSN case are invalid

17) There is sufficient discrepancy in both the process and result of the CSN against Ferrylodge that the block and ban be overturned. This decision in no way restricts subsequent blocks or bans that might be imposed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I showed in (5) above that there were administrators willing to unblock Ferrylodge, and that therefore a community ban does not exist against him. I have provided some additional evidence of irregularities, showing that the process on CSN had been further flawed and prematurely closed. Banno 22:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This finding should simply draw a line under the absurdities for the CSN discussion, and allow arbcom to consider suitable consequences for Ferrylodge's behaviour without prejudice. Banno 22:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't anything particularly different about Ferrylodge's CSN in comparison to how things happen on AN/I now. FL was blocked by MastCell for violating 3RR on Stillbirth, but unblocked to join in the discussion of is community ban, reblocked based on the discussion up to that point, after complaints about the rapidity of the ban, Jossi created new section to re-assess community opinion, Ryulong does what he frequently does and decided a discussion is a vote and closes it, and then people didn't agree with Ryulong so they complained about it. The closed discussion obviously did not slow anyone down and it is common practice on Wikipedia for people to be banned while discussion of whether or not they should or should not have been banned continues on. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadi Carnot went through the much vaunted AN/I[45] and yet there he is on the RFAR page.[46] I'm also quite sure Jimbo's block of User:Miltopia will land on the RFAR page in the near future.[47] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this item. As Bobblehead points out, the CSN proceedure, with all of its irregularity, was no more a "votes for banning" than the current system using AN/I. The only difference is that you get more piling on at AN/I, especially when the one conducting the block is popular. --Rocksanddirt 00:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find this hard to follow. Seems like your are both saying that the same problems might have occurred at AN/I, and therefor... what? They are acceptable? The votes for banning was only one part of a series of problems with this case. Banno 04:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My thought is this. There is community consensus that a "community ban" exists. There is modest consensus on what you have to do to get such a "community ban" implemented. Wether that happens at the old CSN or as currently at AN/I, there is no real consensus on what the form of the discussion should be (how long, how many univolved editors, how many uninvolved administrators, closing and solution implementation). Therefore if we continue with the fantasy that the community runs the store, bans implemented (even in a haphazard and argueable way) are valid. If we do not continue with the community being able to implement a ban or other editing restrictions on folks, we need to request that all the discussions around those issues be dropped at AN/I, and refered to another dispute resolution mechanism (i.e., Arbcom). If the discussion regarding ferrylodge had come up at AN/I the ban would likely have been implemented just as fast, if not faster. --Rocksanddirt 16:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A user is under a community ban if and only if there are no admins willing to unblock that user. In this case, there were admins who were willing to unblock. Therefore no community ban exists. This is so regardless of the forum on which the discussion occurred. Put simply, the case presented at CSN was not sufficient to convince me, and apparently several others, that a site ban was warranted. I would have been quite happy to implement a page ban, and if he is as bad as is claimed, allow Ferrylodge a few months in which to hang himself, thus avoiding arbitration. Prematurely ending the discussion with a block handed Ferrylodge the option of implementing this arbitration case. While the community may present a case so strong that an admin is willing to block a user, and no admin would be willing to unblock, the community cannot "implement bans"; only admins can do that. This is how the policy stands at present. Banno 20:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of the discussion on CSN, there were no admins (that I recall) who admitted to being against the community ban. Therefore he was community banned. Now, that several admins have come forward to contest the ban, it is contested and appealed to arbcom. It is useless to argue the semantics. If only admins can ban, then the oft repeated fantasy that "adminship is no big deal" needs to become a blockable or desysopable offense and we can do away with the while community run ideal. --Rocksanddirt 03:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I voiced disapproval of the ban, immediately I became aware that it had been implemented. See the evidence. The brevity of the discussion and the mood of the mob made contesting the ban in that forum pointless. I'm not at all sure what your last sentence might mean, or how it is germane to this case. Banno 19:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the last bit means (or tries to) is that we are often told that "adminship is no big deal" by the powers that be on en.wikipedia. We are also told that it is a community run and governed orgainzation (obviously within some limits). Now we are being told in this case (and others) that any administrator who objects to a community sanction invalidates that sanction. Esentially, a veto of community decisions. That is an enormous power give to administrators. In my view it invalidates both "adminship is no big deal" and that wikipedia is a community governed organization. And I was being a bit silly proposing that anyone who says "adminship is no big deal" should be blocked. --Rocksanddirt 20:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I raised basically the same question, and got a sort of non-response from an arbitration committee member... Wikipedia talk:Banning policy/Archive 2#Question about community bans. Don't know if this helps, just thought I'd mention you are not the only one having trouble understanding what the "big deal" is about. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

17) {text of proposed finding}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Ferrylodge's ban is upheld

1) The community ban on Ferrylodge is upheld.

1.1) Ferrylodge is banned indefinitely.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, but I do not support. See below for reasonings. Kwsn(Ni!) 14:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First choice. It should have been upheld in the first place. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose both, but proposing 1.1. As per my comments above, below, and elsewhere, a community ban only occurs when no admin is willing to unblock. --B 15:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But prior to the request for this hearing, no admin was willing to unblock? So, he was community banned. Then based on either a change of heart or someone else getting involved the situation changed, and the community ban became subject to review. --Rocksanddirt 16:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone knows if an admin was willing to unblock. The question was never asked that I am aware of. I didn't even know about the discussion until after the fact. Prior to the request, no admin had expressed a willingness to unblock, so I suppose in that sense he was community banned, but that condition has already ceased to exist so there's no longer anything to uphold. --B 17:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like number 1 better than 1.1. --Rocksanddirt 16:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per B, 1.1 is better. Ferrylodge is *not* community banned, since there is an admin willing to unblock. You can't uphold something that doesn't exist. --Tango 17:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my impression from reading Ferrylodge's talk page that the intention was to allow unblock solely for the purpose of arguing in his own defense in terms of initiating and pursuing this Arbcom case; it was NOT for the purpose of removing the stigma of a community ban. --Pleasantville 17:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is currently unblocked soley for arbcom purposes, but three admins are willing to unblock permanently, thus the arbitration. --B 17:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong about this, but since he was community banned, and since arbitration is binding, for the arbcom to uphold the ban would constitute the ban being extended into a site (rather than community) ban. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The wording used in the past has been along the lines of "The community ban of X is endorsed" or "The Arbitration Committee endorses the community ban of X". (Not commenting on the merits, just the form, as with various proposals below.) Newyorkbrad 19:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support 1. and/or 1.1. Odd nature 19:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support either option. Jim62sch 19:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support either option. If the CSN debate had gone on for longer, I would certainly have voiced my support for a ban there. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrylodge's ban is overturned.

2) The community ban on Ferrylodge is overturned.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, but I do support this one. Just doing this cause I know someone else will down the line. The second reason I'm doing both is because one of these two outcomes pretty much has to occur (this one would have to be with another remedy probably though). Kwsn(Ni!) 14:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that Ferrylodge will come out of this case either banned or not, but there is a difference between "Ferrylodge's community ban is overturned" (which might suggest that the arbitrators believed it was unfair in the first place) and something like "Ferrylodge is unblocked and placed on probation" (which would be more along the lines of "there was a big problem but we will give him another chance"). (Not saying that I would or wouldn't support either of these; just discussing the possibilities.) Newyorkbrad 14:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, per NYB. Will be unnecessary if Remedy #3 is adopted. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like this one for a different reason - it confirms that a ban took place and legislates a change in the definition of a community ban. A community ban is when a user is blocked and no admin is willing to overturn. This is an important safeguard to keep in there because it's the only protection against a ban being used as a weapon in a content dispute. --B 15:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a remedy for this page, it is fine. I do think that it will not pass the committee unless something else does with restrictions on participation. --Rocksanddirt 16:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and disagree with the rationale behind it. Evidence provided here and at WP:CSN shows a long pattern of troublesome behavior which he seems unlikely to abandon given his unwillingness to take full responsibility for it, and lesser remedies appear equally unlikely to make a difference. Odd nature 19:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are admins already willing to unblock (per User:B), isn't the community ban already overturned? Isn't this proposal moot? I suppose Ferrylodge could still be banned by the arbitration committee, but the community ban has already been overturned (by definition), hasn't it? Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're probably right. It's a little difficult to be sure of the technicalities, though - I suspect that no admin is willing to unblock now that the issue is in the hands of ArbCom (there's little point - ArbCom will make the final decision), and no admin unblocked before the case was filed, but only due to lack of time and the fact that he was unblocked to give him a chance to defend himself, so couldn't be unblocked again. So, I guess, technically, the ban stands, but if the case closes without addressing it (which would never happen anyway), someone would unilaterally undo it. It's all a matter of technicalities and semantics. Really, ArbCom just needs to decide "Ferrylodge is banned." or "Ferry lodge is not banned." and leave it at that (plus dealing with any other issues, of course). --Tango 16:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrylodge restricted for six months

3) Ferrylodge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is unblocked and subject to a comprehensive editing restriction for six months. He limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. If he exceeds this limit, fails to discuss a content reversion, or makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed as alternate to ban, text borrowed from the Chrisjnelson - Jmfangio aka Techmobowl case. --B 15:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second choice. Would rather see 1 year, and would rather see restrictions much more strongly include protections against harassment and abuse of administrators. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and disagree with the rationale. Again, evidence provided here and at WP:CSN shows a long pattern of troublesome behavior which FerryLodge seems unlikely to abandon given his unwillingness to take full responsibility for it, and lesser remedies appear equally unlikely to make a difference. Odd nature 19:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Odd nature. This would likely just be putting off a problem until later, if even that. CitiCat^♫ 01:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second choice, after a ban. I don't think Ferrylodge's ideology will allow him to change his modus operandi significantly. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All editors reminded

4) All editors, particularly those who edit controversial topics, are reminded to be civil.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. There's plenty of incivility all around in this topic area. --B 15:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem much like a remedy to me as much as a mix of a principle and a remedy. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this kind of remedy is normally used to mean "We haven't forgotten about the incivility, and we recognise that it is a problem, but we've decided not to take any action on it." --Tango 15:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrylodge censured

5) Ferrylodge is censured, and strongly admonished not to harass other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Something needs to be done to protect against future harassment by Ferrylodge. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only needed if no other action is taken against him, which seems unlikely. --Tango 15:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's useful for any action taken against him other than a site ban. Even then it's not inapplicable, it just is superseded by the fact that he can't edit. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A censure is a warning, it doesn't make sense to warn someone and punish them at the same time. --Tango 20:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Too light a remedy considering the scope of his harassment of others, with at least leaving the project due to his behavior. Odd nature 19:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remedies can be concurrent. Ferry being censured doesn't exclude any of the above remedies from going through. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrylodge voluntarily backs away

6) Ferrylodge voluntarily backs away from editing Wikipedia thereby removing the need to either reimpose or overturn the ban.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Unlikely, I know, but it's still a possibility, so I'm bringing it to the table. It may even work as a "best of both worlds" sort of solution. As the saying goes, "When faced with only two options, sometimes the best choice is neither." It neither opens the door nor closes it entirely. -Severa (!!!) 16:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not something ArbCom can impose. By definition, only Ferrylodge can decide that Ferrylodge will do something voluntarily. If Ferrylodge makes such an offer, ArbCom may well drop the case, but it's not something can can be voted on as a remedy. --Tango 17:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree ... this one doesn't really make much sense. As a matter of human dignity and doing the right thing, I wish we didn't feel the need to leave ((indefblocked)) and other similar templates on user talk pages. It isn't too terribly big of a deal when a user doesn't use their real name, but for someone who edits under their real name, butting that template on their page is a horrible thing to do to the person - it potentially shows up if a future employer googles them. Being banned from Wikipedia doesn't mean that we should set out to ruin your life. So to that extent, I think that if the ban is upheld, Ferrylodge or anyone else ought to be able to request a courtesy blanking of their user page, but to impose a voluntary action just doesn't make sense. --B 17:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree per B and Tango, but also by the fact that it requires that we assume a colossal amount of good faith, more I fear than our endless fountain has to offer. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never intended to suggest that this remedy be imposed — only to highlight it as a possibility for consideration. I've never participated in an ArbCom case before, so I'm still a little unsure of how, exactly, this process works. I was under the impression that the workshop was a place for brainstorming through all the potential options, but, if it's limited to only those actions which could practically be carried out by the ArbCom, I don't mind it if you strike this section out so as to take an inviable idea out of the running. Sorry. -Severa (!!!) 19:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed. Not likely given the fact he brought this RFAR, and it lacks teeth if he changes his mind. Odd nature 19:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ali'i is warned

7) Ali'i is warned to remain civil.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Odd nature 19:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You just did. Mahalo for the reminder, Odd nature. :-) --Ali'i 19:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Beyond the scope of the arbitration. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Swatjester. -Severa (!!!) 20:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swat said it, he's not a party, really not in the realm. Kwsn(Ni!) 01:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he made himself a de facto party when he posted evidence. Historically, the ArbCom considers anyone participating as a party, whether named or not. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, in terms of making a finding or remedy against a participant who wasn't originally a named party, it's intended more towards people who were uncivil during the arbitration. I'm not saying Ali'i hasn't been uncivil, but I don't think he/she has on this case yet, so I don't believe it's something the arbcom would concern themselves with.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 13:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrylodge is topic banned

8) Ferrylodge is banned from editing articles related to pregnancy, abortion, and American politics.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I don't have an opinion either way, but it was one of the options on the CSN that got some support, so just proposing it here as well. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last choice. Does not really attempt to address the issue of Ferry's incivility and harassment, merely addresses the editing disputes. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't address the issue of his harassment of others. Odd nature 17:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Topical ban 2

9) Ferrylodge is banned from editing articles related to pregnancy and abortion. If Ferrylodge is unsure if an article falls within this scope (for instance, such as an article on a court case that deals with "right to privacy"), he is required to seek administrative approval before editing the page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I have seen Ferrylodge contribute constructively on American politics articles, so I propose this topical ban instead. It seems to be where the real "disruption" is alleged. And had some support on the sanction board too. Tweak the wording? --Ali'i 21:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the administrator approval portion necessary? Any participant in arbcom is always welcome to request clarification and I'm not sure it is necessary to spell that out in a remedy? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, with all the discussion about how swamped and overloaded arbcom was, I thought I'd give 'em a break, but I would be fine with the removal of that sentence. --Ali'i 21:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last choice per (8). Does not really address incivility and harassment issues. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't address the root issue here, his harassment of others. Odd nature 17:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

9.1) Ferrylodge is banned from editing articles related to pregnancy and abortion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Removed the "If unsure..." portion per the discussion in (9). Standard practice is for people to go to the request clarification section if there are questions about their remedy. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This also fails to address the root issue here, his pattern of harassment of others. Odd nature 17:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FeloniousMonk restricted

10) FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is restricted to one account.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed --B 03:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really should hear a checkuser's answer on this one. I'll admit, I'm bad at understanding sockpuppet timestamp evidence, but if a checkuser clears him, I think there's no grounds for this remedy.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll down beyond the timestamp evidence ... the rest is far more convincing. --B 03:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I am not FM, and as far as I know, FeloniousMonk has not used another account and I certainly haven't. Odd nature 18:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FeloniousMonk desysopped

11) For abusive use of a sockpuppet in this and other instances, FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is indefinitely. He may reapply at WP:RFA at any time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed --B 03:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal has nothing to do with Ferrylodge and would do absolutely nothing to address concerns over his conduct on Wikipedia. This arbitration is about Ferrylodge, not Ali'i, FeloniousMonk, or the Community Sanction Noticeboard. Take it to checkuser if you must, but this isn't the correct place to call for sanction or clearance of editors whose usernames aren't in the case title, as was proven by the Ali'i incident. We'll need to remain focused on the issue at hand if we're to shed any real light on it. -Severa (!!!) 05:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Severa. Baegis 05:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FM is a party, it's a completely legitimate proposal. Now whether it or not it'll happen remains to be seen on CU results. Kwsn(Ni!) 07:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom looks at all parties involved, so this is an appropriate forum for analysis of the issue of FM sock allegations. --Rocksanddirt 17:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Again, I'm not anyone's sockpuppet. Odd nature 18:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FeloniousMonk banned

12.1) For abusive use of a sockpuppet in this and other instances, FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) aka Odd nature (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is banned for one month.
12.2) For abusive use of a sockpuppet in this and other instances, FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) aka Odd nature (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is banned for three months.
12.3) For abusive use of a sockpuppet in this and other instances, FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) aka Odd nature (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is banned for six months.
12.4) For abusive use of a sockpuppet in this and other instances, FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) aka Odd nature (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is banned indefinitely.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed --B 03:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkusers don't clear people. Either they find evidence to support the accusation, or they don't. They can't find evidence to show the accusations false. --Tango 19:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a crusade to get rid of FM or is it a case regarding Ferrylodge. I guess I am confused considering the title of the RFA. Baegis 05:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith. Characterising someone's actions as a "crusade" is not helpful. --Tango 19:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is becoming surreal. I'm neither FM's sockpuppet nor anyone else's. Clearly User:B has a grudge against us both. Odd nature 18:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrylodge restricted

13) Ferrylodge is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed due to Swatjester's objections to the topic bans. Copied from Digwuren decision. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with a starting date of when the ban ends (i.e. running subsequently with the ban, not concurrently) ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Yet one more opportunity is unwarranted and undeserved. He'd been given chances before and ignored them, resulting in the WP:CSN discussion and all the resulting disruption to the community. This solution only provides for more opportunities for more disruption if he chooses to ignore the restriction or game the system to bypass it. Odd nature 17:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrylodge commended

14) Ferrylodge is commended for his good work at Wikipedia, and the harassment charges are removed from his block log. According to Wikipedia guidelines, "very brief blocks may be used in order to record, for example, an apology or acknowledgment of mistake in the block log in the event of a wrongful or accidental block."[48]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. Harassment is a serious charge and should be supported by specific and compelling evidence and examples. At the Evidence page, I addressed virtually all of the alleged instances of harassment. If ArbCom determines that I have harassed anyone at Wikipedia, specific examples of the worst offenses ought to be cited from the Evidence page. For the record, I deny any charges of harassment.Ferrylodge 02:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Please note that I have now been blocked twice for alleged "harassment," on 28 May and again on 21 September.[49] Much of the same faulty evidence used to justify the 28 May block is now being used yet again to justify the 21 September block.Ferrylodge 21:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Block logs cannot be edited. Someone could add a 1 second block with another message, but I wanted to clarify that comments cannot be removed. I'll also say that I cannot support this when a RfC was specifically filed to address this, and it was unanimous that nothing of the sort should occur. -Andrew c ^[talk] 03:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Andrew. The Rfc prepared against the admin in that instance did not show an incorrect block, but rather a large dose of good faith on the part of all editors except Ferrylodge. --Rocksanddirt 15:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Strongest possible oppose.Judging from prior cases, the ArbCom has a history of not doing these sorts of remedies. It's not their job to commend things. Think about it. If Ferrylodge had been acting in a commendable fashion, he would not have gotten here, and he would not have been blocked. So even on the merits, this fails. Procedurally, it fails too as the arbcom typically does not "commend" editors. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To give FL credit, he sees part of this ArbCom process as an appeal of the Bishonen RfC. He clearly didn't personally agree with the outcome, but was heavily discouraged (and personally frustrated) from appealing his block to ArbCom at the time (he said as much [50] and elsewhere). I say heavily discouraged because multiple users contacted him personally, and said so on the RfC talk page and months later at various ANI discussion to simply "let it drop", which to a lesser extent has never happened. So it makes sense that he sees part of this ArbCom as an appeal of his harassment block from May and the subsequent Bishonen RfC, in addition to appealing his September ban/block. -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Ferrylodge is still arguing and pettifogging about a heavily endorsed 24-hour block that expired 5 months ago is, to me, the strongest evidence that he just doesn't get it, and that more endless petty disputes are likely to follow, assuming he resumes editing. I don't see anything commendable in this refusal to accept the community's verdict and move on; quite the opposite. MastCell ^Talk 21:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mastcell, would you please explain to me why it is perfectly okay for KillerChihuahua to present evidence about the “RCOG Incident” in order to ban me from Wikipedia,[51] and it is perfectly okay for Severa to present evidence about the “RCOG Incident” in order to ban me from Wikipedia,[52] and it is perfectly okay for the ArbCom to rely upon that evidence from KillerChihuahua and Severa about the “RCOG Incident” in order to ban me from a broad swath of articles that I have edited,[53] whereas it is somehow petty and unscrupulous for me to briefly respond to those accusations about the “RCOG Incident”?Ferrylodge 22:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the "RCOG Incident" is a piece of evidence painting the picture of disruptive or tendentious editing, and thus it has direct relevance to the issues of this case. I would also point out that you raised this case, thereby demanding that KC and Severa (among others) provide evidence of disruptive behavior, so it should not be that surprising to see this particular incident mentioned. On the other hand, using this Arbitration case, which you opened, to request that a 5-month-old, long-expired block be somehow expunged from your record does not have direct relevance to this case. That's the difference. If your contention is that the "harassment" block should be disregarded for the purposes of assessing this case, then that would be one thing. But you've gone way past that, again asking for an apology or "acknowledgement of mistake" for something that occurred 5 months ago, that was widely upheld by community input as appropriate, and that would in any case be ancient history by now. I understand your desire to be vindicated, but your ongoing pursuit of that vindication is problematic. If you're unable to accept a near-unanimous community verdict over something this relatively trivial and move on after 5 months, then I think that goes to root of the problem here. MastCell ^Talk 23:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not raise the "RCOG Incident" during this arbitration. I moved on after the events of five months ago, and I did not dredge those events up here. Frankly, I don't care much if my block log continues to indicate that I harassed KC regarding RCOG. However, it would obviously be anomalous for my block log to continue to say that, if ArbCom agrees with me that I did nothing wrong in the "RCOG Incident."

Instead of quibbling about how I respond to evidence presented against me, can't we please look at the evidence? I was sincerely, honestly, and in good faith trying my damnedest to follow KillerChihuahua's own guidance during that RCOG Incident. She said: "You've found a source which shows their sympathies, or professional view, or whatever, is not anti-abortion. It may even establish their position as pro-choice, I'm not sure - I'll have to think that one over. But the RCOG is not a pro-choice group."[54] So, instead of saying that RCOG is a "pro-choice group," I characterized their "position as pro-choice" regarding reduction of abortion time limits. I tried to make the exact distinction that KC urged me to make, and then when I did so all hell broke loose. If an admin advises an editor to do something, and then the editor does it, how in the name of Zeus is it fair to attack the editor for trying to do what the admin said?Ferrylodge 00:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Of course, no one has ever answered that.Ferrylodge 15:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When someone says "I'm not sure - I'll have to think that one over" that doesn't mean "please take my speculative thought and place it in the article for me." I do not believe KC's words can be taken to be advice on how you should edit the article. KC should not be blamed for you not waiting for talk page consensus before editing the article. And you knew the edits were controversial to begin with because they didn't fly at the first article in which you tried to insert them, thus the "forum shopping" ensued.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew c, when someone says "I'm not sure - I'll have to think that one over," that does not mean "the matter is closed." It does not mean, "I oppose any edits of that nature and please do not look for sources that support such an edit." Here is the subsequent notorious edit of mine, which provided a new footnote for the proposition in question (i.e. that RCOG took a "pro-choice position" on a particular issue). When that edit of mine was reverted, I did not try to revert it back.

For months you have used that reasonable edit of mine to support harassment charges, and even a ban from Wikipedia. But it was a perfectly good edit that should not be the least bit controversial. And there was not even a hint of forum-shopping; I repeatedly referred in the fetal pain discussion to what was happening at the RCOG article.[55] [56]

KillerChihuahua falsely asserted in this arbitration that I said after making the notorious edit "that there was no consensus that RCOG was not a 'pro-choice' organization."[57] On the contrary, I agree that there was consensus RCOG was not a "pro-choice organization", and I never put anything into the RCOG article stating that RCOG was a "pro-choice organization".Ferrylodge 23:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for replying to you. I know you have been aching for a fight, and I simply cannot be the person to give that to you. You can have the last word here.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you replied to me, and I'm sorry you feel that you cannot reply further. I have not been "aching for a fight." However, I am not the least bit surprised that you continue to paint me as an ogre.Ferrylodge 23:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make mountains out of molehills

15) Ferrylodge is unblocked. The parties are advised not to make mountains out of molehills.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I agree that mountains are being made of molehills. There is much general discussion in this workshop about Ferrylodge's grave misdeeds, and Ferrylodge's heinous shortcomings, without hardly any discussion of the actual evidence presented at the evidence page, and without hardly any discussion of the responses I gave to that evidence. Which suggests to me that there's really not much solid evidence to support banning me. Bobblehead, for example, does not seem to have any answer to the analysis I gave of his "forum shopping" accusations. And no one has bothered to explain why any of my responses to KillerChihuahua or Severa were incorrect or unpersuausive. If this is going to be a popularity contest, instead of a sober consideration of evidence, then am I supposed to contact as many Wikipedian friends I have so that they can weigh in here as well?Ferrylodge 02:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Ferrylodge (FL) should not have filed the ANI and RFC. They were stupid but they were not improper. Because they were not improper they should be ignored. Therefore the CSN should not have been filed and this case would not have resulted. Sbowers3 12:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed more fully at the talk page.

This case and the preceding CSN, ANI, and RFC should never have been brought. The parties should shake hands, make up, and get back to being productive editors. Sbowers3 22:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd. The arbitrators would not have taken this case if there were no grounds for it. Ferrylodge is a disruptive editor, and something needs to be done about his actions that cannot be handled through the normal dispute resolution procedures. Nobody is making a mountain out of a molehill, and I personally find it offensive that you can so casually dismiss dozens of people's concerns about Ferrylodge as "molehills". ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've inserted more explanation above and at the talk page. FL's ANI and RFC have reached the end of the line as far as his objective is concerned. They will go no further. Absent the ANI and RFC, FL has not been a disruptive editor. If FL had not made those two mountains out of a molehill, the CSN and hence this case would never have been filed. Sbowers3 12:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Clearly more than a molehill here. CitiCat^♫ 18:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing Sbowers3 has correct is the first sentence of his latest "Comments by others".[58] It is Ferrylodge that made a mountain of a molehill. He received a warning not to post again on KC's talk page, but then he did it three times, one of those with the purpose of making sure that KC saw an uncivil comment he made about her. FL should have learned from that block and moved on, but he obviously did not. He posted an unblock request, which was shot down by reviewing admin. He then posted to AN/I to complain about his treatment and that too was greeted with a collective "Yeah? So?", but rather than learn from that he decided to file an RFC to get further shot down by the community. The only thing his block and subsequent actions indicate is that FL does not know when to let things drop and doesn't learn from his mistakes. Further proof of this is that FL is still arguing that his block was improper and has shown absolutely no remorse for his past actions and has yet to learn that his conduct in relation to other editor's in this project has been improper. Even worse, he considers himself to be the victim of some grand conspiracy.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) A block is supposed to look to the future, not the past. Ferrylodge will not be filing any more AN/I or RfC on this issue because he has reached the end of the line. He won't file on any remotely similar issue because he knows it will fail and WILL most likely lead to a long-term block. For purposes of evaluating his future potential, ArbCom should look at his past record MINUS the ANI or RFC. Now if you look objectively at his record without those two mountains, can you honestly say that it is a terrible record, and so his future is likely to be terrible? If you look at his record absent the ANI and RfC you see a huge number of mainspace edits, almost all of which were accepted and are still part of the encyclopedia today, and you see three short blocks. If you look at that record (the whole record except the two things that will never happen again), and try to forecast his future record, you have to say that he will be a very productive editor with minimal problems Sbowers3 22:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FL's actions after Bishonen's block is symptomatic of an overall problem with FL's conduct on talk pages and reactions to edits in mainspace that he does not agree with and most of the evidence presented deal with this problem. So yes, if I look at his record outside the RFC and AN/I as a whole, I can say that until FL admits that his general inability to work with other editors on controversial topics is why he ultimately ended up here and actually attempts to rectify that behavior problem, he will continue to be a disruptive editor whose poor reaction to editors he does not agree with will continue to outweigh any positive contributions to Wikipedia he might have. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Ferrylodge: The reason why I have not commented on your response to my submitted evidence is because, in the end, my response and opinion in regards to your response has no bearing upon your future here on Wikipedia. The only responses and opinions that matter are those of the arbcom members and it will be up to them to determine if my evidence or your response is more compelling. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It never would've come to this point if there were nothing which needed to be addressed. We need to be head on in how we confront this matter. We're not going to find any solutions if we simply choose to look the other way. -Severa (!!!) 04:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose We did not all wake up. It was not all a bad dream. Ferrylodge really was disruptive, difficult to discuss things with, involved in harassment and dispute, blocked, sanctioned and banned. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 22:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

16) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Blocking for violation

1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction violate that restriction, they may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge#Log of blocks and bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, borrowed from Jmfangio case --B 15:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say lower it to "After 3 blocks..." rather than 5. People need to be helped to learn faster. --Ali'i 15:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 1.1 created. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is inconsequential since, in any event, the blocking admin can use their best judgment. --B 17:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they can when discretion is preempted by an Arbcom enforcement procedure. That happened to me recently. I enforced a parole violation by block on the Azerbaijan arbcom, that as it turned out (I did not know this at the block time) had a "first 5 blocks up to 1 week" clause. Since my block was for the reason of parole violation, it follows that the first 5 blocks should be up to 1 week. Therefore, my block (which was longer than 1 week) was overturned and reduced to the 1 week length. (I believe it was the 5th block). Now if the wording says "at the discretion of the blocking admin somewhere" we might have a different story. But since it says "shall increase to one month" after five blocks, expressio unius est exclusio alterius. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed. 5 blocks is too many, too high a threshold. 2 blocks is more appropriate. Odd nature 19:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking for violation

1.1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction violate that restriction, they may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 2 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge#Log of blocks and bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Moving 1.1 to new section, from above. --Tango 15:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3 blocks is still too high a threshold. Odd nature 19:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and made it "After 2 blocks" here. Since I was the one who wanted 3 blocks, and I am fine with it being 2 blocks, I went ahead and made the change here in this proposal. --Ali'i 21:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence[edit]

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Citicat's evidence

The evidence presented by User:Citicat does not, in my analysis, particularly hold weight (at this time). The title is "Ferrylodge violated WP:SOAPBOX not just on many occasions, but as a matter of course", but the evidence he has provided (so far, 19:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)) does not include any soapboxing. More issues follow.

Citicat writes, "Ferrylodge has an off-the-wiki agenda supporting a change in abortion law, and the basis of a majority of his edits were to influence others to his position, often by attempting to show unborn children as "person-like" as possible as early as possible.[59][60]". First, unless he's attacking other editors, his off-site activity should play little to no role in his arbitration. People are allowed to have interests outside Wikipedia that overlap the topics they edit (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest does not come into play). And furthermore, it would be absurd to state that editors who have opinions on hot-button topics like abortion cannot edit those articles (we would have about .05% of the editors we currently have). People have opinions, and that's okay. As long as editors from both sides of the issue can work together to find a common ground, the articles will be better off for it. Second, the two diffs show nothing of soapboxing, nor trying to describe the unborn as "person-like" as early as possible. The first one is Ferrylodge adding a cited reference for the ambiguity of determining whether something is a "fetus" or an "embyro". The second diff is a merge of material about the development of an embryo/fetus. He's doing constructive work, and frankly should be thanked for it.

The last part of Citicat's evidence states, "In this edit on Roe v. Wade, Ferrylodge correctly removes a POV edit by another editor, but writes in the edit summary "Sorry, I have to revert this." and goes on to say "The best way to show the decision was corrupt . . . " clearly showing his own non-NPOV." Uhh... since he didn't write anything in the article about it being corrupt, and correctly, as Citicat points out, removed the point of view, Ferrylodge was showing how neutral point of view works. Yes, he has an opinion (and that's okay), but he withholds his opinion from the article. Just because someone has strong opinions does not make them automatically unable to edit in a neutral manner. Ferrylodge should be commended for being able to separate himself in this instance from his opinions to keep an article neutral. --Ali'i 19:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Please see my response at the main Evidence page.Ferrylodge 19:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Regarding "unless he's attacking other editors, his off-site activity should play little to no role in his arbitration." I think you set the bar too high, using the word "attacking": Being uncivil in the context of pursuing a particular POV should be sufficient for his off-wiki affiliations and activities to play a role. This discussion is of couse complicated by Ferrylodge's current desire to conceal affilations and activities. But simply by googling his Wikipedia username, Ferrylodge, I was able to determine to my satisfaction that he was some kind of activist in the area of "men's reproductive rights" (or something along those lines) under his alias "Ferrylodge." I remarked on this in the initial CSN. --Pleasantville 20:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Off-the-wiki agendas are of course acceptable, (I would venture everyone has them) unless your purpose of editing Wikipedia is mainly to promote that agenda. If I were to regularly edit a business in competition with my own for the purpose of discrediting them (searching only for sources that show them in a negative light) that would be against the basic principles of Wikipedia. You are correct that strong opinions do not prohibit editing in a neutral matter, however, my point is that there was not attempt here to edit in a neutral manner. CitiCat^♫ 01:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply looking at the couple of diffs you provided, in which he helped the encyclopedia (which is the goal here). Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, Citicat's evidence seems particularly damning when considered in the light of the allegation that FerryLodge's behavior that landed him here is part of a larger pattern. Odd nature 21:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In which way do you disagree? How is it "particularly damning"? Please clarify. Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KillerChihuahua's evidence

I'd like to start with one small piece of evidence, then as I gain experience I will comment on more of the evidence.

The RCOG incident - Ferrylodge pursues matter to my talk page, culminating in block for harassment

User_talk:KillerChihuahua/Archive_10#Please_Assume_Good_Faith

The submitted evidence shows that KillerChihuahua (KC) first took the matter to Ferrylodge's (FL) talk page:
(FL): "KillerChihuahua, thank you for your suggestion at my talk page." So KC left a message at FL's talk page and FL responded at KC's talk page. Isn't this exactly how discussions are normally held? User A leaves a message on User B's talk page, then User B replies by leaving a message on User A's talk page. So, far from being a "pursuit" this is a normal user-to-user-discussion. And it starts out very civil in tone, a perfectly ordinary discussion of an issue. As it continues, it might at worst be described as very slightly uncivil on both sides. Since KC continued the discussion through several back and forths it is clearly a discussion, not harrassment. KC never told FL to stop. There is no evidence that KC left a message on FL's talk page to stop, nor asked Bishonen to stop FL. Bishonen then stepped in and told FL to stop. FL replied Okay, I'll stop. That reply was clearly addressed to Bishonen, not to KC. It would have been better if Bishonen had issued a warning on FL's talk page, then FL might have replied there or on Bishonen's talk page. FL would have been smarter to reply on Bishonen's talk page but the evidence shows no harrassment and shows no continuation of harrassment after the warning. Again, FL's post was addressed to Bishonen, not to KC and so is not harrassment. Sbowers3 22:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The RCOG incident - Ferrylodge edits against consensus

04:13, 24 May 2007 (→Medical opinions - Citing pro-choice statement by RCOG.) The content of the edit was to add a citation. Isn't adding a citation exactly what editors are SUPPOSED to do? There is no evidence that this edit was against consensus.
22:39, 24 May 2007 (→Medical opinions - These citations do not use the words "pro-choice" verbatim. Is synonymous language acceptable? RCOG is not a government organization. Govt does not restrict its operation.) The content was to replace a ((fact)) with a reference. Isn't that exactly what editors SHOULD do? Was there a consensus that the fact tag should remain and not be replaced with a reference?
17:26, 25 May 2007 (Wikilinking abortion and pro-choice.) The content was to wikilink the existing word, abortion, and to add the word pro-choice and wikilink it. Isn't wikilinking another thing that editors are supposed to do? There is no evidence that "pro-choice" was against consensus.
17:06, 26 May 2007 (Rv. It is false that 3 editors dispute this. KillerChihua said she would think about it. And you have not responded at Talk:Fetal Pain re. RCOG statement opposing reduction of time limits.) The summary suggests that consensus might not have been firm, that FL had provided evidence that RCOG was indeed pro-choice and that his evidence might have led to a change of consensus. It may have been imprudent of FL to change the content before a new consensus had been reached but this does not have the makings of a cardinal sin.
21:46, 26 May 2007 (Rewriting section on abortion. Please see discussion page.) The rewrite was little more than a reordering of the two sentences of that paragraph. The bone of contention is apparently the addition of the word "pro-choice". But if the references indicate the organization is pro-choice, what is wrong with adding the word?

The evidence indicates that FL tried to improve the encyclopedia. He added references, added wikilinks, and tried to add a single word, pro-choice, that was apparently supported by the references. The evidence indicates that he did not stubbornly attempt to have it exactly his way but modified his wording to meet objections of other editors. Sbowers3 23:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fetus image on Abortion

"This has been discussed at least 6 times, and the consensus is that images of fetuses are not appropriate. This is now in the FAQ for the article (with links to discussions). This question was raised again by a drive-by editor on 16 August 2007 in Talk:Abortion#Images_of_Abortion. Again, strong majority favored no images. Ferrylodge supported inclusion of images. During this dispute, Ferrylodge engaged in personal attacks and repeatedly edit warred against well-established and current consensus."

Looking through this evidence, frankly it appears more unfavorable to KillerChihuahua (KC) than to Ferrylodge (FL):

As the FAQ itself states: "consensus can always change." There is nothing wrong with re-engaging in a discussion, particularly when a previously uninvolved editor reopens the question. FL argued civilly for a change in consensus.
- Elsewhere, FL is accused for not quickly accepting a change in consensus (from "womb" to "uterus"). If he favors a change in consensus, he is wrong; if he opposes a change in consensus, he is wrong.
In this particular discussion, the majority was 4:3 opposed, hardly a strong majority.
Reading the discussion, there is no evidence of personal attacks by FL. To the contrary, the most uncivil comment was by KC:

"Ferrylodge, your POV pushing is becoming blatant and annoying."

KC did not participate in the discussion except for that one comment in the middle of the discussion. FL left the discussion almost immediately thereafter. The discussion continued at length with two other editors.
During this discussion there is absolutely no edit warring by FL. There was never any edit warring on this topic. The nearest thing to an edit war was four weeks later involving some unrelated text. During that mini-war, KC, Andrew c, and a third editor reverted to FL's version against changes by two other editors.
Four weeks after this discussion, FL inserted a drawing that did not have the problems mentioned in the discussion - it was not a photograph, which might have evoked an emotional response, and it was a free image. It was not unreasonable for FL to hope that an image which met and avoided previous objections might be accepted. The drawing was deleted but there was no edit war.

KC's evidence in this section demonstrates mostly that KC dislikes FL, rather than any bad behavior by FL. Sbowers3 04:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Please see my responses to KillerChihuahua's evidence at the main Evidence page, here (regarding KC's objections to my request that she stop posting at my talk page), and here (regarding the rest of KC's evidence).Ferrylodge 19:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

For another perspective on the FL ban for harassing KC, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bishonen_2#Outside view by Phaedriel and the timeline there. Or for my personal post where I attempted to answer the challenge "post the diffs of the harassment", see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive252#Putting this in context and scroll down to where I (reset) the indent. FL and KC had a history. KC was accurate in warning FL for disruptive behavior. FL didn't take it well, and got defensive. The discourse went downhill from there. FL was rude, patronizing, and demanding on KC's home turf. An uninvolved admin told him to leave KC alone (she was having personal health issues at the time as well), and FL had to get the last word in and was blocked for the purpose of deescalating the situation (although, based on the huge ANI thread and subsequent RfC, the situation did escalate, only no longer on KC's talk page). -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see "rude, patronizing, and demanding" but I have a thicker skin than most people. I agree that it was borderline uncivil - more so perhaps on FL's side, but on both sides. It was a dialogue, not a monologue. Harassment would be one-sided additions to KC's talk page. Sbowers3 00:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the RCOG edit war, the whole point is that the citation DOES NOT SAY that the RCOG is a "pro-choice organization". The citation doesn't even USE the word "pro-choice". FL kept removing a fact tag, and adding an unrelated citation. Your question Was there a consensus that the fact tag should remain and not be replaced with a reference? is inappropriate, because the citation did not support the part of the sentence that had the fact tag. And the next question But if the references indicate the organization is pro-choice, what is wrong with adding the word? I'll ask Sbowers3, if the citation does not establish that the RCOG is "pro-choice", is it appropriate to call them such, and add a deceptive reference? Is it appropriate to add material that is already under dispute on one article to another article? Is it appropriate to edit without consensus in the middle of a discussion? Is it ever appropriate to revert after you've been reverted in good faith?-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not possible to assume good faith when an editor reads a citation that an organization defends abortion rights, and concludes that a defense of abortion rights is "pro-choice"? And FL asked politely whether the wording of the citation wasn't in fact synonymous with pro-choice. I'm just judging from the evidence presented here and I admit that others may have seen more evidence. Is there a dispute about whether RCOG in fact supports abortion rights? If they do support abortion rights, isn't pro-choice in fact a synonym for supporting abortion? Help me to understand the argument about a word. A rose by any other name ... Sbowers3 00:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assume that there was an article for Woodside Hospice, the hospice where Terri Schaivo died. Would it be ok to add, without a source, that the hospice was "pro-euthanasia"? What if we had a source that said Terri Schaivo's feeding tube was removed and she died there? Would it be ok to draw the conclusion that the hospice was "pro-euthanasia" from these facts? IMO, the term "euthanasia" is loaded, and should not be associated with the hospice unless there is a reliable source that uses the term. Surely, we could find a partisan blog accusing the hospice of being pro-euthanasia slaughterhouse, but that sort of source wouldn't be reliable. Similarly, in this case, wikipedia would be the first place to say that the RCOG is a "pro-choice organization". The term pro-choice implies political affiliation and activism, which is not relevant to this medical body. I think stating the RCOG's official position, without qualifying it with political terms, such as liberal, democrat, labour, or pro-choice works just as well. In fact, any of these terms, without a direct citation, are simply commentary. While we can speculate on the political motivations of the organization, it is highly inappropriate to publish personal thoughts about organizations on wikipedia. This whole issue has to deal with verifiability and original research. How is someone to verify that RCOG is in fact "pro-choice"? Why not let the reader read the official position of the RCOG and draw conclusions on their own.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you do need to be more in depth in your analysis because you seem to have completely miss analyzed the events.

First, your assessment that FL was merely responding to a comment by KC that was left on FL's user talk page... You really should actually go look at the other person's talk page and see what was said. The comment to which Ferrylodge thanks KC for on May 27 is a comment KC left on Ferrylodge's talkpage on May 23 telling him to make sure that when he reverts vandalism he leaves a warning on the talk page of the user that did the vandalism.[61] KC's comment on FL's talk page is clearly unrelated to the RCOG event and is definitely not an invitation to continue a discussion that was taking place on the RCOG article's talk page on KC's talkpage (particularly 4 days after the fact and during which time FL made a little over a hundred edits so he was clearly active).

Second, your assertion that FL was banned solely for saying "Okay, I'll stop" is easily refuted by checking the two links that Bishonen included in the message that she was blocking FL. Namely a link to a message that FL left on Bishonen's talk page where he thanked Bishonen from sparing him "the agony of dealing further with her blatantly false and malicious accusations of disruption, bad faith, and edit warring"[62] and another link where FL added a link to KC's page to the comment he left on Bishonen's talkpage.[63] Ferrylodge saying he was done here[64] is not what caused Bishonen to block him. It was when he crossed the line by going back to KC's talkpage and left a link to his comment on Bishonen's talkpage to make sure that KC saw what he said about her. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not assert that FL was banned solely for saying OK. I suggest that it is not harassment. It was a discussion that appears to flow naturally from KC's initial message, but did go downhill. KC could have said STOP at any time but continued the discussion so I don't see how it is harassment. FL's final reply to Bishonen (on KC's talk page) with the link to FL's other message is a pretty weak case for harassment. I didn't follow that link and if I had been KC I would have ignored the whole message and not followed the link. I agree that FL was dumb to get the last word in. I've suggested to FL elsewhere that it would be a good idea for him to always pause after writing a message, stop and cool down, read back the message and decide whether it will actually help him achieve his objectives, and then maybe not click the Save pages button. Sbowers3 00:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the other evidence presented and his persistent nature evident here, I seriously doubt that FerryLodge would have dropped anything had KillerChihuahua asked him to stop. Odd nature 21:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Sbowers3

I am responding here to Sbowers3 evidence, specifically because I was named in that evidence. Regarding the Stillbirth article. First of all, there is more history behind changing the word "womb". The discussion originated at Talk:Pregnancy, (see Talk:Pregnancy#Technical language is not preferred) and the consensus had already developed there that the word "womb" should generally be avoided. FL was not only aware of that conversation, he initiated it.[65] It isn't surprising that a user would take the conclusions from that discussion and apply them to other articles, being bold (which is what happened. ConfuciusOrnis and Orangemarlin probably used the "what links here" feature for the word "womb" and changed some uses to uterus, see [66], and [67] for Ornis, and [68] for Orangemarlin). While it would also be ok for uninvolved editors of these other articles to revert and discuss, it seems odd that an involved party would try to start the exact same discussion on multiple other articles, which is why FL has been accused of forum shopping at pregnancy, mother, abortion, and stillbirth, all related to the uterus vs. womb controversy, see this and this (It should be noted that KC is the one who tried to start a centralized discussion after ConfuciusOrnis and Orangemarlin on one side, and FL on the other, brought the debate to multiple other articles).

Sbowers3 also states that FL worked with me back in January on the stillbirth article. I believe that was one of my first encounters with FL, and at the time, and in retrospect, my feelings about it are negative. The debate was about whether we should mention in the lead or first sentence definition that stillbirth usually refers to an event in the latter stages of pregnancy. All I'll say is by the end, Severa was convinced that Ferrylodge has, from the posts above, clearly come here with something to prove. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not a place to prove a point, or a soapbox.[69] and I was convinced that FL was a bully and didn't work well with others when he wanted his way. I believe the edit summary that Sbowers3 points to is misleading (and this is a tactic of FL). I had proposed a whole new lead.[70] FL took one sentence out of my proposal and placed it in the article before we even had time to finish discussing my proposal (just 1 hour after I proposed it), and removed a sentence which described the "common" latter term definition, without replacing it with my 2nd paragraph of my proposal which went into detail about the different definitions.[71] This is not an example of FL working with other editors, but an example of FL saying "you suggested the sentence, so it must be ok if I ignore the rest of your proposal, while at the same time deleting a sentence that all the other editors on talk wanted".

The fetus summary ignores the great deal of controversy that resulted in my being extremely frustrated and leaving FL alone for months. See my rant. Also look through the talk history. And while we are on the topic of rants, look through the history of Talk:Fetal pain, and see FL's tirade that made me quit working with him for a second time.

The abortion summary is also a little lacking. FL inserted a phrase without consensus, and it slid under the radar for a month. However, it ended up generating a lot of talk page discussion Talk:Abortion#Safer than childbirth or safer for women than childbirth, and now his version is no longer in the article. Also, the edit summary of the edit that started this is ambiguous if not purposely deceptive, see [72], which may explain why it slid under the radar.

That said, I agree with Sbowers3 that FL has made uncontroversial, and even productive edits in the past. And that FL has at times even worked with some of the editors involved in this case (myself included). IMO, that doesn't make up for the bad, but I guess that is up to the ArbCom to decide.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I have tried my best to respond to the tons and tons of evidence presented by others at the main evidence page. However, I have not patrolled this page to identify additional evidence presented by others, and I'm not going to start doing that. I just don't have time, and I don't think it's fair that I would need to. If people want to see my responses to the evidence that was presented at the evidence page, they can find all of my responses at the evidence page. For example, I responded in great detail to the assertions of Severa and KillerChihuahua regarding what happened at the Pregnancy and Stillbirth articles last month.Ferrylodge 19:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Can you add some diffs to the first two paragraphs? There's a lot of claims in there and what appears to be a direct quote from Severa. Thanks! --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, I believe I have cited everything that needs citing. I'd be glad to do more if I missed anything.-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do think Sbowers3 is missing a part of the picture when he references Ferrylodge's involvement at Stillbirth. The fact is that the "womb" incident was not the first time that Ferrylodge had edited the article — nor was it the first time one of his contributions there had been called into question. He attempted to have the definition of "stillbirth" broadened to include miscarriage as early as 8 weeks in January.[73] Ferrylodge's basis for this was a selection of dictionary definitions of the term which were, ultimately, ambiguous as to gestational age (refering only to a "dead child" or a "fetus dead at birth").[74] I made a request for an expert opinion at WikiProject Medicine in the hope of clarifying where the line of demarcation between "miscarriage" and "stillbirth" was drawn in medical circles,[75] but, I do think the bent of the whole inquiry is best summed up by a comment made by Ferrylodge: "We should not ignore or suppress how the word 'stillborn' is commonly defined, merely because some of us do not like the idea that a "fetus" (i.e. a human being after two months of development) can be 'born'".[76] This was not an isolated incident, either, because the theme of fetal development up to 8 weeks/abortion beyond the first trimester shows up in edits made to other articles: Abortion,[77][78] [79][80] Late-term abortion, Fetus, Roe v. Wade.[81] -Severa (!!!) 20:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Bobblehead

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Please see my response to Bobblehead's evidence at the main Evidence page.Ferrylodge 19:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Evidence presented by Tvoz

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Please see my response to Tvoz's evidence at the main Evidence page.Ferrylodge 19:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Evidence presented by Odd Nature

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Please see my response to Odd Nature's evidence at the main Evidence page.Ferrylodge 19:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Evidence presented by Severa

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Please see my response to Severa's evidence at the Evidence talk page.Ferrylodge 19:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Ferrylodge's single-line "analysis of evidence" sections (below) on this page be removed by a clerk.

Evidence page word limit be enforced

That arbitrators who assert soapboxing, propaganda, or activist editing should explain why they reject denials

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

Template

Template

Template

Template

Questions to the parties[edit]

Question from Kwsn

Question from Andrew c

Questions from User:Banno

Questions from User:Ferrylodge

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles[edit]

Polls are Evil

Bans are a last resort

Community ban defined

Civility

Community Bans A community ban exists if and only if there are no administrators willing to unblock a blocked user

Should have clear warnings before any block

Indef blocks should be preceded by shorter blocks of increasing duration

Allow time for considering community sanctions

The goal should be improvement

Template

Template

Template

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

No consensus on CSN

No support for CSN

FeloniousMonk was uninvolved

Ferrylodge was unable to respond

User:Ali'i was incivil

Ferrylodge ban is justified by Ferrylodge's behavior over a long period of time

19 hours is not long enough to establish a consensus

KillerChihuahua has been uncivil

Odd nature is a sock puppet of FeloniousMonk

Ferrylodge's behavior over a long period of time has been the subject of complaint

Ferrylodge has made substantial contributions to Wikipedia

Ferrylodge has seemed unwilling to change his behavior in the face of community objections

The banning process to which Ferrylodge was subjected was flawed

Ferrylodge has been a very productive editor

There is reason to believe that Ferrylodge has a substantial and undisclosed relationship with Fred Thompson and/or the Fred Thompson campaign and/or related interests.

Ferrylodge has made use of Wikipedia policies concerning the privacy of pseudonyms to avoid public scrutiny of his 600+ Fred Thompson-related edits both by his fellow-editors and by the Washington Post.

That the ban and block that resulted from the CSN case are invalid

Template

Proposed remedies[edit]

Ferrylodge's ban is upheld

Ferrylodge's ban is overturned.

Ferrylodge restricted for six months

All editors reminded

Ferrylodge censured

Ferrylodge voluntarily backs away

Ali'i is warned

Ferrylodge is topic banned

Topical ban 2

FeloniousMonk restricted

FeloniousMonk desysopped

FeloniousMonk banned

Ferrylodge restricted

Ferrylodge commended

Don't make mountains out of molehills

Template

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Blocking for violation

Blocking for violation

Template

Template

Template

Analysis of evidence[edit]

Citicat's evidence

KillerChihuahua's evidence

Evidence presented by Sbowers3

Evidence presented by Bobblehead

Evidence presented by Tvoz

Evidence presented by Odd Nature

Evidence presented by Severa

Template

Template