Initiated by  Sandstein  at 07:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Law (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Notification of Law
• Notification of ChildofMidnight

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

This is a divisive dispute between admins; previous discussion is found at

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#ChildofMidnight
• User talk:Sandstein#Child of Midnight

By a motion of 29 August 2009 modifying Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#Remedies, ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was "topic-banned from Obama-related articles for six months, and any related discussions, broadly construed across all namespaces". He and Wikidemon (talk · contribs) had already been ordered "not to interact with each other" on 21 June 2009.

Today, Wikidemon submitted Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#ChildofMidnight. I usually patrol WP:AE, and after reading the evidence in the request and ChildofMidnight's reply, I blocked ChildofMidnight for a month, both for his repeated violation of the topic ban and for his violation of the interaction remedy through his reply. (It was later pointed out to me that I misread the remedy and that the maximum block length should have been a week; apologies for this.)

ChildofMidnight submitted an unblock request (including [1], [2]) that in my experience would normally not have been accepted based on its incivil language alone. At 03:51, 20 September 2009, Law (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), an administrator, informed me that he would unblock ChildofMidnight, and without either waiting for my reply or engaging in any community discussion he unblocked ChildofMidnight at 04:15. He later declined to reinstate the block (at its proper length of one week), which leads me to request arbitration (instead of wheelwarring, of course).

A very brief review of Law's contributions indicates that he and ChildofMidnight have recently interacted in a quite familiar manner ([3], [4] [5], [6]). This, as well as the remarkably short time (24 minutes) between the unblock request and Law's reaction, may be an indication that Law might not have been acting as a neutral, uninvolved administrator in the processing of ChildofMidnight's unblock request.

By unilaterally undoing a block that was clearly labeled as an arbitration enforcement action, as well as more generally by undoing a block by a fellow admin without consulting anybody, Law has acted in a manner unbecoming an administrator and I ask the Committee to take the steps required to ensure that its decisions can be effectively enforced in the future. Should the Committee decline to do so, I regret to say that I will no longer undertake any arbitration enforcement tasks, because that would then be an exercise in futility.  Sandstein  07:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Law

So far, all of Law's comments in this matter ignore that my block was explicitly not only for ChildofMidnight's violation of the topic ban (for about the third time), but equally for his violation of the restriction against interaction with Wikidemon that his offtopic ad-hominem tirade constituted. Also, Law misstates my request. I do not consider AE futile if I do not get my way (about whether the topic ban was violated; I'll of course accept any consensual determination of that issue), but I do consider it futile if it becomes accepted practice to unilaterally undo arbitration enforcement actions without discussion.  Sandstein  09:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Ched

I think it is fallacious to assume that an article is only related to Barack Obama if it is mentioned in the presumably comprehensive article about him. Per WP:SS, much relevant material will be only mentioned in the subarticles (if at all). For instance, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, while undoubtedly related to Obama, are not mentioned at all in the article about him. At any rate, ACORN#ACORN in political discourse, which mentions Obama multiple times, explains why the organization is politically relevant to him and certainly falls into a broadly construed topic ban concerning him.  Sandstein  09:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not nearly ripe enough for arbitration yet, but if it gets there, I hope it ends with someone whacking me upside the head for trying to put out this fire.--Tznkai (talk) 07:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my best efforts, Law and Sandstein seem committed to arbitration. I remind ArbCom of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#Motion_to_clarify_the_interpretative_role_of_administrators, and of WP:AERFC which had, among other things, many comments about how AE is understaffed and a flawed process. As I am now pretty much done with trying to put out the fire, I just like to note that administrators need to avoid having pissing contests. In fact, they need to do more than that, they need to actively work together or the entire effort is pointless. I am not sure yet what ArbCom can do about getting that to happen, if anything, but I think it is at the core of the dispute here - not any of the red herrings listed.--Tznkai (talk) 08:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I am uninvolved by virtue of the fact that I have never dealt with CoM as it pertains to his editing restrictions. I do not see how 'uninvolved' means that I am not allowed any interaction with the editor. If this were true, I would have little to offer as far as administrative actions as I have several editors with which I have interacted.

Editors are the ones who add and build articles. So I do not interpret the topic ban to mean that if editor or IP X inserts Obama's name to article X, that CoM is systematically obligated to stay away from that article. As I mentioned, it is no secret that Obama recently referred to Kanye West as a 'jackass.' However, I do not feel that CoM should be restricted from improving the Kanye article.

Editing Michelle Obama is problematic. Editing Kayne West is not. ACORN was incorporated nearly 40 years before the highest profile person in the world was voted into office. It is only by virtue of the fact that Obama is the US President, that one could possibly perceive that this article should be off limits to said editor. I refuse to believe that ARBCOM intended that any mention of the President of the United States in any capacity, in any article, automatically merits a block. The ban was intended to prevent CoM from editing Obama-related articles. I do not think that ACORN is an Obama-related article simply because information was added to the article that mentions the standing President.

Sandstein's assertion that if things do not go his way he will consider ARBCOM an exercise in futility is also very disconcerting. I'm clearly willing to abide by any decision is made - I just feel that until that decision is made, the user should remain unblocked.

In general, it's long standing "law" that a topic ban is meant to prevent someone from editing in a topic area where there's an issue with that person's editing. In other words, it's what they're editing about that's the issue, not the name of the article.

Looking at the edits referred to on AE, on the article of Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. This is a highly charged subject, where attacks on one could meant as an indirect attack on someone else (IE, casting ACORN in bad light, hoping that the bad light will reflect badly on Barack Obama). So, while it's borderline, I would be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to CoM, and thus consider the edits to be NOT a violation of the topic ban.

However, I'd like to note with concern this edit, amongst others mentioned on the AE thread which indicates that CoM is treating WP and these articles as a battleground. Obviously, the lesson has not been learned here, and if not corrected in the near future by CoM, I would recommend that the existing topic ban be expanded to include all political related articles.

As for the unblock by User:Law.. while, as I've said that I'd be willing to give the benefit of the doubt to CoM with regards to this, I do not think Law's actions were warranted and/or helpful in this area. Unilaterally undoing another administrator's action without discussion or consultation does nothing to help an already heated enviroment. It was in a grey area, and Law should have discussed it with others on AE or elsewhere before undoing Sandstein's actions. Perhaps it's time to take a look at the perennial proposal of changing the definition of WP:WHEEL from the current: DO/UNDO/REDO (where it's the third action) to a more realistic and simple "Undoing another administrator's action without discussion and/or consultation." SirFozzie (talk) 09:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I request permission to make a comment in regards to this matter. Without prejudice to any party involved, as I do have the utmost respect for all editors mentioned here, I would like to address the issue of the "topic ban". I believe that the Obama related articles (broadly construed) needs to considered in any decisions made in this particular case, and would like to ask that the committee consider a couple points.

1. That the Barack Obama article is a Featured Article
2. Criteria for a featured article 1 (b) states:

   (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;

3. In doing a search through the Barack Obama article, I was unable to find either the term "ACORN", or "Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now" listed anywhere in the article.

I truly believe that consideration should be given to these facts. Thank you. — Ched :  ?  09:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Initiated by Thibbs (talk) at 20:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thibbs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• 43.244.132.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dr90s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Notification for 43.244.132.168
• Notification for Dr90s

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Article talk-page discussions: 21/11/08-16/01/09 (some admin involvement), 15-20/12/08 (moderated by admin Hermione1980), 14-17/06/09, 16-18/06/09, 18/06/09
• User warnings/alerts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
• User notifications: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
• SPI Reports: 1, 2-4
• BLP/N Report: 1
• Administrators' Noticeboard Reports: AN/I #1, AN/3RR, AN/I #2
• Other: RFP, NPOV report (not directed at Dr90s in isolation)

This makes the 7th time I will have filed a report on this user, a well-known sockpuppeteer with a history for BLP-vandalism and incivility. Filing reports takes me a lot of time and energy and in this case I am looking to streamline the process so that I can spend less time filing reports and more time editing. As a sockpuppet case, the natural place for me to post is at SPI. I am generally quite pleased with the way the SPI reports have gone, however I find myself explaining the same story over and over and over again to new administrators who are not as familiar with the history of this puppetmaster as I am.

I have twice sought and was granted designated administrators who I could go to in order to streamline the process, however at the moment one has retired (User:Hermione1980), and the other is on a 3+ month WikiBreak (User:Tanthalas39).

The reason I am filing this report is to request an official ArbCom-signed topic ban or total ban on Dr90s and his sockpuppets. If this motion is granted, I will have an additional reason (i.e. "Evasion of bans or other remedies issued by the arbitration committee (closed cases only)") to request that official action be taken at SPI. This will streamline the process for me and improve the ability of the community to react to further SOCK violations by this indefatigable vandal. -Thibbs (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Just as a quick update: I filed with SPI and the immediate problem has now been solved (i.e. the user has once again been banned). I still think a figurative ban would help in this matter and that it would be noncontroversial and easy to apply, but I will respect ArbCom's decision. -Thibbs (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this really requires an arbitration case; the sockmaster is clearly not welcome at Wikipedia, and de facto banned even if no official sanction is on record. Thibbs has established a record of finding groups of sockpuppets in this area, and I think the clerks at SPI (of which I am one) would be willing to consider his checkuser requests with somewhat less exhaustive evidence than he has been posting. We do review the case archives, and a whole history isn't necessary for each new report.

If you like, you can ping me on my talkpage if you find a report isn't being processed quickly enough - but we are usually pretty good at keeping up. Nathan ^T 22:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I appreciate the good faith and frustration of the filing party. However, I think it is clear at this point that the sockmaster in question is community-banned and that any additional socks should also be banned, especially if they continue to edit in the same unacceptable fashions that led to the ban in the first place. The structure of the WP:SSI pages has become rather more complex than it used to be, which I hope is not deterring valid reports of serious problems, but opening an arbitration case just to expedite the paperwork there should hopefully not be necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• In agreement with NYB and noting that SSI seems fit for the case as noted by Nathan above, decline. Vassyana (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline This is for SPI or ANI. If he's community banned, he could be dealt with swiftly by the admins. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline per preceding - SPI is way to go, and there are other means of addressing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. A ban by the Community or an indef block of a sock account by any admin works better because it is faster. SPI or ANI is definitely better in this situation. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline per above. Sockpuppet investigations and various noticeboards are a better way to handle this. If that doesn't work, or there are systemic problems causing frustration, do ask around to get advice on how best to deal with this. Carcharoth (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]