Revision as of 22:47, 26 September 2010

Noticeboard

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

This noticeboard's primary purpose is to to attract the attention of the clerks to a particular matter by non-clerks. Non-clerks are welcome to comment on this page in the event that the clerks appear to have missed something.

The clerks may be contacted privately, in the event a matter could not be prudently addressed publicly (i.e., on this page), by composing an email to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org; only the clerk team and individual arbitrators have access to emails sent to that list.

A procedural reference for clerks (and arbitrators) is located here.

Clerks and trainees, please coordinate your actions through this section, so that we don't have multiple clerks working on the same cases at the same time. An IRC channel, #wikipedia-en-arbcom-clerks, and a mailing list, Clerks-l, are also available for private co-ordination and communication, although the mailing list is fairly low traffic.

Pending Requests

None, currently.

Open Cases

All work relating to Arbitration cases already opened

Members

These editors are the elected members of the Arbitration Committee (known as arbitrators). Votes of the committee are taken among the active members. Members are marked active or inactive so that the majority for new votes can be calculated. Members on wikibreak, not participating in arbitration within the past week, or indicating they will be absent are marked inactive.

Members moving back to active may remain inactive on some or all existing business. If you wish to know whether an arbitrator is active on a particular matter, please ask on their talk page (or check the proposed decision talk page, for cases). The list below is used to determine whether each arbitrator is active by default. Arbitrators who go on to participate in a vote will be counted as active for it even if they are listed as inactive below.

The following list is accurate as of 13 January 2025:

Active

1. Aoidh (talk · contribs)
2. Cabayi (talk · contribs)
3. CaptainEek (talk · contribs)
4. Daniel (talk · contribs)
5. Elli (talk · contribs)
6. HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs)
7. KrakatoaKatie (talk · contribs)
8. Primefac (talk · contribs)
9. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs)
10. Sdrqaz (talk · contribs)
11. Theleekycauldron (talk · contribs)
12. ToBeFree (talk · contribs)
13. Worm That Turned (talk · contribs)
14. Z1720 (talk · contribs)

Inactive

1. Liz (talk · contribs)

Outgoing arbitrators (eligible to remain on cases opened before 31 December 2024)

1. Guerillero (talk · contribs)
2. Moneytrees (talk · contribs)

Arbitrator announcements

Arbitrators, please note if you wish to declare yourself active or away/inactive, either generally or for specific cases. The clerks will update the relevant cases as needed. If you are returning, please indicate whether you wish to be: 1) Put back to active on all cases; 2) Left on inactive on all open cases, and only put to active on new cases; or 3) Left to set yourself to active on cases you wish (remember to update the majority on its /Proposed decision page).

Long term projects

• Merge some content of WP:AC/C/P into the arbitrators' procedures guide, per Kirill. AGK 20:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Archives

1 (to 26 January, 2006) 2 (to 28 January, 2006) 3 (archive of a discussion started on January 29, 2006 at the incidents noticeboard) 4 (to 28 January, 2006) 5 (to May 2009) 6 (noticeboard merged→present)

Adding parties?

What are the rules about adding parties to already filed and voted on requests? Hipocrite (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I presume you refer to an open RFAR. If the editor clearly ought to be listed as a party, it is usually fine to add him or her yourself. If you think the addition may be disputed, start a new section within the Arbitration request thread and propose that the user be listed. It is better to do this as soon as you are able, because once the case is opened the list of parties cannot be amended except by motion, and so editors cannot be added to the case unless they voluntarily do so or another editor formally proposes so. As a rule of thumb, approach the listing of a new party with common sense, and seek the arbitrators' opinions if you're unsure; and if you're wrong, the Committee will have a clerk revert you :). Please note that as this aspect of procedure is not codified anywhere (though as it probably should be, I've noted it at #Long term projects), this constitutes advice from me in an individual capacity; others may beg to differ. AGK 14:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Could a clerk please take a look at this statement

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Comment by TheGoodLocust – I do not feel that point three is an appropriate statement for anyone to make, and I would appreciate it if a Clerk could help out here. NW (Talk) 18:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate comment removed Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Edits to RfAr request by Captain Occam

Captain Occam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edited Rvcx's RfAr request on the case page five times to add and remove parties. He has informed the parties he has added about the case. I don't know whether this was done by prior arrangement off-wiki with Rvcx. Here are the diffs. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I've discussed briefly with a fellow clerk, and unless another clerk or an Arbitrator thinks otherwise, I think we can leave these changes as is for now. My rationale on the diffs are as follows:

• link 1 adds three parties to remove one of them in links 3 and 4 (which are identical diffs):

• User:Ncmvocalist (added then removed) has commented (noting as uninvolved);
• User:Varoon Arya has commented as a result of notification;
• User:Victor Chmara has not commented.

• link 2 adds the link to the mediation case: that seems appropriate;
• link 5 adds the notifications of the parties in link 1: two of the three parties have since commented.

If you or any of the parties object to them being added, please let me know, and I will act accordingly. Regards --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator Steve Smith - Active on Race and Intelligence case?

Hi, just a quick question... I noticed that Arbitrator Steve Smith is listed as presently Inactive, yet he voted in favour of accepting the Race and Intelligence case. Does this make him Active for the purposes of this particular case, and if so, won't the size of the majority required for motions and the decision have changed? I just thought you might need to update the PD page and its talk page. EdChem (talk) 12:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

My fault, I missed that. I'll correct in a few minutes. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

typo in (what I assume) is a subst:ed template

I corrected this typo on the R&I evidence page, but I assume that header is transcluded from some clerking template. If someone has a spare moment, and knows where that template is, well... . And you thought you had better things to do with your time. --Ludwigs2 19:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done Fixed by Amory --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 09:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Clarification requested

The special instructions in the climate change arbitration case includes the clause "Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum." For the purposes of the case, does the phrase uninvolved administrator include administrators like BozMo or myself who have been participating in WP:GS/CC/RE without incident? NW (Talk) 07:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

How do I request a Temporary Injunction to remove a user ban for a case?

Is this correct, or is there another faster method? Thanks Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Attempt to delete my evidence draft

A speedy keep from a clerk or arb and admonishment towards the nominator, who should know better than to try to delete evidence drafts is requested at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hipocrite/GWCC. Hipocrite (talk) 12:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Time to Archive?

– It's been quite a few more than 48 hours, and the motion still has not been archived. NW (Talk) 22:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

This was done 48 hours after this post by Amorymeltzer. NW (Talk) 02:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration clerk

The Arbitration clerks would like to welcome User:NuclearWarfare to the clerk team as a trainee! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 06:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see User_talk:Gimmetoo#NuclearWarfare and Misplaced Pages:ANI#NuclearWarfare.27s_involvement. I am objecting to NW clerking. Gimmetoo (talk) 11:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It was certainly appropriate to treat Gimmetoo's claim of being Gimmetrow with a healthy level of suspicion; impersonation of administrators is not uncommon, and it is quite feasible that someone may have wanted to harm Gimmetrow's reputation by getting involved in a heated conflict while pretending to be him. Whether this suspicion needed to be handled with an immediate block, or whether the appropriate investigations could have been carried out while the Gimmetoo account continued to edit, is a question to which different answers might be argued; but, even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the block was not a correct response, the Committee is not so fickle as to judge someone on the basis of a mistake made in a good faith attempt to protect the project. NuclearWarfare retains the Committee's confidence, and will continue in his current role. Kirill  14:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

(Clerks, as there appear to be multiple venues for this discussion, please feel free to cross-post my comment above to any other venue where NW's role is being discussed.) Kirill  14:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Extra-long statement

In the current case request: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Blablaaa, Blablaaa has just doubled his statement to well over 1000 words now in blatant violation of the 500 word limit. Would a non-recused clerk please notify him of this and if necessary trim the statement accordingly. It is not fair for the rest of us to comply with the word limits while the subject of the request flaunts them. Thanks, -MBK₀₀₄ 10:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I've left a note on the user's talkpage. Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 10:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Blablaaa has reduced the statement to just over 500 words by my count (excluding signatures). Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 11:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, note that the word limit is not a set in stone policy that must be enforced to the letter. And seeing as Blablaaa is the subject of the RfAr, we have often given a great amount of leeway to such users. The way I look at it is, if the content is relevant and on-topic then I tend not to care as much. Remember the rule was made as a way to prevent too much off-topic (tl;dr) content and to limit the amount of evidence "not-so-involved" users present. Tiptoety 04:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Offering of my services

I am posting here to let all ArbCom clerks know that I am here and interested in pitching in on any tasks that I can. If there is something I can help with, please do not hesitate to contact me. For the record, feel free to place me on the list of editors interested in becoming a clerk trainee. Tyrol5 18:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Update: Please do put me on the list of users interested in becoming a trainee (previous wording left some ambiguity). Thanks, Tyrol5 00:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the topic ban of Mathsci did not actually pass

Hello, I just noticed that the vote tally for Mathsci's topic ban (number 6 under the Remedies section) only got 5 of the requisite 6 votes. Under the motion to close, however, it is listed as passing. Maybe I misunderstand something, (I am a newbie) but it looks as though it should be listed under "failed." Thank you, Lo, i am real 19:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my mistake. I have updated the implementation notes. NW (Talk) 19:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm voting on the case this afternoon. I don't think my votes will change any outcomes, but you can double-check me on that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Pssst - NW, you were right the first time. Mathsci's topic ban garnered one abstain, so 5 was the required number of supports ;-) Shell 19:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Erlag, I'm all flustered now! :) NW (Talk) 19:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Everything should be clear now. Thanks as always for your help. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Could someone close the speed of light clarification?

The vote is 7:0 in favor of topic banning user:Brews ohare for a year, and it would be nice to have that ban kick in sooner than later. Talk pages are exploding all over Misplaced Pages. 142.167.48.232 (talk) 20:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision

In the absence of the assigned clerk, and because it is quicker to do than to ask other Arb Clerks, I have semi protected the above Proposed decision page. I have sprotected indefinitely, but as I am an involved party I suggest that someone "take over" the responsibility of the protection and the appropriate duration. I have also RevDel one of the vandal edits, but since this is more difficult to assign to another editor I shall desist. I am copying this to all drafting ArbCom members, and the Clerks talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. Risker has protected over you to confirm the legitimacy of your action, in light of you being a party to the case, so this is all settled. Regards, AGK 22:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible influx of POV editing by Israeli settlers

The arbitration case Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying urged editors to forward information about similar instances. There is a thread at WP:AN/I#Possibly influx of POV editing by Israeli settlers about a very similar case. I think that the committee should be notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Could a clerk acknowledge that this has been brought to the attention of ArbCom, or if this is the wrong venue, please advise. The thread at ANI has been archived, can be found at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive633#Possibly influx of POV editing by Israeli settlers. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom is aware of the issue. Hopefully the community keeping a watchful eye can head off many issues like these and if necessary, the discretionary sanctions active in the area can be used to resolve any behavioral problems. If this looks like it's going to be an issue of sockpuppets or other similar issues, perhaps giving the checkusers a heads up would be helpful, or at least mentioning the issue if a case comes up. Shell 22:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I was hoping for a response from a clerk. I am sorry but am IP with only two contributions can't really answer my question. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - long story short, I'm having problems getting logged out from moment to moment on this computer all of the sudden. Shell 22:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, OK - thanks Shell. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Clerking on Climate Change Arbitration Pages

There appears to be a growing concern among some of the participants in the Climate Change case that NW is both aligned with and a supporter of one of the major factions identified in that case. As such it would probably be best for NW to recuse from any further clerking and/or editing of those pages since there are already 2 named clerks assigned to the case. Please consider discussing this point with him. If he has concerns about those pages let him bring it to the attention of the assigned clerks. Could one of the assigned clerks also take over administration of the protection he has set on the main case page merely as a safeguard against future concerns of impropriety (i.e. similar to Risker's actions here)? Thanks. --209.204.73.159 (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, the clerks act as a team and although there are two clerks associated with the case, it is regular practice for other clerks to work on and assist on cases, particularly since we all have real lives and peoples availability throughout a case varies and cannot be predicted. The two clerks act as the main point of contact and oversee the whole case but are not solely responsible for a case. A case can occur across a wide number of pages and the more eyes the clerks have to ensure that things are moving forward smoothly the better. There is no need for administration to be passed to anyone in this instance as Nuclearwarfare is not an involved party. I have reviewed his actions and I am happy with how he has conducted himself as a clerk and see no need for him to recuse from the CC case and associated pages. Seddon | 17:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, it is hard to take your comments seriously when you choose to edit via an IP to hide your identity username. Tiptoety 17:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

And you expect us to take your comments seriously? This is the 💕 that anyone can edit - not the 💕 that only people you know can edit or else they are "hiding their identity". Until anonymous contributions are no longer welcome, your words are out of place. Additionally, if you have nothing to say about the issue raised then you might consider just shutting up, rather than jumping to attack the person raising the issue. Weakopedia (talk) 07:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I also have a problem with what is quite likely an established editor possibly involved in the case using an IP address to argue that someone should be recused. Dougweller (talk) 08:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with Seddon and Tiptoety, with the slight amendment that athough the clerks do act as a team, recused clerks are considered to be "not part of the team" in respect of the case they have recused from. Having said that, I don't see any evidence to support a claim that NW is not impartial with regards to the climate change topic area or any of its participants. AGK 18:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Well as I tried to warn you earlier, things are continuing to escalate regarding accusations of involvement on the part of NW. See , , , .

While your show of support for NW above is admirable it completely misses the point. The issue is not whether NW actually has or has not done anything improper. That is totally irrelevant to the issue of recusal from a case. Arbitrators recuse all the time and it is never seen as some admission of guilt nor as some scarlet letter on their record. The issue is always about the integrity of the case and avoiding any and all hints of impropriety. So unless there is some significant reason that NW simply has to be a clerk on this case he should recuse and any administrative actions he has performed should be take over by another impartial (as viewed by the participants in the case) clerk.

It is clear that NW has been acting both as an administrator in the CC area (and some claim as an editor there as well) and as such he should not also be acting as an impartial clerk here on the case. He should recuse. And now that the issue has been raised a refusal to recuse will be justifiably viewed with suspicion. --209.204.65.148 (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Since this was brought up on the talk page of the proposed decision as well, I've commented. In short, not going to happen. Shell 08:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll echo Shell here: "No." — Coren  14:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

In my statement here. Could someone clean it out? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to say sorry I didn't notice this earlier. I've removed the other editors' comments, left all of yours. Now to see where to put the removed edits (if anywhere). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 15:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Mm goi. Yeah, I wish I'd seen it earlier, myself. By the time I noticed, it was already at the current length. If only we'd caught it after the first comment, it'd have been less confusing. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Help needed

We need all clerks to watch Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision and re-establish decorum when things start to get out of hand. Goog faith users including the F-bomb in edit summaries is a sign that the discussion may need to be suspended, or certain participants need to be told to stop their unseemly grave dancing. Thank you. Jehochman 13:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hi I'd like to volunteer to be a Traineee-Clerk for the ArbCom if anyone will accept me. Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 12:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Your request is currently being reviewed internally on the clerks mailing list. We will let you know what the outcome is within a few days. Thank you for volunteering to help. Cheers, Tiptoety 06:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Righto, thanks Tiptoety! Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 11:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Fridae'sDoom, after a discussion on the clerks mailing list we have come to a consensus that we would like to see you gain some more experience in the area of dispute resolution, and other similar areas before we would feel comfortable offering you the position of ArbClerk. Please understand that we are not saying "no, never", but more of "please try again later." Let me know if you have any questions, Tiptoety 22:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok then, will do. Thanks, Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 08:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Climate change recusals, etc

I note that three arbitrators signaled their recusal from the climate change case. Looking at the Arbitration Committee page I see we have 10 arbitrators listed as active, one of whom (SirFozzie) is among the three who recused. The other two recused arbitrators are listed as inactive.

Also I see that Shell Kinney very recently went inactive so she isn't among the 10. But the proposed decision page says it only has 8 active arbitrators. By my count (take the 10 active and subtract SirFozzie) there should be 9, and possibly up to 11 should both Rlevse and Shell, who have already been very active, return before the case closes.

Could somebody take a look and see if the counts and votes need to be adjusted? I only wanted to see who had not yet voted, but it's too confusing for me to tell. Tasty monster (=TS ) 05:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The list is correct. Shell should have been listed as active on the Arbitration Committee page and I've rectified that. We have two arbitrators who are active generally but not on this case as they were inactive during crucial parts of the case and felt that they should stay inactive on the case even though they are active for new cases. An arbitrator coming back from a break and becoming active only on new cases isn't unusual. Dougweller (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Offering to help

Posting to inform the Clerks that I am available to assist if needed. Please, do not hesitate to contact me at any time. Ronk01 talk 07:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Your request is currently being reviewed internally on the clerks mailing list. We will let you know what the outcome is within a few days. Thank you for volunteering to help. Cheers, Tiptoety 23:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in becoming an Arbitration Clerk. After discussion on the clerks' mailing list the consensus is that we would like to see you gain some more experience, particularly in the area of dispute resolution, of which Arbitration is the final stage, as well in as other similar areas before accepting you as a trainee. Your name will be kept on a list of users interested in becoming Arbitration Clerks and your candidacy will be considered again in the future. In the meantime, there is a list of areas where you can help out (which also includes things that should only be done by clerks themselves). Your help in these areas would be useful. If you have any specific questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Autocollapsing expired remedies

Just wondering, what's the market for a template that autocollapses remedies when they expire? I have a sandbox version at User:Timotheus Canens/Sandbox3 if anyone is interested. See User talk:Timotheus Canens/Sandbox3 for examples. T. Canens (talk) 05:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks interesting, but I'm a bit confused on how it would work in practice. Could you show how this would work in a sandbox version of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan? NW (Talk) 20:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

When you close the case, you wrap remedies that could expire in the template and specify an expiry time (relative time is fine, but if you are doing it afterwards, you need to specify an absolute time or the relative time from the time you added the template). I have some more examples at User:Timotheus Canens/Sandbox4 using the case you suggested. T. Canens (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Clerk assistance requested

Hi folks - Could one of you please post a copy of this section from WP:AC/N to the appropriate other noticeboards? I'm thinking WT:AC, WP:AN, probably a village pump or two. If you have a standard list of places to post, that would be very helpful. Thanks. Risker (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I shall post it to WT:AC, WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:VPM, WT:SPI, and WP:VPP. There are a number of other pages that it could be posted to WT:OVERSIGHT, WT:CHECKUSER, and WT:SOCK, but I think this should suffice? NW (Talk) 20:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, all of those are a good idea, thanks NuclearWarfare. Risker (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Stevertigo 2

Statement of uninvolved 67.119.2.101

Arbcom should accept, for reasons given by Casliber, and also per Newyorkbrad's observation that an ANI ban would be appealed here anyway. Georgewilliamherbert's remarks in the ANI thread's uninvolved admin section are also cogent. ANI is not doing a good job handling this so far. Its timescale is too compressed, and it has too little formal structure, for the type of evidence-gathering and presentation needed to get a trustworthy outcome in a dispute like this. The criticism of Stevertigo is coming mostly from those who had past disputes with him or are having them now, and Steve Quinn in my opinion is (in good faith) being a little too aggressive in shaping the discussion. And for whatever reasons, Stevertigo is doing an utterly inept job of defending himself. So there is something of a pile-on by ANI onlookers looking mostly at the arguments of the critics, resulting in an unusually bloodthirsty crowd (compare this to threads about various far more disruptive editors than Stevertigo, who are at ANI repeatedly but have enough supporters to still be left running around loose). I've tried investigating Stevertigo's editing and the past DR a little more neutrally, but that kind of thing is quite time-consuming, so the slower pace of an arb case evidence page is much better suited for such examination.

The most convincing argument for a long-term site ban is Slrubenstein's:

... But if we let him go this time, in a few onths he will settle on some other article - maybe he will come up with his own theory about the etymology for Yom Kippur. Now, how many of you have this article on your watchlist? How many of you will notice it? Probably me and just a few others. And we will bring it up at AN/I and a different group of admins will read over the account of the conflict and say "Well, this seems mild, let's give him another chance." Folks, we have a policy against disruptive editors. Let's use it here.

We've all seen that happen before with other problematic editors. The advantage of arbitration is it allows compiling all the documentation of such repeated disruption into one place. Arbcom can then weigh the evidence and claims and enact appropriate remedies. This is much harder at ANI.

I confess to a sentiment that it's unseemly to boot someone who was around so early in Misplaced Pages's history through a comparatively sparse ANI thread. There aren't that many of those editors still around (there weren't that many active in those days to begin with). I'd regret losing that much more of Misplaced Pages's cultural memory, so I think this case is worth a little more trouble than some others are. Stevertigo is under some arb restrictions from the Obama case and as far as I know hasn't run afoul of them (although that's by staying away from the affected articles, so the restrictions may have just moved his antics rather than cured them). He has edited 800+ distinct articles since the amended Obama restrictions in August 2009, and AFAIK the problem editing is in a relative handful of those.

I do believe Stevertigo's heart is with the project even if his editing practices are sometimes in cloud-cuckoo-land. I could never say that of various other editors who have somehow survived these processes and are still busily messing up the encyclopedia. Maybe Slrubenstein is right and Stevertigo really is hopeless, but absent a more formal assessment, I like to think it possible for Stevertigo to continue to participate at some level−through some combination of counselling from arbcom, mentorship from another editor (Maunus has volunteered), editing restrictions, probation, general purpose LART, or whatever.

67.119.2.101 (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)