< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 11:24, 18 January 2008 view sourceJim62sch (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers23,810 edits →Statement by Rracecarr: ====Statement by uninvolved Jim62sch← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 03:40, 31 January 2023 view source AmandaNP (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators45,707 edits What the actual fuckTags: Replaced Undo
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Wikimedia project page}}
	{{/Header}} <!-- frontmatter of this page -->
			<noinclude>{{pp-protected\|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>
			{{/Header}}
			{{/Case}}
			{{/Clarification and Amendment}}
			{{/Motions}}
			{{/Enforcement}}

			]

	]		]
	]

	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]

	== Current requests ==

	=== Ehud Lesar ===
	'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 07:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

	==== Involved parties ====
	*{{userlinks\|Grandmaster}} (initiating party)
	*{{userlinks\|Ehud Lesar}}
	*{{userlinks\|Fedayee}}
	*{{userlinks\|VartanM}}
	*{{userlinks\|Eupator}}
	*{{userlinks\|Khoikhoi}}
	*{{userlinks\|Nishkid64}}

	<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. If desired, wording such as "(initiating party)" may be added. Substitute "admin" for "userlinks" if a party is an administrator. -->

	; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
	<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->






	; Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried

	], ]

	==== Statement by ] ====

	I realize that arbitrators are really tired of endless disputes at Armenia – Azerbaijan related area, and that recently a request for another Armenia – Azerbaijan case has been rejected. I was the one who opposed the new case, and I believe that it was a right decision. However this case should not be treated as another Armenia – Azerbaijan case, involving every user who contributes to that topic. This is a case about the block of a particular user and circumstances surrounding it. So it should be considered outside of general A-A framework and cover only the users involved in this particular situation.

	This issue has started when ], ] and some others started a campaign of harassment of ], accusing him of being a sock of ], who was banned for 1 year by ]. They were making accusations without any reliable evidence confirming that the 2 users were somehow related. Checkuser showed no relation between Ehud and Adil:

	However this did not stop the aforementioned users from making accusations and baiting Ehud. Just some examples:







	Finally the sock allegations were discussed at ] and rejected with the statement: ''No confirmation of sockpuppetry''. At the same time Ehud was placed on 6 months rv parole like most of other users on the topic. Fedayee and his supporters were told to present their evidence for formal investigation to ]. However, this never happened. I can assume that instead they sought other ways. On 9 January 2008 the admin ], who was absent from Misplaced Pages for a few months (since October 2007, to be precise), suddenly turned up and banned Ehud. I can only presume that this admin was approached off wiki and given certain information about Ehud. Otherwise it is hard to explain why a user who was absent from[REDACTED] for months would turn up with the single purpose of banning one user. I might be wrong, but this looks very strange. Ehud asked to be unblocked, and his request for unblock was granted by ]. However Ehud was soon reblocked after the discussion at Lara’s page by ], despite ] refusing to support this block. Ehud contacted me soon after he was blocked and asked for help with this case, and I took the issue to ]. A lengthy discussion at ] gave no results. Ehud was willing to prove that he was a real person in real life and not a sock by various methods, including phone call, webcam chat, etc, but Nishkid64 and the group of users who supported him did not agree to any of his proposals. Nishkid64 asked for a scan of Ehud’s ID with all the info other than picture and name blacked out, but Ehud was reluctant to share any sensitive private info with admins who blocked him. He was willing to prove his identity by any means that would not violate his privacy, or share it with one of the top bureaucrats of wikipedia, who would guarantee his privacy. But even this sort of identification was not considered a sufficient prove by his accusers, who insisted that this user should remain blocked despite the lack of any prove that he was a sock. So we have a very strange situation when a user was blocked after allegations about him were rejected at ] by an admin, who was away from wiki for many months, then unblocked and reblocked again. Clearly there was no consensus in the wiki community that this user was a sock, and there was no evidence to support the allegations of sockpuppetry, as cu returned negative results. While it’s never been proven that Ehud was a sock, Nishkid64 demands that Ehud needs to prove that he is not sock. I don’t understand what happened to presumption of innocence and “innocent until proven guilty” principle. The only basis for Ehud’s block was ] of frivolous evidence complied by Fedayee, and which I addressed ]. It was also addressed in much detail at ] thread, but did not result in any change of the attitude of the blocking admins. It is very strange that no attempt at any investigation has ever been made and there were no attempts at seeking consensus at ] or any other board before making such a block. So I would like to ask the arbitration committee to review all the circumstances surrounding this block, and take measures for verification of identity of Ehud, who is willing to cooperate. Also, it might be in the interest of the entire wiki community to establish some sort of a procedure for users who were blocked as result of sockpuppetry allegations to contest their block and prove their real life identity without violation of their privacy. I made inquires with many people, but it seems that no one is aware of any established procedure for such situations. Thank you very much.

	==== Statement by ] ====
	A few points of clarification for now:
	*The issue over identity confirmation was first brought up by Ehud Lesar in an e-mail he sent to me shortly after I re-blocked his account. Since I contested that he was indeed Adil Baguirov, a real-life Azeri energy lobbyist, I figured that an identity confirmation would prove his innocence.
	*Grandmaster and Ehud Lesar proposed some methods of confirming Ehud's identity. These methods could easily be faked, so I asked for other ideas. I was then asked what I thought would provide definitive confirmation. I suggested scanning his passport with the sensitive details blanked. It was only a suggestion, and I said Ehud was free to refuse to participate in such an action. On Google Talk, Ehud stated that he would not provide such identity, but after some convincing, I informed him (LaraLove had previously mentioned this) that he could contact Cary Bass or someone else through ].
	*No admin "rejected" the allegations at ]. Most of the discussion on hand took place before Fedayee created his user subpage filled with Ehud-AdilBaguirov evidence. Picaroon made a comment, stating he was a bit confused about the deal over Geycha (see the evidence for clarification). Jayvdb did not comment on the merits of the case, but it appears he did read it, as he asked for some point of clarification and said he would look into the matter on ]. Thatcher closed the AE discussion as "no confirmation of sockpuppetry", but he did place Ehud on revert parole. Judging from the timestamps of Thatcher's edits, I do not think he read the evidence, but I have no messaged Thatcher and asked him whether or not he actually got a chance to look over the material.
	*In the latter half of the discussion, it appears that Grandmaster and Atabek have now hinted that Ehud Lesar's real name is not "Ehud Lesar", as he had claimed many times before on-wiki and through e-mail.

	I will expand my statement later tomorrow. Thanks.

	==== Clerk notes ====
	:Given Ehud Lesar is currently blocked indefinitely, should he/she choose to make a statement at this stage, I (or another clerk) can copy it from his user talk page (which he can still edit) to here. Should this case be accepted, Ehud Lesar may be unblocked to take part, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee or community consensus. Thanks, ] (]) 07:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

	==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0) ====

	----

	=== SPOV and civility in fringe articles ===
	'''Initiated by ''' ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> '''at''' 05:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

	==== Involved parties ====
	*{{admin\|JzG}}
	*{{userlinks\|ScienceApologist}}
	*{{userlinks\|Antelan}}
	*{{userlinks\|Kww}}
	*{{userlinks\|Anthon01}}
	*{{admin\|Dreadstar}}
	*{{userlinks\|Zenwhat}}
	*{{userlinks\|Martinphi}}
	*{{admin\|jossi}}
	*{{userlinks\|Littleolive oil}}
	*{{userlinks\|Fyslee}}
	*{{userlinks\|SlimVirgin}}
	*{{userlinks\|Professor marginalia}}
	*{{userlinks\|Nealparr}}
	*{{userlinks\|Rracecarr}}
	*{{userlinks\|Benjaminbruheim}}


	<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. If desired, wording such as "(initiating party)" may be added. Substitute "admin" for "userlinks" if a party is an administrator. -->

	; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
	<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->

	Done. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 05:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

	; Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried
	<!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration -->




	And many many more.

	==== Statement by ] ====

	We would like the ArbCom to consider the actions of a group of editors who say they have been trying to write articles from the Scientific POV rather than from NPOV. They even wish to invoke ] to use original research to debunk pseudoscientific, religious, and paranormal claims. They want to give more ] to mainstream science ''within an article on a fringe subject'' than to the subject itself. They are also extremely rude (I tried to work this one out but... ), and have poisoned the atmosphere in fringe areas of Misplaced Pages .

	<blockquote>(well it's all garbage, but that's another point...;-) in this discussion, it is a "pseudoscientific statement" made in the movie. When dealing with anything related to science on any subject at Misplaced Pages, whether it be a movie, a biography, an article on alternative medicine or quackery, etc., scientific sources are perfectly appropriate for dealing with the scientific matter at hand, and WEIGHT would so dictate. If someone in an article about themselves here is quoted as making an obviously unscientific statement, it would be appropriate to quote a mainstream scientific source to prevent readers from being misled by the Misplaced Pages article. That's not OR, it's common sense. If it weren't common sense, IOW used to help fringe ideas violate WEIGHT, it would be another matter. If necessary, just invoke ]. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 19:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC) </blockquote>

	In pursuit of this goal (and the larger goal to simply disparage), they have created large and ongoing disruptions of many articles, such as ], ], and others. They have also been extremely contemptuous of the "kooks," cranks, and "true believers" (etc.) who disagree with their positions in any way, or believe in the "balderdash" and "bullshit" of anything fringe, thus poisoning the wiki atmosphere. Some even believe non-SPOV users should be disenfranchised ().

	The goal of this group is always to tear down any chance that a fringe subject may naturally have to seem worthy .

	Imagine the reverse case: if the SPOV group were less numerous, and other editors continually referred to them (never, of course, mentioning names), as kooks, and their beliefs by words such as garbage, twaddle and insanity . And these are just a sample: there is a continual drizzle of such oblique (and sometimes personal) disparagment which comes down on the heads of anyone who displeases the SPOV editors.

	If you think we are merely a bunch of fringe POV pushers, perhaps you'll take pleasure in seconding this response:

	<blockquote>Yada yada yada. Nothing new to add to the usual special pleading then? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC) </blockquote>

	——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 05:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by Antelan ====
	Since there is a normal process by which civility issues are dealt with, I would imagine that going through that process before coming here (if ultimately necessary) would be preferable to starting here. <font color="red">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">]</font></sup> 05:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by Benjaminbruheim ====
	I can feel the pain, but I think this is rather the symptom rather than the problem. But the introduction of the problematic words "mainstream science" and "pseudoscience" has introduced a system where certain journals are regarded as "unreliable sources" and all the articles end up being the written from the mainstream science perspective. For non-obvious reasons this makes the content unfairly treated. For example a suspect that is notable within fringe science might be written from a perspective where there has been no serious inquiry. Thus we should allow a plurality of opinions where many mutually incompatible opinions are written, but where a subject is deemed highly unlikely by a respected field it should be mentioned. Opinions from scientists should be used with caution, unless their claims are easily verifiable.
	Additionally I feel some skeptical articles being used as sources can be regarded as fringe, compare the RS status of ] vs ]. Both are controversial sources yet CSICOP is regarded as a trusted source. At the same time the best info on fringe subjects are in the primary sources. There are the other patent non-sense fringe subjects, but then the science and other research do the job itself.
	This is a huge complex and could need a better forum of debate, but it is not only a single policy. I suggest ], since we need a more rigid method applying the wide variation of science that exists anyway.
	] (]) 05:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ]====
	Should arbcom undertake this case, I trust they will demand evidence for the extremely serious charge "they have '''organized large and ongoing disruptions''' of many articles." Should no evidence be found that the editing in question was deliberately organized and was intended merely to disrupt -- rather than to offer perspectives with which Martinphi happens to disagree -- arbcom may wish to consider sanctioning an editor who spuriously accuses others of such misconduct. ] (]) 05:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ]====
	I don't see any paper trail that shows a proper sequence of dispute resolution. This looks more like an abuse of the RfArb system to harass users with whom one disagrees. If I have offended Martin, then he can certainly come to my talk page and we can talk about it like adults. Using RfArb is tantamount to shooting sparrows with a canon, that's how disruptive the RfArb process is. It should be reserved when all else fails, and not for taking revenge. Considering the source of this request and his extremely controversial history here, I suggest extreme caution lest this forum becomes a soapbox for further promotion of fringe POV.

	Regarding the statement "...the Scientific POV rather than from NPOV." I don't believe that the scientific POV (SPOV) is always equal to NPOV, but that SPOV is often to be given WEIGHT in articles where the sources and subject matter so dictate. Scientific sources are much more likely to qualify as V & RS than fringe sources, which are often personal sites from various renegades, quacks, visionaries, and others who invariably possess "the truth", promote conspiracy theories and personal OR, encourage hatred against science and authorities, etc. Such sources often fail to qualify for obvious reasons. Unfortunately the promoters and protectors of fringe subjects often fail to realize this and object strongly when their sources are questioned or deleted because they simply fail to qualify, all according to policy here. They take the standard scientific "provide evidence for your claims" as an insult and incivility, when that happens to be standard practice among scientists and skeptics, and is also required here if we are to keep articles from becoming filled with unreliable sources. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 06:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

	====Statement by uninvolved Viridae ====

	Scietific point of view IS a neutral point of view, formed by consensus within the scientific community using a peer review system. (disclaimer - I am a scientist) ]] 05:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

	====Statement by FeloniousMonk====

	This is simply a content dispute, and one that appears to be driven by more by Martinphi's failure to understand ] ("''where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented ... articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views''") and the arbcom's former ruling on the topic in ] than by any other cause. ] (]) 06:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

	====Statement by Zenwhat====
	*This is a content dispute, but saying that by itself does not imply ArbCom is irrelevant if dispute-resolution is not possible.
	*It is a particularly contentious content dispute that has existed across several pages. Policy does not explicitly state that articles should express the mainstream "scientific POV," however, a number of policies seem to imply it.
	**From ], <nowiki> is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity."</nowiki>
	**Again, from ]: "Notability requires objective evidence."
	**] itself.
	**From ], "NPOV requires views to be represented without bias."

	*From what I understand, Jimbo himself has stated that the word, "NPOV," may be misleading, because it is meant as the reliable, objective view ''without'' bias, not a ] or 'neutral' middle-ground between ''competing'' biases.

	*What seems to be the issue is not the ''factual'' content of the articles, but the tone.
	**On the one hand, you have hard-nosed, atheistic skeptics (see ]), who would like every article on New Age-related issues to be tagged with ] and contain leads which explicitly state their rejection by the mainstream scientific community.
	**On the other hand, there are ''supporters'' of these fringe theories that wish to remove criticism entirely, even sourced criticism, and will simultaneously use unreliable sources while disputing clearly reliable ones.

	I have stated that there a number of NPOV issues that need to be dealt with, but neither side is particularly in the right.

	My suggestion is the following:
	#That ArbCom clarify ] and put forth a specific criterion for what constitutes a "pseudoscience," that editors can appeal to, in order to resolve disputes, or at least request that the community come up with such a definition. One possible source for such information may be ] (not to be used as a primary source of course, but through verifying the claims made there, by reliable sources).
	#That all criticism and apologetics for various pseudosciences be moved ''outside'' of article leads (such as in ]) and into specific sections, such as "Criticism" or "Scientific Reception," but that such articles fairly reflect the scientific consensus. There are some exceptions, of course, such as ].

	Now, on that last point, why do I make that distinction? The distinction is made because if a subject is frequently falsely ''presented'' as a science, such as ] or ] or ], then including criticism of pseudoscience in the lead makes sense. In the case of ] and ], 90% of the time its proponents put it forth as ], not ] ("beyond" + "physics"). As an ex-Pagan myself, I know that a brief walk through the book store yields the fact that books on Astrology are often in sections entitled, "New Age," or "Metaphysical studies," or "Occult." Furthermore, it's existed ''before'' modern science, making it inappropriate for criticism of pseudoscience to remain in the lead.

	Despite that, however, the actual information about criticism from scientists and skeptics should remain, according to the policy on ].

	Lastly, on the issue of civility, ]. Being caustic, cynical, sarcastic, and so on, is not by itself uncivil, though it may come across that way. This was noted a while back in my wikiquette alert regarding ]. Furthermore, in the discussion over ] (see the ]) it's important to note that, at one point, someone arguing against the skeptics violated ], making one-sided complaints about incivility somewhat spurious. <font size="4">]</font> <font face="impact"> ]</font> (]) 07:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

	====Statement by uninvolved Baegis====
	I don't think I will make many friends by saying this, but perhaps this case should be considered and heard. For far too long, fringe pov pushers have been allowed to harrass and otherwise destroy articles while perfectly good editors have been driven away from the project. I have only been here for about 6 months and have already seen this occur enough times that it worries me. What needs to be established is a clear policy for dealing with editors who constantly disrupt and fail to read policy, except to distort it in order to have it meet their own needs. When will we, as a community, rise up and finally say that we have had enough and will stop giving disruptive editors chance after chance after chance? Maybe now is the time. Maybe this is the place. ] (]) 06:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

	====Statement by ]====
	Current model of Misplaced Pages articles on topics with widespread popularity in culture, but which are either not supported by science, or are targets of rational skeptics:

	<pre>
	(Believers -> Misplaced Pages article <- Skeptics)
	\|
	(Cleanup Crew)
	</pre>

	Enough said. It's not coincidence that it looks like a ], and yes, both groups screw up the articles. For every pro push, there's a retaliatory push to slant it con. Each push is more excessive than the previous one. Even when an article is overall neutral, they'll fight over the lead, or a particular sentence, or even a word. And this is important: It's not about science vs. pseudoscience. In nearly all cases it is completely about believer vs. skeptic. The former wants the topic treated with credibility, and the latter wants the topic treated without credibility, whether science is involved or not. The ones I feel sorry for are the cleanup crew. They're always accused of being on the left or right of the top tier, when they're just trying to fix the damn article to look like an encyclopedia. It's a crazy, hostile work involvement. In any case, I'm on wikibreak, so I can be taken off the list of involved parties. --''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 08:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

	====Statement by Rracecarr====
	The diff Martin posted is my edit. Supposedly it is proof that I (we?) are "extremely rude". However I did not say or imply anything about any editors in the post. The best guess I can make is that referring to people who believe that dead people speak through radio static as "delusional crazies" is the rude part. I suppose Martin actually believes this, and so took it as a personal affront. I had no idea he believed it. I did not mean to offend. On the other hand, . ] (]) 07:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

	====Statement by uninvolved Jim62sch====
	So far as I can see, this is simply a content dispute, and the "evidence" is hardly compelling. ] 11:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

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

	==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0) ====
	*

	----

	=== The Television Episodes Edit Wars ===
	'''Initiated by ''' ] '''at''' 02:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

	==== Involved parties ====
	*{{userlinks\|TTN}}
	*{{userlinks\|Casliber}}
	*{{userlinks\|Geni}}
	*{{userlinks\|Sesshomaru}}
	*{{userlinks\|Collectonian}}
	*{{userlinks\|Roses2at}}
	*{{userlinks\|Sceptre}}
	*{{userlinks\|Eusebeus}}
	*{{userlinks\|Pixelface}}
	*{{userlinks\|Ned Scott}}
	*{{userlinks\|Tim Q. Wells}}
	*{{admin\|Black Kite}}

	; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request




	; Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried
	Please see ]

	There has been an extended and inconclusive discussion of the most recent edit warring at ]

	==== Statement by ] ====
	In ], this Committee found that<blockquote>The parties are urged to work collaboratively and constructively with the broader community and the editors committed to working on the articles in question to develop and implement a generally acceptable approach to resolving the underlying content dispute.</blockquote>Actually, however, the participants in this content dispute have choosen to settle the matter through massive edit warring -- for example, see the page histories of {{la\|A Mattress on Wheels}} and {{la\|The Man Who Killed Batman}}. A review of ] clearly indicates that these edit wars have affected a large number of articles, and have therefore become quite disruptive. For instance, ] re-redirected 8 articles in a single minute on 20:40, 13 January 2008 . Of course, the Arbitration Committee is not asked to resolve the underlying content dispute on its merits, or even to interpret the present state of community consensus regarding this issue. However, edit warring this severe presents clear user conduct issues that are amenable to resolution by the Arbitration Committee. ] 02:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
	:With regard to the statement by ], I have included all the users who I found to be involved in these edit wars as parties to the case, without attempting to ascertain their degree of involvement or relative fault. Should this case be accepted, users with only incidental involvement obviously would not have any findings or remedies issued against them. Moreover, because I have not scrutinized the page history of every involved article, there may be some users with significant involvement in the edit wars who I have neglected to include, and who would need to be added to this case. ] 02:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
	::I have added {{user\|Eusebeus}} and {{user\|Pixelface}} to this request. Both of these users are clearly involved in the edit warring over the redirection of a large number of articles -- for ], see , and for ] see . ] 04:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::Even after this request for arbitration was filed, ] continued unabated in his edit warring over the redirection of television episode articles -- see . ] 21:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
	::] engaged in even more edit warring over the redirection of articles recently -- see . ] 03:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	I was not involved in the ] in any way, shape, or form. I request an explanation as to why I have been included in this second RfA and evidence that I have been involved in "massive edit warring" regarding episode articles, as I only did a single revert in the two articles mentioned as per some discussion over in ANI. I did not repeat the revert and didn't even put the page in my watch list. So please provide evidence specific to me. ] (]) 02:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	I'd like to know myself ''how'' I've been involved in this get up. One revert, to me, does not count as "edit warring". If I'm listed here because I often side with TTN on occasions regarding ] and ], then I suggest that you, John254, remove me from this nonsense. Bear you ''any'' sufficient evidence in my part in this so-called "ploy"? ] <small>(] • ])</small> 03:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
	:I reiterate, see .] <small>(] • ])</small> 05:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	This is a case that needs to be examined more in more detail. The previous RfAr did nothing at all to stop the edit wars. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 03:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	My involvement in ''this particular standoff'' began a few hours ago when I noted the rollback of individual episodes of a famous British sitcom ]. Though (as anyone would guess looking through my contribs) I am an inclusionist, I have abided by results of AfD debates. However, I noted this one had not been discussed at TTN had merged content and removed redlinks without any formal process, so I reverted and recommended that this be taken up at ]. Another contributor BlackKite, whose views lie more with the TTN than mine I'd guess has conceded that these episodes are likely to have sources. Upon which I was reverted by TTN, , then ], and ] on one of the episodes

	The rationale used is that it is a redirect not a delete, yet the material on the episode pages is deleted ''(and no attempt was made to move any material over to the parent page)''. AfD is about debating whether a ''particular article'' should exist as such on[REDACTED] and whether there is a link to a larger article or not is irrelevant. I am concerned that what is happening is ] to bypass AfD and avoid analysis over removal of material. It is certainly inconsistent with recent policy on AfD. Even ] suggests some sort of time frame rather than minutes. If ] and other such material gets a few days then why the need to remove instantly?

	All I asked for was that the material be discussed at AfD to obtain a broader consensus.

	I note TTN has voiced ] at the last hearing, however I have not seen that happening today.

	I note in ], there has been criticism over the speed it came after ].

	I should point out there have been other editors involved in several other debates over the past few months with different TV series, so that restricting this debate to these two series and these participants may not be helpful in the long run - in agrement with Sceptre above. cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 03:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

	I agree with Crotalus that part of the issue is where we draw the line at notability and essentially how much detail/depth[REDACTED] should go into. The great pity is that large swathes of material is deleted after there has only been a cursory, if any, look for independent sources. Sadly, much is not directly accessible online and requires actually having written material. In this way I feel WP can raise the standard of much pop. culture material that is circulated. Many editors are young who have never seen a university library and the wealth of material therein.

	Finally, I should add that the above is complicated by the fact that TTN is showing behaviour consistent with being a ] with the ] of removing as much TV-related material as possible, and has become fixated upon it, whether rightly or wrongly. From the issues at AN/I and frequency of conflict I see an inability to interact constructively with others who do not share his (her?) point of view. If we are to presume this zeal is from a dedication to the project, I do not see anything in the way of contributing to the encyclopedia (though there was a little to start off with in 2006) and I find it hard to believe the motive is positive (i.e. benefit to Misplaced Pages) rather than from a negative reason (i.e. some form of massive vandalism). However, I am happy to wait for Arbcom and work collaboratively with all concerned in the future. cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 01:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

	====Statement by ]====
	Sesshomaru states above that he should not be a party to this case because he only did one revert, but what he actually did was one revert ''on each article'', and all he was doing was reverting what the last editor did, in its entirety, in reverse order (there are no articles in that run that were ''not'' reverted to the version by TTN). There is no way that Sesshomaru was checking what he was doing. He was just going down the list and undoing each and every edit without discussion, with an edit summary of "". <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 04:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

	====Statement by ]====

	I wish I could say I'm surprised this has come up in arbitration again, but I'm not. Not at all.

	I've already expressed my opinion on this matter ], but to quickly summarize is '''way''' too fast and too numerous to be considered acceptable. I also think Kirill summed it up best when he proposed the ] in the last RFArb.

	What we have here is a new kind of edit war, with one side attempting to overpower the other by virtue of the sheer volume of edits and little else. I had hoped the tactic would die off in the wake of the previous RFArb, but it appears that is not the case; almost all the "chief offenders" have gone back to their old ways. TTN holds a new record, having been a significant component in (if not the focus of) numerous ] threads for the past 12 days straight, and a number of other editors on ''both'' sides are working on similar "accomplishments" as well. There is no way in hell this is going to stop on its own. Barring some ''Jimbo Ex Machina'' I predict that RFArb is going to be treated to a regular posting of requests to resolve this dispute.

	If the Arbitration Committee does accept this case (again) let me say this: a final decision with no consequences for anybody, or at least no clear-cut determination of (to be blunt) who's ], isn't going to solve anything. The community needs a clear, unmistakable determination of what behavior is acceptable and what isn't for this dispute to even slow down, much less stop. -- ] ('''<sub><font color="blue">]</font></sub> <small><font color="red">]</font></small> <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup>''') 05:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

	====Statement by ]====
	The two sides are both claiming they're in the right, and are incessantly edit-warring over and over and over again. No one person violates 3 Reverts, but there's a heck of a lot of ] going on. This likely will not stop until made to stop, so on that terms, I urge the Arbitration Committee to accept this case.

	However, I note with dismay that one side scrupulously notes the policies that un-referenced episodes of dubious quality violate, and the other side seems to point that because more of the same has existed, that by god, they should IAR, because it's UNFAIR to delete an unreferenced, questionably notable episode on "trivial pop culture show A", if there's an unreferenced, questionably notable episode on "trivial pop culture show B". I have even seen someone claim that because there's been an article on ] for four and a half years, that there is no way it could violate policy on notability, verifiability and other encyclopedic rules. .

	If it wasn't for the fact that it would be POINTy, I would redirect this myself (and I've not been involved in any of this until the most recent flare up on ANI). It is unduly long, has one reference to notability (that it was used in a humor study of the brain), and is filled to the brim with unencyclopedic, useless trivia. It is a wonderful article, for a Simpsons-pedia. For an EN-Cyclopedia, it is the equivalent of using a nuclear bomb to swat a rogue electron. Overkill. ArbCom does not make policy, it just reigns in those who violate policy. And there's a lot of that going on that needs to be reigned in. ] (]) 05:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

	<s>::Er, no, SirFozzie, as I said above, I suggested the ones I was involved with go through AfD to gain a wider consensus.cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 06:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)</s>

	::(please move your comment to your own statement, ArbStatements are not supposed to be threaded conversations, but I will reply). Consensus is wonderful. Consensus is great. I've been accused of even being a consensus wonk at times. Consensus makes the world go round. However, Consensus can not say "X is Right!" when Policy says "X is wrong!" Consensus cannot make up for a fundamental lack of proof of Notability, of Reliable Sources, and Verifiability. As I said, some of the articles are wonderfully detailed. They should be moved to another -pedia that deals with the shows in question (or even a TV-pedia). However, according to the policies about what an article should be, they fail on just about every tick there is. They're like ], eternally growing.. but it never goes anywhere. ] (]) 06:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

	:::I would like to just applaud the ] project. The article I mentioned above was brought up there, and they went, and trimmed it, and fixed the issues that there were with the article. Which just shows that the policies are a good thing, and instead of having constant wars about them and atttempts to change or ignore existing policy, I'm not trying to be dismissive, but this is a case of SOFIXIT. ] (]) 14:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

	====Statement by ]====
	Instead of a whole new case, I urge arbcom to just look at some of the proposed stuff from the last case, and re-evaluate that. However, even that might not be necessary, since those fighting with reverting are asking for a block. (I say this to both sides of the dispute). It no longer matters who's right or wrong. I know how TTN and others feel, and I know how frustrating it is, but we have to do something that tells others that we honestly are trying to help others understand, and not just doing things with force. -- ] 08:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

	I was not involved in this specific set of articles, but as someone who said they'd watch for these situations to help avoid them, I'd like to be added as a party. Although, again, I urge arbcom to just add something onto the past case, instead of a whole new case. -- ] 01:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

	====Statement by ]====

	We are talking not just about enforcing consensus here, we are talking about enforcing fundamental policy. Episode articles that consist only of plot renarration (note: plot "summary" would be a euphemism in most cases) infringe on copyrights. Plot summaries must be subordinate to encyclopedic analysis. Where that is not the case, they must be ruthlessly removed just like unjustified non-free images. Same legal situation, same policy. I've personally given block warnings to people who reinstate them. If that makes me a party to this case, so be it. ] ] 09:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

	====Statement by ]====
	I disagree with ] analysis. There is no evidence that any of these plot summaries in any way violate copyright. A complete (or nearly complete) ''transcript'' would probably do so, but these don't come close to that. Furthermore, most episode articles do not consist only of plot summaries; they often contain lists of trivia (which are unencyclopedic, but ''do'' improve the case for fair use) or other commentary. Even if an episode article did consist entirely of a plot summary, it would have to be taken in the context of Misplaced Pages as a whole, where it is a tiny fraction of the material, most of which is GFDL. Please remember to ]. No one has cited a single case where any website has ever been sent a takedown notice over plot summaries. Furthermore, no one at the Foundation has ever raised any issue with the lengthy, in-universe discussion on Wikimedia sites such as Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia (nor should they).

	Framing this as a copyright issue is inaccurate and unhelpful. Rather, this is a disagreement about what kind of encyclopedia Misplaced Pages should be, and what the threshold of inclusion should be for trivia. I do not think that trivia and in-universe plot summaries have any place in a mainstream encyclopedia, but I ''do'' think that they need and deserve their own site. I have, on several occasions, proposed a project fork to handle such materials. I think this will prove to be the only viable long-term solution. ] 11:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

	====Statement by ]====
	'''Short version'''<br>
	I'm really not surprised the issue of television episode articles is again before the committee, but I do not believe I have been involved in any edit wars over television episodes articles. On January 13, 2008 I removed redirects from 96 '']'' episode articles and then discovered an had been initiated against me. It should be noted that ] did '''not''' leave a message on my talk page asking me to stop before he initiated that ANI thread. Four minutes after initiating that ANI thread and after I had removed 96 redirects, on January 13, 2008 at 22:22 (UTC), ] left a {{tl\|ANI-notice}} on my talk page and informed me there was currently a discussion at ] involving me. ] said "Pixelface is reverting all of TTN's edits." and that is patently false. I was removing redirects from '']'' episode articles because there appeared to me to be no consensus for those articles be redirects on ]. After the ANI thread began, I removed 3 more redirects from ''Scrubs'' episode articles and then stopped removing them. I have been open to discuss my edits. No action was brought against me. I've never been accused before of edit-warring after performing one edit to several articles I've never edited before, and such a definition of "edit war" is news to me.

	'''Long version'''<br>
	If this statement is too long, arbitrators or clerks are free to refactor it or remove it. I believe I first became aware of television episode articles being turned into redirects in October 2007. On October 17, 2007, I removed several {{tl\|merge}} tags that were placed on articles linked from ]. I believe my first interaction with ] occurred in October 2007 on ]. I asked ] about '']'' episode articles at that time. His reply seemed to indicate to me that '']'' episode articles did not each have to assert individual notability — they inherited notability from their Good or Featured articles.

	After the ''Pee-wee's Playhouse'' episode articles were redirected, I added what I thought was real-world information to the episode article ], but ] decided to redirect the article anyway. Seeing that real-world information was not going to make the article stay around, I didn't edit them further.

	I was not an involved party in the ] case but I did make 6 edits to ] from December 15-17, 2007, suggesting that ] be changed to ] in the proposed decision.

	From December 16-18, 2007, I left 4 comments on ]'s talk page asking about ] and why he felt those articles did not need redirects.

	I made several edits to the ] during the arbitration case. I proposed a ] during that case that ] must notify the major contributors of an article after placing a {{tl\|merge}} tag in an article and I still think that's a good idea. On December 22, 2007, I create a template called {{tl\|mergenote}} for this purpose, similar to {{tl\|AFDNote}}, and I encourage editors to use it. I left a comment on ] about it. I believe I have used that template in one instance, to inform the major contributors of various ''Dragon Ball'' film articles that there was a merge discussion taking place at ]. I found the major contributors of those articles using ]'s .

	On January 13, 2008, I made several comments at ] and later removed two sections from the guideline ] This was reverted by ] and she left a {{tl\|uw-delete1}} template on my talk page. I then explained my edits at ] and made some more comments at ]. I then made some comments at ], which looked to me to indicate that there is no consensus for the '']'' episode articles to be redirects.

	In my text editor I prepared a list of urls to each of the ''Scrubs'' episode articles as they appear in ], adding "&redirect=no" to the end of the urls. On January 13, 2008 at 21:47, I began removing the redirects from the '']'' episode articles by going to the urls I had prepared, looking at the history, and undoing the redirects. Initially I left no additional comment in my edit summary, just the standard undo message. After undoing 27 edits which took me 13 minutes, I began to include an additional reason in my edit summary, "There is no consensus to redirect these articles", because I noticed the undo message at the top of the screen says "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary rather than using only the default message."

	After removing 96 redirects, on January 13, 2008 at 22:22 (UTC), ] left a {{tl\|ANI-notice}} on my talk page and informed me there was currently a discussion at ] involving me. ] left no prior message on my talk page asking me to stop removing redirects from ''Scrubs'' episode articles. After I saw the ANI notice on my talk page, I removed another redirect, made a comment at the ANI thread against me, replied on my talk page to a comment ] had left, made another comment at ANI, replied to a comment ] had left on my talk page, and removed 1 more redirect from a ''Scrubs'' episode article.

	On January 13, 2008, at 22:36, I made my last removal of redirects from ''Scrubs'' episode articles with this edit I then responded to several comments in the ANI thread, and responded to more comments on my talk page. I then noticed ] had left a comment on ]'s talk page and I left a reply there that was a bit uncivil.

	I made some more replies at the ANI thread. On January 13, 2008 at 23:26, I left a message on ] that I would wait a week to remove the redirects again. On my talk page, ] told me this was a threat and I responded a few times on my talk page. During the ANI thread, ] archived the thread twice and I removed the archive boilerplates twice. I left a message on ]'s talk page asking him to please stop closing the ANI thread, because I felt that I had to clear my name and people were discussing a block of me.

	I replied several more times in the ANI thread against me and made 3 more comments at ]

	I feel that the current consensus among editors who edit actual ''articles'' and not just guideline pages is that individual episode articles do ''not'' have to assert notability by including significant coverage from reliable sources — as evidenced by the several sub-articles of ], ], and ]. I think it's biased to allow those television shows to have articles for every one of their episodes but not allow the same for other television series. The article ] has existed since May 8, 2003 and it has never been a target of these massive episode article merge-tag/redirect-sweeps. The article has existed for over 4 1/2 years. As far as I can tell, the first reference to independent coverage was added today. I believe that article shows that ] (and I suppose ] as well) do not actually ''document'' consensus but are trying to make consensus into what the editors there want it to be.

	I feel the entire ANI thread against me was ridiculous, but I think the arbitration committee should take this case and issue some actual blocks. I believe their remedy in the last case was totally ineffective.

	I do not feel I have engaged in disruptive editing. I do not feel I have engaged in edit-warring. I made 99 edits to ''Scrubs'' episode articles. I removed a redirect '''once and only once''' on each of them. But I am willing to be blocked for months at a time if ] and ] are blocked as well because I feel their actions are seriously harming the project and sending the wrong message that episode articles are okay — but only if they're for popular cartoons. If the arbitration committee decides to ''not'' accept this case, I think ] and ] should be fully protected from editing until the disputes over them are resolved. The mass-redirects of fictional content should also stop. This case should definitely be evaluated with the ] in mind. --] (]) 12:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

	:In response to ]'s statement, I was the editor who mentioned that the ] article has existed for 4 1/2 years, but the article does not violate any policies. The information in the article can be ] by watching the episode. And it's not ] to watch an episode and describe it — ] allows that, it's called source-based research. ] says articles are not ''simply'' plot summaries and if an episode article has an infobox, it's not simply a plot summary and does not violate ]. There is no policy against episode articles. Misplaced Pages has several featured articles about television episodes. And ] is a guideline. When large list articles are split into sub-articles per ] and ], I do not think each sub-article should then have to establish individual notability. These episode articles do not violate policy. ], however, is expected of all editors and ] has shown he has no interest in applying the same criteria to '']'' episode articles that don't contain significant coverage in reliable sources. The ] says "During this process, the article might look like a first draft—or worse, a random collection of notes and factoids. Rather than being horrified by this ugliness, we should rejoice in its potential, and have faith that the editing process will turn it into brilliant prose." ] allows those articles time to develop, yet does not allow the same for other television series. --] (]) 13:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

	:In response to ]'s statement, I do not know why she would say her edits would probably be reverted by me. If she turned an episode article into a redirect and there was no consensus to turn the article into a redirect on the talk page of the list of episodes article, I would probably revert the edit. Otherwise, I wouldn't. --] (]) 21:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

	:In response to ]'s statement, I do not know why my removal of the redirects from the Scrubs episode articles is "ill-advised." There may have been consensus ''at one point in time'' for those articles to be redirects, but there isn't now — as seen at ]. The long-standing consensus among editors who edit televison episode articles is that the articles do ''not'' have to contain substantial real-world coverage anytime soon in order to have a standalone article. Stubs are perfectly acceptable per the ]. Television episode articles with an infobox do not violate any policies. It's clear that the wording of ] was determined by a small group of editors who are trying to enforce it across Misplaced Pages as a whole as if it's a policy. Guidelines ''document'' consensus, they do not create it. It's unclear to me how having articles about television episodes makes Misplaced Pages a fansite. See the articles ] and ] for two featured articles about television episodes. --] (]) 22:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

	:In response to ]'s statement, I really don't know he expects the article ] to develop into an article like ] as long as ] is a redirect. Editors (and not just registered users who know how to bypass redirects) need to know that an article exists and that it needs improvement in order for the article to be improved. The article ] violates no policies whatsoever. If editors want television episode articles improved, they should discuss the issue at ]. I suggest they ''create'' WikiProjects for specific television shows instead of spending their time hiding articles by redirecting them. Sweeping the episode articles under a rug does not improve them and is actually an '''obstacle''' to improvement. --] (]) 22:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by WAS 4.250 ====
	Misplaced Pages's popular culture articles constitutes the world's single most useful Popular Culture Encyclopedia and every year it gets better. The Misplaced Pages we are trying to create, as the sum of all knowledge, is the sum of all possible encyclopedias. Help that effort to make it an even better culture encyclopedia ''within'' the vast Misplaced Pages encyclopedia that contains all other encyclopedias. Don't try to destroy it. I suppose if some were editing Misplaced Pages in 2003, they would have put up the whole encyclopedia for deletion because at that time no article on Misplaced Pages was adequately sourced by today's standards. We don't delete an article just because it is not yet perfect. We should never never delete an article just because it lacks something, if what it does have is useful. An article that has an accurate plot is useful. Lacking other data makes it a kind of stub, needing additional material. It should eventually be more than that, but '''deleting useful articles because they are stubs by one measure or another is simply pulling up crops because they are only half grown.''' Where is the sense in that? ] (]) 17:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====

	I was not contacted by John because I have not once reverted a redirect or restore of an episode article, although I have been following these disputes. I do not really have an opinion on the matter and even if I did, my edits would probably be reverted by TTN or Pixelface. Obviously, the edit wars need to stop, which is easier said than done. One can say, "everyone, this is ridiculous so stop it", but which side should stop first? A decision must be made. Either the articles should be redirected or they should be restored; users should not ''just'' be told to work constructively amongst themselves.

	Why do I not really care whether episode articles containing only plot summaries are kept or not? I know that in the long run, I will get the articles of the ] to good or featured atatus, which I have done before and suspect that this is why the articles have not already been redirected. There are also reasons for both sides' actions that I can understand. I recently participated in a couple ] AfDs (] ]) and voted for redirection because they are notable (reviews and interviews from reliable sources for ''Heroes'', even on specific episodes are not hard to find), but this has not been demonstrated in the article. If an article never demonstrates notability, but it can, is it notable? And there are so many stubs on Misplaced Pages, one would not think that it matters if something is a work in progress—which is explicitly stated in a guideline, although it is stated in another guideline to redirect "problem" episode articles. I do not know what the correct answers are, but hopefully I will soon. –''']''' <small>''] • ]''</small> 02:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====

	I'd re-iterate what WAS 4.250 says above. I'd also that I find the idea of "consensus" around deleting episode lists with tongue firmly in cheek. There are a fairly small number of editors that pay attention to the episode notability guidelines. They've written their guideline in a vacuum without input from people who actually write episode articles. They lord over it and hound away anyone who questions their interpretation. The number of people objecting to these deletions, over time, has far exceeded the people doing the deleting.
	Here is how it goes:
	#A deleter comes along and redirects (which, for stubs, is a soft-delete) a series of articles from one show.
	#An objector says "hey, what are you guys doing?" and gets hounded away: "See, this is what our policy says. Too bad you didn't speak up when we wrote it."
	#Objector goes away, it's not worth fighting over with an entrenched clique.
	#repeat.

	Clearly, at any single moment, the deleters can claim numerical superiority - but only because the objectors have never shown up simultaneously. That's a pretty thin idea of consensus; because it isn't, it's an illusion and we describe that as tag team ].

	There is nothing wrong with stubs about TV episodes. Any TV guide data shows when the show was on. The show website probably contains some amount of production information (show serial number, etc). The show itself is a fine source for a (non-interpretive) plot summary. Ta-da, instant stub. Those doing the deleting should stop, it's disruptive to the project and community harmony, they've done a poor job of understanding sourcing in their guideline and are stonewalling any attempts to modify it. ] (])

	==== Statement by ] (]) ====
	I am indifferent as to whether this goes to arbitration again, although if it can offer fuirther elucidation it may be salutary. As the editor who initiated the recent redirects of ] episodes and subsequently reverted Pixel's ill-advised attempts to restore them (which has provoked the latest tempest) I'll offer a brief commentary. When consensus changes with respect to TV episodes requiring substantial real-world impact as a basis for standalone articles, I'll gladly desist redirecting. But in this case, there has been plenty of discussion on the talk pages of the series in question and no basis for retention has been adduced for almost all the articles in question. This is a disruptive effort by a small and determined set of editors, steadfast in their conviction that Misplaced Pages policy can be trumped by the aggregation of committed interests and apparently blithe to the policies we have in place. That is shameful, given the clarity with which our policies indicate the standard that needs to be met. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. These actions are wholly legitimated by the standards we have collectively derived. ] (]) 05:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	Bringing this back to ArbCom would appear to be the only way of reining in the disruptive editing which is occurring (and is not limited to one "side"). Episode articles are a tricky breed - there is every opportunity available for them to be made into viable articles that meet policy, but it is all too easy to create stubs which are plot summary and little else. ] is a good example of this - for example compare ] - a perfectly good article - with ], which isn't. Other less notable TV series, however, have spawned numerous episode articles which are little more than plot summaries, and have little chance of being expanded past this state (, ). In these situations redirecting to a summary page is <i>without doubt</i> the right decision. In my opinion if a number of editors who are spending large amounts of time attempting to wikilawyer their way round our policies ] would expend their time improving the articles to the standard of the one above, we wouldn't be here again. This is along the lines of the statement made by ] above, with which I concur.

	==== Statement by ] ====
	Below is a chronological list of incidents reported regarding this matter, as well as some other relevant discussions, which provides a history (not analysis or opinion) of this debate and also includes the other aspect of this issue, i.e. fictional characters. Please feel free to expand this list if I left anything out, as I believe the below discussions will place the matter in context and provide a ready reference for any wishing to cite differences:

	*: Revert war at Naruto Uzumaki

	*: Zarbon

	*: User EaglesFanInTampa using nickname of 'Jimbo' in signature

	*: Power level (Dragon Ball)

	*: Possible meatpuppet of User:TTN

	*: Disruptive mass merging and mass deletion by User:TTN

	*: removal

	*: TTN

	*: User:TTN redirecting

	*: Deletion of useful, relevant, and interesting information

	*: Mass deletion of television articles by TTN

	*: 3rd opinion

	*: Fullmetal Alchemist episodes

	*: Are you sick of it as well?

	*: Do you disagree

	*: TTN

	*: List of bosses in The Ocean Hunter

	*: Gavin.collins

	*: Episodes

	*: User:Doctorfluffy

	*: Frank West (Dead Rising)

	*: Episodes and characters

	*: Master Shake

	*: Frank West merge

	*: A big campaign against articles about fictional events

	*: Using a mailing list to delete a template

	*: User:Pilotbob

	*: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Episodes_and_characters

	*: Help needed with Dead Rising/Frank West

	*: User:TTN bulk redirecting episode pages

	*: AN/I vs. TTN - A AN/I_TTN subpage needed?!

	*: Bells (Blackadder) (2nd nomination)

	*: Ursasapien and WP:EPISODE

	*: Sonny (robot)

	*: Jack Merridew

	*: Question from a new editor

	*: Episodes and WP:POINT

	*: Edit warring on episodes articles

	*: Request for Arbitration

	*: Death knight

	*: My Own Worst Enemy

	*: List of terms in Tales of the Abyss

	*: A Scooter for Yaksmas

	*: Centralized Discussion

	*: Wendy Smith

	*: Kristin Westphalen

	*: Droid Army

	*: Xanatos (Star Wars)

	==== Statement by uninvolved Lawrence Cohen====
	Just specific to consensus matters, if there is such an epic stink being raised by people each time these episode articles are being redirected away, perhaps it may be safe to assume that consensus does not support these actions. Additionally, I'd ask the committee to look at the validity of consensus developed in "back corners" of Misplaced Pages, that many people may not be aware of. How many people actually came to the redirect consensus? 5? More than 5? Less than 10? More than 10? We don't count consensus by heads except in special major cases (Arbitration Elections, Board elections, side-wide issues like the Main Page vote, and the 3rr vote), but it would be worth looking at how many people, and who, made these consensus decisions to redirect the episode articles that are the root of all these fights. Was it a valid consensus? It may or may not have been, given how nasty this is. 22:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by uninvolved editor ] ====

	I'm somewhat reluctant to comment on this matter given the divisiveness of the issue, but I will ask the Arbitration Committee to look into the edit warring engaged by editors on both sides. A secondary issue I like to see the ArbCom to look into is whether merging or redirecting articles is a form of deletion, a claim frequently made by the proponents of episode articles. Other issues that ArbCom may want to touch on are whether episode articles are immune to Misplaced Pages's policies, specifically ], ], and ] requirement of at least one reliable third-party source, and the notability guidelines, if there a clear inheritance of notability from the series to the episodes that make up the series or do current policies and guidelines require episodes to establish notability independently of the series. And finally, does the presents of {{tl\|Infobox Television episode}}, plot notes, and quotes mean that the article no longer violates ]. I also think that ArbCom needs to better define when discussions on merging episode articles are strongly encouraged and when discussions are not required. --''']''' (]) 22:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by uninvolved editor ] ====
	The situation regarding disputes over Wikipedias fiction notability and television notability policies is getting out of hand. We have a fervent band of inclusionists who think that they can ignore[REDACTED] policies, and harass and intimidate other wikipedians. Having my userpage protected has been an eye-opening experience to the extent that people can, in many cases, successfully protect articles that are not in any way corresponding to[REDACTED] guidelines and policies without having anything to back it up with except "I like it". To yet AGAIN bring TTN here for of this is outrageous, and it should be recognized that those who would keep content on[REDACTED] must provide evidence of notability, not the other way around. It is also time to recognize teh vast incivility that is being perpetrated by inclusionists on[REDACTED] is not acceptable anymore than it is for "deletionists". ] (]) 23:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	There are two issues here: a procedural/behavioral one and a content one. The former, well, I've not participated directly in TTN's edits, but there is something to be said about the proper ] that needs to be employed if you notify or are notified that several articles are non-notable. As the notifier, how long to do you wait for a good faith effort towards improvement or any sort of response before merging, or how do you overcome a vocal majority of ]s that don't cite policy or other consensus for keeping articles; as a notifee, what types of good faith steps can you make in improving an article. This is the issue many of the above have stated. However, clearer resolution on what should be expected by both sides of such article disputes (such as what I suggested) would be good as to provide better procedural steps to follow to help reduce such conflicts.

	The bigger issue is the content one, and this is a larger point of contention which, as I understand, is likely not to be addressed by ArbCom. Specifically for episode articles, three questions are being asked:
	* Does an episode article with only a plot summary and an infobox with dates of airing satisfy ] and ]?
	* Is an episode article (notable or not) consider as part of the coverage of the series that it is in, in that regardless of notability, an episode article could be considered appropriate due to ] and ] writing approaches?
	And a much larger issue (which goes beyond just articles but includes nearly all works of fiction):
	* Does ] imply, deny, or otherwise refer to the concept of "Misplaced Pages is not a fanguide" and in what way? (This might be too large an issue to be addressed here, but certainly can be seen in the number of AN/I and ArbCom cases coming up).
	Unfortunately, I know that the ArbCom is not necessarily deciding issues on content. Unfortunately there, we have situations where there are a large number of both editors and readers that have come to or otherwise expect larger coverage of fictional topics (given PAPER and regardless of PLOT and NOTE (and subsequently FICT and EPISODE)), and a smaller number of editors that recognize that the level of coverage that the former group desires is, in many cases, incompatible with WP's current mission and policies. I've been leading a rewrite of ] for the last several months and know that there is a very fine line of a middle ground where we are finding a possible solution, but we have yet to find it. This may simply be a case where we editors just have to bear it out and figure out a proper consensus. --] 23:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
	:*To specifically clarify one point, how we deal with episode articles is a tip of the iceberg in terms of how we handle fictional content. The question ''Does ] imply, deny, or otherwise gives any advise towards the statement "WP is not a fanguide"'' has several implications:
	::*Certainly with respect to ] but this also affects how ] is handled; this then leaves the question of, if fiction can be handled differently from generally ] guidelines, how do we show this?
	::*In line with the typical job of a fanguide, does this or does this not allow for ] in the discussion of elements of those works, particularly in lists of characters where the images are only providing visual reference
	::*To what extent can we promote off-site wikis to transwiki such material to, in particular, given that some people have concerns on conflict-of-interest, Wikia and the Annex.
	::*Is the coverage of in-universe details of fiction non-free use, and as such, has to have the same arguments for its use as we do for images and other media?
	:*Again, I feel some of these are larger issues that do fall outside the scope of tv episodes, but some of these concerns should be addressed, if they are at all, during arbitration. --] 15:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	I believe that at their core, all disputes are miscommunications. The people who create the articles for the episodes probably wonder, "Why are some people so against my documenting these episodes? Why are they so against my scholarship, my thoughtful analyses?" The people who dislike individual episode articles wonder, "Why do these people write these things? Why can't they understand that these articles are not appropriate?"

	Why ''do'' some people dislike individual pages? Is it because they think pop culture is not worthy of scholarly consideration? Perhaps. Is it because they perceive such writings to be poor scholarship? Perhaps. Is it because they think that fans of the show are parasitizing the creativity of the writers and actors who created the show? Perhaps. In my case, I feel that anything, including TV shows, are worthy of scholarly consideration. I have read many a Misplaced Pages article that constitute poor scholarship, but that problem is not confined to TV shows (although more common there than in some fields). But poor scholarship is to be met with cleanup, right? Finally, I must admit that I do feel that there are editors who are feeding off of the creativity of the people who made the TV show. But I cannot fault them; everybody does that to some extent.

	The urge to document anything is commendable. Scholarship is commendable. However, when scholars submit their writings for publication, they must undergo peer review. In my opinion, consolidating the episodes into list pages allows for better oversight (read: peer review). A Misplaced Pages user can get a better overview of the story arc on a list page than on dozens of individual pages. Certainly there are many cases where individual episodes should have their own page.

	Scholars are supposed to cite correctly. When I find myself writing long stretches of text on a topic without including citations, I become uncomfortable. If I was unable to find any third party sources, I would eventually conclude that either I was incorrect about the importance of the topic, and/or that I was engaging in original research. Now, if I was sure the topic was important, and nobody else was doing a very good job of writing about it, I would stop giving it away for free on Misplaced Pages and write for academia and/or get an agent so I could get paid.

	So what do we do? If this dispute is about a miscommunication, then we need to communicate better. Then we need to find points of agreement. And then we find a practical solution. I'm not sure if I have helped, but I felt I had to try. ] (]) 03:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	Accept the case. This issue needs sorting and new blood on the AC may be beneficial. --] 13:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
	==== Statement by uninvolved editor ] ====
	I would like point out that this case is way above what is being discussed here. Please see ] as well. There is currently this case, an admin noticeboard case, several RfC's, and various other discussions taking place. A solution needs to be had to fix this and '''all''' issues need to be looked at or this will never end and more arbcom, noticeboards, and RfCs will continue to be called. --] (]) 16:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	It should be noted that the ''smerging'' of a long episode article (shortening and merging the article) can result in lots of text being edited away and made difficult to work on (not many people are aware that the previous text is still accessible in the page history of the redirect, for example). I think there are several ways for the community to resolve this without involving ArbCom. What is needed is a solution that satisfies people at both extremes. I propose the following (previously posted at ANI) as a starting point.

	It is trivially easy to generate a list of the page revisions before all of TTN's redirects, and to put such a list of links to those old articles, either on an external website or on a WikiProject page or talk page. '''Linking to old versions from within an article itself would subvert the entire Misplaced Pages process''', but it is technically possible, so something should be done to forbid putting links to old versions of other articles in current articles. For ], try this list of episode articles I generated from looking at "what links here", and filtering for redirects and then grabbing the oldid numbers of the versions before the redirects:<span class="plainlinks">
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	</span>
	I would suggest that in cases where lots of text is being smerged, that TTN (and others) leave such links in a central place, as a courtesy to editors who may wish to work on the removed material and provide sources. There are already talk page templates that call oldid numbers for featured articles - the same sort of thing could be done here. Would this be a workable compromise? The redirects would stick, but editors are pointed to older material to work from if they find sources. A similar principle applies at ]. Indeed, I would suggest that some template is used (if it doesn't already exist) to group the redirects into categories of: (a) Redirects from episode articles; and (b) Episodes of ABC. See ] for more on how that works. Thus TTN (and others) would simply have to remember to put this template on any redirects they carry out, and they or others could create categories to hold the redirects, and lists (using oldids) to the episode articles in a "episodes with possibilities" page on the relevant WikiProject. People could then pick a particularly promising episode that they have several sources for, and work it up to a full article again. There are other ideas, but this one could, I think, help avoid the incessant drama, as it provides way for both sides to work together instead of revert warring. TTN and others would help ensure material with possibilities is not made too hard to find, and those wanting to work on episode articles would still have easy access to the text and a starting point for debates.

	I know this proposal is not technically suitable for a request for arbitration, but I hope it helps to demonstrate that the community may be able to resolve this without a need for sanctions. ] (]) 15:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

	====Statement by ]====
	edit summery by TTN dirrectly conflicts with the ]. TTN has repeatly reveted in spite of this fact. Since it would appear that TTN is no longer even skim reading the articles they redirect I belive that they need to be prevented from such activities in order to facilitate a negotated settlement.] 20:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

	====Note by Black Kite====
	Earlier today, ] unilaterally reverted every single ] episode article so that they are now individual articles. I have thus added his name to this RFAR as an involved party. <b>]</b> 01:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

	====statement by uninvolved editor ''']''' (]) ====
	With respect to actions, BOLDly redirecting a large number of pages on a fiction episode topic is without prior discussion is an obviously controversial action, and I think it at least bad manners to do it without prior discussion. Once it has been done though, i can not see that to revert it is improper. At that point obviously, it has to be discussed until the people involved reach some sort of consensus or compromise. (Personally, I'd like to see us eliminate BRD altogether and ''require'' discussion before any major action or edit. I doubt there's consensus for this, but it might cut down on the workload for the arb com and AN/I)

	With respect to the the underlying issue, I definitely have point of view (which is that appropriate length subarticles are almost always the way to go, recognizing that the earlier unencyclopedic over-long ones are every bit as inappropriate as a bare redirect or an uninformative sentence. ). But I can not see how to achieve any consensus on my view or any other on this topic. Certainly quoting policy is not the point, for policy can change, and the argument here is that some want to change the policy to accommodate the way they think WP should be. What do we do if we have half one way and half another, and neither will compromise? Even if it turns out 2/3 - 1/3 on a major issue, (in either direction--I do not pretend to know what everyone thinks) that's a very sizable minority--and if they wont agree to live with the other view I think too much of a minority to say there's consensus on a general matter of this importance. I dont know it is the business of arb com exactly to resolve something like this, so perhaps we should view this as an informal appeal to them to act as mediators to prevent conflict that will escalate until it needs their intervention. If they decline to do this, or put this issue back on the community, I guess someone will have to be clever enough to propose a workable compromise, or await a decision by attrition. ''']''' (]) 23:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

	==== Note by Masem ====
	I have created an ] to try to open up the issue of what makes a TV episode notable to try to resolve the content aspect of this dispute without in the involvement of ArbCom, though there still may be need for their guidance if consensus cannot be reached. --] 23:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

	==== Query by Radiant ====
	I'm aware that the ArbCom doesn't decide content disputes. Although there are some conduct issues here, this would seem to be, at the core, a content dispute. Perhaps Misplaced Pages needs some new body of people to adjudicate content disputes? <small>(or perhaps not, I can think of several pitfalls, but it can't hurt to think about it)</small> ] 00:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
	====Comment by uninvolved editor ]====
	As I pointed out above, ] in hopes of moving forward and coming up with a community solution. I would encourage this RfA to look specifically at TTN's actions because while many of the parties involved stopped redirecting and reverting to try and come up with a solution and take part in the discussion, TTN and a few others have ignored the discussion and been engaged in mass redirecting and total avoidance of trying to come to some community solution. This represents the sheer disregard and the attitude he has carried all along. Additionally, I would like to point out that much of the talk is that articles are deleted or merged or redirected because they have no sources or or 3rd party support. However, as TTN's history will point out, and as another user indicated above, many of the articles have substantial sourced support, yet they they are still wiped out. The actions of the editors '''must''' also be scrutinized in this case. I realize that some percussions may come back on me, however, if it benefits the community, I'm open to it. 00:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

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

	==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/0/0/0) ====
	*Accept to look at the conduct of all, and if possible, to provide some kind of basic perspective regarding the principles being disputed over. Not only follow-up of a previous case, but unlikely to be resolved by anything less, short of "blunt instrument" use of admin tools. It was hoped that general encouragement to work together at a solution would help last time, but it seems it was insufficient. The consensus related norms which might have helped, seem to have gone unheeded. We can try to do better here, I think. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] \| ])</span></sup> 13:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
	*I have felt this issue needed additional remedies for some time but I had hoped that it could be done through a motion in the existing case (which closed as recently as 28 December). Perhaps the easiest way would be to reopen that case, but the issue needs to be addressed. ] (]) 10:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
	*Accept. -- ] - <small>]</small> 20:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

	----

	=== ] ===
	'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 15:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

	==== Involved parties ====
	*{{userlinks\|Zenwhat}}
	*{{userlinks\|Gregalton}}
	*{{userlinks\|Coccyx Bloccyx}}
	*{{userlinks\|Brusegadi}}
	----
	*{{userlinks\|East718}}
	*{{userlinks\|Childhoodsend}}
	*{{userlinks\|AuburnPilot}}
	*{{userlinks\|Skomorokh}}
	*{{userlinks\|Big Brother 1984}}
	*{{userlinks\|68.187.244.20 }}
	*{{userlinks\|Sarsaparilla}}
	*{{userlinks\|Karmaisking}}

	<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. If desired, wording such as "(initiating party)" may be added. Substitute "admin" for "userlinks" if a party is an administrator. -->

	; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
	<s>(Still in the process of notifying them.)</s> ] (]) 15:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
	:Request noted. <font color="404040">]</font> <sup>]</sup> 15:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
	<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
	::All parties have been notified. <s>Just in the process of posting diffs here to confirm it.</s> ] (]) 16:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
	; Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried
	The request involves a block, substantial edit-warring (across ''several'' pages -- not merely those discussed in this ''basic'' summary), a rejected page-protect, <s>and wheel-warring.</s> <small>This claim is demonstratably false. Coccyx isn't an admin and the appropriate block log is here and no wheel-warring appears to have been attempted. A mistake on my part, apologies. ] (]) 16:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)</small>

	All parties have been notified.











	] (]) 19:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	It has been noted before that trolls are sometimes capable of winning successful edit-wars through sockpuppetry and having admins which support them block editors for intellectual reasons. This case appears to be such an example.

	In this case, at my request (and anyone is free to reject my request) I would like the arbitrators to make the following assumptions about policy to be made explicit:
	*That there be roughly no assumptions be made at ''all'' in the case of evaluating my statements
	*No personal attacks against me or the accused (I'm saying this to be explicit -- not for admins, but for non-admins involved)
	*Invocations of past offenses are potential signs of bad faith, but not proof of guilt
	*The burden of proof rest with ''me'' to prove my case
	*That ] applies ''especially'' upon the accused because of the presumption of innocence
	*That, despite the current wording of Misplaced Pages policy, it be firmly recognized that ] and others accused have an ] ] ] to edit Misplaced Pages because of its core policy: A ''free'' encyclopedia that ''anyone'' can edit. Per ], this freedom may not be arbitrarily taken away by the majority.

	It is not my intent to abuse wikipedian bureaucracy to remove editors I don't like. With that said, '''the evidence surrounding this case may be found here: ]'''

	I have no specific requests at ''this'' time, but would like the community and ArbCom itself to decide how this matter ought to be handled. Because of the likelihood that it will come to light and an "attempt to vanish" before putting forth an ArbCom proposal would seem deceptive, I now disclose: ] is my previous account, I did likely make some contentious, silly edits, including vandalism when I was far younger. However, <s>overall, my edits were constructive</s> <small>Actually, a quick review of my contributions shows that ''all'' of my contributions under my previous account were good. It appears I only vandalized a few times while'' logged out'', with no actual proof of it, and my claims about past behavior are unverifiable, and thus put forth strictly on a voluntary basis ] (]) 16:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)</small>, I have ''never'' engaged in sockpuppetry.

	I have included ] in this case, because this overall problem -- and the possibility of her being the sockpuppet of one of the above users, see . Karmaisking has been included because he is a well-known sockpuppet, so it's certainly acceptable that he be included in this investigation.

	==== Statement by ] ====
	I'm not sure why I'm named as an involved party here, as my only involvement has been to block ] for edit warring and a clear cut violation of the ] on the ] article (]: ). Zenwhat was warned by several editors, including myself, before he reverted the 5th time and received a standard 24 hour block. My involvement is negligible, and I have no intentions of joining an arbitration case related to a single 3RR block. I would, however, encourage Zenwhat to familiarize himself with policy; especially ], ], and ]. - ] ] 15:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

	:Additionally, I'm also not sure why Zenwhat names me specifically in his claim that everyone has a right to edit Misplaced Pages, but I firmly disagree with that assessment. Nobody has a right to edit Misplaced Pages; it is a privilege that can be revoked at anytime. - ] ] 15:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

	====Statement by ]====
	I am uninvolved aside from a and alert. Mountain. Molehill. ]
	::East718, I don't have much to say in your case other than that your page-protect was clearly unjustified, when I asked you to reconsider your position you made statements that contradicted policy word-for-word. When I pointed this out, you were rude and told me to go away.

	::In the case of Auburn, he\she is blatantly a POV-pusher. How exactly a ] can get admin privileges -- I am absolutely curious. The list of names above is the list of people "relevant" to this case -- that doesn't necessarily only ''include'' people that directly ''edited'' such articles. This case is specifically about ], but it is also more generally about the vandalism on ], which is why I ''also'' invoked ] in the original discussion, though she herself has not edited ]. ] (]) 16:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

	====Statement by ]====
	Uhh, can someone please explain how and why I'm a party to this case? I can see that is is going to be rejected, but I'd like to know all the same. Thanks. ] (]) 20:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

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

	==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/0/0) ====
	*Decline. Nothing here approaching the need for an arbitration case, which is the last step in the dispute resolution process. There is no evidence of any attempts at even talkpage discussion of the content issues raised. In addition, portions of the request for arbitration are not comprehensible. ] (]) 16:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
	*Reject. No need for a case is evident. The Community can handle any issues that need to be addressed. ] (]) 22:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
	*Decline per both of my colleagues above. Can I suggest that ]'s essay on ] may be more appropriate for a user subpage than in project space? ] (]) 12:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
	*Decline. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
	* Reject per Flo. ] ] 20:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
	----

	=== ] ===
	'''Initiated by '''] '''at''' 08:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

	==== Involved parties ====
	*{{userlinks\|Tkguy}}
	*{{userlinks\|Crotalus horridus}}
	*{{admin\|Cool Hand Luke}}
	*{{userlinks\|Saranghae honey}}
	<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. If desired, wording such as "(initiating party)" may be added. Substitute "admin" for "userlinks" if a party is an administrator. -->

	; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
	<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->




	; Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried
	<!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitation -->

	* Due to the fact that this personal attack involved links to an Asian forum that I've participate in, I felt the need to protect my identity and my postings on the forum from public scrutiny. I decided against RFC not only because it attracts too much public attention but also because the last time this was done on this article this brought ], one of the involved parties, to the article. So around 1/4/2008 I tried to contact an admin I could trust. So I used the[REDACTED] email feature and emailed ]. I didn't receive a response so I . I still haven't receive a response.
	* I then emailed ] and .] at first claim that I wanted him to get involved with the dispute on ]. I wrote back that I was asking for help with regards to personal attacks on the ] talk page. I then stated that I would submit and arbitration request since none of the admin wanted to help me. He then replied that he didn't have the time to help me and that he was sorry and offered to refer somebody else.
	* I emailed ] on 1/5/2008 and . He replied back that since he was the protecting admin (the page is currently locked by him due to edit waring) he can't get involved in debates. I pointed out that I was not asking him to get involved and that I needed help with personal attacks. He then wrote back that he had trouble finding the personal attack links in my email. I replied that the links was in my first email to him. Apparently his response was put on the and he acknowledges the personal attack but indicates that I am causing the problem for threatening to open an arbitration.
	* on the ] talk page that I would submit an arbitration request if the Personal attacks were not removed and a apology was not made.
	* a message on ]'s talk page for him to remove his personal attack on me and that I would start an arbitration process if it was not done so.
	** ] my entry on his talk page.
	* a message on ]'s talk page for him to remove his personal attack on me and that I would start an arbitration process if it was not done so.
	** ], an admin, didn't delete the comments, instead it. This is similiar to his actions when I was previously by ] by being called a "pedantic little creep". I called him out on this personal attack but then ] rather than deleting this comment, he the comment and labeled it "Incivility, apparently from both sides. Comment on the content, not the contributers". I didn't respond to the personal attacks on ] that is the focus of this ], because I knew there would be a high risk of being labeled "uncivil".
	* a message on ]'s talk page for him or her to remove his or her personal attack on me and that I would start an arbitration process if it was not done so.
	* I deleted the personal attacks off the ] page . ] (]) 08:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	I was personally attacked and stalked by editors on ]. I hope that the arbitration board will punish these people and roll back their comments on ]. The ] page is under protection due to edit warring. The involved party here intend to add significant changes as inferred below, without obtaining consensus . I would like the page to remain protected until after this arbitration has been completed.

	Recently the seemingly perpetual edit waring took a very negative turn on this article. Rather than researching ], ] chosed to research me with the passion of a stalker. Soon afterwards ] and ] did the same. Here ] posted on the ], directions on how to "research" me and discovered that I posted to an asian forum. He then proceeded to create a section on the ] titled "==More about Tkguy==" and poplated it with links to some of the posts I've made . Of course it does not matter what I think or believe so long as I abide by wikipedia's rules. Here is the entire portion of the . ] labelled me as a racist by writing the following:
	{{cquote\|Tkguy is simply a racist POV-pusher and it's time he was driven off this page.}}
	] supported ] actions by adding to this section with his or her own research on me and and is obviously working with ] in that he or she created a copy of Asian fetish , while it is still under protection to circumvent obtaining community consensus. This was done at the advice of ], . .

	], an admin, encouraged more personal attacks by contributing to this section. He suggested that I should be blocked from editting .Then made the following comment :
	He then posted two links (, ) to posts I've made on the forum. He wrote that this was wrong and then does this not once but TWICE!

	This section ends with ] and ] discussing about how it's ok to track what I am doing on[REDACTED] and arrogantly have this discussion on the ] tallk page .

	I hope that the people will look past the emotions that the topic of Asian fetish invokes and see that I was personally attacked, bullied and stalked and will not let such actions go unpunished. And I am hoping that the board members will understand that the kind of actions these people are taking are consistent with the kind of editing and commenting they have been making on this article. ] (]) 08:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


	*''Response to Admin board regarding involved parties' and Phoenix-wiki comments'': Please note that all accusations being made against me are not being substantiated here and are possibly being used to draw attention away from the issue of me being personally attacked. I already provided proof that an admin is aware that comments made to me were inappropriate, . Even ] acknowledged that researching me was not appropriate and then does it himself. And then he marks the section under "]—remember, comment on the content, not the contributer". But I can't see how this is can be accepted as behaving in a "responsible manner, as expected of an administrator" after he made significant entries encouraging this kind of behavior. ] (]) 19:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
	*''Response to Newyorkbrad'': I am confused by your suggestion can you please clarify what "appropriate involvement of administrators" means? I already noted that I went to 3 admins for help. One ignored my request for help. The second told me to look elsewhere. The third told me that the problem is with me telling others that I will initiate an arbitration. Also note that ] is an admin and is an involved party. So 4 admins will not help me resolve this personal attack issue. And the last time we on the page did RfC ] came to the page and ] came back after taking a long hiatus from editing this article.] (]) 19:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
	*''Response to Saranghae honey'': So you create a sandbox to avoid community input and you accuse me of pushing a POV? And you initiated the 4th failed AfD for ] . Can you please substantiate your allegations that I am trying to push a POV? Seriously you keep accusing me of that but never ever provided actual proof. As for the stalking issue and personal attacks. Why are you trying to make it out like I am focused on your Sandbox and your discussion that it's ok to check my edits on the ]? I pointed these things out to show that you are clearly working with ] and ]. You clearly support ] personal attacks on me and his stalking of me off wikipedia. ] (]) 04:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
	*''Response to Crossmr'': I recommend all to read the content of ] link. Be aware much of the references in it that ] makes to edits that I've made were some of the first editing I've done on wikipedia. As I am still, even now, new to all this. Even though I believe I explain very well the situation of the edit wars on the page. But still this arbitration is once again regarding PERSONAL ATTACKS ON ME that were not being dealt with. ] (]) 04:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
	*''Response to Cool Hand Luke'': Typically, I believe, disparaging remarks should be rolled back from the pages. You had the opportunity to do this twice but did not. Since you made your own personal attacks on me and posted links to the asian forums on the talk page, I don't think you can say that this issue is moot. ] (]) 04:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
	*''Response to Crotalus horridus'': Can you please stay on topic? This is regarding your personal attacks on me. You make all these accusations and not one link to substantiate them. And I want all to know that you submitted the 3rd failed AfD for ] . As for my brush with the 3rr rule, well that was when I first started editing and two individuals, ] and ] tricked me into violating the rule. The admin realized this and reverted my block and blocked one of the other two, ] for violating the 3rr rule. They then blocked ] because apparently he voliated the 3rr rule on yet another page and was rewarded an extra long 48 hour block for his work on tricking me. Most of the story right . ] (]) 04:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	] is a disruptive ] who exclusively edits articles related to ], ], and related issues. By his , he has an "obsession with proving the prevalence of asiaphilia." He has shown himself consistently unable to follow our policies on ] and ]. The ] article has been protected ''twice'' recently, when the only real edit-warring was being instigated by Tkguy. Everyone else but him was discussing issues appropriately on the ]. Tkguy also has a very unclear understanding of Misplaced Pages policy on various other matters. He was blocked for violating the ] a while back, and unblocked early on the grounds that he didn't know about the rule. Above, he continues to show poor understanding by implying that there is something wrong about creating a sandbox in user space to continue to work on an article while it is protected. Nothing in Misplaced Pages policy or practice supports that contention.

	It should be noted that Tkguy's forum posts show up very high on a Google search for his nickname. It's not as if I did any deep digging here. If he wished to retain anonymity, he could have chosen any other nickname he wanted.

	No, it doesn't matter what Tkguy thinks as long as he abides by Misplaced Pages rules. But ] and ] are two of our most important rules, and he has shown a repeated inability to follow them.

	I urge Tkguy to withdraw this arbitration request. ] 08:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

	====Statement by {{user\|Saranghae honey}}====
	Tkguy made no attempt at dispute resolution. If there was one, the proper consequence should have stopped Tkguy's edit warring and aggressive POV pushing at Asian fetish. He indeed is a single purpose account that has done little editing outside Asian fetish and ]. Other editors worked cooperatively and even disagreed constructively except for Tkguy who ignored several Misplaced Pages policies including ]. I lost my patience towards him long, long ago for a good reason.

	Tkguy has no understanding of Misplaced Pages policies which led to a post at AN/I which has lengthy yet only a partial list of Tkguy's hostile conduct to users who disagree with him. Crotalus Horridus did no deep digging when he googled "Tkguy." It's actually the second page that shows his activities outside of Misplaced Pages. I was not sure if I could comment on his activities outside of Misplaced Pages, but how can I not pretend to see what was posted on the talk page of Asian fetish? I was indeed astonished by his comments outside of Misplaced Pages.

	Tkguy attacks me for making a sandbox. What's wrong with that? Again, Tkguy has no understanding of Misplaced Pages policies. Not having to follow manual of style or a consensus is the purpose of having a sandbox while I did invite feedback from several editors. Tkguy needs to understand ]. The part of his complaint also revolves around spying or stalking. Looking at "user contributions" of a POV-pusher is not spying or stalking not to mention that he only edits two articles. Editing the only two articles that he happens to edit is not stalking. ] <small> (])</small> 21:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

	====Statement by {{user\|Cool Hand Luke}}====
	User is a

	I placed the incivility under a hat, which I find to be useful in discouraging future incivility. I didn't remove the comments, but neither did Tkguy, although I advised him he should feel free to remove remarks he felt were personal attacks. Eventually he did remove them, and no editor added them back to the talk page. This dispute is therefore moot. No other dispute resolution was attempted besides.

	However, if Tkguy continues to edit war on the article once it's unlocked, I will press for RfC and/or community sanction. ] '']'' 23:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

	:'''New ANI thread''': ] ] '']'' 08:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by uninvolved {{User\|Phoenix-wiki}} ====
	As far as I can see {{User17\|Cool Hand Luke}} acted in a responsible manner, as expected of an administrator. The ] section of the talk page does not look like a personal attack, though I can see how one would be upset by it — Tkguy is refered to as a single purpose account. Cool Hand Luke simply said:
	<blockquote>
	Yep. SPA. User seems to be promoting a line of original research postulating that Asian American suicides, among other social ills, are caused by the Asian fetish. This is not a forum for original research. Moreover, user liberally accuses other editors of vandalism in support of racism. I encourage this user—and all users—to avoid ] and ]. ] '']'' 21:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
	</blockquote>
	That's just a warning not to post ] or ]. He also acted sensibly on most other sections of the talk page.--]]] 15:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
	* I can't believe you changed my arbitration request from "Unfettered Personal Attacks, Bullying, and Stalking on Asian fetish" to "Asian fetish". ] (]) 00:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
	:: He's quite correct to. Evidence speaks for itself here. Case names simply identify cases, they don't specify the conduct issues of the dispute, nor do they 'explain' the nature of the dispute or specify possible feelings about it. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] \| ])</span></sup> 13:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by partially involved {{User\|Crossmr}} ====
	I don't have much to add, but feel this link is relevant to the issue here ].--] (]) 23:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

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

	==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/0/0) ====
	*Decline. I see nothing here at this stage that cannot be addressed by appropriate involvement of administrators. ] (]) 16:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
	*Decline. The issues here seem clearcut and have not reached the complexity which would be required for arbitration. ] (]) 12:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
	*Decline. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 20:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
	*Reject. The Community can handle this situation. No need for ArbCom involvement. ] (]) 21:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
	* Reject per Flo. ] ] 20:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
	----

	=== Rollback consensus ===
	'''Initiated by ''' ]<sup>g</sup> '''at''' 00:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

	* It appears as well. —<small>] (]\|])</small> 01:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

	==== Involved parties ====
	Everyone ]

	; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
	*
	*
	*

	; Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried
	*
	*
	*Discussion on ] (various threads)
	*Discussion on ] (various threads)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	<s>Non admin rollback is a perenial debate, for which there is a long-standing failure to gain an community consensus. A poll ] was held over many months from January 2006, and having closed at 216 support to 108 oppose (exactly 2:1) was deemed to be without consensus. Another poll ] was opened by proponents of the idea on December 30th 2007. This poll (advertised on AN and ANI and Central discussions) was marked as due to close on January 6th. I discover it on January 4th - and with 48 hours to run - it had only attracted 60 votes, and was deemed to be "succeeding" with c. 49/11. Concerned over the propriety of a short snap poll over the holidays, I tried to persuade the initiators to extend it for a few weeks, when they refused, I took a lot of flack for "spamming" the official mailing list with my concerns. After that it was added to the site notices. The poll, however, was closed on 7/8th January (8 days) with 304 support and 151 oppose (exactly the same % as 2006 - nothing had moved).

	Following the second poll, the feature was implemented by a developer on 9 January 2008 as noted at {{bug\|12534}}. - Since then, a new process ] has been initiated - and rollback widely granted. I understood that developers were only to turn on functions for wikimedia communities where there was a settled local consensus. As can be seen from the bug report, Ryan Postlethwaite presented 67% as representing an en.wp "consensus" and a dev accepted this (perhaps there were other conversations). Although consensus is more than numbers, this was the same non-consenus ration as have been stable for two years, and we don't even promote admins on 66% never mind begin a whole new policy and process - so how it can be presented and accepted as local consensus is beyond me. Every precedent has required more support that this. And the result is heated debate and a general feeling of community consensus having been manipulated by people determined to get their way.

	Rollback is in itself no big deal. However, giving the power to 1400 admins to giveth and taketh away, gives alarming potential for disputes drama and the growth of process, rules and instruction creep. we have seen enough of all of these in 25 hours. Thus this impacts hugely on the project and is a potential sink hole for admin time. So we must not do this lightly on six day polls and a developer's bad judgement.

	As this has been done outside of the community's process, there is no remedy other than arbcom or the WMF board. Arbcom does not make policy. The community does that. But the community cannot agree, at this point, whether there is a consensus for this new policy or not. Arbcom's role is to be a mediator where the community cannot agree. Arbcom should NOT decide whether rollback is bad or good. But I am asking them, however, to arbitrate the community dispute as to whether there exists a settled consensus.

	Jimbo has already indicated that arbcom do have a roll here: ''"ArbCom will discuss and vote on the result, and make a formal request to the Wikimedia Foundation about whether it should be turned on or not, and to establish the policy.... ArbCom will of course most likely follow the vote of the community, but I will not require them to do so. They should serve as a "check and balance" in the event something strange happens here, or in case the discussion shows a way forward that the vote itself does not accurately represent.--] (]) 21:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)"''

	I asking Arbcom to do something less than Jimbo has done. I am asking them merely to arbitrate the dispute as to whether consensus exists.

	--]<sup>g</sup> 00:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

	'''Addition'''
	:Jimbo has said ''"I recommend that people basically do nothing at all here, i.e. please don't go awarding this ability to lots of people in an effort to create "facts on the ground" about how it is used."'' Unfortunately, that's too late. Within minutes (or hours if my time zones are wrong - but I don't think so) of a dev responding to Ryan Postlethwaith's plea that there was community consensus (2008-01-09 22:53:17 UTC), the other initiator Majorly, moved, a ready-made process out of Ryan's userspace into action and declared it "switched on" - a site bar header invited applicants to the page shortly after.--]<sup>g</sup> 02:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

	'''Question'''
	Two arbs are saying that the community should decide this. However, the community DID. We polled (badly and manipulatively) and reached no consensus = status quo remains. A developed overrode our conventions and declared this to be mandate to proceed. What is the redress if not arbcom? How is the community to address this when a large chunk are content that they've got their way - and there cannot be a consensus to reverse it? Do I personally go and lobby a developer to turn it off? I really cannot see how we move forward from here. Discussion will end with the same lack of consensus and the normal lack of consensus option (=do nothing) has been overridden.--]<sup>g</sup> 09:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)</s>

	I withdraw from this case. The Christmas holiday coup d'etat has been unprecedentely successful in forcing through a major change without consensus. All credit to them - I'd probably have tried the same if I'd wanted something as badly and had as little chance of getting legitimate agreement. But, now we effectively have a new status-quo in this crazy process - and I predict we'll rue the day. However, that's what we've got, and the chances of the community obtaining a genuine consensus, which could change this status-quo, are as nil as they always have been. Jimbo's haverings about the WMF board and a new poll make no sense to me, and arbcom are not going to involve themselves in any difficult substantive issues. Maybe they will wag a finger at Ryan Postlewaith at al (a nice, manageable, user conduct issue for them) but what good would that do? Consensus lost here, and that's sad. But, as the victors have repeatedly and rightly implied, the rest of us had best shut up and get over it.--]<sup>g</sup> 14:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	From what I saw of what happened here, this was largely a poorly-timed (over Christmas) and poorly-planned (no exit strategy) poll. My feeling is that the breakdown in communication occurred when Ryan posted in the bugzilla thread that he personally saw consensus and asked the developers to have a look and judge for themselves (''"The poll has now closed with 304 supports and around 150 opposes. I'd say that's consensus, but please take a look."''). It seems that the developer then switched the feature on for en-wiki (I believe the feature was already implemented globally with a default 'off' setting and was actually ready to go, unlike last time). However, a little bit of digging and reading around the talk pages would have shown that things were not yet clear. But judging a borderline or otherwise uncertain consensus should not be the role of developers. What ''should'' have happened instead was for uninvolved en-wiki bureaucrats to be asked to judge the consensus, and for the result of that judgment to be posted at the bugzilla thread. Ideally, the bureaucrats would have been asked to 'clerk' the poll beforehand, so they could remain uninvolved if needed. I will add that the en-wiki community (writing the English-language encyclopedia) and the community of developers (writing the software) and sysadmins (integrating the software changes) need to make clearer to each other how they communicate on issues like this. ] (]) 01:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
	*''Response to Gurch (and Nick and Acalamari and anyone else worrying that this is about shutting the process down)'': The title of the request specifically mentions consensus. I agree with you that for better or for worse we have non-admin rollback, and that it is bedding in quite well, and there is no need to talk about disabling or suspending it. The point here is to find out what should have happened in order to settle the ''consensus'' issue, and learn lessons for next time a change like this is proposed (eg. how to improve communications). ] (]) 02:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
	*''Response to Sean William'': Thanks for pointing out Ned Scott's draft RfArb. The latest version before he blanked it is . I agree with what Ned has said concerning issues of user behaviour, and would encourage him to post the statement he was drafting. ] (]) 02:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

	:::''Note to self'': Other examples of technical processes being implemented, with and without drama. The "Table" namespace. The New Pages patrolled feature. Anonymous page creation disabled (and the nearly-implemented proposal to switch it back on).

	==== Statement by ] ====
	I agree that the questions raised by Doc are significant, and worthy of the Committee's consideration. Where is consensus? Is it a certain percentage? Or, to borrow a metaphor, is it whoever shouts the loudest? I know that every technical change is not approved, or even discussed, by the community - but when are the developers bound to seek (and follow) consensus, and how are their decisions reviewed if they go against consensus? I would argue that, in this case, the Arbcom is the appropriate venue.

	I also note for the record that the admins who put together and operate the process at ] have made what appears to be a good faith effort to implement a process for which there was some disagreement. The approval of any number of editors (myself included) to receive rollback tools isn't, in my view, an attempt to short-circuit consensus, but rather an attempt to fairly and reasonably implement a new process. The issues of this case should be limited to the events surrounding the activation of the developer's change, including the process for determining consensus beforehand, and whether such consensus existed (or exists).

	-- ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 01:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	Just when I thought discussion was dying down, Jimbo decided to intervene and now this came up. There is very definitely a community consensus to grant rollback in some form or other, all that is being debated is the workings of the process. The current process is not perfect, of course, but no process is. I think the amount that was achieved in 24 hours was remarkable, especically given that it was achieved despite the bickering of many contributors who did not like the way in which it was implemented. Sure, it could have been introduced a lot more smoothly. But we've got this far... can we please not screw up now? Requests for rollback have already died down after an initial surge. There are already long-establised rules governing the use of rollback that can simply be carried over from administrators; the only thing to settle is the process itself. We as a community can tweak and get consensus for the working of the process in good time on our own, we do not need a committee to babysit us. If the Arbitration Committee decided now to disbale use of the rollback tool, that would in all probablilty be the last time any non-administrator ever saw it. For the good of the project, this really, really isn't a good idea – ] 01:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

	====Statement by ]====
	The implementation of rollback hit us without anyone knowing about it. I also agree with Gurch on thsi topic. Just as we finished the initial voting we went forth to a short period of discussion about the definition of consensus. Hours later, we discover that it was implemented quite quietly. The problem that caused so much controversy is the vague definition of consensus. Could it be the definition? Does it mean that one side has more logical and convinicing arguements like ? This controversy has escalated to the point where only the ArbCom can decide. Personally, I believe that RfR should be tweaked into an RfA like process instead of the RFPP like process we have now to prevent users from misusing the tool. Or if we have intelligent discussion the community can come to an agreement. Although rollback allows users to be bitey, I would like to remember that rollback can be taken away from disruptive users and it is also a very good anti vandalisim tool. Also I have seen much bad faith in the arguments against rollback, the problems lie with the users, not with the proposals or everyone who has rollback. Thank you. ] ]/] 01:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

	====A modest proposal by ]====
	This just isn't worth the fuss. I respectfully request that the developer who implemented this un-implement it temporarily while the community decides whether/what type of implementation is appropriate, that ArbCom dismiss this case, and that people put their energies into something useful. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 02:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

	====Statement by ]====
	I agree with Carcharoth - it was largely a breakdown of communication between the en-Wiki process and the developers. I, for one, firmly believe there wasn't consensus for this change.

	In future, there needs to be a better way to decide whether a policy has passed or not, avoiding replying on developer discretion wherever possible simply to make life easier for everyone - the suggestion by ] on ] to let the ArbCom have the final decision on these sorts of polls and communicate this to developers seems like the best idea going forward. A way of preventing ambiguity over poll results and consensus should be the most important thing to come out of this process - if nothing else than to prevent discouraging developers from making active changes to Misplaced Pages lest they be controversial, and to prevent future controversial decisions.

	However, I can't help but think ], the original author of ], did his very best to muddy the waters and tried to cause as much confusion as possible to push through the policy by implying that there was consensus on Bugzilla bug 12534 while not showing his conflict of interest (or that his opinions on consensus differ from many) and advertising on ] prematurely.

	Rolling out ] at the first possible time irrespective of the fact that the policy wasn't ready causing confusion with policy made up on the spot was a bad idea. I believe that these sorts of actions should be strongly discouraged in future, and changes such as this should be done in a more considered manner - even if something is technically possible and enabled that doesn't mean it should be rushed into. -] (]) 02:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

	====Statement by ]====

	I welcome and strongly support the comments made by Gurch. I would also ask that the Arbitration Committee clarify their powers in relation to technical features. Whilst not strictly relevant, I note that some Arbitrators have been appointed following the recent elections with a level of support comparable to the level of support for the Rollback proposal (both in terms of votes and in terms of percentages). Arbitrators with such a level of support enjoy a clear mandate, and I believe this should also be the case with the Rollback proposal, as such, I cannot do anything but ask the Arbitration Committee to reject the full case, permit users to be given the Rollback permission and direct the community to create suitable policy to govern the process as it has been implemented. ] (]) 02:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====

	I received rollback through the process on 10 January. I echo the concerns of Gurch, and urge that a consensus be determined between the administrators granting rollback as suggested by Nick. Regardless, of what is decided, my main concern is what is to happen to the editors who have received rollback if the process is halted. I agree that the process is flawed, and have no doubts that many disagree with how the process was implemented in the first place. I commend the admins who have tried to work in good faith to implement a process to effectively judge if an editor should be given this tool. If the decision is made to stop this process of granting rollback to non-administrators, I would advocate that the editors who already have it (approximately 350+), be allowed to keep the tool, with the knowledge that their actions would be closely monitored, in order to judge if the concerns of the community in the aforementioned polls to determine community consensus have merit or not. This is because the unannounced (to those who have not kept up with the recent events following this process) removal of the tool to the 350+ users with it screams of assuming bad faith in the editors who have rollback.
	- -''']'''<sub>]</sub> 02:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

	====Statement by ]====
	I was an original opposer of this proposal before it was implemented. Now that I have seen how he process is operating my concerns have been addressed. Many of the oppose votes (my included) opposed because of unneeded bureaucracy or dislike of the process. I believe that a new policy needs to be made behind the new feature to assure that the policy has consensus. As was seen by the poll many people supported the idea but opposed the way it worked (i.e. should be carried out bureaucrats, twinkle does the same thing etc.). The solution would probably be to draft a new rollback policy that has consensus from the community (unless the policy was supposed to be implemented by majority) ]]] 02:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====

	Everything Gurch said above.

	====Statement by ]====
	This situation was handled poorly on every level. Once the developers activated the feature, the process ''immediately'' began - causing utter chaos. I tried to protect the page so that some discussion could be had, but it was only protected for about 40 minutes when John Reaves unprotected it as "not needed". I feel that it absolutely was needed, and still is. The parties list could be narrowed down easily to a few key players; Ned Scott already tried to do it in a sandbox of his (], old revision). ] ] 02:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

	====Statement by ]====
	I also agree with what Gurch said. As one of the most frequent participants at requests for rollback, I can say that everything has been going fine there, and problems, if/when they have arisen at the place, have been discussed and sorted out. I don't see any reason to close the process down, and I don't see what an arbitration case will achieve apart from waste a load of time for many people. '']'' 02:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====

	I have to echo ], ], and ] as well. Furthermore, ] has seen a major performance boost since it was granted rollback. Regardless of the outcome of this request for arbitration, my main concern is those who have received rollback. Especially the anti-vandal bots, because all rollback is for the bots is a more efficient way to do <u>the exact same thing that they do '''already'''</u>. I have not seen any misuse of rollback since it has been granted, and to remove it would go clearly against ]. -- ]<sup>(]\|]\|])</sup> 02:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

	====Statement by ]====
	From this case I hope to see an improvement of the process by which technical changes are made to the site. I note, for instance, that ] "passed" by 51 to 22, smaller numbers and proportionally less discussion no doubt due to not being linked on watchlists, yet was not implemented.

	People get upset not because things don't happen to go their way, but when they feel the generally agreed rules and customs of the site are not being applied fairly. Upsetting people tends to damage the encyclopedia, but a clear process can mitigate that. —] 02:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

	====Comment to Ashley Y====
	Regarding WP:PWD, it was not implemented due to lack of discussion. The rollback proposal, on the other hand has had tons of it. ''']''' ('']'') 03:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

	====Statement by Lawrence Cohen====
	Oh, enough already: ]. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 03:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

	'''Update''' Please accept this case. An extreme minority has taken to supercede consensus now even on the vote, and have edit warred it out of Misplaced Pages, primarily administrators. Take this case, please. Please review: and reconsider. This situation is hopeless, if some ultra minority of admins is going to drive an edit war to even take away the community's voice to decide such things like this, and kill an in-process vote that Jimbo called for. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 14:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite ====

	I’m not sure really what to say about this, we had what many could consider an RfC on the subject, a proposal and then a vote on the proposal which two thirds of the community said they wanted. What was my role in this? Well, I created the proposal which was discussed, then I created a final proposal which was put to a community vote. After around 450 people had voted on this, someone closed the poll citing discussion (I had nothing to do with the closure of the poll, I unwatchlisted it soon after it was created and I think it was closed by someone who opposed the proposal). A couple of days later, ] cited a bug request that had been put forward by an uninvolved party (Note: This was visible to all parties on the talk page of the poll) and I simply responded on the bug, citing that I personally thought there was consensus but asked the developers to take a look at the poll). I had previously created ] and userfied it just in case it was implemented. I was as shocked as anyone when I saw it had been moved out of my userspace and the first request was already up. I think it would have been better for us to have had a few days (at least) warning before implementation so we could have got our policy and procedures up to scratch to stop any resulting mess happening, but this didn’t happen. I hindsight, I think everyones done a fantastic job developing this into a non bureaucratic procedure as we’ve worked in real time to sort out some real problems we had when it first started last night. As with all procedures here, they need time to develop, and I really can’t see how there’ve been any major problems with it so far. This was in no way ideal, we should have had warning, but we’ve made the best of a bad situation, and what the majority of the community wanted. Over the next few weeks I expect us to develop further and unless there’s problems (which no-one has yet been able to cite), I can’t see any real need to change things. ] 03:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	I too agree with what Gurch says. At this point, most of the drama seems to just be for the sake of drama. Instead of continuing to argue about whether there was a consensus that the poll had a consensus, we should evaluate what has already been done. Is rollback being misused by non-admins on a significant scale (or at all)? Is the lack of a fully agreed upon system actually causing problems (other than people complaining about the lack of a process)? I've been mostly avoiding the discussion on the admins' noticeboard, but have instead been focusing on the discussion and process at ] and ]. For all the shouting and panicking elsewhere about how not having a pre-existing policy would be and is a disaster, it seems to be running fairly smoothly. There have been bumps, but for a totally new system, that is to be expected and work at the RFR talk page based on the experiences of people taking part in and observing the actual process is producing helpful results and minimal drama. Would having a fully agreed upon process before this was implemented have helped? Probably. Is it ''necessary''? No. For one, except for important content policies, rules are supposed to be descriptive. How do we describe something that doesn't exist? Was is a total disaster? No, even without rules, people used (gasp) common sense and started to form rules based on how things were working. Even if we created rules before it started, unless we got really lucky, we probably would have ended up rewriting most of them once the process started. I'm reminded of when patrolled edits for ] was activated (not quite as significant a change, but still quite noticeable). There was minimal on-wiki discussion beforehand, no RFC, no proposal, no straw poll, just a short discussion on the Village Pump. When it was turned on, I drafted up a quick set of rules based on my thoughts and some previous discussion (both public and off-wiki), people agreed with most, asked questions and commented on the talk page, and after a few bumps at the start (some due to it being ]) it proceeded with minimal drama. Even without rules written beforehand and pages of discussion, it went quite well. I imagine that given a few days to iron out some issues, this will go well also. <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 03:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====

	<s>I want to emphasize a major point here. There are mixed opinions about whether or not ] is working, and those above me have commented on the various good and bad points. That being said, the real question here is not whether the tool is effective, or if the feature is a good or bad, but whether or not the implementation was made ''with consensus''. I strongly disagree with ] that removing this tool is a violation of ], ''if'' it's found that enabling the feature was without consensus in the first place. At this juncture, I believe full protecting ] and allowing a true consensus to form is the appropriate course of action. I see no reason to remove access to the tool, for those already granted access, unless the community decides to remove it entirely from non-admins (which I sincerely doubt will happen). As an aside, while I did vote in Lawrence Cohen's poll above, I don't think a "straight poll" is going to be any less contentious than the present situation. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 03:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)</s>

	Withdrawn. Apparently a by the board chair, was enough for involved admins to make ]. This rather contentious debate exemplifies ''everything'' that is wrong with Misplaced Pages, and ArbCom's refusal illustrates why it won't get fixed. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 02:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	The poll has a number of troubling aspects. Most have been enumerated above, so I will sketch them only briefly here.
	*The poll was open for a very short period of time; I count less than nine days from first to last vote.
	*The proposal on which people were voting changed substantially over the course of the voting period: .
	*Even if 67% is taken to be a consensus that non-admin rollback ought to be made available, there appear to be wildly disparate opinions on when and to whom rollback should be granted.

	For comparison, I remind the Committee of the last major policy that depended on a vote to assess consensus: the three-revert rule. In that case there was as widely publicized poll, a clear question, and a full two weeks of voting: ]. The 3RR was passed with the support of 85% of the participants in the vote.

	Obviously the cat is out of the bag. The configuration that allows admins to grant and revoke rollback has gone live. There's no point to antagonizing the developers by asking them to pull the plug; it's not their fault that we've done a poor job of keeping our house in order. Indeed, I suspect that it will be beneficial to the project to have more (responsible) people with access to rollback. What ''might'' be a good idea – and what is a matter that I would very much like to see the Committee consider – is a temporary injunction.

	'''I strongly urge the ArbCom to declare a moratorium on granting rollback bits until the enwiki community can develop something like a stable policy on when and to whom rollback is granted.''' In the last days, I've seen a great deal of argument and very little agreement on a number of issues.
	*Should rollback be granted via private email requests, or only through a public process page?
	*How long should the community be allowed to consider or comment on a public request? (Times from fifteen minutes to twenty-four hours have been proposed; rollback requests have been granted within four minutes of their appearance on ].)
	*Who decides if an editor should have rollback? I've seen one admin refuse a request, only to be immediately overruled by another without any comment or discussion.
	*How is rollback withdrawn?
	*How are requests logged? Should only successful/unsuccessful requests be recorded? If private requests are permitted, should they be logged to prevent 'admin shopping'?
	Right now the ''de facto'' policy is being decided not through consensus but by whichever admins decide to deliberate for the shortest amount of time and act with the least prior discussion. Presented with a ''fait accompli'', there is a natural reluctance on the part of dissenting editors to risk the perception of wheel warring. This is not a good way to develop policy. ](]) 04:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

	====Statement by ]====

	I was very surprised to witness the blitzkrieg implementation of the non-admin rollback proposal. I'm really not convinced that there was a consensus for this change in the first place (it was way too borderline, and one should bear in mind that the support camp naturally attracted many users who, instead of pondering the pros and cons, simply supported because of their own benefit of getting the rollback tool). Anyway, even if we are to determine the outcome as consensual, I think that the amount of opposition should at least justify a slow and very well discussed implementation of non-admin rollback. Which just didn't happen. It was a disappointing process and bad omen for further proposals. <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 04:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====

	<s>While ArbCom does not make policy, and this RfAb is out of the realm of what ArbCom normally handles, I do believe this is a special case that requires a firm adjudicature from some type of authority.</s> It is very unlikely that true consensus could be reached on this issue. <s>without a firm conclusion from such an entity as ArbCom.</s> With that being said, the issue here is not ], it is not the ]. The issue is the blatant disregard of established practice and community understanding and application of consensus.

	Policy or guideline pages should never be implemented in such a scant time period. The fact that a dev enabled this feature does not mean that it was accepted by the community. When I first became aware that requests for rollback were being given I stated, '''"This sets a substandard precedent, and completely undermines established practice. Consensus is not counting the votes, it is not 2-1, and it is not ]."'''

	The real grievance here is the disregard shown to community consensus. A prime example is the issuing of rollback to anti-vandal bots, based on this ] which lasted just a couple days. Consensus can change, but not in 2 days or 2 weeks for a feature that can cause a ripple effect of this magnitude. <s>I urge ArbCom to accept this case, and be a facilitator of calmness and reason to this very serious issue.</s> ] \| ] 04:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
	:I've struck parts of my statement, as they really do not apply anymore. For the most part the stricken comments have already been decided/handled. ] \| ] 00:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

	====Statement by ]====

	This is silly. Around 300 people have requested rollback in the time since it went live. Presumably they like the idea of it. 2/3 of the community approved the policy in this form. Of the 1/3 that didn't like it, many of the objections were either flat out wrong (e.g. worrying about admins taking rollback away from each other) or were objections that would also apply to tools like ] (in other words, no new problems). If someone has a better implementation than the current system, then propose it, but there is nothing good that can come from arbcom reviewing this. --] (]) 04:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

	====Statement by ]====
	Well it seems that most if not all of the points of this discussion have been covered. The one thing I'd like to add, is that I personally disagree with the concept of developers judging consensus of userights issues. says "This position was created to dissociate rights management from software development ." While developers must, by nature, flick the switch, a steward or at least a crat should have been the judge of consensus to notify the developers. Thats not to say that any users here acted in bad faith or improperly (or even that the decision to turn it on was wrong), just that in order to avoid the possible appearance of impropriety on anyone's part, a steward or a crat should have made the call publically on the vote (like an RfA or AfD) and then notified the developers, however that is normally done. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 06:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
	:I'd also note that while all parties who contributed to the original discussion are listed as parties, this RfArb has only been mentioned on AN/I and the 2 Rollback related pages. If accepted I'd strongly urge a bot-notification of everyone who signed the discussion/vote page. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

	====Statement by ]====
	<s>I understand that this was initiated based on Jimbo's comments about this so no blame to the initiator but Jimbo is ''way'' off here. We don't need ArbCom or even Jimbo for that matter to figure this out. What we need is for everyone to stop seeing ghosts and get back to writing the encyclopedia. It's rollback - it's not delete or block. This love of process is a gigantic waste of time and needs to end now. ] (]) 07:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
	:Okay I'm getting more worried now. Given how this is going and the fact that the only thing we can agree on is an image of a white cat on the polling page I think we may have to ask ArbCom to act as mediators. Not policy makers, but mediators because clearly we are incapable of doing this ourselves. ] (]) 13:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
	::Also, may I just point out to Flonight who accepted this that the current list of involved parties per this request includes some 450 people not counting those who have become involved since? I think the best solution here would be for a group of arbitrators to act as neutral mediators. ] (]) 14:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)</s>
	Withdrawn. Apparently pointless now that there is a ban of at least 3 months on voting about this. I don't know where that was decided but apparently it was. So much for transparency. ] (]) 22:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

	====Statement by ]====
	This might sound odd coming from me, since about 24 hours ago I was for a case, but I'm not sure about taking this to arbcom anymore. Maybe yes, maybe no, but I've been thinking a lot about this in the last day.

	It's not a big deal in that it's not life or death, but people need to stop being mean to people who were upset by this. Same goes the other way around, when it applies. It's not ok for people to label such editors as being disruptive, because they have a concern, because they want to talk about it. We should avoid needless drama, but that does not mean rejecting anything that might generate some drama as a byproduct.

	The situation should have been dealt with better. We should have waited before promoting users. It didn't happen, and for what it's worth, the world did not explode. Still, we need a way of stopping such stampedes in the future. A lot of people thought it was ok to just jump right on in, and there was no way for someone to put it on hold without being brushed off as being "disruptive".

	Still, the way everyone responded, on both sides, was somewhat.. expected/ reasonable, consideration the situations, and how people normally react to such situations (at least for Misplaced Pages). But I'm still sorry this turned out to be somewhat of a mess. I'm sorry I got mad and that other people got mad. I'm glad that rollback granting itself have gone fairly smoothly despite all this. I feel bad for some of the things I said and did, and I feel bad that situations like this can put some users at odds with other users. I feel bad that this seems unfair to everyone involved in many ways (though there are certain things that could have easily improved the situation).

	I find myself agreeing with both Doc glasgow and Ryan Postlethwaite in a lot of what they say on this page. And a lot of other users too. I don't know, and it's almost 5 am and I'm tired. I don't know if I should just walk away from this whole issue, or try to help us improve things for the next time we have a similar issue. I don't even know if I would be of any help, but I'd like to be of some help if I can.

	I like just about all of you on this project. I really like our project and I really like working with everyone. Valid concerns or not, for when I was a bonehead, I hope people can forgive me, and I hope I can remember to do the same for others. -- ] 12:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

	=====Second statement by Ned Scott=====
	Yesterday when I posted my view I went directly to the request for arb page, fell asleep, woke back up, finished what I was writing, and went back to sleep. It's now been another 15 hours since then, and I'm still trying to fully catch up with everything that has happened in the last 40 hours.

	I wish there was a way to be mad-at/address something without having it become a big commotion, but that's just kind of the nature of Misplaced Pages. In all honesty, I can't find it in me to be really upset about this anymore. It's not that I should or shouldn't be, but just.. I have a lot of stuff to do, both in real life and on wiki.

	The most embarrassing part of this is my own misconception on the rollback feature. I had played a hand in this issue getting all hyped up, and I made an extreme rookie mistake. Had I understood rollback correctly, I would have actually supported it. That's not to say that I wouldn't have had any objections to the resulting situation, but.. lets just say I want to crawl into a little hole. When I realized that my main concern wasn't even related, I blanked my arbcom draft, cursing my apparent addiction to Misplaced Pages, which had prevented me from watching many ] that I had planned to view on that day. Sure, I had only myself to blame, but the nature of these things, and how we normally deal with them on Misplaced Pages puts a lot of us at a disadvantage (in comparison to real-life situations/disputes).

	When I first opposed the proposal I figured that it would still pass, and that if it really was a bad idea that we'd find out, and would be able to deal with it at that time. I understand that this has made a second issue, unrelated to the feature itself, but even about that I can't say that I'm that concerned. I think we'll be able to handle it, but it's hard, by the very nature of Misplaced Pages, to do so in a way that doesn't put us at ends with each other.

	We should be more worried about that than the disputes themselves.

	We need to figure out how to prevent misconceptions, ways to aid proper perspective, and ways to do this when we're dealing with large groups of people making the decision, using a text based method of communication, where we can shoot first and ask questions later, and where our instincts often betray us. Misplaced Pages's community is at a sort of critical mass (for a lack of better words), and this is evidence of that. -- ] 03:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

	====Statement by ]====
	<s>There are issues here that need to be examined. ] is a fundamental policy and should not be disregarded. When a consensus is disputed that dispute should be settled through dispute resolution, not ignoring the dispute. More than that, there is also a strong statement of principle by Jimmy that '''Any changes to the software must be gradual and reversible. We need to make sure that any changes contribute positively to the community, as ultimately determined by me, in full consultation with the community consensus.''' Did we have a full consultation? Were all issues aired properly? Was dispute resolution followed? Was ], the most fundamental resolution policy, followed? ] <small>] </small> 12:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
	*'''Further'''. I just also want to say this. I asked Ryan how to contact the devs and at no point did he mention the bug page. I wanted to point out that whilst there may be consensus that there should be some form of rollback granting, it may be that the current proposal was not the best implementation and that the community needed time to work out the best method. The current method stinks of instruction creep, and it may be that the community could have decided that no granting of the ability to amend user rights needed to be granted to admins. We may have decided that blocking could have been the method to deal with abuses of rollback and that rollback could have been granted to all accounts or to accounts with x amount of edits. There really has been a huge swathe of discussion curtailed here and behaviour does need to be examined at some level. I'm not suggesting Ryan deliberately misled me, but I think the fact that he didn't mention it to me perhaps undercuts his statement somewhat and thus part of the reason for Sam's decline to hear this. If it was an honest oversight, fair enough, but it just feels like enough people were asking for more discussion, for proponents to slow down. It felt like proponents were dismissing that as attempts to kill the issue by filibustering, something that breaches AGF if you ask me. It felt like contrasting opinions were being disregarded by those who wished this to be implemented. ] <small>] </small> 18:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
	</s>
	Withdrawn per statement to that effect from Anthere. ] <small>] </small> 22:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

	====Statement by ]====
	This is my first arb post ever, so please excuse me if it's too lengthy/not addressing the right things/etc, as I normally avoid these kinds of things. :P

	I think there are several issues in play here:

	*'''This is a permanent change''' — I think the pivotal issue here is the fact that we're deciding on something that is going to be a ''de facto'' permanent change, but it's been treated with wild disrespect and incorrect protocol for a serious policy change. Sure, we can say that “oh, we can just open another vote to have it removed,” but practically-speaking, even if there was wide abuse, there won't be a snowball's chance in hell of prying +rollbacker from the public's cold, dead hands.

	*'''+rollbacker isn't and won't be easy to remove in cases of abuse''' — One of the original arguments for adding it in the first place was that it would be easy to remove if it were to be abused. We've already seen that, in only the first few days of the ability being added and granted, people have allegedly abused it. But, when it comes to removing said permission, . Whether that will be the case in the future is uncertain, but this doesn't particularly bode well for occurring within only a couple of days of the permission being live. But, because it's a logged permissions change, it it certain to draw the wrath of those involved should they perceive injustice in any form; and, it goes without saying that any negative permissions entries, including +rollbacker, will be a scarlet letter in ] and other issues of character.

	*'''There have been ''very'' bizarre, confusing, atypical, and overall strange occurrences/incidents during the discussion and !voting processes''' — particularly:
	** and is troubling. People who would otherwise think they have casted their vote may not know it/they got wiped away until it's too late. This is extremely troubling, and I don't believe that ] meant anything by it, but in '''any''' vote where that happens, I believe that the poll should immediately closed, the issue dropped, and then reopened a couple weeks later once everyone is back on the same page.
	** is also troubling. There are reasons there aren't pictures strewn about polling booths, and ] has a '''lot''' to do with it. Also, notice the caption: “Do ''you'' already has rollback?” Which, in my opinion, directly prompts action resembling rally-like behavior.
	**] and the subsequent with atypical reasoning “I'm closing this, because it's already been acted on” ??? I could be wrong, but someone being ] in giving bots +rollbacker does not constitute consensus— especially after only 3 days of discussion (presumably because someone assumed it was a vote, which, in that particular case should be highly frowned upon because it involves technical issues that actually ''do'' need discussion).
	**. Judging by precedent of ], if even 84% percent !vote support isn't accepted as clear consensus, then a figure of, around 68% definitely shouldn't be either.
	**During the discussion and straw poll, had unsourced, ], opinionated rebuttals to opposition placed well before the poll itself in a highly visible location. As a result, it is likely that people who came to the discussion with opposition were dissuaded from voicing and/or agreeing with fellow opposers, while those who arrived to support were merely reinforced in their support. Granted, this is speculation on my part, but it wouldn't be fair to do the same thing in a polling booth during an election, so I wouldn't expect it to be done here.
	** — I say inadvertent, because posting a watchlist message to registered users is an issue of conflict of interest, much like posting a rally to a non-notable forum up for deletion is also a conflict of interest. My reasoning here is that there is a fundamental net gain from any editor supporting the ability to receive +rollback who isn't an admin already. As a result, people who wouldn't even be interested in policy changes in the first place or even know what rollback is are suddenly called to action, thereby artificially inflating the vote count, stimulating a false dichotomy, and reaffirming why polls are evil.


	In my opinion, I do not believe that any resultant vote will be fully reflective of either consensus or numbers due to the various misconducts in the process itself. I understand that I opposed the change in the first place, but I must affirm that despite that opposition, I'm not here to try to fight against consensus or anything, as might be inferred. Anyone who knows/investigates my history will know I'll always gladly defer to consensus, but ''in this case'', I do not believe that we will have an accurate gauge of consensus for the time being.

	I'm not blaming anyone, as they seem to be done in good faith and/or as humor and/or to alleviate confusion; but, in any election/poll, controlling for bias is critical, and when the result might not reflect the true state of things, we need to decide if a recount is necessary, and what preventative measures need to be taken to assure that all procedural elements are lucid.

	My opinion? I believe the entire thing should be scrapped'n'archived, waitlisted for about a month, then re-opened for discussion/vote/whatever— only in the interests of letting the dust and confusion settle so that everyone is back on the same page. From there, if a vote, discussion, or whatever is desired, then it should be done and a neutral, uninvolved group should decide what the consensus actually is; because, right now, this whole thing has turned into a zoo— and I'm not using the metaphor lightly. --]<small><sup>\ ] /</sup></small> 14:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	Like Slakr above me, I have been involved with ArbCom only marginally before now; please forgive me if I’m off-topic. However, I feel too strongly about this to sit on the sidelines.

	I am disappointed. So far, <s>two</s> three of our newly elected arbs have decided to reject this case to send it back to the community, when clearly the community is incapable of deciding on its own in this matter; as EconomicsGuy has said, the only thing we can seem to agree on is having a picture of a cat on the vote page, as the vote itself has been blanked several times, and now protected before I could vote. The Arbitration Committee is not suited to the job of deciding on whether policy changes should be implemented; however, in this case, the policy change was implemented without consensus from the community. Even Jimbo seems to want to pawn this off onto someone else. I confess being a little disappointed in Doc glasgow, whose previous statement, before he struck it out, seemed to be along the same lines as my thoughts here. This is not something to merely roll over and take.

	To be blunt: this is unacceptable. As much respect as I have for Ryan Postlethwaite, he seems to have some serious misguidings about what exactly consensus is. Consensus is '''not''' about straight numbers, not about who gets the most votes, and it certainly is not "who shouts the loudest." This is the premise by which he has declared victory, so to speak, and he is wrong. Ned Scott made some good points in his statement a few above mine; not only were the self-proclaimed "winners" of the rollback proposal being arrogant and rude, they were completely and utterly dismissive of anyone attempting to voice opposition, even as the feature was being implemented; see B’s post above as an example. From the very beginning, this proposal has had problems. As we all know, this is not the first time that non-admin rollback has been discussed. It was clear from the previous discussion that this was not something that could be simply voted on, and ''especially'' not in the six days that the proposal went before the proponents declared victory. As some will know, there’s been quite an uproar on the mailing list. So not only was there no consensus for this feature, there was absolutely no discussion on ''how'' it should be managed. I urge everyone to go and look at ] right now and witness the chaos currently underway; everyone voicing their opinions as to how people should be granted rollback, and we have indeed seen the beginnings of some ], as predicted. In the meantime, while the bickering continues, editors are being granted this tool left and right, with unknown ramifications. Like TenOfAllTrades and Durova, I strongly urge the ArbCom to declare a moratorium on granting this privilege until the community can develop a stable policy on when and to whom rollback is granted.

	I don’t really feel that this proposal is all that much of a good one. If people like Marlith feel that this should be more like an RfA, why not just send these candidates to RfA? These are obviously good, quality editors, otherwise we wouldn’t be granting them rollback (right?). Perhaps a large influx of candidates will help the RfA process to be less of a big deal, as it has become. God knows we can always use more admins to help out around here. To sum up: like Ned Scott, I respect all of you. Like I said on my RfA back in November, these conflicts are absolutely inherent and unavoidable when such a large number of people come from so many different backgrounds to work on something together. I hope we can all work together to arrive at a solution that best serves the project. ]''']''' 15:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

	====Statement by Sm8900====
	Sorry, I don't have any knowledgable details about the very important issue of how the ''discussion'' was handled. However, I do agree with all editors above who express any misgivngs about acceptance of and implementation of rollback. who needs it? what does it add, and how does it benefit anyone? but anything with such deep implications for Misplaced Pages needs to be looked at very, very carefully. --] (]) 16:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

	====Statement by uninvolved Blue Tie====
	I don't believe I saw this vote and I cannot help but wonder why this is a big issue. Why do we need to have this tool? Why does it matter if we do have it? But, if the vote was not handled right and consensus not followed then it should be reversed. So in essence I am in agreement with SM8900--] (]) 17:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


	====Statement by Jossi ====

	What da...? A poll? When? Where was it announced? Developer's implementation on the basis of a poll that ended 304 Support, 151 Opposed calling it consensus? Something is very wrong in Gotham city. ] <small>]</small> 16:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

	====Request for Injunction====
	I support the current Arbitrators who are opting to decline a case on this issue, I agree their involvement is premature. I think this is something the community ought to try working out first. However, judging by the discussion on AN/I and the absurd edit warring at ] I would like to request an injunction from ArbCom to frame the proceedings.

	My idea is an injunction defining where and for how long discussion ought to proceed. It's unusual, true, but it looks like most of the fighting is over the weight of past discussions and allow new discussion to proceed. So I would suggest defining a discussion period of at least one week, to be restricted to one page at or below ]. Following this, an open poll to last at least two weeks, also located in the same area. I wouldn't suggest any further definition of the discussion or polling, merely state that at the end of that time ArbCom would issue a statement either recognizing a consensus (for or against) or reopening discussions. Also at that time, ArbCom can reevaluate the need for them to referee the discussions further.

	I feel an injunction like this would go a long way to calming the current drama, and refocusing energies into something constructive. --] (]) 17:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

	====Statement by Tariqabjotu====
	Frivolous. -- ''']''' 20:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

	====Statement by Grandmasterka====
	'Frivolous' doesn't begin to describe it. ]]] 08:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

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

	==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/4/0/1) ====
	* '''Decline''', and (whether the current view is consensus or not) refer it back to community, to choose an approach to generate (or check) a consensus-based decision on the rollback facility. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] \| ])</span></sup> 03:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
	{\| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
	\|-
	! style="background-color: #f2dfce" \| Detailed reasons.
	\|-
	\| style="font-size:110%" \|
	; Should Arbcom hear it?

	Setting aside the view of Jimbo Wales (see below), and the question whether the Committee ''can'' hear the matter (it can: 1/ ]; 2/ "unusually contentious between admins", 3/ interpersonal dispute, 4/ conduct), there are good general reasons not to.

	# In this case there is a good chance the community will be able to resolve it, itself. Where possible Arbcom should not decide matters over the community's head, but all of us should use the opportunities to better gain understanding of consensus decision-making. This is properly a matter for the community to decide (less controversially?), and Arbcom to then ratify and formally request to the devs as a communal decision. (We may look separately at the mechanics of how it got activated, for future - presumably there should have been formal confirmation or no change?)
	# Arbcom should set a bar for accepting cases. ] stipulates that serious consensus building/dispute resolution (as applicable) should have usually been tried first. There's reasons for that, one of which is that ultimately it is more beneficial that the ''community'' (ie users in general) makes decisions; Arbcom is not an executive body and should only reluctantly accept a role beyond "last resort for editorial/conduct disputes" (and then only minimally). It is easy to take on new powers, roles and tasks for the best of motives, but my judgement is it would also be for the long term detriment of the community if the Committee moved in the direction of being seen as "solver of all problems". It's too easy for people to become used to passing problems to some perceived authority. The ethos of the Misplaced Pages approach is that ''all users in general'' solve them co-operatively rather than having some group "do it for us". ''The community is the authority here''. If at all possible, the community should be aided to move beyond its own impasses and thereby become more capable. A strong collaborative community is wanted. To underline that the community is indeed capable, a fair number of other cases passed upwards later end up (once the drama is settled) as being addressed communally anyway, proving the community is more than capable and didn't really need arbcom to step in, much of the time (Attack sites NPA edit, ], etc). My personal view.
	# Given further discussion and serious approaches to consensus-seeking (see ] for what a 'serious approach' might mean), the only other contentious matter here is ] for the unnecessarily contentiousness. ] and disagree that hearing such a case would be worth the time taken away from content writing and other activity.
	# Jimbo Wales that there should be a community poll and votes, followed by Arbcom discussion with a view to ratifying the outcome and draft policy. He did not say "go to Arbcom immediately". For the reasons above, I'm in agreement with that broad view.
	# ]. The software facility isn't going anywhere. If we don't agree now, we can re-discuss in 6 months or a year. When the community wishes it, it'll happen. So "no consensus" is not troublesome.
	# There is unlikely to be harm given rediscussion. Approvals are mostly going to be obviously sensible users, rollback abuse is easy to fix and the switch can be removed. Communally consider a moratorium or 24-48 hour approval time for the while.

	;Summary and decline
	In this case, there is disagreement whether consensus exists. If it does, then a re-test of consensus will affirm it. If not then a retest will be needed to develop consensus. In neither case is the community served by the Committee taking the testing of that view out of the hands of the community at large. Whatever we were to say, there would be loud voices that it was incorrect/improper. This isn't ] and Misplaced Pages works by consensus; my view is if unsure, recheck. Hence decline.

	If I were to be asked to sum it up, I'd say something like this:-
	: The "non-admin rollback debate" is better discussed in the hands of the community, even if contentious. Consensus sometimes takes work and is gained by ''overcoming divisions''; this is a part of our agreed approach. I feel it's best to return the matter back to the community, and encourage and recommend RFC or some way to genuinely decide what consensus would look like, and how to test it, to supersede the contentious decision-making to date. The community may wish to make a decision concerning granting of rollback in the interim. Although this matter would be within the Committee's purview if it chose, I would strongly decline to take it on, as it is in every way best dealt with as a communal policy decision.

	] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] \| ])</span></sup> 03:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
	\|}
	*Decline. FT2 speaks well here. ArbCom can explicitly ratify the community's consensus once that is established; we do so all the time implicitly every time we use a community policy in a case. But I'm not sure why we should, regardless of Jimbo's request; if the decision is a really bad decision, we're not going to be the only ones or the first ones to notice it, and the community's request to the Foundation would hopefully be rejected anyway; and if the decision is a good decision, ArbCom's imprimature is hardly going to make it a better decision (unless there's something odd I don't know about the Foundation's deliberation processes.) If the community likes the idea of ArbCom being some sort of conduit for the rare policy request to the Foundation, I suppose we could do that, but I'm not sure why it should be necessary. I do think the declaration of "consensus" to the developers bears examination, but that's about it. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 08:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
	*Accept to examine user conduct issues related to civility and prematurely declaring consensus in an important issue that effects the entire community. ] (]) 11:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
	*Decline per FT2. In other circumstances a case based on misconduct through misrepresentation of consensus to a developer might have been worth taking but Ryan Postlethwaite's statement makes it clear that there was no misconduct on his part. ] (]) 16:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
	{\| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
	\|-
	! style="background-color: #f2dfce" \| Obiter dicta
	\|-
	\| style="font-size:110%" \|
	; Remarks generally on 'policy' cases and consensus

	The Arbitration committee is not suited to the job of deciding on whether policy changes should be implemented. It seems to me that, with such a diverse community, it is becoming harder and harder to find consensus for anything other than the most obvious change, and this is why there is a dispute over whether to go ahead, and who judges whether consensus has actually been demonstrated. I incline to the view that it is usually obvious whether a consensus has emerged, so that, if there is a dispute about it, then we almost certainly do not have a consensus.

	If the community is unhappy at decision-making by consensus, then would a consensus emerge on another way? ] (]) 16:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
	\|}
	*I could accept this case for the sake of providing a foundation for similar potential cases in the future (the way of handeling it). I could reject this case on the basis that the 'process' is already in place and running somehow well, though ''not'' in a complete status; which is normal under all the circumstances presented in this case. I could recuse myself since, acting as a regular user, i had suggested a page's full protection until the process is put in place so to avoid drama, edit warring as well as some other points i mentioned at the RFR's talk page. However, i will be reduced to comment only... I have to point out that the major concern here is not about the ''new'' feature itself but about the misunderstanding (good-faith mishandling would be probably the best term to describe the situation) of one of our core policies (i.e. ]). To settle this case, i would advise the community to revise the process of how consensus is established (in case it is possible in this case). Some say that the process is 'not' important. No, it is important, otherwise we won't need policies and guidelines, administrators and the ArbCom. There is a need to remind everyone (especially involved admins) that ]. Which is not really important is bureaucracy. My personal opinion on the feature itself? None. As pointed out above by some of my fellow arbitrators; the ball is at your camp. In other words, my only BIG concern here ''is'' how consensus is interpreted and implemented. I don't blame any user for being 'quick'/'bold' but i'd highly suggest that important decisions about new features/processes should take enough time to decide upon. One of the advantages of that would be saving time while preserving the smooth running of this project. Probably, a simple and quick consultation with the ArbCom, Jimbo and the developpers would have been the best option; not for them to set a standard or a policy but a ''cool'' advice on how to manage the process smoothly. But well, we are already here and hope everyone thinks about ways preventing drama before it occurs in the future. Thanks everyone. -- ] - <small>]</small> 14:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
	* Reject. Though I agree with Flo that there is potential behavioural concerns to examine, I think the parties involved have learnt their lessons by now. I don't see it as beneficial to the community at large to accept a case on this now. ] ] 20:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
	----

	== Appeals and requests for clarification ==
	''Place appeals and requests for clarification on matters related to past Arbitration cases in this section. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at ]. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the ]. '''Place new requests at the top'''.''

	=== Anyeverybody/Anynobody and ] ===
	From the start it's important to understand that I am here to contribute, I can't boast ] after ] since the subjects I have the most knowledge about are controversial. As such they are difficult to edit into Featured shape. Nor is my edit count as high as our more prolific contributors, however as proof of my commitment I can point to over ''' created, enhanced or found and added to the project.''' (I'd guesstimate 85-90% are images I created or enhanced for the project, while the rest are simply ] images found on government/military websites. I'll lowball my efforts and keep the number at 100 to make things easier for those not mathmatically inclined. 85% of 100 is 85. Many of them took more than a few hours of work and are used on several projects. (Essentially I'm also contributing to the , , , , , the list goes on and includes five or six other languages. It also includes an image nominated for . I'm not trying to brag, but since people seem to think I'm only about trolling or gaming the system it's important to show that to be untrue. I wouldn't spend so much time helping out to turn around and troll someone while gaming the system.

	The ], I thought, going to be about the issue of people using ] IPs and open proxies to edit ] related articles with a pretty clear view towards affecting the POV of said articles. I honestly thought that Bishonen bringing up the disagreement between Justanother and I was pretty unrelated to the case and that the arbcom would think the same thing. By the time it was clear that they didn't, I was being accused of harassment, thereby making any effort to show past, and more extensive, bad behavior on his part seem like confirmation of my harassment of him. It's very frustrating to have so many people assume bad faith on my part because a popular admin does.

	For example Justanother recently cited an example of what he called bad faith on my part:]. The issue of my supposed harassment was recently brought up in the arbcom, then as now, nobody would give specifics about what was/was not harassment. Certainly reminding him that 3RR rules apply to everyone wouldn't be considered harassment, since it's true: ] If you read the thread itself it should be obvious that I simply wanted to warn him that as he had made the same mistake as the editor he was trying to get ''blocked''. (Please note also that I created both the arbcom thread and the 3RR note in good faith, if I was acting in bad faith, why would I turn around and tell the arbcom about it? I also didn't ask for or insist on a block at any time.)

	So I'm asking for the arbcom to either let me explain/address whatever evidence they decided warranted an assumption of bad faith on my part, or failing that allow me to present evidence of how any harassment I could have inflicted is minimized by similar behavior which he initiated first and with other editors (who no longer edit anymore). Why am I bringing this up now? Because Justanother has begun using this case to leverage his position on articles like: ] where he is currently arguing against but is also mentioned in said article, ] by accusing me of editing the wrong part of ] before other parts are added as the reason why it's inappropriate to talk about the Salt Lake Tribune's use of ] to defeat Barbara Schwarz's defamation suit. He's also been posting on my talk page, which begs the question, if I harassed him,

	I think the findings re him and I in the case should be dropped, and any future issues be dealt with through ] which was essentially skipped before. Going to arbcom for editor disputes in the context of an entirely separate issue seems to be pretty rare, except in this case. (Heck, we skipped ] entirely.) ] 07:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
	;Comment by Justanother (JustaHulk)
	Leaving the issue of the appropriateness of Anyeverybody's (Anynobody or AN) attacks on me here and sticking strictly to the facts, I do want to respond to a couple of AN's misrepresentations here.
	# Re: ''"For example Justanother recently cited an example of what he called bad faith on my part:"'' That is a complete misread of my remark at ]. The bad faith I was referring to was this:<blockquote>"AN constantly claims that he does not understand the ruling but when it is clearly explained to him, he ignores the explanation and grossly violates it by trotting out his collections of old, out-of-context diffs regarding me."</blockquote>That is bad faith. The other bit in that remark was clearly an answer to AN's previous question:<blockquote>''"Could you please provide a diff from the arbcom where I pulled "this crap" and was told why what I did was like/unlike this? (Seriously, I'm not holding a grudge I just can't remember doing anything like what I've identified as harassment. Would you please just show where/when I did the same thing?) Anynobody 06:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)"''</blockquote>
	# AN accuses me of ''"using this case to leverage his position on articles like: Neutral reportage"''. That is a lie - I never tried to use the harassment restriction on AN to my own advantage and, in fact, went out of my way to not make the restriction a problem for him. I did not accuse him of violating it in this case until he brought it up on ] and, even then I did not accuse him of violating it until he did so in a gross and obvious manner. As regards editing together, there is no reason why I would stop taking an interest in the representation of Barbara Schwarz here and if AN intends to continue adding Schwarz material then he can expect my continued interest and involvement. Again, I went out of my way to NOT make our disagreement in the article have anything to do with the harassment ruling and I repeatedly clarified for him that he is perfectly free to seek ] on any issues related to article content that we may have. Gotta run now but that pretty well sums it up. Thanks. --] (]) 15:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

	''AN constantly claims that he does not understand the ruling but when it is clearly explained to him, he ignores the explanation and grossly violates it by trotting out his collections of old, out-of-context diffs regarding me'' If it ever was explained I honestly don't remember or didn't see it. Please ] and show me where it was explained when/how my behavior crossed into the area of harassment. The examples I've cited are not out of context when discussing the difference between harassment and acceptable behavior. If
	{{multicol\|100%}}
	'''This:'''
	*3/8 The attempted ] by myself, ] and perhaps other editors who found themselves unable to resolve their disputes with him.
	* about it posed by a neutral editor during my ]
	and
	*
	*6/19
	'''...is harassment...'''
	----

	If one ] I tried to resolve a dispute involving several editors through ], requested admin tools to help with some backlogs and in the process answered a question, then asked for independent feedback, later asking uninvolved admins if it is a personal attack to document an editor's uncivil behavior?

	If one assumes bad faith, I'm not sure what they think I was doing because they'd have to assume I was out to attack him rather than resolve disputes. This doesn't describe the situation because I'd never intentionally set out to attack someone, since it doesn't actually solve anything and would actually work against me.
	{{multicol-break}}
	<div style="text-align: center;">'''...and...'''</div>
	{{multicol-break}}
	'''this:'''<br /><small>(Note, these diffs are Justanother posting his disputes regarding Smee's editing on ]/] and that none of them are about me. Why bring up his dealings with Smee up? To show that I'm not trying to attack him when I say other editors have had difficulty editing with him, and help explain why I felt the RfC/U was appropriate. Diffs '''before''' the RfC/U are underlined)</small>
	{\| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
	\|-
	! style="background-color: #A3BFFF;" \| Examples
	\|-
	\|<u>
	*2/10
	*2/22 Started by another editor but the message is still the same.
	*3/5
	*3/5 (new thread)
	**3/5-1
	**3/5-2
	**3/5-3
	**3/5-4
	**3/5-5
	**3/5-6 See ]
	**3/5-7
	*3/5-8 Related to this issue he begins a thread on ] See my editor review in the first list*
	**3/5-9 he replies by mentioning her possible inadvertant violation of 4RR.</u>
	*3/16
	*3/23
	*5/13
	*5/30
	*5/30-1
	*6/4
	*6/13 (Quote:Most are the work of one editor, Smee, formerly Smeelgova,'')
	*6/14
	\|}
	'''...wasn't, what's the difference?'''

	----

	If one ] Justanother was simply being diligent about perceived violations of the rules regarding this editor.
	If one assumes bad faith, he was following an editor who was being ] for adding material he found objectionable.
	{{multicol-end}}
	I honestly think the difference is that people do not ] on my part, based on accusations by ] and didn't take the time to actually look at the conversation/context of what she cited as evidence. I never even asked that he be blocked, and have said numerous times that I don't want to see anyone banned. Even now I'm asking just that ordinary ] be used for future disagreements and '''am not and never have''' asked for him to be ruled against. Accusing me of editing under bad faith given these facts has been hard to come to grips with. ] 07:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

	:The only specific finding against you was that you were prohibited from harassing Justanother. Another finding specifically said it implied nothing about your editing. As no-one is allowed to harass another user (see ]) the effect is to specifically order you not to do something that you should not have been doing anyway. The article probation for all scientology articles affects you just as much as every other editor. In those circumstances I see no cause to interfere with the remedies in this case. ] (]) 10:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

	I should explain that I'm not asking for article probation to be changed. Did you see this finding? ] I have been blocked twice for trying to find out more information about it, ]. ] 21:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
	:I have reviewed this submission and see no need for any clarification or modification of the remedies at this time. I suggest that you drop this matter and proceed with your editing. ] (]) 08:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

	===Privatemusings===

	I'm willing to give this one a chance.

	Original case located .

	I propose
	====Repeal====

	=====Privatemusings banned for 90 days=====
	3) {{userlinks\|Privatemusings}}' editing privileges are revoked for a period of 90 days. The revocation affects all accounts.

	====Impose====
	=====Privatemusings placed on mentorship.=====
	3) {{userlinks\|Privatemusings}}' is placed under involuntary mentorship until 29 Feb 2008. The commitee appoints {{userlinks\|Mercury}} as mentor in this case.

	Thanks for consideration. ]
	:I have a general familiarity with the Privatemusings case, and personally would probably have supported a lesser remedy than the committee adopted in the case a couple of months ago. However, I don't believe there is sentiment from the committee as a whole to make any changes to the remedies at this time. ] (]) 08:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

	===]===

	]

	''The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.''

	The article is about a conservative Internet forum founded by Jim Robinson. ] is a former member of that forum who was permanently banned in 1998 for creating nearly 100 sockpuppet accounts for purposes of disruption. He has been called "the Eschoir," and the person using this descriptive term was clearly not biased against him by any sympathies with Free Republic. Eschoir was so disruptive that Robinson found it necessary to spend $110,000 on a federal lawsuit to obtain a permanent against him. If he ever starts another account at Free Republic, he can be jailed for contempt of court.
	This is the mother of all ] problems. Eschoir never should have been allowed to edit the ] article.

	Nevertheless, ] was willing to AGF, as seen on Eschoir's User talk page. From that moment forward, Eschoir steadily transformed the Free Republic article into his own bitter little personal blog. It was an inventory of every petty little feud that occurred between Free Republic members, and every nutball statement that was ever said in a ten-year history of about 2 million posts in their forum. The article gradually moved farther and farther away from compliance with ].

	At one point, he added an edit containing the word describing an alleged event involving two real people: Kristinn Taylor, a prominent participant at Free Republic, and another participant using the alias "Dr. Raoul." Since the article isn't about a topic dealing with sexuality or medicine, this immediately attracted my attention regarding a possible ] violation. (Since then, Eschoir has that the alleged event never occurred.)

	I placed a final for vandalism on Eschoir's Talk page and started actively editing the article to bring it into NPOV compliance. Ever since that moment, he has been making false ]
	accusations,

	and occupied territory that's best described as a continuous violation of ], ], ], ], ] and ].
	Eschoir expanded a quotation from Robinson into a , continuing his campaign of cherry-picking quotations that make Free Republic look like a collection of nutballs and criminals. He chopped up a Talk page post into an incomprehensible mess by a contentious and contemptuous response between its lines.

	Eschoir then began to engage in a full-fledged edit war to revert edits that were supported by consensus, and clearly intended to restore NPOV.



	When ] offered to do a complete rewrite, or “refactoring” of the article in an effort to end the edit war, at first it seemed like a good idea. Eschoir offered several , including using a reverse chronology format, but couldn't resist making another jab at FR regarding "volunteer shock troops" and "holy war." (See also regarding reverse chronology format.)

	Rather than wait for BenBurch to do it, Eschoir did the himself on a "sandbox" page. Now it's obvious why Eschoir wants to go with a reverse chronology. It enables him to stuff all of the following epithets, from recent critics describing Free Republic, into the first 161 words of the article:

	:*vile
	:*hateful
	:*besmirching Christian values
	:*some pretty sick people posting
	:*inciting the murder of Hillary Clinton
	:*racist and homophobic
	:*poor moderation
	:*victimized by a wave of purges

	Eschoir’s continued efforts to demean anyone on the ] page who doesn’t share his position:
	Said efforts have been recognized as demeaning by others:
	This is a perfect example of why COI editors need to be watched closely. Please take the necessary action.

	I previously brought this up for enforcement at ] Arbitration Enforcement. I was told that your ruling was so vague that it's unenforceable, and that I should bring this issue to ] Clarification. The ruling from the previous arbitration must be modified so that no administrator could possibly misunderstand that he has the authority, and the duty, to ban editors from editing the Free Republic article and related pages for being disruptive, failing to assume good faith, or making personal attacks. Specifically, please ban Eschoir from editing the article. It's been 10 years since he was banned from Free Republic for creating nearly 100 sockpuppet accounts. His of the Free Republic article demonstrates that even after 10 years, he can't resist the temptation to turn a Misplaced Pages article into a ] to Jim Robinson. ] (]) 20:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
	:Blatantly disruptive editing on any article can be dealt with by any uninvolved administrator, following consultation on WP:ANI where appropriate. Arbitration (or arbitration clarification) is not always necessary, and may not be needed here if administrators conclude that the problem is serious enough. With specific respect to Eschoir, the editing history described above is very troubling, although I would welcome comment here by Eschoir before reaching a further conclusion. (I see that Eschoir was apparently not notified of this request for clarification, and have left him a talkpage note asking him to respond.) It is also noteworthy that a proposed finding of fact during last year's case, though not ultimately adopted, stated that ''"{{userlinks\|Eschoir}} bears the name of an editor banned by Free Republic whose disruption of the site was so severe that an injunction was entered by a federal district court forbidding disruption of the site."'' If User:Eschoir is, or seeks to emulate, the individual covered by the court decision, then it might indeed be suitable for him to discontinue editing this particular article. ] (]) 15:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

	::I think you're stuck with this one, Brad. The previous article probation was ], stating that the situation would be reviewed upon motion of an Arbitrator or request from an editor. After a very cursory review there is nothing in Eschoir's recent history that would be disruptive enough for a page ban in the absence of previous ], and as you know community-enforced page bans are still somewhat novel. ] 19:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::Thanks for the heads up. Samurai Commuter is clearly BryanfromPalatine, picking up from where he left before his permaban. I will give you my evidence should it be required. I think it's obvious. If there is a need to respond to his diatribe, I will do so. I will clarify again one serious sounding misconception.

	<blockquote>
	"{{userlinks\|Eschoir}} bears the name of an editor banned by Free Republic whose disruption of the site was so severe that an injunction was entered by a federal district court forbidding disruption of the site."'' If User:Eschoir is, or seeks to emulate, the individual covered by the court decision,
	</blockquote>

	There was no "court decision," no hearings, no witnesses, no trials. Because I testified for the LATimes in the coppyright case, they sued me in state court for a million dollars. The wrong state court. I removed it to Federal Court for strategic reasons. They spent $110,000 pursuing me, then settled the case on my terms. Since they got no damages, they wanted at least an injunction, so I gave them one in the settlement papers. There was no wrongdoing alleged in the settlement and releases. Their lawyer, Bryan's mentor, was later disbarred.

	Thannks again for the Heads-up. ] (]) 22:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

	:This is what Newyorkbrad said: ''"With specific respect to Eschoir, the editing history described above is very troubling, although I would welcome comment here by Eschoir before reaching a further conclusion."'' Eschoir has offered no comments about his editing history. I suggest that some explanation of his editing history is called for here, in light of the many troublesome diffs I've posted here. But Eschoir remains silent. ] (]) 20:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
	====outing, harassment====
	Samurai Commuter placed links here to Freerepublic.com, linking to harassing and outing of Misplaced Pages editors here. I removed it and mailed oversight. It looks like there are other things like that on that message board. Is it appropriate for users to be linking there? <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 07:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

	I suspect the editor "Samurai Commuter" is the banned editor "BryanFromPalatine", based on the comments and actions on this page. See also this evidence in a current RFAR: . The user has me to restore a modified version of his 'evidence' to this section, but I am disinclined to do so as I have mailed Oversight to have it removed for exposing personal information about other editors here. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 19:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

	:I notice that Lawrence Cohen blanked an entire section of ArbCom evidence, claiming that I posted links to personal information about Eschoir. In the preceding section, Eschoir admitted that he is the real person who was sued by an Internet forum, for creating nearly 100 sockpuppets for purposes of disruption. Eschoir then provided a ridiculous narrative of that litigation, which had ending in a federal injunction against him.

	:I posted two links to online court documents, proving that Eschoir's narrative was ridiculous. I also posted a lot of diffs from right here at Misplaced Pages that took time to compile, and proved Eschoir's continued disruptive activity and edit warring. If privacy was really the issue, it would have been sufficient to delete the links to the two court documents and leave a pleasant note on my User Talk page. Instead, Lawrence Cohen blanked the entire section, reported me as a single purpose attack account, and had me blocked indefinitely. He is now refusing to restore the evidence section he deleted, or even discuss the matter. Please see his User Talk page.

	:I'd appreciate a ruling on this at ArbCom's convenience. By admitting that he is the real person in question, by prevaricating about the federal injunction against him, and by continuing his efforts to turn a Misplaced Pages article into a ], Eschoir has opened the door to this discussion. ] (]) 19:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
	::Please send a copy of any information that you believe was wrongfully blanked to the Arbitration Committee mailing list by e-mail. Please also respond to the assertion that you are the same individual as the banned user BrianFromPalatine. If you are, you are still entitled to have your concern with the article considered if you submit it by e-mail, but you should not be posting on-wiki. ] (]) 20:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::No comment on ]'s concerns, but the accounts 52 edits all seem to be related to this subject. --] (]) 23:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
	::When there's a disagreement on content, we're asked to work it out on the article's Talk page. My reward for trying to do that is the suggestion that I'm an SPA. ] (]) 11:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

	==Motions in prior cases==
	<!-- Do not remove this transclusion -->
	{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Motions}}
	<!-- Interwiki links and categories are up at top of page -->

Latest revision as of 03:40, 31 January 2023

Wikimedia project page

ArbitrationCommittee

Dispute resolution (Requests)
Tips
Assume good faith Use etiquette Be civil Be open to compromise Discuss on talk pages Failure to discuss Help desk (Request)
Content disputes
Third opinion (Request) Mediation Noticeboards Request comments (Request) Resolution noticeboard (Request)
Conduct disputes
Administrator assistance (Request) Arbitration (Request)
v t e

Misplaced Pages Arbitration

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

Track related changes
v t e

Shortcuts

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Misplaced Pages. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Request a new arbitration case
Request clarification or amendment of an existing case
This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed
Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
Arbitrator motions
Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	21 Dec 2024	11 Jan 2025

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: American politics 2	none	(orig. case)	15 January 2025
Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal	none	none	22 January 2025

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

Shortcuts

About this page

Use this section to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority).

Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests.

Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace.

To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

File an arbitration request

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
- Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

This page is for statements, not discussion.
Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, e.g. off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
Declined case requests are logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)

Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
- Click here to file a referral from AE requesting enforcement of a decision.
- Click here to file a referral from AE appealing an arbitration enforcement action.
Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Clarification and Amendment archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126
127	128	129	130	131

Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1–2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
- Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

Arbitrators and clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Shortcuts:

Clarification and Amendment archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126
127	128	129	130	131

Amendment request: American politics 2

Initiated by Interstellarity at 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected: American politics 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Contentious_topic_designation

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

Interstellarity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Contentious_topic_designation
- Request to push the year of the contentious topic designation to be later.

Statement by Interstellarity

I would like to request that the designated year of the contentious topic designation to be pushed somewhat later. The year 1992 was decided as the best compromise at the time. I feel that enough time has passed and we can possibly push it later and get an idea of how the cutoff is working. Four years ago, we only considered election years, but I think it would be better in this discussion to consider any year, regardless of whether it was an election year or not. I would like to throw some ideas on what the new cutoff could be.

1. Everything 2000 and after - Most of the disruptive editing on American politics has been after Obama left office and I would strongly oppose moving the cutoff anywhere after 2017 since Trump is the incoming president and was president before. Other than the 9/11 attacks, I don't antipate much disruption during this period.
2. A cutoff that automatically moves every year - say we choose 20 or 25 years (2005 or 2000) as our moving cutoff, the next year it would 2001 or 2006. That's basically the gist of it.
3. Everything 2009 and after - Another possibility that's somewhere in the middle of the road between the broad 2000 and the restrictive 2017.
4. Everything 2017 and after - this is the strictest cutoff I would support especially since the incoming president was president during this period and the disruptive editing is at its highest.

I hope the arbitrators, with community input, can see the changing needs of Misplaced Pages and act accordingly to acknowledge as time passes. Interstellarity (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: OK, that's an interesting point. On the topic of sanctions between 1992 and 1999, I haven't checked the number of sanctions for that period, but my guess would be some low number. If the disruptive editing is very minimal during this time period, it could be covered by our normal disruptive editing policy. If there are specific topic areas of that period that deserve sanctions stronger than the disruptive editing policy, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. Interstellarity (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment by GoodDay

2015, would likely be the appropriate cutoff year, if we're not going to go along with a U.S. presidential election year. Otherwise, 2016. The automatic date readjustment idea, is acceptable too. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Rosguill

I think periodically revisiting the cutoff date is reasonable. Looking through 2024's page protections, the overwhelming majority concern then-ongoing political events or individuals, with a handful of pages concerning events 2016-2022, and only one page about a historical event prior (9/11). User sanctions are obviously much more difficult to retroactively map onto a temporal range of history, but they're also a minority of logged AE actions for AP2. On that basis, moving the cutoff to 2016 seems reasonable. _signed,Rosguill 22:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Izno

This is essentially ArbCom shopping: The previous amendment was barely two years ago, which moved the date from the 1930s to 1992, for which there was pretty strong evidence to show that the 60 year bump was more or less reasonable. Before that adjustment this topic had been a contentious topic for the better part of a decade by itself (with earlier designations specifically for September 11 among others). I see no reason to consider bumping this further for, say, another decade, when we might have actual evidence to indicate events in whatever period haven't remained of general contention. That this designation has been used for events that would no longer qualify in the past 2 years suggests that the designation is doing its job. Izno (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Kenneth Kho

The lack of editors being sanctioned for pre-2015 AMPOL suggests the extent of disruption while present does not need CTOP. The article on September 11 attacks was restricted only because "sporadic edit warring" and the consensus required restriction does not appear to generate significant talk page activity either. Kenneth Kho (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by TarnishedPath

Per Izno, it's only a couple of years ago that the cut-off was pushed from 1930 to 1992. 1992 is just prior to the start of the Clinton term and I think that's when the conservatives really started going feral. If we moved the cut-off to after Clinton's term then we risk tendentious editors POV pushing on anything connected to Clinton. I think questions like this are probably best left until the next time there is a full case, particularly because as mentioned it was only two years ago that the cut-off was pushed forward 62 years. TarnishedPath 02:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde

It doesn't look like any revision is going to happen here, but I want to specifically note that a rolling cutoff seems to me to be an administrative nightmare, and I would strongly advise against it. I believe the scope is fine as is - I don't see evidence of a burden to editors or administrators - but I'd much rather the scope be narrowed all at once, if at all, than gradually shifted. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Aquillion

Here is the previous request that led to the 1992 cutoff, for the curious. I'm going to repeat something I said in that discussion: It's important that the cutoff be intuitive, since everyone has to remember it and new users ought to be able to reasonably anticipate it. I don't think that an automatically-moving cutoff is viable, partially for that reason and partially because how long individual events and public figures and so on remain flashpoints for disruption doesn't really follow any set pattern but instead maps to the sometimes unpredictable political careers of major figures, as well as where news coverage, social media, talking heads and so on choose to focus. --Aquillion (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

American politics 2: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion

@Interstellarity: I guess the question I would have is: of the AP2 sanctions imposed in 2023 and 2024, how many wouldn't fall under post–2000 American politics, broadly construed? If the answer to that is 0 or some very low number, then I could see narrowing the topic area. (If there's a user sanction that partially relies on edits in the 1992–1999 politics area, I would count that too.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
The following actions were taken in 2024 under AP2 regarding pre-2015 topics:
- Cloward–Piven strategy indef pending changes
- September 11 attacks indef consensus required restriction
- The Right Brothers indef semi

All other actions taken there are pretty clearly due to post-2015 developments, and would be acceptable with a cutoff of 2015. Inclined to support such an amendment. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Mildly curious how Cloward–Piven qualifies under the current regime... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Obama. Apparently. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

My initial gut feeling is that 1992 was the beginning of the end of... regular? politics in the US, so it makes sense as a starting point. If articles about that time period aren't causing a problem then I wouldn't be opposed to shifting it. I would be hesitant to go much past 2000, since I've seen that some articles from that era still being fairly contentious. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Without a very compelling reason I'd hesitate to consider making it any date after "post-2000 American politics" because articles like September 11 attacks still have recurring issues. - Aoidh (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Having seen the post by Izno, I must agree (though with the slight correction that it was almost exactly four years ago); a rolling begin period was not even put forward as a motion at that time, nor were later dates; what has changed so much in three years, and why is this update necessary so (relatively) soon after the last one? Primefac (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
A quick look down 2024 and 2023 enforcement actions in the AP area, it doesn't look like many (any?) are for articles that would be excluded if the start year was moved from 1992 to 2000. I am opposed to a rolling start year given the administrative workload it would cause, per comments by Vanamonde and Aquillion. Keen to see an answer to Primefac's question immediately above. Daniel (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
The quantitative question: What's the breakdown of AE actions by subject-year?

The qualitative question: What's the logical point to switch to? I've been trying to think of alternatives and all fall within Clinton's presidency. 9/11 touches on Al-Qaeda → Embassy bombings, 1998. Decline of bipartisanship → Gingrich's speakership... Cabayi (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I've thought about this quite a lot and I think that this is slightly premature: the second Trump presidency has only just begun. A change in administration will bring a change in contentious articles. Based on my understanding of American politics, it seems like the current, most relevant era started in 2016. That being said, I think that the "modern" era of American polarization ramps up with the 1994 Republican Revolution, which the post-1992 cut-off covers. There are decent arguments for each of the proposed cut-offs, though: 2000 covers Bush v. Gore and the War on Terror, while 2008 covers the election of Obama and the Tea Party movement. I am not a huge fan of the rolling window, mainly because not all years are equal in terms of significance in American politics.History aside, however, I think that if the evidence really does show that political articles post-1992 have become less contentious, I am open to amending the window later in the year. We move with the evidence. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal

Initiated by Crouch, Swale at 18:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected: Special:Diff/1064925920

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Special:Diff/1064925920

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

Special:Diff/1064925920

2022 changes

Statement by Crouch, Swale

Please either site ban me or remove the restrictions completely. If you site ban me please block with account creation, email and talk revoked and also block my IP address(es) with {{checkuserblock}} including blocking logged in users so that I have no way to contribute to here again and say I can't appeal for 10 years or never, the choice is yours but I'm not prepared to go on as is. And yes unlike last month's request this does count as an appeal but it does include the first option of a full site ban. And yes doing either of these options won't be much effort and would make you're lives easier. Option A motion would say "Crouch, Swale is indefinitely site banned from Misplaced Pages. This ban may be appealed from January 2035" or could include no appeal ever allowed. Option B motion would say "All Crouch, Swale's editing restrictions are revoked". Which one are we going to go along with? but you must pick one. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Crouch, Swale ban appeal: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Crouch, Swale ban appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion

Motions

Shortcuts

This section can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Motions.

Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives.

Make a motion (Arbitrators only)

You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment.

Requests for enforcement

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important informationShortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344	345	346	347

שלומית ליר

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning שלומית ליר

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Smallangryplanet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: שלומית ליר (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation of how these edits violate it

ShlomitLir (שלומית ליר) created their account back in 2014. The breakdown of their edits is as follows:

2014 to 2016: no edits.
2017 to 2019: 1 edit per year. None related to PIA.
2022: 7 edits. Mostly in their userspace.
2023: 21 edits. Again, mostly in their userspace. Made two edits in the talk page of Palestinian genocide accusation complaining about its content and calling it “blatant pro-Hamas propaganda”.
2024: Started editing after a 10 month break at the end of October.
- Made 51 edits in October and 81 edits in November (copyedits, adding links, minor edits).
- In December, that number rose up to almost 400, including 116 in December 6 alone and 98 in December 7. Became ECR that day.
- Immediately switched to editing in PIA, namely in the Battle of Sderot article where they changed the infobox picture with an unclear image with a dubious caption, and removed a template without providing a reason why.
- They also edited the Use of human shields by Hamas article, adding another image with a caption not supported by the source (replaced by yet another image with a contextless caption when the previous image was removed) and WP:UNDUE content in the lead.
- they also voted in the second AfD for Calls for the destruction of Israel despite never having interacted with that article or its previous AfD. They have barely surpassed 500 edits, but the gaming is obvious, highlighted by the sudden switch to editing in PIA.

More importantly, there's the issue of POV pushing. I came across this article authored by them on Ynet, once again complaining about what they perceive as an anti Israeli bias on Misplaced Pages. They have also authored a report for the World Jewish Congress covering the same topic. The report can be seen in full here. I think that someone with this clear POV agenda shouldn't be near the topic.

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 2023-04-05 and re-iterated on 2024-11-25 (see the system log linked to above).
Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 2024-12-18 by Femke (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Adding some additional comments on 2025-01-16: On top of POV issues, the user has a number of tweets that appear to be a clear admission of gaming, implicit canvassing, creating and sharing lists of potential "most biased articles", and clearly calling for specific edits. They've also been cited as coordinating an off-wiki coordination hub for editing Misplaced Pages. If this - combined with the tweets, the forms, the op-ed and the report to the WJC, all under this user's name (that they also use to edit Misplaced Pages - this is not outing) isn't a clear cut case of canvassing, I don't know what is. Smallangryplanet (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Notification diff

Discussion concerning שלומית ליר

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by שלומית ליר

I believe contents of this filing to be in clear policy violation and have reached out to the arbitration committee for further clarification before commenting further.שלומית ליר (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I was given clarification from an admin regarding my concerns and will now be drafting a response. Thank you for your patience. שלומית ליר (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

First and foremost, I value accuracy and transparency and am fully prepared to address any verified errors or missteps. My contributions are made in good faith, with only the intention of supporting Misplaced Pages’s mission. I am a veteran editor on Hebrew wiki, yet am learning to appreciate the sometimes stark differences in rules in this section, so am doing my very best to keep up to speed and abide fully as I edit further here.

As a longtime editor on another wiki who finally decided this year to match pace on English wiki, I strenuously reject any accusations of EC gaming when a passing glance on my global log will confirm I have not radically altered my editing pace nor article focus. In regards to NPOV concerns, I will defer to the numerous comments below affirming that there is no policy violation by having an opinion, onsite or off, and must register mild complaint that NPOV accusations are being leveled here without any policy violation having been affirmed on any of these individual contributions.

While contributions observed superficially (and without clear context of edit conversation and interaction with other editors) may appear to be agenda oriented, if I were granted more word counts, I would happily highlight the context of most edits made to make clear I was pushing back against previous bias efforts (past and present) by editors (including a number on the precipice of sanction in PIA5). Perhaps it would have been wiser to report what I felt was POV editing behavior instead of pushing back, but I only believed my efforts were to restore and preserve article balance, not disrupt it.

I am grateful for the admin guidance received so far and appreciate being better informed about certain grey areas. I meant no intention to remotely approach anything resembling canvassing and believed the commentary was allowable (most especially since it was on a proceeding I was neither participating in, nor linking out to). I understand now that this may be perceived as “call to action” which was not remotely the intent, most especially to an audience that is mostly academic and, to the best of my knowledge, does not edit Misplaced Pages. (I also humbly must point out that no report was made indicating any increase in activity to suggest editors had been canvassed). I have now been well appraised and will take great care and caution to ensure no further off-site commentary remotely approaches such this territory of concern. If there are any questions or doubts in the future, I will seek future guidance from admins before venturing into potentially questionable territory. שלומית ליר (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Thebiguglyalien

This is the first ARBPIA report since the proposed decision was posted at ARBPIA5 and it's specifically a matter of POV pushing, responding admins should be aware of the "AE topic bans" remedy. The committee is discussing whether to implement a remedy stating that admins at AE are "empowered and encouraged to consider a topic ban" purely for biased editing. So far, the argument against is that it's redundant because AE admins are already supposed to do this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-03-29/Special_report

Statement by Selfstudier

To the extent that it is relevant, the WJC report was discussed at Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-03-29/Special report. Selfstudier (talk) 11:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by starship.paint (2)

I would to like to raise this 9 December 2024 edit at Battle of Sderot, where there had been an existing unsourced paragraph (On the morning of October 7, a tour minibus...) that שלומית ליר added a reference to (archive 1 / archive 2) from the Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation. The reference is relevant, but I believe it may not verify every detail in the Battle of Sderot paragraph (e.g. "Netivot", "Holocaust survivors"). The reference contains a short paragraph of text and a video that is 4:21 long. I can't watch the video in the reference, but I believe it is this same YouTube video that is 4:20 long which contains the same screenshot as the reference, on the same topic. Most of the video is an interview of the daughter of a dead victim who was on the bus (the daughter had been on the phone with the victim), except for 1:58 to 2:13 which appears to be a quote from the bus driver. The publisher themselves do not have too much reporting in their own voice (on the video), yet this reference was used to cite a paragraph entirely stated in Wikivoice. No attribution was made to the relative or the bus driver, or to the publisher. I can't be totally sure though, due to unfamiliarity with Hebrew. starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by xDanielx

@Arcticocean: I don't really see how NPOV can be read as requiring edits which support both sides of a controversy. Our content policies don't impose any positive duties; they only tell us what not to do. The text of the policy doesn't support the notion that a pattern of edits could be in violation, even if no particular edit is in violation.

In principle, such a pattern of edits could violate the UCoC policy, but I don't believe this board has ever enforced it. If it were to be enforced, I think it should be for more serious violations like the double standards that e.g. this attempted to demonstrate, rather than mere opinion-driven editing which applies to the vast majority of CTOP editors. — xDanielx /_C\ 03:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Hemiauchenia

This user has engaged in off-wiki canvassing regarding the IP conflict. Take the following recent tweet from the 12 January permanent archive

For posterity in case it is deleted it contains the following remarks:

If you can't handle the facts, just delete them Propaganda on @Misplaced Pages includes targeting Israel, demonizing it, and erasing inconvenient truths, from falsifying war outcomes to deleting Israeli inventions and attempting to erase the reality of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Along with this is a screenshot of the current AfD Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Palestinian suicide attacks. People are of course allowed to be caustic about Misplaced Pages off-wiki, but calling out a specific AfD with highly charged rhetoric, essentially inciting canvassing seems out of line. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

For those concerned that this might be outing, שלומית ליר is very open about their real life identity on their userpage. See (archived). If you reveal your real identity on Misplaced Pages, your tweets about Misplaced Pages on your Twitter account connected to your real-life identity are fair game to mention. There's also reverse confirmation in this tweet . Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Cdjp1

As we seem to be ok to pull evidence from the statements of the editor in question, they have also commented more recently about running interference on Misplaced Pages (archive) in response to a question of if Misplaced Pages can be "saved". -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland

It has been several days. Perhaps שלומית ליר could clarify whether their belief about the way Misplaced Pages works turned out to be a true belief or a false belief so that this report can progress. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Vice regent

I'm satisfied by שלומית ליר's above explanation regarding canvassing. People with bad canvassing intentions don't reveal their identity. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning שלומית ליר

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Users are allowed to have a POV - it's a rare user indeed who edits a contentious topic without having some strong opinions about it. For conduct to be actionable at AE it needs to be an actual policy violation. The misleading use of images doesn't rise to the level of AE action in my view, and judging whether an addition like this is UNDUE is not within AE's purview, as long as it is supported by the source. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
The PIA5 remedy hasn't passed yet, and its interpretation is as yet unclear to me: but in my view we are already empowered to deal with biased editing, in the sense of editing that violates NPOV. What I'm not willing to do is sanction on the basis of someone's opinions alone; they have to be shown to have let their opinions get in the way of following our PAGs. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
I see some evidence - based on Arcticocean's digging below - that שלומית ליר is using images without sufficient care, but I don't see that rising to the level of a sanction. As to the rest, xDanielx is correct - nowhere do our policies require treating both sides of a conflict equally - indeed our PAGs discourage false balance. Those diffs could be actionable if they individually or collectively violate policy, but I have yet to see evidence of that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
The off-wiki canvassing is a problem. It merits a warning at least, I don't know if the formality thereof matters. If there was evidence that שלומית ליר was aware of WP:CANVAS I would consider something more stringent. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
While I understand Vanamonde93's concerns, I think that we are required to assess the totality of the user's contributions. Contentious topic editors are required to uphold NPOV. Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics#Guidance for editors places an obligation to Within contentious topics,… edit carefully and constructively… and… adhere to the purposes of Misplaced Pages. The linked page provides that Misplaced Pages is written from a neutral point of view… We strive for articles with an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight for their prominence. If an editor is only adding content that significantly favours one or the other side to the conflict, this is incompatible with their contentious topic obligation. That is because an editor making only one-sided edits will simply not be taking the necessary steps to ensure that the whole article is written from a neutral point of view. As their number of one-sided edits increases, the likelihood decreases that the editor is ensuring our content is neutral and impartial. Once we reach the point of being sure that they are not attempting to ensure neutrality of content, we can conclude the editor is not meeting their contentious topics obligations and we can issue a sanction. This can only be assessed with hindsight and by looking at the editor's contributions as a whole. arcticocean ■ 20:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Assessing the topic area contributions of the respondent (שלומית ליר) since they became extended-confirmed at 17:33, 8 December 2024, there is cause for concern. I counted 19 edits to the area conflict. Taken together, they significantly skew the articles negatively against the opposing side of the conflict:

Adding a citation for a claim that Hamas terrorists shot dead a group of Israeli tourists.
Replacing map with a photograph of victims of violence.
Removing an outdated maintenance tag which was perhaps casting doubt on the relevant section, Massacre of pensioners, and again.
Adding specification to claims of the use of human shield (specifying who has made the claims), therefore giving greater weight to the claims, in a context where the claims were already described at considerable length; adding another reference to that claim; and adding another.
Adding an image contentiously captioned 'Weapons Found in a Mosque', then again Rockets hidden at a house, both to the first line of the article.
Adding, without sufficient context, an assertion that a philosopher has determined that one side of the conflict is culpable and expanding other coverage of culpability of that side.
On the talk pages, there has been a tinge of failure to AGF although I would be prepared to look past that (it was like meeting like). I am skipping a few further and insignificant talk page comments.
There are then edits to LGBTQ rights in the State of Palestine: inserting a reference to execution into the first sentence of the lead; adding more references to news coverage of executions of LGBT+ people by the other side of the conflict. At Houthi movement, there is then an expansion, again of the article lead, to add references to terrorist attacks (with follow-up).

Assessing the edits as a whole, it is difficult not to conclude that the respondent user is failing to meet their contentious topics obligation to edit neutrally in this topic area. As the number of edits is so far limited, if a sanction is imposed, it could justifiably be light-touch. arcticocean ■ 20:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@XDanielx: Thanks for commenting. Most of the edits do not have a neutral, encyclopedic POV. There is an effort to influence our articles away from neutrally describing the subject without taking sides, contrary to WP:NPOV. Even if each edit in isolation is insufficient for sanctioning, taken as a whole the edits show an inability or unwillingness to edit neutrally. One non-neutral edit shouldn't be sanctioned; twenty is a different story. This is not about the percentage of biased edits but about the weight or amount of them. Therefore, the assessment wouldn't really change even had the editor made some 'neutral' edits along the way. I'm happy to concede that editors cannot be compelled to balance edits of one bias with edits of another, but I don't think that comes into it. In a nutshell, this is about Misplaced Pages:Advocacy. arcticocean ■ 08:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The offwiki canvassing is a problem...שלומית ליר, you're fairly inexperienced here. Were you aware WP:canvassing is not allowed? Valereee (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
For transparency, שלומית ליר reached out to me, and I explained multiple policy and advised her to go ahead and respond here without waiting for individual feedback from her email to arbcom, which may or may not happen. Valereee (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I take it that per Barkeep49's brief oversighting of potentially-sensitive content in this report (Special:Diff/1269845558), and then restoration of the same (Special:Diff/1269848988), concerns of outing have been investigated and the report can proceed on its merits? _signed,Rosguill 19:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
That's correct. I got a request, I didn't really feel it was OUTING, but as I indicated in my edit summary OS is a tool of first resort. I consulted with the OS listserv and received some responses quickly agreeing with me and so I unsuppressed and restored the material. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
It's not for AE to decide content disputes, and that's mostly what this looks like. We can handle things like flagrant misrepresentation of sources, but how best to represent them is a matter for consensus discussion, not us to decide here. The canvassing was a cause for concern, but it looks like it was rather unintended and had little if any actual effect, and they've agreed to stop that going forward. (Note that doesn't mean anyone must stop criticizing Misplaced Pages or what happens on it; do all of that you like. Just don't encourage people to take particular actions based on that.) I don't see any further action as necessary at this point. Seraphimblade 16:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
+1 Valereee (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Luganchanka

Request concerning Luganchanka

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Luganchanka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

19:55, 12 January 2025 Reversion to version of article where the article says "He is a child sex offender" in the second sentence despite consensus at BLPN discussion that this is problematic because Ritter never actually interacted with a real child.

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

18:28, 12 January 2025 BLP CTOP warning given

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

At BLPN, there has been consensus that the version of the article describing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the second sentence of the article is problematic, as he did not actually have sexual contact with a child, only a police officer impersonating one. Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Scott_Ritter_Biography_-_Noncompliance_with_MOS_and_BLP_Guidelines. Luganchanka has been persistently edit warring against this apparent consensus. For which he has been warned by @NatGertler: , which he subequently blanked There has been persistent objection to descrbing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences of the article going back to at least August Talk:Scott_Ritter#First_sentence, but Luganchanka persistently cites a "consensus" for its inclusion that as far as I can tell does not seem to exist, with Luganchanka aggressively editing to enforce its inclusion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Luganchanka's response is disingenuous and misleading. Look at the Talk:Scott_Ritter#First_sentence discussion I linked above. Nobody other than Luganchanka thinks that Ritter should be described as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences of the article. The dispute isn't about whether or not the convictions should be mentioned in the lead at all or not, it's specifically about the use of the phrase "child sex offender", and there is no consensus to include that as far as I can tell, despite Luganchanka's vociferous claims to the contrary. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

RfC opened Talk:Scott_Ritter#RfC:_Ritter's_sexual_sex_offenses_convictions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

20:27, 12 January 2025

Discussion concerning Luganchanka

Statement by Luganchanka

The intro on the Scott Ritter page had remained largely the same for several months, as you will see on the talkpage it is an intro approved, and reverted to, by multiple senior editors. There has been a recent flurry of activity / edits. While I WP: assume good faith, it does look like those edits are attempting to downplay / whitewash Ritter's sexual offence conviction(s). I have not been 'aggressive' at all, rather I have simply referred contentious edits to the talkpage to build consensus, attempting to do my duty as a good Misplaced Pages editor.Luganchanka (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Please see the Talk:Scott_Ritter, where there has been a clear consensus reached, on more than one occasion, and by senior[REDACTED] editors, that Ritter's sexual offence conviction should be included in the lead to the article. My edits have simply been aimed at ensuring this consensus reached is maintained in the article.Luganchanka (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you to @Valereee and @Red-tailed hawk for your feedback. If you see the Talk:Scott_Ritter, discussions - 14 August - Vandalism by removing all reference entirely to Ritter being a "Convicted Sex Offender" and First sentence. The latter discussion ended on 26th September, and resulted in the intro we had until a flurry of edits the other day, trying to move information on Ritter's sexual offence conviction, downplay it, whitewash it etc. My edits were aimed at restoring the edit reached by consensus, which had been in place for several months until the recent raft of edits with the clear aim of moving / downplaying Ritter's sexual offence conviction.Luganchanka (talk) 06:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for this (nest), I really do appreciate your feedback and advice here!!Luganchanka (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC) (moved from admin-only section — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC))

As per Rosguill's comments:

"Unfazed by "Emily's" age, Ritter asked "Emily," "you want to see it finish?" Ritter then turned on the webcam and ejaculated in front of the camera for "Emily." Detective Venneman then notified Ritter of his undercover status and the undercover operation and directed Ritter to call the police station."

https://casetext.com/case/ritter-v-tuttle

Luganchanka (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by NatGertler

Editor's edits today focused on trying to main a negative descriptor of what subject believed, despite it not being in the three sources that were listed (nor in the old version they ultimately reverted to.) Efforts were first trying to simply restate the claim, then trying to source it to an opinion piece (problem) from the Washington Examiner (also a bit of a problem, per WP:RSP), then trying to state as a fact what had merely been stated in a non-prime article as an accusation. BLP concern was pointed out repeatedly via edit summary and on Talk page. Removal of unsourced contentious BLP claims and even false claims is not "whitewashing" despite how editor wishes to depict it, it is in accord with our practices. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Luganchanka

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

@Luganchanka: whether you're correct or not, you were edit warring. I believe an indef block from the article and/or a temporary site block would be an appropriate sanction here. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for 48h for violating 3RR based on the report at WP:AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Luganchanka, edit-warring to remove negative content at a BLP is an exemption to 3RR. I see that NatGertler mentioned this in their edit summaries and at talk. As voorts points out, it doesn't matter whether you're right when you're reverting an edit that is being claimed as an exemption, even if you believe Rosguillwhiyou are "ensuring this consensus reached is maintained in the article". The solution is to go to talk, discuss, and get consensus. If you'd like to respond, ping me to your response at your talk and I'll post it here. Valereee (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
@Luganchanka, if you really believe those two sections -- senior editors, indeed, this one was between someone with 13 edits and somcoen who wasn't ECR, for heaven's sake -- somehow prove consensus was strong, and you think that means you can ignore all the later ones -- at one of which you didn't even respond to a ping, where people were objecting -- then this is maybe looking like a WP:CIR issue.

But even if you had been somehow editing to support a consensus you believed was settled, you cannot edit-war contentious material into a BLP when others are objecting to it. The solution, always, is to go to talk, discuss, and reconfirm consensus. There is zero urgency to have this information in the article. Including something negative in a BLP is not something you should ever edit war over. Valereee (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Luganchanka's reading of the state of consensus on the talk page as supporting their edits is so far off base that it borders on being a CIR issue if it's sincere. Indef block from Scott Ritter seems appropriate. _signed,Rosguill 22:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I see RTH's point about the "First sentence" section in isolation. I'd note that the link to WP:FORUMSHOP isn't really appropriate here, as bringing the discussion to BLP/N was an appropriate action (if it was then brought to NPOVN, NORN, etc., that would be forumshopping). I'd like to see some actual contrition around the edit warring and frivolous accusations of whitewash before writing this off as time-served. _signed,Rosguill 15:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
That's fair; I'll strike the link. My point in including it was that, when conversations fragment, we sometimes get these sorts of chaotic incidents. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Understood, I think that meaning was clear for us here in the admin section, but I could easily see a new editor misinterpreting it unintentionally. _signed,Rosguill 15:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I am not at all comforted by the fact that Luganchanka has proceeded to make Special:Diff/1269831044. The cited BBC source does not state masturbated and ejaculated on camera, saying only graphic sex act. As written, this is essentially another BLP violation, building a case that a ban from this topic is needed. _signed,Rosguill 16:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Having reviewed the other sources, reliable sources do confirm the masturbation claim (, ) but not ejaculation, which appears to be supported only by New York Post, a generally unreliable source. Luganchanka, in light of this clarification, can you please address your decision to include the claims as you initially wrote them? _signed,Rosguill 17:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
The detail is in the record of Ritter v. Tuttle (case No. 3:15cv1235 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 14, 2018)), so it isn't completely made up. But I would also like to hear from the user on this point as to whether there was secondary sourcing here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Seeing Special:Diff/1269853673 here and Special:Diff/1269853955, Special:Diff/1269845272 at Talk:Scott Ritter, I see no comprehension of the use of primary vs. secondary sources, nor any reflection of their past errors in engaging with this topic. I believe that a block from the page is needed to prevent further BLP violations as they have shown no understanding of the relevant policies even after being given several warnings, reminders and opportunities to revise their position. _signed,Rosguill 18:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@Luganchanka:

WP:BLPPRIMARY calls upon users to not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. There are some narrow exceptions (when primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source), but adding material to the article not found in reliable secondary sources is... suboptimal at best under our biographies of living persons policy.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
@Luganchanka: Would you please provide a direct link to the talk page section you are referring to when you say there has been a clear consensus reached, on more than one occasion, and by senior[REDACTED] editors regarding the lead? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
@Luganchanka and Hemiauchenia:

It does seem that the discussion at Talk:Scott Ritter#First sentence does indicate some support for that language i.e. (convicted child sex offender) in the lead, with some general lean against putting it in the first sentence. So, while There has been persistent objection to descrbing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences is true if it means the literal first sentence, I do see a rough consensus to include the material in the lead section in some way in that discussion.

That being said, the BLPN discussion had a bit of different tone and tenor from the discussion on the talk page. There was notification about a BLPN discussion on the article's talk page, but Luganchanka, despite having been pretty vocal about this subject in the past, hadn't participated in that BLPN discussion. They instead grounded their edits in the argument that the article's talk page had consensus for the current content, and nothing on the article's talk page had changed that consensus. And that much was true. In any case, we've got ~~two different forums with two different answers~~two different forums with two different answers here, which appears to be what's leading to the whole kerfluffle.

Then the analysis comes to whether or not the label is a straightforward BLP violation, requiring us to read the sourcing in the article. This NY Times piece, which is cited in the body of the article (but not the lead), does state that Ritter was convicted unlawful contact with minors and other charges in the state of PA (the PA statute is here; "unlawful contact with minors" is the verbatim name of the crime). When dealing with a sting operation, PA treats it as an offense of the same grade and degree as if the criminal had actually contacted a child (unless it's a lesser crime than a third-degree felony, in which case it becomes a third-degree felony). This is an extremely common practice in the United States (there are lots of philosophical questions regarding mens rea and actus reus here, but that's not really relevant here). In any case, labeling this to be a child sex offense (or, alternatively, to simply use the name of the crime in the article) does not appear to be straightforward malice/POV-pushing/libel, and a reasonably informed individual might shorten it in this way. Whether or not that is wise or optimal to shorten it is the proper subject for content discussion.

Aside from the edit warring (which was not acceptable, and was aptly handled by a block), this looks like a content dispute. A heated one involving a living person, sure, but a content dispute nonetheless. I see good-faith—albeit passionate—disagreement. If the editors were to come together and engage in one forum (such as the article's talk page, where this has been discussed a bunch), rather than splitting the discussion over multiple pages, I feel like we might have our best shot at attaining a consensus going forward.

In short, it looks like the conversation fragmented, and consensus-building broke down. Edit warring ensued, which was bad, but we've already blocked for that in order to dissuade it going forward. A Request for Comment on the article's talk page for what the lead should look like is probably the best way to go forward here.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
RTH, are you objecting to a p-block from the article? Valereee (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Ping to @Red-tailed hawk Valereee (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Luganchanka has been blocked for a week by User:ScottishFinnishRadish for BLP violations and personal attacks. Liz 18:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Just noting that this was a regular admin action and I wasn't aware this was before AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
With this in mind, I think we should wait to hear from RTH but otherwise expect to move forward to an indef p-block on top of SFR's stopgap action, as we haven't seen anything coming close to an adequate recognition of the relevant policies and practices from Luganchanka and after several second chances and nudges, I don't see reason to expect them to change course. _signed,Rosguill 18:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

BabbleOnto

Request concerning BabbleOnto

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: ජපස (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: BabbleOnto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19#Contentious_topic_designation

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

11 January 2025 Sealioning
11 January 2025 Refusal to get the message
11 January 2025 Personalizing an argument.
11 January 2025 Railroading the discussion.

This is all after I warned them about WP:AE sanctions, and they dismissed my warning out of hand. Very nearly a WP:SPA on the subject. I see no reason to continue tolerating this kind of obstinate tendetiousness. Additional diffs available on request from admins, but looking at the user history should suffice to indicate the problem is obvious, I hope.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 9 Dec 2024 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is a WP:SPA with respect to the topic and their disruption surrounding it has been subject to at least one WP:FTN thread that remains active: Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Gain_of_function_research. The hope was that they would WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on from this, but it seems they either will not or cannot. jps (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning BabbleOnto

Statement by BabbleOnto

I would first like to begin by point out the person filing this complaint is involved in the content disputes at issue. They have frequently left "warnings" which read more like threats on my talk page and others' talk pages for people who disagree with them. Nor would I be the first person who would they would get banned from this topic for disagreeing with them.

To be honest I'm not entirely sure what it is I'm being charged with doing.

I think in general the user is alleging I've been uncivil, unhelpful, and, in their words, obstinate and tendentious. I know when someone disagrees with you it may feel like they're getting in your way and acting in bad-faith, but that's not always true. I've never tried to be disruptive or uncivil. I've admitted when I was wrong, I've dropped arguments that were clarified to be wrong, I've tried to find compromise, at times begging people to provide their sources and work together. And when those editors refused to, I didn't provoke any further.

I now address the specific edits in the complaint:

1. I don't see how this is sea-lioning. The user misquoted the article. I pointed out the misquotation, then addressed a accusation against me that I was second-guessing the sources (A claim which was never substantiated). I then said any source would have to support that actual claim which was in the article. I don't know what this violates.

2. I don't see how this is refusing to get the message (IDHT). The other party is making direct claims alleging I said something. I did not say it. I replied with what I actually said. What part of that interaction is saying "I didn't hear that?"

3. Admittedly probably the strongest of the four allegations. I'm not pretending I was perfect in all of my comments. I should have kept my criticism strictly to their argument. I ask you to read it in context and keep in mind you're viewing a hand-picked assortment of my worst edits, and this is the worst they could find. Also consider that conversation accused me of having a basic reading comprehension problem, perhaps you can see I lose my cool sometimes too.

4. I'm not even really sure what "railroading the discussion" means. Thus, to keep this section short and to save words, I don't know what I'm being accused of doing wrong here.

All of this has stemmed out of arguments over two sources. I have tried to find compromise, I have tried to negotiate, I have tried to build consensus. I've been going through the proper channels, I've been participating in the RfC, I've been discussing it on the ANI, I source every claim I make, for a month now I've been trying to constructively explain my side and defend my argument against challenges. It's incredibly frustrating to now be facing an Arbitration Enforcement on grounds that I'm not working with others. BabbleOnto (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Edited. BabbleOnto (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, the sub-header for this section says that only admins can edit this section, I didn't realize I was allowed to reply here.

Yes, I will. I intend on taking an extended break from wikipedia, as well. BabbleOnto (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC) Moved from uninvolved admin section; you can answer questions, make comments, discuss, but all your input needs to be in your own section. Valereee (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- an extended break doesn't solve the issues around understanding policy. An extended break from contentious topics -- while you edit in other topics and learn policy -- would be more helpful all around.
  
  What I meant was that I'm willing to respect the consensus and not make any further edits or argue any more contrary to what the consensus decided. It seems to me that saying I have "Issues around understanding policy" and asking me to "learn policy" has subtext that says "Until you agree with this consensus, and you won't be allowed to edit at all." Is respectful disagreement with this consensus allowed? I'm afraid if in order to avoid a ban I have to personally agree with the consensus, beyond just respecting it, then there's nothing I can do. I still do disagree with the consensus's result. Nonetheless, I'm not going to edit or argue further, I'll respect it as a legitimate.

- - Re:no, you don't have to agree. You just have to accept and move on.
    
    Then I accept the consensus. I'm not going to argue in those discussions any further, though I still personally disagree, I understand a consensus has been reached which is other than my opinion. Nor will I edit disruptively or against the consensus. I appreciate the admin who noted I largely kept my disagreement in the talk pages, not editing the articles themselves. I plan on staying away from the topic in general for quite a while.

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

I've interacted with BabbleOnto in several threads. There's a few problems, but ultimately, I think they have a certain opinion on what the article should say, and will debate endlessly to get the article changed to their position. I mean, sure, reasonable people disagree on how to interpret sources and apply policy, but I don't think BabbleOnto is actually interested in faithful application of policies to write high quality articles based on good sources.

That's not terribly problematic by itself, but most discussions with BabbleOnto are exhausting. Rather than actually trying to understand someone's argument in good faith, I think BabbleOnto replies to editors by picking out parts of an argument, interpreting it in the most disfavourable way possible, and making a superficially reasonable response ad nauseam. They reply endlessly in this manner. As well as misrepresentation of opponents' arguments, on multiple occassions BabbleOnto has either misrepresented sources or hasn't read their own sources. I can't think of a single thread where BabbleOnto didn't have the last word, or a single thread where it seemed like BabbleOnto was actually trying to understand the arguments of other editors in a charitable way. As such, I think it's very difficult to work collaborately with BabbleOnto on the lab leak theory and related articles. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Newimpartial

As the editor to whom BabbleOnto was responding in the diffs of the filing, I feel compelled to comment now that they have defended (to varying degrees) their first three diffs. I will reply as briefly as I know how to their defense of the diffs, as revised.

1. BabbleOnto is now doubling down on the claim that I misquoted the article. I didn't "misquote" the article - I didn't quote the article, and I explained what my comment meant in the rest of the (now collapsed) thread that ends here. Also, I provided a clear explanation of why I thought they were second-guessing sources later in the thread, but BabbleOnto never responded to that explanation. They are now responding to the accusation of WP:CPUSH with pure WP:IDONTHEARTHAT.

2. On this they say, now, that The other party is making direct claims alleging I said something. I did not say it. This is repeating a misreading they made in the original thread, where they mistook a statement I made about another editor's comment as if it were about theirs. In this "defense", I see no attempt to read thoughtfully what other editors say in reply to them and revise their understanding accordingly; all I see is zero-sum mentality and WP:IDHT.

3. BabbleOnto is now justifying an edit where they said to me, You have a habit of inserting small lies into everything you say and You're not adding anything constructive. You're just refusing to explain anything and saying conclusory statements, or lying about what you said - all this based on a misreading of what I had actually written - because I was going to refer to a basic failure in reading comprehension two hours later. This seems like a time travel paradox.

4. They don't bother defending themselves on this one, but just to point out the actual issue with the diff, they doubled down on their accusations that I said a material lie, and that I lied when said that quoted the article out of context. Pointing out being caught lying and then proceeded to STRAWMAN the rest of my comment to which they were replying. If they had read my prior comment with a reasonable level of attention, they would have understood that there were no "lies", just a misunderstanding or two in each direction. But WP:IDHT again; even in responding to this filing BabbleOnto is still insisting I did things that I quite obviously didn't do.

It is exhausting to deal with this kind of quasi-CPUSH (not quite civil, but certainly push) behaviour. The Talk page in question has seen a recent influx of single-purpose or nearly single-purpose POV accounts, and in terms of editor energy, this one certainly seems not to be a net positive for Misplaced Pages as a project. Perhaps if they edited away from Covid and US politics, their track record might improve. Newimpartial (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Objective3000

Just a quick aside to Valereee's aside: Contentious topics are a terrible place to learn.... Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory currently has posts from 19 editors lacking the edits for extended confirmed. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@Valereee, this is also a problem at other CTOPs, and is likely to become more problematic. I assume due to off-Wiki forums. ECR might just produce more users gaming EC. I thought it would be useful to put your aside into the CTOP template at the top of CTOP TPs. But that assumes folks read it. Walt Kelly said something along the lines of: “If only I could write, I’d write a letter to the mayor, if only he could read." This discussion is likely better off elsewhere. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: IntrepidContributor was just TBanned from the topic of COVID-19 and indef blocked until the accusations of off-wiki coordination made by them at ANI are retracted. Those accusations are like their suggestion made in their statement in this filing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by JoelleJay

At the very least, can we get more admin involvement on the lab leak page so trolling like this doesn't disrupt things even more? JoelleJay (talk) 07:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by IntrepidContributor

I have been observing BabbleOnto and while there are valid concerns about bludgeoning, I think the proposed sanctions are too much. His engagement in the Covid lab leak topic is driven by commitment to WP:NPOV, which our articles fail to adhere to, and he made the mistake of arguing with editors who were never going to listen (resulting in what looks like sealioning on his part). He's not only editor to raise issues in the topic and engage in good faith discussion, only to find themselves pulled to AN or AE disputes after staying out of the seasoning traps and refusing to capitulate to threats. In a parallel AN case concerning another editor in same topic, I suggest there may be possible off-wiki coordination , but it can also be on-wiki ().

One need only cross-reference names from Feb 2021 RfC, checking those that voted for labeling COVID-19 lab leak as conspiracy, with the names of complainants here. Contrast all these old timers with the steady stream of tens if not hundreds of regular editors complaining that our article fails NPOV, and see that their gentle approach doesn't work . Our chief complainant is already preparing his next case , and this might not be his first.

I suggest that administrators consider a 1 to 2 month topic ban for BabbleOnto to provide opportunity for him to correct his approach, while staying alert to the tactics of POV editors trying to draw them into content debates to influence outcomes.

IntrepidContributor (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by TarnishedPath

Please see this edit where BabbleOnto edited Gain of function research restoring previously reverted content and WP:POVPUSH using a shit source after they'd been told by multiple other editors in discussions here and here that the source was shit. Notably in the edit summary they wrote "Read discussion page. Manual revert. No serious challenge has been made to these changes. Methinks an admin needs to get involved..." despite them being in a WP:1AM situation. If a clue is not gotten by the editor fast I'd suggest TBANs from both COVID and AP2 is warranted in order to cease their disruption. TarnishedPath 04:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Noting the editor's continued behaviour at Talk:Gain-of-function research. Refer to Special:Diff/1270316266. TarnishedPath 01:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

and again at Special:Diff/1270346091 TarnishedPath 03:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by berchanhimez

This user was given no less than 4 chances on the talk page to stop talking about bans/other editors and start talking about the content. They have continued crying about how they're scared of getting banned... yet they continue blabbing about other editors getting banned for their bad behavior rather than refocusing on the content as requested. At a minimum a partial block from the talk page(s) in question is warranted, and it would be beneficial for a topic ban from the origins of COVID-19, broadly construed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Shibbolethink

I am heavily involved in this overall dispute as someone who has gone back and forth with BabbleOnto. I wanted to add that, in general, my feeling from interacting with this user is that they could be a good contributor to this site, and absolutely could follow the PAGs. They have shown an ability to be courteous . I think the issue is that in FRINGE and other contentious areas like COVID-19 origins, they have shown a tendancy to become "hot-headed" when tensions rise, and to reference an us vs them mentality (and numerous examples from others above). It seems they have also been egged-on, and made more combative from other PROFRINGE users (and probably some anti-FRINGE users as well who do admittedly WP:BITE) in that topic space (e.g. )

We are told often to use narrowest possible restriction to protect the project. In this case, I think that would be a COVID-19 origins TBAN, where most of the disruption has been. The user states they have learned what to do when consensus is against them. If they fail to show that lesson in AP2 articles more than just the 10 or so edits they've made in those articles, an AP2 TBAN would be appropriate at that time (WP:ROPE). Just my 2 cents.— Shibbolethink 22:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning BabbleOnto

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

BabbleOnto, please edit your statement down further to fit within the restriction. This also serves as an opportunity to rephrase your defense, which currently is not convincing at first glance. ProcrastinatingReader's description of the situation seems quite apt, particularly BabbleOnto replies to editors by picking out parts of an argument, interpreting it in the most disfavourable way possible, which is currently a pretty fitting description of your response to them here, given that you zeroed in on the "superficially reasonable" part and ignored the much more serious parts of the testimony. _signed,Rosguill 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Ok, having read through nearly every edit that BabbleOnto has made, I agree with the complainants that not only does BabbleOnto engage in sealioning, it appears to be almost exclusively what they do. The discussion at Talk:Brian Thompson (businessman)/Archive 2 exhibits perhaps even more concerning argumentation than the diffs provided in the initial report. Throughout these discussions, BabbleOnto tends to demand a standard of stating the obvious (with respect to the context of said sources) that is absurd, and continues to lawyer for such standards even when the situation becomes WP:1AM. When criticizing sources' ability to account for basic claims, I can find no examples of BabbleOnto themselves attempting to find sources that would resolve the issues they identify--this is uncollaborative behavior. There is a clear pattern of engaging in this behavior across recent US politics topics consistent with the scope of Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics/American politics. The only saving grace to BabbleOnto's track record is that none of this has translated into disruptive editing of actual articles, just unproductive engagement on talk pages. I am currently in favor of a topic ban from post-1992 American politics; if they are actually here to build an encyclopedia and not to provide a punching bag for debate club, they can use this opportunity to learn more constructive patterns of editing in topics that they are less personally invested in. _signed,Rosguill 01:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Valereee in line with their follow-up response, I take Objective3000's comments as potentially a basis for community discussion rather than a call for protective action on the lab leak talk page right now. _signed,Rosguill 21:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I have to agree, this looks like sealioning. BabbleOnto, you're new here, and I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt about your ability to learn to collaborate. WP works on collaboration and consensus, and sometimes consensus goes your way, sometimes it doesn't. You have to be willing to shrug, walk away, and go work on something else when consensus is against you. And you absolutely must not insist everyone else keep answering you until you're satisfied with their answers. I've seen editors at both the Thompson and the lab leak talks tell you they don't actually owe you an answer to your satisfaction.

Do you think you can learn to do that? Because if you don't think you can, this may not be the right hobby for you.

As an aside, I'm going to recommend what I always recommend to new editors who end up here: Contentious topics are a terrible place to learn. Go edit in noncontentious topics, where other editors are a lot less exhausted and have the energy to be more patient with new editors. Valereee (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Tangential
@Objective3000, hm, yes, and Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory also has 37 archives, and even with archiving at 21 days, 20 sections. Do you think an ECR is something that talk page needs? That's not part of the authorized restrictions an individual admin can place...hm, and I'm not sure of the policy w/re most efficiently getting that done and wasting the fewest people's time. @Rosguill? Valereee (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC) I would object to ECPing the talk page. COVID-19 isn't subject to ARBECR generally, though this specific article is protected. The purpose of protecting the page (in this case) is to push newer users to the talk page, where they can discuss changes they want made (such as by edit requests) and contribute towards consensus-building while not edit warring. Protecting talk pages is truly, truly a last resort. Ordinary good faith people would be entirely shut out and silenced—we'd not even get edit requests—and I frankly don't see anything near the level of disruption/LTA abuse that would justify jumping straight to WP:ECP. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC) @Red-tailed hawk, not ECP. ECR: non-EC are restricted from anything but making edit requests. Valereee (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC) I see. In any case, ECR is the sort of remedy that should be reserved for more or less when all else fails—it’s still super restrictive. If new users/inexperienced users are trying to contribute towards consensus-building on the talk page (or even if they’re doing ordinary confused new editor things), and aren’t edit warring, I don’t think we’d actually be preventing disruptive edits by enforcing ECR. Suppose someone in good-faith sees “anyone can edit”, and they want to edit something topical. But then they see that the page that they want to edit is protected. They read the explanation that appears after clicking the “view source” tab. They then read that they can discuss this page with others, click on the first blue link, and then make a section using the “add topic” button in order to start a discussion. “OK”, the newbie thinks, “maybe I will find someone else who agrees with me, or I’ll at least get some answer as to why the article is this way”. They leave their computer and come back in an hour. They then discover that their question has been removed by some random editor with edit summary “WP:ARBECR violation, user not WP:XC; malformed edit request” and find a contentious topics notice on their own user talk page, all because they don’t make a properly formatted edit request (i.e. “please change X to Y”). Or maybe they wont navigate the talk page history and they’ll angrily post that their earlier comment was deleted. Or maybe they just won’t come back. To top it off, nothing at any point in this process was obvious to them that such a requirement existed—there is no edit notice that says so, and so they couldn’t know. WP:ECR is WP:BITEy. It dissuades new voices from joining conversations, and it makes it somewhat hostile to true newbies. In particular, it dissuades people who, for example: Are Not hardcore/insane enough to deal with intense wiki-bureaucracy; Are unable to cope with handling unfamiliar wikitext markup when making edit requests for anything that is not a trivial word change, or who have abstract changes in mind more than concrete ones; Do not want to spend an hour of their time to figure out how to say the magic words to summon another editor to fix a typo. The chief way that ECR works is by making LTAs/sockmasters have to put on a lot of effort or make a lot of edits. This raises the (time) cost of socking, and it has the benefit of possibly exposing tells along the way. But that also means that we’re imposing the same thing on good-faith newbies. When deciding whether or not to impose ECR, we have to balance that it is extremely BITEy to good-faith newbies against its ability to prevent disruption. There are times where we are basically left to throw our hands up because of LTA/sockmaster abuse, and conclude that the tradeoff is worth it; the ArbCom has done this for certain contentious topics. But, the ArbCom had the wisdom to not enable ECR as a page sanction across all contentious topic areas—there is a very real tradeoff that needs to be really carefully considered. And I don’t the tradeoff leans towards embracing ECR here. — Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 15:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC) I'm don't think we need to have this discussion here and now, but I don't disagree it's bitey and needs to be used only where necessary. I was just asking the question of someone who is working at that article: is this an article talk where it's necessary? Valereee (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Tangential

@Objective3000, hm, yes, and Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory also has 37 archives, and even with archiving at 21 days, 20 sections. Do you think an ECR is something that talk page needs? That's not part of the authorized restrictions an individual admin can place...hm, and I'm not sure of the policy w/re most efficiently getting that done and wasting the fewest people's time. @Rosguill? Valereee (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I would object to ECPing the talk page. COVID-19 isn't subject to ARBECR generally, though this specific article is protected. The purpose of protecting the page (in this case) is to push newer users to the talk page, where they can discuss changes they want made (such as by edit requests) and contribute towards consensus-building while not edit warring. Protecting talk pages is truly, truly a last resort. Ordinary good faith people would be entirely shut out and silenced—we'd not even get edit requests—and I frankly don't see anything near the level of disruption/LTA abuse that would justify jumping straight to WP:ECP. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk, not ECP. ECR: non-EC are restricted from anything but making edit requests. Valereee (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I see. In any case, ECR is the sort of remedy that should be reserved for more or less when all else fails—it’s still super restrictive. If new users/inexperienced users are trying to contribute towards consensus-building on the talk page (or even if they’re doing ordinary confused new editor things), and aren’t edit warring, I don’t think we’d actually be preventing disruptive edits by enforcing ECR.

Suppose someone in good-faith sees “anyone can edit”, and they want to edit something topical. But then they see that the page that they want to edit is protected. They read the explanation that appears after clicking the “view source” tab. They then read that they can discuss this page with others, click on the first blue link, and then make a section using the “add topic” button in order to start a discussion.

“OK”, the newbie thinks, “maybe I will find someone else who agrees with me, or I’ll at least get some answer as to why the article is this way”. They leave their computer and come back in an hour. They then discover that their question has been removed by some random editor with edit summary “WP:ARBECR violation, user not WP:XC; malformed edit request” and find a contentious topics notice on their own user talk page, all because they don’t make a properly formatted edit request (i.e. “please change X to Y”). Or maybe they wont navigate the talk page history and they’ll angrily post that their earlier comment was deleted. Or maybe they just won’t come back. To top it off, nothing at any point in this process was obvious to them that such a requirement existed—there is no edit notice that says so, and so they couldn’t know.

WP:ECR is WP:BITEy. It dissuades new voices from joining conversations, and it makes it somewhat hostile to true newbies. In particular, it dissuades people who, for example:

Are Not hardcore/insane enough to deal with intense wiki-bureaucracy;
Are unable to cope with handling unfamiliar wikitext markup when making edit requests for anything that is not a trivial word change, or who have abstract changes in mind more than concrete ones;
Do not want to spend an hour of their time to figure out how to say the magic words to summon another editor to fix a typo.

The chief way that ECR works is by making LTAs/sockmasters have to put on a lot of effort or make a lot of edits. This raises the (time) cost of socking, and it has the benefit of possibly exposing tells along the way. But that also means that we’re imposing the same thing on good-faith newbies.

When deciding whether or not to impose ECR, we have to balance that it is extremely BITEy to good-faith newbies against its ability to prevent disruption. There are times where we are basically left to throw our hands up because of LTA/sockmaster abuse, and conclude that the tradeoff is worth it; the ArbCom has done this for certain contentious topics. But, the ArbCom had the wisdom to not enable ECR as a page sanction across all contentious topic areas—there is a very real tradeoff that needs to be really carefully considered. And I don’t the tradeoff leans towards embracing ECR here. — Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 15:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm don't think we need to have this discussion here and now, but I don't disagree it's bitey and needs to be used only where necessary. I was just asking the question of someone who is working at that article: is this an article talk where it's necessary? Valereee (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

BabbleOnto, are you planning to answer my questions above? Do you think you're able/willing to shrug, walk away, and go work on something else when consensus is against you? Are you able/willing to stop insisting everyone else keep answering you until you're satisfied with their answers? Valereee (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
BabbleOnto's response understanding this as a suggestion to take a break from Misplaced Pages as a whole isn't quite what I was hoping to see. _signed,Rosguill 17:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@BabbleOnto, an extended break doesn't solve the issues around understanding policy. An extended break from contentious topics -- while you edit in other topics and learn policy -- would be more helpful all around.

@Rosguill, I'd support a tban, but is AP2 enough? It seems like COVID and fringe science need to be included? Valereee (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
AP2 + COVID? I see the same behavior at the Brian Thompson article and Havana Syndrome, so COVID alone doesn't seem adequate. Oddly, the intersection of "medicine and politics" would appear to cover all affected topics but maybe that's too bespoke? _signed,Rosguill 17:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@BabbleOnto, re:It seems to me that saying I have "Issues around understanding policy" and asking me to "learn policy" has subtext that says "Until you agree with this consensus, and you won't be allowed to edit at all." Is respectful disagreement with this consensus allowed? I'm afraid if in order to avoid a ban I have to personally agree with the consensus, beyond just respecting it, no, you don't have to agree. You just have to accept and move on. Valereee (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
I think BabbleOnto is actually getting the right idea. You do not have to agree with consensus. There are some consensus positions here I don't agree with, and some I think are rather silly. But, until and unless they change, I respect and abide by them all the same. If I try to challenge them, and it becomes clear that such a challenge was unsuccessful, there comes a time to just shrug, realize you can't win 'em all, and move on. Since they seem to have gotten that point, I think maybe see how things go, and if they return to disruption, I think they're quite clear on what the results of that will be. Seraphimblade 14:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
In my experience sealioning is a habit editors have an extremely difficult time breaking. I was going to agree with Rosguill re: a tban from AP2 + COVID, maybe appealable after 3 months and 500 productive and unproblematic edits. This editor is basically ONLY editing in CTOPs, they're doing it disruptively -- we're talking about an editor with only 177 whom other editors are describing as exhausting to interact with! -- and the specific kind of disruption is both frustrating and tedious to prove and frustrating to try to get attention to because who you need so many diffs to prove it. That plus the apparent difficulty in breaking that habit, which btw they were continuing during this case...I dunno. Valereee (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I certainly understand your point. I am a little hesitant to sanction for "sealioning", as often it is difficult to tell where enthusiasm ends and disruptive tendentiousness begins, and I certainly do not want to have a project where people are afraid to advocate viewpoints contrary to a current consensus. That said, if everyone else feels sanctions are warranted, I won't object terribly strongly; I just generally prefer someone to get a chance to show if they've gotten the point (or in some cases, to conclusively demonstrate that they have not). Seraphimblade 20:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Generally I'm with you. Let people show they've dealt with the issue. Reblocking is pretty easy in most cases. But sealioning...well, it's such a difficult issue to prove/assess, and there are so many people doing it who don't even have the self-awareness to fix the problem that I kind of feel like it needs a tougher approach than I'd normally argue for. Not a hill I'm going to die on, but if the editor is back here or at ANI for the same issue, I am going to be extremely unhappy with them.

@BabbleOnto, do you understand what we're talking about when we describe your participation at talk pages as WP:sealioning, and why we think it's such a problem, particularly in contentious topics? Do you think you can avoid participating in that way at article talk pages? Valereee (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Marlarkey

Marlarkey p-blocked from Declaration of war and formally warned to be more mindful of policies, guidelines and best practices when editing CTOPs, particularly PIA _signed,Rosguill 19:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Marlarkey User who is submitting this request for enforcement WeatherWriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Marlarkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced WP:ARBPIA Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 19 August 2024 - Mainspace PIA edit prior to EC status. 19 August 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request and acknowledgement of aforementioned edit. 19 August 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request. 21 November 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request. Accused another editor of vandalism. 21 November 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request. Says, "I don't give a stuff about what you or Israel say about the declaration." 21 November 2024 - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status. Accused editor of "vandalism" in edit summary. 21 November 2024 - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status. Accused editor of "vandalism" in edit summary. 13 January 2025 - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status. 13 January 2025 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request. 13 January 2025 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request..."Someone has reverted my removal of Israel - Hamas AGAIN* so I've taken it out AGAIN." 13 January 2025 - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status. 13 January 2025 - Self-revert of direct previous mainspace reversion that was prior to EC status. 13 January 2024 - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status...Made while this enforcement request was being typed up. This reversion by Marlarkey is of an edit with the direct edit summary of "Per WP:ARBPIA". User is 100% disregarding CT requirements. Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any N/A. No previous blocks or topic bans. If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics) at 15:29, 21 November 2024. Additional comments by editor filing complaint User has been on Misplaced Pages (on and off) since at least January 2010. It seems there is a WP:CIR-related issue on ArbCom PIA/Contentious topics, given the very clear lack of ignorance of the ArbCom Notification and subsequent edit summary arguments. I do not necessarily believe a block will be of use in this case, due to this editor's on-and-off Misplaced Pages editing status (less than 500 edits since January 2010). Either a topic ban and/or a 1,000 EC status requirement (i.e. EC-status requirement is something higher than 500 edits) is being requested. The Weather Event Writer* (Talk Page) 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC) One of the edits by Marlarkey listed above from 13 January 2025 has been removed by ScottishFinnishRadish for Marlarkey not being ECR logged. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC) @Marlarkey: I want to keep assuming good faith, so I wanted to let you know that WP:ARBPIA is what we call "broadly constructed". If you read WP:PIA, it says, "These are the current arbitration remedies applicable to any pages and edits that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." The edit you are attempting to me is related to the Arab-Israel conflict. The page itself does not have to be entirely about the war to be covered under the restrictions. Any edit that is at least, even slightly related to the conflict is covered under the restrictions. While the page is about declarations of war throughout history, the specific edit is related to whether the Israel-Hamas war was a declaration of war. That is obviously related to the conflict, given it specifically is in regard to the Israel-Hamas war. That is why the edits were reverted and why this violation report was filed. Hopefully that makes sense. Also, just a quick side-note, accusing other editors of vandalism is assuming bad faith and is not really how Misplaced Pages operates. You should always be assuming the other editors intents with good faith. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC) @Marlarkey: We are all working together to create a better encyclopedia. No one is against you and we do wish for all to edit Misplaced Pages. The ArbCom restrictions require that you have (1) at least an account of 30 days old and (2) at least 500 edits, to be able to edit content anywhere on Misplaced Pages regarding the Israel-Hamas war. At the time of all the edits linked above, you did not have 500 edits on Misplaced Pages. You were roughly at 490. At the time of this, you now have over 500 edits, which means you could now edit content regarding the Israel-Hamas war. That said, this report was made because of the several edits you made prior to reaching the 500 edit requirement. Please understand this is for the edits that you made which were in clear violation of the policy, which requires you to have 500 edits prior to editing anything even remotely related to the conflict. This report was not that you are incorrect with your removal of the content. Not at all. This report is because you removed the content before you were allowed to (i.e. the 500-edit mark). Please understand we all are on the same-side here and no one is vandalizing anything. Once this is resolved, I would be more than happy to calmly discuss the content changes with you. I hope you can understand that this report is specifically because you made the changes before you were allowed to and not at all regarding the content in those changes. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC) @Rosguill: After my last reply, I realized I went 105 words over the 500-word limit. I would like to request that 105-word extension (so I do not have to reword or remove the last reply I made). I do not plan to reply again as I think everything I needed to say and link to has been said and linked to. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Discussion concerning Marlarkey Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by Marlarkey WeatherWriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly reverting edits which are removing information outside the scope of the page in question. My edits are validly citated within the scope of the page. WeatherWriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has cited WP:ARBPIA but that is not relevant to THIS article which is not a Palestine-Israel article. This article is not a contentious topic - it is factual. My edits are WP:NPOV. This article is about declarations of war - the opening statement states "A declaration of war is a formal act by which one state announces existing or impending war activity against another." 1. Hamas is not a nation state - So Israel vs Hamas should not be included in the article 2. Hezbollah is not a nation state - So Israel vs Hezbollah should not be included in the article 3. Russia vs Ukraine are both nation states - the question then is whether there has been a declaration of war. In the case 1 & 2, the removal of these two entries is WP:NPOV and the inclusion or otherwise in this article is in no way a comment on the conflict in question - only whether they constitute a declaration of war by one nation state on another. Which they do not because they are nation states. In the case of 3, the inclusion of Russia vs Ukraine only relies on whether there has been a declaration of war. The citation I gave is documented evidence of Russia announcing that a state of war exists between Russia and Ukraine. I suggest that by taking the action they have that the complainant is the one acting in a that asserts a political opinion about the conflict The reference by Weatherwriter to 21 November 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Is only a partial quote - what I actually said was "I don't give a stuff about what you or Israel say about the declaration. I care about whether it is in the scope of this page." The key is the final point - the scope of this article and whether the edits are validly cited in accordance with the topic of the article...namely a list of declarations of war. Weatherwriter reversions of my edits serve to support a political opinion on a page which is about facts. I'm pretty angry about being accused in this way when MY edits were factually based and neutral point of view, whereas by reverting my edits it does precisely the opposite, allowing contentious and politically biased information to infect the page. GRRRRRRrrr Marlarkey (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC) On another point, following me reviewing the information in this complaint by WeatherWriter... "If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)" The complainant cites a link to information which I have JUST accessed and have never seen before just now. I was NOT aware of this information so it is false to suggest that this constitutes evidence that I was aware. Again this makes me angry at the accusations being made against me. If you don't want people editing and contributing to[REDACTED] then please just say so. GRRR Marlarkey (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC) I give up... I'm being accused and being told off for responding to the accusation. I don't know anything about this procedure, have never seen this page before and know nothing about how this works because its new to me. But I get it - I'm not part of the club that decides things... so I'll let you get on with that. Marlarkey (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC) (Moved from WeatherWriter's section I get it - you'd rather call me out by this procedure than have an accurate encyclopaedia article. You've made accusations against me and put me through this over restrictions that I knew nothing about and policies I knew nothing about. I simply came across something inaccurate and followed what I understood to be WP principles and made an objectively accurate edit. So now the end result is that an inaccurate article containing a politically biased assertion is going to stay live. Marlarkey (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC) Result concerning Marlarkey This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Marlarkey, you have gone a bit over your 500 word allotment for responses. Please do not comment further unless directly asked to. I will remove an additional reply that was both over your limit and in the wrong section. _signed,Rosguill 00:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC) Weather Event Writer, extension granted as that's essentially what Marlarkey has already taken. _signed,Rosguill 01:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC) Ok, having now reviewed Declaration of war's page history, its talk page discussion, and Marlarkey's contributions more generally, I find that: Marlarkey has repeatedly violated WP:PIA at Declaration of war since having received a CTOP notice Irrespective of whether it is correct or not to include the Israel-Hamas war, Israel-Hezbollah war, or wars between states and non-state entities more broadly, WeatherWriter's edits to the page are plainly not vandalism, which has a specific (and serious) meaning on Misplaced Pages It appears to be a long-term status quo to include non-state entities provided that there is a citation to some sort of formal declaration of war, and the page's inclusion of conflicts involving non-states Ambazonia and SADR do not appear to have been challenged at any point. Marlarkey is incorrect to assert that their edit is objectively accurate. Whether the edit is accurate is subject to community consensus, and the talk page arguments in favor of inclusion base themselves on RS reporting which is a valid, policy-compliant argument. Marlarkey's arguments that a declaration of war can only occur be between two states do not make any reference to a reliable source stating this; while that text is currently in the lead of the article, it does not have a citation nor is it clear that any citation in the article directly backs this. In light of discussion at Talk:Declaration of war, which at this point shows multiple editors in favor of keeping the Hamas and Hezbollah wars, only Marlarkey firmly for removing them, and one other editor calling for discussion as of December 31st, Marlarkey's edits to unilaterally remove the entries in January amount to slow-motion edit warring Given that Marlarkey has had an account for well over a decade, has edited a wide variety of topics, hit 500 edits while this was happening, does not appear to have otherwise shown interest in Israel/Palestine topics, and that the edits at Declaration of war don't fit into any clear POV-warrior pattern, I don't think that pulling extended-confirmed or issuing a PIA topic ban would help. I'm thus inclined to suggest an indefinite partial block from Declaration of war (but not its talk page) as a regular admin action for edit warring, and a logged warning to be mindful of CTOP standards. _signed,Rosguill 04:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC As Marlarkey stated that they were unaware of CT, I wanted to confirm that I double checked and found that the CT notice was properly left in November. If Marlarkey chose not to read it, well, that's rather on him—we can only leave messages, we can't force people to read them. I would otherwise agree with Rosguill's assessment. Seraphimblade 12:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC) I entirely endorse Rosguill's reading of this. I am not happy about Marlarkey's approach to our restrictions, but I don't see this as EC gaming, and I can't see how pulling EC rights could be justified at this stage. As such I endorse the proposed page block and logged warning. Marlarkey, you seem to believe that because you are right on the substance you can ignore process and guidelines - that simply isn't true. The arbitration committee has consistently held that being right isn't enough; you need to be able to edit within the scope of our policies. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC) Pretty much everything Rosquill said. Marlarkey, it doesn't look like you have a huge amount of experience working in WP:CTOPs. I'm sorry you're finding this upsetting, but CTOPs are a whole 'nother world, and you're either going to have to learn how to nonproblematically work there, or not work there. Valereee (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC) FWIW, the CTOP warning was left on your talk page. You've got your archiving set so aggressively that you may be missing a lot of messages, and it's completely plausible that you missed this one, which was only on your talk for two days, and after it was left you didn't edit for a month. However, we do assume that if you've got your archiving set that aggressively, you're keeping on top of anything important by checking your notifications to make sure you didn't miss anything. You can probably prevent this happening in future by having your talk page archive no more frequently than you typically go between editing sessions, leaving maybe the five most recent messages unarchived, and/or being sure to check your notifications when logging back in. Any one of those three and you've have likely seen the notification. Valereee (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Marlarkey p-blocked from Declaration of war and formally warned to be more mindful of policies, guidelines and best practices when editing CTOPs, particularly PIA _signed,Rosguill 19:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Marlarkey

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: WeatherWriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Marlarkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

19 August 2024 - Mainspace PIA edit prior to EC status.
19 August 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request and acknowledgement of aforementioned edit.
19 August 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request.
21 November 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request. Accused another editor of vandalism.
21 November 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request. Says, "I don't give a stuff about what you or Israel say about the declaration."
21 November 2024 - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status. Accused editor of "vandalism" in edit summary.
21 November 2024 - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status. Accused editor of "vandalism" in edit summary.

13 January 2025 - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status.
13 January 2025 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request.
13 January 2025 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request..."Someone has reverted my removal of Israel - Hamas *AGAIN* so I've taken it out *AGAIN*."
13 January 2025 - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status.
13 January 2025 - Self-revert of direct previous mainspace reversion that was prior to EC status.
13 January 2024 - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status...Made while this enforcement request was being typed up. This reversion by Marlarkey is of an edit with the direct edit summary of "Per WP:ARBPIA". User is 100% disregarding CT requirements.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any: N/A. No previous blocks or topic bans.

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics): at 15:29, 21 November 2024.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User has been on Misplaced Pages (on and off) since at least January 2010. It seems there is a WP:CIR-related issue on ArbCom PIA/Contentious topics, given the very clear lack of ignorance of the ArbCom Notification and subsequent edit summary arguments. I do not necessarily believe a block will be of use in this case, due to this editor's on-and-off Misplaced Pages editing status (less than 500 edits since January 2010). Either a topic ban and/or a 1,000 EC status requirement (i.e. EC-status requirement is something higher than 500 edits) is being requested. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

One of the edits by Marlarkey listed above from 13 January 2025 has been removed by ScottishFinnishRadish for Marlarkey not being ECR logged. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Marlarkey: I want to keep assuming good faith, so I wanted to let you know that WP:ARBPIA is what we call "broadly constructed". If you read WP:PIA, it says, "These are the current arbitration remedies applicable to any pages and edits that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." The edit you are attempting to me is related to the Arab-Israel conflict. The page itself does not have to be entirely about the war to be covered under the restrictions. Any edit that is at least, even slightly related to the conflict is covered under the restrictions. While the page is about declarations of war throughout history, the specific edit is related to whether the Israel-Hamas war was a declaration of war. That is obviously related to the conflict, given it specifically is in regard to the Israel-Hamas war. That is why the edits were reverted and why this violation report was filed. Hopefully that makes sense. Also, just a quick side-note, accusing other editors of vandalism is assuming bad faith and is not really how Misplaced Pages operates. You should always be assuming the other editors intents with good faith. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Marlarkey: We are all working together to create a better encyclopedia. No one is against you and we do wish for all to edit Misplaced Pages. The ArbCom restrictions require that you have (1) at least an account of 30 days old and (2) at least 500 edits, to be able to edit content anywhere on Misplaced Pages regarding the Israel-Hamas war. At the time of all the edits linked above, you did not have 500 edits on Misplaced Pages. You were roughly at 490. At the time of this, you now have over 500 edits, which means you could now edit content regarding the Israel-Hamas war. That said, this report was made because of the several edits you made prior to reaching the 500 edit requirement.

Please understand this is for the edits that you made which were in clear violation of the policy, which requires you to have 500 edits prior to editing anything even remotely related to the conflict. This report was not that you are incorrect with your removal of the content. Not at all. This report is because you removed the content before you were allowed to (i.e. the 500-edit mark). Please understand we all are on the same-side here and no one is vandalizing anything. Once this is resolved, I would be more than happy to calmly discuss the content changes with you. I hope you can understand that this report is specifically because you made the changes before you were allowed to and not at all regarding the content in those changes. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@Rosguill: After my last reply, I realized I went 105 words over the 500-word limit. I would like to request that 105-word extension (so I do not have to reword or remove the last reply I made). I do not plan to reply again as I think everything I needed to say and link to has been said and linked to. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Marlarkey

Statement by Marlarkey

WeatherWriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly reverting edits which are removing information outside the scope of the page in question. My edits are validly citated within the scope of the page. WeatherWriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has cited WP:ARBPIA but that is not relevant to THIS article which is not a Palestine-Israel article. This article is not a contentious topic - it is factual.

My edits are WP:NPOV. This article is about declarations of war - the opening statement states "A declaration of war is a formal act by which one state announces existing or impending war activity against another." 1. Hamas is not a nation state - So Israel vs Hamas should not be included in the article 2. Hezbollah is not a nation state - So Israel vs Hezbollah should not be included in the article 3. Russia vs Ukraine are both nation states - the question then is whether there has been a declaration of war.

In the case 1 & 2, the removal of these two entries is WP:NPOV and the inclusion or otherwise in this article is in no way a comment on the conflict in question - only whether they constitute a declaration of war by one nation state on another. Which they do not because they are nation states.

In the case of 3, the inclusion of Russia vs Ukraine only relies on whether there has been a declaration of war. The citation I gave is documented evidence of Russia announcing that a state of war exists between Russia and Ukraine.

I suggest that by taking the action they have that the complainant is the one acting in a that asserts a political opinion about the conflict

The reference by Weatherwriter to 21 November 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Is only a partial quote - what I actually said was "I don't give a stuff about what you or Israel say about the declaration. I care about whether it is in the scope of this page." The key is the final point - the scope of this article and whether the edits are validly cited in accordance with the topic of the article...namely a list of declarations of war.

Weatherwriter reversions of my edits serve to support a political opinion on a page which is about facts.

I'm pretty angry about being accused in this way when MY edits were factually based and neutral point of view, whereas by reverting my edits it does precisely the opposite, allowing contentious and politically biased information to infect the page. GRRRRRRrrr

Marlarkey (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

On another point, following me reviewing the information in this complaint by WeatherWriter... "If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)" The complainant cites a link to information which I have JUST accessed and have never seen before just now. I was NOT aware of this information so it is false to suggest that this constitutes evidence that I was aware.

Again this makes me angry at the accusations being made against me. If you don't want people editing and contributing to[REDACTED] then please just say so. GRRR Marlarkey (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I give up... I'm being accused and being told off for responding to the accusation. I don't know anything about this procedure, have never seen this page before and know nothing about how this works because its new to me.

But I get it - I'm not part of the club that decides things... so I'll let you get on with that. Marlarkey (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

(Moved from WeatherWriter's section I get it - you'd rather call me out by this procedure than have an accurate encyclopaedia article. You've made accusations against me and put me through this over restrictions that I knew nothing about and policies I knew nothing about. I simply came across something inaccurate and followed what I understood to be WP principles and made an objectively accurate edit.

So now the end result is that an inaccurate article containing a politically biased assertion is going to stay live. Marlarkey (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Result concerning Marlarkey

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Marlarkey, you have gone a bit over your 500 word allotment for responses. Please do not comment further unless directly asked to. I will remove an additional reply that was both over your limit and in the wrong section. _signed,Rosguill 00:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Weather Event Writer, extension granted as that's essentially what Marlarkey has already taken. _signed,Rosguill 01:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok, having now reviewed Declaration of war's page history, its talk page discussion, and Marlarkey's contributions more generally, I find that:

Marlarkey has repeatedly violated WP:PIA at Declaration of war since having received a CTOP notice
Irrespective of whether it is correct or not to include the Israel-Hamas war, Israel-Hezbollah war, or wars between states and non-state entities more broadly, WeatherWriter's edits to the page are plainly not vandalism, which has a specific (and serious) meaning on Misplaced Pages
It appears to be a long-term status quo to include non-state entities provided that there is a citation to some sort of formal declaration of war, and the page's inclusion of conflicts involving non-states Ambazonia and SADR do not appear to have been challenged at any point.
Marlarkey is incorrect to assert that their edit is objectively accurate. Whether the edit is accurate is subject to community consensus, and the talk page arguments in favor of inclusion base themselves on RS reporting which is a valid, policy-compliant argument. Marlarkey's arguments that a declaration of war can only occur be between two states do not make any reference to a reliable source stating this; while that text is currently in the lead of the article, it does not have a citation nor is it clear that any citation in the article directly backs this.
In light of discussion at Talk:Declaration of war, which at this point shows multiple editors in favor of keeping the Hamas and Hezbollah wars, only Marlarkey firmly for removing them, and one other editor calling for discussion as of December 31st, Marlarkey's edits to unilaterally remove the entries in January amount to slow-motion edit warring
Given that Marlarkey has had an account for well over a decade, has edited a wide variety of topics, hit 500 edits while this was happening, does not appear to have otherwise shown interest in Israel/Palestine topics, and that the edits at Declaration of war don't fit into any clear POV-warrior pattern, I don't think that pulling extended-confirmed or issuing a PIA topic ban would help.

I'm thus inclined to suggest an indefinite partial block from Declaration of war (but not its talk page) as a regular admin action for edit warring, and a logged warning to be mindful of CTOP standards. _signed,Rosguill 04:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC

As Marlarkey stated that they were unaware of CT, I wanted to confirm that I double checked and found that the CT notice was properly left in November. If Marlarkey chose not to read it, well, that's rather on him—we can only leave messages, we can't force people to read them. I would otherwise agree with Rosguill's assessment. Seraphimblade 12:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I entirely endorse Rosguill's reading of this. I am not happy about Marlarkey's approach to our restrictions, but I don't see this as EC gaming, and I can't see how pulling EC rights could be justified at this stage. As such I endorse the proposed page block and logged warning. Marlarkey, you seem to believe that because you are right on the substance you can ignore process and guidelines - that simply isn't true. The arbitration committee has consistently held that being right isn't enough; you need to be able to edit within the scope of our policies. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Pretty much everything Rosquill said. Marlarkey, it doesn't look like you have a huge amount of experience working in WP:CTOPs. I'm sorry you're finding this upsetting, but CTOPs are a whole 'nother world, and you're either going to have to learn how to nonproblematically work there, or not work there. Valereee (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
FWIW, the CTOP warning was left on your talk page. You've got your archiving set so aggressively that you may be missing a lot of messages, and it's completely plausible that you missed this one, which was only on your talk for two days, and after it was left you didn't edit for a month. However, we do assume that if you've got your archiving set that aggressively, you're keeping on top of anything important by checking your notifications to make sure you didn't miss anything.

You can probably prevent this happening in future by having your talk page archive no more frequently than you typically go between editing sessions, leaving maybe the five most recent messages unarchived, and/or being sure to check your notifications when logging back in. Any one of those three and you've have likely seen the notification. Valereee (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

DanielVizago

Request concerning DanielVizago

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Schazjmd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: DanielVizago (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_and_sexuality#Final_decision

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

29 Dec 2024 Added Category:Misandry to a BLP, after CTOP notification and several talk page messages notifying DanielVizago that the category is not to be applied to articles about individuals (per category description, This category is for issues relating to misandry. It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly misandrist.);
4 Jan 2025 and 5 Jan 2025 Removing sourced content from Misogyny that states misandry is not a major an issue as misogyny;
5 Jan 2025 Changing content in Male privilege to emphasize misandry (reverted by another editor with edit summary rv, poorly sourced (sources supplemented by WP:OR and WP:SYNTH), earlier version was better, closer to sources);
13 Jan 2025 Added "bimisandry" to Biphobia, citing 4 sources, none of which include that term;
14 Jan 2025, weird edits adding Category:Female rapists with piped names to unrelated articles, then added those names directly to the category page;
14 Jan 2025 restored the "bimisandry" edit to Biphobia, then added a 5th ref that includes the term but is just a blog; I left a 4th-level warning on talk page;
14 Jan 2025 (after final warning) adds ] and ] to Hurtcore; those two individuals don't have articles and there is no mention in this article of their charges or convictions, even though the category solely consists of articles of female individuals who have been convicted of rape in a court of law.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

I alerted them on 28 Dec 2024

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Above diffs are all edits after the CTOP notification was provided. Before then, DanielVizago misapplied Category:Misandry to 46 articles, which is what caught my attention. Their attempts to add "bimisandry" to Biphobia started 16 Dec 2024. On 28 Dec 2024, DanielVizago added a lot of content to Supremacism about misandry, which another editor reverted with edit summary remove recently added pro-fringe section and put back the excerpt. Most of their 122 edits have been reverted by multiple editors.

Before the level 4 warning, I tried guiding DanielVizago away from CTOP; they don't engage on their talk page. (They've posted there once, to say "thanks" in response to a warning.) With their refusal to communicate, poor sourcing, and non-NPOV edits, I don't think they should be editing in this topic area. Schazjmd (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning DanielVizago

Statement by DanielVizago

Statement by caeciliusinhorto

Since this report was opened, DanielVizago has continued to make questionable edits adding articles to Category:Female rapists.

Possibly the worst edit, categorising a living person who has been accused (but not charged, let alone convicted) of sexual assault as a rapist (cf. WP:BLPCRIMINAL)
This edit adds the category to a disambiguation page on the basis of one of the people listed on that page, who had in fact been convicted not of rape but of sexual activity with a minor
this and this edit categorise two sexually-motivated murderers as rapists despite no evidence that they ever raped anyone in the article (cf. WP:CATV)

Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Simonm223

Might be wise, as long as doing so wouldn't interfere with evidence, to get a revision deletion on some of the diffs presented above that make unfounded statements about BLPs. Simonm223 (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning DanielVizago

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

I've p-blocked from article space to see if we can get this editor communicating. Valereee (talk) 12:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I want to hear what they have to say, but I'm going to need a fairly convincing explanation as to how they're here to build an encyclopedia and not to POV-push men's rights activism content where it doesn't belong. The IDHT and spammy behavior and the BLP vios on top of that aren't super encouraging, either, but if they decide to communicate, I'm happy to reassess. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I'd like to hear what they have to say, too, but I'm also not averse to letting this archive with no further action since the p-block is an indef. I've left another message at their talk. Valereee (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

]

Ekdalian

Request concerning Ekdalian

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: NXcrypto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Ekdalian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBIPA

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

12:51, 11 January 2025 - Restoring recently added disputed content, contrary to WP:ONUS
21:55, 11 January 2025 - Casting unsubstantiated aspersions and poisoning the well against another editor.
12:01, 13 January 2025 - Poisoning the well against another user without any evidence of misconduct.
19:11, 15 January 2025 - Restoring recently added disputed content again and essentially asking to get consensus for it, contrary to WP:ONUS.
15:05, 16 January 2025 - Performs a blanket revert in order to make a WP:POINT, just because their previous edit was reverted, despite it being the version that was arrived upon by a month long discussion on the talkpage, also saying "LE also wants to discuss and revisit the content proposed by the sock" , LukeEmily later elaborated that they are okay with the version that Ekdalian was actually reverting
17:42, 16 January 2025 - Same as above but edit warring
19:42, 16 January 2025 - Edit warring and casting aspersions saying that reverting editor is acting like the blocked sock Nobita456 "stop behaving like Nobita please"
14:31, 18 January 2025 - Attacks and tries to poison the well against another editor also says that "WP:ONUS doesn't mean you need to achieve consensus with editors condemned by admins for persistent POV pushing! "
18:47, 18 January 2025 - Restores the aforementioned attack saying "Related to the content only, related to WP:CONSENSUS to be precise; accept the truth, I don't want to report minor incidents" when told to focus on content
18:29, 19 January 2025 - calling a WP:NOTVANDAL edit as vandalism and issues final warning for vandalism

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Date Explanation
Date Explanation

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Has a {{Ds/aware|ipa}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page. and notified of WP:ARBIPA by Dennis Brown in 2022

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I also note that Ekdalian has a history of aggressive edit warring in the contentious topic as a part of slow running edit war.On Bengali Kayastha, many of their most recent edits have been reverts to prevent content addition as well. It has gotten to the point where experienced users like Sitush have called them out for it because they usually misrepresent the consensus or comments by editors such as Sitush to claim that consensus already exists when there is none, they do not provide diffs when asked to substantiate their claims either. They have been reprimanded in past over similar conduct about misrepresentation and exaggeration by @Dennis Brown: on this venue as well. They have a history of attacking other users and trying to poison the well against them instead of focusing on the content as diffs above prove.

I am not seeking any topic bans but Ekdalian should be at least told not to misuse the talk page for adding more fuel into heated disputes, and use the revert button only when it is necessary. Nxcrypto Message 03:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm unimpressed by your defence of #10, it was an unsourced change, sure disruptive but not vandalism (which has a very specific meaning). Please refer to WP:NOTVANDAL. Nxcrypto Message 07:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Ekdalian

Statement by Ekdalian

I have nothing to say as such! I have been serving Misplaced Pages since 2013, particularly related to contentious caste articles, fighting against caste promotion, POV pushing and vandalism. Heated debates are common in the contentious topics. I have neither violated 3RR, nor abused any editor! Yes, in case someone has been topic banned and condemned by admins, I do mention the same so that NPOV is not violated. Many admins are aware of my activities including SPI, anti-disruption and anti-vandalism. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 06:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Action (warning) may be taken against NXcrypto for being unable to identify vandalism (refer to point number 10), and wasting the time of our admins! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Nxcrypto, it is a clear case of vandalism. The user intends to misrepresent and project their caste as Kulin Kayastha (higher status among Bengali Kayasthas) by intentionally changing Eastern (Bengal) to Western! Moreover, the user has done similar vandalism in multiple articles only in order to promote Western Bengali Guhas. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

In response to Bishonen's comments, I would like to inform here that Sitush is referring to my response at a time when Nobita456's sock was driving a discussion and I had filed an SPI! Therefore, I was delaying the discussion in order to eliminate the sock from the same. Sitush has been quoted out of context! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Orientls, the user has already been blocked for vandalism; I have years of experience in this area and quite sure of what I have mentioned! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Bishonen: I have clearly mentioned that I am not sure! But, Orientls seems to be so sure that they have stated that I am 'falsely' accusing him of meatpuppetry! How can you be so sure that there has been no mail exchanges? Orientls, do you think you are God? Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 06:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Orientls

I find this comment by Ekdalian unpalatable: "The user intends to misrepresent and project their caste as Kulin Kayastha." How are you so sure of their caste? I don’t see where they have self-identified as such, and you also accuse them of attempting to project "their caste'" with another one by "vandalising" Misplaced Pages, which is a serious accusation against a new editor. I think an editor of your tenure should be able to recognize what constitutes vandalism because those edits are not vandalism, you should also refrain from speculating about the caste of editors.

This reasoning seems odd, especially when Sitush himself states: "CharlesWain began this discussion. They are not a sock, are they?" , implying that you were opposing changes proposed by an editor who was not a sock by misrepresenting Sitush's comments. I also think canvassing was inappropriate, particularly with its problematic heading, "Kind attention: Bishonen and admins active here." It sounds as if you are trying to recruit people to back you up here.

Honestly, I’m not surprised by the diffs cited in the report, especially if your conduct at ARE is like this where your edits are under scrutiny.

@Bishonen: While the filer himself made it clear that he is not "seeking any topic bans", Ekdalian deserves a topic ban following this new message. By calling an editor with almost 4k edits a "comparatively new user" and falsely accusing him of "meatpuppetry", Ekdalian has proven he is not capable of editing here without poisoning the well and making personal attacks. Orientls (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Ekdalian

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

I will point out that I was canvassed to this discussion by Ekdalian. That said, I'll state that I don't think NXcrypto's diffs are anything much; it's surely a stretch to call them "casting apersions" and "poisoning the well" and the like, especially in the IPA area where the tone is often sharp. The comments by Sitush are a little more concerning, though. Bishonen | tålk 10:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC).

Alex 19041

Request concerning Alex 19041

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Est. 2021 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Alex 19041 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA & WP:IBAN

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

21 January 2025

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User talk:Alex 19041#Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Discussion concerning Alex 19041

Statement by Alex 19041

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Alex 19041

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

To recap what's already been said at the initial hearing this got at ARBCOM, it has been identified that Alex19041 is not extended-confirmed, has now been made aware of the 30/500 editing restriction for PIA, has acknowledged that they should not make any edits to the topic, but has not quite acknowledged that they also should not make comments relating to the topic outside of article space. If they can acknowledge that, an IBAN would be unnecessary as they will not be engaging further with the discussion at-issue for some time. If they can't acknowledge that, we'd likely need to escalate to blocks, as there's no reason to expect the IBAN to be observed. Some concern was also raised that Est. 2021's replies to Alex 19041 included personal attacks, although it should be noted that Est. 2021 has made an effort to remove potentially-problematic statements from their prior comments at ARBCOM (sections on their talk page containing similar language have been removed entirely, which is within their purview on a user talk page). _signed,Rosguill 16:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
(came here from the ill-fated ArbCom case request). I agree with Rosguill. Some assurance from Alex 19041 and from Est. 2021 that they will leave the problematic edits behind would be good.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree that the reported user needs to show some understanding that as a non-EC user, they need to leave this CTOP alone across all namespaces. However, sanctions are for serious, ongoing problems, three unwelcome talk page posts made over the course of an hour does not strike me as sufficient cause for a formal iban. If there's more to it than that, it needs to be made clear, with diffs. Beeblebrox 21:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Denali-related pages

Request concerning Denali-related pages

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: ] (] · ] · ] · ] · filter log · ] · block log)
Search CT alerts: • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:CT/AP

I think this is the right place to ask for this? Requesting an expansion of WP:CT/AP to cover all articles related to Denali, as it has unfortunately become a political hot-button issue as the POTUS made it a prioroty on his first day back in office to sign an executive order to revert the name of the mountain back to "Mt. McKinley".

In the past twenty-four hours there has been heavy editing/disruption in articles and on related talk pages and protection has been needed at several. Denali was probably hit hardest, but Denali–Mount McKinley naming dispute got some too, as has Denali National Park and Preserve, which is explicitly not even part of the executive order. I wouldn't be surprised if the same issue is happening in Gulf of Mexico related articles, but haven't checked for myself. Beeblebrox 22:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, just checked Gulf of Mexico. 28 new talk page sections in the past day, was already ECP protected two weeks ago per WP:CT/AP.

I kinda think a single admin could do this, but I am editorially involved and probably slightly too infuriated to be objective. Beeblebrox 22:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, that's kind of what I thought, but again didn't want to act on it as I'm editorially involved. Beeblebrox 22:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Discussion concerning Denali-related pages

Statement by Denali-related pages

Statement by Isabelle

Since I've protected Denali's talk page, I will comment here. I agree that we will be seeing serious issues in the coming month, considering all the shit the new president is throwing at the wall, but I believe the administrators are well equip to deal with this at the moment. I believe Valereee has protected the Gulf of Mexico's talk page, and I've dealt with Mount Denali's. We might need to apply more extensive protection during this coming month to stop the vandals, but current tools will do just fine. Isabelle Belato 23:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Valereee

Pinged here: yes, I've semi'd Talk:Gulf of Mexico, yesterday for 24 hours, today for another 31. I dislike protecting a talk, but it was a burden for editors working there. Valereee (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

100+ edits today on the article, which is EC protected. I feel like that's a lot. Valereee (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Denali-related pages

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

— Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 16:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: AMPOL already covers "Post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed". I think that "broadly construed" would include Denali and Gulf of Mexico in the current moment. In any event, I think you'd want to go to ARCA, not here, for an amendment. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, Denali is already ECP and Denali National Park and Preserve has semi-protection. There's no protection on Denali–Mount McKinley naming dispute, but I'm not seeing anything in the page history that would justify it.l voorts (talk/contributions) 22:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

AE couldn't expand the scope of an existing CT designation; only ArbCom could do that. But I don't think we need to. If the disruption is related to a current American politics controversy, that's clearly related to "post-1992 politics of the United States", and so is already in scope of the existing CT designation. So, I'd say just treat it as such. Seraphimblade 22:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: