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

Revision as of 23:33, 21 November 2008 view sourceCoren (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users18,492 edits →David Gerard: Moving Giano II's comment to his section← 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}}
	:''WP:RFAR redirects here. You may be looking for ] (]).''
			<noinclude>{{pp-protected\|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>
	{{/Header}} <!-- front matter of this page-->
			{{/Header}}
			{{/Case}}
			{{/Clarification and Amendment}}
			{{/Motions}}
			{{/Enforcement}}

			]

			]
	==Current requests==
	=== Edits by User:Jörg ÖA ===
	'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 05:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Involved parties ====
	<!-- use {{admin\|username}} if the party is an administrator -->

	* {{userlinks\|Linkswechsel}}, ''filing party''
	* {{userlinks\|Jörg ÖA}}
	* {{userlinks\|Sinneed}}, contacted user regarding edits
	* {{userlinks\|Six words}}, contacted user regarding edits
	* {{userlinks\|HexaChord}}, contacted user regarding edits
	* {{userlinks\|Soman}}, reverted edit by user
	* {{userlinks\|Delirium}}, reverted edit by user

	<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. -->

	'''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 to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration -->

	* Attempts to speak with user (in chronological order):
	* Attempts to initiate discussions with user: and response from user
	* Attempt to reach compromise agreement: and response from user

	==== Statement by Linkswechsel ====

	] is apparently a critic of the ], one of the major political parties in Germany.

	He has repeatedly inserted lines at the top of the Left Party article (and related biographies of living persons), using words such as "extremist", "totalitarian", and "censorship". His basis for this is a single 2007 watchlist from the ] (BfV, a domestic intelligence division of the ]), which includes the Left Party on it. The inclusion on the list is because of allegations pertaining to certain party members, but Jörg ÖA treats it as a blanket condemnation of the entire party. He has placed these statements at the top of the articles for maximum effect. In addition, he placed links to this watchlist on biographies of Left politicians, even if they are not named and/or accused in the document. Attempts to speak with him have either gone unanswered or replied with personal attacks--accusing other users of "trolling" or "vandalism", as well as insinuating that I support Nazism and Communism. I attempted to compromise by including the BfV issue in a more neutral manner, but he quickly reinserted his version of the text and was unwilling to discuss any compromise.

	Given the uncivil nature of Jörg ÖA's activities, and since this affects multiple articles, I believe that arbitration is necessary. --] (]) 05:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	There does not seem to have been any prior ] in this case. I would recommend rejection and reference to ]. ] (]) 17:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by {Party 3} ====

	==== Clerk notes ====

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

	==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/1) ====
	*Waiting for more statements and comments. ]] 21:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


	----

	=== David Gerard ===
	'''Initiated by ''' Moreschi

	==== Involved parties ====
	*{{admin\|Moreschi}}, ''filing party''.
	*{{admin\|David Gerard}}.
	*{{userlinks\|Giano II}}.

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

	;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried
	*]: there is no other venue for requesting sanctions against an administrator.

	==== Statement by ] ====
	As can be seen both and, more relevantly, , David Gerard recently made a completely dumb block of Giano, for reasons that I can only conceive of as malicious. Giano's "socking" was known to pretty much the world and his wife, the block had no basis in reality or policy, Gerard was the totally wrong person to be blocking anyway due to prior heavy involvement with Giano-related issues, and David knew the block would never stick - so why do it? I can only conclude because he wanted to piss Giano off and thought he could get away with it. This is trolling.

	Please temporarily desysop for a month or something. We will not get away from these horrible blocks of Giano and other established users unless arbcom makes it very clear that blocking productive users for fatuous reasons is just not on. And a temp demop is the way to do that. ] (]) 23:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
	*While personally I would deal with this by open motion here, as the evidence is extraordinarily clear-cut, if it is felt that a full case must be opened I recommend putting a time limit of a week on it, or something similar. ] (]) 23:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
	**Lol wut? Everybody knew CDB was Giano, including, I believe, arbcom. Why the bleep was checkuser even thought about here? And Giano is a "bad-hand account"? Huh? Plus, joke nominations, which this clearly was, happen every year at arbcom election time. No one was going to vote for CDB anyway. We don't block people for making such nominations. We just have a laugh, or at the most, remove the nomination.
	**David, you have clearly lost touch with reality. Wachet auf. ] (]) 23:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

	====Statement by ]====
	While I completely agree with Moreschi, and the fact that David Gerard avoided actively discussing the block, instead relying on an empty ] (possibly trying to insinuate that the block had ArbCom authority), I hope that ArbCom will review this case (preferably privately to avoid further drama, and the usual attempts to make it about Giano rather then other people's actions) and determine if removing the bit from David Gerard (temporarily or permanently) would benefit the encyclopedia. I'll have it noted that David Gerard has stated that he knew these accounts were linked in 2006 and did nothing at the time, after talking the case over with Bishonen. ] (]) 23:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

	::And a thank you goes out to ] below for making my point for me. ] (]) 23:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====

	David Gerard should have his admin rights stripped for this very poor block, clearly made to bait and bully Giano. Though I'm unfamiliar with the history of the two, others are saying Gerard has had previous interaction, and thus makes the block a COI. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. This was a block out of pure malice. Moreschi suggests a month. I suggest permanent removal, and removal of CheckUser.

	Other issues, such as use of sockpuppets could be looked at by the committee. – ] (]) 23:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

	'''Response to Morven'''
	:Why was this block done now, not months earlier? Why was Bishonen's joke account also running for ArbCom not blocked? What about the fact David Gerard has apparently had disputes with Giano in the past? – ] (]) 00:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

	'''Response to TenOfAllTrades'''
	:Scarian's outburst is a lot worse than Giano's comments. Not only that, he was in a position of trust, adminship. The two are not comparable. – ] (]) 00:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	<s>I am of the opinion that, if ArbCom feel this needs a remedy of some sort, it should be afforded the full process. Any less, while abbreviating things, will only create more drama. Desysopping David (or any other remedy) isn't clear-cut here, unlike when we had unresponsive administrators etc. and it was purely a matter of principle. This is further compounded by the fact that the Committee will most likely be asked by some to consider his checkuser access. ] (]) 23:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)</s>
	:I see it's been moved up to "Current requests" from the motions section. I'll return to my hiding hole now :) ] (]) 23:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	Giano blocked and promptly unblocked, news at 11. Please just let it go. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

	====Statement by ]====

	I encourage the arbcom to accept this case. I cannot see any fault in David's actions here - to my knowledge "commonly known" is not a criterion in ]. However, this adds to the laundry list of instances in which it is obvious that no sanctions can ever be made to stick on Giano regardless of their relationship to policy - even a block that is well-founded in existing sockpuppet policy is, apparently, grounds for swift reversal.

	Given that the community has consistently failed to show any capability for regulating the conduct of this user, it falls to the arbcom to do so. I am prepared, should the case be accepted, to document the lengthy history of disruption and incivility on the part of Giano.

	But I encourage the arbcom to accept this and deal with this situation for once and for all - either to put an unambiguous sanction on Giano that cannot be overturned by the circle of protection he has managed to gather, or to pass a finding noting that despite his incivility, the arbcom washes their hands of it and accepts that the community has consented to put him above the law such that his special status can be enshrined in policy and we can be done with this idiotic drama surrounding good faith efforts to deal with an uncivil user who serially violates policy.

	:As for the comments of others, particularly SirFozzie, this entire situation is ludicrous. Giano used a sockpuppet account to run for arbcom while using a different account to ask questions of candidates. That the sockpuppet account was apparently known to some does not alter the fact that it was a violation of policy. And given that Giano was declared at the start to be a part of this case, I would think that asking that his conduct be considered would be uncontroversial. That said, if it is controversial, I am happy to file a new case. Arbitrators - please let me know if you would prefer to consider a general case on Giano's behavior separate from this one.

	==== Statement by ] ====
	There are a number of issues here, quite apart from a block which appears to have been malicious. There is also the claim by Gerard that a number of other Checkusers ran this check, and - unless Gerard was acting on his own - presumably OK'd this block. Either way, some transparency would be useful here, which is why I urge the ArbCom to take this case.
	* I am also confused by David Gerard's response below, because on Giano's talkpage he claims that he knew the two accounts were related in 2006 .

	====Statement by ] (])====
	*Everybody can make a strange block once in a while but those bad block on Giano, one of our best contributors, have to be stopped. They are very disruptive. Maybe a temporal desysopping is a way to handle this drama

	==== Statement by ] ====
	Well I for one was aware that the CdB account was really Giano, and I can't believe for one moment that David Gerard wasn't also. So why iniate a pointless CU? To confirm what he already knew of course, and thus to enable him to make a 'legitimate' indef block of the CdB account and a 24 hr block of Giano. In what way was the alternate account abusive? No reasons appear to have been given in this regard. It is hard not to conclude that these blocks carried a fair degree of personal animosity against Giano. David Gerards unwillingness to discuss the situation and his dismissive tone of any criticism aren't really befitting of an administrator. <br>
	I urge the Committee to accept this case with the sole purpose of examaning David Gerard's fitness to be an administrator.

	==== Statement by David Gerard ====

	*Moreschi's reasoning for an assumption of malice is completely unclear.
	*Sir Fozzie's claim that I refused to discuss it is also false. What I didn't do was immediately reverse it on dissent; that's a different thing, however.

	The block was made after several checkusers saw the accounts matching and couldn't quite believe Giano would pull something this stupid. Several of us checked and saw it was a clear match.

	As Phil Sandifer points out: pretending to be two different people in one venue (an arbcom election) is precisely what sockpuppeting actually is. There's no way this is an innocent use of a second account or just playing. Arbcom elections aren't the venue for that sort of thing.

	If arbcom disputes this, I would be interested in the reasoning as to why this isn't a case of playing a bad-hand account (Giano II, with a long running history of gross personal attacks and abuse) and a good-hand account (Catherine de Burgh, with no such history) in the same venue - ] (]) 23:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

	:Despite unsubstantiated assertions above (and if you think you can substantiate them, please do), I have nothing against Giano II personally, despite his habit of personal attacks against all and sundry (including me, and these are still ongoing) in the past two years. I think he's a great writer and contributor, and I'm simultaneously appalled at his ongoing habit of making personal attacks against all manner of people. I think he could long ago have benefited from an ArbCom restriction to article space only, and an arbitrator-enforced personal attack parole. To this I would now add a firm restriction to a single account. It's unfortunate such excellence in article-writing appears to be accompanied by a stunted and vitriolic attitude - ] (]) 20:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
	::Please respond to my suggestion in the arbitrator comments section below. (Posting in this section just to make sure that David Gerard sees this.) ] (]) 20:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

	====Statement by ]====
	"''unless arbcom makes it very clear that blocking productive users for fatuous reasons is just not on''"

	So if this goes through, and at some point, someone blocks me for a reason determined by the community to be bad, I can just point to this case and have them speedy-desysopped? Or am I correct in thinking that "productive users" is just code for "Giano"? That was my suspicion when desysopping was first raised as an option (in the first post to AN!), later comments seems to have confirmed it. Blocking an established contributor whose name isn't Giano for a bad reason -> Some public humiliation on AN, maybe an RFC. Blocking Giano for a bad reason -> Insta-desysop by ArbCom. <font face="Broadway">]]</font> 23:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	I agree with PS, except for the second sentence of the second para. Arbcomm needs to gird up its collective loins and finally deal with the Giano situation. Also, the assertion that "everyone" knew this was a sock account is clearly nonsense. Unless I'm no-one. Oh, wait... ] (]) 23:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	While I would ''otherwise'' agree with MrZ-man's assertion that an ass-backwards block without a demonstrated history of bad behaviour is not sufficient for an Arbitration, the appearance of abuse of ''checkuser'' tools is an entirely more serious matter that must be examine, whatever the truth of it is. ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 23:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	I have mentioned this on G's talk page and on the noticeboard but will expand here. It wasn't common knowledge to me, most normal users who don't know the dramatis personae on wiki I imagine, and several others I know too. So I could have decided to vote for Giano/CdB, as may others, and I would have been misled into doing so. Giano made it clear he was not going to run this year due to an Arb/jimbo possible veto if he were to get in. I presumed he was telling the truth when he said that and didn't have another account going on. Sorry if this seems gormless, funny or naive to the rest of you in the loop but I doubt I was the only one (not that I mind horribly, but it is a bit deceptive to run for arbcom and not make who you are/your other account clear in your statement etc. Boring I know!:) This said, although David G. might have it in for Giano, what he did had some sense behind it, as someone had claimed they weren't going to run for Arbcom, then did using another account, thus deceiving some people (at least me!) I didn't vote for one person's RfA because they didn't make clear their old account, which I thought was cheeky. This was the same- if I'd known, I might have been less likely to vote for CdB, but as I didn't know I was considering voting for "her". The Bishonen/bishzilla case is not the same as everyone does know the accounts are the same I presume- but I at least, and at least one other person at least I think, didn't know. There is sort of a point in blocking if someone was deceiving people, or even just 'trolling' in the lightest sense of the word. Another User- ] sometimes makes socks for a laugh and they get blocked sometimes I think. To be fair to DG, I don't think his block was outside acceptable admin actions, though bound to be mocked due to Giano's popularity. I'm saying this just to stand up for DG (who I don't know) as I don't think his action was that abnormal. But this doesn't mean I don't like Giano.:)To clarify- my point iis that this isn't worth an arbcom as DG might have done something unpopular, but nothing against the rules. ] ] 23:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
	::Reply to Giano- most voters at arbcom elections might have had no reason to have visited your talk page to have seen any mention of the connection made several months ago so they might well have voted without knowing this- as you can see several people who will be voters did not know. ] ] 01:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
	:::To Flonight etc- it might be an obvious joke candidacy but it would have got some votes it might not otherwise have got if linked to G., from those who didn't know it. People do vote for the joke or less serious candidates sometimes, and no-one likes to not be in the know, even if they're voting for a joke candidacy, they still deserve to know what they're voting for. Anyway, this is all sort of technicalities.:) ] ] 02:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
	::::As to contributions, look at for instance the articles ] has made , and I think I can think of several similar editors. Their last 200 edits are not similar to Giano's (looking upto the time at which I write), which are not entirely unusual for him. They are glossy but about some pretty rooms or something, and all done in his user space for several months until their launch, not main encyclopedia space- when he isn't expending hundreds of edits rowing. People need to look what he's actually doing, not at the myth or what they remember him as doing. I looked round enough stately homes in my youth to be bored by them so maybe I'm a pleb:) Now I'll look like a ] lol, not that mine are wonderful of course but you know what I mean, I just mean saying he's a content contributor, in opposition to admins who disagree with him, at least judged on what he or they are doing over recent months/years, is not really fair on them. ] ] 18:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	I note that ] identifies herself as a Bishonen alternate account in the first line at the top of her user page. I don't see any evidence that ] was ever so clearly and unambiguously self-identified. Per Sticky Parkin, I've been on Misplaced Pages for just shy of four years now (and an admin for most of that time) and I didn't know about the Catherine/Giano link.

	Can we please have a statement about Giano's conduct from ArbCom? Per Phil, we need either a remedy that sticks, or a decision that the ArbCom no longer regulates user conduct. Worth noting is that Jimbo actually took a stand against over-the-top abusive incivility the other day when he temporarily desysopped ]. Does the ArbCom have any intention of enforcing ], or is it just Jimbo who can do it from now on? ](]) 00:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	Gerard that he knew the accounts were linked in 2006. Were any checks run today? Why were they run? Who ran them? The block is a matter of judgement, poor in my view, but certainly defensible. But checkuser access needs to remain utterly beyond doubt and above reproach. In this respect Morven's response entirely misses the point. There is work here for the committee in its checkuser ombudsman function. ] ] 01:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

	:NYB's comments re checkuser put the matter to rest for me. That leaves nothing for the committee to do here. ] ] 14:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	Reading the above, it appears some people want to take this horrible block on Giano and turn it into a case against Giano. That's utterly ridiculous. Phil and TenofAllTrades appear to want to make it only about Giano and his "incivility". Where exactly was Giano "incivil" here? It appears to me that Gerard ran a checkuser for no reason whatsoever and made two bad blocks. It sounds like a job for the ombudsman, not the arbcom. If this is accepted, it's just going to turn into a case where the arbs can finally "get rid of the Giano problem". This is not what arbcom is for.

	==== Statement by ] ====

	I'm afraid this is all rather silly, you see many on the Arbcom and many checkusers have known for months if not years. To my certain knowledge:

	*Flo knew
	*Brad knew
	*Gerard knew
	*Lar knew
	*Alison knew
	*100s of Admins knew
	*100s of editors knew

	I expect this is yet another attempt to "get me", but it's quite the most stupid one yet. If the Arbcom and the checkusers don't talk to one another that is not my problem. Oh and if someone searches through my talk page diffs they will find me admitting to her months ago. This was nothing but a fishing trip and it seems multiple checkusers have been caught with their fingers in the till. As me for me not running I think I said that for the first time today on WR, because Brad was asking me about it only yesterday, so no-one certainly knew I was not runing when Lady C launched herself, besides which how could she possibly have identified herself - do you think I would trust anyone here with my name and address? ] (]) 01:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

	We all have a right to our privacy. Gerard, this strange and sinister tool of the Arbcom, has broken and invaded my privacy, I have no idea what he has discovered, but I know where I edit from, he has no right to that infomation. For these Checkusers to say they thought Lady Catherine was Greg Kohs is laughable. I don't beleive it, Misplaced Pages's editors won't beleive it and the fact don't bear out - so whose privacy do we let him invade next? The fact he has not been instantly fired suggests he was acting as the tool of his superiors. I hope that is not the case. ] (]) 23:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

	::*Why are you bothering to vote - is it to decieve yourselves there is some justice? because no one else is fooled for one single moment. You are a disgraced body. You have put the contributing editors beneath the likes of Gerard. I'm sure your rewards will be somewhere, but it won't be on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 22:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by uninvolved observer ] ====
	Giano says that "this is all rather silly". Do I see anyone laughing? I'm frankly disgusted that Giano has been allowed to get away with what he has. Look at his statement. All I see is borderline personal attacks on the Misplaced Pages community, as well as denial that any of this is his fault.

	I'm also frankly disgusted at the reaction to David Gerard. Where the hell did ] go? He's a long-standing constructive admin on here.

	I urge ArbComm to accept a case to look at all editors involved in this in general, but most importantly, to look at Giano's behavior. If that is tolerated, does that mean I can go trolling as well? Or is Giano a special exemption to the rules?

	====Comment by Bishonen: it's not the block, it's the checkuser====
	(I'm slightly involved in the sense that David mentioned me in his . I wish I'd been more aware of users' right to privacy on the 2006 occasion that he alludes to.) I'm not worried about this block; if I got worked up about every bad block of Giano, I'd be in a state of permanent hysteria. But I ''am'' concerned about the CheckUsering. There doesn't seem to be a good reason for it; certainly nothing like the kind of reason that CheckUsers rightly demand on the ] page and on IRC (on the occasions I've asked on IRC). I posted a question about it on Giano's page, below David's block message: On what ground were the Giano account and the Catherine de Burgh account CheckUsered? But since David told Fozzie to take it to ArbCom, and since it's been years (quite literally) since he replied to any question of mine on his page, I won't take the trouble to repeat my question there. Could somebody please tell me if ArbCom can and will deal with it? (Mackensen seems to think they will, or might.) The CheckUser issue seems to me a far more important question than yet another overturned block (yawn). Is Giano going to have to appeal to the Ombudsman Commission? It seems more complicated, somehow. ArbCom surely has the information to manage such a question simply and swiftly. Please feel free to post right below this, arbs, in case you have something to tell me. ] \| ] 02:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC).
	<br>PS, OMG, I see several people suggesting that we have here yet another wonderful opportunity to arbitrate Giano's conduct in general. And here I thought I was ''joking'' when I allowed Bishzilla to say she'd save a lot of time by recusing in all arbitrations involving Giano, as 90% of arbitrations do involve Giano! I humbly submit it's time for the committee to focus. On something else. Surely the reams of typing about Giano's ever-loving "conduct" are getting to be a ''bit'' of a waste of time? ] \| ] 02:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC).

	==== Question & Comment by ] ====
	Eugh, we're sick of this drama. There is a clear division in the community when it comes to the now-unblocked user and that division grows after each and every incident (or often, ridiculous arbitration request for every reversed block).

	Precisely where was it revealed that Catherine was GianoII's alternate account - the so-called "well-known" fact? His/her user page? Maybe talk page? Subuser page maybe? I certainly wasn't aware. Several editors and admins who have commented either here or at admin noticeboard also weren't aware. I know of several editors and administrators who haven't commented who are in the same category, and I don't think I'd have trouble in asking them to note that, if it becomes a necessity.

	Personally, I'm in full agreement with Morven based on what's been said here so far. Additionally, to be explicit, David Gerard's tools should not be removed. ] (]) 02:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

	;Comment to Deacon
	You're already subject to an arbitration case, but that doesn't entitle you to use any venue to engage in general incivility and personal attacks ("Giano's enemies, as DG clearly is, seem to be consistently so stupid"). It's grossly unacceptable. ] (]) 04:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

	;Comment to JayHenry
	Hardly; these ridiculous requests for arbitration are going to occur regardless of what the Committee says. No one was surprised because it's become so predictable. ] (]) 04:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

	;Comment to Cla68
	Why didn't you open a user conduct RFC at the time? ] (]) 04:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Comment by ] ====
	I was not planning to comment here, but I see that Giano, above, on this very arb case, is continuing to simultaneous say that every one knows he and CdB are the same, and also to maintain the fiction that he and CdB are separate users "how could she possibly have identified herself - do you think I would trust anyone here with my name and address". I came to WP long after matters with Giano had started, and to avoid getting confused from coming in midway in the story, have filtered out discussions of his troubles. Thus, although I could see CdB was a silly nomination, I did not immediately know it was him. Neither did other people here who are willing to admit our ignorance of even the most prominent sockpuppets. He is playing games with us; it continues to amuse him. It seems to amuse some people here. It didn't amuse Gerard, and good for him that he did something about it. G & his alter egos should be restricted to one account for everything they do, and restricted to article and article talk space forever. Seems obvious to me, though I don't think it will to arb com. ''']''' (]) 02:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Comment by ] ====
	Giano's enemies, as DG clearly is, seem to be consistently so stupid that they themselves are the greatest evidence supporting Giano's critique of wikipedia. And actions like this are among the greatest illustrations. David Gerrard's block was both pathetic and dumb, and was so obviously so that this is perhaps sufficient punishment of itself . Moreschi says DG knew it would never stick. Well, you'd think, wouldn't you ... but the idea that this would piss off Giano seems strange too. I think Giano is used to getting impotent blocks by now. Hmm ... I do wonder what was going on in his head here. The excuse to block was of course lameness incarnate. Obviously a dead female aristocrat mocking feminism and campaigning for arbcom is someone's sock. I had one encounter with Catherine de Burgh, today, and even I was confident it was Giano. Even if this wasn't as obvious as Bishzilla, it '''is obvious''' that Giano was not interested in making any attempt to conceal this. You want to create a sock to evade wiki's rules, you try to hide it, not make it blatantly transparent. But of course David already knew all about Catherine de Burgh since 2006 , he didn't just suspect it, and blocked him an age after finding out without even opening a discussion. The "bad hand" nonsense looks like bad faith, perhaps vindictiveness, and if so ... well ... such qualities shouldn't be tolerated in admins , though I know they normally are when the user is powerful enough. ] (<small>]</small>) 03:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

	'''Ncmvocalist'''
	Ncmvocalist, no offense, but I think you'll need to better distinguish who does and does not get impressed or influenced by sanctimonious claptrap . ] (<small>]</small>) 17:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Comment by ] ====
	You know, rather than act exasperated every time this happens the ArbCom ''could'' clarify that we do not block first and ask questions later--if there's no emergency then ''talk about it''. Oh wait, that sounds an awful lot like attempting to solve a problem. Instead let's reject the case, shall we? Same time, same place, next week? --] (]) 03:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Comment by ] ====
	Just a quick reminder that this isn't the first problematic block by Gerard. Gerard blocked ] as a "sockpuppet/meatpuppet for overstock.com" without providing evidence. As it turns out, Gerard was completey, absolutely mistaken, both in the accusation and for blocking for that reason, but did not reverse the block nor apologize for it. Others in the community, thankfully, finally reversed it on their own. ] (]) 03:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Comment by uninvolved ] ====
	A quick question for Flo, since I don't think I understand her "reject" rationale properly: If everyone/largely everyone/everyone involved knew this was a joke account belonging to Giano, how is this NOT a bad block; and if it's a bad block, with history apparently involved, why reject? You yourself say that David knew about the parody acct and who it belonged to. The reason this was brought to ArbCom wasn't "Giano had a joke account", nor to my knowledge was the main issue "somebody ran a bad checkuser". As I understand the reason for this request, it was "David G blocked a user for having a joke account even though he KNEW it was a joke, not a malicious sock." The rationale you're giving to reject would be a valid reason for rejecting on the first or second premise; on the third premise, though, it seems like a better reason to ACCEPT the case. Just my thoughts, anyway. ] 05:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

	====Statement by Thatcher====
	Welcome to ]. I was contacted by another checkuser who was concerned that Catherine de Burgh might be a sockpuppet of a particular banned user. The name was familiar and I checked the checkuser log, to find that I had previously checked the account in June, due to concerns about ''Troubles''-related editing. I had no memory of the June check or its results so apparently I discovered nothing interesting at that time. I re-ran the check and found that Catherine de Burgh was a sockpuppet of Giano. I attempted to contact "Catherine" privately but "she" flipped me off . I also sent an email to the original checkuser, Jimbo, Newyorkbrad and David Gerard, asking if this was an open secret and saying that I wanted to "tread gently." During the afternoon, a third checkuser, who saw my check in the log, emailed to say that he'd "always assumed this was Giano and never actually bothered to check." Unfortunately Newyorkbrad did not (and has not still) responded to the email.

	If, after reviewing my comments, the Arbitrators stand by their opinions that the check was "below best practice" and "not good" then I will happily resign, although I may want to initiate a discussion about "best practice" in this context. ] 05:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
	:Pardon my breaching the page format, but that (your or anyone's resignation) is certainly not something I've suggested or even hinted at). I think the blocks were unnecessary, but that's a very different question. ] (]) 08:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

	:*Let me clarify something. After reviewing the entire checkuser log for the June check, it appears that some edits have been oversighted. I believe that an account or IP made a personal attack that included personal information that has been oversighted. I do not recall for sure, but I think "Catherine" either came to the defense of the attacked party, or was herself attacked, in a manner that made me suspicious. (Recall that the Troubles articles have been plagued by sockpuppets on all sides.) I checked the attacking account, and I also checked Catherine. Catherine's most recent edits were too stale to return any result, which is why I did not discover in June that she was a sock of Giano. But the check was still recorded in the log. (That's one of the problems with the checkuser log; it shows what data was requested but not what data was returned. Similarly, if I ran a check on ] today, it would return no result, since the edits of that account are much too old; but the log would still show "Thatcher got IPs for Grawp".) ] 15:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

	====Comment by Sarcasticidealist====

	Reading Thatcher's explanation above, this appears to have been a good faith checkuser conducted within policy. While Catherine's identity obviously wasn't a secret, by not having a big honking notice on the page identifying it as Giano, Giano was running the risk of having it checkusered in the event that there was evidence of abusive sockpuppetry. This doesn't change the fact that David Gerard was aware Catherine's identity well before the checkuser results came in, but apparently never bothered (during those two years) to actually look at the account's contributions, which would establish pretty clearly that it wasn't a good hand/bad hand situation. ] (]) 06:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

	====Comment by ]====
	I just blocked a user for creating a hoax article and using sock puppets. Now there's this case. {{vandal\|Catherine de Burgh}} has created an article that, if not a hoax, is very dubious and sourced only to a blog. Looking at the image which illustrates the article, ], I see a fraudulent license (it's a 1925 image and the tag is "Author died more than 100 years ago public domain images"). Creating bad content is not a joke. Reviewing the sock's "contributions" further, I see many cases where "she" went through seemingly random articles in order to link common terms, which is discouraged, and to link dates, which is also discouraged.

	I asked Giano politely to mark this account as his and he responded rudely. If people run sock accounts they shouldn't be surprised if they draw the attention of checkusers, nor should they be shocked when those socks are blocked.

	We routinely delete user pages used to play games or to engage in social behavior unrelated to building the encyclopedia. This account seems comparable to those. Editors are free to create as many MySpace accounts as they like. The only accounts we should create on Misplaced Pages are those intended to help build the encyclopedia. This sock was ultimately disruptive and it was correctly blocked.

	Lastly, I'm very disappointed that an editor would run an undisclosed sock for a position of trust, and that those who were aware it didn't do anything about it. Giano should either disclose the names of his other socks or stop using them. ]] ] 06:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

	Reply to NE2:
	:This is the source for the article as it was written: . Since when are blogs adequate sources for articles? Furthermore, I can't believe that an editor of Giano's experience would really think that this individual was sufficiently notable for an article. As for the photo, we generally assume that something is copyrighted unless we have evidence to the contrary, so far as I'm aware. When questioned about it seriously on the talk page the sock didn't give a straight answer but instead talked in a funny voice and acted offended. Taken as a package we have a poorly sourced article about a non-notable person illustrated by a photograph with a misleading license, and the creating editor is an apparent sock of an undisclosed editor who refuses to give straight answers to legitimate questions. As I said at the top, I found a another user acting in a similar manner today and I blocked him. This isn't the kind of behavior that we should encourage or even tolerate. ]] ] 07:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

	====Response to Will Beback by NE2====
	The article is certainly not a hoax; search Google News and Google Books for "anti-flirt". As for the image, the name of {{tl\|PD-old}} is rather deceptive. It probably should have been {{tl\|PD-because}}, but it does appear to be public domain; if the LoC is not aware of any copyright restrictions, I believe we accept that. --] 06:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

	====Comment by Achromatic====
	I'm surprised by this, or I wish I was. All manner of reasons have been claimed for blocking Giano here. Because he was "incivil". Because he "wasn't taking a serious process seriously. ArbCom elections are no places for jokes". For "being a bad hand". "For not admitting it was him". "Because sockpuppets do so at their own risk". None of which holds any real merit. David Gerard claims in one place that he knew about the account link two years ago, and yet now blocked on CU evidence. Giano responds on Catherine's behalf, mixing the use of "I" and "she" in a way that is straightforward enough that I think it almost disingenuous for someone to claim "I have no idea and he won't admit it". There have been many joke applications for Arbitration elections. There have been instances of vandalism (Ceiling Cat, anyone?) passed off as "a joke, and not worthy of a serious response". For David Gerard to punitively block Catherine's account and Giano's account for misuse of sockpuppets is a flagrant attempt to selectively enforce at a convenient time a dubious decision. Nothing he has said since that point has served to demonstrate the validity of the block, and it is saddening to see several people come here to say "Ignore David Gerard. We need to deal with Giano's misbehavior", not for the first time. I think much more needs to be considered in terms of the whys of this poor decision. ] (]) 06:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

	====Questions for Thatcher from Black Kite====
	Thatcher, you don't appear to have done anything wrong here at all, which begs the questions
	* Why was the block of CdB left to David Gerard, who has previously conflicted with Giano?
	* Why was it decided to block Giano as well, knowing the drama that would ensue,
	If ''you'' had blocked CdB, with a simple "CdB is blocked - joke's over" to Giano, this would clearly have been sufficient, drama levels would've been zero, and this entire time-wasting exercise would never have happened.
	::It was not (and still is not) clear to me that Lady C should be blocked or unblocked. Bishzilla was allowed to run for Arbcom, but Bishzilla is an openly acknowledged sock. One response I considered was to post to the candidate's page a request that Lady C either publicly identify her owner or withdraw her candidacy. I sent an email seeking consultation and second opinions to Jimbo, to Newyorkbrad (who was referenced in one of Lady C's most recent posts) and to David G. (who had previously checkusered the Lady C. account and whom I thought might have relevant information). After several messages were exchanged, David decided to block both Lady C and Giano. You'll have to ask him for his reasons. ] 15:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	There are two issues here: one is the checkuser and the other is the block. Speaking only about the checkuser run, let me clarify that I was the checkuser who approached Thatcher, not David Gerard. I have forwarded an entire chronology of events to NewYorkBrad last night, but to ensure Thatcher's good name is cleared and for the community's and Giano's sake, a brief synopsis of events is as follows. I had no idea (or recollection) that CdB was Giano, but had a concern due to CdB's edits that it may have been a sockpuppet of a community-banned editor. I did not want to run a CU based solely on my own suspicions, but looking at the CU log, I saw that months ago, a check was run on CdB by Thatcher, and so approached Thatcher prior to any new CU being run with my concern, as is accepted protocol between CU's. Thatcher must have forgotten the results too, and subsequently, ran a new CU. When the results came back that it was Giano, I then ran my own checks to confirm. Neither Thatcher nor I took any on-wiki action. Rather, he asked CdB for confirmation (as demonstrated above) and e-mailed myself, NYB, Jimbo, and DG as he stated above, and those e-mails are in the possession of NYB as well, as he was copied on all of them, and can be forwarded to an Ombudsman should it be required. The checkusers were run in good faith, initiated by people who never knew, or perhaps forgot, that Giano was CdB, and who were interested in preventing disruption to the project. Nobody, including Giano, was singled out for "special treatment" and had Giano had a link on CdB's or had it been as obvious as Bishzilla/Bishonen, I do not think any of this unnecessary drama would ever have occurred. -- ] (]) 10:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	Newyorkbrad's comment that perhaps the situation would be better if David Gerard voluntarily agreed not to do any admin response to Giano, or a motion should be passed to make that official, seems remarkably familiar to me from my not too distant past.

	I bear no grudge for the events that saw me before Arbcom re my block of him some months ago. However, I would like to post a suggestion. If a sequence of well intentioned neutral administrators find themselves applying good intentioned but ultimately highly controverisial administrator actions / responses to a particular user, perhaps the problem isn't the administrators.

	Giano is obviously problematic, or else he would not have been blocked by so many different admins over time. His fears of persecution are not well founded - looking at his block log you see a who's who of experienced admins, many of whom don't agree with each other on much of anything much less any pattern of dislike towards Giano. I can't think of any other user with a block log that long who hasn't been community banned by now.

	He's also widely acknowledged to be a strong contributor.

	Neither of these are particularly news to anyone.

	I propose an alternative - with the intent to lower drama. Stop accepting Giano block related cases for consideration, unless a clear consensus on ( ANI, AN, somewhere appropriate ) after some appropriate period of time (24 hrs?) that a particular case was in bad faith or violating admin policy, and not merely controverisal.

	Allow admins to make judgement calls (and the occasional mistake) without fear of umpteen million words of drama following.

	If Giano doesn't want to be blocked, he can conform better to community standards. If Giano's blocks are sufficiently controversial normal unblock process (ANI review, other admins discretion, discussion on talk pages) can deal with them. The community is ill served by allowing this level of drama time after time after time. This level of drama is arguably not worth it - if we're to come to this time after time, I would put forth the argument that we should community ban Giano to end it. I think that just banning unnecessary drama is more appropriate.

	] (]) 21:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Comment by ] ====
	Re: ] - Epic fail by David Gerard. ] (]) 21:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
	====Statement by ]====
	There does not seem to be evidence of any "disruptive" sock behavior on the part of CdB (Lady) in the recent past that would rise to level requiring a block, especially compared to other behavior that the ArbCom has not supported sanctioning. Therefore the the blocks placed by ] seem clearly to fall in the realm of personal vendetta. However there are other methods of reviewing David Gerard's behavior/actions that probably should have been attempted before this request before ArbCom. -- ] 21:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
	*To Rockpocket: are not the basis on which David Gerard stated for blocking of the account - and blocking for such old edits would not be preventative, but punative. -- ] 02:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Comment by ] ====
	Something useful could be done here: Arbcom could choose to look into the behavior of David Gerard. As an admin and a checkuser, he's expected to behave reasonably. This is not the first time he's failed spectacularly to do that. He's simply too kooky to be allowed to continue. A couple quick and easy remedies would fix this problem. ] ] 21:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Comment by ] ====
	I've long suspected that CdB was the sock of somebody, but it all seemed so harmless, funny, and not in violation of any policy. I do not think either account should have been blocked. It was senseless. I also think that Checkuser should not have been used for this purpose. But having been done, we should just move on and take it as a lesson learned. ] (]) 23:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Comment by ] ====
	CdB made a number of edits that are not an acceptable us of a ]. Using both accounts in an exchange with the same editor who was not in on the joke (and using the sock to insult that editor, too) , article space vandalism (and a ] violation, or does being among our "best" content editors give you license to insert "jokes" into articles now too?) . S/he also used the account to make subtle jibes at other editor Giano was in dispute with (I will not provide links, because s/he used one editor's real name). I urge the Arbs to remind Giano that, should one wish to operate a sock-puppet and then fall foul of ], then one shouldn't complain when that account is check-usered. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 01:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
	: In reply to The Red Pen of Doom: I'm aware that that block was not a direct result of those edits. My point is that if one chooses to use a sock in a manner that is not consistent with policy, then one should not be outraged about being the subject of a check-user, irrespective of when that occurs down the line. My point is ''only'' about why a checkuser was not unreasonable (in contrast to others, who are suggesting it was personally motivated). I offer no opinion on whether the consequent administrative action was appropriate, not least because I am not in possession of the information that the checkuser revealed. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 02:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Comment by ] on Checkusers ====
	I was reluctant to comment here, and will be reluctant to comment further, but...

	As Bishonen says, I think the block here is fairly irrelevant but the checkuser is concerning.

	I once had an account connected with me checkusered. I did not mind the checkuser, as it was a public one, notified at the appropriate noticeboard and dealt with appropriately in public. I was fully cognisant of the checkuser, and knew it would show nothing.

	However, I then received a private e-mail notifying me that the checkuser results had been shared with another or other checkusers. This concerned me.

	I do not think it is appropriate for private information to be spread in this fashion, and I am dismayed by the ArbCom's willingness to shrug off the matter, or pass it to the Ombudsperson Committee. The problem with the Ombudsperson Committee is that making a complaint there necessarily means sharing the same private information, which one sought to protect in the first place, with another three people, if not more.

	Checkusers need to be stricter with themselves. Apparently, it is common practice for checkusers to conduct checks on their own initiative, and share results with other checkusers. These practices should stop. ] (]) 08:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	I am shocked that the committee show no willingness to accept this case. This is a unique chance to make it clear, once and for all, that Misplaced Pages values all contributors equally (especially those with special needs such as a complete lack of judgement or writing abilities). Elitism is against the core principles of Misplaced Pages, the encyclopedia that ''anyone'' can edit; consequently those who abuse their abilities by writing substantially more than their fair share of featured articles must be made to understand that they are suffered, not supported, by the community.

	Some of these overusers of article space resources even go to great lengths to motivate themselves (and others of similar inclinations) by employing humour. This may be acceptable in some open source or open content projects, but not in Misplaced Pages. (A common misconception, resulting from the fact that not all infractions can be persecuted, is that humour is allowed within reason.) We are writing a serious encyclopedia, not some nerdy operating system. Moreover, anyone who uses humour in Misplaced Pages (and especially in project space) exhibits a severe lack of respect for those of their fellow editors who have no sense for it.

	Checkusering as a means of intimidation is already a standard response to POV pushing and random article defacements. Prolific writing of content that cannot be improved is a much more dangerous, systemic, problem because it will eventually lead to the death of this project. It needs to be treated in the same way. I am concerned that Arbcom, unlike our checkusers, are not seeing the big picture. I urge the committee to accept the case and set an example. If the committee is afraid of banning Giano, I respectfully ask that at the very least he be de-adminned and his IRC and checkuser rights withdrawn. We are here to ''build'' an encyclopedia, not to ''finish'' it. --] (]) 13:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	Per Ncmvocalist and others, I did not know the relation between these accounts either. I was puzzled by the CdB "nomination", and wondering what was that all about. I would argue that Giano may be living and acting under the mistaking assumption that 1,000's of editors and admins are interested in him and his activities, which may be amusing to him but certainly not to others, including me. ] <small>]</small> 16:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	I am seriously disturbed by the fact that so many admins, checkusers and arbcom's didn't know that CdB was Giano and I, a nobody did. I question the cluefullness exhibited here.--] (]) 17:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
	*I agree with Cube. While I'm an extra helping of nobody, who doesn't see socks in every corner, I totally always assumed CdB was Giano, or one of his close associates (i.e., the same sense of humour). --] (]) 21:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	Administrators do make mistakes, sometimes very obvious ones - what can be more obvious than a copycat block on a Giano wrapped in "Go talk to Arbcom" rhetorics. No radical actions requred, a 48-month block is sufficient. ] (]) 17:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by uninvolved ] ====
	What's disruptive in this case is the excessive drama. On that count, I see both parties at fault. Giano II simply had to have known that simultaneously running a "joke" sockpuppet account for Arbcom election, while at the same time attacking other candidates on their statement pages, was going to be discovered and going to be considered disruptive. It smells to me like a plan crafted at election time precisely to make a point. Also, David Gerard simply had to have known that blocking Giano II for any amount of time was going to be challenged and criticized by a wide section of the community, regardless of the policy merits or not of that block. What was the point he was trying to make? Both editors need some sanctions for substantially increasing the drama meter. — ] (] '''·''' ]) 18:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

	====Statement by uninvolved ] (])====
	At the risk of turning this into a straw poll, I had no idea that Giano ran an alternate account. I'm not sure who was supposed to "know" this, but I question the claim that the link was common knowledge. I don't have a comment on the assertion that past actions by David intimated that he knew about the alternate account. Recommend rejecting this and moving on. A terminal solution to the problem isn't likely to come from arbcom. ] (]) 20:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

	====Statement by uninvolved ]====
	I'm glad this looks likely to be rejected. Not all admins are on notice of all sockpuppet or alternate account links, and I do not want to be in fear of being desysopped because I block someone because they broke a rule. It's easy to accuse people of lacking common sense, hard to prove it. Finally, I'm concerned about the level of protection accorded to ], who by all accounts has been responsible for more than his fair share of Wikidrama. ] (]) 17:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Clerk notes ====
	*Recuse, der. :) ] (]) 23:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
	*Formatted as a standard request for arbitration, if filing party could please fill in the appropriate information.--] (]) 23:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
	:All details seem to have now been completed. ] 17:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
	*As a note, ] has requested that the request not be removed for the time being. — ] <sup>]</sup> 01:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
	**Confirmed. ] (]) 02:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC) Specifically, I am waiting for David Gerard to respond to my question to him (he does not appear to have edited since I posted it). ] (]) 17:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/2/1) ====
	* Reject. Using more than one account in the same venue is textbook sockpuppetry and is explicitly forbidden. If the relationship between the two accounts had been ''explicitly out in the open'' there might be an excuse (although even then, it's not a good thing to do something that can so confuse). However, in this case, that a certain "in crowd" knew they were the same person is nowhere near good enough. The block was fully deserved and frankly should have been longer, IMO. This is not acceptable behavior. ] (]:]) 00:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
	**Not when one of the accounts is obvious joke account. There was no way that this account can be viewed as an attempt to deceive or avoid scrutiny. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
	***It is a clear joke account. I'd be surprised if any of the 100s of usual suspects who like to watch Giano's moves and comment on them and compile diffs on his various postings, do not watchlist his user talk and religious look at every comment made about it. Even if they only looked occasionally, the dialogue that CdB engages in makes it pretty obvious who it is. ''']''' ('']'') 04:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
	**** Playing silly-buggers with the AC election isn't exactly a good idea of Giano's. Personally I'd have just blocked the sock and left Giano's account alone, but what David did is, I believe, within the bounds of reasonable admin discretion here. If Giano likes to arse around he has to be willing to take his lumps when he goes too far, and I think this was going too far. Giano, grow the heck up and stop acting out like a pre-teen kid. David, I'd say, stop letting his acting out get to you so much. Everyone else, please, realize how insignificant this whole thing is and stop the soap-opera histrionics. ] (]:]) 00:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
	*Reject. David has known about this account since 2006. Other check users and admins knew this account belonged to Giano or knew it was a joke account belonging to an established user. From the accounts contributions there is no way the account can be described as a "good hand account". It was an obvious parody. The account has been listed as a possible candidate for weeks. If there was a concern about the account being confusing for voters in the election then it needed to be addressed by "talking" to Giano. Labeling the account either to Giano or a parody account would have solved the problem. A 24 hour block served no purpose but ''drama''. Running a check on an account where the user is already known (''if that is what happened?'') is below best practice and not one that I would do, but is not against Misplaced Pages English standards since there is no policy against checks to confirm the owner of unlinked alternative accounts. In my opinion there was no violation in policy since no "non-public information was disclosed. ]] 02:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
	*I was offline tonight, just got home and quickly skimmed this, and will have to catch up on details in the morning. My preliminary non-binding impression is ... well, is better left unspoken until I've finished reading, but it's not good. I can confirm that I have known for months about Giano's alternate account and was under the impression this was common knowledge. It certainly was always readily apparent that Lady Catherine is a sock/alt account of someone's. ] (]) 04:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
	**(Thatcher, please see my comment above, and I'll answer your e-mail after it's light out.) Geez ... I'm kind of compulsive about quickly checking in on-wiki and my e-mail even when I'm pretty busy, but last night I was at an event at the courthouse, where blackberries/phones have to be left with security, and it turns out that by being offline for half a day I've precipitated the maelstrom du jour. I blame myself, and in penance and to avoid further problems have cancelled all of my meat-world activities away from my desk until further notice. (Well no, okay, I haven't done that, but I really am sorry I couldn't have headed this off by being in the right place at the right time: if this had come up the day before, for example, I would have caught it early.) ] (]) 08:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
	**I confirm the chronology of events as given by Thatcher and Avi. I find no evidence of any misuse of checkuser privileges; as Avi and Thatcher say they didn't know who Lady Catherine really was, I certainly believe them. I do find that the blocks were unnecessary and their announcement handled poorly, but this does not warrant the drama of an arbitration case regarding this matter. I have considered offering a motion directing that David Gerard take no further administrator actions toward Giano II. I ask that David Gerard make such a motion unnecessary by voluntarily agreeing to this. ] (]) 13:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
	***(Response to Georgewilliamherbert) For a number of reasons, I find the present situation involving Giano to be substantially distinguishable from most of the prior cases or requests involving him. I think the differences are readily apparent, though I can expound on them if needed. ] (]) 21:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
	**Decline but with concerns. I have received an e-mail from David Gerard confirming his agreement that he will take no further administrator actions involving Giano. I have asked that he confirm this on-wiki but, in the expectation that he will do so and to reduce further drama, I now vote to decline the case. For the record, I find that David Gerard's blocks of Giano II and Catherine de Burgh were unnecessary and created wholly avoidable disruption and bad feeling (as well as a regrettable, if only slightly accelerated, reduction in the overall level of good-natured humor on the project). In the words of a remedy from another case last year, administrators are "reminded to avoid generating drama by making public proclamations of misbehavior before attempting private discussion and resolution of the issue." I will add the subsequent overreactions by certain other users (on both sides of the dispute) did little to alleviate the situation. ] (]) 22:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
	*Recuse. I've had my fill of wankery. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

	* Reject. People who use sock accounts for "legitimate" reasons (note that I have generally a dim view of these so called legitimate uses of socks, I think they're used far too often and the policy needs reform) without telling everyone, or at the very least, without formally informing the Committee, do so at their own risk. If one wants to do anything even remotely questionable with an alternative account (and running for ArbCom, adminship, whatever is certainly outside the permissible uses of such accounts) one needs to be completely transparent. The obvious example of such transparency here is Bishonen/Bishzilla. --] (]) 06:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
	*Reject. Can the clerks please remove this request from this page now. Why are we still wasting time on this? Why did anyone waste time on this in the first place? The only motion I can think of right now is "Everyone is invited to get lost". But just in case there's actually a ''serious'' issue here regarding privacy violations, the Ombudsman Commission is the way to go. But I see no serious issue. Just lots of time wasting. --] <small>]</small> 06:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
	*Recuse. ] (]) 09:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
	**Annotation. My recusal was because both accounts edited my candidacy election page, possibly deceptively to some, but anyway as a kind of affront to me. I wanted to recuse to avoid any possible misunderstanding. For my views on GianoII, anyone can read the dialogue there. ] (]) 22:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
	*Decline. Nothing good will come of hearing this case. ] (]) 10:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

	=<span id="REQ" />Clarifications and other requests=
	{{Shortcut\|WP:RFAC\|WP:RCAM}}
	''Place requests related to amendments of prior cases, appeals, and clarifications on this page. 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 ]. To create a new request for arbitration, please go to ]. '''Place new requests at the top'''.''
	{{Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/How-to_other_requests}}
	{{RfarOpenTasks}}<br style="clear: both;"/>



	----

	=== Request to review ]'s ban ===

	*{{userlinks\|Jack Merridew}} initiator:requesting review of ban ()
	*{{userlinks\|White Cat}} wikistalked by Merridew ()
	*{{admin\|Ryan Postlethwaite}} Misplaced Pages Administrator involved in email discussion ()
	*{{admin\|Moreschi\|Christiano Moreschi}} Misplaced Pages Administrator involved in email discussion, possible mentor ()
	*{{admin\|Lar}} Misplaced Pages Administrator and Checkuser involved in email discussion ()
	*{{admin\|Jayvdb\|John Vandenberg}} Misplaced Pages Administrator and Wikisource Checkuser involved in email discussion ()
	*{{admin\|Rlevse}} Misplaced Pages Administrator and Checkuser involved in email discussion ()

	Jack Merridew has asked the Arbitration Committee to review and lift his ban. (], ], ], ], ], ]).
	:On Oct 24, 2008 Jack Merridew started a dialog with the the Arbitration Committee and some Misplaced Pages English administrators (name of email: thread Mentorship, take 2?) about returning to Misplaced Pages English with editing restrictions and a mentor. During the discussion, Merridew was counseled about the exceptions for his return, in particular the absolute requirement that he will stay completely away from White Cat.
	:On October 28, 2008, White Cat was notified by email that the Arbitration Committee was reviewing Jack Merridew's ban. Since then, White Cat has given his thoughts about the potential unblock in several talk page threads, (, , and in an IRC chat (In the ArbCom list email thread, White Cat- Jack Merridew (Davenbelle) situation)


	==== Question from ] ====
	I note Condition #8, in particular "Should Jack Merridew violate the restrictions imposed upon him in this decision, he may be blocked for '''one year''' by any uninvolved administrator" (emphasis mine). Am I correct in interpreting that ''any'' deviation from the remainder of the editing condition will result in a one-year block? ] (]) 02:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)<small> Note - refers to Condition #8 in Motion #1, as it was initially proposed by FloNight.</small>
	:'''Comment for FT2''': I note that you have changed the section I quoted above; could you please include that in your comment? ] (]) 04:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	I am concerned at the timing of the proposed return of Jack Merridew - with whom I have previously had some convivial interactions - given that White Cat is a candidate on the 2008 ArbCom elections. I would seek reassurance that the conditions of the return of Jack Merridew includes a constraint upon him not participating in the aforementioned Election in any capacity; his voting for and advocating for candidates other than White Cat possibly being construed as acting against that party. I would point out that if Jack Merridew were not permitted to regain their editing privileges then they would not be permitted to participate in the election, and that under the circumstances being prevented in doing so while editing under restrictions is not as prohibitive as might at first appear. I regard this as a necessary extension of the restriction that Jack Merridew should not interact with White Cat, as proposed by FloNight. ] (]) 03:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	IMO, Jack Merridew has earned a "''final''" chance. It is not just the work he has done on other projects, but also the manner in which he has communicated with others about his prior behaviour. He has been open and honest, and a hard worker to boot. fingers crossed

	It should be made clear that this is his final chance, and that he will not be enjoying the benefit of the doubt, so it is on his shoulders to ensure that there is no even the slightest appearance of relapse. It looks like FT2 is going to proposed something along these lines.

	In regards to the Arbcom elections, raised by ] above, the discussion about this motion started prior to the elections, and I am pretty sure that it also predates ''any'' indication from White Cat that he was going to run. I think it is safe to say there is no possible chance that it was was a motivator in this case. It is a given that Jack Merridew would oppose White Cat if he could, and think it is sufficient "punishment" that he wont be able to that. Limiting him from participating entirely isnt something I would have even thought of, but now that you have raised it, it seems reasonable. It "cant hurt". As you say, if this motion doesnt pass, he wouldnt have been able to participate anyway, so he is no worse off if he is prohibited from participating in this years election. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 03:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	I am of course less than thrilled at the thought that Davenbelle (aka Moby Dick aka Diyarbakir aka Jack Merridew) would return editing on this site. This isn't something I have any control on, I know that. I do not have to like it but I think I can live with it. All I want to do is '''not to deal''' with any more harassment. If arbcom can pass measures and enact mechanisms to ''insure'' that.

	I will however say this. Moreschi is not an uninvolved third party on this matter. I would recommend arbcom to pick a mediator that does not have a past quarrel with me. I'd be '''EXTREMELY''' uncomfortable in asking Moreschi for help. I really do not want to be put in a situation any more uncomfortable than it already is. '''PLEASE!'''

	Also in my view Jack Merridew should at least have three different mediators. If one mediator is unavailable (leaves the project, gets ill, gets hit by space debris, does a head-on with a planet and anything else equally unlikely) others would be there. This would also be in the best interest of Jack Merridew too me thinks.

	--<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 06:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
	:To Lar,
	:What do you mean I clashed with "a long list of people"? Please stop treating as if I am the disruptive party. I am sick and tired of facing accusations any time I bring up an issue concerning Davenbelle. Give me a freaking break!
	:We aren't exactly in a shortage. There are plenty of editors and admins out there who have not alienated themselves from me. Unfortunately Moreschi is not such a person. I do not believe what I am requesting is unreasonable. I am not trying to win a wiki-enemy and I mean no disrespect to Moreschi. I just do not wish to see him in the helm of this very fragile issue.
	:--<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 21:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
	::Also victims do not need "parole officers". And in actual legal systems if the parole officer has a conflict of interest, he or she is of course recused. I'd have thought Moreschi would recuse himself from such a task... --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 21:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
	:To FloNight:
	:You were having connection problems and seems like I only got a partial post from you. We can discuss this in greater detail if you are online now.
	:--<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 22:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
	:To arbcom:
	:Can the case be called ]? Shorter the better. No real reason for this though.
	:--<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 06:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	I am in favor of this. I have seen this user in action on other wikis and I think he truly is committed to making a successful return here, and truly understands what will be required to do so. Further, as a steward, I've reviewed the unification of accounts other than Jack Merridew (which have all be explicitly directly disclosed to me although they are public record) and if there are any issues (there are some accounts that are in use by other users) I will do my best to assist in resolving them.

	Finally, if the ArbCom desires that more than one mentor be appointed I am willing to so serve (this matter has come up in private communication already). However, I have confidence in Moreschi. He and I have already communicated and I have offered him whatever assistance he may choose to ask for that is in my power to give. ++]: ]/] 07:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

	:To Pixelface: ''Wow''. I think you might want to refactor your words just a bit. ++]: ]/] 18:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
	:To Tznkai: I think your analogy is a bit off... neither victims nor perpetrators get a veto over who the parole officers are, and I'm not sure it's a good precedent to establish that anyone (other than ArbCom) gets a veto over who the mentors are. Input? Sure. And ArbCom should weigh that input carefully. But in this particular case, the list of people WhiteCat has clashed with over the years is rather long. Are all of them to be disqualified? Is everyone who Jack Merridew clashed with also to be similarly disqualified? ++]: ]/] 18:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
	::To Tznkai: (I feel like we're having a dialog, maybe we need to thrash this out somewhere else) First, we are none of us perfect, and that includes both JM and WC. So perhaps it would be generally better if neither party had a veto over who could mentor and who could not. I'm with you in wanting to trust ArbCom to be sanguine about this matter. However, perhaps more than one mentor is a better approach here? I'm starting to really like that way of doing things. As for disenfranchising completely, that does seem a bit punitive to me, doesn't it? Either he's returned or he hasn't. ++]: ]/] 23:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	I would also be happy to mediate in unbanned. I found Jack Merridew's behaviour infuriating at AfD, and I guess my views are more aligned with White Cat and other inclusionists. However, like some other deletionists, Jack has some very valid points on systemic bias and addressing it, is good with layout and has been contributing constructively on much-needed article content elsewhere. Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 11:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

	:Reply to Pixelface, KWW, White cat, A Nobody - all these editors make valid points, and if the consensus were to remain banned I would not oppose. I am merely pointing out that ''if'' Jack Merridew were unbanned, I would be happy to mentor as I have seen some good work. I concede that it is a long period of problematic behaviour, and like a Nobody, found the AfD participation troublesome and unhelpful. I think if White cat feels uncomfortable with Moreschi then a different person needs to be selected. Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 11:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	Oh dear God no. You have got to be ''fucking kidding'' me. Wow. What a horribly ''bad'' idea. I can't believe any arbitrator is even ''considering'' this. Y'know, why don't you just ''really'' shit on White Cat and ] and make Jack Merridew an arbitrator while you're at it? Jack Merridew would be a great arbitrator — he's obviously good at manipulating you clowns. How can you people be so fucking stupid? Y'know, that may be too salty. Can I get a mentor pretty please? This isn't just about the constant stalking. This isn't just about the constant socking. This isn't just about the constant lying about the socking.

	Please, come to your senses and look at , , , and also ] (I know it may be the first time for some of you). Search for "Jack Merridew" on the E&C2 workshop page and think about what you'd be doing. Pay special attention to and keep in mind Jack Merridew's later . After I made a to add Jack Merridew as an involved party of E&C2, he responded with insults and by following me to AFDs. This isn't just about harassment of White Cat (although that ''really'' should be enough, don't you think?) This isn't just about the constant lying. If you unblock David aka D73733C8-CC80-11D0-B225-00C04FB6C2F5 aka Senang Hati aka Moby Dick aka Diyarbakir aka Davenbelle aka Note to Cool Cat aka Thomas Jerome Newton aka Jack Merridew, you might as well open ] now (and proceed to sit on your thumbs for 3 months). Now let me tell you a story.

	Once upon a time, a woman named ], ]'s Minister Counsellor in ], who administered aid from Australia to Indonesia, boarded ] in ] and when it went to land on March 7, 2007 in ] ] at ], it overran the end of the runway and crashed and burst into flames and she died, along with 20 other people. Two months after the crash, David (aka D73733C8-CC80-11D0-B225-00C04FB6C2F5 aka Senang Hati aka Moby Dick aka Diyarbakir aka Davenbelle aka Note to Cool Cat aka Thomas Jerome Newton aka Jack Merridew) from ] (or a ] near Bali), who started editing October 31 2004, who has in the past repaired the roof on the ], and was perhaps momentarily bored of stalking White Cat at the time, wrote an article about her and it was ]. In anger, instead of improving the article, he then sought to delete every article related to "pop culture" he could find (although I don't really see how that fits with David's problem with ""). Congratulations David! Now when anyone wants to learn about D&D, Wikia thanks you for the page views! For his all-around assholery, David received and impersonators. I guess harassment begets harassment.

	At one point, after he had gotten his lulz, Jack Merridew to being Davenbelle and he was blocked indefinitely. In March 2008, David asked that the article about Allison Sudradjat be placed in his userspace and David finally decided to improve it. Casliber placed it in the mainspace and Pegasus deleted it under ]. Casliber took it to in April 2008 and the article was re-created. Am I warm so far David? Or are you full under a bridge somewhere? After the ] and ] articles were improved, perhaps David is less bitter now and trusts in the ] on Misplaced Pages. However, why should ''anyone'' trust David after the unmitigated bullshit he has pulled? You do not trust people who have shown themselves to be untrustworthy over and over and over again. Fool Arbcom once, twice, three times...how many times does it take? Seriously? David sure isn't making the ] look any better. If I ever get in a plane crash in Indonesia and end up paralyzed, I'll be sure to go to the Senang Hati Foundation for my free wheelchair and complimentary stalker.

	What are the risks of unblocking Jack Merridew? What are the benefits? Are there ''any''? How could you even consider an unblock without a topic ban in fiction? If Jack Merridew is unblocked, that is a clear message by the arbitration committee that ] means fuck all, that users can do anything they want and always be forgiven, and that ArbCom is a joke — just in time for the ]. Yeah, unblock Jack Merridew right before the elections where White Cat is running. White Cat's the pig! Run White Cat run! --] (]) 12:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	<small> I did some minor clerking on this case before hand, but I have recused myself from further such edits, this is a personal opinion</small>

	I am not familiar with the gory details of this case but I take the following two things as fact:
	# Jack Merridew has harassed White cat
	# White cat has in good faith stated he would not be able to turn to Moreschi for help concerning this matter.

	That there has been harassment is a serious problem, and needs to be dealt with the utmost of caution. That we see the ability of any editor to reform is noble, enacting this belief with caution would be most wise. Using a mentor-cum-watch dog is sensible, but it is certainly not sensible to use a mentor that the victim of harassment doesn't trust. This would be roughly equivlent to having a stalker's parole officer be the ex-spouse of the stalkee. I make no comment here on Moreschi's actual ability or lack thereof, I am simply pointing out without White cat trusting Moreschi, this rehabilitation is too dangerous and prone to spectacular failure. Unless the mentoring position is given to (a) individual(s) White cat can trust, these motions should not pass.--] (]) 17:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
	:To Lar: In this case White cat is a wronged party and Jack Merridew has already breached community standards. He is essentially our equivalent of a felon, or at least an undesirable, so his concerns on who his mentor is are of very little weight compared to White cat. Do either of them get a veto? No. Is it a good idea to go against the victim's wishes? Also no. If we accept the possibility that harassment could reoccur, we accept that we need to actively monitor for it. The primary way to detect harassment is by the complaints of the victim, (even when every on wiki communication is logged, there is off wiki communication and information overload to worry about) and if White cat won't report, we've cut out the principle source of information.--] (]) 18:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
	:And as far as precedent goes, I think its a good precedent to show that Arbcom is attentive to all the nuances of a situation.--] (]) 18:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
	::FloNight, since there is a pending clarification on Everyking below that states flatly that Arbcom election voting and question are exceptions to the "No comments on" restriction, it would probably be a good idea to explicitly restrict Jack Merridew from voting or posing questions on White Cat's current and/or future elections.
	::On a related note, it may be worthwhile to deny Jack Merridew suffrage in this election entirely. The timing of this coming up shortly before an election unfortunate and the denial of suffrage is harsh, but I remind everyone that Jack Merridew was ] for harassing another user and there are few more serious breaches of community standards. It is also clear that not all of the community is willing to forgive and forget just yet. Jack Merridew quite frankly, has to earn community trust again, something that will be considerably easier for all involved after the elections are over.--] (]) 22:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
	:::To Lar: (I think the dialogue is productive for the consumption of the public and the Arbitration Committee, but I'll be happy to also do it else where if you wish) Disenfranchising someone is very serious, and given the opportunity to decide it, I'm not sure if I would. I do think however, that the kind of harassment we're talking about here makes it an option worth considering. Suffrage is at the most basic level a way of saying someone is a fully fledged community member and conversely, being disenfranchised is a way for the community to set certain users apart. It is an ugly mark to bear, but Jack Merridew has earned it. Whether or not it is necessary, proper, or proportionate, I do not know, I will defer to those more familiar with the case than I.
	:::As to the mentor issue, multiple mentors is of course the way to go, and if it is genuinely hard to find say, three upstanding community members able and willing to ride herd over Jack Merridew that White cat also is comfortable with, then sure, the Arbitration Committee should simply press forward. I do not however believe that there are significant practical problems of finding mentors who are acceptable.
	:::What is left is the philosophical issue of whether or not Arbitration should allow any user to veto a mentoring structure, in substance or appearance. While the Arbitration Committee must make the best decision free of the whims of any one editor, it should likewise not make decisions simply to contradict the whims of any one editor, it would not only be counterproductive, but it would be petty as well.
	:::We must finally remember that this "veto" from White cat is not a whim, demand, or opinion, but an involved editor showing us a genuine roadblock. Imagine for a moment that an outside editor, you or me, had pointed out that white cat had conflicts with Moreschi in the past, and that White cat would be unable to communicate effectively if he were harassed. The implications of the point raised are the same, and have practical consequences. Merely because it was White cat who brought it up doesnot make it any more or less true, and it is the point itself, not who brought it up, that should determine the course of action. In summary, if at all possible, lets find some more mentors that White cat is likely to trust and get this show on the road.--] (]) 02:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	I support Jack Merridew being mentored by Casliber, but I also strongly recommend a ban from AfDs (way too much dishonest use of ] style of non-arguments) and instead advise that he focus on constructive article development for which I would be willing to colloborate. Just as I have avoided commenting in AfDs for some time now, anyone else should have no problem taking a step back as well as that was clearly one of Jack's conflict areas and for his own good, he would be wise to avoid areas where he is likely to run into conflicts. Actually, it's probably best that the more pollarizing and controversial figures step back from commenting in those discussions and focus on article development anyway as there are plenty of other non-controversial editors who can comment one way or the other. Best, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 19:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	Clearly arbcom have not been reading their mail. No interaction or public commenting on White Cat was already explicitly agreed upon in the discussions which have been cced to arbcom-l. By all means vote on it formally, but we had already thought of this one. Otherwise, I will simply limit myself to pointing out that JM is a reasonable fellow, he can be kept away from White Cat, and that I am fully committed to doing so for his own benefit and for that of the encyclopedia. Yours, ] (]) 21:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	This is one of the only things where I wind up aligning with Pixelface and White Cat. Jack maintained a pattern of deceptive behaviour that lasted for years. It wasn't just passive deception, either: he actively lied to all of us. We always need good editors, but there is no need to welcome back the chronically deceitful.—](]) 03:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	He is doing good work on other Wikimedia projects? Good, he can continue to do so. But he has used all chances he deserved here, and more. I don't understand the bending over backwards to give some people an umpteenth chance. What message are we supposed to be giving here? Keep him banned from en.wikipedia ad infinitum, and don't waste anymore time on chronic trouble makers. ] (]) 09:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	; Statement re Jack Merridew ban review motion

	It is fully my intent to comply with the terms proposed. Since I was en:blocked, I have discussed the situation with a variety of experienced editors. I have made ] much appreciated edits to projects other than en:wp; I have more edits elsewhere, than here. I have found the experience on the wider gamut of projects enlightening. I expect to keep a significant focus on the other projects.

	I have no issue with FT2's amendments; it has been understood all through these discussions that further interaction is the issue here. I will leave it to others. As to the AC elections, no, my appeal is not motivated by any particular candidacy; as John says, it predates. I have no intention of making the given oppose; it would only serve to inflame. I do object to a complete disfranchisement. I've seen the current discussion re Everyking and what seems a similar situation and I do not feel that my otherwise participating in the process is inappropriate. If such an ] is passed, I will abide by it. It would, however, be a poor precedent to set.

	Please noted that;
	* ]
	remains in effect; this has been discussed in emails and should be a part of this.

	Cheers, ] 07:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

	; addendum;

	re: Moreschi's role:

	The term 'mediator' has leaked into the discussion; Moreschi's role is as a mentor to (and monitor of) me, not as a mediator between White Cat and myself. My discussions with Moreschi about this whole situation go back to March. I don't really know just what the dynamic between Moreschi and White Cat is; sure, I have seen bits of disagreement, but nothing much, really. I see the concern about this as moot; if White Cat has a concern down the road, there are 1,600+ admins he could consult, and there's the AC itself. FWIW, when he was placed under mentorship, his mentors included Tony Sidaway who was not a disinterested party.

	re: FloNight's and FT2's discussion:

	This seems to me to be an internal issue about the AC's role spilling out. It is certainly true that a large volume of counsel resides in my inbox; I've read things carefully and believe that I've gotten the appropriate take-away.

	re Pixelface:

	Oh, dear, good show. Thank you for reminding me that ] , too.

	Cheers, ] 05:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)



	==== Clerk notes ====
	*Minor formatting changes made to text of motion, would arbiter please review to ensure no meaning was accidentally lost, changed, or added.--] (]) 02:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
	*Recuse from further clerking, will be adding comment as editor.--] (]) 16:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
	**Even if the motion get enough supports to pass, please do not close the motion and make it actionable until you hear from an arbitrator that more mentors have been selected. ]] 19:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Arbitrator views and discussion ====
	* After reading the suggestion for handling the case, I'm proposing a motion here (Clarifications and other requests section of the RFArb main page), and then announcing the proposed motion on AN. Since the precipitate for the last ban was socking in violation of an ArbCom sanction, ArbCom is the venue for a ban review. But in this instance, White Cat and the rest of the Community should have the opportunity to give the Committee feedback before the close of the Committee's vote. There is no need for privacy in this case and maximum transparency will serve the best interest of the Community in this situation.

	*The editing restricts were written based on the comments of the above administrators and have been previewed by ArbCom. The main purpose of the mentorship is monitoring Jack Merridew's account for any editing that will bring Merridew into contact with White Cat. No topic restrictions are spelled out in the restrictions but potential topics for problem editing have been identified and will be monitored. ]] 23:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
	**White Cat, I showed you the proposed motion before I posted it so that you could make suggestions. I wish that you would have let me know about your strong view about Moreschi during our chat so we could have addressed then. Adding several more mentors will be a good approach since it is something that was going to happen in an informal manner, anyway. As stated by others, this request for a ban review pre-dates White Cat's announced candidacy so I don't see that as a particular issue in this situation. Since Merridew can't make comment about White Cat, then voting would be out of the question. ]] 20:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)



	* <p>This is a banned user appeal where the Arbitration Committee are acting as route of last appeal. "JM" has a long and serious history of harassment, leading to a ban. The question is, can he decide to avoid White Cat now, and can conditions be crafted that ensure he is non-disruptive if given the chance. Those are fair questions; if the disruption has a fair chance of ending, then fine. If it were to be trialled and it were found that he cannot or would not, then the ban would (and should) be reinstated. Because harassment can be as simple as subtle digs, appearing on the same pages, and so on, the only condition that makes sense is complete avoidance of anything that might even slightly give that appearance - and the responsibility for ensuring that, to be ''JM's alone''.</p><p>Users are banned (by the community or Arbcom) usually for serious and persistent behavior issues. When a user has a long term ban (say 3-6 months or more), and behaves during it, then in most cases they may eventually be trialled back as part of the community. This is not a green light for disruption. '''Relapse risk must be considered, as must the higher barrier for continued trust in their reformation if there were evidence of relapse.''' Unbans in these conditions should contain some form of strong probation/mentoring if there is any risk of relapse, and a clear understanding that if the behavior resumes, then the ban may very easily be reinstated. This helps them (boundaries), their victims or users the conduct impacts on (deterrent), and the community/project (avoids issues of huge legalisms if they do begin to game or relapse). In brief, a user who is banned, is given ] trust that they will behave from now on, but is also "on ice" for a long time after, may be more at risk of resumption, and must make sure that the old behaviors are history, as the "unban" hopes that they are. If they do not, then they must expect a reblock/reban may have a '''much lower "bar"''' (and unblocking a higher "bar") than it would for a fresh user without such history.</p><p>Having discussed this internally, I am content to give JM a try at unban. However I also feel the unban conditions are grossly inadequate and do not protect White Cat from harassment, the community from resumption, or make it direct or simple enough that a relapse will mean the ban resumes. I therefore propose a further motion 2 which is in addition to motion 1, to remedy these. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] \| ])</span></sup> 03:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)</p>

	==== Motion to lift User:Jack Merridew's indefinite block and editing restrictions. ====
	1) After reviewing User:Jack Merridew's ban at his request, the
	Arbitration Committee agrees to unblock his account with the following
	conditions:

	*1. User:Jack Merridew agrees to edit from one account only "Jack Merridew" on all WMF wikis and unifies that account. (already done)
	*2. User:Jack Merridew discloses all prior socks. (already done).
	*3. User:Jack Merridew agrees to not edit using open proxies.
	*4. User:Jack Merridew agrees to completely avoid White Cat on Misplaced Pages English pages. No editing the same pages, no comments about White Cat by name or innuendo. No harassment of White Cat in other venues. This restriction will be interpreted in the broadest way with no allowance for any attempt to skirt the restriction in any manner.
	*5. User:Jack Merridew agrees to avoid all disruptive editing.
	*6. User:Jack Merridew agrees to a one year mentorship by Moreschi who will closely monitor for any contact with White Cat.
	*7. It is specifically noted that this is not a "clear your name" unblock, but rather is done on the recommendation of Misplaced Pages English administrators that are knowledgeable about Jack Merridew's past disruptive editing and now support his return based on his good editing record on other Foundation wikis where White Cat and Jack Merridew both have accounts.
	*8. Should Jack Merridew violate the restrictions imposed upon him in this decision, he may be blocked for one year by any uninvolved administrator, with any blocks to be logged at ]

	:''There are 11 active Arbitrators, so a majority is 6.''

	Support:
	:# After reviewing the comments of all involved users, I support lifting the ban with these strict editing restrictions. It is my sincere hope that Jack Merridew will honor his promise to stay away from White Cat and over time White Cat will be able to move past the his current understandable suspicions and worries be able to edit with less stress than he's had during the past few years. ]] 23:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
	:# '''If and only if''' 2 and (probably) 3 both pass. Otherwise strong oppose. We should only unban serious past harassment risks if administrator concerns about a relapse or breach of unban conditions will be taken <u>very</u> seriously. We should paint in the clearest black and white what the returning user must (not) do, to reduce the risk of ambiguity, gaming, or fault-shifting. If Jack Merridew is truly sincere, then these will present no problem to him and he will understand why they are required. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] \| ])</span></sup> 03:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
	:# Support. --] <small>]</small> 08:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
	:# Support. This is a difficult issue but I find myself on balance agreeing with John Vandenberg that Jack Merridew has done enough to warrant a final chance. The conditions imposed here are among the most onerous the committee has ever imposed. ] (]) 11:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
	:# ] (]) 11:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
	:# I find this to be an ''extremely'' difficult call. I accept the assurances of those, including my fellow arbitrators, who report that Jack Merridew has done good work on other projects. I have also carefully reviewed the e-mails that this user has sent to the committee containing seemingly sincere assurances of good conduct going forward. However, it cannot be denied that the conduct in which Jack Merridew engaged was vicious and egregious. The record reflects that this user persisted in intentionally seeking to ruin the Misplaced Pages experience of a chosen victim over a period of years, for no particular reason other than that this fellow-user seemed easy to get a rise out of, plus had different views from JM on some policy/deletion issues. To this end, Jack Merridew engaged in a persistent and varied pattern of misconduct, including but not limited to incivility, trolling, "wikihounding" (f/k/a wikistalking), serial sockpuppetry, and making intentionally false statements to the Arbitration Committee. Not only did White Cat have to expend considerable time over the years in dealing with the mess and compiling evidence, but many administrators and arbitrators did as well; and White Cat's relations with other editors were damaged as they came to Jack Merridew's defense and accused White Cat of "paranoia" and the like for making allegations that turned out to be entirely justified and true. To his credit, Jack Merridew eventually, if most belatedly, confessed to his misconduct and stepped away from Misplaced Pages. As noted, his work elsewhere has earned him a final chance to return. We can accept nothing less than the complete avoidance of any conduct that could reasonably be perceived as harassment of White Cat or any other user, now and permanently. ] (]) 02:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

	Oppose:
	:#

	Abstain:
	:#

	2) In the event that Jack Merridew is blocked by any administrator for a matter relating to breach of the above terms, any unblock is only to be decided by consent of this Committee, following any communal discussion in ].
	::{\| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
	\|-
	! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" \| Rationale
	\|-
	\| Unblock "gaming", or uninformed/low-] unblocking, are unfortunately far more common these days. If a user is banned for serious harassment, unblocked on trial, and then behaves in a way that any administrator feels a reblock is necessary, then that is not a block I would condone being reversed without the committee having the opportunity to consider the behavior first, in light of what we know of the harassment case history, and any promises made.
	\|}

	Support:
	:# ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] \| ])</span></sup> 03:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
	:# I think that the community is perfectly capable of handling the unblock requests of someone that is blocked for harassment. But at the same time, it's perfectly acceptable for us to monitor this. --] <small>]</small> 08:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
	:# Support; I hope this procedure never happens. ] (]) 11:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

	Oppose:
	:# <p>First, I don't think that special enforcement is needed in this situation. It is significant to note that no admin unblocked the Jack Merridew account despite it not having a special enforcement clause as proposed. If you look through the block log, everyday admin block accounts for harassment and personal attacks. Admins are sensitive to these issues and deal with them regularly. The indefinite block on the Jack Merridew account was done during a Community discussion so there was some ambiguity about how this unblock request should be handled. During a discussion about how to handle this unblock request several ideas were suggested with all of them being reasonable ways to address it. I decided to make it a formal ArbCom ban review instead of having one of the involved admins open an unblock discussion at AN. I did this because I think that AE is a better venue for handling any question about enforcing the sanction or re-writing them if needed.</p><p>Second, the Committee does not have a good track record for managing our cases load in a prompt manner. Until we address this problem, I'm not in favor of excluding alternative methods of handling a situation unless there is an absolute reason for doing it (such as an privacy issue or extraordinarily sensitive issues such as pedophilia related account blocks.)</p><p>Third, alternative methods of dealing with unblock requests need to be addressed in a more systematic way with the Community. An ban review committee or another alternative way to comprehensively address the growing backlog of requests. Each of these cases deserve to have the attention of experienced impartial users who can craft editing restrictions that will be enforced. This is not something that the Committee should be doing on a regular basis because it is too time consuming.</p><p>Fourth, if an individual administrator is using their tools outside of Community norms then it needs to be addressed with them in a direct way. If there is wide spread disagreement in the general Community and among admins about whether a block is appropriate, heavy handed enforcement is usually not the best approach for the Committee to use since the default should be less enforcement not more.</p><p>Fifth, more comprehensive discussions about how to handle the different types of harassment, wikihounding, and bullying need to occur in appropriate venues on site.</p><p>Last, the Committee needs to guard against putting in place provisions that might lead to more insular thinking. We need to make sure that our policies and practices do not make it more difficult for the Community to reverse a poorly written decision. ]] 16:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)</p>
	:#:: Whether or not it may have been needed in past reviews of this user,<ol><li>I do not know whether it will be needed in future ones. There are strong communal concerns (see above), and when it comes to a serious harassment case I want the ability to put a foot on the brake with no risk of gaming, "unblock pile-on" or the like, if there were a potential problem, until we have reviewed the incident.</li><li>I emphatically don't accept "we're too busy" as an excuse for not giving the project an a harassed user the appropriate level of protection - if that is so then we'll just have to make time when it comes up, as we did for this appeal.</li><li>If processes change then good; this is not a "usual case", it is a serious harassment case, and needs unusual safeguards in place. </li><li> (4 onwards) The community has had consensus on poor unblocks before. Not one thing you've said explains how you will prevent gaming, politicizing or pile-ons of an unwise unblock if some admins decide to do this.</li></ol>To underline the issue, this is a user with a past history of serious harassment. We are trialling his reintroduction to the community. If he acts well (as we hope) then thsi is academic. If not, then this is very far from academic indeed, given the activity surrounding some other unblock AE cases. In brief - I disagree completely with your line of thinking. Rosy glasses and "it'll all work out anyway" are no substitute for being a bit blunt at times and allowing for the prevention of plausible unban problems. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] \| ])</span></sup> 23:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
	:#:::You might be making some false assumptions about how the situation will play out. There is a danger that the Community left to there own devises would have decided to keep him blocked but the Committee might vote to reverse the block. After we unblock, there may be bad will between the Committee and users that feel that their concerns were not addressed. This just as likely to happen as the reverse. This error would not happen if the Community is permitted to do the initial review. I strongly prefer to keep to our ordinary role of assisting in settling disputes when the Community can not decide and some mechanism must be used to settle the situation. It is not our place to substitute our opinion for the Community's. ]] 02:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
	:# I largely agree with Flo. Further, as I have elsewhere indicated, if there is a culture problem in relation to unblocking, then that ought to be dealt with directly; trying to evade it indirectly by some preemptive flanking manoeuvre is unlikely to be productive. --] (]) 11:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

	Abstain:
	:# I have no strong view one way or the other on this issue. ] (]) 02:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

	3) Condition 4 is amended to add the following explicit clarifications:
	: <p>"User:Jack Merridew agrees to completely avoid White Cat on Misplaced Pages English pages. No editing the same pages, no comments about White Cat by name or innuendo. No harassment of White Cat in other venues. This restriction will be interpreted in the broadest way with no allowance for any attempt to skirt the restriction in any manner."</p><p>"In particular, if White Cat is editing a page, Jack Merridew is responsible for not editing that page, its closely related pages, or commencing editing on closely related topics elsewhere. If it is a well known page such as ANI, and both have genuinely valid reasons for editing it, Jack Merridew is responsible for ensuring he edits it only on a matter different from, and with timing or manner that has no connection to, any of White Cat's posts there."</p>
	::{\| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
	\|-
	! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" \| Rationale
	\|-
	\| Clarification, anti-ambiguity, and anti-gaming on the main condition #4.
	\|}
	Support:
	:# ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] \| ])</span></sup> 03:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
	:# ] <small>]</small> 08:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
	:# ] (]) 11:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

	Oppose:
	:#As discussed on the mailing list, the editor has been counseled about his editing restrictions in an much more extensive manner than this extra wording adds. In general extra wording on our cases leads to more confusion and adds to the potential for wiki-lawyering. ]] 16:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
	:#:: Again, the point slips. A concern is expressed about conditions, your response is we don't need to set conditions because the editor has been "counselled". This (off-wiki) "counselling" carries minimal weight, and be far more open to disputing or "disagreeing about what lines were drawn", than a plain and direct statement of clarification, if there were a problem. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] \| ])</span></sup> 23:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
	:#:::The comments by people looking at the editing restrictions prior to my posting them did not suggest that more details were needed. You were the only person out of 20+ people reading them that suggested and supported this change in wording. Traditionally Misplaced Pages has used less details in policy and sanctions because real life experience shows trying to nails down details with wordy passages causes more problems than it prevents. This point was made to you by another arbitrator to you during ArbCom's discussion of the proposal. So that was the reason that I did not change the wording that you suggested and instead suggested that you offer it as an alternative if you still thought it was needed. The role of the mentor(s) is to counsel the editor. There has been a large amount of discussion with Merridew in anticipation of this request. Past and ongoing counseling by a mentor is a necessary part of this situation. I have confidence that the mentor(s) will set good guidelines for him. ]] 02:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
	:# Per vote on #2 above, per Flo's comments, and per my comments elsewhere. The present wording already indicates that the restriction is to be read as broadly as possible, and that is sufficient. --] (]) 11:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

	Abstain:
	:# Arguably redundant, arguably harmless. I have made my points to Jack Merridew above. ] (]) 02:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

	----



	===Request to vacate ] case===

	''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
	* {{userlinks\|Shoemaker's Holiday}} (initiator)
	* Arbcom

	I've also notified a couple people who were tangentally involved, they can decide if they wish to add their names. ] (]) 14:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	A few months ago, Newyorkbrad encouraged me to open a new request related to the core of this case, but the wounds were too raw, and I was unable to set out my evidence calmly at that time, so delayed.

	I ask that we reopen the matter now.

	In this case, the arbcom, while I was suffering from severe depression, illness, and on the verge of nervous breakdown from the monetary situation at the time - I was literally faced with being homeless - opened a case with no prior dispute resolution - I had never had so much as an RfC on me - and chose me to be a test case. In the end, combined with the other events, this forced me to drop out of university. I left Misplaced Pages over it, and it was only the active, constant encouragement of ], ] and a few others that brought me back after several months.

	A sitting arbitrator launched a campaign of harrassment throughout the case pages, unchecked by the other arbitrators. Here are some samples. This all took place over a ''single bad block'', made two months before the Arbcom case was opened.

	In the initial lead in to the case, I had offered to let Charles Matthews take over the block, in e-mail, because there was no way that I could review it competently at that point in time. He said that was "not good enough", so I put it up on ANI.

	Charles Matthews specifically says at one point that my refusal to simply to defer to his judgement is why he opened this case and pushed so hard for my desysopping:

	:



	As he did not get my consent immediately (though I did unblock in the end), Charles Matthews then launched a campaign of harassment against me, using the power of the Arbitration committee to harass without fear of rebuttal. A complete read through of the case pages would be necessary to see this in full, so I'll just give a couple typical comments by Charles.

	*] 21:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)] (and that in response to an appeal by Carcharoth that he calm down!)

	*]


	His harassment was not devoted to me, he also referred to other editors in the same over-the top terms:

	*

	To quote MastCell's response to the last:

	{{Cquote\|[http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman/Workshop#Charles_Matthews_has_failed_to_assume_good_faith Since this case seems to be focusing an unusually intense magnifying glass on the minor failings of everyone even peripherally involved (see Chaser above), it seems fair to note that describing an established, good-faith editor as a "meddling hypocrite, at best" is remarkably poor conduct for anyone involved in an arbitration, much less an sitting Arbitrator. Unless that makes me a meddling hypocrite as well. MastCell Talk 18:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

	... and really. Describing someone as a "busybody" and a "meddling hypocrite" for voicing an opinion on a block at WP:AN/I? What sort of message are we aiming for here? MastCell Talk 18:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)]
	}}

	However, Charles did not act alone, he was aided and abbetted by the other arbitrators, who actively defended his right to harrass me:

	* "]" - Uninvited Company, 20 December.

	* "]"


	Furthermore, the arbitrators were clearly not interested in anything I had to say in my defense:
	The case opened on 17:40, 2 December 2007 . Within 13 hours of this, and before I had had the chance to provide a single word of evidence in my defense, Uninvited Company set out proposed decisions saying , , .

	The problems with this case have been pointed out for several months, but the Arbcom have refeused to deal with it, even to simply remove the harrassing comments by Charles Matthews.


	A proposal I made during the case that I be desysopped immediately, in exchange for the case stopping, because of the health and RL problems being severely aggravated by having this case going on as well, was rejected by the Arbcoim in favour of dragging it out, coninuing the case, then opening an RFC. However, in July, the personal details I had volunteered in an attempt to get them to agree to my proposal were thrown back in my face:

	''"Since the full circumstances of the de-sysopped user were disclosed to the AC in confidence, the only appropriate way for this user to regain the tools is to convince the AC – the only group of users with full knowledge of the situation – that the circumstances have changed such that we have confidence in his ability to handle adminship without problems." - Morven, on ], 23:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC), seconded by Kirill. ''

	The arbcom have very consciously put me in a situation where only a full discussion of my private problems will prevent them from using them to say that the community is unable to comment on my situation, and that they should have the sole right to discuss what should be done with me. I do not trust myself to comment on their behaviour regarding that matter. Suffice to say that when I DID make a disclosure of some of the health problems of that time, e-mails I received from them afterwards criticised me for not being detailed enough, because I had still wished to maintain some sense of privacy.


	Other users have agreed that there are problems with this case:
	{{cquote\|1=

	}}

	Likewise ], ], and numerous others, see the last third of the Proposed decision talk page.

	I do not care about getting my adminship back, and I accept that the block was incorrect. However, for my own mental health, I want to put this behind me. Likewise, the campaign of harassment is a blight on the arbcom, and I ask the arbcom to vacate it, in full. As it stands, this case remaining is a statement that, if you upset an Arbitrator, the Arbcom reserves the right to open a "test case" against you with mno proevious dispute resolution, and allow the arbitrator to harass you off the site.

	Furthermore, the Arbcom's self-regulation is clearly not working. A basic principle needs to be put in place that all Arbcom decisions can be appealed by the community.

	For obvious reasons, I will be crossposting to ], as I'm afraid that for some reason, I don't really trust the arbcom to judge this case fairly.

	Thank you,

	], a.k.a. Vanished user. 14:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

	P.S. If the committee would like, I can send them copies of some of the e-mails I got from Charles, or provide other evidence.

	'''Response to Tznkai:'''
	:I am requesting the entire case be declared a miscarriage of justice, or, in less inflammatory language, a mistake. That doesn't mean the actions would necessarily be reversed, e.g. me getting sysop back, but the pages should be blanked or something, and the decisions declared no longer part of Arbcom case law. At this point, any other action validates the three-month harassment I went through as part of this case. ] (]) 14:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

	'''Response to Kirril:'''
	Just blank all the pages and leave a note saying it's been withdrawn. That, or something similar, would be sufficient. There's some very nasty stuff on there. I am sorry about this, and I had really hoped we could have dealt with this less publicly, but, well, now that it has been, it's hard to see any other path forwards... ] (]) 06:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

	'''Response to Sam'''

	In this case, the findings of an arbcom-initiated RfC ] were overturned to make a provisional desysop. I am not asking for adminship back and am fully aware that under the current RfA culture I probably never will. What I am asking is for the committee to accept that keeping up an attack piece, where a sitting arbitrator calls people "moral midgets", "dogs", and worse, and in which they harassed a user into a complete breakdown, and ''then in July unethically used confidential information about that user's health to continue their harassment'' is something they should not be doing.

	What, precisely, in the current decision is so important that it must remain a year afterwards, and how does it justify the gross personal attacks, harassment, and other such things? The only thing that would change by this case being vacated, is that, if I triedd to run an RfA - which I would of course, have no chance of passing, the Arbcom, out of concern for my mental health, would not be able to villify and continue their harassment, by pretending to know anything about my current state of mental health, now that I am not facing being homeless and starving to death, because they knew what my mental health was like when both those things were true. I will urther add that the committee ignored all this information about my health during the case, but only gave any sign they had any knowledge of it at the point they used it to attack me.

	The Arbcom has violated my privacy, been part of a harassment campaign against me, and, in July, insisted that I must make a public statement of my private medical details or they would continue holding power over me forever. Show some basic ethics, and stop trying to justify the harassment. The Arbcom has violated basic confidentiality by snidely revealing my health details in July in such a way to make things sound even worse, forcing me to reveal them. Please stop compounding your offenses and let's make a full break with the past, so we can all move on. The longer the Arbcom continues to defend their past bad actions, the more these actions begin to look less like mistakes, and more like intent. ] (]) 11:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

	:However, I am willing to have Newyorkbrad or FT2 as a mentor if that will help ease the committee's misgivings about making the basic ethical decision.


	'''Second response to Sam'''

	Very well, let's put it aside. You have evidently not looked at the remedies in the case, or it would have been clear that there is very, very little that would be overturned The only restriction that came out of that case was my desysop, (which would not change) and the right to regain the sysop after 6 months by appeal to the committee, with a probation to follow. FT2's commentary makes it clear that this was intended to protect me, in order to assure that I can get adminship back again.

	The actual change in consequences is only to remove a proposal that was intended to make sure I could get Adminship back, which I do not want because it involves the Arbcom, and, after what has happened to me in regards to the Arbcom... Well, let's end this statement here. ] (]) 13:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)



	'''Per Kirril's Motion'''
	:I am willing to be bound by an informal agreement that I will consult the committee, and, perhaps even seek a mentor in order to prepare myself, should I wish to seek adminship. ] (]) 21:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

	'''To FT2'''

	There had never been an RfC, and no real hint that I was doing anything wrong. Had either of those happened, I would probably have agreed to be much more careful. This is why Arbcom is meant to be the LAST resort in dispute resolution, not the first.

	Let's review the finding of facts you mention


	'''Finding of fact #3'''
	justify his block of MatthewHoffman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) include claims of harassment, POV pushing, extreme rudeness, and vandalism... None of these claims are borne out by a review of Hoffman's contributions.

	He was clearly a POV-pusher. No reasonable person would deny that. The issue was that there was not sufficient time given to demonstrate a problematic pattern of POV pushing

	As for the rest, as described ], I missed some context that mitigated his comments, but there was, at least, rudeness and attacks on others, justified by the context of a grand battle. I looked at diffs, and failed to consider the full context, and, in the typical manner this case was handled, all these mitigating factors were thrown out, even to the point of claiming he was not a POV pusher.

	'''Finding of Fact #4'''

	4) Vanished user's block of Matthew Hoffman for 72 hours, and the subsequent extension of the block to make it indefinite, were both outside blocking policy. The reasoning used to justify the blocks was fallacious, and Vanished user was involved in a content dispute with Hoffman. Further, the justification for the blocks in part is to encourage Hoffman to "cool down," which contravenes blocking policy.


	''This contains an utter untruth''': I had not edited Irreducible complexity since January, as a search of the page history will show. In order to claim I was in a content dispute with him required claiming that having ever expressed any opinion o a subject, even before you became an admin, worked out to a content dispute. Secondly, only blocks with the sole purpose to make people cool down is outside policy. ] makes this very explicit:

	:''Blocks intended solely to "cool down" an angry user should not be used, as they often have the opposite effect. However, an angry user who is also being disruptive can be blocked to prevent further disruption.''

	The emphasis is in the original. Indeed, the block policy also makes a clear distinction between content disputes and conflict of interest, and, while the latter is discouraged, is not actually forbidden.:

	:''Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved.''


	FT2 asks for evidence that the decisions made about the Hoffman block were unreasonable. The committtee scraped the bottom of the barrel in order to justify a finding that I was in an active content dispute with Hoffman, mentioning a 7 month old edit to the page as proof. Carcharioth lays out a time scale here ], I presume that, ignoring the actual dates, this is what the Arbcom used to justify its claims of a content dispute.

	In short, the heart of the Arbcom decision with regard to the Hoffman matter - which FT2 declares unassailable - is based on a claimed direct violation of policy that never happened. This was pointed out at the time, , , etc. - FloNight even responded to a seperate point in the first post. The Arbcom pressed forwards with this anyway, enshrining a lie into a decision about me.

	'''Finding of Fact 9.1'''
	This finding implies there's a lot more that could be found, when, in fact, it is the result of an exhaustive review of every admin action I had made, thus making it almost certainly a complete list of what could possibly be found. Every single one of my blocks was reviewed on the evidence page of the Hoffman case, and Kirril can confirm whether he analysed all page protections, but given Finding of Fact #9 taking examples from my entire time as an admin, that's probably the case. If this is, in fact, all there was - and all evidence points to that - it is a much weaker finding than is implied by its similarities to similar findings of this type. Exhaustive or reasonably exhaustive searches should really be clearly labelled as such, anything else will be read as a representative set.

	Furthermore, while at least some of the decisions were mistakes, there were mitigating factors:

	* Let's have a look at one of these in detail:

	''semi-protected Homeopathy a second time, citing IP "vandalism". A review of IP activity from Nov 27 - 30 2007 shows the edits related to POV differences and minor edits, not vandalism (WP:VAND refers)...''

	However, let's have a look at 25 November:

	* - Vandalism by 202.168.239.186
	* Vandalism by 75.153.9.52
	* Vandalism by 90.203.64.154
	* Further vandalism by 90.203.64.154
	* Vandalism by 81.86.135.171

	All of these are oobviously and unambiguously vandalism.

	There might have been an arguement that the vandalism was not recent enough to justify semi-protection, however, the finding of fact says there was ''no'' vandalism, and claims that "The effect was to exclude IP editors with whom he disagreed as well as IP editors adding valid formatting edits." - implying that was my intent, when a review that covered just a two more days would have shown multi-IP vandalism and people having difficulty getting the reversion levels correct, reverting some of the vandalism, but not all. In a poorly-monitored subject, as Homeopathy was, this is problematic.



	We could review the others. These had never appeared in evidence, and, by the time they appeared on the finding page, my health had crashed so far and, the arbcom having ignored all my previous comments, it did not seem that the arbcom cared what had to be said. Clearly, some more care would have prevented an appearance of conflict of interest, however, I was literally the only admin watching many of these pages, and most administrators had been scared off of all action on those pages, due to the poor editing environments there. Conflict of interest might have been an issue, but remember that the Arbcom case was the first procedural discussion of conflict of interest related to me, had any other dispute resolution occurred, I would have very likely accepted the problem and stopped doing the behaviours in question. The arbcom stated, upon taking the case, that the lack of any prior dispute resolution related to me would be taken into consideration.

	I believe all the actions are defensible - not that they were correct, but that they were understandable mistakes, given the poor guidance I had, and that, as an inexperienced admin, I was working in one of the most contentious and poorest-monitored sections of Misplaced Pages. Had the arbcom cared to ask, I would have attempted to give my reasoning.

	is what the community thought about these findings in the RfC that arbcom arranged to run, then ignored. Uninvited Company - I'm going to simplify this thread a bit, but I believe my summary is accurate - later claimed that the defense of me consisted solely of Scientific-point-of-view proponents and was thus ignored in favour of unnamed and unnumbered people who e-mailed the Arbcom in order to attack me. (Who clearly lacked a point of view?)

	'''On blanking'''
	I was told this would be done in February. This is far too little, far too late, and does not even deal with the errors of fact in the findings of fact mentioned above. ] (]) 12:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

	'''On Flonight's proposal'''
	<s>This looks fine. I might prefer it a brief statement saying the new statement replaced the previous content and decisions as well, but I think that I can bend a little bit to meet the Arbcom in the middle. ] (]) 23:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)</s>

	On thinking about this, the "no longer active" is so ambiguous that it could be read as meaning anything. If we're going to make a decision on this, it probably needs to be one that won't simply cause more confusion. ] (]) 00:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

	====Comment by involved party Jehochman====
	This case was handled badly. I think it would be a very good to erase it completely, on grounds of procedural unfairness. As there is no request to restore adminship, I see that the only action required is for ArbCom to acknowledge this ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

	: Thebainer, the remedy sought is to have the case vacated. The person in question is '''not''' asking for their admin tools back. Given the severe incivility contained in that case (''moral pygmy'', ''meddling hypocrite''), and the very poor treatment by the Committee of the person making the request (RFAR with no prior DR, insufficient time allowed to present defenses), I think the request is reasonable. By failing to correct these problems when the request comes before you, you all assume responsibility for these events, even if you were not on the Committee at the time they occurred. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

	:: Perhaps it would be best for the Committee to pass a motion stating: 1/ personal abuse directed at named parties is denounced, 2/ you recognize that handling of the case was poor, and the Committee will endeavor to do better. Blanking the case would also be a good idea, because it is a poor example. The result can stand because nobody is disputing the outcome. I think these actions, which might appear symbolic, would have the effect of stopping further reference to the case. I for one am very tired of hearing about it. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

	:Sam Blacketer, allowing the person in question to go back to RFA is hardly a concession. Their chances of passing RFA are dim to none. If they want tools back, the easiest way is via the Committee. Perhaps the case can be replaced with a statement that the user gave up the tools under a cloud and can get them back via RFA or appeal to the Committee. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

	;Important note to FT2
	This case started with the posting of a remedy, before the accused had time to fully respond. Then it was suspended to run an RFC that generally opposed what the Committee was doing, ] or making one individual into an example to deter others. Then the Committee proceeded to disregard the opinions expressed in the RFC. A variety of us have asked for personal attacks within the case to be denounced or refactored. Thus far, these requests have been ignored. I am asking for two very specific things: 1/ the Committee blanks all the pages. 2/ the Committee makes a public statement recognizing the poor treatment of those involved. Public insults or abuse require a public retraction. Three wrongs don't make a right. The fact that the block was bad does not excuse Committee members to personally abuse those involved, nor does it excuse the Committee as a whole from culpability for conducting a ]. Cheers, ] <sup>]</sup> 16:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

	====Comment by uninvolved party Barberio====
	The manner in which this case was accepted is at best inappropriate opening of a case without allowing it to go through normal channels of having a block overturned. At worst, it appears to be an attempt to game the system by a sitting arbitration member pushing for a speedy resolution in his favour without giving a chance for rebuttal or defence.

	I'm also unsettled by the use of 'secret reasons' for the desysop and block on re-admitance. Nor does the remedy sit well with the committee's actions towards more 'establishment figure' administrators who have had similar 'isolated bad decisions'.

	In my eyes, the case wasn't taken on correctly, and not enough time was given for a defence. So this case was not legitimate, and none of it's findings or remedies should be active. It should be erased and apologised for.--] (]) 15:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

	=====Response to Sam Blacketer=====

	With all due respect, the Arbitration process ''is'' a quasi-legal process, and claiming it isn't makes you appear to deny the reality of how your own committee works, much in the same way people claim there is no bureaucracy in Misplaced Pages. This is not unusual, quasi-legal processes exist in many associations, such as 'courts' that rule on ] motor sports rule infractions. You need to recognise that this is a quasi-legal process, and act appropriately.

	So since it ''is'' a quasi-legal process, you need to make sure your actions don't prejudice someone's case, you need to be as clear and open as you can be, and you need to apply suitable fairness.

	You are ''explicitly not'' the fire-fighting team tasked with making quick emergency actions. You are supposed to act deliberatively, and urgent injunctions should be ''injunctions'' not rushed ''rulings''. If you do not know the difference between an ''injunction'' and a ''ruling'' then you probably shouldn't be ruling on cases.

	It is well within your power to make a temporary injunctions, and then investigate a case deliberatively. Failure to do so puts the legitimacy of the rulings at risk. --] (]) 11:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

	Additionally, it is my opinion that the current ArbCom claim they do not set precedent, while acting like the do. This appears to be a misunderstanding of what the word precedent means... If you have used the same 'principles' from one case, to another, to another, that is use of precedent. This is standard practice by the ArbCom.

	Again, denying you use precedents when you clearly do signals a misunderstanding of your own role.

	Combined with the growing attempts to create policy, and hang 'resolutions' such as ''Motion of clarification in the Tobias Conradi case'' up as binding rulings, is troubling. --] (]) 11:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

	====Comment by Durova====
	This request was opened overnight without my knowledge, and I read it on my first cup of coffee. In the interests of avoiding ], I urge the Committee to consider this motion. In addition to other objections, I have reason to believe the case was initiated upon misleading representations. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 15:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
	:''Where a user is being disruptive...the key issue is the disruption...'' Sam, Shoemaker's Holiday was an administrator in good standing until this out of process case opened against him. He is now an administrator in good standing at Wikimedia Commons. He has been instrumental to getting Misplaced Pages's featured sound program off the ground, is doing stellar work for the new 'song of the day' main page section on Wikisource, and is in good standing in all other WMF projects where he participates. There has never been any formal dispute resolution action against him, except related to this case. Shoemaker's Holiday has contributed over five dozen featured content items across multiple projects. What more must a man do to demonstrate he is not disruptive, once a bad arbitration case labels him as such?

	:The case was opened based upon a single month-old block which he had long since put up for noticeboard review, while he was offering to submit it for a second review. He answered all other relevant concerns to the satisfaction of community consensus, during the RFC for which the arbitration was suspended. Yet the arbitrators never substantially changed the proposed decision that had been posted in the first twelve hours of the case, before he had any chance to defend himself. Voting proceeded despite his requests for time to study for university final exams, and the time it took away hurt his grades. I fail to see what purpose is served by retaining this case, other than as a showcase example for critics of ArbCom to demonstrate the Committee's inability to correct its errors or rein in its members, when they level personal attacks. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 01:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
	::Kirill, I agree that Misplaced Pages arbitration does not observe the precedents of case law. So far as I know, no prior case has been vacated because there has never been so much cause to do so as here. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 04:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
	:::Amending: Orangemarlin is a precedent, although an unusual one. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 01:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
	::::To FT2: a single block and a short noticeboard thread is scant grounds to suppose that a 'newbie biting' culture existed. What did exist--and was well documented in case evidence--was a series of offsite campaigns by people who held a particular POV to manipulate Misplaced Pages articles toward their POV. The degree of organization varied, but they occurred across muliple fora whose participants were persistent. This created a significant dilemma for Wikipedians who contributed to the topic, since that manipulative element had already learned to exploit AGF by abandoning accounts after a few days or weeks and returning under new guises. How does one address that exploitation while maintaining a friendly welcome for genuine good faith newcomers? Shoemaker's Holiday's approach did not work, but neither did the community do well (imo) when consensus directed that indef block reviews occur on high traffic noticeboards where a percentage of threads inevitably get buried in the shuffle, and more pertinent to this review--the Committee's attempted solution wasn't any better. There has been a shortage of sysop attention for the site's touchier topics. A wise administrator who reads this case would take one very pertinent lesson from it: close CSDs, enforce 3RR violations, work on the image permissions backlogs, and don't even comment upon anything controversial. Eventually those festering messes will come to RFAR where the Committee that failed to assume good faith of site culture can cope with the result. We still need better site processes and policies, but that falls outside the Committe's remit. See ]. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 05:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

	====Comment by Martinphi====

	I seriously question whether he stayed away from Misplaced Pages for several months. My memory is that he was logging into the admin IRC network under his real name immediately after his case closed. Yes, Shoemaker appeared 18 February 2008 , while the case was closed 13 February 2008 . Yet, Shoemaker states above "I left Misplaced Pages over it, and it was only the active, constant encouragement of User:Newyorkbrad, User:Durova and a few others that brought me back after several months." Whether or not he believes this to be true, I cannot say. If he believes it, he's in no condition to be an admin again. If he doesn't, he's in no condition to be an admin again.

	I have been the victim of his continued harassment since I took part in his ArbCom and RfC. If any action would give him back his admin tools, then I strenuously object, as he has continued to be an abusive editor since his desysopping. He already tried, by the regular means, to get his tools back at an RfA. He lost. He has lost the trust of the community. ——''']'''</span> ]~]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 20:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

	My memory is also that while the ArbCom did not adhere to strict protocol in the case, it nevertheless went out of its way to ensure a full and just hearing of the case. It actually suspended the case pending an RfC. I have absolutely no doubt that if the ArbCom had seen anything in the RfC which indicated that Vanished user should keep his admin buttons, the ArbCom would have revised the case. Indeed, I am fully convinced that there were things which Vanished user could have done to keep his buttons: he could simply have said he was wrong and wouldn't do it again. He didn't. I told him how to keep his buttons, and he didn't do it. I believe the ArbCom was open to being convinced that their initial judgment was wrong, and the RfC failed to convince them. Certainly, Vanished user had many friends, who essentially said "he fights trolls, so excuse him." But that's not an excuse, and the ArbCom knew it. ——''']'''</span> ]~]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 21:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

	====Comment by uninvolved party ]====
	I have only recently become aware of this, and fully endorse Jehochman's view: it would be very good to erase it completely. This was bad procedure and sets bad precedent. It should never have happened. ] <small>]</small> 21:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
	:Response to Krill: I think blanked and vacated would be the best option here. ] <small>]</small> 09:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

	====Response to Kirill by uninvolved Ncmvocalist====
	A case was vacated earlier this year, though I'd prefer slightly different wording. If it is to be vacated, perhaps the Committee can vote on a motion that will replace (blank) what's on the case pages: "The Committee declares that the decision viewable in the history is vacated and not in effect. The history of the case pages are preserved for transparency." The Committee may need to issue a further report, or further statements that can hopefully help heal the wounds of those involved. ] (]) 05:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
	:Additionally, it would involve removing the case from the archives. ] (]) 09:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
	::(I'm still reviewing this request, but meanwhile a question.) What case was vacated earlier this year? ] (]) 13:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
	:::Brad, I think he is referring to ]. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 13:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
	::::Indeed, that's the one - granted, the circumstances were of course somewhat different in that case, I bring it up as an example of how one has been vacated in the very recent past. ] (]) 05:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

	;Addendum
	It is time to embrace the change in approach that the rest of Misplaced Pages (heck, the rest of the world) have been pushing for more and more recently - this will become even more evident in the next couple of elections. A case was vacated earlier this year; this is another one that needs to be vacated in the manner specified in Kirill's motion.

	Tendentious editing, civil POV pushing, problem editing, or whatever else you want to call it, is by far, one of the biggest problems this project is facing. Nothing can be compared to the detrimental effects this has on Misplaced Pages, the community in general, or those individual users who unfortunately encounter this sort of behaviour regularly.

	I've read through this case a couple of times in the past, as if it were any other case. When I noticed many uninvolved members of the community engaging in heated discussion about it off-wiki and criticized certain members of the Committee in an extreme manner, my curiosity was sparked to read it again. I read part of it again just now and ] got me emotionally charged.

	The experience I had when handling a particular problem editor (not that long ago) was disgusting. A number of checkusers (including arb emeritus or arbitrators), as well as admins and editors should have some recollection of who I am referring to. The amount of red tape and formalities I needed to go through (and the time and effort taken) were immensely horrible. It took weeks before there was enough evidence to justify a ban on that problem editor for disruption from sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry - and even that was with some luck. It took months before I was able to demonstrate (for the purposes of red-tape and formality) that the editor had been engaging in POV pushing, extreme rudeness, harassment and general disruption. In any case, I am certain we have all learnt from it. I'm not unexperienced in identifying problem editors - particularly from the sorts of expressions they use, the way they approach a dispute, and the way they approach a dispute. And I'm pretty sure I've been AGF'ing in this regard too. That said, I have no doubt that Matthew Hoffman was one such problem editor based on his contributions.

	I was lucky to get through it because of a handful of users from different categories. However, many editors, including one very recently, was not so lucky and left Misplaced Pages as a result (an arbitrator was made aware of this recently). I appreciate the help the Committee provides in trying to resolve this problem, but this case does not do that; it does the opposite. A large number of the community are afraid to take action due to what may happen to them (i.e. what happened in this case). We're willing to desysop an admin for using some clue and taking action quickly, but we're unwilling to desysop admins who take no action at all? Yes, there were errors in his admin judgement sometimes, but RFC is supposed to provide a 2nd chance. In any case, it's a moot point anyway, as adminship isn't the point of clearing the case.

	The case is having a causal effect on editors leaving the project due to the lack of support for community ridding the project of problem editors as early as possible. Such an outcome is not compatible with the goals of this project, and further shakes what confidence the community has in the Committee. I request that the case is vacated in the manner specified in Kirill's well-considered motion so that we can all move on. ] (]) 12:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

	====Statement by Chaser====
	I was tangentially involved in this case. For the reasons stated by Durova above, I think the committee should simply blank the case, leaving Shoemaker's Holiday without his bit, but removing the restriction on how he might get it back. His not asking for it back gives ArbCom a good opportunity to correct their error without forcing them to the logical conclusion of making him an admin again.

	The comments below belie how ArbCom decisions are treated in the community. ArbCom de-sysopping has been called the ] for former admins returning to RFA; this was true for Shoemaker's Holiday despite the name change. Negative FoFs in a case follow editors (particularly project-space heavy editors) around the wiki. The final decision included adding a note to Hoffman's block log that ArbCom found the blocks to be unjustified. Shoemaker's Holiday, still an active editor, deserves at least the same consideration as someone no longer contributing here. He is asking for the Committee to once again officially acknowledge a mistake, but this time its own. In practical terms, replacing the page's contents with a big notice that the case has been vacated, à la Orangemarlin, is appropriate.--] - ] 22:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

	I'm not enthused about the appearance, if not the reality of rewriting history in the last sentence of 1.3. But I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth.--] - ] 19:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

	====Comment by Scott MacDonald====
	I've no knowledge/interest in this case, but note that Krill's motion is dangerously ambiguous. ''This is done with the understanding that Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs) shall consult with the Committee should he wish to become an administrator''. Does Krill mean "consult prior to RfA" or "ask arbcom to resysop" (is an RfA required) and does "consult" mean "get the permission of" or "take advice from"? I've no dog in the race, but the motion is going to cause problems.--] (]) 21:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

	====Comment by JoshuaZ====

	The central claim made in the decision to desysop SH was that he was involved in a content dispute with Matthew Hoffman. Given that the last time SH had edited the page in question was 7 months prior to Hoffman's block, does the ArbCom acknowledge that this claim is incorrect? ] (]) 23:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

	====Statement by uninvolved Sticky Parkin====
	I have said before that having negative findings of "fact" against them is very vile for the individual, especially if it involves judgments about a person's character, dismissiveness or other obnoxiousness (not saying this is the case here, but in general.) It would be difficult to 'vacate' an entire case, but I think the person should be allowed right to reply at the bottom of the decisions page if they feel false things have been said about them, otherwise a final judgement is made against them which will stand on[REDACTED] for years to come. Definitely an addendum should be added by the arbs if some false things they said about someone are later seen to be false- or those comments the arbs made which are later seen to be false should be struck out. Or is there ]? Clearly not as I like to think we're all partly human, and that arbcom can sometimes admit any errors or excessive obnoxiousness. ] ] 02:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

	====Statement of common ground by ]====
	It seems like significant common ground exists, though the emotions inspired by this case seem to have everyone talking past each other. I sense from the Arbs' comments that they see at least some validity in the idea that this case was poorly handled. The resistance to vacating it seems to stem from the belief that the case's ''conclusions'' were valid, even if its execution was suboptimal.

	Why not just append a resolution indicating that the Arbitration Committee recognizes deficiencies in the handling of this case (ideally, the deficiencies could be enumerated; I offer a ])? That the Committee intends to ''learn'' from those deficiencies, in the interest of quality improvement, but at the same time affirms the final remedies as valid? I hear SH saying that the case was handled unfairly, and I hear FT2 saying, "Well, maybe, but the end result was valid." Folks, those are not mutually exclusive viewpoints. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
	*just a note of aggreement with MastCell's comment. --] (]) 17:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)



	==== Clerk notes ====
	*Reformatted to include clerk and arbitrator sections.--] (]) 14:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
	*Question to Shoemaker's Holiday: are you requesting that the judgment be vacated?--] (]) 14:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
	*Moved comments, also reformatted crossposted AN thread, added links. Please see ] for additional comments as they come.--] (]) 14:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
	====Arbitrator comments====
	* I'm open to doing something constructive here in principle; but I'm not quite sure precisely how that might be framed. Arbitration cases are explicitly not binding precedent (and not really even advisory precedent); so the "case law" analogy doesn't really work. We don't, therefore, have any established method for vacating a case, per se—overturning it, yes, but not vacating it. What would you like to see in practical terms? A blanking of the case pages? A motion naming the case as being "vacated"? Or something else? ] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 01:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
	* Commenting in general, I think that there is here too great an assumption that arbitration on[REDACTED] works in a quasi-legal fashion with notions of fairness to the parties applied as they would be in a criminal law case in an adversarial court system. That is not how it works. The concept of fairness applies primarily to the project as a whole. Where a user is being disruptive for matters outside their control, then arbitrators must still act to restrict them to prevent disruption even if doing so appears to be unfair or harsh on the user. To express it another way, the key issue is the disruption and not what lies behind it. In this immediate case the active members of the committee at the time (I was not participating, having only just been appointed) have apologised for the way the case was handled, but not for the decision.
	:Where that does come in is when we assess whether to remove restrictions. If a user has been disruptive because of some definite cause, and that cause no longer applies, then we ought to remove any restrictions placed on them because they are no longer needed. In this case I see a great deal of argument about whether the original case was decided appropriately but I see precious little to inform me about what positive actions are requested, and how they would benefit Misplaced Pages. I would like to see this point argued before I go to vote. I endorse everything Kirill says above about the uselessness of 'precedent'; the committee refuses to be bound by precedent so in effect it does not exist as such. ] (]) 10:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
	::Response to Shoemaker's Holiday: I'm afraid that yet again a request for information about how to benefit the project going forward has been met with information about how decisions in the past were wrong. The most that I think can be done is to courtesy blank the Matthew Hoffman case, and I'm willing to support that, but formally 'vacating' it would be a meaningless act. I am at a loss to know how you interpret Morven's comments as an invitation to disclose confidential information to the community: they are instead plainly a statement that any application for your resysopping should go to the committee in order to preserve confidentiality. As you are not at present applying for resysop the issue does not arise anyway. ] (]) 11:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
	* What remedy do you seek? I doubt the Committee would consider revisiting the outcomes, given the facts as they existed then and now. Blanking would achieve little, given that your account was already renamed, the case of course existing under the username of the user you blocked. If people are in a mood to be revisiting things, then let's revisit the discussion of problems in our admin culture that was the substratum to the case, which has not proceeded in all this time. --] (]) 02:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
	**Re Jehochman, I appreciate that what is sought is that the case be "vacated", but what is that intented to mean in substance? --] (]) 08:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
	* <p>I joined Arbcom a month into the case, and so one of my first questions was to review it carefully. The case was ] to get a review of the rise in "]" culture, by reviewing the behavior of those involved in the Matthew Hoffman block and its declined unblock, and assessing if Shoemaker's Holiday had acted properly as an administrator. By itself, this was one block 2 months previous to the case. It would probably not have led to a serious result of the form Charles Matthews had requested. The case was formally ] the divisive issues and to help resolve doubts, a reasonable view. Charles' Matthews also stated that a good explanation was still outstanding despite email requests chased up on the users' talk page in November. </p><p>On that basis, I would consider the case valid. But that wasn't all. By the time I reviewed, I found that there had not been just one mildly questionable block 2 months before the case. There had been multiple clear misuses of admin access, not just one, documented – easily sufficient (in my book) to show a pattern, and easily enough for an RFAR or a request to the Committee to take action. (See for example ].) It is common for a case to be accepted, and then adjust to take account of new factors that are presented in evidence. In this case the new factors included a worrying number of "bad" blocks, not just one. The most recent had been mere ''days'' before the case opened, ie at the end of November (and before the RFAR case request was ), not 2 months previous. Any one of those blocks alone might have been enough to formally warn an administrator at RFAR.</p><p>It is obvious and clear that the case process, handling, and so on, was extremely upsetting to Shoemaker's Holiday, some of which I agree with him on, some of which I think he's leaning on too much and isn't merited. Most of the case is history, and that's good. Shoemaker's Holiday has gotten past the issues mostly and that's good. But vacating the case would be asking for agreement the case was not valid, and should never have been heard, and I can't agree on that. I can only agree it should have been heard ''better'' in terms of handling than it was - a state of affairs for which numerous statements of apology have been sought and given and I'm at a loss to see what yet another can do. The case (and its final decision) were viable; the "how it got there" which is the issue, is secondary and has been discussed at length. The notion of "I need this case vacated for my own personal peace of mind" doesn't work for me since arbitration cases exist to serve the project, and there was a clearly reasonable and well evidenced ''project'' need for it (since bad adminship is a serious concern), even if this could have been processed, documented and followed up a lot better than it was. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] \| ])</span></sup> 06:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)</p>
	:: (On a side, even if one looks at the initial grounds of the case (the block of Matthew Hoffman) alone, and nothing else, not one user has shown good evidence that 1/ Matthew Hoffman's block was in fact correct, 2/ The decision that condemned that block was unreasonable, or 3/ That an administrator who makes such a block, leading to controversy between administrators, should not have their block directly reviewed at RFAR. In fact it is the norm for desysop requests to go to RFAR without "prior dispute resolution". That Charles may have spoken poorly in his comments, does not change that the case was valid and accepted. ] 06:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC))

	::: Update - I also reviewed the "remedies posted within 24 hours" claim, since it seems pivotal to the complaint. In fact one arbitrator did clearly jump the gun - Uninvited Company, who posted the proposed findings of fact and remedy on December 3rd. However if you look closely, not one other arbitrator followed suit. Principles are easy to agree (they don't change much, it's often obvious on day #1 what principles are involved, and they act as "recitals" of policy points likely to have been considered). But the next support for any finding of fact or remedy was on ''December 8'', almost a week after the case opened, and well after much of the evidence (including personal disclosures by Vanished user) had been posted and examined.

	::: I anticipate and accept though, that to Vanished user the post on Dec 3 by Uninvited Company might well have looked like a decision was already made, and may have made him feel there was no point posting a more robust response. I feel that post was exceptionally unhelpful, since there was no way at all that it could be more than a largely speculative proposal at that time, and prone to significant amendment. But this should not be read as endorsement that the case itself finally was wrong; the final finding was of misuse of admin access and when I reviewed in January on joining, and again this last week, this conclusion was very clear and exceptionally well evidenced.

	::: (As a side note, one of my first recommendations for change in January 2008, was that a proposed decision should not be posted until 7 days into the case at minimum, for most cases, exactly because of my awareness of this matter.) ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] \| ])</span></sup> 16:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Motions ====

	:''There are 10 active arbitrators (excluding one recusal), so the majority on these motions is 6.''

	1) All pages of the ] shall be blanked and replaced with a notice that the case is vacated. This is done with the understanding that {{user\|Shoemaker's Holiday}} shall consult with the Committee should he wish to become an administrator.

	:Support:
	:# ] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 21:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
	:# After reading the discussion that are happening all over Misplaced Pages on this topic now, and remember the past discussions, I think that we need to step up and recognize that we got this wrong and fix it. We need to vacate this ruling. If needed we can write a short factual statement that explains the reason for the desysop. This is better than having a standing ruling that much of the Community thinks is dead wrong. ]] 18:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Second choice. ]] 20:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

	:Oppose:
	:# Would not vacate, for reasons above. Whatever the closure value of this might be, and however much upset some parts of the handling may have caused, the roots of the case itself were serious, valid, and the case appropriately brought to RFAR, when I reviewed it. Many users have objections to an RFAR case where they were parties, but vacating a case implies more than "some process lapses". It would imply the entire case had no grounds, or that a massive mistake of fact that was later recognized, means that the beliefs the decision was based upon, were grossly mistaken. Even if one looked at the initial grounds of the case request alone, and nothing else, the case was valid. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] \| ])</span></sup> 06:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
	:# No. I would support courtesy blanking but not 'vacating'. ] (]) 11:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

	:Abstain:
	:# Prefer 1.3 below. ] (]) 04:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

	1.1) All pages of the ] shall be courtesy blanked. This is done with the understanding that {{user\|Shoemaker's Holiday}} shall consult with the Committee should he wish to become an administrator.

	:Support:
	:# Second choice, although frankly I can't fathom what the benefit of blanking but ''not'' vacating is, at this late stage. ] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 05:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
	:# Support although I do not think we need a motion to do it. ] (]) 23:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

	:Oppose:
	:# Not enough. If we need to start over and write the an accurate factual statement about why he lost the tools, then we can do it. Blanking a ruling helps, but there are real issues with the ruling that need to be addressed, I think. ]] 18:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

	:Abstain:
	:# Prefer 1.3 below. ] (]) 04:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

	1.2) All pages of the ] shall be blanked with an edit summary saying, "The Matthew Hoffman case ruling is no longer active", and will be replaced with the statement, "After receiving feedback about the use of his administrative tools, Shoemaker's Holiday voluntarily agreed to give up his tools and in the future to consult with the Arbitration Committee should he want to have them returned."

	:Support:
	:# Adam and I discussed wording and he agreed to something along these lines. (Adam, I tweaked it a little but don't think I changed the meaning of our agreed wording. Let me know if you think differently.) I think that this is a fair statement about what happened. Mistakes were made by many people in this situation. It is for the best if we all put it behind us and move on. ]] 20:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC) First choice. ]] 20:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
	:# ] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 01:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

	:Oppose:
	:# Oppose on grounds that "the case ruling is no longer active" is a meaningless phrase. ] (]) 23:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

	:Abstain:
	:# Prefer 1.3 below. ] (]) 04:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

	1.3) In light of all the circumstances presented, the findings and remedies contained in this committee's decision in ] are withdrawn insofar as they reflect adversely on the editor identified as "Vanished User." A notation to this effect will be made on the case pages, which have already been courtesy blanked. This action is based on the cumulative circumstances, and does not constitute a precedent for the routine withdrawal or vacating of arbitration decisions based on later disagreement with the decisions reached. The committee notes that after receiving feedback about the use of his administrator tools, Shoemaker's Holiday voluntarily agreed to give up his tools and to consult with the Arbitration Committee should he wish to become an administrator in the future.

	:Support
	:# After careful consideration, propose this wording as the best expression of what should reasonably be done. Uncharacteristically, I will not add further to the very substantial discussion that the case has already received. ] (]) 05:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
	:# This is fine too. ] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 06:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
	:# I can accept this wording and hope it helps remove some of the hurt in this case. ] (]) 10:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
	:# Works for me. ]] 14:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

	:Oppose
	:# <p>On principle. Findings that were properly decided, and accurately represent principles, actions, incidents, decisions, and communal norms related to these, would remain valid. I'm not quite sure how one "unfinds" that admin tools were misused, for example, when the evidence even on review makes it clear to an uninvolved administrator or user that this was the case. While I am acutely aware of the hurt felt (I've been a strong supporter of Shoemaker's holiday for as long as I've known him), any party in any case may feel "hurt" -- this isn't a good enough reason for removing valid verifiable findings of a case even if the processes that case followed leave a lot to be desired. This would be the same regardless of any standing of the requesting party.</p><p>The aim in this motion is to reduce the upset felt by a user, which I support... but at the cost of "unfinding" matters that genuinely took place and that were rightly deemed improper by the Committee, undertaken by that user. Specifically, multiple other users were blocked, and multiple other users were prevented from editing by utterly wrongful protection applied by an administrator who was heavily involved in editing "against" them; some users were described on the wiki as vandals who were not. These users mattered too. The level of pragmatism required to "unfind" these points is not one I feel is good precedent, or a wise compromise. I am unable to endorse a proposed decision to do so. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] \| ])</span></sup> 15:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)</p>

	:Abstain
	:#

	----

	=== Motion to amend ]===

	''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
	* {{admin\|Toddst1}} (initiator)
	* {{userlinks\|Bharatveer}} (<s>currently blocked but</s> )

	==== Statement by ] ====
	{{user\|Bharatveer}} has a long history of disruption of Misplaced Pages, particularly on India-related articles. Before and as the subject of remedies and restrictions from the previous RFAR, he or she has been blocked numerous times for 3RR violations, parole violations and most recently by me for incivility and disruptive editing, bringing the number of blocks to a total of 10. 4 of these blocks occurred after the previous RFAR. The restrictions and remedies meted out in previous RFAR: ] expired 3 weeks ago on 21 October 2008.

	Since the subsequent blocks are the result of very similar issues to the previous RFAR, (reverting in violation of restriction, 3RR, incivility) and it is clear that this problematic editor has not changed his or her problematic pattern of editing, I am asking that the duration of the previous remedies and restrictions be extended for at least another year, and possibly tightened at the committee’s discretion.

	'''Bainer's request for further evidence:''' is the evidence. Is more needed than that? ] <small>(])</small> 00:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

	'''Response to bainer's question''':
	I couldn't call my involvement a content dispute:
	* I had no known involvement with Bharatveer until yesterday when I started investigating .
	* While the report did not seem to warrant a block on its own, I did see editing that concerned me in ] and much more so at ] and issued .
	* I looked further and found . Since the edit didn't look constructive at all to me, I reverted (this is the edit that bainer called "content dispute") and left (At this point there still was an outstanding AIV report for vandalism)
	* I blocked the Bharatveer after .
	* Just to be sure, I posted ] asking for a full review of my block and its length.
	* After the block and ANI post, I tried to explain further to Bharatveer why that reversion of mine was done . If you don't take the chronology and context into account, I suppose it might appear to be a content dispute.
	I hope this helps.] <small>(])</small> 02:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

	:While I welcome a review of my actions here (as I did at ANI), I ask that the arbs review ] from the original case as I think it is applicable and appropriate here - specifically the part about dealing with other editors. (I haven't observed any bigotry) ] <small>(])</small> 14:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->
	While Bharatveer has some major editing issues (I would personally suggest a long Wikibreak, as that should clear the ol' cranium a bit), we need to look at the conflict on such pages more holistically and perhaps look at other users involved in this edit-warring. My philosophy is that '''it takes two to tango''', and that as a failed ] shows, there is a gigantic dichotomy of perception between certain groups here. Incivility and belligerence is sadly the norm on both sides of the dispute, and I've certainly witnessed some vile invective and falsification, the most humorous from users discussing the validity of english language sources who can barely speak English themselves.

	;Point by point look at issues raised.
	*] is a gigantic neologism. I personally think its notable and would not vote delete on it, but a report filed by some trolling IP is meaningless. South Asian articles are filled with these ideologues, hoping to gain their fifteen seconds of fame. Unless we see more evidence of wrongdoing, theres nothing here to go off of. I can see where BV is coming from on this issue, but I think there is enough legitimate criticism of such a nebulous term that he is missing by concentrating solely on elimination.
	*The ] article is a huge clusterfuck. The article needs to be shortened, and . If anything he should be commended for confronting a hagiographical IP warrior.
	*Chandrayaan - Bharatveer is definitely at fault here. I see no reason to remove the statement of Obama. The world revolves around America, get over it. However, let us see what BV has to say. ;)
	* hardly merit a block in any way. There is no justifiable basis for using an almost civil statement as a pretext for a ''punitive'' block, when that is not even the purpose of a block.
	*] brought no real consensus. Moreschi supported the block, Gnagarra didn't.
	*Also I would request Bainer to bring forth his evidence of Todd's edit warring, so that we can view that in light of Todd's case.

	Ayubowan.]<sup>]</sup> 04:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

	;Dseer = worthless evidence
	Dseer appears to be little more than an attention-craving troll, whose testimony is extremely suspect. He seems to be an ideologue, whose evidence was countered by a few users ], ]. Both these users certainly had their own issues, but the fact of the matter is that testimony from ideologues is meaningless.]<sup>]</sup> 02:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

	;Otolemur crassicaudatus

	Pot. Kettle. Black. Really? Here's what 30 seconds of digging got me

	*Removing an extremely well sourced criticism of the . Hmm, interesting how you accuse Bharatveer of the same
	*Use of ideologues (]) to create illusions of societal criticism , when under no interpretation of ] or ] is such non-expert testimony welcomed.

	Again, pot, kettle, black. What we have are two users in glass houses throwing stones at each other. lol.]<sup>]</sup> 02:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

	;Googlean

	A used solely for POV pushing is calling out a POV pusher? Thank you for defending Misplaced Pages, Googlean. Administrators can view a relevant ] and a relevant ] case for more details.]<sup>]</sup> 02:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

	Actually, looks like .]<sup>]</sup> 02:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

	;Tinucherian

	Apparently, Tinucherian and Googlean are fighting the . Never mind that half this "cabal" isn't even Hindu. Gigantic ideologue if I ever saw one.]<sup>]</sup> 02:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

	;In short
	Basically a bunch of trolls throwing accusations around at Bharatveer (with the exception of Todd and Relata refero) when they have amazingly bad problems with POV-pushing, edit warring, and incivility themselves. If Bharatveer is blocked, Misplaced Pages certainly can do without the "crusaders for truth" as well, with their fanciful ideas of "cabals" and such.]<sup>]</sup> 02:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	I believe that User:toddst's response results from his non-implementation of a core WP policy of "Assuming good-faith". According to User:Toddst, he started his "actions" after an ANON reported at AIV (12:01, 11th November). Please see the article ]. Please note that many WP editors (including me) have reported the edits of this particular SPA even before.)see ] & my request for intervention at User:Flewis's talkpage ()'''(Time 11:48;10th November)'''. Please see my contributions at ]. I had tried to clean up that article within WP policies and guideline. I had tried to add more references and I had tried to "balance" the article by "removing" statements from different organisations, which was "irrelevant" to the article. Please see how another uninvolved editor (User:Shovon) also tried to bring admin intervention in the article. User:Toddst instead of seeing all these has in turn accused me of WP:OWN.

	Just after this, he made a string of edits ( wikistalking) where he tried to modify/ remove most of my edits in different un-related pages (please see http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Toddst1).(Articles include Tehelka, where he "moved" my added reference to another section; Hindu Taliban, an afd page initiated by me , where user:Toddst personally attacked me and finally at ].

	Please note User:Toddst's remark at AFD page and his conclusion of my edits in ] page. It will be very clear that User:Toddst instead of "Assuming good faith" is doing just the reverse. He says "'''You really seem to be on a roll here. What's up with this edit? It seems like the information you are removing is well sourced, well placed, and on topic. Frankly your action here looks like either vandalism or POV pushing. Stop. Toddst1 (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)'''"
	In this case , I had just removed "politics" from a "scientific" article( note that comments from NASA & ESA were not removed). User:toddst needs to explain his edits here as to why he felt my edits were "Vandalism".
	I would like to conclude my statement this arbcom proceeding need to stopped as it is very clear that there is nothing "substantial" in User:Toddst arguments. Also please note User:Toddst attempts to gather "support" (from admins who had previously blocked me).-] (]) 05:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
	::Please note User:Toddst's reason for blocking me(] (]) 06:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
	<small>(Transcribed from User's talk page)</small>
	::::Fellow editors, Please note that User:Toddst's explanation is still pending regarding my "block" . As per the block message , I was accused of "vandalism" charges. I request fellow WP editors to have a re-look at my contributions (mainly ] & ].(See http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Bharatveer). In Binayak Sen article, Please see the "clean-up work" i did (). Please see the talkpage,(http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Binayak_Sen), where i tried with many other WP editors to stop SPA's attempts to push their propaganda. It should also be noted that, I had tried to bring "admin-Intervention" in this article. In this context, User:toddst should explain how these edits will constitute "vandalism". Please note that even regarding 3RR, I had tried to be within limits of this rule, while editing this article. Even if, this charge of 3RR is true, it should be noted that I was the only person who got blocked due to this(which shows the One-sided nature of this block). I have been in WP for at least 2 years now , I am seeing for the first time , '''an AFD creation and a removal of political statements from a scientific article being labelled as POV charges'''. It should also be noted that after my previous Arbcom restriction, Many WP Editors have tried to discredit my WP edits pointing out the arbcom restrcition on me. ( for eg. Please see ).-] (]) 06:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::Editors like User:Tinu Cherian and others have raised false allegations that all my edits are biased( hindutva??), But I submit that I have tried to edit WP by following all WP policies ( NPOV, WP:cite etc). Please see my contributions at ] (](] (]) 08:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
	:::I request arbcom to take a re-look at my previous block. If you would see, one of my previous blocks was for "removing" messages from my user page. I was blocked for my comments""vandalistic edits from an unresponsive editor who revels in deleting discussion from article talk page". The reason for block was given as "Incivility & disruptive editing".(see . Even in the last block, User:Toddst's reason was for making "making false accusations of "personal attacks", and "Harassment" against him. Please see ].-] (]) 06:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	{{user\|Bharatveer}} has a history of chronic POV pushing in India related articles which is primarily characterized by an extreme form of ]. I am giving here only a few examples of his disruptive edits:
	* with an edit summary "rm irrelevant comments" from a section titled "]" in the article ].
	* deletion of ] with an edit summary "rm as per WP:RS"
	* removal of an important sourced statement from lead, despite the fact there is academic consensus that Bajrang Dal is a militant organization.
	*Bharatveer's comments on neutral and uninvolved administrator ] is extremely unfair. He , and falsely claimed .

	Bharatveer is a pro-] POV pusher and is well versed in misinterpretation of various Misplaced Pages policies to serve his own POV. ] are primarily in India and Hindutva related articles, and '''with''' POV. He was warned many times, but did not change his behavior. This is the time to take final decision. ''']''' (]) 10:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

	;Further false accusation by Bharatveer
	After my statement above in this case, Bharatveer has . I have . Per ], ''Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack.'' Bharatveer has already crossed the line and I hope the arbitrators will be able to find a solution to deal with this user. ''']''' (]) 15:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
	<!-- ==== Statement by ] ==== -->

	==== Statement by ] ====

	I regret to say {{user\|Bharatveer}} has a long history of POV pushing, edit warring and disruptive editing on Hinduism and Christianity and other religious violence related articles.
	* eg: ].
	** ]: He injects POV news from unreliable sources like and removed references to India's top new channels like ] . I his unreliable sources ( though I ] his POV pushing statements like Illegal beef trade and asked for a reliable citation ) . Bharatveer challenging to prove that odishatoday is RS. Further discussion can be seen in ] . It is evident from the 1) A quick search in odishatoday.com tells for the word "Christian" would give you a list of articles undoubtedly showing its anti-Christian stance. 2) ] no other articles have citations in WP from the above site. How is that its only Odishatoday that publishes the news that Bharatveer wants to , when these recent violences are reported by almost every new channels in India ? ] seems to take over the POV Pushing where a banned editor ] left. Technically, Bharatveer was close to ] at ] and ].
	* Anything that is anti-Hinduvata , he tends to object like , though the result of ] is very evident.
	* Even after ], one year editing restriction, it is evident that Bharatveer continues to be problematic editor with huge POV pushing and Uncivility. Please also note that Bharatveer has been several times even during the editing restriction period.
	* With another user {{User5\|Tripping Nambiar}} having a very similar editing pattern, I suspect it is another sock of {{User2\|Bharatveer}} and a ] is '''highly''' neccessary and should be conclusive.
	* Today I happened to see this ( an article Bharatveer was active) removing references to reliable sources like ] and ] and adding references to dailypioneer.com by {{User\|76.184.222.189}} . An investigation led me to ] who is the the owner of the newspaper/website and also a ] ( a pro-hindutva party) MP , which makes it evident why the paper is baised. With Bharatveer himself in ] and Bharatveer username currently blocked , My stupid mind suspects a loop. It is good to see a CU who was editing as {{User\|76.184.222.189}} .
	With all these disruptive editing , It is clear that Bharatveer is hindrance to very purpose of Misplaced Pages. He was warned many times, but never did he try change his behavior and be constructive. -- ] ] - 05:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
	: A RFCU on Bharatveer ] was filed to help arbitation. -- ] ] - 12:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
	:: Pectore , I request you to stop bad faith and baseless accusations aganist all others. I am not fighting any "evil" Hindutava cabal. A[REDACTED] it is my duty to uphold the interest of[REDACTED] , so that its content is NPOV, reliable and verifible. Can you point to one instance that I have tried to do any kind of POV push like Bharatveer or Jobxavier.'' Half the cabal is not Hindu ?'' You must be kidding ? First of all, please seperate ] and ] . I have probably more knowledge of ] than you and have great respect and appreciation for the religion. As a avid reader of theology, history and religion, I have more sacred and religious books of Hinduism and Islam that you might probably have. Btw Jobxavier is a fake christian username and it is not rocket science to understand the interests of {{User5\|Jobxavier}} and his socks ( See ] and ] ) -- ] ] - 07:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	I am too very sorry to comment that Bharatveer has a history of disruptive editing in religious articles, especially POV hands in Hinduism and Christianity related stuffs. I wish to present some evidences below:

	*I started watching Bharathveer at where I was correcting some pov edits in ] article.

	*Later, in edit, he removed a reliable source of NDTV & pushed pov from an unreliable source.

	*I later moved to to gather more opinions. However, instead of discussing the issue, Bharathweer started edit-warring with me over that unreliable source in .

	With above interactions with me, I strongly feel that Bharathveer has POV hands in Hindu related articles & on the other hand, well knowledgeable in Misplaced Pages policies which he misinterprets to support his POV’s. Thanks. --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">]<small>]</small></span> 07:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by Relata Refero ====

	If the ArbCom deems it necessary, I can dig up episodes from earlier this calendar year, when User:Bharatveer was on the editing restriction of 1RR/W, and actually made one revert a week to regularly several articles. At the very least, s/he needs to be kept on this editing restriction. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">] (])</span> 14:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Statement by Moreschi ====
	Kindly ban. It's time we washed our hands of this user. Quite apart from anything else, I'm bored of blocking him. ] (]) 23:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Clerk notes ====
	*Bharatveer's statement transcribed from of User:Bharatveer's ].--] (]) 07:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
	**Recuse - I just blocked Googlean, who I hadn't remembered had made a statement in this case, so I am afraid I must recuse myself from any further clerking on this matter.--] (]) 03:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Arbitrator views and discussion ====
	*Please provide Bharatveer with notice of this request. If he wishes to respond while he is blocked, he can post a statement on his talkpage and a Clerk should copy it to the appropriate section here. ] (]) 21:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
	:* ] <small>(])</small> 21:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
	::*Thank you; awaiting statement from Bharatveer and input from other interested editors. ] (]) 00:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
	* Looking at Bharatveer's recent behavior, this seems to be a pretty obvious case; I've proposed a pair of motions below. ] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 01:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
	* I would like to see a presentation of evidence (and a response from Bharatveer) before voting on any motions. Toddst1, you also seem to have been in a content dispute with Bharatveer when you blocked him (), would you like to explain that? --] (]) 01:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Motions ====

	1) {{userlinks\|Bharatveer}} is banned from Misplaced Pages for a period of one year.

	:''There are 11 active Arbitrators, so a majority is 6.''

	Support:
	:# First choice. ] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 01:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
	:# First choice. Last year's editing restrictions did not stop the disruptive editing so this year a different approach is needed. ]] 17:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
	:# First choice. The requisite improvement in behaviour since last year's case is manifestly absent. ] (]) 20:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
	:# Third choice, prefer 1.2. ] (]) 05:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
	:# First choice. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

	Oppose:
	:#

	Abstain:
	:#

	1.1) {{userlinks\|Bharatveer}} is subject to a comprehensive editing restriction indefinitely. He is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. If he exceeds this limit, fails to discuss a content reversion, or makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling in ].

	:''There are 11 active Arbitrators, so a majority is 6.''

	Support:
	:# Second choice. ] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 01:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
	:# Second choice. ]] 17:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
	:# Second choice. ] (]) 20:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
	:# Second choice, prefer 1.2. ] (]) 05:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
	:# Third choice. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

	Oppose:
	:#

	Abstain:
	:#

	1.2) Based upon multiple incidents of inappropriate editing despite prior restrictions imposed in ], {{userlinks\|Bharatveer}} is banned from Misplaced Pages for a period of 60 days. Following this period, Bharatveer is subject to a comprehensive editing restriction indefinitely. He is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. If he exceeds this limit, fails to discuss a content reversion, or makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for an appropriate length of time up to 90 days. After three such blocks, he may be blocked for up to one year.

	:''There are 11 active Arbitrators, so a majority is 6.''

	Support:
	:# Proposed. ] (]) 05:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
	:# Second choice. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
	:# Third choice; I don't think a two-month block is going to be particularly beneficial here. ] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 06:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
	:# Also, second choice. ]] 20:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

	Oppose:
	:#

	Abstain:
	:#



	----

	=== Motion of clarification in the ]===

	In that case, the ArbCom took the line that userspace is not to be used to keep "laundry lists of grudges". This was in a remedy, rather than explicitly given as a principle. The general question of what can and cannot be placed in userspace is addressed also by ], and in the end comes down to whether given postings help the mission. Combining the explicit principles in that case, with the thought in the remedy, and policy, gives some relevant concepts on the acceptable use of userspace. The following represents our current interpretation.

	Certain kinds of uses are impermissible. These include but are not limited to:

	* Lists of grudges, problem users, diffs, just to make a point.
	* In general, there should not be negative postings of the attention-seeking kind.
	* Blogging: userspace is not for general commentary.
	* Pre-emptive developments running ahead of community or ArbCom sanctions

	Certain kinds of uses are permissible:

	* Userspace may be used to warehouse diffs, but only when intended as part of drafting for active dispute resolution.
	* Essays are obviously OK (use ], and <nowiki>{{essay}}</nowiki>, saying this is what they are). By their nature essays deal with “issues, not personalities”. If they ever cross that line, from the general issue to particular and personal allusions, they lose their privileged status.
	* Drafts of political as well as policy pieces are OK, say ahead of elections. It is helpful if they are dated and headed to indicate this.
	* Support for enforcement of existing sanctions, where there is a real and present need to share information.

	====Comment by ] (])====
	Procedural objection: the case is over a year old, and AGK's proposal could be made policy through the normal procedure of simply editing ], the official content guideline for such things, or by discussing it on the talk page of same. There is no reason for the Arbcom to get involved, the connection to the case is at best highly tangental, and the Arbcom really shouldn't be in the habit of revisiting old cases simply to make a non-urgent policy rewrite.

	Obviously, AGK's good faith is not in question - he was probably simply unaware of ]. ] (]) 03:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

	:You are misunderstanding what is happening here. AGK reformatted the motion - the motion itself was offered by ]. ]] 04:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
	::Sorry, the formatting is unclear, however, this only makes arbcom's rejection in favour of Charles editing ] more important: In the recent ], there was a a strong objection to what was seen as Arbcom writing policy. If arbcom decides to actually write policy by fiat, based on revisiting a year-old case, it would cause excessive controversy, all of which could be easily avoided if the Arbcom simply went to ] as respected members of the community and declaring their support for Charles' change. ] (]) 09:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

	::Considering that ] already makes clear that ''content is only permitted with the consent of the community'', this seems beside the point. Since the motion was drafted after I consulted on the ArbCom list, I'd be surprised if it didn't represent the "current interpretation", as it says. If I'm wrong about that, well, I'm wrong. It seems clearest to proceed in this way, clarifying first. Maybe there will be commentary that could be illuminating. (The clerk is just doing the clerk's job here, but the system has got Procrustean and templated.) ] (]) 12:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
	:::Erm, Shoemaker, I ''do'' know what WP:USER is. :)<br />Avruch has succinctly outlined precisely what I'm thinking here: I was clerking this thread, not making a motion. (Incidentally, only an Arbitrator may do that.)<br />] 12:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
	::::Yes, sorry, the layout was really unclear as to who made the motion. Your signature was the only one near the motion.
	::::On Charles Matthews' point - I'm really uncomfortable with the increase in arbcom power that this motion would represent - it effectively gives Arbcom the right to make policy simply by finding any past case to which the policy can be connected. Charles Matthews makes excellent suggestions for additions to ], and they could, in all likelihood, be added there uncontroversially by Charles as an editor. But an arbcom declaration in the same line puts any future decisions on the matter outside of the community's decision. It would mean that User page policy would, from then onwards, only be changeable by appeal to Arbcom.
	::::The basic problem is that, as there is no evidence that the community is unable to handle user page policy, nor that community-based means for implementing this have even been tried, going for the "nuclear option" of Arbcom-declared policy as the first option seems, at the very least, to set a bad precedent; and, at the worst, could cause unnecessary controversy and drama. ] (]) 18:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

	::No, I can't agree to that. ] is a content guideline, but it clearly needs to be read in the light of other policies, such as ] and ]. Content guidelines aren't free-standing entities in their own little world. I'm sure that is common ground. There are some nuances involved, as the draft makes clear. There should be no need for another Arbitration case to deal with grudge-bearing on the site: once is enough. This is a motion to clarify, and if the same material had been appended in Tobias Conradi as commentary, or had been prompted by a request, I doubt we'd be discussing it in this fashion. At this level of detail, it isn't evident there is a need to write all this into WP:USER, but spelling out some of the considerations a year on makes sense to me. At the very least, some people aren't too aware of the "case law" on this matter. ] (]) 10:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

	====Comment by ] (])====

	I would like to bring up some issues here. I have no intention of blowing this out of proportions but I had some concerns when reading this request for clarification.

	* Could you provide any recent evidence that the community has had issues with these types of pages?
	* If so, what evidence is there that the community has sought other venues to try and deal with these problems?
	* Has it got to the point where the community is unable to decide for itself?
	* If none of these happened why was this request simply not taken to the talk page of ]?
	* Given that this is a guideline, it is not enforceable, and if, via this clarification it is being made enforceable doesnt it make it policy?
	* I was under the impression that ARBCOM avoided editting or creating policy?

	I would be very glad if all of these questions could cleared up for me.

	''']''' <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 00:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

	====Comment by ] (])====
	Had this been an ordinary request for clarification, I don't think there'd have been a problem here. Turning it into a motion that's explicitly stuck back into the main case page is one though - I'm surprised that the 3 of you have abstained to reduce the majority, rather than procedurally opposed given the legitimate concerns here. This motion gives all appearances that ArbCom are becoming legislative.

	That said, I don't think anyone strongly disagrees with the proposals itself; rather, it's the manner in which its done. Why the reluctance to put it into policy? Its inclusion doesn't need to be limited to any one content guideline/policy (such as USER); the relevant parts can be put into relevant guidelines/policies (whether its HARASS or NOT or whatever else). WP:NLT was amended just before the Haines case closed so I don't see why this should be any different just because it would involve more than one page. Additionally, the proposals aren't remarkably 'new' - the community have come across these particular scenarios in the recent past and used common sense along with policy, rather than relying on any cases. So amending "case law" as opposed to "legislation" is questionable & unnecessary as far as this issue is concerned - I don't think we have, or ever will look to "case law" to handle what is specified in these proposals.

	This should not be a motion to amend a previous case. If the Committee wants to give guidance (on request), it shouldn't be any more than a request for clarification that gets archived on the talk page of the case. ] (]) 02:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

	====Comment by ]====

	The Arbcom are entitled to vote for this resolution if they want to.

	They may also vote on a resolution of if the moon is made of cheese.

	Neither of the votes can have any effect.

	The Arbitration Policy is clear on this, ArbCom have no ability to create new policy by fiat, no matter if they can tangentially link it to a case.

	Charles, I think this borders on an abuse of your station as Arbitrator to push for policy changes you want, and you should probably withdraw it and use the normal process of changing policy by consensus. What you ask for isn't greatly objectionable, but this is not the way to do it.--] (]) 15:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Background note from Avruch ====

	A recent case where the motion offered would have an impact can be found ]. I'm sure that Charles Matthews left it out because the principle has wider application and might not fit perfectly with this particular incident. ]] 03:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== A small point from Fut.Perf.====

	I stumble over this: ''"Lists of grudges, problem users, diffs, '''just to make a point.'''"'' (my emphasis).

	There's a bizarre tendency in Misplaced Pages-internal jargon, inspired no doubt by ], to treat the expression "to make a point" as if it denoted something bad. Worse, it appears that many people use the phrase "you are just making a point!" to mean: "you are saying something I don't like". Let me point out that to make points is the whole point of – well, of what? Language. Communicating. Why on earth would anybody ever write down anything if not in order to get his point across? My point being, please point out more precisely what you mean at that point. Thank you. ] ] 12:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

	:Usually as in "We know where you live". People don't say that to start a conversation. What is another concise way to explain why they say that? ] (]) 19:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

	:: I fail to get your point. Are you seriously comparing the collection of[REDACTED] complaints to a veiled threat of physical violence? (That, incidentally, is a "concise way to explain why they say that" other phrase). – But anyway, on further consideration, I think I agree with Shoemaker's Holiday. There is no indication the community isn't able to decide on its own what the legitimate limits of userspace writing are. As long as the community is not in an intractable, serious and divisive impasse about how to handle this issue, you guys have no business deciding what the policy should be. – By the way, ''"Pre-emptive developments running ahead of community or ArbCom sanctions"'' is another one that goes beyond my semantic guessing capacities. ] ] 21:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

	====A small point from Jehochman====
	The second motion specifies what can be kept for the purpose of "dispute resolution". What about keeping lists of diffs or notes about other editors (possibly of a derogatory nature) for elections, such as ], ] and ]? I think it would be good for clarity to explicitly add or exclude such uses. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

	====Comment from Durova====
	Committee members, you should be proposing this on the guideline talk page in your normal role as editors. When and if the community tries and fails to resolve such matters and all normal means have been exhausted, then an arbitration motion along these lines might become credible. No evidence has been put forward that normal means have been tried and the initiating motion specifically expresses a desire to get ahead of events. Proactive changes are the community's responsibility. As a body you are the last step in dispute resolution. Both the original motion and the alternate are profoundly out of order. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 15:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Clerk notes ====
	*Voting section below put into the usual format for these motions. ] 21:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

	==== Arbitrator views and discussion ====
	* <p>There are two issues here. The general principle that user space is for matters that benefit the project, and remains communally owned and subject to community feelings. If used to hold contentious "blame lists" these need to be well justified in line with the traditional principle that once something's over, it's history. If there is contentious problematic material then ultimately it is a wiki page, not ]. This is a principle covered in ], and which we referred to and affirmed in our decision "]". But that was all we did. We did not create policy, not change it, we affirmed what was already well established as being written within existing norms.</p><p>Administrators may need assurance that they will not be treated as misusing administrative tools, if they were stricter on deleting or blanking such content that appears to be problematic in user space. That's fair to raise, since ultimately if there were a question, we would be asked to rule on it. I'd feel comfortable saying how I see the aim of that guideline, and how I'd handle such content, and to give assurance/guidance that some kinds of action will not usually be seen as a problem by us, as measured against norms of the community. Those are well within our usual remit. I would not however require Arbcom to write policy or guidelines in doing so. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] \| ])</span></sup> 07:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

	====Motion====
	{Here should be placed the precise text of the motion—that is, what decision is to be passed, and what current case decision it should supersede. Or, alternatively, here should be placed the text of the "official statement" supporting the decision. Clerk assistance available upon ]! ] 21:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)}

	:''There are 10 active Arbitrators, so a majority is 6.''
	*Support:
	:#Support ] (]) 19:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC) (proposing)
	:#:Comment: the proposal below to move them into a case that will soon be voting is not anything I have a big problem with. They've been looked at here, and if they are in some way "folded" as comment into a case, that will serve. The content itself seems not to be so contentious for the ArbCom, so the draft has done its work. ] (]) 18:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
	:#: Per FloNight's vote: OK then, this turns into an annexe of a Workshop for something. Others please edit as necessary. ] (]) 19:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
	:# Clear enough, and will help deal with the issue we've had in which people cite the case as an exclusive, rather than inclusive, list. ] ] 19:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

	*Oppose:
	:# This issue comes up regularly and there is confusion about it so interpretation of the issue by ArbCom will be beneficial. But I also prefer including this in an active case for the reasons stated by Newyorkbrad. ]] 19:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
	:# We'll handle this in ''Kuban Kazak-Hillock65''. ] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 21:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
	:# In favor of #2 that is more solidly grounded. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] \| ])</span></sup> 07:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
	:# The motion has been blanked. ] (]) 11:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

	*Abstain:
	:#Although I am in general agreement with Charles Matthews' proposals, and I do not believe any great harm would come of our adopting them in the fashion proposed here, there appears to be some objection that the action proposed would be somewhat legislative in character, i.e., the Arbitration Committee creating or revising policy outside the scope of a pending dispute. Working for the adoption of these ideas either through editing of ] or by proposing them as principles in the pending ''Piotrus 2'' and ''Kuban Kazak'' cases, both of which involve disputes over the use of userspace, may provide a more readily accepted vehicle for addressing the issues presented. ] (]) 00:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
	:#: <s>Per NYB. This is really guidance rather than an actionable provision, but there are better venues available for putting this forward. ] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 01:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)</s>
	:# I also agree with Brad. --] (]) 01:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


	=====Alternate motion =====
	2) The Committee affirms and clarifies the principle that was stated as a ] in the ]:

	# User space is communally owned. It is generally left to the ] user to manage, for the benefit of the project, but within agreed communal guidelines. (The guideline ] applies.)
	# While users have wide discretion to use that space as they see fit, it is the Committee's understanding of present communal "best practice" and consensus, that lists of fault-finding diffs, users described as "problem users", negative postings, and other matters of a generally uncollegial kind, should be written only if needed, kept only for a limited period, and only for imminent use in ] or other reasonable and short term dispute handling. They should not be allowed - deliberately, through passage of time, good faith, wilful allusion, or neglect - to create some kind of perennial "hall of shame" or list of "disapproved, shunned or negatively viewed users".
	# The Committee also notes that the community has long held that user space is not to be excessively used for blogging, promotion (including unreasonable self-promotion), and various other purposes.
	# Users are encouraged to avoid keeping such content on the wiki when there is no good cause. Uninvolved users and administrators are encouraged to be willing to check whether such pages may be removed, if they appear to be dormant, redundant, or not presently "live".
	# The Arbitration Committee affirms that it will not usually consider users who blank or (if necessary) delete such matters in user space, to have abused their editing or administrative access, ''provided'':- the content was broadly of the types above, the deletion or blanking was in good faith, discussed (if possibly "live"), not excessive, and the matter handled courteously and reasonably, with administrative deletion avoided unless either egregious, agreed by usual processes, or historic revisions are being persistently linked (on or off wiki).
	# ], provision of the content of such deleted pages to the userspace "owner" is at administrator discretion, if reasonably useful for future Misplaced Pages community purposes, and the user has good reason and appears to be requesting it for good faith purposes. '''Administrators should be aware that pages of this kind may contain egregiously (unhelpfully) disruptive, defamatory and/or privacy breaching material, and should redact these from any text forwarded, if they decide to do so'''.
	:Nothing written above is intended to discourage recording support and evidence concerning enforcement of an ''existing sanction'', where there is a real and foreseeable project benefit to sharing information. However such matters should ideally be on a case page rather than userspace, where one exists.


	*Support:
	:# ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] \| ])</span></sup> 07:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC) I think this is how it should be said. #5 could be redundant or useful, I can't quite decide.
	:# Support as an analysis of policy and guidance to users as to how the committee is likely to view their questionable user sub-pages. ] (]) 11:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
	:# Fine, although this could be condensed somewhat. ] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 17:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
	:# Whatever - no surprise that FT2 and I write things differently. ] (]) 10:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
	:#: Concur. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] \| ])</span></sup> 01:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
	:#Insufficiently concise, but yeah. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
	*Oppose:
	:#Per my comment on the original motion and I'll explain further. I don't think we should use new motions for old cases as tools to address current issues unless absolutely necessary. Our rulings are not suppose to set precedents for future rulings or set policy, so unless an previous ruling needs to be adjusted for an serious error in a Fof or a remedy needs to be adjusted, cases ruling should be left unchanged. The issue of the Committee writing policy and guidelines is of great concern to many members of the Community. I think that we need to be sensitive to these concerns by limiting our use of our policy/guideline interpretation to active situation where clarification is needed to clear up a problem. ]] 14:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

	:::I quite understand the concern. If, though, remedies cannot in some sense be "promoted" to Principles in a case, retrospectively, then I think the way for example the Cla68 case was drafted seems less satisfactory. If we have to proceed from remedy "A, B and C shouldn't do negative thing X" by simply widening the list of editors, then we have some problem. "Negative thing X" should then have been thought of as a Principle, in the terms "Doing X is negative for the project, at least under the following circumstances." And the "circumstances" would need to be drawn up broadly. I think this is a recipe for verbiage. Having indicated "X is negative" in a remedy, the transition to "no one should do it, as far as we're concerned and in normal circumstances" is what people should read. We are not going to get everything tidily expressed, and clarifying our view later and when more bad tricks have been found is just housework, in my view. ] (]) 17:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

	*Abstain:
	:# Per my comment on the original motion. ] (]) 05:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

	----

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

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)

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)

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 (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)

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)
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)

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)

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).

Categories: