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

Revision as of 19:39, 22 July 2006 view sourceArthur Ellis (talk \| contribs)1,447 edits →Statement of {{user\|Bucketsofg}}← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 03:40, 31 January 2023 view source AmandaNP (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators45,699 edits What the actual fuckTags: Replaced Undo
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Wikimedia project page}}
	{{shortcut\|], ]}}
			<noinclude>{{pp-protected\|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>
			{{/Header}}
			{{/Case}}
			{{/Clarification and Amendment}}
			{{/Motions}}
			{{/Enforcement}}

			]
	A '''request for arbitration''' is the last step of ]. Before requesting arbitration, please review ] you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the ] (ArbCom).
			]
	{{clearright}}
	{{dispute-resolution}}
	{{ArbComOpenTasks}}
	The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and (exceptionally) to summarily review new evidence and update the findings and decisions of a previous case. Review is likely to be appropriate if later events indicate the original ruling on scope or enforcement was too limited and does not adequately address the situation, or if new evidence suggests the findings of fact were significantly in error.

	The procedure for accepting requests is described in the ]. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. If your case is accepted for arbitration, the arbitrator or clerk will create an evidence page that you can use to provide more detail. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person against whom you lodge a complaint.

	'''0/0/0/0''' corresponds to Arbitrators' votes to '''accept/reject/]/other'''. Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after four '''accept''' votes are cast. When a case is opened, a notice that includes a link to a newly created evidence page will be posted to each participant's talk page. See the <i>]</i> section of the arbitration policy page for details.

	This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators or ] may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Please do not open cases; only an Arbitrator or clerk may do so.

	'''See also'''
	*]
	*]
	*] - Recommended reading: An (unofficial) guide to presenting effective Arbitration cases.
	*] - Any user can request help here if it involves the violation of an ArbCom decision
	*] (shortcut ])
	*]
	*]

	<br><div class="plainlinks"><div style="font-size: 85%"> </div></div><br>

	== How to list cases ==
	Under the '''Current requests''' section below:

	*''Click the "" tab on the right of the screen appearing above the section break line;''
	*''Copy the full formatting '''template''' (text will be visible in edit mode), omitting the lines which say "BEGIN" and "END TEMPLATE";''
	*''Paste template text where it says "ADD CASE BELOW";''
	*''Follow instructions on comments (indented), and fill out the form;''
	*''Remove the template comments (indented).''

	''Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template''

	== Current requests ==
	<!-- // BEGIN TEMPLATE - copy text below (not this line) //

	=== Case name ===

	==== Involved parties ====

	:

	; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
	:
	; Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried

	==== Statement by party 1 ====
	:

	==== Statement by party 2 ====
	: (Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

	==== Clerk notes ====
	: (This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)
	==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0) ====

	----

	// END TEMPLATE - copy text above (not this line) // -->
	<!-- ADD CASE BELOW NEW REQUESTS AT THE TOP-->

	=== Sarner===

	==== Involved parties ====

	: ] filed by this user.
	]
	Harasses me, makes false accusations, recently posted "vandalism" on my user talk page without any basis.

	; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
	: ] has been warned by others and previous mediation failed and resulted in his "soft-ban" from ] page and ban from editing ] page.
	::Yes, but did you tell him ''of this RfAr?'' ] 18:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

	; Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried
	Sarner has shown no desire to develop consensus or to collaborate. Several mediators and an advocate have been involved in the prior dispute on the ] page. Several other editors have also been the victim of his attacks.

	==== Statement by DPeterson ====
	: Sarner placed a "vandalism" notice on my talk page. There is no basis for this. He has harassed me with false accusations and attacks. He has resisted building consensus or collaborating, resulting in his ban from editing the ] page and ] page. He is now taking this fight to my talk page. ] 15:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

	==== Statement by party 2 ====
	: (Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

	==== Clerk notes ====
	: (This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)
	==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0) ====

	----

	=== ]===

	==== Involved parties ====

	: ]
	: ]

	=====Summary of case=====

	] engages in:

	# Reverting with little or no serious discussion
	# Making sweeping edits and deletions with misleading subject lines
	# Contentious and confrontational discussion page interactions
	# Walking editors in circles on discussion pages
	# Idiosyncratic use of language and translations
	# Attempts to revise Misplaced Pages categories citing obscure minority-view scholarship to reflect narrow POV
	# Revising articles citing obscure minority-view scholarship to reflect narrow POV
	# Sanitizing articles about right-wing groups and their ties to the far right and neofascism
	# POV pushing through wholesale deletion of the term "far right" from numerous pages

	Seeking sanctions to block further editing by ] of articles involving the Political Left and Political Right, or other less severe sanctions deemed appropriate.

	====Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request====

	: ] (filed by this editor)
	: ]

	====Other Editors Notified====
	:]
	:]
	:]
	:]
	:]
	:]

	====Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried====

	Requests for Comment for ] and ] ; ] ;
	]

	Mediation declined at ] ; ]
	; ] ; ]
	.

	==== Statement by {{user\|Cberlet}} ====
	] is an aggressive and confrontational editor with an idiosyncratic POV and a combative style that is contentious and very disruptive. ] deletes whole sections of articles with little or no serious discussion: ]
	. ] performs unreasonable deletions to POV push: ,
	, ,
	.

	] has launched a campaign or Renaming/Deleting Categories in POV way
	, , , , , .

	In a short time ] has lined up a number of editors who are frustrated with the situation (see below). I note that ] has been blocked for 3RR . Also, ] edits in a tag team fashion with ], see and .

	The discussion on the page ] is an example of dubious translation and language issues, using an obscure cite to challenge majority scholarship, POV pushing, and arguing in circles. See: .

	] engages in rapid-fire discussions on multiple pages, frequently declaring there is a consensus when none exists or that there is no discussion, has the same debate on multiple pages with multiple editors, then procedes to edit in an idiosyncratic POV way. The following series of edits was accomplished between the time I last asked for agreement for mediation and ]responding that he could not discuss the suggestion because an artitration was filed. I filed the arbitration because it was clear that ] was going to continue his pattern of disruptive and combative edits and circular discussion page entries:
	,, , , , , ,
	, , , , .

	There are several editors who have added their comments and diffs below.

	--] 15:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	* This RFAr filing has no merit. I have only declined mediation once, namely , because there was still an on-going discussion on ], which continued ]. About my editing, I think it suffices to say that all my edits are sourced (to name a few) and I am always happy to provide direct quotes from the sources I use . On multiple occasions I have asked ] to use '''direct quotes''' or make '''explicit''' what his references are saying , alas to no avail. That this was needed was also put forth by other wikipedia editors . And in the rare cases ] is explicit, he uses a piece from the ], while other sources should be available.
	*About my deletion of the section in the ] article , that that section was unbalanced and POV, which was later acknowledged here
	*About putting up articles or categories up for deletion, maybe ] should have included these as well: . See also ].
	*I have only been blocked once for "3RR," this was because other editors kept removing a POV tag, after I went to the talk page to discuss my inclusion of this tag. One of these editors, ], was later found to be in contempt with the 3RR rule in removing this POV tag.. See also ].
	* The goal which ] seeks in this RFAr, "Seeking sanctions to block further editing by Intangible of articles involving the Political Left and Political Right, or other less severe sanctions deemed appropriate," is utterly vague. I can only see this process as a character assassination; something that has become a custom of ] ever since calling me an "apologist for neofascism." I do not think ArbCom should also become part of this. Nonetheless, if need be, I am happy to defend this case more fully, to stop this pestering.
	* ] 23:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

	====Comment by ]====

	] engaged in edit warring with regard to the article on ], and was eventually for violating ]. In violation of ], he insisted on inserting a dubious claim into the article's lead. When asked to back up the claim, he provided a nearly 120 year-old, unreliable source. When that was removed, he claimed that the article violated NPOV and inserted a POV tag. He repeatedly re-inserted this tag, regardless of whoever removed it. He continues to edit the article with POV/false information. Discussion proved , as Intangible feels strongly about his . His POV bias became clear when he claimed that being a socialist was incompatible with supporting liberty. Much the same thing occurred at ], and he disruptively edited the template to . I only ask that Intangible be reminded, at least, of ], ], ], and ]. --] 20:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

	====Comment by ]====
	Intangible has a very confrontational style. He seems to be unable to accept changes that are outside what he believes is the truth. The only way to bring NPOV into such articles, seems to be to go along with his tendency to start an edit war, an hoping that during the conflict a third party can convince him to partially concede.

	I seem to find it harder and harder to go along with this confrontational style, and have a tendency to give up, letting him have his POV-truth.

	Some examples :
	* While reverting vandalism, Intangible reverted good faith edits by TedMundy. After a revert back by TedMundy, by Intangible ("''use the talk page first when you want to remove references here''"). Revert back by TedMundy, commenting "''What references ? I edited the text, made it better. No need to ask permission first, I should think.''", upon which Intangible again : "''I don't have time for silly games, so use the talk page first''". I step in, and revert back : "''I don't see why user TedMundy should first confer on the talk page''". from Intangible : "''surely it can be included though''". Revert back from myself :"''I agree with TedMundy. This belongs in the Vlaams Blok article''", upon which Intangible goes to my talk page : . My answer on his talk page : , upon which Intangible ] : "''instead of proving a POINT, I will add the reference back again''". Another revert from me, following some edits by me and another user, and a final revert back by that other user, accompanied by a by that user on me and TedMundy on the talk page.
	* ], 15 July 2006. Between edits and : discussion between myself and Intangible about the content of the criticism section. Intangible inserts the vision of a minority far right group, using weasel words, trying to depict them as mainstream. I tried to find some middle ground, but I gave up.
	* ] recently died in Antwerp, Belgium. Initially, press coverage led to believe that he was the victim of a beating by 6 youths of North African descent. Later was revealed that he himself had far right connections, that he initiated the fight in question, and that his death was primarily caused by his bad condition, and only circumstantially by the fight (that he started himself). The article as it is now depicts only the first, racially coloured story. I've tried to bring NPOV into it, giving two independent sources, but my edits were plainly reverted by Intangible, while commenting : "rv to sane version - see talk page". The page meanwhile has been blocked. The discussion on changes continues on the talk page, where he refuses to cooperate to find a middle ground, but instead suffises with trying to minimise the value of the sources provided. --] 21:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

	====Comment by ]====

	] is a very tendentious editor who has consistently demonstrated an incapacity or unwillingness to refrain from promoting his point of view in political articles. I have observed his intransigent, partisan editing style in the ] article, in particular. He single-handedly commandeered the article (being blocked as a result ) to remove the term '']'' as a description of the party, claiming that the definition of the term is ambiguous and that the word therefore cannot be used in a neutral sense. This is despite a ] (], with Intangible being the sole excpetion, of course) that the National Front is far-right. In other words, he resorted to a specious, tangential argument about semantics to minimise a consensus among some of the most reputable, scholarly sources and to promote his point of view that the FN is not far-right. Information on Misplaced Pages is supposed to be derived from ]—that is one of the core tenets of this encyclopedia. But Intangible's ignorance of reputable sources in the ] article indicates that he/she is willing to violate the essence of Misplaced Pages when the sources contradict his/her beliefs. That is something I find roundly unacceptable. -- ] 23:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

	==== Comment by ] ====
	Intangible has the right to his own opinions, but not to delete the term "far right" from a serie of articles and categories. Does he thinks, as does ], ]'s daughter, that Le Pen has gone too far? Does he think, as do most European far right parties (including ]) that the French ] is not a respectable party, and should become so by deleting the reference to its being a (proud) member of the far right? Despite his apparent knowledge (Intangible often likes bringing quotes from various books, showing a scholarly profile), he has nothing else more important to do than endlessly removing these NPOV terms used by all political scientists ("left" & "right wing" being particularly relevant to France, as explained a thousand times to him during the deletion debate of left & right wing categories; see for the last one of them]. Having discovered the recently created article on ], based on the French ], a obvious and necessary article (and category) to regroup such similar groups such as ]'s ], ]'s ], the ], etc., Intangible has only one desire: asking for its deletion, or at least separating it into "fascist" and "nationalist leagues". He thus proposes a new CfD (proposing ten CfD at the same time, all about the same subject), . This new CfD is an obvious trolling attempt. Two solutions possible: either Intangible is not an idiot, and knows what he's doing. In this case, he would wisely limits himself to articles he knows something about, and let others of which he is ignorant alone. Anybody familiar with French far right leagues know that breaking this category up into "nationalist" leagues on one hand, "fascist leagues" on the other hand, would be very difficult, as it engages all of the debate on the existence on a "French Fascism" (while the term "far right leagues" doesn't imply if these leagues were fascist or not; that they were "nationalist" is an evidence, of which Intangible is of course aware). Thus Intangible is only asking this CfD to make us loose time on Misplaced Pages. Of course, Misplaced Pages will survive without us, and we could let Intangible at his little work. If he wisely uses his summmer, he could end up deleting tens of categories and the use of the term "right" and "far right" from hundreds of articles where the consensus between editors agreed on its use. The other solution, of course, is that Intangible is an idiot, whom interfers in articles he knows nothing about with only his ideological stance as navigational tool. This would explain why he doesn't find time to make more interesting edits (should I add: and combative? There are lots of smarter ways to support far right parties than by erasing the term "far right" from its pages, Intangible has got a defensive posture that puts him in an agressive, biting, position; if he had real, relevant info to defend his views, why doesn't he adds them instead of losing time in edit-warring over the silly inclusion or not of "far right" in the Front National page, although 99% of Frenchmen and all political polls class it as a far right party?) Let me tell you that I don't believe Intangible is an idiot, but he has dedicated himself to provoking others users in stupid, time-consuming, edit-warring, because Intangible seems to be part of this ultra-minority of people (a group which has nothing new, in the same way that ]'s predictions on the end of history and the victory of the liberal democracies were about 50 years late on the same statements made (with a little bit more irony) by ]) that doesn't believe anymore in the distinction ] inherited from the French Revolution. Should we recall that ] was the first movement to declare itself above these political lines which divided the nation, instead of the nation gathering itself around its ''fuhrer'' and against all strangers, Jews, Black people (anti-Black racism in Nazi Germany is often overlooked), Gays, disabled people, communists and all other obviously "]"? Someone who has nothing else on Misplaced Pages to do then enter conflicts with other users because he wants to remove all references to "left" and "right wing" obviously has nothing interesting to bring to us, but plenty of occasions to troll around. Here are a few more trollish edits by Intangible, , , - I let him here, will reverse just now, let's see in how much times he rv this - ) ] ), by ]. Deletion of "far right" at ]: , , , , and on , , , ... A ''non-exhaustive'' list may be found on Cberlet's workspace, . ] 14:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
	:PS: Intangible's pretext that "left", "right" and "far right" are terms that should be censored on behalf of ] is ridiculous. First of all, politics is about value judgments, so he can let aside his pure innocence and naivety. More importantly, The ] article clearly provides its sources for its qualification as "far right" which is almost universally recognized. Politics is about taking sides, although it's also about lying about one's own position and the others' positions; this doesn't take out the reality of the "left-wing" criteria, and in any cases, if Intangible really has problems with this distinction, this debate should take place at ] and nowhere else. Furthermore, his comment about Cberlet's use of a ''Journal of Historical Review'' article in the ] article is close to an ad hominen attack where he tries to reverse the charge and let Cberlet pass as a revisionist. This is quite indecent especially in the views that Cberlet's citation was there to source a quote from Alain de Benoist, that the article is about a far right movement not totally unrelated with the revisionist galaxy, and all the more if you see a bit on the "Nouvelle droite" talk page: Intangible is trying since a month to transform the ] in the ], forcing Cberlet to endlessly repeat the same evidences. If this isn't trolling, than what is? ] 14:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
	*Intangible's (removal of "far right" and other contents)
	* (dl "far right")

	====Comment by other editor 2====

	==== Clerk notes ====
	: (This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)
	==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/0/0/0) ====
	*Accept. ]·] 16:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


	----

	=== ] ===

	==== Involved parties ====

	:]
	:]
	:]
	:]
	:]
	:]
	:]
	:]
	:]
	:et al

	==== Users who have attempted to defuse the situation ====

	:]
	:]
	:]
	:]
	:]
	:et al

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

	; Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried
	Several users, including at least two administrators, have attempted to mediate to no avail.

	==== List of affected articles ====
	*{{la\|Mark Bourrie}}
	*{{la\|Warren Kinsella}}
	*{{la\|Pierre Bourque (journalist)}}
	*{{la\|Rachel Marsden}}
	*{{la\|Elizabeth May (environmentalist)}}

	other editors feel free to add more, this is probably an incomplete list

	==== Statement by {{user\|RadioKirk}} ====
	A long-running war has occurred over this page with one side (and his/her/their socks) attempting to paint this person in the best light possible and the other side (and his/her/their socks) attempting to paint him in the worst possible light. Attempts at mediation have been manifold and have met with only limited success. It is time for several accounts to be banned from this article and anything peripheral (including but not limited to ], who may be editing this article under different names).

	==== Statement by Thatcher131 ====
	'''My involvement''' I have not edited any of the articles in question. I became aware of the situation when a number of Canadian IP addresses vandalized ], adding slurs against Warren Kinsella.

	'''The problem''' Warren Kinsella and Mark Bourrie are two Canadian bloggers/political figures who are in conflict in real life, including reciprocal threats of legal action. The dispute is spilling over into wikipedia, with tendentious editing, POV pushing and multiple 3RR violations on all sides. Unfortunately, most of the participants are anonymous IP addresses, so the only practical remedy (other than permanently semi-protecting the articles involved) may be to empower admins to block IP addresses that fit the pattern without having to warn 4 times and assume good faith.

	*''']''' formerly edited as {{user\|Mark Bourrie}}, changed his name to {{user\|Ceraurus}}, who was then indef-blocked. A few days later, {{user\|Arthur Ellis}} appeared, editing the same articles and pushing the same POV (pro-Bourrie and anti-Kinsella). The article ] has also been heavily edited by a number of IP addresses likely linked to Ellis. On July 5, ] posted links on his blog to ] and ], which described allegations that Arthur Ellis, was really Mark Bourrie. Immediately, a series of Canadian IP addresses began blanking the pages and posting slurs against Kinsella, so that readers of Kinsella's blog would see the slurs and not the sockpuppet allegations. Pro-Bourrie and anti-Kinsella IPs and socks continue to appear. See ]. Policy violations include ], ], ], ], ].

	*''']''' The article ] has been edited from a highly negative POV by an IP user (different ISP than Arthur Ellis) who is probably Kinsella or a strong supporter.

	*''']''' is a supporter of Kinsella and thus an opponent of Bourrie/Arthur Ellis. Ellis has alleged that {{user\|Pete Peters}} (whose first edit was June 27) is really Bourque, but the checkuser request was ]. However, a different IP ''has'' made a number of hagiographic and personal edits to the article, suggesting that this IP may in fact be Bourque; this has led to more than one edit war between anonymous IPs representing the Bourrie side and the Bourque/Kinsella side.

	'''Reply to Pete Peters''' I have not studied the situation any more thoroughly than the brief summary above and have no opinion on your identity or behavior, except that in general there has been a lot of edit warring on these articles from both sides. My comment on Mackensen's talk page was in reference to the anonymous IP addresses that began vandalizing ] after Kinsella linked to it on his blog (said vandalism coming, of course, from the anti-Kinsella side of the conflict).

	'''Reply to JGGardiner''' I saw the notice on ANI regarding Peters and I agree it looked like Peters was trying to branch out to other areas and was being hounded by the same range of IPs that often make pro-Bourrie/Ellis and anti-Kinsella edits.

	==== Statement by {{user\|Fuhghettaboutit}} ====
	My role in this matter was quite limited. Having noted the contention displayed by numerous, warring contributors to the page, and that some of that contention was specific to whether certain sources and information provided by those sources was proper or not, I hoped that converting the sources, then all embedded hyperlinks, to more transparent inline citations would have some ameliorative effect. I did so (along with a few minor stylistic changes) first and after the next reference addition failed to follow suit, again .

	I have not followed the dispute in great detail but a review of the talk page today, including the two archives (], ]), shows great effort and patience by a number of users and admins to defuse the situation over more than six months. Despite these efforts, and after over 500 talk page posts, the page is at square one. shows how charged the page is and is likely to remain.

	I leave it for the those more familiar with the active players to explore exactly who should and who should not be blocked from editing this and related articles, but given the active recent warring, blocks appear warranted and necessary.--] 00:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

	==== Statement by {{user\|Crzrussian}} ====
	I originally came to be involved in the edit war over ] after reviewing and denying by ] against ]. Since then the edit war simmered on and off on the article talk page. The article was protected and unprotected a total of eight times. Arthur Ellis received two blocks from me, both for 24 hours, for 3RR violations. He's still serving the second block as I write these words. His sock, ] was indefblocked by me earlier today after RFCU results came back positive. Pete is serving a one-week block imposed today for sustained edit warring, a bad-faith AfD nomination (]) and repeated taunting of Arthur on the article talk page. Please note that I was only involved with these users insofar as ], and did not participate in settling their other edit wars over different articles. Arthur also nominated for CSD and AfD in bad faith previously. (e.g. ] etc.)

	Both editors have a long history of personal attacks, many coming against myself recently. "Marie" also made unspecified legal-sounding threats against me, which are plainly scary.

	I would like the ArbCom to ban these users and various Ottawa- and Toronto-based socks from editing any article relating to Kinsella/Bourrie/Bourque/Guite - I would be glad to help compile a list if this case is accepted.

	I am sorry I did not bring this RfAr a lot earlier. It was a result of my unfamiliarity with and fear of this process, bourne out of my extreme aversion to wiki-politics. - <b>]</b><small> ]/]</small> 02:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
	:'''Re: the accusations of partiality towards Peters and against Ellis''', yes, I did initially treat Ellis more strictly, because he was the one intent on actively slandering Kinsella and Peters looked like he was defending the integrity of the article (this may or may not have been the case, but this was my goodfaith impression. As to the disparity in block lengths, Ellis' 24hr block was handed out earlier, before the RFCU came back, and only on the basis of 3RR. An another situation, I would have certainly extended it after the RFCU, but now that the RfAr has begun, I see no point. As to Peters' block: I continue to stand by it; the length was preëmptively explained; and I vigorously deny making it longer than normal in order to shield myself from allegations of partiality. - <b>]</b><small> ]/]</small> 16:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
	'''Reply to Arthur Ellis #2''': No, I did not "admit bias". I was, at all points, not biased, and have no dog in this fight. Also, I did not "stuff" any talk page comments into archives - I merely archived the talk page, preserving all the comments. You have a penchant for negative presumptions. - <b>]</b><small> ]/]</small> 19:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

	==== Statement by {{user\|Geedubber}} ====
	I first got involved with this when I noticed Pete Peters had accused Arthur Ellis of being Ceraurus/Mark Bourrie on the Mark Bourrie page. I told him that these were unacceptable edits and that RFCU was the correct place for those accusations. I myself had the same suspicions though, since Ellis' very first edit was to complain about the Ceraurus block. After two RFCU requests, the result came back inconclusive. Arthur Ellis then filed a revenge RFCU against Pete Peters(which was promptly denied). I noticed that Arthur Ellis had been block for 24hrs for edit-warring with Pete Peters on the Warren Kinsella page. The Kinsella page got protected so I went and found citations for everything so that nothing could be disputed and the page could be unprotected. The page got unprotected and was generally improved, but Arthur Ellis kept trying to add material with dubious sources, ie. kinsellasux.com (a website operated by Mark Bourrie). I would remove anything that wasn't sourced properly, and he almost got in an edit war with me. When I warned him that he was about to break 3RR again (and get blocked for a second time that week), he accused me of acting "dishonestly and maliciously". I reworked much of the Kinsella page trying to get a version that pleased both users. Arthur Ellis and Pete Peter got in an edit war again, the page got protected again, and I tried to work things out on the talk page. The page got unprotected and I made a version that they were both chill with.... and then the Ottawa IPs started attacking the page. It got protected again. Other pages that are involved in this whole thing are the ] and ] (both Kinsella related topics). Ellis repeatedly tried to list them for CSD even though numerous admins told him that AFD was the proper venue. During the AFD for those two pages numerous Magma IPs voted to delete. ] 05:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

	'''Response to Statement by Arthur Ellis''': In Ellis's statment, he claims that he uses a Sympatico (Bell Canada) account to connect, but he even made that claim from a Magma IP] 19:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

	==== Statement by {{user\|Yanksox}} ====
	My limited experience in this dispute has only been really on the Kinsella talk page attempting to resolve this aggressive disagreement. I have seen the actions of specifically Ellis and Peters take their action on other pages and belligerently attack each other, the subjects of articles and other users. Their behavior is persistent and it appears that they are editing with an agenda, no approachable middle ground has made itself clearly visible and within reach. The situation has extended so far out with minor meticulous edits with different sources and alterations of POV. The current dispute is also extremely concerning due to the fact that users are stating that the main editors ''involved'' in the dispute are influenced by outside circumstances, causing a severe conflict of interest. This massive revert war has spread out too far and outside intervention is needed to put it to a halt. ]] 11:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


	==== Statement by {{user\|Arthur Ellis}}====

	No effort was made at mediation or any other dispute resolution. Two admins, one of whom admits his bias against me (for "slandering" Kinsella with sourced material -- I challenge him to find anything I posted that was not sourced) and another who does not admit bias, but should, have been involved in this dispute. When consensus was achieved on the article -- July 1 and July 8 -- admin crazyrussian actually allowed Peters to dismantle the consensus version. This is ''very'' clear in the talk page and the edits for those dates. Crazyrussian very quickly stuffed them into archives, but they survive.

	I edited on Misplaced Pages for about a month before I ever saw the Kinsella page. I added quite a bit of material to entries on history, transportation and geography without any edit warring or reversions.

	I found myself drawn into the controversy after reading the Kinsella entry and seeing that it was, originally, a vanity project to promote Kinsella and in related pages, his band and his book, Party Favours. I, along with a couple of other posters, sourced and wrote a more accurate section on Kinsella's role in the lead-up to the Sponsorship Scandal. It was constantly reverted and rewritten, often by an IP that once actually said it was Kinsella (giving permission to use a photo) to downplay Kinsella's role in this, admittedly, complicated ad contract scheme. The "sponsorshgip scandal" cost Canadian taxpayers $100 million in graft and kickbacks, and resulted in the national Liberal Party being disgraced and defeated this year.
	After my first edits of the Kinsella piece Pete Peters registered (in late June) and immediately began trolling my edits, posting sock puppet tags on my talk page, and, everywhere he could, tried to discredit my edits by saying I was a sock puppet for a Misplaced Pages editor whose account is indefintely blockled because of a revert war with (ironically), Homeontherange. In fact, his first Misplaced Pages post was to accuse me of sock puppetry.

	We got into edit warring on several pages, and my behaviour was quite reprehensible. I did work with a couple of people in Ottawa through IPs to try to keep the sourced and complete Kinsella entry. I did use some IPs as socks in this dispute, but I was not the only one. I wish I had not acted that way, but I believe it is important for Misplaced Pages to be factual. I also believe that Pete Peters both registered and acted in bad faith, goaded me, and got quite good at pushing my buttons. I believe he was also very good, at least for a while, at currying favor with Misplaced Pages admins, especially Crzrussian.

	I believe I never initiated personal attacks. I did, however, respond aggressively to repeated (and repeated and repeated) provocations by Pete Peters and, to a lesser extent, JCCUrrie and Geedubber. In the discussion, which I hope you will read, I ask them time and again to deal with facts of the entry -- each of which was sourced -- and discuss the points they believe are wrong, but, from Peters, I got personal abuse. CrzRussian, believing, as he says, that I was "slandering" (in print it's called libel, but, hey, who's a lawyer around here?) Kinsella, simply ignored my arguments, reverted my changes, and help set me up for 3RR. As well, he, along with radioKirk, ignored all the complaints I made to them on their user pages about Peters and anonymous IPs trolling talk pages and edit summaries saying I was Mark Bourrie. Nothing was ''ever'' done to control this trolling/outing. As well, they refused to block Peters when I pointed out he had broken the 3RR.

	Please look at the talk pages for these two admins to see how they dealt with Peters and me. In both cases, the admins and Peters worked very amiably indeed. Crzrussian touches on this very lightly, when, in fact, a review of the Warren Kinsella talk pages shows how blatant this was. Radiokirk actually coached Peters on ways to make Bourrie (believing it was me) look bad in the Kinsella article (see their talk page discussions of July 3) while at the same time refusing to stop Peters from, essentially, gutting the entry.

	I want to stress that the Wiki article on Kinsella, as it stands now, is properly sourced and is accurate. Geedubber is disengeneous when he says some material came from "kinsellasux.blogspot.com". This material was, in fact, Lexis Nexis printouts of articles from major Canadian newspapers assembled as an archive by the poster. He knew very well that was the case, reverted a version of the entry that used one of these articles, then goaded me by saying my reverts were used up. I then called him dishonest, and I still do believe he was.

	On July 1, and on July 8, various posters worked out compromises on the Kinsella page. It took about a day, with the help, mainly, of crzrussian. Both times, Peters flounced at the first sign of compromise, then came back and changed the compromise version of the article. What was more aggravating, though, was that crzrussian, who had obviously (until July 18) adopted Peters' cause, not only allowed this to happen but also ran interference for him.

	As for the Bourrie AfD, not a single IP voted on it before crzrussian had the good sense to (finally) shut it down. One IP did post that Bourrie had some 86,000 Google hits, after Peters posted that Bourrie had no profile at all on Google.

	As for "Marie Tessier", the checkuser came back "likely", not, as crzrussian says, positive. I don't know how they came to this decision. It is certainly not through IP checks. I take it she (it) and I edited several pages in common. I think everyone involved in the Kinsella fight did. Maybe she was an onlooker. I don't know.
	I have a Sympatico (Bell Canada) account. Bell and a Canadian cable company, Rogers, split the high-speed business in my city of 1 million people. They use extremely fluid IPs. Mine changes every hour or two. I don't believe there's any way, other than a bizarre coincidence, that Tessier and I have the same IP. We certainly did not have the same IP number at the same time. There may be "blocks" of Sympatico IPs in Ottawa. They would be very large blocks indeed, tens of thousands of IP numbers.
	Blocking all Ottawa Sympatico IPs, as has been suggested, would put half of Canada's capital off Misplaced Pages. Another person in this discussion suggested blocking the National Library/National Archives of Canada. I won't bother to address that brainwave.

	I don't really care whether I'm on Misplaced Pages anymore. I must say it has been an unpleasant, unfulfilling experience. I volunteered my time, talent and expertise, and I took a lot of abuse. I also became angry enough to give abuse back, and the experience makes me ill. I do hope you will look at the various versions of the listing and look at the sourcing and decide for yourselves which one is best.

	I did a WHO IS on the IP that has posted several threats on the Mark Bourrie entry, including one today (re: his membership in the Canadian press gallery; sending derogatory material to his thesis supervisors, etc):

	IP Address : 207.35.190.72

	ISP : Bell Canada

	Organization : Pollara

	Location : CA, Canada

	City : Toronto, ON m5r1c1

	CustName: Pollara

	Address: 101 Yorkville, Suite 301

	City: Toronto

	StateProv: Ontario

	PostalCode: M5R 1C1

	Country: CA


	This is the address of Warren Kinsella's office.


	Also interesting that Crazyrussian would block Pete Peters partly for bad faith AfD of ] after Crazyrussian and Peters had this discussion on the ] discussion page:


	'''Merge Debate'''
	I was wondering should we just Merge the Mark Bourrie entry as a paragraph in the WK entry? ] 01:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


	Put up the template and we'll see. ] 01:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

	I am not too sure how to do it. But thank you Arthur for deleting my question on the Mark Bourrie discussion page. ] 02:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


	Well, if outing Misplaced Pages editors is your bag, perhaps you should tell us all about yourself. If you think people really want to see the Bourrie and Kinsella pages merged, go ask one of your admin pals to do it for you. Or quit making mischief.] 02:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

	Huh? ] 02:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
	Perhaps I should re-phrase. Without Kinsella, Bourrie would have never gotten a wiki entry. My point is not to merge the two, but to make Bourrie a paragraph in the Kinsella entry. ] 02:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

	Put Bourrie up for deletion, then. ] 02:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

	Use {{mergeto\|Warren Kinsella}} - ] talk/email 03:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
	] 20:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

	:Any suggestion that I knowingly "coached" anyone into anything other than mutual cooperation and ] is quickly demonstrated ridiculous. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]\|]\|])</small></tt> 07:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	:(Currently blocked, copied from ] by Thatcher131)

	MY STATEMENT, it is long, but being a primary sunject in this dispute, I believe that it is just to be this long

	Hello all Wikipedians!!! Who here would like to nominate me as an Administrator? Okalay Doke.

	Let me start off by saying that as a new user, I wasn't too sure how the whole Wiki culture worked. When harsh words were used against me, I fought back with similar words. Which was wrong. Since I had never experienced an exchange between two users before, I thought this was the norm. As I got more involved with Misplaced Pages, I changed my tone to match the community spirit.

	<b>The issue I have is that one person and his anon IPs should not be allowed to dominate the ] or ] with a clear POV, and IMO to simply settle a personal dispute. </b> That is the issue, and I have long argued that I would become scarce if Arthur Ellis and his anon IPs would simply stop contributing to the page altogether.

	IMO this article was coveted by one individual, who would bully people with opposing view by editors. . Further more, who I had thanked for saving my page from vandalism, became victim of similar attacks by an annon user from Ottawa, and if you read his talk page, you can see the result. (Please note that the comments made against him have been deleted from the record.)

	As for accusing Arthur of being a sock of Cereaus, I later stopped that, as it became obvious that Misplaced Pages Admin would not sanction such behaviour. Thus I did improve my behaviour, and began to move onto other things. (But I now see that everyone else is saying that Arthur is a sock puppet, from a RFCU that had very little evidence.)

	If one accuses me of Bad faith regarding the AFD of the ] entry, they may be right in that regards. I did this as a sting operation, my goal was to illustrate the Sock Puppet antics by Ottawa based IPs who would flood the page in an attempt to Keep it. It was gaining steam, until CrazyRussian closed the debate.

	You will notice that when the Warren Kinsella or Pierre Bourque entries were not protected, I made little to no edits on those pages. I believed that if Anon IPs wanted modify the page, then let them do the work. But once the page was protected, I stepped in, I reverted the Gomery Inquiry to an anon IPs version, which I thought was better suited. Please read the ] entry, which I never mentioned before, because of a suspicion that this page would be possessed by Arthur Ellis. Please read the entry, and note that Warren Kinsella is regarded as an outsider looking in. There is no justification to finger him, when he was never under investigation by the RCMP.

	I have always said that I would leave this page altogether, if Arthur Ellis and anon Ottawa based IPs could do the same, to no avail. I was also the victim of attacks, on my user and talk page. This is a must read, . Okay this goes on, but please read this IPs history, the comments placed next to each edit were harsh to say the least. Most of this, I tried to take in stride, but making a comment about my father is something I take offence too. Especially when I am so proud of my father, who is working on a new mini-hubble liked telescope. Who has been invited by NASA to grade the performance of their new space telescopes. You should also note that after this user was blocked at 20:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC), Arthur Ellis made a Wikibreak statement soon after at 20:41, 12 July 2006, 9 minutes later. Then disappeared for 6 days, and only reemerged after disputed pages were semi-protected.

	Now as for this statement made above by CrazyRussian, "<i>Both editors have a long history of personal attacks, many coming against myself recently.</i>" For the record, I have never made a personal attack against CrazyRussian, and I he will confirm that.

	And for this satement made by Thatcher131 . I would like a clarification, and his ensurance that he was not referring to me, Pete Peters as being Warren Kinsella himself. I would have no qualms to tesify on Warren Kinsella's behalf that he is not Pete Peters. The same goes for any statement regarding Pierre Bourque being Pete Peters.

	<b>
	And let me be perfectly clear, I have not used anon IPs as socks ever. About a half dozen times or so, I have forgotten to sign in. This by no means merits proof that I use sock puppets. I beg you to do a thorough checkuser investigation, which will ultimately exonerate me of any sock puppet actions.</b> I can understand if there are any suspicions, because I reverted to some anon IP versions. It is just I believed those edits better suited the article.

	In regards to CrazyRussian taking sides, I would not dispute this claim made by Arthur Ellis. I believe that I was given a week block by CrazyRussian to save his intregity, which I obliged and do not disagree with. His commendable career with Misplaced Pages should not be jeopardized over a simple tiff. So I would move him from the category <b>Users who have attempted to defuse the situation</b> to <b> Involved Parties</b>.

	However, RadioKirk never took sides, and he should be exonerated from such accusations.

	Please feel free to block me, and Arthur Ellis, along with a range block from Magna IP from Ottawa, along with IPs from the National Library of Canada like ]. And please note that I did not tag this page.

	==== Statement by {{user\|JGGardiner}} ====
	I’d watchlisted the Kinsella article some time ago. In late June, I noticed an edit summary from Peters "PISS OFF MARK BOURIE". I had some familiarity with Kinsella so I thought that I could help calm things in the discussion. By the time I began on the talk page, Peters was quiet and it seemed like Ellis was simply being hard to rather than disruptive, disputing every insertion from the other editors. I ended up working more on the Bourrie article, where the same (Ellis-Peters) dispute had carried over. I’d note that while the Kinsella article is now protected and quiet, the same problem continues on the Bourrie article. This morning I removed anti-Bourrie vandalism and note that Magma IPs continue to change the lawsuit section and add vanity material.

	While the article was protected, after July 3, I noticed that Peters moved on to other articles but was hounded by anonymous editors and had all of his edits reverted without explanation. I asked for help for Peters at ANI. Ellis appears to use the same Magma IP range, which is apparent from this post, where Ellis re-signs a post made by an IP the previous minute.At the same time, there were AfDs with other articles related to Kinsella begun by Ellis. It seemed like everything had been patched up at the Kinsella article when it was unprotected but the edit wars just continued and were accompanied by the outrageous talk comments. Crzrussian in particular took a lot of abuse. So did HistoryBA, a good editor who seems to have stopped editing for the moment because of this whole mess. The same range of IP’s also caused a lot of trouble at other articles, for example an edit war at ] (re-inserting vandalism calling May fat), causing that article to be protected as well.

	The responsible editors and admins at work here tried to focus on the content which was objected to. It seemed like things were smoothed over with each issue but I feel now that the objections were not about particular content per se (other than the lawsuit) but were rather about particular editors. My contributions with Kinsella were mostly to ask people to remain civil, articulate their concerns, and to resolve the disputes through discussion. Unfortunately they only wanted to discuss each other. --] 19:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

	====Statement of {{user\|Bucketsofg}}====
	There have been four pages involved in these on-going and endemic revert and flame wars: ] (which I have been involved in), ], ], ]. The participants, it seems, are one or more of these people and their ] and/or meat-puppets. The strife, as far as I can see it, involves two sides, which is possibly only one individual each.
	*Mark Bourrie, who has published under his own name {{Userblock\|Mark Bourrie}}, as {{Userblock\|Ceraurus}}, {{Userblock\|Isotelus}}, a host of Ottawa IPs that resolve to Magma Communications (64.26.128-191.xxx; 69.20.224-239.xxx; 206.191.0-63.xxx; 209.217.64-127.xxx), a small portion of which are listed above. (He threatens to use IPs for maximum disruption : "Fuck you. My IP changes every six hours. I'll be back. I will cause as much Misplaced Pages trouble as I can!") He also seems to have used {{Userblock\|Marie Tessier}} as a sock (see ], implying that there are more socks to come).
	**A user-check (here) implies that {{Userblock\|Mark Bourrie}} and {{Userblock\|Arthur Ellis}} and {{Userblock\|Marie Tessier}} are "likely" the same person. (In the absence of absolute proof, I'm inclined to assume that Arthur Ellis is someone close to Bourrie, but not Bourrie himself: their "styles" are different.)
	*] who seems to have been an account created mostly in order to provoke Bourrie. He may be one of the subjects in the articles under contention or associated with one of them.

	Some solutions to be considered:
	#Mark Bourrie = Ceraurus = Isotelus = Marie Tessier is currently under an indefinite block; Arb Comm should perhaps set a defined period.
	#user Pete Peters and Arthur Ellis should be banned from the four pages under contention and warned not to engage one another
	#these four pages should be semi-protected since Bourrie, based in Ottawa, regularly forces an IP address reset from Magma Communications, his IP provider.
	#in order to prevent Bourrie and/or Pete Peters from creating new accounts to rejoin the fight after five days, the Arb Committee should probably pre-authorize user-checks on new, disruptive accounts that edit these four pages, with the understanding that any trollishness, vandalism, or disruption coming from the IP addresses identified above will be blocked as presumed sock-puppets
	#National Library IP ({{Userblock\|142.78.64.58}}) address should be indefinitely blocked (Bourrie admits to using it ], and looking at its contributions, no one uses it to edit wikipedia except him).
	'''
	'''Response by ]'''
	::First, Bucketsofg has his own agenda on the ] page. Bucketsofg, as blogger "Buckets of Grewal", has been conducting his own off-Misplaced Pages campaign against former Canadian MP Germant Grewal, and has helped edit Marsden's page into an attack article, despite misgivings by Jimbo Wales put on the talk pages in 2005. Marsden was a former employee of Grewal's. Bucketsofg, ] (who, on his talk page, says he is a member of the left-of-center NDP) and ] (see below) have worked very hard to keep the Marsden entry as negative as possible and have reverted and blocked any signs of change to this incredibly negative bio.
	::Something to remember: Bourrie (in his incarnations), a new member, always attempted to take attack-negative-cruel material ''off'' the Marsden page, not, like the three admins mentioned above, ''add'' it. He was accused and punished for vandalism and blanking for doing so by admins who ignored the Misplaced Pages policy regarding biographies of living people. He knew Marsden had moved to a new city and started a new job. The Marsden page is proof that sourced material, especially from newspapers, can be strung together to create an entry that is an embarrasment to Misplaced Pages.
	::Second, blocking me and Peters from the pages does nothing to prevent Warren Kinsella (through IPs) from continuiing to post on both the Mark Bourrie (as I showed above, he posts on that page from his office IP) and the Kinsella page.
	::Third, blocking the National Library of Canada would be rather radical. It has been used by other posters and it's, well, the National Library of Canada.] 19:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

	==== Clerk notes ====
	: (This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)
	==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/0/0/0) ====
	*Accept. ]·] 16:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
	----

	=== Homeontherange ===

	==== Involved parties ====
	:]
	:]
	:] 17:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
	:] ] ] 19:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
	:] 00:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

	====Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request====
	:] initiating party
	:]
	:] added myself to this one.
	:] ] ] 19:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC) added myself.
	:] adding self. 00:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

	====Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried====
	:Not applicable. This is a request for review of admin status.

	==== Statement by PinchasC ====
	: {{Admin\|Homeontherange}} (Homey) abuses his admin tools by blocking users with whom he is in a content dispute. He frequently violates 3RR, pretending not to know what the 3RR policy says, and has been blocked for 3RR violations five times, four of them in the last three months. He also evaded a block using a sockpuppet.

	This is a request that his administrative status be reviewed. The policies he has violated are ], ]; ], and ].

	*April 22, 2006. '''Protected a page while edit warring on it'''. Homey reverted {{User\|Ericbwalton}} at ] three times 01:12, 03:02, 03:15, semi-protected the page at 03:15, then started editing it again at 04:03. When he was satisfied Ericbwalton had gone, he unprotected it at 04:29.

	*April 26, 2006. '''Was blocked for 3RR'''. Was blocked for 3RR at ] by Katefan0.

	*May 7, 2006. '''Another admin had to explain 3RR to him'''. Musical Linguist had to then explain 3RR policy to him because he appeared not to understand it.

	*May 29, 2006. '''Violated 3RR'''. Violated 3RR but was warned by William M. Connolley instead of being blocked.

	*May 29, 2006. '''Was blocked for 3RR'''. Was blocked for 3RR by PinchasC at ]

	*May 29, 2006. '''Blocked a user he was in dispute with'''. Homey blocked ] for 24 hours for "vandalism" for edits to ], even though he was in a content dispute with Zeq on that page. He thought better of it and unblocked him minutes later.

	*May 30, 2006. '''Blocked a user he was in dispute with'''. Homey blocked ] again, this time indefinitely for "tendentious editing" at ], even though he was in a content dispute with Zeq on that page. He unblocked him 10 minutes later, adding to the block summary "will reapply block tomorrow afternoon."

	*May 31, 2006. '''Made admin moves while in a content dispute'''. Homey move-warred over the name of the ] article, using his admin powers to twice move it from ] to ].

	*June 3, 2006. '''Blocked a user he was in dispute with'''. Homey blocked ] with whom he was in a content dispute at ], then locked the page.

	*June 4, 2006. '''Blocked a user he was in dispute with'''. Homey blocked ] for "vandalising ] by removing another user's comments." The comments Moshe removed were his own, and Homeontherange was in a dispute with him on that page. The block was overturned by another admin.

	*June 7, 2006. '''Blocked a user he was in dispute with'''. Homey blocked ] for 48 hours for posts to ] even though Homeontherange was the nominator (this one was of the many articles about British Conversative figures that Homeontherange has tendentiously edited or tried to have deleted).

	*June 9, 2006. '''Was blocked for 3RR'''. Was blocked for 3RR at ].

	*June 9, 2006. '''Violated 3RR'''. He was reported for 3RR at ] but was not blocked.

	*June 20, 2006. '''Blocked a user he was in dispute with'''. Homey blocked ] for one week for posts to ] even though he was involved in the content dispute at that article. (This is another article about British Conservative figures that Homeontherange has edited aggressively.)

	*June 22, 2006. '''Was blocked for 3RR'''. Was blocked for 3RR at ]. The block is for 48 hours for "chronically trying to game the 3RR system and being a repeat 3RR offender."

	*June 23, 2006. '''Evaded a block using a sockpuppet'''. Homey was blocked for 3RR at 23:09 on June 22. Two hours later, at 01:22 on June 23, a new account, {{user\|Sonofzion}} made its first edit, and began to edit articles that Homey had recently edited. Its first edit was to ], an article Homey had created six hours earlier. Sonofzion restored material to the intro that Homey had added but others had removed. The new account then edited ] and ], little known articles that had been extensively edited by Homeontherange's previous userid. The new account went on to participate in an obscure CfD, then to comment on the page, one where Homey had been commenting extensively. Sonofzion then went on to edit ], a page Homey had been edit warring on, and redirected the section on Israel to ], something Homey had been pushing for. ] did a CheckUser, and stated "the sockpuppetry and editing pattern was so obvious. Unsurprisingly, the CheckUser evidence was consistent and strongly suggestive (though not 100% conclusive) with them being sockpuppets of Homeontherange." Sonofzion also edited as {{user\|216.249.5.184}}, and though a "new editor", almost immediately went to the talk page where Jayjg made the statement and claimed that Jayjg had a "conflict of interest".

	*June 26, 2006. '''Was blocked for disruption'''. Was blocked by Sceptre for chronic bickering with Zeq.

	*July 5, 2006. '''Protected a page he was editing'''. At ], Homey reverted an edit by {{User\|207.245.7.58}} (a legitimate edit, not vandalism), then protected the page. He unprotected it four hours later, saying he "didn't mean to protect," which was effective at stopping the anon from editing, while designed to look like an error.

	*July 17, 2006. '''Unblocked his own sockpuppet'''. Homey undid another admin's block of ], the sockpuppet account he used to evade a block, despite the clear conflict of interest.
	--] \| ] 16:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

	==== Statement by Homeontherange (respondant) ====

	Pinchas is putting this forward in the middle of another case regarding Israeli apartheid. His timing is, I suspect, designed to influence that case and perhaps distract me from it.

	What this actually is is an extention of the Israeli apartheid dispute. Pinchas has often edited on the same side as several of the editors at that dispute(Jayjg, SlimVirgin, Humus sapiens etc) on various issues related to Israel so his timing and his selection of me as a target is not accidental. However, it is instructive that he is not examining the actions of his own allies, for instance an examination of ]'s protection log shows that there are numerous occasions in which she has protected "her" articles, ie articles which she edits regularly and has had content disputes over -see ]. An examination of Jayjg's freelancing of Checkuser, a function he continually runs for his political allies, would also be instructive. If we scrutinize my use of admin permissions we should also scrutinize a number of other people, including Pinchas allies. That he is singling me out and doing so at this time and in this way is little more than a tactical manouvre and an exercise in selectivity and, as we see by a cursory examination of several of his complaints, an exercise in misrepresentation.

	Eric B Walton is a former Green Party of Canada candidate who was editing the article in a promotional manner. I don't remember, off the top of my head, the details regarding the other incidents Pinchas is conveniently cobbling together.

	=====Zeq=====
	Re: the blocks on Zeq, they were due to a misreading of Zeq's arbcom case which stated Zeq could be banned for good cause. He had edited tendentiously at Israeli apartheid and so I blocked him after consulting with ]. However, there is a difference between banning and blocking and so I subsequently lifted the block (within a few minutes) and placed a complaint on ] and as a result ] banned Zeq from several articles]. That he did this shows that my reasoning for disciplining him was valid even if I erred in not realising that a ban was different than a block, I had previously been unaware of page bans.

	=====Sockpuppetry=====
	The alleged sockpuppet was blocked by FeloniousMonk with a request that the sockpuppet prove he's not a sockpuppet. Had he, or Jayjg, or SlimVirgin, the other editors engaging that account at the time, had any actual evidence that the account was my sockpuppet the should have a) told me b) taken action against me at the time. They failed to do so. Not only that, I was not even informed of this allegation until several days time later by Zeq, not by Jayjg or Felonious. That Pinchas are now bringing this up is highly opportunistic. I deny the allegation of sockpuppetry but in any case creating a sockpuppet does not involve use of admin tools. As for unblocking the sockpuppet 1) this was done several weeks after the block (and well after the 3RR block againt me had expired) 2) it was done because the alleged sockpuppet was not a sockpuppet 3) I informed the blocking admin of my action, he reinstated the block and I did not remove the block a second time.

	The alleged sock puppet edited last night. The IP address is not only ''not'' my IP trace but it is from another city entirely from the one I'm in. Not only that but I was editing myself at the same time so unless Pinchas is also alleging that I can fly (and do so faster than the speed of sound) it's clear the sockpuppet allegation is bogus. ] 17:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

	Jayjg was in a content dispute with me at the time - that he ran a checkuser on me and then "analysed" it himself is suspect. According to the alleged sockpuppet we were, at the time, in the same city - Toronto - Canada's largest city with a large population as well of Arabs and Jews, possibly the largest outside of the Mideast and in a country, Canada, which has one of the highest proportion of net users in the world. This Sonofzion had also edited as an anon IP following his ban, an analysis of the IP address produces a ISP that I have never used and I am confident that checkuser, in fact, would show no system relation, only, perhaps, a geographic one which might mean something if I were in Billings, Montana but doesn't mean much in a city with a population of 4-5 million ie the ] and one with both the largest Jewish and largest Arab (and largest Israeli, for that matter) population in Canada. Someone looking at the checkuser results who was not in a conflict of interest may have taken account of this. Given that Jayjg was "freelancing" with his checkuser ability, something he is wont to do, and given that he had done so in the past for Zeq who has accused me ''dozens'' of times of sockpuppetry without anything ever coming of it is telling. With Zeq stalking me for signs of sockpuppetry the last thing I would do is actually give him ammunition.

	FeloniousMonk also lied to me recently about the alleged sockpuppet when I asked him about this, he claimed " I never discussed my blocking of the Sonofzion account with Jayjg;". The evidence you provided shows that, in fact, he did just that and FeloniousMonk did not implement his block until ''after'' Jayjg reported back to him. ] 17:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
	Several of the items Pinchas mentions with are already being dealt with in the Israeli Apartheid RFD - to complain about them here risks ]. ] 21:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

	=====Rachel Marsden related block=====
	Pinchas writes: ''June 3, 2006. '''Blocked a user he was in dispute with'''. Homey blocked ] with whom he was in a content dispute at ], then locked the page. ''

	In fact, according to the page of the user I blocked [[User:209.217.123.151\|"It is suspected that this user might be a sock puppet or impersonator of Ceraurus.
	Please refer to This user refers to himself as Ceraurus here for evidence"]]. The page was being attacked by sockpuppets of ], who is a blocked user according to his . Ceraurus had vandalized ] several timed by blanking it and engaging in other disruptive behaviour. He was blocked indefinitely as a result (not by me). It is permissable to block the sockpuppets of indefinitely blocked vandals on sight.
	=====82.3.163.184 and Mike Keith Smith's AFD=====
	I did ban ] for 48 hours for her posts to the Michael Keith Smith AFD even though I was the mover of the AFD. What Pinchas fails to explain is how this was a conflict of interest given that she was a ''supporter'' of the AFD. The user had been sued by Michael Keith Smith and was rather bitter and, as a result, was attacking him online, including on wikipedia and including on the AFD page. She was blocked twice by me for her various personal attacks on Smith (who was also editing Misplaced Pages). The block was justified and I urge readers to look at ]'s edits. I was in no content dispute with her anywhere, however she was actively harassing ] on wikipedia so I blocked her ''despite'' the fact that I myself was in a dispute with ''Smith'' over his autobiographical article. ] 00:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

	=====Eric Margolis=====
	In regards to ] the protection was accidental and when someone (I believe it was SV) brought it to my attention I unprotected it. SV actually reverted the change I made a few minutes later and I left the article alone since I couldn't find the reference I had seen before on Margolis' parentage. Some time earlier an individual had been removing references to Margolis' mother and as I recall I initially thought that had happened in the instance you are referring to.

	=====Block for disruption=====
	Let's see what else, my block for "disruption" lasted all of 42 minutes and was actually aimed at Zeq who remained blocked for 24 hours. The Admin had blocked both of us but had been apologetic to me in doing so.

	=====3RR=====
	In regards to 3RR the interpretation of the rules had actually changed around April so that the definition of revert became broader than in the past ie unrelated reverts now counted towards 3RR. I was somewhat obtuse in understanding this change and felt the banning admins were simply misunderstanding the rules. I was blocked for those and have not violated 3RR for several weeks. Several of the blocks were contentious and challenged by other editors resulting in my being unblocked, reblocked etc. But again, some of the blocks were questionable and contested by others and I believe on one occasion I was unblocked and in the second where I was about to be unblocked I told the sympathetic admin not to bother, I'd just sit it out. In that case however, the 3RR complaint had actually initially been ''rejected'' and removed from the 3RR page, Zeq reinstated the exact same complaint, it was then removed again by ] and then reinstated again by by Zeq. Another admin added the follwing comment '''''Admin note:''' The edits cited above do not appear to be the same, and therefore do not constitue a breach of ]. ] <sup> ] </sup> 14:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)''
	. The same user subsequently added:

	''I am still of the opinion their behaviour does not deserve any action. To summarise the diffs you've cited:- ''Revert 1 - Deleted a lot of text, added a link Revert 2 - Ditto Revert 3 - Ditto (but no link inserted) Revert 4 - Add a tag Revert 5 - Add a fact tag Final diff cited - Add two tags.

	''So they've done 3 reversions of one type - deleting a section of text. 2 edits relating to one tag, and 2 edits relating to another tag. This has no relation to "in whole or in part" the two groups are totally unrelated - they've reverted 3 times and then stopped. If I'm reading it wrong please let me know ] <sup> ] </sup> 14:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

	also, later to Zeq:
	''I can see where your coming from, but I, personally, interpret the rule differently. I see there as being a breach of the rule in all, or the same subsections, of an article are reverted more than three times - not simply more than three reverts on an article in total. So in this case, there have only been up to 3 reverts of one type, hence I have chosen not to block the user, and I still think that is correct. I have, however, made a note to the user concerned to this effect. Perhaps a different admin will have a different view. ] <sup> ] </sup> 15:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)''

	Despite all this debate (which I was unaware of as no one told me I was being accused of 3RR) FeloniousMonk comes in and implements a block. Considering that it had been rejected Felonious should have engaged in some discussion about it. Also, as several admins thought there was no reason to block Pinchas is hardly being fair in his characterization of the incident.

	In several cases the admins who blocked me were hardly uninvolved neutrals and seemed to be acting overly aggressively. See for example:

	''Just noticed this in the vandalism channel, I'm a bit unsure of the basis for your block, from ] "In all cases, blocks are preventative rather than punitive, and serve only to avoid damage to Misplaced Pages.", since that particular edit war seems to have been over more than 12 hours ago it appears that the block cannot be prevantative but punative. Maybe you know something I don't about that particular war, but I thought I'd flag it up to you. --]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">]</font>)</sup> 21:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)''


	and

	''I am not going to get drawn into a discussion of whether unrelated edits on the same page constitute a 3RR violation or not; that's never been my understanding of the way things work on Misplaced Pages. And neither am I going to get drawn into a discussion of whether I was right or wrong to unblock Homey; for one thing, he seems to still be blocked even though I've already unblocked him. I have taken other steps to attempt to resolve the matter through talk page discussion, and you can't even begin to imagine how little interest I have in getting drawn into a user dispute where both sides have equally legitimate claims that the other side has behaved inappropriately. ] 23:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)''

	In one of those cases the blocking admin was you Pinchas. You seem to have a dislike of me because of my attitude towards Israeli issues. It would have been more appopriate had you left the question of whether or not to ban me to a disinterested admin who did not have an agenda. In any case, I have studiously avoided getting in trouble for 3RR this month so I think I've learned my lesson in regards to this. To punish me again for 3RR violations would be ].

	The 3RRs were, as I said, contentious and I suspect would not have been applied against most people. One, for instance, was for a "fourth" revert in which I replaced an OR tag that had been removed (once). This was contested.
	Another 3RR violation was, in fact, my correcting Zeq's grammar - corrections he did not challenge only to turn around and file a 3RR complaint which Felonious, I believe, immediately implemented.

	In any case a 3RR violation does ''not'' involve a violation of an admin permission.] 11:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

	=====Moshe's block=====
	As for the block on Moshe, Pinchas misrepresents the situation by saying that Moshe reverted his "own words". What Moshe actually did was delete a quotation from ''my post'' on a talk page. That I was quoting a factually incorrect statement of his which he had removed from the talk page (while I was making my post) did not give him the right to alter ''my'' post to remove the quote. The block was lifted by Moshe's friend, Slim Virgin. In any case, I subsequently agreed that what I should have done is filed a complaint against Moshe at ANI rather than acted myself but this does not mitigate the fact that Moshe edited ''my'' comments on a talk page, contrary to policy.] 21:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

	Curiously, PinchasC's review of the block on Moshe doesn't actually include any diffs. ] in Moshe's case. He removed the following text from a post I made on the the talk page:

	''Moshe, you have removed the following from your comment above:

	"Anyways if you would had looked over the terrorist category you would have noticed that it specifically states it is for individals only."''

	I had made a post that replied to Moshe's statement. Moshe removed the part of his statement to which I was replying rendering my response nonsensical - I then added the quote in order to put my response in context. Moshe then altered my post in order to remove the quote.

	This was discussed on with the following commetns being made:

	''I think that's perfectly reasonable. Once you post on a talk page, people are going to want to respond. If you remove the comment, suddenly the discussion doesn't make any sense. Hence why it's not something that should be done. --] 18:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)''

	As for "gaining advantange in a content dispute" this did not occur as I did not edit ] until Moshe's block was lifted ie I allowed Moshe's version to stand so, in fact, the advantage in the content dispute was his.

	In discussions, ], while arguing that I should not have blocked Moshe myself, did concede that Moshe's edit violated policy:

	'':I've just posted on his talk page. He must agree to follow policy, and not alter other editor's comments on talk pages, or risk sanction, as he's been duly warned.] 19:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)''

	*See ] for the full discussion on Timothy's page.

	Timothy's post on Moshe's page was as follows:

	:''Moshe should agree not to alter other editors' comments. It's unacceptable. The fact that Homey removes posts from his talk page is obnoxious, but is allowed by current understanding of policy, just as are Moshe's posts thereto. Altering other editors' comments on talk pages is not.

	:''I'd like to hear from Moshe that he understands this, and will abide by it.] 19:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)''


	Moshe refused to accept this. Timothy then insisted:

	:''You may think it aggravating for him to go through the history and repost something you'd withdrawn, but that's a completely legitimate use of talk space. Had he altered your posts, as you did his - your comment was at this point part of his post, not yours - it'd be a different story.

	:''Altering other editors' posts is unacceptable. It's that simple. Don't do it.] 19:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	Moshe's response:

	:''I'm sorry but I cannot accept that.- ] \| ] 19:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	Timothy:

	:''Moshe, it's policy, and you must follow it. It doesn't matter if you accept it.

	:''If you're faced with such a situation in the future, I recommend that you post your own comment to the effect that you'd retracted your statement, and that there is thus no point for other editors to drag it up. This accomplishes the same thing without altering other editors' posts, and without getting you blocked.] 19:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)''

	At this point it would have been reasonable for an admin to reimpose the block on Moshe that had been lifted. This was not done despite Moshe's refusal to accept his error. Nor did I personally reimpose the block.

	I agree that I should not instituted the block myself but I disagree with PinchasC's interpretation of events that suggests, wrongly, that Moshe did not break policy and commit a transgression that would normally result in a tempblock. ] 12:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

	==== Comment by Tazmaniacs ====

	I think the arbitrator should '''recuse''' this case.

	Although I am not directly involved in this dispute,I've co-edited articles with most of the editors here. The case seems to me more about strong conflictual opinions rather than real disruptive behavior. ] 21:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

	:Perhaps unsurprisingly, this user has colloborated with Homeonetherange on many articles, including some of the most contentious ones listed above. In every instance they backed one another up and generally shared the same pov.- ] \| ] 04:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

	::Moshe's comment here exactly repeats what I've said, and prove it by its bitterness. I'd like Moshe to refrain from false statements such as "In every instance they backed one another up", since I hardly ever edited with Homeontherange, but quickly noticed his POV because he was opposed to all of these users, Moshe, Zek, JayZ and others, who all share respectable (I respect opposing POV, which doesn't seems to be Moshe's policy) and concording views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (to speak clearly). What I point out here is that it is very difficult in this case for an administrator to take a neutral decision, since Homeontherange is being atttacked mainly because of his positions on this conflict. Thus, if he lets him go, all these other users (Zek & co, Zek having been blocked for disruptive behavior) will find this totally partial, while blocking Homeontherange would automatically places the admin on the side of, I'm not saying the "Israelis", but Ariel Sharon's policy and its continuation (current bombings over Lebanon after having bombed the electric plant at Gaza). So, Moshe, you would be so nice to let me speak for myself: yes, I am opposed to bombing over the electric plant at Gaza, which provided 40% of the electricity of the Gaza strip, more than half of the cleaning water, and that now US tax-payers must pay it back (as it was payed for by international cooperation), which will cost 40 million $. Yes, I do think that doing this kind of bombing is targeting civilians and doesn't respects the rules of war. If you call being opposed to such a bombing "sharing the same POV" with Homeontherange (I'm sorry, I haven't had the opportunity to discuss his views on the matter), well, yes we do (but I don't think we share all the positions on the subject, unless he favors, at least a theory, a ] - but speaking politics, when you are speaking war to me, isn't really relevant, is it?). You are lying when you say I have "collaborated with Homerange on many articles", and the least you could do is back-up this lie with some diffs. But I thank you for your comment, because it clearly shows that Homerange is being attacked by all of you because you don't like his pro-Palestinian opinions. RFA should'nt be used for political conflicts, but to stop trolls. Has Homeontherange acted as a troll? No, I do not think so. Are you attacking him because of this alleged reason? It doesn't seems so, and your comment here shows what the real reasons is: you'd be very happy in excluding someone who doesn't shares the same POV than you do. The administrator who takes a decision on this should be aware that due to the specific nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its echoes here on Misplaced Pages, either way he will be accused of being pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian. I would advise to do what courts do in this kind of case: '''declare oneself incompetent to judge the submitted matter.''' ] 15:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

	:::I never used the word "colloboration", and I never gave any indication in my above statement that I disrespected your pov, so I'm really not sure where that came from. I only pointed out that your statement that you were not "not directly involved in this dispute" could be seen as misleading since you have been involved in the editing of many of the above articles, and in every instance you found yourself in opposition to the same editors, so I think it is rather odd that you would imply that you were on completely uninvolved party. As for me I have already indicated that I do in fact have an interest in seeing Homeontherange punished since I have at times been deeply involved in this dispute and always in opposition to homey.- ] \| ] 21:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
	::::Come on, chill, "I'm not directly involved in this dispute" just means what it means: I haven't filed anything, I don't know what you're all talking about, and I hardly ever encountered Homeontherange, I did encounter you & others however, and I saw no specific tolerance to other POVs, rather the contrary. Anyway, have fun ! ] 01:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

	==== Response to ] ====

	:I would hate to break it to you, but Timothy Usher is not an administrator, nor does he have particularly high standing among other editors so I'm really not sure why you would base your entire argument on his statements. Anyways he completly opposed your actions until you seemed to confuse him with a sysop, wanting to continue the charade, he decided that he should try to partially agree with you so that you would respect his opinions in the future, I notified him through E-mail that I didn't know why he was doing this, but he apparently saw some advantage in his actions. Besides timothy, almost every other editor and administrator agreed that not only was it completely inappropriate for you to block me, but it was also very uncivil for you to even post what I removed in the first place. I should point out this discussion- , where Homey basically spent the whole day trying to get me to agree that I did something wrong, despite other editors suggesting that he accept his mistake and move on. At times he came up with rather creative ways to in his mind "win" the argument, as can be seen with this post-

	::"Ok Moshe, I'll give you a way to get off the hook while saving face. I"ve noticed you've not reverted Talk:Jewish Defense League since having the tempban lifted and have not altered the comments on there. Are you going to leave it that way? If you really think you're right then you would have gone and reverted the talk page. As you haven't done that I think we can assume you know that you were wrong even if you're not mature enough to admit it. So are you going to leave Talk:Jewish Defense League alone or are you going to insist you're right and go and revert it?Homey 20:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)"

	:The above illustrates just one instance where homey continued arguing long after it was necessary only to try to get his opponent to admit he was wrong, as would be expected, this attribute makes him a very difficult editor to get along with.- ] \| ] 01:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====

	I'm not going to pretend that I am an uninvolved party. I have an obvious interest in trying to get ] sanctioned, as I have been party to countless conflicts with him over the past few months.

	I first came into contact with Homey on the ] article, although I was only peripherally involved with the dispute I found his arguments poorly made and concentrated too much on the opposing editors instead of what they were saying, however I did not think too much of it since this is obviously a common occurence on our little encyclopedia. However our next encounter left much more of an impression. In this instance, a conflict over the existence of the ] article quickly degenerated into accusations that I was somehow breaking the ] policy, after I brushed aside his statements he threatened to have me "banned for vandalism and/or brought before the Arbcomm.", . After I basically laughed this threat off as ridiculous, ] actually went ahead and wrote up a request for comment which included all sorts of grandiose accusations. Since it is necessary to have at least two users certify the RFC, he made overtures towards another editor involved in the dispute to try to ensure his support- , after ] failed to express any interest in getting involved, Homeontherange probably realized that there could be negative consequences for an administrator who engages in such inappropriate behavior and finally decided to delete the RFC. I am not sure how to show the contents of his original report, but the original link was- .

	The reason I feel it is necessary to go into such detail with the above encounter is because I feel it represents the essence of my entire prolonged dispute with Homey.- ] \| ] 04:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

	====Statement by Arthur Ellis====
	I followed the Marsden case closely and read all of the pages after I was accused of being Ceraurus' sock. Homeontherange goaded user Ceraurus into numerous 3RRs. Ceraurus was given an indefinite block when he pointed out Homeontherange had vandalized the protected version of ] May 2<!--Please leave this out-->. Homeontherange, Bucketsofg and several other left-wing Canadians have sat on the Mardsen page, which was even criticised by Jimbo Wales in 2005 as an attack page, and have prevented any edits that don't make Marsden look like a psycho. When Ceraurus challenged Homeontherange, he was accused of sock puppetry and banned without a checkuser. His opponents on the Marsden page have made sure the "indefinite" ban was made permanent, even though Ceraurus (who had earlier changed from ] to Ceraurus in a futile attempt to protect his privacy) was very new to Misplaced Pages, is near-completion of a PhD in history, and is the author of eight books. ] 01:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

	====Response to Arthur Ellis====
	I didn't block Ceraurus or ask anyone to do so. I believe he was in conflict with several other users during his 3RR problems so accusing me of "goading him" into 3RR violation is incorrect, particularly as I don't recall ever filing a 3RR report against Ceraurus or asking anyone else to or blocking him for 3RR. Ellis' comments have everything to do with the ] case above (in which I am not involved) and nothing to do with me. ] 13:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

	Quick check shows that all of 5 of the last 350 edits to ] (ie since around March 4) are mine and three of those were in a span of 5 minutes. Cesaurus' block log shows that he was blocked on March 8th and again on April 12 - how I could have goaded Cesaurus into an edit war in this period is beyond me as I did not edit ] ''at all'' between March 10th and and Cesaurus' most recent block on April 12th. I edited three times in the week before Ceasaurus' first block. ] 16:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


	'''Response by Arthur Ellis'''
	::Homey is being, at best, evasive, as he blocked Mark Bourrie , who, after being viciously hassled by Homeontherange, Bearcat, Geedubber and Bucketsofg, opted to change his name -- very openly -- to Ceraurus to prevent the abuse from being Google-able.
	::The Marsden discussion pages, by the way, make very interesting reading for anyone who thinks these admins are NPOV. Even now, POV and psycvho-sexual attacks on the page continue. I think it should be stressed that Bourrie-Ceraurus-Isotelus worked to take attack material off the Marsden page.] 19:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

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

	==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/0/0/0) ====
	*Accept; the evidence here is worrying enough that I think we ought to hear a case. ]·] 15:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


	----

	=== Zer0faults ===
	==== Involved parties ====
	*{{user\|Zer0faults}}
	*{{user\|Nescio}}

	====Not involved in the current situation but aware of it====
	*{{user\|Rangeley}}
	*{{user\|TheronJ}}
	*{{user\|GTBacchus}}
	*{{user\|The prophet wizard of the crayon cake}}
	*{{user\|Circeus}}

	==== Comfirmation parties are aware of request ====
	*{{user\|Zer0faults}}
	*{{user\|Rangeley}}
	*{{user\|TheronJ}}
	*{{user\|GTBacchus}}
	*{{user\|The prophet wizard of the crayon cake}}
	*{{user\|Circeus}}

	; Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried
	*]
	*]
	*]


	==== Statement by party 1 ====
	This user made a special request therefore I bring this case to ArbCom.

	'''From opposing views to vendetta:'''
	Over the past months I have had numerous unpleasant encounters with this user after becoming aware of him was when he supported {{user\|Merecat}} in ] (a banned user that coincidentally had similar editing and debating techniques). Evidently our perception of reality is different. That is allowed. However, in time, what was a difference of opinion has turned into a vendetta aimed at my person. Resulting in edit wars not over content but over , and .

	'''Describing behaviour:'''
	This user has a very aggressive, hostile, uncooperative and in general a disruptive style of editing. He arrives at an article, starts deleting everything he sees as wrong, even sourced material. When asked to justify he responds with statements (i.e. violation of ], ], ], et cetera) but never with a full explanation substantiating his claims. When his argument is said to be flawed he simply restates the same argument while reverting.(''rv, will fix wapo link in next edit, again please provide the information requested on the talk page. Thank you'' oddly enough he reverts but has yet to make a serious comment on my arguments and here restating his assertions while not responding to my rebuttal). When asked to answer a direct question he reverts and simply restates his assertion. Finally, still not having answered any question, he says he will no longer discuss since the other party is being disruptive (or something to that extend). He demands evidence to restore what he redacts out, but then refuses to read the sources provided. To quote another editor:
	:''And this is part of the problem Nescio is having with you, Zer0, you do not read cites that are provided for you..''
	This obstructive way of editing can only be interpreted as Zero having appointed himself as ''"the decider."'' He has ruled on the matter (see his mantra in the edit summaries) and as such nobody has the right to edit contrary to his ruling. Therefore his refusal to discuss, despite my repeated rebuttal of his verdict. Personally I thought no editor was more equal than another, apparently not. The fact this user aggressively claims sole authority on what does and does nort belong in Misplaced Pages suggest he has not understood ] and ], although he refers to it often enough.

	Suddenly our encounters became very inflamed as he and another user ]. Although I might have chosen a better place to comment, they aggressively denied me the right to reinstate those comments. Resulting in the first mediation case.

	'''Examples of his behaviour and comments:'''
	#] stated that this was a ''campaign by the US, NATO and allies.'' I changed it into ''the US, supported by NATO and allies,'' since Zero had advocated it is a US campaign in which NATO provides assistance. He objected to this edit and reverted. Evidently he felt that it was a joined campaign so I removed the US from the sentence as stating US '''and''' NATO is a ]. Again he objected and reverted. Evidently he did mean to say'' US supported by NATO.'' He refers to this as me contradicting myself, while in fact the change in stance was his. ]. Also he removes text he disagrees with, I restore it with tags, yet he deletes it again.
	#] he keeps removing extraordinary rendition, unitary executive theory, and other terrorist attacks. He removes them because I fail to provide sources. In the case of UET I referred him to:
	#:*] ('''1''''' the position taken by adherents of the "unitary executive" theory, and advocated by John Yoo in particular, holds that a U.S. President in the exercise of his Constitutional war powers cannot be restrained by any law, national or international''. '''2''' ''The NSA warrantless domestic surveillance program is another example of the Bush administration's application of its interpretation of executive power'', ) Even though this theory is about inherent war powers, and the only war the US is fighting is WOT (unless we include the war on drugs, war on poverty, et cetera), I fail to understand how UET is not about WOT. In the words of Zero that violates ], meaning that when an article states '''1''' ''a dog has four legs,'' '''2''' ''animals with four legs are called quadrupeds,'' '''3''' ''dogs are animals,'' we are not allowed to conclude dogs are quadrupeds. Just like we are not allowed to take the ddefinition of a ] (which is a ]) as any war '''1''' ''not out of self-defense,'' '''2''' ''not authorised by the UN,'' and then see if the invasion of Iraq violates that definition. Of course, when there are multiple interpretations we call it OR to pick one of those. These examples do not have multiple interpretations. Contrary to popuylar believe any response that is not related to an acute and imminent threat simply is NOT self-defense.
	#:*] ('''1''''' Some critics note that this statement specifically refers to a unitary executive theory, under which the Commander-in-Chief has broad authority to use his discretion in interpreting and applying the law. As a result, it is argued, the President has with the signing statement to the McCain Detainee Amendment reserved the right to waive the "torture ban", effectively re-writing the law passed by Congress'')
	#:*] ('''1''' ''The Bush administration argues that the program is in fact legal on the grounds that FISA is an unconstitutional violation of the President's "]" and/or that FISA was implicitly overridden by other acts of Congress,'' '''2''' ''However, the authorization granted by President Bush to the NSA apparently uses neither FISC approval nor the one-year foreign surveillance authority granted by FISA. Instead, the administration argues that the power was granted by the Constitution and by a statutory exemption, as is advocated by the Unitary Executive theory using the interpretation of John Yoo et al''.)
	#:*and the multitude of references, following claims of inherent war powers, in those articles to support including UET in the template, which Zero is unable to find.
	#:To illustrate the silly argument to refuse on account of OR, I inserted in this request what the articles said although Zero could not find it, which resulted in his reply that I must provide a source if I want to include it. In other words, he orders me to quote the relevant text from the articles, but is unwilling to read it himself. As to ], since this is a new concept initiated as part of WOT to render suspected terrorist (or was it Enron, or Abramoff?), and clearly separate from ], his objection is rather odious and not substantiated with any argument other then "provide evidence," while failing to show evidence this form of rendition existed prior to 9-11.
	#] I am trying to describe this program, but again this user follows me around and massively deletes part of the article. Again I reinsert the relevant parts and ask him to explain. Nevertheless he prefers to edit war over my edits. He is so focussed on reverting me, he is even reverting my correction to the WaPo link. The article is about an alleged PSYOP program that, among other things, is aimed at the US public. I inserted some background information regarding PSYOP programs aimed at the US public (which this program apparently does) and the relevant legalities. Again, he advocates violation of OR and blindly deletes without addressing my arguments for inclusion. He has now started asserting the program is not aimed at the US public, although the article mentions it several times(?). A quick glance at the edit history shows that while I am trying to improve the article (i.e. incorporating the sources, rewording, making better summaries) the primary contributions by this user consist of reverting me.
	These are some very good examples of how this editor '''1''' follows me around (dare I say it resembles stalking?) and blindly reverts my edits on sight, '''2''' removes all information he thinks is uncomfartable to the Bush administration and therefore POV. Fortunately, there are other editors who are capable of discussing and can refrain from aggressive editing.

	'''Uncivil remarks'''
	While continuing his hostile behaviour he started making unusual comments on my person ''-although, unfortunatelly, following the months of him attacking me I also made some harsh remarks-'' and edit summaries that are uncivil and misrepresenting the edits.
	:*''Turns out I was accused of being an editor that was previously banned name User:Merecat. I was accused by User talk:RyanFreisling and by User:Nescio and neither will return to apologize I am sure.'' Incorrect statement, nevertheless, still found on his page.
	:*''removed pests comments. Yes you are now a pest for constantly posting on this page the results of a RFC that showed I was not a sockpuppet. Please stop posting here''
	:*''rm non contructive comments. Again do not post here while mediation is proceeding, your comments are agitating the situation''
	:*''rv. vandalism''
	:*''rm comments by AGF violator and NPA violator, cease posting here please, your comments are mean and unwarranted''
	:*Following the numerous edit wars, in which he apparently is not to blame, he has chosen to ], asserting I, (that is, not he!?) am violating ]. In light of his own behaviour in the edit war he describes, it would be interesting to see how he would call his edits.

	'''Conclusion'''
	There are more examples, but I think this will suffice to show that Zero has an obstructive way of contributing. Instead of AGF, and trying to find consensus through debate, he simply deletes/reverts all he disagrees with, especially my edits, aggtressively demanding others to disprove his point. This means he repeatedly refuses to read the evidence provided unless people quote the relevant text, apparently because he is prohibited from reading articles himself. What we have at the moment is the two of us edit warring while we should be discussing. I admit I can't resist reverting his edits when I find he has reverted mine. Since no debate is possible I do the easiest thing (stupid, I know) and continue the edit war. At this moment on every article I edit Zero steps in and deletes my contribution. While I acknowledge people have diffent views, his style of reverting my edits on sight is exceedingly annoying, violates ], ], ], and certainly does not result in improving Misplaced Pages. In the hope somebody can end this silly game I reluctantly file this request.

	'''My specific requests from ArbCom are:'''
	#To determine the nature of the conflict, and if it is agreed Zero has directed his efforts towards undoing mine, to offer a solution stopping the personal harrasment.
	#To determine whether this editor is reverting/rewriting/deleting my edits in an attempt to improve Misplaced Pages by fighting POV (apparently mine), or, whether his blind "corrections" of my edits (edit warring) are based upon '''1''' antagonising me and '''2''' removing views from Misplaced Pages he thinks should not be made public (i.e. censoring), '''3''' stalking-like behaviour.
	#To determine whether or not editors making massive changes to an article, and subsequently only contribute that article by reverting my efforts, should discuss prior to those edits or whether it is acceptable that those wishing to retain the original version are the sole party that should justify their edit.
	#:''As minor and least important points''
	#To determine whether this user is correct in objecting to ''biased sources'', even though policy allows it. And whether sources need to be ''fact-checked'', and if so to rule that every article not based in fact is deleted, with the result that i.e. ] related articles are removed as they inherently are not ''fact-checked'' as religion is about a believe in something in the absense of facts supporting that view. In other words, are biased and opiniated sources allowed if we identify them as such?
	#To state whether comparing a '''definition''' (i.e. ], ]) with the '''known facts''' (was Iraq invaded out of self-defense? did the UN support the invasion?) and concluding the two are (not) compatible is a violation of ].

	If needed I will provide more evidence/diffs of his behaviour, but there is so much (miles and miles and miles of articles, diffs and comments) it would hinder those trying to understand the conflict.<font color="green"> ]</font><sup><i><font color="blue"><small>]</small></font></i></sup> 10:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	=====Mediation Attempts=====
	User left out dispute resolution located at ]. They have protested their involvement here and presented no evidence to dispute any of the claims.

	=====Misuse of RFAr postings?=====
	I was under the impression that RFAr notifications were to get out to users involved, not every article the user mentions, furthermore if they are posted, they are to be done in a neutral manner. Nescio's posts on pages accuses me of harrassment and is clearly made to bias the reader, stating ''"Apparently mediation does not result in improvement of the harrasment I endure"''

	*] -
	*] -
	*] -
	*] -
	*] -
	*] -
	*] -
	*] -
	*] -
	*] -
	*] -

	Furthermore 4 of those users are not listed above, 3 of them people who took part in the previous RfC on me but are unrelated to these incidents.

	=====Requesting RFAr?=====
	As for me requesting it, if you look at the dif they provide their threat is located right above it, attempting to use the RFAr threat to get me to stop editing the Zarqawi program.

	=====Refusal to provide Sources=====
	'''Unitary Executive Theory''' - I have asked this user to provide sources stating Unitary Executive Theory is part of the WOT directly:
	What they reply with is their reasoning, ie. original research

	I tried to explain that Unitary Executive theory and Extraordinary Rendition have existed before the WOT, and to provide a link stating they are part of it:
	There reply is that "kidnapping is part of the WOT" but never give a source.

	The article on Unitary Executive Theory relates itself to inherent war powers, Nescio then draws the line stating the only war the US is involved in is the War on Terrorism, so this must be in place, currently and related to the WOT. No source draws this line, if one does he could have simply supplied one. Oddly enough none of his sources that he did produce state the UET is related to the WOT. They link NSA surveillance program, but only 3 actually mention the WOT, and none in connection with UET.

	'''Information Operations Roadmap''' - User states "reverts but has yet to make a serious comment on my arguments" and offers as proof. However none of this actually addresses the following posted:
	They still have yet to show a source stating there is a link between the Information Operations Roadmap and the Zarqawi PSYOPS program. There latest attempts to include the roadmap even state the program is not part of it: They are basically linknig a random document to the article they created to fatten its contents, a document they admit is not connected.


	'''Smith-Mundt Act''' - This carried onto the Smith-Mundt Act, a law stating the US government cannot conduct psyops on its citizens. They are adding this mention, without a reason. By adding only one law they are creating a bias where it seems that is being violated. I back this up with the following:
	*They remove a quote when they revert stating the "US Home Audience" is not actually meaning to target civilians.
	*They add the Smith-Mundt Act to the see also section, though there is no evidence the program targets civilians.
	*They add select quotes, leaving out ''"It is ingrained in U.S.: You don't psyop Americans. We just don't do it,"'' a quote by the commander of the PSYOPS programs in Iraq
	*They left out the explanation of it hitting the US ''"When we provided stuff, it was all in Arabic," and aimed at the Iraqi and Arab media"''
	*The article specifically states ''"does not specifically state that U.S. citizens were being targeted by the effort,"''

	'''Signing Statements''' - Again the users proof above does not link signing statements to the WOT, it links them to torture, which then ''may'' link to extraordinary rendition, however no court has found torture took place as a result of extraordinary rendition. Furthermore that would link signing statements to Extraordinary Rendition, not directly to the WOT. Unless this user is stating that torturing people is a main concept of the War on Terror.

	'''NSA Surveillance Program''' - I stopped arguing over this long ago, its even in my proposed template overhaul of WOT template: ]

	<br />

	=====Lack of sources continued=====
	When asked on the WOT template page to provide a source for linking unitary executive theory and Bybee memo to the template
	* - ''"please provide ruling. Also remove Bybee again since you did not even attempt to give a reason for it.)"''
	They replied with:
	* - ''"(Hamdan v Rumsfeld)"''
	I looked up the document to find out its 158 pages long. I asked them to provide a page number that is most relevant and was told I asked again for a page number since the link they posted had nothing to do with Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld I was told I was being uncivil I explained to them that 158 page document is not a source if you cannot even cite a page in it I told them I would leave it to the end of the day however for them to provide a source. He then told me I am violating WP:AGF and WP:OWN, yet still refusing to give a page number, now telling me to look in the newyorker, however that doesnt mention Hamdan is tied to UET. I explained this to them and gave a quote of what it does say. They then went on to state its about signing statements and inherent authority, so now at this stage Nescio is no longer claiming Hamdan vs Rumsfeld is linked. They went on to call the US justice system a Kangaroo court and at that point I stopped responding . He has still yet to provide a source that says UET is part of WOT, only his own conclusions which are a violation of WP:OR.


	=====Misrepresentation of who is reverting=====
	If you actually view the history of the Zarqawi program page you can see I have been editing behind Nescio and not reverting. However the first edit nescio makes is always a revert, then continues to make smaller edits to the article, with lacking summaries:
	*Revert on July 17th - - ''"the massive removal of info and misrepresentation of the original articles is to difficult to undo so I rv"''
	*Revert on July 18th - - ''"rv revert that was done in several edits, please every thing you censor is relevant and sourced, you may have another POV, but Misplaced Pages is not about redacting out information that is uncomfortable"''
	*Revert on July 18th - - ''"v massive deletion, arguments are flawed so please address the rebuttal before reverting again, warring is silly when you can also try and justify your objections."''
	*Revert on July 19th - - ''"restored original version while awaiting debate, please Zero discussion is so much nicer than edit warring"''
	*Revert on July 19th - - ''"estored work in progress per talk, als rm POV tag, AFAIK there should no longer be a problem, Zero has promised to first start justifying his edit and to stop making statements"''
	*Revert on July 20th - - ''"do not blindly reevert, you have to explain massive edits, second you even reverted my correction of the WqaPo link, WP:AGF"''
	*Revert on July 20th - - ''"restored attempt at creating a serious page, Zero please first jusrify massively rewriting, as huge changes without first trying to discuss is highly "frowned upon""''
	*Revert on July 21st - - ''"restored work in progress, corrected Salon misrepresentation, removed biography"''
	*Revert on July 21st - - ''"restored non-POV version"''
	*Revert on July 21st - - ''"restored info deleted by "the decider" which he had not noticed was taken from Newsweek, and again restarting attempt to improve while Zero only contributes by reverting"''

	So as can be seen the reverting is not one sided. Furthermore this users edit summaries normally consist of one word when they are not reverting, such as "clarfiying" "expanded" "example" "tweak" etc. Not very informative to other editors, where all of my edits are fully summarized to explain what and why edits are happening. You can see them on the history page .

	=====Failure to understand WP:RS=====
	User keeps attempting to add quotes from a self published, non notable article from a non expert in the field of terrorism or even law enforcement. Nescio has been told that this source fails WP:RS by 3 different users and continues to insert quotes by that writer, stating bias sources are allowed ... failing to address the issue of it being self published, not peer reviewd, not from a journalist, not even from a expert in the field.
	*TheronJ telling Nescio is fails WP:RS
	*Morton Devonshire telling Nescio it fails WP:RS
	*Myself telling Nescio it fails WP:RS

	Nescio does not even attempt to address the arguement, instead he attempts to change the reason to bias or other reason: *Telling Morton bias sources are allowed -
	*Telling Morton that the New York Times does not fact check, evidence is Judith Miller -
	*Nescio again not addressing WP:RS, attempting to limit arguement to bias -

	=====I revert without explanation=====
	The claim that I revert ''"but never with a full explanation substantiating his claims"'', I show the following original edits, all fully summarized:
	* '''removed information clearinghouse source. Bias source, as per VP:RS bias sources should not be used as sole sources for information'''
	* '''Please do not remove factual information, your editorial is more suspect then the Washington Post'''
	*
	* '''readded quote that explains the "Home Audience" its directly in the source, please be careful of selective quoting'''
	::'''Note''' this edit is actually jsut adding a space, I noticed I forgot an edit summary on the prior edit, so I created a line break and added the summary for the last one.
	* '''Program - removed portion already in header, its redundant'''
	::'''Note'''Its stated almost word for word in the header.
	* '''removed Agencee France quote as its about an unrelated program as well as Rumsfeld document, against I ask you to supply a source stating this PSYOP is part of that roadmap, thank you.''''
	* '''removed quote as its already mentioned in header in same detail, actually more clearer since it explains home audience, be careful of selective quoting'''
	::'''Note''' Contained a selective quote from Washington Post without the trailing information of specifying the program did not target civilians etc.
	* '''removed program section, its covered in header. sources were not about this program and quote is covered in header'''
	* '''Removed WOT as again its more directly linked to Iraq War, removed Smith Mundt Act, again please prove this program violates this act, no OR please'''
	* '''rm Roadmap, please provide a source stating these two events are linked'''

	As pointed out above this user still has not provided a source linking Operations Information Roadmap and Zarqawi PSYOP program, not an article that even mentions Smith-Mundt Act.

	=====Nescio's violations of ]=====
	Adds items to War on Terrorism template, stating Iraq War is part of War on Terrorism:
	*Zarqawi PSYOP Program:
	*Downing Street Memo:
	User removes Iraq War from template:
	User removed "Part of War on Terrorism" from the Iraq War page:
	How can the Iraq War not be part of the War on Terrorism, but all its sub events be part of it?
	This user goes on to remove the War on Terrorism template from the NATO page:
	Then states NATO is the sole participant in the WOT:
	They claim this was a grammar issue, however it was pointed out numerous times on the War on Terrorism talk page to this user that some campaigns are US only, some are NATO without US, some are NATO with US and some dont involve NATO at all:
	This concludes with them stating they will edit other articles to reflect somethnig I did not state: in violation of WP:POINT, do not disrupt other articles to prove a point.
	After much of this happened the user felt it was necessary to flood the War on Terrorism template with numerous unrelated terrorist acts after I added the Chechen rebel leader, since someone added the Chechen War. The edit summaries are included to show the WP:POINT violation, instead of voicing concern no the talk page about hsi addition, he simply flooded the template being highly disruptive:
	*
	*
	* - ''appartently everything should be listed''
	* - ''apparently all terrorism is included''

	=====] ] Violations=====
	The user appeared on the poll that was attempting to determine if users felt the Iraq War was part of the War on Terrorism. After arguing on the page for some time over the justification of the war being wrong, they were pointed to the header that explained the poll was not attempting to place blame or justify anything, simply state if the war was launched as part of the War on Terrorism. From there they proceeded with the following actions:

	Adding and removing of information from the header, changing what the poll was addressing, 18+ ppl voted at this point.
	*

	Removal of their comments in protest even though people have replied to them. Makes the page unreadable, obvious disruption. 20+ comments being removed.
	*

	<br />

	=====Constantly Changing Arguements=====
	The following takes place during a Mediation Cabal. They stated their removal of the 2005 Bali bombing article from the War on Terrorism template was by accident however they stated no the template talk page that it was done on purpose. They have now resorted to stating they just felt it was a minor event and not a major one even though they deleted the item instead of moving it to "related events" section on the template, both times that they removed it. This switch in arguement is repeated on the talk page here, first stating it was an error then now stating it was because they felt it wasnt a main event.

	=====AGF=====
	This user states I violate ], however they refuse to actually show an example. I will show some of the things they have said to me in volation of WP:AGF:
	* - ''"The fact you are unable to resist pestering me yet again, proves you are not interested in any mediation. Stop harrassing me and await the procedure or admit you have something against me personally"''
	**I keep trying to explain to this user I do not have a personal problem with them, I just want them to source their material and prove links exist, however whenever I ask for source I get told I am attacking and pestering them.
	* - ''"Since you are reporting me, can you also report yourself as vandal for refusing to read the evidence I provide and then rv my edits on account of there being no evidence"''
	**There was a 3RR report this comment is in response to. The outcome was a block.
	* - ''"you are now trolling since the entire explanation can be found on the article about UET, signing statement, et cetera. The fact you fail to read them but still claim UET is not being used proves you are only being a dick"''
	**This is in response to me asking them to provide sources. I would like to point out that "War on Terror" is not located in the article for unitary executive theory at all, except in the "see also" section.
	* - ''"Then continues ignoring several clear questions showing he is wrong and appears to have developed an addiction to edit warring."''
	* - ''"but you might look into it more and discover there is a campaign against me by two editors and the 3RR report surely is part of that"''
	**After being blocked for violating 3RR
	* - ''"False, you removed my comment on the votestacking in that poll as a personal attack."''
	**They advertised their RFC in a MFD vote, I removed it because it seemed like link spamming, it was added back with an explanation by a 3rd party and I left it.
	* - ''"All in all his behaviour highly similar to that of a disruptive troll that is stalking me."''
	**This is actually stated while asking a user to mediate the conflict ... what a way to start mediation.

	=====Closing Statement=====
	This user has a habit of stating I have a personal problem with them and I "stalk them", however these accusations appear when they are asked to provide sources, which they seem to not want to do. I have said before I think nescio is a good editor, however my opinion is starting to change. I have asked this user to cease inserting original research into articles and they have just continued to do so. I have removed alot from the Zarqawi PSYOP program page and I added some. The article in the condition Nescio wants to keep it is 50% quotes and introductions to quotes. Its also highly POV as it states quotes but not their follow up information, as highlighted above.

	Furthermore I never said a bias article cannot be used, I said a bias article should not be the only source for information. Finally in relation to the Zarqawi program article I want to state that 25% of the quotes on the page in the version Nescio wants to keep come from a non expert who wrote an editorial for a site that cannot be confirmed to reliable or verifiable. The article in question is an editorial that is self published as Michel Chossudovsky, the person being quoted, runs the website. Its the responcibility of authors to verify their sources.

	In closing from Nescio' statements above he fails to grasp the concept of OR. He wants to take a law, interpret it and make a statement of fact from it, without requiring a source that supports it. To state the invasion of Iraq is a war crime he draws the following links with original research '''(1)''' that his understanding of the law is correct '''(2)''' he is aware of all treaties, rulings, etc that would alter that law '''(3)''' that a case has been made to a court that its a war crime by an appropriate prosecutor '''(4)''' that its been ruled on by a competant court, or at least that the arguement has been heard by a court with appropriate jurisdiction. Its not for us wikipedians, especially those without degrees in international law, to look at a document as complex as the geneva convention and decide for a fact that a certain war is a war crime, especially when we may not even be aware of alternate rulings, laws, limitations etc. But that is Nescio's style, he uses logic statements to attempt to make information into facts, however that is in violation of the basic principle of WP:OR. To counter his arguement, to state the Iraq War was a "war of agression" is to say that the US did not attack Iraq out of self defense, which there is no 100% proof of, so it cannot be a fact, he keeps arguing the UN did not support it, however the UN does not have to support it if its a war of self defense. As you can see the situation is highly complex and I am not even a lawyer, neither is Nescio which goes to show why we should not be drawing our own conclusions. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 13:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

	====Statement by ]====
	I find it disturbing that someone who made the first edit just two and a half months ago has already been blocked 4 times for revert wars and aggressive behaviour and invests such a tremendous amount of his editing on conflicts. Please help to find a way to make this a fruitful editor or to reduce the amount of time others need to deal with the conflicts. ] 22:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

	====Statement by ]====
	My involvement is practically accidental, after I protected the ] page from an ogoing revert war. I have also suggested (although only to Zer0fault), that ] be rewritten completely, due to the massive amount of {{tl\|fact}} tags. However no matter who might be right or wrong, this conflict does appear to be a sterile standoff between the two users and very little constructive editing (but a LOT of arguing) has come out of it. ] 02:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

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

	==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/0/0/0) ====
	*Accept, to look at both parties. ]·] 15:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

	----

	=== ] ===

	==== Involved Parties ====
	(some parties may not be contributing to Misplaced Pages at the present time, and many other users who are involved may not be listed) {{unsigned\|69.227.173.154}}
	:]
	:]
	:]
	:]
	:]
	:]
	:]
	:]
	:]
	:]
	:]
	:]
	:]
	:]
	:]
	:]

	==== Comfirm all parties are aware of request ====
	:] ]
	:] ]
	:]-initiator
	:] ]
	:] ]
	:] ]
	:] ]
	:] ]
	:] ]
	:] ]
	:] ]
	:] ]
	:] ]
	:] ]
	:] ]
	:] ]


	; Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried

	* User has been warned that further consequences will come if his personal attacks don’t cease on numerous occasions










	*This user tends to use inappropriate language, and uses personal attacks for his own benefit in a situation. Despite the notices of his inappropriate actions (in list above) he continues to bring negative energy to the project, and tends to humiliate other users









	]












	]
	]
	]
	]

	*This user also tends to leave inappropriate and degrading comments as his edit summary. Since he usually does not back his statements up on talk pages, most of this disruptive behavior is seen in the edit summary. He tends to disrespect the hard work of others in these summaries.











	]

	]










	]

	]
	]
	]
	]


	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]


	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]



	]

	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]


	*User misuses the term “vandalism" in its context on a continuous basis


	]




	]
	]

	=====Checkuser request=====
	Due to the allegations that ] has used sock puppets, I request that the CheckUser tool be used to inspect the records in regard to ].

	Suspected puppets

	*{{checkuser\|Anaheimat}}

	==== Statement by ] ====

	] has involved himself in many controversial pages in his career at Misplaced Pages. However, in most cases it is reasonable for two editors to disagree from time to time. This particular user tends to make derogatory comments, misuses the term of vandalism, and degrades the emotions of the people he disagrees with. Over the past two years, over 50 Wikipedians have fallen victim to his cruel comments and harsh reactions to disagreements on a page. He has been notified plenty of times for his egotistic attitude, and strong views, but continues to use his comments in a ruthless and inhumane way. This type of an extremely negative attitude disrupts the other editors who engage in normal conversations. These users do not deserve these comments they receive just for having a different viewpoint, yet find themselves humiliated with his comments in front of many other editors who read these personal attacks. As we all know, this type of editing and commenting does not provide any positive change to the Misplaced Pages community, and has gone on long enough. One major Misplaced Pages rule that is probably most shun upon is the devaluing and personal attacks toward new users who are learning their way around Misplaced Pages. Many users who edit a page for their first time do so incorrectly, but ] tends to use personal attacks and their lack of knowledge against them. He is also suspected of having a sockpuppet, ], which as an experienced Wikipedian, he knows that these are prohibited. Another tendency of this user is to revert edits continuously, as for he claims articles as “his own”, and leaves personal attacks on these edit summaries.
	:'''Note''' - I blocked ] for being a sockpuppet of the currently blocked ]. See ]. -]] 19:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

	::'''Note'''- This users allegations are just speculation, and have no found proof or evidence. Please disregard these statements because they are based on no fact. --] 21:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

	====Statement by ]====

	This request for arbitration is clearly a retaliatory and harassing move on the part of Ericsaindon2 in response to my recent filing of a request for arbitration against him. Furthermore, to file it, he used a sockpuppet for the umpteenth time in violation of Misplaced Pages policy (as noted by SCEhardt). I have already noted Ericsaindon's attempt at retaliation on the Evidence page for Ericsaindon2's arbitration.

	I will concede that on certain occasions I have forgotten about the civility policy (particularly when I was editing WP to cool off after a bad day and came across inept edits or clear vandalism). But I also wish to remind the Committee that unlike Ericsaindon2, the vast majority of my edits have greatly improved the encyclopedia. In particular, see my work on ], ], ], ], the ], and the ]. Unlike me, very few editors go to the trouble of providing citations to reliable, verifiable hard copy sources for the assertions in their edits.

	Also, because of my passion for Misplaced Pages, I have provided under the GFDL many high-quality photographs of important places and things; see ], ], ], ], and ].

	I apologize for my tendency towards excessively harsh commentary. In the future, I will be more careful about complying with the civility policy. I ask all members of the Committee to vote to reject Ericsaindon2's frivolous request. --] 05:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

	:In response to Ericsaindon2's rather self-serving statement, I wish to point out that I have always acted in good faith. I have been careful to comply with core Misplaced Pages policies: ], ], ], and ] while Ericsaindon2 has repeatedly inserted unverifiable, partisan original research as if Misplaced Pages were his personal soapbox — as I have pointed out on the ]. Even though I do not always agree with the consensus of the community, I have conceded to it many times, and I have been careful to not violate the 3RR rule or to use sockpuppets. This is why I have never been blocked, while in contrast, Ericsaindon2 has been blocked seven times so far ], and his sockpuppets Mr.Executive and Mr.Executive2 have been blocked indefinitely. Having failed in his quest to distort the Anaheim Hills article (which was properly resisted by ] and ]), Ericsaindon2 is now lashing out in a vindictive bad faith action against me, just because I stepped in and did the legal research that conclusively repudiated his position (see the arguments and counterarguments at ]). I again urge the Committee to vote to reject this frivolous request. --] 16:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

	::User Coolcaesar, this issue is not involving Ericsaindon2, or Mr.Executive, but rather involving the negative attitude and personal attacks commited by you, and is meant to only be used to comment on your unacceptable actions, and not anyone elses doings but your own. Please keep comments about other users limited to the Arbitration Case that it belongs with. Your statement is more apppropriate for the Arbitration Case involving Ericsaindon2, but not this one. Thank You. --] 03:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

	:::Ericsaindon2, nobody is fooled by your self-serving statements and dilatory tactics. Your motive boils down to this: If I can't edit Misplaced Pages, then I'll make sure no one else can either! Instead of spending hours identifying every instance over a two year period where I was editing Misplaced Pages on a bad day, you could have restored your own credibility by taking a bus to downtown Anaheim and pulling public records that would support your position. I have built my reputation on Misplaced Pages through thousands of significant edits over two years, all of which have substantially improved large portions of the encyclopedia (though my edit summaries may have been overly emotional); you destroyed your reputation in less than three months. That is the core of this dispute, and the issue of ''your'' bad behavior is already before the Committee. --] 06:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

	::::My motive is this...if someone does something wrong, and causes problems, they should serve punishment for it. I did not even file this ArbCom case, although I probably should have before your attitude got out of hand when I was editing with you. And to say this about your editing history, in a court of law, the judge does not care whether a gas station clerk or a CEO is involved in the same case, it is that the person did wrongdoings-and should serve the consequenses of those wrongdoings. So dont act like I am seeking revenge, because it is YOUR actions that landed you here, not my actions. Just take responsibility for your actions, pay the consequenses for your actions, and stop trying to start personally attacking other people when they are trying to control your behavior. --] 06:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

	====Comment by ]====

	Although not involved in this dispute, I have been involved with several articles that ] has also edited, most notably the article on ]. I have never seen any comments from him that rise to the level of "inhumane." It's true that he is assertive in his edits and comments; he has also always been correct in every edit I've ever seen. There are unquestionably users out here who abuse others, but I firmly believe that Coolcaesar is not one of them. ] 13:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

	====Comment by ]====
	I'm not involved in this dispute.

	When I got notice of this matter, I wasn't sure what it was all about. I knew I had seen several edits by Coolcaesar at "]" and ], and I didn't have any specific recollection of hostility there.

	Then I remembered that he'd been the one to write "DUDE! ARE YOU BLIND OR DYSLEXIC OR SOMETHING? Read the top of this page! There's a humongous link RIGHT THERE to Talk:United States/Frequently asked questions. That's the sixth or seventh time that question has been asked this year!" at ]—but, when I originally saw that edit, I took it as somewhat humorous, one-off flabbergastedness.

	This morning, however, having looked at every one of the references of Coolcaesar's behavior linked above, I'm ... just very surprised and rather annoyed.

	Now I also see that Coolcaesar is the person whose "idiot" and "dumb" edit summaries at "]" led me to leave a brief comment at his/her Talk page once.

	I don't know what to say. My recollection of most of what Coolcaesar has done at "United States" and its Talk for the last weeks is one of decent civility. Why Coolcaesar has such a different style elsewhere: it baffles me. I've seen Coolcaesar be decent and civil and even nice; so why all the hostility and meanness and personal attacks elsewhere? I'm sure other users exhibit the same contradictions; but it's just strange to see such detail of it in one specific user.

	The main thing that gets me is the NUMBER of instances of incivility: so many times calling things a mess and calling users idiots and dumb and bozos and ... just on and on and on. Appalling.

	I know Coolcaesar is capable of being a good contributor; it's happened plenty of times. '''But something must be done to effect the end of the poor behavior. Immediately. This behavior must not continue.''' ] 14:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)'']

	One last point. About Coolcaesar's describing non-vandalism as vandalism: at least one of the examples given above is inappropriate; Coolcaesar's most definitely looks to me like reverting vandalism. In a few of the other examples, while I wouldn't necessarily reach a vandalism conclusion, I can see how someone else (e.g., Coolcaesar) might reasonably reach it.

	] 15:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

	:I feel compelled to supplement my comments.

	:While Coolcaesar may not have gone against other Misplaced Pages rules and guidelines, I don't find that mitigating; also not mitigating in the matter of Coolcaesar's behavior is Ericsaindon2's behavior. When your neighbor sues you for crashing your car through her fence, '''it doesn't matter''' that you've always paid your rent and never beaten your kids, while your neighbor has been convicted of possessing pot and has disobeyed housing-association guidelines in building the swingset in her back yard; the point is that you crashed your neighbor's fence. (I'm not drawing any connections between these specific example behaviors and what Coolcaesar and Ericsaindon2 have done. I'm simply pointing out the dissociation.)

	:I'm baffled by the comments left by users who find themselves unable to believe the Coolcaesar has ever been unreasonably and oft repeatedly rude at Misplaced Pages. '''The evidence is linked just some paragraphs above their comments.'''

	:] 14:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

	====Comment by ]====

	I'm not involved in this dispute.

	There has been no RFC, nor an RFM. This RFaR should be summarily dismissed.

	Furthermore, I think that a checkuser should be done comparing ] with both ] and ].

	:A check user was filed with ] by ] earlier yesterday in an effort to remove any speculation that the two parties are afiliated. {{unsigned\|69.227.173.154}} (who, by their edit to the [[Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ericsaindon2/Evidence\|Ericsaidon2 RFA evidence
	page]], implies that they are ].
	::Even if a checkuser comes up negative or inconclusive, the editing style and wording, plus the style and wording of the spamming of article pages against Coolceasar says that Mr. Executive is Ericsaidon2. ]] 17:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
	:::Oh, yeah right, if it comes up false (which it will) you cannot treat this user like you have treated me. There is no way any of that stuff you have done to him is going to last... --] 00:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
	::::Because of the way that my ] handles it's ], I could easily look like three different users that would come up completely negative on a checkuser check. If I wanted to risk inconclusive checkuser results, I could also look like users in two different counties, in four different area codes, up to 30 miles apart. If I started borrowing or paying for internet access from friends, neighbors, work, the local libraries, Kinko's, etc., I could have a dozen or more sockpuppets that would get completely negative results from a checkuser check. That's one reason that doing a check is as much art as science and access to the tool is limited to those who can interpret the results. ]] 09:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

	Yes, Coolceasar occasionally gets grumpy in his edit summaries, and I have even scolded him once for losing his cool, but if I did as much vandal fighting as he does I'd probably get just as grumpy and start leaving snarky edit summaries as well. On the other hand, we share an interest in Southern California topics, so I've seen him do plenty of good article edits, and leave lots of comments on article talk pages. I've never seen any of grumpy comments on article talk pages, where sometimes he has also had very good reasons to be exasperated as well. ]] 17:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

	:Note:It is kind of sad that you know Coolcaesar is wrong in this case and needs to be punished, but your only defense is trying to put down the person who filed the complaint, and their specific wrongdoings. It is very sad. --] 00:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

	::I do think that Coolceasar's 'uncool' remarks in his edit summaries are an area where he should show more restraint, but at this time an RFC for that behavior is what is warranted. This RFaR is premature and should be dismissed. ]] 09:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

	====Comment by ]====
	I am not involved in this dispute.

	] has left numerous comments on ] and everything I see there seems very level-headed and reasonable. I have not always agreed with him - but the conversation has always remained civil and polite. ] 22:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

	====Comment by ]====
	] did commit a personal attack and was uncivil in this discussion: ] I had no other incidents with him before or after the cited incident.--] 00:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

	====Comment by ]====

	]'s edit summary is disparaging to an editor, and his comment at is both snotty and wrongheaded. For my part, I laughed it off and gave him the '''snub direct''' and was satisfied, but since we are here, let me make an additional comment.

	I hope it is not inappropriate to note that the intersection of his and my interests is our profession: ] describes himself as a young lawyer, and I am a not-so-young lawyer, with extensive experience in bar associations. Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution procedure is a remarkable development the legal profession should study for applications elsewhere. Tools for dispute-resolution can always improve! In this case, I think we can agree on a few basic rules, in particular:
	# Edit summaries must never disparage another editor
	# Edit summaries should rarely if ever name an editor or contain a naughty word
	# An apology goes a long way.
	I am willing to live by the above code and to apologize when someone tells me I've slipped. Is this an appropriate request to make of ]? It would be a shame to lose a prolific editor on a question of manners, if that's what this is. ] 05:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

	:I see Coolcaesar apologized very nicely at 05:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC). Thank you. I suggest we drop it and move on. ] 21:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

	====Comment by ]====
	I made a previous comment , but it was moved out of this case by the nominator. Instead of fighting over that, I'll write fresh material.

	Since this request has been filed by EricSaindon2's puppet {{fact}} and since Coolcaesar filed a request about ES, it would be typical to merge this case with ES's case. However this RfAr does not fit that mold because this request does not merit arbitration. While CC has used frank language at times, there have never been serious formal complaints - no mediation, no RfC, no AN/I threads. This request has obviously been brought simply as revenge against CC for his RfAr on ES.

	CC is a valued, longterm contributor to this project who has my full support. -] 09:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

	:Mediation was offered to settle a dispute between several editors, and rejected by ] which was offered by ] on the ] page for he thought another user should just "give in" to what he requests out of the page, and instead of taking this more peaceful approach, he decided to file an Arbitration Case. I dont think it would be any use just one week later to try and introduce mediation again. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2\|}}}.</small>

	====Comment by ]====

	I know I am on block but I am highly involved in this user’s personal attitude, and attacks. I will return to my block once I make this statement, because I feel, since this is the user that blocked me, I need to make a statement when he faces a similar situation. I have, over the past month been harassed by this user. I was involved in a content dispute with him, and he continued to use the slander, and inappropriate language, as exemplified above (but for some reason not all of it is shown above). He degraded me and treated me inhumanely throughout the entire month for just a content dispute. I made no personal attacks against him, but he came at me all the time for reverting uncalled for edits he had made, and treating all my work as vandalism, even though it was not. He seems to, by the statements and proof above, feel that if it doesn’t go his way, he can trash talk the users, and therefore creating disputes which are counter productive. His personal attacks need to stop now, for they are uncalled for, and unmanageable. I feel that mediation would never work because this user has been warned in excess of a dozen times by high Misplaced Pages figures and admins that his behavior is unacceptable, but continues his trend. He needs a break from Misplaced Pages to think about what he is doing, and how he can change it to become productive, and stop being the instigator and attacker that he has become on this website. The debate in which I received my Arbitration case for were far less significant and destructive as his have become. My comments were not ruthless, and all my disputes were limited to the one page, whereas this particular user has created chaos and devalued Misplaced Pages with counter-productivity on over 50 pages, and has involved and attacked 30+ users. I don’t care who was right in the situation over the content dispute, his behavior was downright uncalled for, and needs to be terminated, and treated as such. People are not rag dolls like he has tended to treat them without punishment. Using the profanity used by this user is the worst offense committed on Misplaced Pages, and people have rights to be treated like people, which is far worse than the easily fixable edits I made with good intentions that got me blocked. Plus, in cases like this, where it was me, sorry is just too late, and there is a point when the word sorry has been abused so many times that it carries no meaning for certain people, like in this case. I urge you to take this case, because the attitude of this user is reckless, and uncalled for, and despite any apologies, it has all been heard before by this user, and still no change. This user can use all the excuses to why he committed these malicious attacks, but in the end, like in my case, it doesn’t matter, it is the harm you created and the people you offended that matters. I don’t think that he should be completely abolished from Misplaced Pages, for he does make the occasional good edit as stated by users above, but a temporary block would help this user, and give him time to thoroughly understand Misplaced Pages and its rules and how to treat people. -- ] 09:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

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

	==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/1/0/0) ====
	*This requst is confusing: evidence of misconduct is not the same thing as prior dispute resolution. It appears there has been none, other than some warnings about rudeness, and this probably does not rise to the level of arbitration yet. In any case, the Ericsaindon2 case is closely related, and any evidence offered there will be considered, so reject. ]·] 16:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
	----

	=== Humus sapiens abuse of Administrative Power ===

	==== Involved parties ====

	:http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Humus_sapiens
	:http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Israel
	:http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Adam777
	:http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Smitty_Mcgee
	:http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Itsmejudith
	:http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kusnetsov
	:http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Bhouston
	:http://en.wikipedia.org/User:MSTCrow
	; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
	:http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Humus_sapiens
	:http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Israel
	:http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Adam777
	:http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Smitty_Mcgee
	:http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Itsmejudith
	:http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kusnetsov
	:http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Bhouston
	:http://en.wikipedia.org/User:MSTCrow

	; Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried
	(''Admin has taken ownership of article and is impacted my any edits to thus article personally. '''Attempts at solving the issues were made''' on ''numerous occassions'' on ] to no avail. The user keeps deleting posts that he deems innapropraite or anti-Zionist, peoples edits have been deleted and users banned under the guise of vandalism'')

	: Since the complaint focuses solely on abuse of administrative powers, mediation and the other dispute resolution steps do not offer appropriate oversight/solution for this particular set of allegations. This approach appears standard in these instances. Please see Homeontheorange above et al. ] 15:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

	==== Statement by party 1 ====
	: is abusing his administrative rights. He has repeatedly reverted legitimate edits citing vandalism as the reason. His personal POV should not set presidence on page edits on Misplaced Pages. I wish to have his adminship revoked as he has shown a lack of neutrality and impartiality when it comes to edits on Zionist related pages. He is not the protecter of Zionism on wikipedia and is a administrator. He has flagrantly banned members or requested other admins who patrol the same articles to keep a POV base running to ban people who edit them. As a new wikipedia user, I find a neutral perspective lacking from many articles he has dictated. I added POV tags to an article only to have them removed and them banned. '''Attempts at mediation and consensus have been attempted''' on the ] page for a few weeks with no fruition. It ends up with the admin and his "friends" being uncivil and calling everyone who doesn't edit the article to their liking anti-jewish or anti-semetic. If you are an administraor you shall not take sided on issues and look at them impartially. If you look at the edit history and look a little deeper you will see that has not been followed.
	--] 09:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

	: Humus Sapiens is attempting to portray Israel in a sympathetic, rather than objective, light. However, a recent development on the Talk:Israel page leads me to believe that a section on Israeli human rights abuses may soon be added to the article. If Humus does not attempt to block this procedure, then I believe that removal of his administrative privelages would be unnecessary. I understand that he does not want the article to lean in the opposite direction, and I think that this new section could be accepted by all parties.
	--] 15:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

	: I have observed the same problems. He has used the same tactics on the ] article as well. There appears to be a small cabal of user accounts that work on these related articles that he coordinates with to ban/revert statements and sources that contradict his apparent point of view. The guise is usually calling it vandalism. If you read his discussion page, it is a novel of response from people for whom he has left nasty comments/threats on their userpages. Should this behavior really be reinforced with Administrator privileges? I don't think so.

	: '''Since this claim revolves around actual allegations of abuse of Administrative powers, "mediation" and other steps are obviously not an appropriate or viable solution.''' As I suggested, simply looking at Humus Sapiens' "user contributions" shows a disproprortionate and shocking number of reversions. This is the evidence to which we refer. Mostly he makes seemingly reasonable but completely false edit notes such as "vandalism" to justify. As we all know the "3" in 3RR is only a guideline. Just because he is careful to avoid technical violation through this account, engaging in this behavior in a disruptive way is grounds for disciplinary action (esp. when facilitated with admin tools). I would also warn about his red herring pattern of quoting myriad policy pages unrelated to the allegations against him. This gives the false appearance that his accusers are discredited because he somehow has a greater knowledge of 'the rules' by virtue of the fact he can link to 20 policy pages. This is meaningless in this context and unrelated to his own revert behavior and userpage namecalling/taunting.

	: Finally, I would also say OiBoy is representative of only a miniscule fraction of HS' impact. I only coincendentally found this arbitration hearing, and am giving feedback because I share the complaint in an entirely different article from the one in which OiBoy and others here are involved. I suspect that if expanded notification was given there would be a vastly enlarged section of people advocating these observations and their hamrful/disruptive nature. Otherwise you see Humus Sapiens' "friends" listing how he is a great person (opinion), or criticizing OiBoy (red herring). We need a factual examination of the behavior of Humus Sapien, not the accuser.

	--] 22:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

	Since apparently it is our burden to cull the evidence, here is a snapshot from his brief involvement with the Ahmadenijad article and a snapshot examination of his last 50 history from User Contributions.

	(cur) (last) 11:03, 13 June 2006 Humus sapiens (Talk \| contribs) (RV whitewash. See talk)
	http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad&oldid=58371811

	-He deleted material that was written objectively and sourced from Reuters

	(cur) (last) 04:22, 13 June 2006 Humus sapiens (Talk \| contribs) (RV Sarastro777: see WP:RS and don't scour the net for old/unreputable opinions to confirm your POV)
	http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad&oldid=58334203

	-Deleted the same material sourced from Reuters as "unreputable"

	(cur) (last) 22:14, 13 June 2006 Humus sapiens (Talk \| contribs) (RV Sarastro777: stop childish behavior and namecalling. See talk)

	(cur) (last) 22:09, 13 June 2006 Sarastro777 (Talk \| contribs) (Discussion does not validate censorship. Please stop deleting to your POV)

	- Namecalling in edit notes, continues outright deleting contributions of other editors.

	(cur) (last) 04:33, 28 June 2006 Humus sapiens (Talk \| contribs) (RV 68.6.254.16: read on, you are close)
	http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad&oldid=60964265

	- Removed a citation needed tag with a specious apparent reference to ONE source.. which did not qualify usage of word "widely"

	---------

	Oh his last 50 edits... 11 have the outright edit note of Revert or RV, and many others are the same thing without the proper notation. Here is a brief excerpt of only the last 50 off his history page.

	Quoting from..]

	''"Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others."

	In light of the above, does this small snapshot of revert behavior constitute "working properly with others"?

	Quoting from .. ]

	''"Reverting should be used primarily for fighting vandalism.
	''
	''...

	''Reverting a good-faith edit may send the message that "I think your edit was no better than vandalism and doesn't deserve even the courtesy of an explanatory edit summary." It is a slap in the face to a good-faith editor."

	Please consider the above when reading what follows....

	11:00, 19 July 2006 (hist) (diff) m Karameh (Reverted edits by 196.205.130.214 (talk) to last version by 208.131.189.171) (top)

	- This one replaced "Palestinian" with "Terrorist" - is that a NPOV word?

	04:43, 20 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Roman salute (RV Joturner. A clear example of the subject. What makes it irrelevant?) (top)

	- Used revert to keep picture of Hezbollah recruits in a seemingly unrelated article about an Ancient Roman practice.

	04:35, 20 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Anti-Semitism (RV Yousaf465: this is well documented) (top)

	- "well documented" but he reverted and still did not provide a source

	10:43, 21 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:66.181.1.98 (top)
	Your comment is against our policies. Next time you will be blocked without further warning. ?Humus sapiens ??? 10:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

	- How about explaining rules to new users rather than threatening/intimidating them away from Misplaced Pages??

	11:28, 21 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Israel ({Off topic warning})

	- Tagged another user for questioning objectivity of the word "Homicide Bomber"

	21:52, 20 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:80.43.11.159 (Blatant vandalism) (top)
	Welcome to Misplaced Pages. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Zionism, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. ?Humus sapiens ??? 21:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

	- called edits he disagreed with "blatant vandalism" (see parenthetical) and rather than educating unregistered (apparently) new user, threatened to ban him/her. I think he does not understand what at best may be POV statements as opposed to true vandalism.

	Using his powers to ban as an Administrator as a threat tool to corral edits to his POV is obviously unacceptable. ALL the more egregious when this perceived 'admin' power is used to scare away new users. Being a member of an unofficial and unrecognized "vandalism unit" with the stated purpose of developing anti-vandalism software, certainly does not in any way excuse this behavior. I am seeing a deep seated pattern that is disruptive to the functionality of this website, and a hinderance to its fundamental basis which is the open and free exchange of information. Misplaced Pages needs all people with an interest to add ideas with good intention.

	] 19:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

	==== Statement by Humus sapiens ====

	Since 1) none of my admin action is challenged here, 2) there was no attempt of ] that I know of and 3) I am "meeting" many users listed against me for the first time here, it is not clear to me where did I commit my "abuse of Administrative Power". A short background:

	'''{{userlinks\|Oiboy77}}''': persistent violations of WP policies (in particular ], ], ], ], ], ], etc.) were reverted and criticized by a number of editors and he was blocked by a number of admins (myself included). His requests to unblock were reviewed and rejected.

	Oiboy77's was to change "State of Israel" into "State of Palestine", a "rogue state". Since then, there was no improvement in either quality or radicalism: in his he mentions "the Utopian state of ]" . The following are a few out of many attempts to explain ]/warn/reason with him on his own talk page:
	*,
	*,
	*,
	*,
	*,
	*,
	*,
	*,
	*,
	*,
	*, etc.
	Instead of civilly discussing content issues, Oiboy77 opted for , as Jpgordon it.

	I noticed that Oiboy77 has updated his statement but still failed to substantiate his charges against me. It seems that Oiboy77 misunderstands the basics of ] and processes, in particular ] and ]. I see this "case" as an attempt to intimidate me. Such efforts against those who disagree with his extemist POV seem to be his principal activity at WP: ,
	,
	,
	,
	,
	, his other principal activity being radical soapboxing.

	'''{{userlinks\|Smitty Mcgee}}''' almost solely focuses on ] where he engages in ], attempting to turn that article into a clone of another article, ].

	'''{{userlinks\|Sarastro777}}''' concentrates on ], where he had content disputes with several editors, including myself. None of my edits he listed as evidence involved admin powers. Instead, Sarastro777 chose to defend
	, , and condemn my citing WP policies & guidelines: , ], etc.
	He did indeed "cull the evidence" adding misleading comments and omitting my , or
	().

	I am a proud member of ] and my watchlist includes thousands of pages. I prefer honest and detailed edit summaries; if asked, I can explain every edit I made. I take full responsibility for my actions and reject conspiracy allegations as childish and bad faith. ←] <sup>]</sup> 23:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

	====Statement by ] ]====

	I'm going to make this very brief. I don't have any personal involvement in this, but received a message from ] inviting me to comment. I recently posted some on the ] article. I note that he has also notified other people who expressed reservations about the content of the article, six at the last count. If this is normal procedure for RfAr, disregard this post, but it came across to me to be ''odd'', RfAr is for when dispute resolution has failed, not for starting a pile on. - ] ] 17:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

	====Statement by ]====
	Oiboy77 has made all of 37 edits to articles, the rest to talk pages, since his first edit on June 29. Today, he posted to 16 user talk pages saying the user's "presence is requested at the Arbitration Re: Removal of humus sapiens admin privilages due to administrative abuse." ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 01:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

	====Statement by ]====

	Being involved in the events leading up to this RFAR, I feel the need to comment. Humus sapiens has, from my perspective, not "abused" his position as an administrator in any fashion. This RFAR, as near as I can tell, does not ] as it assumes Humus sapiens is deliberately working against the aims of the Misplaced Pages. Indeed, per Sarastro777 above, it assumes that there is a cabal of users who are actively working to disrupt the Misplaced Pages. In my eyes, this RFAR is in violation of ] and is thus a needless exercise. ] (] \| ]) 03:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

	:Please see ] She has added blatant vandalism tags to my talk page because of a content dispute. She was told by an admin not to use the tags on my page. I removed them only to be banned by ] then having salacious remarks added to my talk page by ] Can you see a pattern here?--] 20:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

	::The rationale for the placing a {{]}} tag on ]'s talk page is described to the admin in question, ] on his ]. The vandalism for which he was warned can be viewed and he conceded that the edit in question was indeed vandalism. ] (] \| ]) 20:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

	::] there is a difference between vandalism and NPOV. I conceded that the comment I reverted to might not maintain a neutral POV. It is not appropiate to use {{]}} tags to my revert as its on basis with POV, NOT valdalism. I didn't remove or obscure an article, I simple reverted it to a previous edit. Then you asked your admin friend ] for help and vandalized my talk page with a warning/threat ; which was even disputed by another admin. Then you ] and ] continued to spam my user page with warning and threats and eventually a ban for archiving a post. See ] and ]

	--] 22:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

	====Statement by ]====

	In my opinion, this is a transparent attempt by users who have violated WP policy to remove a useful administrator for doing his job. Users are not given a carte blanch privilege to continuously abuse the article. I'd like to mention the originator of the RFAR, ], has gone wild with personal attacks on my talk page, and has now begun to use sexually suggestive language. - ] 06:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC), edited ] 00:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====

	I have made no edits on the Israel article though I personally find it POV but not as baddly as some other articles on Misplaced Pages which is why I added my vote that the article was biased (which is why I assume my presence was requested here). I have had no interaction with the admin in question so I cant offer any objective opinion on his actions. However I will say that the article is not NPOV and definately needs the inclusion of information on administrative detentions and Israeli human rights abuses as it does gloss over such actions. Both sides on Misplaced Pages are being highly partisan about this and frankly its quite stupid. ] 11:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====

	Originally I didn't think that I needed to comment, as I was mainly a passerby, but seeing Oiboy has made a comment above, I felt that I had to respond. KariMarie's only request to me was to block either a sock or an impersonator of a previously blocked ] () and that I believe was a fair move and my only contact with Karimarie, contrary to Oiboy's claims of "friend", which may be insinuating impropriety on my part. A scroll through my edits to Israel will show that I am not an active editor, but only remove naked opinions from the page when they pop up, such as ( anti-Arab, and bogus "...part of Palestine"), and also I was accused by the opposite POV group of being an "Arab, or in the employ of Arabs". (). As far as I can see, Humus has not abused his powers by using it in a conflict of interest, but rather it seems as though Oiboy seeks to remove administrators whom he feels do not conform with his POV and pseudo-soapboxing edits to ]. I cannot see any evidence of wrongdoing or an attempt to resolve disputes at all, so I am asking the Arbitration Committee to decline this request, which I feel is inappropriate. Thankyou, ''']''' <nowiki>\|</nowiki> ] 02:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

	:: Did you not remove the warnings from ]'s page that I posted. It seemed they were removed almost instantly.--] 05:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
	:::The ] has a policy of watching changes made to articles to resolve vandalism as it happens. We receive reports of suspicious-looking edits in our IRC channel through a bot operated by ]. We do also police ourselves and monitor the edits made by our own members to ensure that CVU members are not themselves commiting vandalism. Your edit appeared in our channel as I recall, and I would presume Blnguyen observed this and after evaluating the situation chose to revert it. I had no communication with Blnguyen prior to the issue regarding the CS Diplomat sock and that was the only communication I had with him (her?) prior to your claim that we are "friends". I don't even know who he/she is, I know little or nothing about him/her personally. Please remember ] and that we're not all out to get you. There is no Zionist cabal as you claim, only different editors with their own varying individual biases, myself and yourself included. ] (] \| ]) 18:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

	====Statement by ]====
	In the absence of any attempt at dispute resolution I find this request for removal of admin privileges highly distasteful. It is a violation of any number of Misplaced Pages policies, not the least of which is ]. A cabal of dedicated POV warriors, having been thwarted in their attempts to turn an article into a soapbox, now seek to punish a dedicated and highly productive admin with this pile-on. This request should be denied at the earliest possible opportunity. ] ] ] 12:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
	*What he said. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
	::*Take a look at ] user page. See the list of "Favorite Users" Need I say more?--] 00:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
	::**No, actually, much less would have been preferable. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

	====Statement by ]====
	This just seems like "getting back" behavior from three users that have only been trouble.- ] \| ] 21:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

	==== Clerk notes ====
	: (This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)
	==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/2/0/0) ====
	* Reject, per SlimVirgin and BrianGotts: this is premature and with no evidence provided it might as well be frivolous. ]·] 05:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
	* "Frivolous" is perhaps an overly-strong term, but yes, reject. ] ] 10:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

	----

	=== ] v. 203.54.. ===

	==== Involved parties ====

	{{Admin\|AYArktos}}

	Anon user editing from the following IPs (and more): {{user\|203.54.186.223}} / {{user\|203.54.9.43}} / {{user\|203.54.186.141}} / {{user\|203.54.186.168 }} / {{user\|203.54.9.169}} / {{user\|203.54.174.100/}} / {{user\|203.54.9.206}} / {{user\|203.54.174.12}} / {{user\|203.54.186.127}} / {{user\|203.54.186.125}} /{{user\|203.54.186.96}} / {{user\|203.54.186.128}} / {{user\|203.54.9.202}} / {{user\|203.54.9.26}} / {{user\|203.54.9.33}} / {{user\|203.54.9.57}} / {{user\|203.54.186.75}} / {{user\|203.54.9.78}} / {{user\|203.54.9.106}} / {{user\|203.54.9.250}} / {{user\|203.54.9.19}} / {{user\|203.54.9.197}} / {{user\|203.54.186.152}} / {{user\|203.54.9.141}} / {{user\|203.54.9.98}} / {{user\|203.54.9.9}} / {{user\|203.54.9.214}} / {{user\|203.54.9.225}} / {{user\|203.54.186.125}} {{user\|203.54.9.33}}

	; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
	I have notified at and . These talk pages are the most often frequented and are at the core of the request for arbitration.--]\<sup>]</sup> 08:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC) on talk page {{user\|203.54.9.43}} --]\<sup>]</sup> 09:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
	; Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried
	(''If not, then explain why that would be fruitless'')
	:In addition to article talk page discussions responding to and addressing issues raised by user and by user's behaviour:
	*]
	*User talk:Longhair
	**]
	**]
	**] 13 July comments by Petaholmes

	*User talk:Petaholmes
	**] 13 July

	*User talk:AYArktos (now archived)
	**] - comments by User:Roisterer
	**] - comments by Longhair 9 July and Robertmyers 12 July
	**] - response by Petaholes and Longhair 13 July

	*WP:AN/I
	**Initial Posting from Robertmyers 13 July ]
	**My request ] 13 July

	I feel mediation or other resolution mechanisms will not be appropriate for this dispute as this user ignored requests in the past when asked to modify behaviour.

	==== Statement by ] ====

	An editor using a range of Telstra Internet Addresses has been editing for over a month on articles related to {{article\|Gundagai, New South Wales}}. In June, this editor included into the Gundagai article, some information about the {{article\|Dog on the Tuckerbox}} to the effect that the statue of a dog commemorated a massacre.
	After attempting to seek clarification and requesting citations, the
	material was moved to the talk page pending supply of citations from reliable sources.

	The editor had also introduced the same material into the article about the {{article\|Hume Highway}} in May. The issue was raised at the Australian Wikipedians' Noticeboard, where it was agreed that standing on cite sources was reasonable, and other editors could also not find anything to support the assertions.

	The editor has made a number of assertions, mainly on , including attacking a number of editors for holding views that differ to his own. These include attacks on {{user\|Grahamec}},
	{{user\|Robertmyers}}
	and on myself
	, including accusations of stalking.

	The editor has been extremely argumentative when requested to cite sources and in accepting that textual analysis to reference a massacre (with no reliable sources supporting this analysis or the massacre) is unacceptable.


	While some contributions may be useful, others are plain nonsense and also inappropriate 1st person comments, well after the editor has been asked not to include 1st person comments in articles.

	The editor steadfastly refuses to follow any talk page etiquette: will not sign or format entries and makes confusing insertions into the midst of comments by others. It is very hard to follow. I have given up reformatting and adding unsigned tags. However, an example of what can happen is the addition of a comment by (with signature of) ] which was inserted into a talk page discussion on a page to which Adam Carr had never contributed - but it was not at all clear from the formatting. (I have no reason to believe the editor is Adam Carr editing without being signed in!) The contribution of that particular edit to the discussion about the article was also not clear.

	I would like the Arbcom to consider whether semi-protection from time to time is an option for pages, such as Gundagai, Murrumbidgee River, and Hume Highway (including their talk pages), to prevent personal attacks and inappropriate edits? Similarly, as the editor evades blocks by relogging in, are range blocks appropriate? For examples of avoiding blocks see:

	#{{Userblock\|203.54.186.125}} resumed activity within 40 minutes as {{user\|203.54.186.127}}
	#{{Userblock\|203.54.186.127}} resumed activity in less than 1 hour as {{user\|203.54.174.12}}
	#{{Userblock\|203.54.174.12}} resumed activity as {{user\|203.54.9.206 }} within 2 1/2 hours despite 48 hour block
	#{{Userblock\|203.54.9.169}} (resumed after block expired)

	I am also seeking a ruling that disruptive edits and edits adding information unsupported by reliable sources from the IP ranges can be reverted without further discussion. Relevant IP ranges are:
	# 203.54.9.0/24 - 256 addresses ranging from 203.54.9.0 thru 203.54.9.255
	# 203.54.186.0/24 - 256 addresses ranging from 203.54.186.0 thru 203.54.186.255
	# 203.54.174.0/24 - 256 addresses ranging from 203.54.174.0 thru 203.54.174.255

	The ruling would preferably make provision for any other IPs made from apparently the same editor, for example if he changes Internet Service Providers (ISPs).

	Thank you for your consideration --]\<sup>]</sup> 23:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

	(PS for ease in use of pronouns, I am female.)

	==== Statement by party 2 ====
	: (Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

	Not sure if count as a response. The editor does not sign and may not chose to post here but has referenced this request. --]\<sup>]</sup> 02:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

	==== Comment regarding IP range ====
	According to Whois, the entire 203.54.0.0/16 is operated by the same ISP - Telstra Internet of Southeastern Australia. As a result, it is entirely possible for the anon to edit under an IP with the third number being something other than 9, 174, or 186. 04:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

	==== Clerk notes ====
	: (This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)
	==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/2/0/0) ====
	* Reject, this looks like it is more suitable for mediation at this point. ]·] 01:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
	* Reject in favour of mediation. ] ] 10:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

	----

	=== ] ===

	==== Involved parties ====

	*{{user5\|nobojo}} (filer)
	*{{user5\|John Foxe}}

	: An edit war was settled by adopting neutral, balanced language for the 'Bibb Graves' entry on the 'Bob Jones University' page. John Foxe began a new edit war by overwriting the compromise language and refusing to negotiate a neutral, balanced settlement in good faith. (He will argue, but he will not negotiate. For this reason, I believe mediation will be a waste of everyone's time.)


	; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
	http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Bob_Jones_University#Arbitration_Requested

	; Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried
	*John Foxe and I have hashed this out at nauseating length on the Bob Jones Univeristy 'talk' page. (Please see.) The upshot is that John Foxe will argue, but he will not negotiate. He insists upon controlling the content, wording, and format of the 'Bibb Graves' entry. When one party is intractable, mediation is a waste of time. I believe arbitration is the only solution.

	==== Statement by {{user\|nobojo}} ====
	As the result of a previous edit war, the 'Bibb Graves' entry on the 'Bob Jones University' page was rewritten in compromise language that achieved neutrality and balance. For awhile it kept the peace.

	Recently John Foxe broke the peace by overwriting the previously agreed upon compromise entry for 'Bibb Graves'.

	John Foxe and I attempted at length to self-mediate on the 'talk' page. Or I did. He would not agree to a settlement on any terms except his total control of the content, format, and wording of the Bibb Graves entry. In short, he wants to rewrite the entry to his satisfaction and everyone else had better get on board.

	I agreed to accept John Foxe's research to the effect that Graves was an 'Exalted Cyclops' (local leader) in the KKK and not the 'Grand Dragon' (statewide leader). He has reference books pegging Graves as 'Exalted Cyclops.' I have websites pegging him as 'Grand Dragon.' It seemed reasonable -- though certainly not conclusive -- for me to defer to his sources. It was my understanding that this was the only issue in dispute and with this out of the way, we could have peace. Wrong!

	I told him that I would defer to his research, as he demanded, provided that he must allow the remainder of that entry -- i.e., the part NOT in dispute -- to revert back to the neutral compromise language. (Note: He has a habit of calling it "MY" language -- it's not mine...it's the neutral compromise language that kept the peace prior to his edit war.)

	He refuses any settlement that does not give him total control of the content, format, and wording of the 'Bibb Graves' entry.

	Purely as a means of pre-emptive self-defense, I must point out that he has been known to misrepresent my position. Such as when he refers to the compromise language that kept the peace as "MY" language, which he says I'm selfishly trying to impose on everyone else. There's only one of us demanding to control content, format, and wording to the exclusion of anyone else's input. Three guesses which one. {{unsigned2\|00:23, 15 July 2006\| Nobojo}}

	:ADDENDUM
	:Here is the compromise language that John Foxe overwrote. I have no problem in changing Grand Dragon to Exalted Cyclops based on his research:

	*], Grand Dragon of the Alabama Ku Klux Klan and two-term governor of Alabama (1927-31, 1935-39). Graves was a graduate of the University of Alabama and Yale Law School. He earned a reputation as a reformer who improved public education in Alabama. Graves served as a member of the board of trustees of Bob Jones College, and a dormitory is named in his honor.<strike></strike>

	:{{unsigned2\|00:29, 15 July 2006 \|Nobojo}}

	==== Statement by {{user\|John Foxe}} ====
	:Every scholarly book and article about the Ku Klux Klan in Alabama identifies Bibb Graves as Exalted Cyclops (chapter president) of the Montgomery chapter. They also identify one James Esdale as Grand Dragon of Alabama (that is, the director of the state organization). So does the website of the Alabama Department of History and Archives.

	:My only objective in this is to have the Bibb Graves entry on the BJU page begin with the phrase "two-term governor of Alabama (1927-31, 1935-39)." Any encyclopedia entry on Graves should start there, just as any entry for "Richard Nixon" should begin with "thirty-seventh president of the United States"—not with “organizer of the Watergate break-in.”

	:Here's the ] entry on the BJU page as it stands now: "Bibb Graves, two-term governor of Alabama (1927-31, 1935-39) and Exalted Cyclops (chapter president) of the Montgomery branch of the Ku Klux Klan. A progressive who sought to improve public education in Alabama, Graves served as a member of the board of trustees of Bob Jones College and a BJU dormitory is named in his honor."

	:But I don't think there's anything sacred about that wording, except that if Graves' membership in the Klan is mentioned, so should his New Deal liberalism. (Graves and his friend Hugo Black had a lot in common.)

	:--] 19:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

	====Comment by ]====
	I believe this is a content dispute that could be handled best through mediation and other dispute resolution procedures. -] 18:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

	==== Comment by ] ====
	There is no record of previous steps for dispute resolution. Editors should exhaust these first. ] <small>] • ]</small> 19:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
	==== Comment by ] ====
	Any call for mediation must presuppose that both parties are willing to negotiate. When one party will argue but won't negotiate on any terms other than total capitulation of the other party, then there is nothing to mediate. Mediation will merely result in this dispute remaining mired in argument - which I believe is exactly the objective of certain persons.

	BUT I WILL CALL THE BLUFF:

	John Foxe, if you are the reasonable sort of person who would be open to a negotiated settlement via mediation, then let's be reasonable right here. We can dispense with both arbitration and mediation. Being reasonable, I'm sure you realize that you've overwritten neutral compromise language. You might prefer your version, just as I preferred my original version. But you wouldn't want to cut those of us out of the loop who worked out that compromise language. That would be unreasonable. Which you're not.

	So restore the neutral compromise language that you overwrote. Replace the Grand Dragon reference with the Exalted Cyclops language based on your research. And voila! We have a fair and equitable settlement that respects all concerned. (As opposed to one person demanding to control all aspects of the entry -- content, format, and wording).

	Just post your acceptance below, and we will have a settlement and peace.

	==== Comment by ] ====
	This is a simple content dispute regarding NPOV presentation of Bibb Graves on BJU notable benefactors list. Discuss on Talk page and gain consensus should be approach, not arbitration at this point. ] 20:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
	==== Comment by ] ====
	It is not a simple content dispute. It is an edit war. That's why the page is currently protected.

	Your suggestion to "discuss on talk page" is much too late. We have been there and done that to the point that most issues have been hashed and rehashed multiple times.

	We cannot "gain consensus," because one of the parties will not negotiate in good faith.

	I know you'll find this hard to believe, but I think some of his cronies may be coming here with the intention of derailing the arbitration.

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

	==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/0/0) ====
	* Reject. Mostly a content dispute, though the edit warring needs to stop. Try mediation. - ] 17:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
	* Reject. There is indeed a lot of edit warring, but, as per Jossi and Will Beback, there ought to be prior attempts at dispute resolution first. ]·] 23:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
	* Reject in favour of mediation. ] ] 10:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
	----

	=== {{user\|CoolKatt number 99999}} ===

	==== Involved parties ====

	*{{user5\|Rollosmokes}}
	*{{user5\|CFIF}}
	*{{user5\|Crossmr}}
	*{{user5\|Lambertman}}
	*{{user5\|Kramden4700}}

	; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
	*Rollosmokes is the initiating party
	*CFIF:
	*Crossmr:
	*Lambertman:
	*Kramden4700:

	; Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried
	*] was opened on May 15, and has not yet been closed or ruled upon.
	*CoolKatt recieved a 24-hour block (July 11-12) for violating the ] with ]. He then attempted to circumvent his block but was stopped by an administrator. Upon returning from his block, he has resumed reverting WWOR-TV and has engaged in arrogant incivility.
	*CoolKatt has engaged in various instances of incivility, as well as unfounded claims of other violations, towards other users who challenge his point-of-view or makes changes made to articles he has edited. (eg. , , , , )
	*Mediation will be fruitless because, no matter what he says (eg. , , ) he has engaged in the same distruptive behavior over and over again. His attempt to ignore the block (eg. ) proves that he doesn't care about anyone else but himself. He must be reprimanded more severely.

	==== Statement by {{user\|Rollosmokes}} ====
	: I have been engaged in a dispute against CoolKatt for about two months. Those I listed as additional parties in this request, and a few others, are quite aware of what has transpired since then. He has engaged with myself in edit wars on WWOR-TV, ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ] (among others), as he added irrelevant information or made unnecessary changes to these articles which, I though, constitued as being unencyclopedic, or simply of poor quality. I reverted his changes and, in most cases, explained why through either talk pages or the edit summary. But CoolKatt immediately reverted back to his versions and immediately accused me of committing vandalism and of ]. CoolKatt has also ignored requests from the ] to join a consensus on the inclusion of several out-of-market (foreign) television stations on templates {{tl\|Springfield MA TV}} and {{tl\|Susquehanna Valley TV}}, which he has repeatedly to his liking. I personally reverted both templates back several times, and he reverted each time, accusing me of WP:OWN and ]. He himself violates WP:OWN and WP:POINT when he adds tags such as ''"!-- Please do NOT remove the Hartford stations"'' in the Springfield template, or ''"!-- Do not remove the merge tag. Doing so is considered vandalism!"'', as he did during his effort to re-merge ] and ] after another user split the articles. CoolKatt has also accused myself and others of ] for constantly going over his work. But his beef with me has become more personal: he filed a RfC against me, which was deleted within 48 hours, and on July 1 he filed a ] against me without my knowledge. Ironically, his most recent behavior has resulted in him being under investigaton for adding unsubstantiated information to television station articles. CoolKatt is arrogant, pompous, and believes that he is the end-all, be-all when it comes to opinions on articles he contributes to. He must be put in his place. ] 18:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

	==== Statement by Kramden4700 ====
	:I had the misfortune of opposing his needless propsed merger of ] and after a bit of investigation noticed he had plans for splitting ] as well, something which also was not needed. I also opposed his proposed re-merger of ] amd ]. Apparently bringing this to the light day and opposing him had put me on his bad side. I tried to be civil, but he seemed to act as if he was not the problem, but those who oppose him were and that ] did not apply to him. He needs at minimum a time out or possibly some other further sanction if this is a continuing pattern of behaviour. ] 20:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
	:*I forgot to mention that he threatened me here ] ] 01:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
	::*He has now accused me and two others of stalking him. See: ]. I simply disagree with him and then the threats start. I do not see how not agreeing with him or pointing out his speculations are in violation of ]. Something is very wrong here if bringing to light a disruptive vandal's future plans is wrong then I think I may consider leaving as people like this spoil the whole experience. ] 04:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

	==== Statement by {{user\|Crossmr}} ====
	:Most of what I'll say here is a rehash of what I said on the RfC. I first encountered Coolkatt on an AfD. I wasn't even aware I had until after the AfD closed. I left an opinion but it wasn't on my watch list. Sometime after the closure of this AfD, I logged in to find a spurious accusation on my userpage that I was a sockpuppet of someone whom I didn't even know. This dif shows the sock puppet tag. The proper process wasn't followed and it was simply retaliation for "agreeing with nom" in the AfD, who interestingly wasn't even apostrophe. Going back to look at the AfD as I barely even remembered it, I found that Coolkatt had gone and accused everyone who called for delete a sockpuppet. He'd also left the same spurious sock puppet accusation on Opabinia's user page here . Both her and I spoke out about it on the administrators noticeboard, but no administrator bothered to get involved. Seen here in my archives he first claims that making numerous personal attacks on users is "the right thing to do" and then claims Apostrophe (whom I did not know) forced myself and others to recommend delete. He continues to say one thing and do another, claiming he'll behave then doing things like putting AfD tags on his RfC. Here he blame's his behaviour on everyone else and refuses to take responsibility for it. here I tried to reach out to him to give him some guidance but his immature behaviour continues unabated. --] 20:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
	=====Addendum=====
	Here is again making unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry and he refers to him as such in this edit summary .--] 15:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

	==== Statement by {{user\|CFIF}} ====
	CoolKatt, has at times, bordered on being ] and physcotic (seen ] talking about himself in the ]), making false accusations and against members, along with making false claims and odd statements. He has a whole slew of subpages filled with unfactual and ] which do no good for the encyclopedia. He has also made demands and acting like he is in charge (which is sooo far from the truth) and assumes everyone "knows his contributions are useful". Everything else has been pretty much covered by Rollo and Crossmr. --] ] 21:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

	===== Statement by CFIF part 2 =====
	], and warned Rollosmokes and I not to edit. He's getting crazy folks. --] ] 02:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
	:YOU are getting crazy with all this WikiStalking. Stop it now. ] 02:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
	::I'm not WikiStalking. You are just completely paranoid, it seems. --] ] 02:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
	::: He's now accusing Rekarb Bob of being a sockpuppet of Buckner 1986 with no solid evidence. This guy is crazy.
	::::Well, both accounts reverted my clean-up of ] as vandalism. It only makes sense. ] 02:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Actually, I'd like to know why Buckner reverted CoolKatt in the first place. Was it because of CoolKatt's reputation? I've said this before regarding ]: revert based on the edit, not the editor! ] 17:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

	===== Statement by CFIF part 3 =====
	He's now calling non-vandalism edits vandalism, , and treating Rollosmokes like a vandal. , giving him two warnings. This has to stop, I think we should skip the whole Arbitration process and go directly towards a permablock. --] ] 15:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

	Also, {{user\|Pathoschild}} was nice enough to make a log of all three, and maybe eventually all four, of his frivolous RfC history. ]). --] ] 16:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

	==== Statement by {{user\|CoolKatt number 99999}} ====
	:Pure, Wiki-stalking. I demand the slander against me stop. I am making many useful contributions, and this is the thanks I get? I demand this dispute end now. ] 22:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

	==== Statement by {{user\|Lambertman}} ====

	: Most everything I've witnessed has already been discussed. I can only add this statement from Katt in which he says his speculation (as to the meaning of callsigns) should be taken as fact because it makes sense to him. ] 23:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

	==== Comment by {{user\|Amnewsboy}} ====
	:While not directly involved in this particular dispute, I'd like to add that ] has, on at least one occasion, been cited for adding unverified information to Misplaced Pages. A separate Request for Investigation was filed in regards to his additions to the page for the Arkansas Educational Television Network, and he was subsqeuently warned. In addition to the comment ] pointed out, CoolKatt number 99999 also tried to justify that his call letter meanings were correct because "Maybe because those files were destroyed?", even though there are no sources to support that. I also question the validity of the user's sub-pages with "Alternate" histories for television stations (WDAF-TV , for example) - although said articles are clearly marked as fictional, they also show up in Google searches for the subjects. I have had only minimal personal contact with the user, but I will say that I find his editing methods questionable at best. ] 22:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
	::As a follow-up, ] was blocked for 24 hours on July 19 for further violations of ], then for a further 48 hours for violating it again . ] 06:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
	:::A further follow-up: ] filed what I believe is a frivilous RfC in regards to this matter. I would reiterate that his own actions prompted his subsequent blocking and that I think he really needs to learn more about ] and other related policies before being allowed to edit again. ] 03:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

	==== Comment by {{user\|Morgan Wick}} ====

	When I first encountered CoolKatt, I was a bit surprised at the level to which he was opposed, and I thought the RfC against him had spurious grounds. I even attempted to by pointing out that he has made constructive edits. But recently, he seems to have gone off the deep end. He has forgotten how to be civil, and has repeatedly claimed his contributions are "useful" without explaining how in the face of people trying to tell him they violate numerous Misplaced Pages policies. He has taken to violating ] in relentlessly trying to defend his versions of articles, getting involved in numerous edit wars. He has filed RfC's left and right, including one against {{user\|A Man In Black}} for daring to oppose him on an AfD, and seems to be using RfC as a way to intimidate or get back at people who disagree with him , which is an abuse of RfC, and which isn't working, since not one of his RfC's has been certified. As noted earlier, he has accused people of sockpuppetry for disagreeing with him as well. He seems to have some paranoid tendencies, and his dealings with the Misplaced Pages community is starting to test even my patience. ] 05:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

	==== Clerk notes ====
	: (This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)
	==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/0/0/0) ====
	* Accept. ]·] 21:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
	* Accept. But if he really is that bad... will no sysop rid us of this user? ] ] 10:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

	----

	== Requests for clarification ==
	'''Requests for clarification''' from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process.

	===Everyking===
	Pursuant to discussion on the arbitration committee mailing list, Everyking has recently been causing more problems. Following ], he has instead begun harassing administrators on their talk pages. He has resumed editing Ashlee Simpson articles in the same fashion we previously sanctioned. Extraordinary Machine on the ANI, and I recieved one in private from someone else (that person has refused to lodge one formally because he/she is fed up with EK from previous run-ins).

	Per previous discussion, I'd like to propose the following remedies:
	# Everyking is banned for two weeks for recent offenses
	# Everyking's current prohibitions (his ban from editing the ANI, and from commenting on other admin's actions except for their talk pages, RFC, and RFA) - set to expire in November - are extended <s>indefinitely</s> for one year, until November 2007.
	# Everyking is placed on standard probation for all pop music articles - any admin may ban him from any/all of them for any misbehavior on his part
	# Should EK harass other admins over their non-editorial actions, any admin may block him for up to two weeks per incident, escalating to one year per incident after the fifth one. ] 22:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

	====Discussion====
	* Although I would prefer a much simpler remedy, I can support these sanctions ] 23:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
	**The other, simpler one that I thought of would be to ban him from everything except the main namespace (articles, but not talk pages) and his own use and talk pages. ] 23:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
	*** I would go even simpler than that ] 05:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
	*I would prefer an extension of only one year. ] 00:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
	**I can live with that (duly adjusted). ] 16:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
	**I can live with this as well, although given Everyking's inability to learn to behave better, I'm minded towards a complete ban from Misplaced Pages for a time. ] (]:]) 21:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
	----
	*Do I get an opportunity to argue in my defense? Let's consider a few things:
	*#Ashlee articles—exactly what am I doing there that the ArbCom considers so terrible? I mean, actually look at the articles and their histories and tell me. There's a couple of reverts, but I wasn't the only one reverting, and the situation seems to have settled down now into a compromise, at least a ''de facto'' one. Also, there was far more discussion going on than there was reverting—in fact, if you just ''look'' at the histories, you'll see there was hardly any reverting at all. There was no "revert war" in any meaningful sense—the only thing close to one happened on an article about a ''Jessica'' Simpson song, but again in that case, too, the situation seems to have settled down into a ''de facto'' compromise. To sanction someone for this is utterly, entirely absurd. Not only was the whole situation a pretty minor one (not even close to the explosion of conflict the articles saw 18 months ago), it seems to have settled down anyway, and I wasn't even the one with the aggressive stance—I was taking the defensive stance.
	*#Talk pages—the ArbCom ruling specifically granted me the right to discuss admin actions on the relevant admin talk pages. Am I now going to be punished for exercising that right? People would block me before and tell me to take it to the admin's talk page. So I do that, and this is what I get? Why was that exemption created to begin with, if I was just going to get attacked for making use of it? Not to mention there isn't much of this going on anyway. The last case was regarding EM threatening a user who was obviously acting in good faith, but was younger than most of us and was a little confused about how to do some technical things.
	*#No credit—where is the credit for actually following the ruling as it was spelled out for me? I have always strictly observed the AN/I prohibition. I haven't been blocked by anyone for any reason in several months. To hear Raul tell it, I've been constantly violating the ruling, which is the exact opposite of what I've actually been doing.
	*#Ruling consistency—Ashlee articles pertained to EK1; this is EK3. How can you fit anything pertaining to EK1 under a revision of EK3?
	*#The opposing party—Who is the opposing party here, anyway? It appears to be none other than the ArbCom itself—in that case, how can I possibly get a fair hearing from them? Or is it whoever sent that private complaint? Did that person actually want this taken to arbitration? Isn't it important, for reasons of transparent process, to have an accuser in ''public''—not secretly in e-mail? Is there any precedent for that at all?
	*#Involved party?—hey, did anyone think to consult EM about this stuff that is apparently being done on his behalf? What does he think? Does he actually want me taken to arbitration? Previously he expressed a lot of reluctance to even take me to RfC, and that was at the ''peak'' of the conflict, some time ago.

	*I personally feel the above points are pretty important. ] 04:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

	I think it is fair to say you have exhausted the committee's patience. I'm going to respond, very briefly, to some of the points you raise. Point 1 - Despite your attempt to spin it otherwise, you are doing the exact same thing that led to the first two Everyking arbitration cases, and as I just said, our patience with you has run out. Point 2 - As I said to you on my talk page just a few days ago, that exception was not created to allow you to move your harassment from the ANI to individual users' talk pages. Point 3 - I drive to work every day and avoid the temptation to run over those skateboarders who are always on Delaware Avenue. If tomorrow I were to run them over, am I to tell the judge to consider all the times I went to work and didn't run the over? Ha, no. Point 4 - Wikilawyering; our clarification applies to the series of cases, not any one in particular. Point 5 - No opposing party is necessary. Point 6 - . ] 16:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
	:Maybe I've exhausted ''your'' patience; you've exhausted mine, too, but what am I gonna do about it?

	:#I will post thorough evidence about this if the ArbCom will agree to read and consider it honestly.
	:#It's not harassment, it's criticism of admin actions—the exact thing the exemption was created to allow me to continue doing in a restricted space. Moreover, I have actually done little of this—once every few weeks, maybe? I'll go through and post all the examples I can find, again if the ArbCom will agree to read and consider it honestly.
	:#I haven't run anybody over, to go with your analogy; you haven't pointed to anything I've done that violated the ruling. You've accused me of misbehaving on Ashlee articles, which if true isn't covered by the ruling (and wouldn't even be covered by the old ruling, because even if you guys hadn't freed me from it after two months, it would still have expired long ago) and complaining on admin talk pages, which is protected by the ruling.
	:#Does "wikilawyering" mean "a point of procedure that would benefit the accused and therefore will be disregarded in this case"?
	:#I asked you to provide a precedent for this, and also to explain the inherent unfairness of having the same people as both accuser, prosecutor and judge.
	:#Notably you didn't ask his opinion before starting this thing. In any case, let's now wait and see if he has something to add about this. ] 17:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

	::I'm not at all familiar with this stage of dispute resolution; that said, I think this discussion is appropriate.
	::Everyking, you reverted me three times at ] (including an edit that had absolutely nothing to do with removing content) and once at ] . The main reasons I chose not to keep restoring my edits was because a) it's better to discuss a dispute rather than repeatedly revert the other party, b) I knew the history of these articles and wanted to make sure the situation wouldn't escalate like it did before, and c) because of the reverts I just listed, and the dispute 18 months ago, I had a feeling you'd keep reverting me. That's one of the reasons why I didn't file an RFC on your behaviour, the others being that I wanted to keep the discussions focussed on the articles and that there wasn't a second party around who was involved enough to be able to certify an RFC. I didn't once consider the possibility that you would follow me across other pages and revert me wholesale (]), which is simply unacceptable, in my opinion. It also indicates your statement about "taking the defensive stance", if true originally, no longer holds much water. Not that I don't care about your "defensive" behaviour either: telling me "it will be restored, naturally" (]) and comparing me to a film villain (]) is not appreciated.
	::] states "Everyking is required to familiarize himself with the particulars of a situation before commenting on it"; with regard to {{user\|Tcatron565}}, I don't believe that you did so. Tcatron registered here almost a year ago; as can be seen at ], he's made many edits that violate the guidelines and policies, and has a history of incivility. I'll leave the nitty gritty out for brevity's sake, but I should note that I wasn't even the first user to introduce the possibility of a block to him. I admit I've considered just giving up explaining the policies and guidelines to him, but that's only because comments like ''"it seems like everytime I make a wrong move, you're all up in my face! ... when I do something wrong, wait for 4 days, then tell me"'' , along with his tendency to continue editing as he was, indicate that such efforts would be pointless. If you're still wondering why I told him he may be blocked, I should refer you to the case of the IP editor {{user\|200.138.194.254}}, a seemingly good faith user who nevertheless edited in violation of the policies in guidelines without discussion and was consequently blocked for a week not too long ago. I'm certain that I would have told Tcatron the same thing if I wasn't an admin, so the comment about me "throwing my weight around" as an admin is hardly accurate. Lastly, I am well aware that admins involved in disputes with other users (such as the one I had with Tcatron) aren't supposed to block any of the other parties, and if I thought a block was absolutely necessary in this case I would have started a discussion at ]. I feel that your comments regarding this were written with the main intention of antagonising me rather than anything to do with Tcatron. ] 20:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

	You know, I don't have access to the arbitrators' mailing list, so I don't really know exactly what they are thinking. For all I know what they are saying in private and in public are completely different. But all I can do is focus on what gets written on this page. So let me directly discuss each of the things Raul calls remedies:

	#This proposes banning me for ''two weeks'' for alleged "recent offenses". What recent offenses? Raul has so far only pointed to one somewhat uncivil comment I made about an admin warning I thought was too harsh. Yeah, I shouldn't have used the tone I did, but it was in the midst of a more general conflict that had led to a deepening of animosity on both sides; it didn't come out of the blue. To ban someone for even a single day for a marginally uncivil comment that they've since apologized for seems highly draconian—to ban for two weeks is so far overboard it almost seems insane. Aren't blocks supposed to be staggered somehow, anyway? You don't generally just jump right into such severe blocks for minor offenses. I've never even been blocked for a ''single 24 hour period'' in two and a half years on Misplaced Pages—every one of my blocks has been reconsidered or undone for some reason. Furthermore, as I've said before, I haven't been blocked ''at all'' in the last few months. So even if you think I'm in the wrong, does it make sense to jump from blocks lasting a few hours in the relatively distant past to two weeks now?
	#Rather than try to overreach in arguing this one, considering the depth of the ArbCom's hostile feeling toward me right now, I propose that the ArbCom change this so as to give me an automatic ''appeal'' in November of this year (something I have long pleaded for), but a formal duration until November 2007 in case of failure.
	#Again—for ''what''? What did I do wrong here? I participated in some minor reverting and bickering that has since settled down, and I made several concessions and compromises (and expressed far more willingness to compromise throughout than my opponent did—in fact I think all the compromises were made on my initiative).
	#I don't have much of an argument for this one; the ArbCom and I simply don't agree about what constitutes harassment and what constitutes reasonable criticism. I will just hope that this penalty is never abusively applied. ] 05:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

	General responses, since this section is a bit too muddled for an indented reply to make sense any more: Everyking, I think your question above as to the definition of "wikilawyering" above (snide musings aside) is answered by your point directly above it, "you haven't pointed to anything I've done that violated the ruling". Also, "the ArbCom ruling specifically granted me the right to discuss admin actions on the relevant admin talk pages. Am I now going to be punished for exercising that right?" and "where is the credit for actually following the ruling as it was spelled out for me?" and "Who is the opposing party here, anyway?" and "I asked you to provide a precedent for this, and also to explain the inherent unfairness of having the same people as both accuser, prosecutor and judge." are all good examples of wikilawyering. ''Why'' were you given any of these restrictions in the first place, Everyking? If you can't answer that then I'll support every measure proposed. It was to stop your harassment. When I am faced with the fact that you've used administrators' talk pages for harassment, despite our obvious desire that you cease harassment, I am forced to conclude that you are violating the ruling. I'm weary of it: bans from AN/ANI and from criticism ''other'' than on admins' talk pages were meant to get it through to you to stop harassment. If your response is to continue to do so through the only avenue still open after the last case, then the general ban for a short time period is looking reasonable. Was really what you consider reasonable criticism where I see harassment? Note: if the answer is really "no, and I've apologized" don't tell me you haven't violated our decision again. That you have never violated even the letter of the ruling is patently false anyway, as we found out months ago, , , , and also on the occasion where I specifically pointed out to you your violation of the ruling (I am ''sure'' you recall, or maybe you decided to make a bold statement like that with no factual backing or double checking?). Despite your efforts to the contrary, you don't have the option to say: "I forgot. I'm sorry." and go on you merry way, only to "forget" again. If I can have no confidence that you cannot stop in the future, I can't object to the three proposals related to it. As for the pop culture remedy, I don't find that issue particularly pressing or interesting right now. ]·] 06:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

	Although maybe out of place, "pop music" articles should be better defined. A lot of people see pop music as different things, and it's a little ambiguous. ] 21:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

	: We generally expect people to use their common sense. Are you suggesting we credit our users with too much?
	: FWIW, I'm happy with the proposals that we've worked out.
	: ] ] 10:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

	=== Internal spamming/campaigning ===
	There's an ongoing discussion at ] about what constitutes acceptable talk page contact between users regarding discussions, votes, polls, etc. Prior rulings that have been pointed to are
	and
	. Could you offer any more specific information about what is and is not allowed/discouraged, for example: is it the use of mass userbox messaging that is disallowed (if it is), or is internal spamming/campaigning disallowed only if disruptive? Thanks. <font color="green">]</font> 17:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)



	==Motions in prior cases==
	:''(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)''

	<!--Please do not remove the above notice, and create a subsection for each new motion. Thanks.-->

	===Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Zeq===
	Motion to ban Zeq for a week for creating an attack article regarding ] (article has been deleted) diff will be available to Arbitration Committee members. ] 21:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

	* Support ] 21:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
	* Support ] 23:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

	==Archives==

	*]
	*] (extremely sparse, selective, and unofficial)

	]

	]
	]
	]

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions	1 December 2024

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

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.

Arbitrator workflow motions

Workflow motions: Arbitrator discussion

I am proposing these three motions for discussion, community input, and a vote. Each seeks to improve ArbCom's functioning by providing for the performance of basic administrative responsibilities that sometimes go neglected, which, in my opinion, if successful, would significantly improve ArbCom's overall capacity. Motivation: We've known about the need for improvements to our workflow and capacity for some years now – I wrote about some of these suggestions in my 2022 ACE statement. It's a regular occurrence that someone will email in with a request or information and, because of the press of other work and because nobody is responsible for tracking and following up on the thread, we will let the thread drop without even realizing it and without deciding that no action is needed. We can each probably name a number of times this has happened, but one recent public example of adverse consequences from such a blunder was highlighted in the Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area case request, which was partially caused by our failure to address a private request that had been submitted to us months earlier. Previous efforts: We've experimented with a number of technological solutions to this problem during my four years on the Committee, including: (a) tracking matters on a Trello board or on a private Phabricator space; (b) tracking threads in Google Groups with tags; (c) requesting the development of custom technical tools; (d) reducing the appeals we hear; and (e) tracking appeals more carefully on arbwiki. Some of these attempts have been moderately successful, or showed promise for a time before stalling, but none of them have fully and fundamentally addressed this dropping-balls issue, which has persisted, and which in my opinion requires a human solution rather than just a technological solution. Rationale: The work we need done as framed below (e.g. bumping email threads) isn't fundamentally difficult or sensitive, but it's essential, and it's structurally hard for an active arbitrator to be responsible for doing it. For example, I could never bring myself to bump/nag others to opine on matters that I hadn't done my best to resolve yet myself. But actually doing the research to substantively opine on an old thread (especially as the first arb) can take hours of work, and I'm more likely to forget about it before I have the time to resolve it, and then it'll get lost in the shuffle. So it's best to somewhat decouple the tracking/clerical function from the substantive arb-ing work. Other efforts: There is one more technological solution for which there was interest among arbitrators, which was to get a CRM/ticketing system – basically, VRTS but hopefully better. I think this could help and would layer well with any of the other options, but there are some open questions (e.g., which one to get, how to pay for it, whether we can get all arbs to adopt it), and I don't think that that alone would address this problem (see similar attempts discussed above), so I think we should move ahead with one of these three motions now and adopt a ticketing system with whichever of the other motions we end up going with. These three motions are the result of substantial internal workshopping, and have been variously discussed (as relevant) with the functionaries, the clerks, and the Wikimedia Foundation (on a call in November). Before that, we held an ideation session on workflow improvements with the Foundation in July and have had informal discussions for a number of years. I deeply appreciate the effort and input that has gone into these motions from the entire committee and from the clerks and functionaries, and hope we can now pass one of them. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- One other thing I forgot to suggest—I'd be glad to write motions 1 or 2 up as a trial if any arb prefers, perhaps for 6-12 months, after which the motion could be automatically repealed unless the committee takes further action by motion to permanently continue the motion. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Workflow motions: Clerk notes

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

Workflow motions: Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of which motions are passing. These notes were last updated by an automatic check at 03:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Motion name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Support needed	Notes
Motion 1: Correspondence clerks	2	3	0	4	One support vote contingent on 1.4 passing
Motion 1.2a: name the role "scrivener"	1	2	1	4
Motion 1.2b: name the role "coordination assistant"	0	1	3	4
Motion 1.3: make permanent (not trial)	0	3	1	5
Motion 1.4: expanding arbcom-en directly	1	2	1	4
Motion 2: WMF staff support	0	5	0	Cannot pass
Motion 3: Coordinating arbitrators	4	0	0	2
Motion 4: Grants for correspondence clerks	0	3	0	6

Notes

Motion 1: Correspondence clerks

Nine-month trial

The Arbitration Committee's procedures are amended by adding the following section for a trial period of nine months from the date of enactment, after which time the section shall be automatically repealed unless the Committee takes action to make it permanent or otherwise extend it:

Correspondence clerks

The Arbitration Committee may appoint one or more former elected members of the Arbitration Committee to be correspondence clerks for the Arbitration Committee. Correspondence clerks must meet the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to non-public personal data and sign the Foundation's non-public information confidentiality agreement.
Correspondence clerks shall be responsible for assisting the Committee in the routine administration and organization of its mailing list and non-public work in a similar manner as the existing arbitration clerks assist in the administration of the Committee's on-wiki work.
The specific responsibilities of correspondence clerks shall include:

Acknowledging the receipt of correspondence and assigning tracking identifiers to pending requests and other matters;

Tracking the status of pending matters and providing regular updates and reminders on the status of the Committee's off-wiki work to arbitrators;

Reminding members of the Committee to vote or otherwise take action in pending matters;

Organizing related correspondence into case files; and

Providing similar routine administrative and clerical assistance to the Arbitration Committee.

The remit of correspondence clerks shall not include:

Participating in the substantive consideration or decision of any matters before the Committee; or

Taking non-routine actions requiring the exercise of arbitrator discretion.

To that end, upon the first appointment of correspondence clerks, the current arbcom-en mailing list shall be renamed to arbcom-en-internal, which shall continue to be accessible only by arbitrators, and a new arbcom-en email list shall be established. The subscribers to the new arbcom-en list shall be the arbitrators and correspondence clerks.
The Committee shall establish a process to allow editors to, in unusual circumstances following a showing of good cause, directly email a mailing list accessible only by arbitrators and not by correspondence clerks.
All correspondence clerks shall hold concurrent appointments as arbitration clerks and shall be subject to the same requirements concerning conduct and recusal as the arbitration clerk team.

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	6
1–2	5
3–4	4

Support

This is my first choice and falls within ArbCom's community-granted authority to approve and remove access to mailing lists maintained by the Arbitration Committee and to designate individuals for particular tasks or roles and maintain a panel of clerks to assist with the smooth running of its functions. Currently, we have arbitration clerks to help with on-wiki work, but most of ArbCom's workload is private (on arbcom-en), and our clerks have no ability to help with that because they can't access any of ArbCom's non-public work. It has always seemed strange to me to have clerks for on-wiki work, but not for the bulk of the work which is off-wiki (and which has always needed more coordination help). When consulting the functionaries, I was pleasantly surprised to learn that four functionaries (including three former arbitrators) expressed interest in volunteering for this role. This would be lower-intensity than serving as an arbitrator, but still essential to the functioning of the committee. We already have a number of ex-arbs on the clerks-l mailing list to advise and assist, and this seems like a natural extension of that function. The Stewards have a somewhat similar "Steward clerk" role, although ArbCom correspondence clerks would be a higher-trust position (functionary-level appointments only). I see this as the strongest option because the structure is familiar (analogous to our existing clerks, but for off-wiki business), because we have trusted functionaries and former arbs interested who could well discharge these responsibilities, and because I think we would benefit from separating the administrative responsibility from the substantive responsibility. The cons I see are that volunteer correspondence clerks might be less reliable than paid staff and that we'd be adding one or two (ish) people to the arbcom-en list. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Contingent on 1.4 passing. This option was not my first choice, and I'm inclined to try having a coordinating Arb first, if we can get a volunteer/set of volunteers. Given that the new term should infuse the Committee with more life and vigor, we may find a coordinating Arb, or another solution. But I think we should put this in our toolbox for the moment. This doesn't force us to appoint someone, just gives us the ability and outlines the position. CaptainEek ⚓ 05:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

I don't think we should extend access to the mailing list and the private information it contains beyond what is absolutely necessary. I understand the reasoning behind former arbitrators in such a role as they previously had such access, but people emailing the Arbitration Committee should have confidence that private information is kept need to know and that only the current arbitrators evaluating and making decisions based on that private information have ongoing access to it. - Aoidh (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Might as well make it formal per my opinions elsewhere on the page. Primefac (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
This is limited to former arbitrators for good reasons, most of them privacy-related. But the same concerns that led to this proposal being limited to former arbitrators are also arguments against doing this at all. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Abstain

Motion 1: Arbitrator views and discussions

I'd be glad changing this to only appoint former arbs, if that would tip anyone's votes. Currently, it's written as "from among the English Misplaced Pages functionary corps (and preferably from among former members of the Arbitration Committee)" for flexibility if needed, but I imagine we would only really appoint former arbs if available, except under unusual circumstances, because they understand how the mailing list discussions go and have previously been elected to handle the same private info. I am also open to calling it something other than "correspondence clerk"; that just seemed like a descriptive title. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
I do like the idea of using our Arbs emeritus for this position (and perhaps only Arbs emeritus); it ensures that they have experience in our byzantine process, and at least at some point held community trust. CaptainEek ⚓ 01:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
@CaptainEek: I have changed the motion to make only former arbs eligible. If anyone preferred broader (all funct) eligibility, I've added an alternative motion 1.1 below, which if any arb does prefer it, they should uncollapse and vote for it. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
I also think that if we adopt this we should choose a better name. I know Barkeep49 meant this suggestion as a bit of a joke, but I actually think he was on the money when he suggested "scrivener." I like "adjutant" even more, which I believe he also suggested. They capture the sort of whimsical Misplaced Pages charm evoked by titles like Most Pluperfect Labutnum while still being descriptive, and not easily confused for a traditional clerk. CaptainEek ⚓ 03:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Whimsy is important -- Guerillero 08:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
@CaptainEek and Guerillero: Per the above discussion points, I have (a) proposed two alternative names below that were workshopped among some arbs ("scrivener" on the more whimsical side and "coordination assistant" on the less whimsical side; see motions 1.2a and 1.2b), and (b) made this motion a nine-month trial, after which time the section is automatically repealed unless the Committee takes action to extend it. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
I plan on supporting motion 1 over anything else. I've spent a week just getting onto all the platforms, and I'm already kind of shocked that this is how we do things. Not only is there a lot to keep track of, all of the information moves unintuitively between different places in a way that makes it very difficult to keep up unless you're actively plugged in enough to be on top of the ball – which I don't think anyone can be all the time. I just don't think a coordinating arb is sufficient: we need someone who can keep us on track without having to handle all of the standard work of reviewing evidence, deliberating, and making an informed decision. (Better-organized tech would also be great, but I'd need to spend a lot more time thinking about how it could be redone.) I understand the privacy concerns, but I don't think this represents a significant breach of confidentiality: people care more whether their report gets handled properly than whether it goes before 15 trusted people or 16. So, I'll be voting in favor of motion 1, and maybe motion 3 will be a distant second. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Motion 1.1: expand eligible set to functionaries

If any arbitrator prefers this way, unhat this motion and vote for it.

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

If motion 1 passes, replace the text The Arbitration Committee may appoint one or more former elected members of the Arbitration Committee to be correspondence clerks for the Arbitration Committee. with the text The Arbitration Committee may appoint, from among the English Misplaced Pages functionary corps (and preferably from among former members of the Arbitration Committee), one or more users to be correspondence clerks for the Arbitration Committee..

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	6
1–2	5
3–4	4

Support

Oppose

Abstain

Motion 1.2a: name the role "scrivener"

If motion 1 passes, replace the term "correspondence clerks" wherever it appears with the term "scriveners".

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	6
1–2	5
3–4	4

Support

Nicely whimsical, and not as likely to be confusing as correspondence clerk. CaptainEek ⚓ 04:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

I think correspondence clerk is fine if role is something we're going with, it's less ambiguous as to what it entails than scrivener. - Aoidh (talk) 04:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
I have never heard that word before; at least "correspondence" and "clerk" are somewhat common in the English Misplaced Pages world. When possible, I think we should use words people don't have to look up in dictionaries. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Abstain

I think that because it's more archaic and possibly less serious, I disprefer this to either "coordination assistant" or "correspondence clerk", but would ultimately be perfectly happy with it. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrator discussion

Motion 1.2b: name the role "coordination assistant"

If motion 1 passes, replace the term "correspondence clerks" wherever it appears with the term "coordination assistants".

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	6
1–2	5
3–4	4

Support

Oppose

bleh. CaptainEek ⚓ 04:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Abstain

I am indifferent between this and "correspondence clerk". Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
If we're going to use a role like this, either this or correspondence clerk is fine. - Aoidh (talk) 04:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
That would be okay. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrator discussion

Motion 1.3: make permanent (not trial)

If motion 1 passes, omit the text for a trial period of nine months from the date of enactment, after which time the section shall be automatically repealed unless the Committee takes action to make it permanent or otherwise extend it.

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	6
1–2	5
3–4	4

Support

Oppose

I recently experimented with sunset clauses and think that frankly a lot more of what we do should have such time limits that require us to stop and critically evaluate if a thing is working. CaptainEek ⚓ 04:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
If this change is necessary, there should be a review of it after a reasonable trial period to see what does and does not work. - Aoidh (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Abstain

I have no preference as to whether this is permanent or a trial. I do think that nine months is a good length for the trial if we choose to have one: not too long to lock in a year's committee; not too short to make it unworthwhile. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrator discussion

Motion 1.4: expanding arbcom-en directly

If motion 1 passes, strike the following text:

To that end, upon the first appointment of correspondence clerks, the current arbcom-en mailing list shall be renamed to arbcom-en-internal, which shall continue to be accessible only by arbitrators, and a new arbcom-en email list shall be established. The subscribers to the new arbcom-en list shall be the arbitrators and correspondence clerks.

And replace it with the following:

To that end, correspondence clerks shall be added to the arbcom-en mailing list. The Committee shall continue to maintain at least one mailing list accessible only by arbitrators.

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	6
1–2	5
3–4	4

Support

Much less trouble to have them on the main list than to split the lists. CaptainEek ⚓ 04:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Access to private information should be as limited as possible to only what is strictly necessary to perform such a task, and I don't see a allowing full access to the contents of the current list necessary for this. I'd rather not split the list, but between that and giving full access then if we're going to have a correspondence clerk, then it needs to be split. - Aoidh (talk) 04:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Motion 1 is already problematic for privacy reasons; this would make it worse. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Abstain

I would not really object to this. C-clerks (or whatever we call them) are former arbs and have previously been on arbcom-en in any event, so it doesn't seem that like a big deal to do this. On the other hand, I would understand if folks prefer the split. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrator discussion

Proposed per Guerillero's comment below. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Motion 2: WMF staff support

The Arbitration Committee requests that the Wikimedia Foundation Committee Support Team provide staff support for the routine administration and organization of the Committee's mailing list and non-public work.

The selected staff assistants shall be responsible for assisting the Committee in the routine administration and organization of its mailing list and non-public work in a similar manner as the existing arbitration clerks assist in the administration of the Committee's on-wiki work. Staff assistants shall perform their functions under the direction of the Arbitration Committee and shall not represent the Wikimedia Foundation in the course of their support work with the Arbitration Committee or disclose the Committee's internal deliberations except as directed by the Committee.

The specific responsibilities of the staff assistants shall include, as directed by the Committee:

Acknowledging the receipt of correspondence and assigning tracking identifiers to pending requests and other matters;
Tracking the status of pending matters and providing regular updates and reminders on the status of the Committee's off-wiki work to arbitrators;
Reminding members of the Committee to vote or otherwise take action in pending matters;
Organizing related correspondence into case files; and
Providing similar routine administrative and clerical assistance to the Arbitration Committee.

The remit of staff assistants shall not include:

Participating in the substantive consideration or decision of any matters before the Committee; or
Taking non-routine actions requiring the exercise of arbitrator discretion.

To that end, upon the selection of staff assistants, the current arbcom-en mailing list shall be renamed to arbcom-en-internal, which shall continue to be accessible only by arbitrators, and a new arbcom-en email list shall be established. The subscribers to the new arbcom-en list shall be the arbitrators and staff assistants.

The Committee shall establish a process to allow editors to, in unusual circumstances following a showing of good cause, directly email a mailing list accessible only by arbitrators and not by staff assistants.

Staff assistants shall be subject to the same requirements concerning conduct and recusal as the arbitration clerk team.

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	6
1–2	5
3–4	4

Support

Oppose

I appreciate that Kevin put this together, and I think this would be very helpful, maybe even the most helpful, way to ensure that we stayed on top of the ball. But just because it would achieve one goal doesn't make it a good idea. A full version of my rationale is on the ArbList, for other Arbs. The short, WP:BEANS version is that this would destroy the line between us and the Foundation, which undoes much of our utility. CaptainEek ⚓ 01:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Per my comment on motion 4. - Aoidh (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Might as well make it formal per my opinions elsewhere on the page. Primefac (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I like the general idea of the WMF using its donated resources to support the community that made the donations possible. I am uncomfortable with putting WMF staff in front of ArbCom's e-mail queue, however, as this would come with unavoidable conflicts of interest and a loss of independence. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
The help would be useful, but the consequences would be detrimental to both ArbCom & WMF. Some space between us is necessary for ArbCom's impartiality & for the WMF's section 230 position. Cabayi (talk) 12:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Abstain

Motion 2: Arbitrator views and discussions

I am quite open to this idea. A professional staff member assisting the committee might be the most reliable and consistent way to achieve this goal. ArbCom doesn't need the higher-intensity support that the WMF Committee Support Team provides other committees like AffCom and the grant committees, but having somebody to track threads and bump stalled discussions would be quite helpful. I'm going to wait to see if there's any community input on this motion before voting on it, though. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Motion 3: Coordinating arbitrators

The Arbitration Committee's procedures are amended by adding the following section:

Coordinating arbitrators

The Arbitration Committee shall, from time to time, designate one or more arbitrators to serve as the Committee's coordinating arbitrators.
Coordinating arbitrators shall be responsible for assisting the Committee in the routine administration and organization of its mailing list and non-public work in a similar manner as the existing arbitration clerks assist in the administration of the Committee's on-wiki work.
The specific responsibilities of coordinating arbitrators shall include:

Acknowledging the receipt of correspondence and assigning tracking identifiers to pending requests and other matters;

Tracking the status of pending matters and providing regular updates and reminders on the status of the Committee's off-wiki work to arbitrators;

Reminding members of the Committee to vote or otherwise take action in pending matters;

Organizing related correspondence into case files; and

Performing similar routine administrative and clerical functions.

A coordinating arbitrator may, but is not required to, state an intention to abstain on some or all matters before the Committee without being listed as an "inactive" arbitrator.

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	6
1–2	5
3–4	4

Support

This is currently my first-choice option; we have unofficially in the past had arbitrators take on specific roles (e.g. tracking unblock requests, responding to emails, etc) and it seemed to work fairly well. Having those rules be more "official" seems like the best way to make sure someone is responsible for these things, without needing to expand the committee or the pool of people with access to private information. Primefac (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
I may still vote for the clerks option, but I think this is probably the minimum of what we need. Will it be suffucient...aye, there's the rub. CaptainEek ⚓ 01:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Of the motions proposed, this one is the one I'd most support. It doesn't expand the number of people who can view the ArbCom mailing list beyond those on ArbCom, and creates a structure that may improve how the mailing list is handled. - Aoidh (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Per Primefac. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Motion 3: Arbitrator views and discussions

I am also open to this idea, though I am worried that it will be insufficient and haven't made up my mind on my vote yet. This idea was floated by a former arbitrator from back when the committee did have a coordinating arbitrator, though that role kind of quietly faded away. The benefits of this approach include that there's no need to bring anyone else onto the list. This motion also allows (but does not require) arbs to take a step back from active arb business to focus on the coordination role, which could help with the bifurcation I mention above. Cons include that this could be the least reliable option; that it's possible no arb is interested, or has the capacity to do this well; and that it's hard to be both a coordinator on top of the existing difficult role of serving as an active arb. I personally think this is better than nothing, but probably prefer one of the other two motions to actually add some capacity. Other ideas that have been floated include establishing a subcommittee of arbitrators responsible for these functions. My same concerns would apply there, but if there's interest, I'm glad to draft and propose a motion to do that; any other arb should also feel free to propose such a motion of their own. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
I was partial to this idea, though it was not my first choice. I proposed that we might make it a rotating position, à la the presidency of the UN security council. Alternatively, a three person subcommittee might also be the way to go, so that the position isn't dependent on one person's activity. I like this solution in general because we already basically had it, with the coordinating arbitrator role. CaptainEek ⚓ 01:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- @CaptainEek: I think your last sentence actually kind of nails why I don't love this solution? From a new person on the scene, it doesn't seem to me like trying old strategies and things we've already been doing is really going to solve a chronic problem. If there are arbs who really are willing to be the coordinators, that's better than nothing, but I haven't seen any step up yet and I'm not convinced that relying on at least one arb having the extra time and trust in every committee to do this work is sustainable. I am leaning towards voting for the scriveners motion, though, because I do love a good whimsical name theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
  My concern with this is that if an arb already has the time and inclination you'd expect them to be filling the role, as has happened in the past. Simply formalizing the role doesn't help if no one has the motivation to do it. It's still the option I support the most out of those listed, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
  I think formalizing it does move the needle on someone doing it. Two possible benefits of the formalization:

It makes clear that this is a valuable role, one that an arb should feel is a sufficient and beneficial way to spend their time. It also communicates this to the community, which might otherwise ask an arb running for reelection why they spent their time coordinating (rather than on other arb work).
It gives "permission" for coordinating arbs to go inactive on other business if they wish.

These two benefits make this motion more than symbolic in my view. My hesitation on it remains that it may be quite insufficient relative to motion 1. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Motion 4: Grants for correspondence clerks

In the event that "Motion 1: Correspondence clerks" passes, the Arbitration Committee shall request that the Wikimedia Foundation provide grants payable to correspondence clerks in recognition of their assistance to the Committee.

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	6
1–2	5
3–4	4

Support

Oppose

Misplaced Pages should remain a volunteer activity. If we cannot find volunteers to do the task, then perhaps it ought not be done in the first place. CaptainEek ⚓ 01:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
We should not have a clerk paid by the WMF handling English Misplaced Pages matters in this capacity. - Aoidh (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Abstain

Motion 4: Arbitrator views and discussions

Proposing for discussion; thanks to voorts for the idea. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
I am leaning no on this motion. The potential downsides of this plan do seem to outweigh the benefit of being able to compensate a correspondence clerk for what will ultimately likely be something like 5 hours a week at most. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Community discussion

Will correspondence clerks be required to sign an NDA? Currently clerks aren't. Regardless of what decision is made this should probably be in the motion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Good catch. I thought it was implied by "from among the English Misplaced Pages functionary corps" – who all sign NDAs as a condition to access functionaries-en and the CUOS tools; see Misplaced Pages:Functionaries (Functionary access requires that the user sign the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information.) – but I've made it explicit now. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

You're right that that was there, but I missed it on my first readthrough of the rules (thinking correspondence clerks would be appointed from the clerk team instead). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Why does "coordinating arbitrators" need a (public) procedures change? Izno (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

As Primefac mentioned above, it seems reasonable to assume that having something written down "officially" might help make sure that the coordinating arbitrator knows what they are responsible for. In any event, it probably can't hurt. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

It is a pain in the ass to get formal procedures changed. There is an internal procedures page: I see 0 reason not to use it if you want to clarify what the role of this arbitrator is. Izno (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

On top of that, this doesn't actually change the status quo much if at all. It is almost entirely a role definition for an internal matter, given "we can make an arb a CA, but we don't have to have one" in it's "from time to time" clause. This just looks like noise to anyone reading ARBPRO who isn't on ArbCom: the public doesn't need to know this arb even exists, though they might commonly be the one responding to emails so they might get a sense there is such an arb. Izno (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

While I appreciate that some functionaries are open to volunteering for this role, this ~~borders on~~ is a part-time secretarial job and ought to be compensated as such. The correspondence clerks option combined with WMF throwing some grant money towards compensation would be my ideal. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this suggestion – I've added motion 4 to address this suggestion. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

In the first motion the word "users" in "The Committee shall establish a process to allow users to, in unusual circumstances" is confusing, it should probably be "editors". In the first and second motions, it should probably be explicit whether correspondence clerks/support staff are required, permitted or prohibited to:

Share statistical information publicly
Share status information (publicly or privately) with correspondents who wish to know the status of their request.
Share status information (publicly or privately) about the status of a specific request with someone other than the correspondent.
For this I'm thinking of scenarios like where e.g. an editor publicly says they emailed the Committee about something a while ago, and one or more other editors asks what is happening with it.

I think my preference would be for 1 or 2, as these seem likely to be the more reliable. Neither option precludes there also being a coordinating arbitrator doing some of the tasks as well. Thryduulf (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for these suggestions. I've changed "users" to "editors". The way I'm intending these motions to be read, correspondence clerks or staff assistants should only disclose information as directed by the committee. I think the details of which information should be shared upon whose request in routine cases could be decided later by the committee, with the default being "ask ArbCom before disclosing until the committee decides to approve routine disclosures in certain cases", because it's probably hard to know in advance which categories will be important to allow. I'm open to including more detail if you think that's important to include at this stage, though, and I'd welcome hearing why if so. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I see your point, but I think it worth clarifying certain things in advance before they become an issue to avoid unrealistic or mistaken expectations of the c-clerks by the community. Point 1 doesn't need to be specified in advance, maybe something like "communicating information publicly as directed by the Committee" would be useful to say in terms of expectation management or maybe it's still to specific? I can see both sides of that.

Point 2 I think is worth establishing quickly and while it is on people's minds. Waiting for the committee to make up its mind before knowing whether they can give a full response to a correspondent about this would be unfair to both the correspondent and clerk I think. This doesn't necessarily have to be before adoption, but if not it needs to be very soon afterwards.

Point 3 is similar, but c-clerks and community members knowing exactly what can and cannot be shared, and especially being able to point to something in writing about what cannot be said publicly, has the potential to reduce drama e.g. if there is another situation similar to Billed Mammal's recent case request. Thryduulf (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

What justification is there for the WMF to spend a single additional dollar on the workload of a project-specific committee whose workload is now demonstrably smaller than at any time in its history? (Noting here that there is a real dollar-cost to the support already being given by WMF, such as the monthly Arbcom/T&S calls that often result in the WMF accepting requests for certain activities.) And anyone who is being paid by the WMF is responsible to the WMF as the employer, not to English Misplaced Pages Arbcom.

I think Arbcom is perhaps not telling the community some very basic facts that are leading to their efforts to find someone to take responsibility for its organization, which might include "we have too many members who aren't pulling their weight" or "we have too many members who, for various reasons that don't have to do with Misplaced Pages, are inactive", or "we have some tasks that nobody really wants to do". There's no indication that any of these solutions would solve these kinds of problems, and I think that all of these issues are factors that are clearly visible to those who follow Arbcom on even an occasional basis. Arbitrators who are inactive for their own reasons aren't going to become more active because someone's organizing their mail. Arbitrators who don't care enough to vote on certain things aren't any more likely to vote if someone is reminding them to vote in a non-public forum; there's no additional peer pressure or public guilt-tripping. And if Arbcom continues to have tasks that nobody really wants to do, divest those tasks. Arbcom has successfully done that with a large number of tasks that were once its responsibility.

I think you can do a much better job of making your case. Risker (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I think there is a need to do something as poor communication and extremely slow replies, if replies are made at all, has been an ongoing issue for the committee for some time. However I agree that asking the foundation to pay someone to do it is going too far. The point that if you are paid by the foundation, you work for them and not en.wp or arbcom is a compelling one. There's also a slippery slope argument to be made in that if we're paying these people, shouldn't we pay the committee? If we're paying the committee, shouldn't we pay the arbitration clerks....and so on. Just Step Sideways 20:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I fully share Risker's concern about a paid WMF staffer who, no matter how well-intentioned, will be answerable to the WMF and not ARBCOM. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The 2023-2024 committee is much more middle aged and has less university students and retirees, who oftentimes have more free time, than the 2016-2017 committee. -- Guerillero 08:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that the issue of there often being some Committee members who, for whatever reason, are not "pulling their weight", is at the core of the problem to be addressed here. Because this happens "behind the scenes", the community has no way to hold anyone accountable in elections, and because of human nature and the understandable desire to maintain a collegial atmosphere within the Committee, I don't really expect any members to call out a colleague in public. I suppose there could even be a question of what happens if whoever might be filling the role proposed here nudges a member to act, but the member just disregards that. It's difficult to see how to make it enforceable. I don't have any real solutions, but this strikes me as central to the problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I think this is largely correct. I was reluctant on the committee to even note this committee's inactivity problem (worst of any 15-member arbcom ever), even though it was based on a metric that is public, when I was still on the committee. And it gets further complicated by the fact that some people not visibly active in public more than pull their weight behind the scenes - the testimonials Maxim received when running for re-election being a prime example. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

During my first term it was Roger Davies. He was barely a presence on-wiki but he kept the whole committee on point and up-to-date about what was pending. Trypto is right that it isn't enforceable, it is more a matter of applying pressure to either do the job or move oneself to the inactive list.

I also think the committee can and should be more proactive about declaring other arbs inactive even when they are otherwise present on-wiki or on the mailing list" That would probably require a procedures change, but I think it would make sense. If there is a case request, proposed decision, or other matter that requires a vote before the committee and an arb doesn't comment on it for ten days or more, they clearly don't have the time and/or inclination to do so and should be declared inactive on that matter so that their lack of action does not further delay the matter. It would be nice if they would just do so themselves, or just vote "abstain" on everything, which only takes a few minutes, but it seems it has not been happening in practice. Just Step Sideways 00:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

And Roger was a pensioner which kinda proves my point -- Guerillero 08:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Roger may have been a pensioner at the end of his time on the committee (7 years), but he certainly wasn't at the beginning of his term. He was co-ordinating arbitrator for a lot of that time, and did a good job without a single bit of extra software. The problem with that software is that people have to already be actively engaged to even contemplate using it. My sense is that the real issue here is the lack of engagement (whether periodic or chronic) on the part of many of the arbitrators. People who are inactive on Arbcom tasks aren't going to be active on any tasks, including reading emails asking them to do things or special software sending alerts. Simply put, if people aren't going to put Arbcom as their primary Misplaced Pages activity for the next two years, keeping in mind other life events that will likely take them away, they should not run in the first place. Yes, unexpected things happen. But I think a lot of the inactivity we've seen in the last few years involved some predictable absences that the arbs knew about when they were candidates. (Examples I've seen myself: Oh, I have a big exam to write that needs months of study; oh, I have a major life event that will require a lot of planning; oh, I'm graduating and will have to find a job.) No, I don't expect people to reveal this kind of information about themselves; yes, I do expect them to refrain from volunteering for roles that they can reasonably foresee they will have difficulty fulfilling. Risker (talk) 04:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I might as well ask a hard question. Is there a way to make public enough information for the community to be able to evaluate ArbCom candidates for (re)election, in terms of behind-the-scenes inactivity? If individual Arbs were to make public comments, that would do it, but it would also potentially be very contentious and could reduce effectiveness instead of improving it. Could ArbCom initiate a new process of posting onsite information about the processing of tasks, without revealing private information (such as: "Ban appeal 1", "Ban appeal 2", instead of "Ban appeal by "), and list those members who voted (perhaps without listing which way they voted)? Maybe do that monthly, and include all tasks that had not yet gotten a quorum. Yes, I know that's difficult. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I question an answer to the problem of "we're having trouble finding enough people to do the secretarial work we have already" being "let's create substantially more secretarial work" even accepting the premise that people would then get voted off if they didn't pull their weight. While I think that premise is correct, what this system would also encourage - even more than it already exists - is an incentive to just go along with whatever the first person (or the person who has clearly done the most homework) says. And that defeats the purpose of having a committee made up of individual thinkers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I'll admit that, even from the outside, I sometimes see members who appear to wait to see which way the wind is blowing before voting on proposed decisions. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

That's something that's hard to know or verify, even for the other arbs. The arbs only know what the other arbs tell them, and I've never seen anyone admit to that. Just Step Sideways 23:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the timing for this is wrong. The committee is about to have between 6 and 9 new members (depending on whether Guerillero, Eek, and Primefac get re-elected). In addition it seems likely that some number of former arbs are about to rejoin the committee. This committee - basically the committee with the worst amount of active membership of any 15 member committee ever - seems like precisely the wrong one to be making large changes to ongoing workflows in December. Izno's idea of an easier to try and easier to change/abandon internal procedure for the coordinating arb feels like something appropriate to try now. The rest feel like it should be the prerogative of the new committee to decide among (or perhaps do a different change altogether). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Kevin can correct me if I'm wrong, but I assumed he was doing this now because he will not be on the committee a month from now.

That being said it could be deliberately held over, or conversely, possibly fall victim to the inactivity you mention and still be here for the new committee to decide. Just Step Sideways 23:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Since WP:ACE2024 elections are currently taking place it makes sense to have the incoming arbitrators weigh in on changes like this. They are the ones that will be affected by any of these motions passing rather than the outgoing arbitrators. - Aoidh (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh I assumed that's why he was doing it also. I am also assuming he's doing it to try and set up the future committees for success. That doesn't change my point about why this is the wrong time and why a different way of trying the coordinator role (if it has support) would be better. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Regarding "timing is wrong": I think you both would agree that these are a long time coming – we have been working on these and related ideas for years (I ran on a related idea in 2022). I do think there's never quite a good time. Very plausibly, the first half of the year is out because the new arbs will need that time to learn how the processes work and think about what kinds of things should be changed vs. kept the same. And then it might be another few months as the new ArbCom experiments with less-consequential changes like the ones laid about at the top: technological solutions, trying new ways of tracking stuff, etc., before being confident in the need for something like set out above. And then things get busy for other reasons; there will be weeks or even occasionally months when the whole committee is overtaken by some urgent situation. I've experienced a broadly similar dynamic a few times now; this is all to say that there's just not much time or space in the agenda for this kind of stuff in a one-year cycle, which would be a shame because I do think this is important to take on.
I do think that it should be the aspiration of every year's committee to leave the succeeding committee some improvements in the functioning of the committee based on lessons learned that year, so it would be nice to leave the next committee with this. That said, if arbitrators do feel that we should hold this over to the new committee, I'm not really in a position to object – as JSS says, this is my last year on the committee, so it's not like this will benefit me. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it's entirely possible for the new committee to have a sense of what it wants workload wise by February-April and so it's wrong to just rule out the first half of the year. By the end of the first six months of the year that you and I started (and which JSS was a sitting member on) we'd made a number of changes to how things were done. Off the top of my head I can name the structure of cases and doing quarterly reports of private appeals as two but there were others. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Here's what I'll leave you with overall. What you may see as a downside – these proposals being voted on relatively late in the year – I see as a significant possible upside. Members of this committee are able to draw on at least eleven months' experience as arbitrators in deciding what is working well and what might warrant change – experience which is important in determining what kinds of processes and systems lead to effective and ineffective outcomes. That experience is important: Although I have served on ArbCom for four years and before that served as an ArbCom clerk for almost six years, I still learn more every year about what makes this committee click. If what really concerns you is locking in the new committee to a particular path, as I wrote above, I'm very open to structuring this as a trial run that will end of its own accord unless the committee takes action to make it permanent. This would ensure that the new committee retains full control over whether to continue, discontinue, or adapt these changes. But in my book, it does not make sense to wait. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

As a 3-term former arb and a 3-term current ombuds commissioner, I've had experience of about a dozen Wikimedia committee "new intakes". I am quite convinced that these proposals are correctly timed. Process changes are better put in place prior to new appointees joining, so that they are not joining at a moment of upheaval. Doing them late in the day is not objectionable and momentum often comes at the end of term. If the changes end up not working (doubtful), the new committee would just vote to tweak the process or go back. I simply do not understand the benefit of deferring proposals into a new year, adding more work to the next year's committee. That surely affects the enthusiasm and goodwill of new members. As for the point that the '24 committee is understaffed and prone to indecision: argumentum ad hominem. If Kevin's proposals work, they work. If anything, it might be more difficult to agree administrative reforms when the committee is back at full staff. arcticocean ■ 15:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
If these pass now you will have new members join at a moment of upheaval as anything proposed here will still be in its infancy when the new members join (even if we pretend the new members are joining Jan 1 rather than much sooner given that results are in and new members tend to be added to the list once the right boxes are checked). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
You're right. And it's important to be realistic: any proposal would be under implementation for several months, so say from December through February. Would that be so bad? Any change will disrupt, in the sense that a few people need to spend time implementing it and everyone else needs to learn the new process. But waiting until later in the year causes even more disruption: members have to first learn an 'old' process and then learn the changes you're making to it… New member enthusiasm is also a keen force that could help to push through the changes. arcticocean ■ 16:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I think new member enthusiasm is part of why I think this lame duck hobbled committee is the wrong one to do it. I have high hopes for next year's group and think they would be in a better place to come up with the right solution for them. And as I noted to Kevin above this isn't hypothetical - the year we both started as arbs we made a lot of process and procedure changes in the first six months. It was a great thing to funnel that new arb energy into because I was bought into what we were doing rather than trying to make something work that I had no say in and that the existing members had no experience with. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
While I think a solution such as adopting ZenDesk is something that could face objections, personally I think the idea of having someone track a list of work items for a committee is a pretty standard way of working (including pushing for timely resolution, something that really needs a person, not just a program). From an outsider's perspective, it's something I'd expect. It doesn't matter to non-arbitrators who does the tracking, so the committee should feel free to change that decision internally as often as it feels is effective. I'd rather there be a coordinating arbitrator in place in the interim until another solution is implemented, than have no one tracking work items in the meantime. isaacl (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Just to double check that I'm reading motion 1 correctly, it would still be possible to email the original list (for arbitrators only) if, for example, you were raising a concern about something the correspondence clerks should not be privy to (ie: misuse of tools by a functionary), correct? Granted, I think motion 3 is probably the simpler option here, but in the event motion 1 passes, is the understanding I wrote out accurate? EggRoll97 02:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@EggRoll97 Yes, but probably only after an additional step. The penultimate paragraph of motions 1 and 2 says The Committee shall establish a process to allow editors to, in unusual circumstances following a showing of good cause, directly email a mailing list accessible only by arbitrators and not by correspondence clerks . No details are given about what this process would be, but one possibility would I guess be something like contacting an individual arbitrator outlining clearly why you think the c-clerks should not be privy to whatever it is. If they agree they'll tell you how to submit your evidence (maybe they'll add your email address to a temporary whitelist). Thryduulf (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

In my experience working on committees and for non-profits, typically management is much more open to offering money for software solutions that they are told can resolve a problem than agreeing to pay additional compensation for new personnel. Are you sure there isn't some tracking solution that could resolve some of these problems? Liz 07:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

In our tentative discussions with WMF, it sounded like it would be much more plausible to get a 0.1-0.2 FTE of staffer time than it would to get us 15 ZenDesk licenses, which was also somewhat surprising to me. That wasn't a firm response – if we went back and said we really need this, I'm guessing it'd be plausible. And we've never asked about compensating c-clerks – that was an idea that came from Voorts's comment above, and I proposed it for discussion, not because I necessarily support it but because I think it's worth discussion, and I certainly don't think it's integral to the c-clerk proposal. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, offering compensation for on-wiki tasks would be breaking new ground for the project. I do wonder though about the possibility of securing former arbitrators for these correspondent clerks' positions. It sounds like all of the work of an arbitrator (or more) without any ability to influence the results. I don't know if we'd have many interested and eligible parties. How many clerks would you think would be necessary? One? Or 3 or 4? Liz 21:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, these are great questions. Responses to your points:

On volunteers: As I wrote above, four functionaries (including three former arbs) expressed initial-stage interest when this was floated when I consulted functionaries – which is great and was a bit unexpected, and which is why I wrote it up this way. Arbitrators will know that my initial plan from previous months/years did not involve limiting this to functionaries, to have a broader pool of applicants. But since we do have several interested functs, and they are already trusted to hold NDA'd private information (especially the former arbs who have previously been elected to access to this very list), I thought this would be a good way to make this a more uncontroversial proposal.
How many to appoint? I imagine one or two if it was up to me. One would be ideal (I think it's like 30 minutes of work per day ish, max), but two for redundancy might make a lot of sense. I don't think it's all of the work of an arbitrator (or more) without any ability to influence the results – because the c-clerk would be responsible for tracking matters, not actually attempting to resolve them, that's a lot less work than serving as an arb. It does require more consistency than most arbs have to put in, though.
On compensating: Yeah, I'm not sure I'll end up supporting the idea, but I don't think it's unprecedented in the sense that you're thinking. Correspondence clerks aren't editing; none of the tasks listed in the motion require on-wiki edits. And there are plenty of WMF grants that have gone to off-wiki work for the benefit of projects; the first example I could think of was m:Grants:Programs/Wikimedia Community Fund/Rapid Fund/UTRS User Experience Development (ID: 22215192) but I know there are many.

Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I am quite confused, I often read arbs saying most of ArbCom work is behind-the-scenes work. But is all this behind-the-scenes work essentially just a one-person 30-minute-a-day work? If so, the solution here is that more arbs should simply pull their weight, which Motion 3 helps. I don't think WMF would pay someone to work 30 minutes a day either. Kenneth Kho (talk) 07:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

But is all this behind-the-scenes work essentially just a one-person 30-minute-a-day work?. No, the actual work takes a lot more time and effort because each arb has to read, understand and form opinions on many different things, and the committee needs to discuss most of those things, which will often re-reading and re-evaluating based on the points raised. Then in many cases there needs to be a vote. What the "one-person, 30 minutes a day" is referring to is just the meta of what tasks are open, what the current status of it is, who needs to opine on it, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I realized I misunderstood it. I see that this is a relatively lightweight proposal, perhaps it could work but it probably won't help much either.

@L235 I have been thinking of splitting ArbCom into Public ArbCom and Private ArbCom. I see Public ArbCom as being able to function without the tools as @Worm That Turned advocated, focused more on complex dispute resolution. I see Private ArbCom as high-trust roles with NDAs, privy to WMF and overseeing Public ArbCom. Both ArbComs are elected separately as 15-members bodies, and both will be left with about half the current authority and responsibility. Kenneth Kho (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Thryduulf is right; I think Kevin meant that the tracking itself might be a 30 minute a day activity. But it has to happen consistently, and with a high catch rate. It also has to happen on top of our usual Arb work, which for me already averages a good ten hours a week, but can be more than twenty hours in the busy times. And I, like the other arbs, already have a full time job and a life outside Misplaced Pages. I don't like the idea of splitting ArbCom in twain, nor do I think it could be achieved. CaptainEek ⚓ 02:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree, having someone managing the work could really help smooth things out. Kenneth Kho (talk) 11:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

My first thought is that cleanly splitting arbcom would be very difficult. For example what happens if there is an open public case and two-thirds of the way through the evidence phase someone discovers and wishes to submit private evidence? Thryduulf (talk) 02:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree, the split won't be entirely clean. I'm thinking Public ArbCom would narrowly remand part of the case to Private ArbCom if it finds that the private evidence is likely to materially affect the outcome. Kenneth Kho (talk) 11:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

How will public know whether the private evidence will materially affect the outcome without seeing the private evidence? Secondly, how will private arbcom determine whether it materially affects the outcome without reviewing all the public evidence and thus duplicating public arbcom's work (and thus also negating the workload benefits of the split)? What happens if public and private arbcom come to different conclusions about the same public evidence? Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

You raised good points that I did not address. I think that a way to do this would be to follow how Oversighters have the authority to override Admins that they use sparingly. Private ArbCom could have the right to receive any private evidence regarding an ongoing case on Public ArbCom, and Private ArbCom will have discretions to override Public ArbCom remedies without explanation other than something like "per private evidence". Private ArbCom would need to familiarize themselves with the case a bit, but this is mitigated by the fact that they only concerned with the narrow parts. Private ArbCom could have the authority to take the whole Public ArbCom case private if it deems that private evidence affect many parties. Kenneth Kho (talk) 11:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

12 candidates for 9 open seats is sufficient. But it hardly suggests we have so many people that we could support 30 people (even presuming some additional people would run under the split). Further, what happens behind the scenes already strains the trust of the community. But at least the community can see the public actions as a reminder of "well this person hasn't lost it completely while on ArbCom". I think it would be much harder to sustain trust under this split. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I honestly like the size of 12-member committee, too many proverbial cooks spoil the proverbial broth. I did think about the trust aspect, as the community has been holding ArbCom under scrutiny, but at the same time I consider that the community has been collegial with Bureaucrats, Checkusers, Oversighters. Private ArbCom would be far less visible, with Public ArbCom likely taking the heat for contentious decisions. Kenneth Kho (talk) 11:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with L235 regarding whether this is all the work and none of the authority: it does not come with all the responsibility that being an Arb comes with either. This role does not need to respond to material questions or concerns about arbitration matters and does not need to read and weigh the voluminous case work to come to a final decision. The c-clerk will need to keep up on emails and will probably need to have an idea of what's going on in public matters, but that was definitely not the bulk of the (stressful?) work of an arbitrator. Izno (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@Liz well that's what I thought. I figured that ZenDesk was the winningest solution, until the Foundation made it seem like ZenDesk licenses were printed on gold bars. We did do some back of the envelope calculations, and it is decidedly expensive. Still...I have a hard time believing those ZenDesk licenses really cost more than all that staff time. I think we'll have to do some more convincing of the Foundation on that front, or implement a different solution. CaptainEek ⚓ 01:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I touched upon the idea of using former arbitrators to do administrative tasks on the arbitration committee talk page, and am also pleasantly surprised to hear there is some interest. I think this approach may be the most expeditious way to put something in place at least for the interim. (On a side note, I urge people not to let the term "c-clerk" catch on. It sounds like stuttering, or someone not good enough to be an A-level clerk. More importantly, it would be quite an obscure jargon term.) isaacl (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

To that end, upon the first appointment of correspondence clerks, the current arbcom-en mailing list shall be renamed to arbcom-en-internal, which shall continue to be accessible only by arbitrators, and a new arbcom-en email list shall be established. The subscribers to the new arbcom-en list shall be the arbitrators and correspondence clerks.

Something I raised in the functionary discussion was that this doesn't make sense to me. What is the basis for this split here? Izno (talk) 00:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I assumed it was so that the clerks would only see the incoming email and not be privy to the entire commitee's comments on the matter. While all functionaries and arbs sign the same NDA, operating on a need to know basis is not at all uncommon in groups that deal with sensitive information. When I worked for the census we had to clear our debriefing room of literally everything because it was being used the next day by higher-ups from Washington who were visiting. They outranked all of us by several orders of mgnitude, but they had no reason to be looking at the non-anonymized personal data we had lying all over the place.

Conversely it would spare the clerks from having their inboxes flooded by every single arb comment, which as you know can be quite voluminous. Just Step Sideways 00:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

And it would also prevent them from seeing information related to themselves or something they should actively recuse on. Thryduulf (talk) 01:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

This suggested rationale doesn't hold water: someone with an issue with a c-clerk or where they may need to recuse should just follow the normal process for an issue with an arb: to whit, kicking off arbcom-b for a private discussion. Izno (talk) 01:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking of material from before they were appointed, e.g. if there was a discussion involving the actions of user:Example in November and they become a c-clerk in December, they shouldn't be able to see the discussion even if the only comments were that the allegations against them are obviously ludicrous. I appreciate I didn't make this clear though. Thryduulf (talk) 02:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Making arbcom-en a "firewall" from the arb deliberations would inhibit the c-clerk from performing the duties listed in the motion. I cannot see how it would be workable for them to remind arbs to do the thing the electorate voluntold them to do if the c-clerk cannot see whether they have done those things (e.g. coming to a conclusion on an appeal), and would add to the overhead of introducing this secretarial position (email comes in, c-clerk forwards to -internal, arbs discussion on -internal, come to conclusion, send an email back to -en, which the c-clerk then actions back to the user on arbcom-en). This suggested rationale also does not hold water to me. Izno (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Apologies – if this was the interpretation, that's bad drafting on my part. The sole intention is that the new correspondence clerks won't see the past arbcom-en archives, which were emails sent to the committee on the understanding that only arbitrators would see those emails. C clerks will see everything that's newly sent on arbcom-en, including all deliberations held on arbcom-en, with the exception of anything that is so sensitive that the committee feels the need to restrict discussion to arbitrators (this should be fairly uncommon but covers the recusal concern above in a similar way as discussions about arbs who recuse sometimes get moved to arbcom-en-b). The C clerks will need to be able to see deliberations to be able to track pending matters and ensure that balls aren't being dropped, which could not happen unless they had access to the discussions – this is a reasonable "need to know" because they are fulfilling a function that is hard to combine with serving as an active arbitrator. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, I clearly totally misread your intent there. I.... don't think I like the idea that unelected clerks can see everything the committee is doing. Just Step Sideways 03:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I oppose splitting arbcom-en a second time -- Guerillero 10:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Regarding 1.4, I think arbcom-en and -c are good ones for a c-clerk to have access to. -b probably doesn't need access ever, as it's used exclusively for work with recusals attached to it, which should be small enough for ArbCom to manage itself in the addition of a c-clerk. (This comment in private elicited the slight rework L235 made to the motion.) Izno (talk) 06:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

What does this mean – when was the first time? arcticocean ■ 15:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Arcticocean: In 2018, arbcom-l became arbcom-en and the archives are in two different places. -- Guerillero 18:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Appointing one of the sitting arbitrators as "Coordinating Arbitrator" (motion 3) would be my recommended first choice of solution. We had a Coordinating Arbitrator—a carefully chosen title, as opposed to something like "Chair"—for a few years some time ago. It worked well, although it was not a panacea, and I frankly don't recollect why the coordinator role was dropped at some point. If there is a concern about over-reliance or over-burden on any one person, the role could rotate periodically (although I would suggest a six-month term to avoid too much time being spent on the mechanics of selecting someone and transitioning from one coordinator to the next). At any given time there should be at least one person on a 15-member Committee with the time and the skill-set to do the necessary record-keeping and nudging in addition to arbitrating, and this solution would avoid the complications associated with bringing another person onto the mailing list. I think there would be little community appetite for involving a WMF staff member (even one who is or was also an active Wikipedian) in the Committee's business; and if we are going to set the precedent of paying someone to handle tasks formerly handled by volunteers, with all due respect to the importance of ArbCom this is not where I would start. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Regarding little community appetite – that is precisely why we are inviting community input here on this page, as one way to assess how the community feels about the various options. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I also like the idea of an arb or two taking on this role more than another layer of clerks. I'm sure former arbs would be great at it but the committee needs to handle its own internal business. Just Step Sideways 03:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it is ideal for the arbitration committee to track its own work items and prompt its members for timely action, and may have written this some time ago on-wiki. However... years have passed now, and the arbitration committee elections aren't well-suited to selecting arbitrators with the requisite skill set (even if recruitment efforts were made, the community can only go by the assurance of the candidate regarding the skills they possess and the time they have available). So I think it's worth looking at the option of keeping an arbitrator involved in an emeritus position if they have shown the aptitude and availability to help with administration. This could be an interim approach, until another solution is in place (maybe there can be more targeted recruiting of specific editors who, by their ongoing Misplaced Pages work, have demonstrated availability and tracking ability). isaacl (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

2 and 4 don't seem like very good ideas to me. For 2, I think we need to maintain a firm distinction between community and WMF entities, and not do anything that even looks like blending them together. For 4, every time you involve money in something, you multiply your potential problems by a factor of at least ten (and why should that person get paid, when other people who contribute just as much time doing other things don't, and when, for that matter, even the arbs themselves don't?). For 1, I could see that being a good idea, to take some clerical/"grunt work" load off of ArbCom and give them more time for, well, actually arbitrating, and functionaries will all already have signed the NDA. I don't have any problem with 3, but don't see why ArbCom can't just do it if they want to; all the arbs already have access to the information in question so it's not like someone is being approved to see it who can't already. Seraphimblade 01:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: Following up on your comments on motion 1, depending on which aspect of the proposed job one wanted to emphasize, you could also consider "amanuensis," "registrar," or "receptionist." (The best on-wiki title in my opinion, though we now are used to it so the irony is lost, will always be "bureaucrat"; I wonder who first came up with that one.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Or "cat-herder". --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Following parliamentary tradition, perhaps "whip". (Less whimsically: "recording secretary".) isaacl (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad:, if memory serves @Keegan: knows who came up with it, and as I recall the story was that they wanted to come up with the most boring, unappealing name they could so not too many people would be applying for it all the time. Just Step Sideways 05:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

So, just to usher in a topic-specific discussion because it has been alluded to many times without specifics being given, what was the unofficial position of ArbCom coordinator like? Who held this role? How did it function? Were other arbitrators happy with it? Was the Coordinator given time off from other arbitrator responsibilities? I assume this happened when an arbitrator just assumed the role but did it have a more formal origin? Did it end because no one wanted to pick up the responsibility? Questions, questions. Liz 06:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I cannot speak for anything but my term. I performed this role for about 1.5 years of the 2 I was on the committee. To borrow an email I sent not long before I stepped off that touches on the topics in this whole set of motions (yes, this discussion isn't new):

Daily, ~20 minutes: went into the list software and tagged the day's incoming new email chains with a label (think "upe", "duplicate", etc).
Daily, ~10 minutes: took care of any filtered emails on the list (spam and not-spam).
Monthly, 1-2 hours: trawled the specific categories of tags since the beginning of the month to add to an arbwiki page for tracking for "needs to get done". Did the inverse also (removed stuff from tracking that seemed either Done or Stale).
Monthly, 15 minutes to prep: sent an email with a direct list of the open appeals and a reminder about the "needs doing" stuff (and a few months I highlighted a topic or two that were easy wins). This built off the daily work in a way that would be a long time if it were all done monthly instead of daily.

I was also an appeals focused admin, which had further overhead here that I would probably put in the responsibility of this kind of arb. Other types of arbs probably had similar things they would have wanted to do this direction but I saw very little of such. Daily for this effort, probably another 15 minutes or so:

I copy-pasted appeal metadata from new appeals email to arbwiki
Started countdown timers for appeals appearing to be at consensus
Sent "easy" boilerplate emails e.g. "we got this appeal, we may be in touch" or "no way Jose you already appealed a month ago"
Sent results for the easy appeals post-countdown timer and filled in relevant metadata (easy appeals here usually translated to "declined" since this was the quick-n-easy daily work frame, not the long-or-hard daily work frame)

(End extract from referenced email.) This second set is now probably a much-much lighter workload with the shedding of most CU appeals this year (which was 70% of the appeals by count during my term), and I can't say how much of this second group would be in the set of duties depending on which motion is decided above (or if even none of the motions are favored by the committee - you can see I've advocated for privately documenting the efforts of coordinating arbs rather than publicly documenting them regarding 3, and it wouldn't take much to get me to advocate against 2 and 4, I just know others can come to the right-ish conclusion on those two already; I'm pretty neutral on 1).

Based on the feedback I got as I was going out the door, it was appreciated. I did see some feedback that this version of the role was insufficiently personal to each arb. The tradeoff for doing something more personalized to each other arb is either time or software (i.e. money). I did sometimes occasionally call out when other members had not yet chimed in on discussions. That was ad hoc and mostly focused on onwiki matters (case votes particularly), but occasionally I had to name names when doing appeals work because the arbs getting to the appeal first were split. In general the rest of the committee didn't name names (which touches on some discussion above). I think some arbs appreciated seeing their name in an email when they were needed.

I was provided no formal relief from other matters. But as I discussed with one arb during one of the stressful cases of the term, I did provide relief informally for the duration of that case to that person for the stuff I was interested in, so I assume that either I in fact had no relief from other matters, or that I had relief but didn't know it (and just didn't ask for anyone else to do it - since I like to think I had it well enough in hand). :-) The committee is a team effort and not everyone on the team has the same skills, desire, or time to see to all other matters. (The probing above about arbs being insufficiently active is a worthwhile probe, to be certain.) To go further though, I definitely volunteered to do this work. Was it necessary work? I think so. I do not know what would have happened if I had not been doing it. (We managed to hit only one public snag related to timeliness during my term, which I count as a win; opinions may differ.)

There is no formal origin to the role that I know of. Someone else with longer committee-memory would have to answer whether all/recent committees have had this type, and who they were, and why if not.

I don't know how much of what I did lines up with what L235 had in mind proposing these motions. I do not think the work I did covers everything listed in the motions laid out. (I don't particularly need clarification on the point - it's a matter that will fall out in post-motion discussion.) Izno (talk) 08:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The original announcement of the Coordinating Arbitrator position was here. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Archive zero: I love it! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Interestingly, that announcement also repeated the announcement at the top of the archive page that a departing arbitrator continued to assist the committee by co-ordinating the mailing list: acknowledging incoming emails and responding to senders with questions about them, and tracking issues to ensure they are resolved. So both a co-ordinator (plus a deputy!) and an arbitrator emeritus. isaacl (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

former arbitrator will continue to coordinate the ArbCom mailing list. was probably a statement along the lines of "knows how to deal with Mailman". And I think you're getting that role mixed up with the actual person doing the work management: the Arbitration Committee has decided to appoint one of its sitting arbitrators to act as coordinator (emphasis mine). Izno (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Obviously I have no personal knowledge of what ended up happening. I just listed the responsibilities as described at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 0 § Improving ArbCom co-ordination. I'm not sure what I'm getting mixed up; all I said is that a co-ordinator and deputy were appointed, and that a former arbitrator was said to be co-ordinating the mailing list. It's certainly possible the split of duties changed from the first post in the archive. isaacl (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I see that now. Izno (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I think I agree with Izno regarding the coordinating arbitrator role. There's no problem letting the community that the role exists, but I don't think it's necessary for the role's responsibilities to be part of the public-facing guarantees being made to the community. If the role needs to expand, shrink, split into multiple roles, or otherwise change, the committee should feel free to just do it as needed. The committee has the flexibility to organize itself as it best sees fit. isaacl (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I think this is the right approach. It doesn't need to be advertised who is coordinating activity on the mailing list, it just needs to get done. If it takes two people, fine, if they do it for six months and say they want out of the role, ask somebody else to do it. And so on. Just Step Sideways 23:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

For instance, I don't think it's necessary to codify whether or not the coordinating arbitrator role is permanent. Just put a task on the schedule to review how the role is working out in nine months, and then modify the procedure accordingly as desired. isaacl (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

One exception: the first bullet point regarding responding to communications and assigning a tracking identifier does involve the committee's interactions with the community. I feel, though, that for flexibility these guarantees can be made without codifying who does them, from the community's point of view. (It's fine of course to make them part of the coordinating arbitrator's tasks.) isaacl (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Izno, this actually sounds like a helluva lot of work, maybe not minute-wise but mental, keeping track of everything so requests don't fall through the cracks. I think anyone assuming this role should get a break from, say, drafting ARBCOM cases if nothing else. Liz 03:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

It might be a lot of work, but it wasn't the bulk of the work, even for the work that I was doing. There was a lot more steps to being the appeal-focused admin above. Izno (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

You made me laugh, Liz. That sounds like my normal start-of-day routine, to be accompanied by a cup of tea and, perhaps, a small breakfast. I'd expect most arbitrators to be reading the mail on a daily basis, unless they are inactive for some reason; the difference here is the tagging/flagging of messages and clearing the filters, which probably adds about 10-12 minutes. I'll simply say that any arb who isn't prepared to spend 30-45 minutes/day reading emails probably shouldn't be an arb. That's certainly a key part of the role. Risker (talk) 04:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

+1. In my thoughts to potential candidates I said an hour a day for emails but that included far more appeals than the committee gets now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Never mind reading emails, the bulk of my private ArbCom time was spent on processing them: doing checks, reporting results, and otherwise responding to other work. You can get away with just reading internal emails, but it's going to surprise your fellow arbs if you don't pipe up with some rational thought when you see the committee thinking about something personally objectionable and the first time they hear about it is when motions have been posted and are waiting for votes. Izno (talk) 06:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Right now, I check my email account about once a week. I guess that will change if I'm elected to the committee. It would have helped to hear all of these details before the election. Liz 08:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

My hour included time to respond to emails, though I also note you're not going particularly deep on anything with that time (at least when ArbCom had more appeals). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

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

M.Bitton

M.Bitton is warned against casting aspersions and reminded to abide by WP:CIVIL. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:35, 19 December 2024 (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 M.Bitton User who is submitting this request for enforcement XDanielx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested M.Bitton (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 I'll limit this to WP:CIVIL related issues for now, since they're easiest to evaluate with minimal context. 2024-12-09 xDanielx being disingenuous again (what they mean by "no explanation" is "no explanation that they agree with") 2024-12-08 casting aspersions to justify your disruptive editing is about as low as it gets ... this is extremely disingenuous ... made-up rules and demands to satisfy you 2024-12-08 please don't make-up another rule ... maybe that's because you only see what you want to see (partly struck per admin request) 2024-12-01, 2024-12-01 Misplaced Pages is not a collection of every piece of alleged garbage 2024-11-18 When someone keeps misrepresenting the sources (again and again), then I will rightly assume disingenuousness 2024-11-18 I'm starting to question your motives 2024-11-18 Please refrain from repeating your lies (edited to You're being extremely disingenuous. You misrepresented the sources (clearly to push a POV) 2024-11-15 I don't take lessons from those who misrepresent the sources and edit war over WP:OR 2024-11-15 please don't attribute your nonsense to me (this is totally unacceptable) 2024-11-15 Bobfrombrockley is busy adding whatever garbage they can find 2024-11-15 you've been very busy adding whatever garbage you could find to the article 2024-11-15 Do you expect me to explain to you what "freedom of expression" is? 2024-11-14 I'm done wasting my time with this nonsense ... Your self-serving opinion is irrelevant 2024-11-12 offensive humor Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any I'm not aware of CTOP sanctions. The block log seems to show four blocks, but they're not that recent and I'm not sure how relevant they are. If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics) Was a subject of a previous ARBPIA AE request. Made a couple other statements in ARBPIA AE requests: 2024-12-06, 2024-12-08 Additional comments by editor filing complaint Another 15 diffs were (rightfully) removed by an admin for exceeding the diff limit as well as falling outside PIA scope; just mentioning for transparency. They might be relevant on a different forum but admittedly not here. — xDanielx /_C\ 16:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC) @Theleekycauldron: I planned to file something after the "garbage" comments (about BobFromBrockley) on Talk:Al-Manar. I reconsidered after being surprised by M.Bitton's diplomatic compromise there. Admittedly M.Bitton's comments in the thread above prompted me to reconsider again, but that wasn't about the fact that I might receive a warning there (irrespective of M.Bitton's participation); it was just about me personally being on the receiving end of some personal attacks. I don't really follow why me being emotionally affected by the conduct would affect the legitimacy of the report. Most of the incivility was directed at other users, and letting this conduct continue wouldn't seem fair to them. — xDanielx /_C\ 16:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 2024-12-09 Discussion concerning M.Bitton 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 M.Bitton Not content with edit warring, assuming bad faith and casting aspersions (see #xDanielx), they now decided to go even lower and file a retaliatory report. M.Bitton (talk) 09:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC) @Vanamonde93 and Ealdgyth: I just want to draw your attention to their aspersions casting tag-team revert (their edit summary, while striking it, leaves no doubt about they believe) and the fact that they falsely accused me: of ignoring their ping (when I was logged out) and reverting without an explanation (when, in fact, I did provide one). M.Bitton (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC) @Ealdgyth: I agree and will make sure that doesn't happen in the future, regardless of what's coming the other way. I should know better than let myself take the bait, but lesson learnt nonetheless. M.Bitton (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC) @Valereee: sure. M.Bitton (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning M.Bitton This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. This is shamelessly and obviously a retaliatory filing, and I'm leaning towards a one- or two-way interaction ban to stop the back-and-forth sniping. But I'd still draw uninvolved admins' attention to this thread and ask what their thoughts are. That seems like pretty battleground-y behavior to me. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC) I see it as a bit retaliatory, but we do need to stop this sniping, especially at AE and other such venues. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC) Yeah, a logged warning sounds like enough to me, given their responses so far. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC) Yes, this is retaliatory, and at the same time, M. Bitton's language is not acceptable. Bad behavior should be addressed at an administrator noticeboard, or in a civil post to a user talk page, not with what SFR accurately describes as sniping. I would log a warning for casting aspersions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC) I agree with SFR and Vanamonde93 that the language used does not help the topic area at all. I don't know if M.Bitton's had a long history of logged warnings before (I'm a bit busy trying to get the farm ready for an artic clipper coming in) but I'm fine with a logged warning. But the filer should be aware that they need to also try to avoid retaliatory-filing look in the future... Ealdgyth (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC) I'm not happy about Daniel's behavior (but will try to find time to look at it in the earlier filing to avoid getting this one off track) but, M.Bitton, your comments are not just sub-par, but not at all what editors should be directing at others. An acknowledgment of that and working to avoid that in the future is something you need to seriously consider if you're not going to end up sanctioned in the future. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC) I also think a logged warning should be adequate here, particularly given the limited sanctions history and the commitment to do better in the future. Personally I'm not bothered by the timing of this report in light of xDanielx's explanation, although it's wise to avoid even the appearance of retaliation when you're at AE. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC) I don't disagree that this is retaliatory, but that doesn't moot the issue. M.Bitton does tend to approach editing in a battleground-y way, and their language often escalates rather than de-escalates. I'd very much like you to start using de-escalating language, M.Bitton. Can you discuss that? Valereee (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC) I meant can you discuss it here, but maybe I wasn't clear. Valereee (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC) Have not read this but will note that xDanielx is at their word limit. Daniel if you want to post anything else please get an extension first from an uninvolved administrator. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC) Comment to stave off the bot. Looks like the proposed resolution here is a warning for battleground behavior, does that still seem the way to go? Seraphimblade 09:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC) A logged warning, sure. Valereee (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC) Agreed, and I also agree we should put this to bed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

M.Bitton is warned against casting aspersions and reminded to abide by WP:CIVIL. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:35, 19 December 2024 (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 M.Bitton

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: XDanielx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: M.Bitton (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

I'll limit this to WP:CIVIL related issues for now, since they're easiest to evaluate with minimal context.

2024-12-09 xDanielx being disingenuous again (what they mean by "no explanation" is "no explanation that they agree with")
2024-12-08 casting aspersions to justify your disruptive editing is about as low as it gets ... this is extremely disingenuous ... made-up rules and demands to satisfy you
2024-12-08 please don't make-up another rule ... maybe that's because you only see what you want to see (partly struck per admin request)
2024-12-01, 2024-12-01 Misplaced Pages is not a collection of every piece of alleged garbage
2024-11-18 When someone keeps misrepresenting the sources (again and again), then I will rightly assume disingenuousness
2024-11-18 I'm starting to question your motives
2024-11-18 Please refrain from repeating your lies (edited to You're being extremely disingenuous. You misrepresented the sources (clearly to push a POV)
2024-11-15 I don't take lessons from those who misrepresent the sources and edit war over WP:OR
2024-11-15 please don't attribute your nonsense to me (this is totally unacceptable)
2024-11-15 Bobfrombrockley is busy adding whatever garbage they can find
2024-11-15 you've been very busy adding whatever garbage you could find to the article
2024-11-15 Do you expect me to explain to you what "freedom of expression" is?
2024-11-14 I'm done wasting my time with this nonsense ... Your self-serving opinion is irrelevant
2024-11-12 offensive humor

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

I'm not aware of CTOP sanctions. The block log seems to show four blocks, but they're not that recent and I'm not sure how relevant they are.

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

Was a subject of a previous ARBPIA AE request.
Made a couple other statements in ARBPIA AE requests: 2024-12-06, 2024-12-08

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Another 15 diffs were (rightfully) removed by an admin for exceeding the diff limit as well as falling outside PIA scope; just mentioning for transparency. They might be relevant on a different forum but admittedly not here. — xDanielx /_C\ 16:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: I planned to file something after the "garbage" comments (about BobFromBrockley) on Talk:Al-Manar. I reconsidered after being surprised by M.Bitton's diplomatic compromise there. Admittedly M.Bitton's comments in the thread above prompted me to reconsider again, but that wasn't about the fact that I might receive a warning there (irrespective of M.Bitton's participation); it was just about me personally being on the receiving end of some personal attacks. I don't really follow why me being emotionally affected by the conduct would affect the legitimacy of the report. Most of the incivility was directed at other users, and letting this conduct continue wouldn't seem fair to them. — xDanielx /_C\ 16:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

2024-12-09

Discussion concerning M.Bitton

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 M.Bitton

Not content with edit warring, assuming bad faith and casting aspersions (see #xDanielx), they now decided to go even lower and file a retaliatory report. M.Bitton (talk) 09:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 and Ealdgyth: I just want to draw your attention to their aspersions casting tag-team revert (their edit summary, while striking it, leaves no doubt about they believe) and the fact that they falsely accused me: of ignoring their ping (when I was logged out) and reverting without an explanation (when, in fact, I did provide one). M.Bitton (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: I agree and will make sure that doesn't happen in the future, regardless of what's coming the other way. I should know better than let myself take the bait, but lesson learnt nonetheless. M.Bitton (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: sure. M.Bitton (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning M.Bitton

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

This is shamelessly and obviously a retaliatory filing, and I'm leaning towards a one- or two-way interaction ban to stop the back-and-forth sniping. But I'd still draw uninvolved admins' attention to this thread and ask what their thoughts are. That seems like pretty battleground-y behavior to me. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I see it as a bit retaliatory, but we do need to stop this sniping, especially at AE and other such venues. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, a logged warning sounds like enough to me, given their responses so far. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, this is retaliatory, and at the same time, M. Bitton's language is not acceptable. Bad behavior should be addressed at an administrator noticeboard, or in a civil post to a user talk page, not with what SFR accurately describes as sniping. I would log a warning for casting aspersions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree with SFR and Vanamonde93 that the language used does not help the topic area at all. I don't know if M.Bitton's had a long history of logged warnings before (I'm a bit busy trying to get the farm ready for an artic clipper coming in) but I'm fine with a logged warning. But the filer should be aware that they need to also try to avoid retaliatory-filing look in the future... Ealdgyth (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not happy about Daniel's behavior (but will try to find time to look at it in the earlier filing to avoid getting this one off track) but, M.Bitton, your comments are not just sub-par, but not at all what editors should be directing at others. An acknowledgment of that and working to avoid that in the future is something you need to seriously consider if you're not going to end up sanctioned in the future. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I also think a logged warning should be adequate here, particularly given the limited sanctions history and the commitment to do better in the future. Personally I'm not bothered by the timing of this report in light of xDanielx's explanation, although it's wise to avoid even the appearance of retaliation when you're at AE. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't disagree that this is retaliatory, but that doesn't moot the issue. M.Bitton does tend to approach editing in a battleground-y way, and their language often escalates rather than de-escalates. I'd very much like you to start using de-escalating language, M.Bitton. Can you discuss that? Valereee (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
I meant can you discuss it here, but maybe I wasn't clear. Valereee (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Have not read this but will note that xDanielx is at their word limit. Daniel if you want to post anything else please get an extension first from an uninvolved administrator. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment to stave off the bot. Looks like the proposed resolution here is a warning for battleground behavior, does that still seem the way to go? Seraphimblade 09:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
A logged warning, sure. Valereee (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, and I also agree we should put this to bed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Ethiopian Epic

Request concerning Ethiopian Epic

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tinynanorobots (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Ethiopian Epic (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/Yasuke

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

November 14th created during the Yasuke case and went active when it ended. First 11 edits were to Government of Japan. In one case three edits were used to write one sentence.
November 12 Manually reverted the lead back to how it was in September.
November 16 Falsely Claimed cited material was OR. (G
November 24 Falsely Claimed cited material was unsourced
November 24 It took an ANI report to get him to use the article talk page. His defense was accusations and denial.
November 23 He reverted to a version that went against consensus established on the talk page and contained a falsely sourced quote.
November 25 Engages in sealioning
November 29 Removes a well sourced line from Yasuke as well as reverted an edit that was the result of BRD. He has now started disputes with me on all three Yasuke related articles.
November 30 starts disputing a new section of
December 2 Brought again to ANI, he claims that I didn't get consensus for changes, even though I had discussed them on talk prior to making them.
December 4 He keeps mentioning ONUS, and asking me to discuss it, in response to me discussing.
December 9 Used a non-controversial revert to hide his edit warring.
December 11 did the same thing on List of foreign-born samurai in Japan.
December 11 He also repeatedly complains that he doesn't like the definition because it is vague and claims that his preferred version is "status quo"

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): [

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on December 1 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I am not sure if this is actually a AE matter, but was told to go here by multiple admins. The biggest issue is the Editing against consensus on accompanied by bludgeoning. However, there are signs of bad faith editing on all three pages where I have interacted with EE. It could also be a CIR issue or it could be some sort of harassment. I don't know. I just know that EE first avoided providing clear reasons for reverting edits and has been trying to engage in Status Quo Stonewalling. He keeps citing Onus or Burden and asks me not to make a change until the discussion is over. Often, this doesn't make sense in context, because the change was in place. He has made false claims about sources and what they say. His editing on Yasuke is not so much a problem as the discussion which comes across as gaslighting.

@User:Red-tailed hawk, I am not an expert on proxies or socks. All the IPs have only posted on the one article and have advocated an odd definition for samurai, that doesn't apply to the article. All except the first one have just reverted. It is possible that this is just laziness, or lack of confidence in writing skills etc. After all, the false citation was added by another user and was just kept. I found the latest one the most suspect, in part because of it first reverting to the incorrect definition, before restoring most of the text and second because of falsely citing policy. I am not sure if they are proxies, but I hoped that someone here would have the expertise to know. I don't think the proxy evidence is the most important. EE is either acting in bad faith or has CIR problems. The later is possible, because he thanked City of Silver during ANI, although City of Silver has been the harshest critic of EE's behaviour towards me.

I think there should be some important context to the quote: "those who serve in close attendance to the nobility". The quote can be found in several books, on Samurai it is sourced to an article published in Black Belt Magazine in the 80s by William Scott Wilson, where he describes the origin of the word samurai. He is describing the early phases of its meaning in that quote, before it became to have martial connotations. It also refers to the time before 900. The earliest foreign samurai on the list was in the late 1500s. It also doesn't apply to most of the persons on the list. Finally, it is not mentioned in Vaporis's book, which EE keeps adding as the source. He hasn't even made the effort to copy the citation from Samurai.

@User:Eronymous

Not only did I have a dispute with Symphony Regalia about samurai being "retainers to lords", but also on Yasuke about "As a samurai" and on List of Foreign-born Samurai in Japan EE made the same reverts as SR. EE had with his first edit in all three articles continued a dispute that I had already had with SR.

@User:Ethiopian Epic I actually don't have a problem with you discussing things. Your talk page posts aren't really discussion though. Your main argument on all three pages has been a shifting of the burden of proof. You don't really discuss content and continually ask me not to make changes without discussing first, and then make changes yourself. I understand that your position is that your preferred version is the status quo. However, my edits regarding the definition on List of Foreign-born samurai in Japan , were discussed and consensus was clearly gotten. Similarly, my edits on Yasuke were discussed, and even though I didn't use the exact same version as Gitz said, Gitz had suggested using warrior instead of bushi, so I used samurai, because I thought it would be less controversial.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Ethiopian Epic

Statement by Ethiopian Epic

This is clear retaliatory filing because I recently didn't agree with Tinynanorobot's edits against RFC consensus, and because I made talk page sections on some recent edits.

@Eronymous That's not true and you are a very obvious alt account with only 26 edits. No one gave you a notification of this discussion and it's not on the Yasuke talk page. This suggests you are the sock puppet of someone here. Your post is also misleading and incorrect it wasn't an insertion. The line you are talking about in Samurai has been there for over 10 years and is normal. I know because I've read it before. Here is a version from 2017 that still has it. I don't understand why you are misrepresenting edits and using an alt account.

@Red-tailed hawk I think he is just fishing. That's why he removed his IP claims. Even his other diffs are just mislabeled regular behavior. It's amusing because Eronymous is the likely alt of Tinynanorobots or someone posting here. I think the way Tinynanorobots edits against clear consensus, skips discussion, and then files frivolous ANI/AE reports with misleading narrative like above is disruptive. Discussion is an easy solution and benefits everyone. I hope he will respect RFC consensus.

Statement by Relm

I am largely unfamiliar with the account in question, but I do frequently check Yasuke. I believe that EthiopianEpic has displayed a clear slant and battleground mindset in their editing in regards to the topic of Yasuke, but that their conduct on the Yasuke page itself so far has generally been in the ballpark of good faith edits. The revert on December 9th was justified, and their topic on November 29th is well within bounds (though I acknowledge that the background of their prior disputes on other pages with Tinynanorobots shows it may be edit warring) given that the two things being reverted was a change that seemed to skirt the prior RFC with agreement being given in a very non-direct way, and the other portion being an addition which had not been discussed on the talk page prior to its implementation (though previous discussions ered on the side of not including it). I am not accusing Tinynanorobots of any misconduct in any part of that either.

What I will note is that in addition to the sockpuppet IP allegations made by Tinynanorobots, I wanted to lodge that the posting style of EthiopianEpic, as well as their knowledge of much of the previous discussions on the page deep in the archive, led me to suspect that they were an alt of User:Symphony_Regalia. I never found anything conclusive. Relm (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Simonm223

These two editors have been tangling at WP:AN/I repeatedly. Last time they came there I said that this would likely continue until a third party intervened. And then the thread got archived with no action (see AN/I thread here) so I'm not surprised that the two of them are still tangling. There is evidence that both editors have engaged in a slow-motion edit war. Both have claimed the other is editing against consensus. Here I will say that it appears TinyNanoRobots is more correct than Ethiopian Epic. Furthermore, while neither editors' comportment has been stellar, as other editors have pointed out, it appears more that EE is following TNR about and giving them a hard time than the alternate. . In the linked AN/I case (above) you'll note EE attempted a boomerang on TNR and was not well-received for the effort.

Frankly my view is that both editors are not editing to the best standards of Misplaced Pages but there is definitely a more disruptive member of this duo and that is Ethiopian Epic. I think it would probably cut down on the noise considerably if they were encouraged to find somewhere to edit which was not a CTOP subject and if they were encouraged to leave TNR alone. Simonm223 (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Eronymous

Similar to Relm I check on the Yasuke page every so often, and it seems very likely given the evidence that User:Ethiopian Epic is an alt of User:Symphony_Regalia created to evade his recent ArbCom sanctions, having started editing the day prior to the Yasuke case closure. Of note to this is the last edit of Symphony_Regalia on Samurai was him attempting to insert the line "who served as retainers to lords (including daimyo)" - curiously enough, Ethiopian Epic's first edit on Samurai (and first large edit, having just prior made 11 minor ones in a short timeframe to reach autoconfirmed status) is him attempting to insert the same controversial line that was reverted before.

Symphony_Regalia has a history of utilising socks to edit Yasuke/Samurai related topics and is indefinitely blocked from the .jp wiki for extensive sockpuppetry (plus multiple suspected IPs) for this.

Prior to being sanctioned Symphony Regalia frequently got into exactly the same arguments concerning wording/source material with User:Tinynanorobots that Ethiopian Epic is now. One could assume based on their relationship that he is aggrieved that Tinynanorobots was not sanctioned by ArbCom during the case and is now continuously feuding with him to change that through edit warring and multiple administrator incidents/arbitration requests in the past few weeks. Eronymous (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Nil Einne

I was ?one of the editors who suggested Tinynanorobots consider ARE in the future. I did this mostly because after three threads on ANI with no result, I felt a change of venue might be more productive especially since the more structured nature of ARE, as well as a likely greater concern over low level of misconduct meant that some outcome was more likely. (For clarity, when I suggested this I did feel nothing would happen from the third ANI thread but in any case my advice being taken onboard would likely mean the third thread had no result.) I did try to make clear that I wasn't saying there was definitely a problem requiring sanction and also it was possible Tinynanorobots might themselves end up sanctioned. Since a topic ban on both is being considered, I might have been right in a way. If a topic ban results, I'd like to suggest admins considered some guidance beyond broadly constructed on how any topic ban would apply. While the entirety of the Yasuke article and the list of foreign born samurai stuff seem clear enough, one concern I've had at ANI is how to handle the editing at Samurai and its talk page. A lot of the recent stuff involving these editors seems to relate to the definition of samurai. AFAIK, this is generally been a big part of the dispute of Yasuke (he can/can't be a samurai because it means A which was/wasn't true about him). Nil Einne (talk) 12:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Result concerning Ethiopian Epic

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

I've never been very impressed with retaliatory filings, and the one below is no exception. I will also note that I'm never too impressed with "must be a sock" type accusations—either file at SPI or don't. In this case, though, I think Yasuke would be better off if neither of these two were participating there. Seraphimblade 19:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Red-tailed hawk, what are your thoughts after the responses to you? Seraphimblade 16:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
I think that it would be declined if it were an WP:SPI report and the editor should be mindful not to throw sock accusations around willy-nilly going forward. But I typically don't see any sort of sanction imposed when someone makes a bad SPI report, particularly if they're newer or aren't quite clueful yet. So I don't see much to do on that front other than tell them that we need more specific evidence of socking when reports are made than merely shared interest, particularly when the IPs are scattered across the world. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm still inclined to topic ban both these editors from Yasuke, but would be interested in hearing more thoughts on that if anyone has them. Seraphimblade 07:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I also generally don't like "might-be-a-sock"-style accusations; when we are accusing someone of sockpuppetry by logged out editing we typically need evidence to substantiate it rather than just floating the possibility in a flimsy way. Filer has provided several diffs above as possible socks, but each of those IPs geolocates to a different country (Germany, Norway, and Argentina respectively) and I don't see evidence that any of those IPs are proxies.@Tinynanorobots: Can you explain what led you to note the IP edits? Is it merely shared interest and viewpoint, or is there something more?— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Looking at this .... mess... first, I'm not sure what actually was against the ArbCom decision - I don't see a 1RR violation being alleged, and the rest really appears to me to be "throw stuff at the wall and see if it sticks". But, like Seraphimblade, I'm not impressed with either of these editors actual conduct here or in general. I could be brought around to supporting a topic ban for both of these editors in the interests of clearing up the whole topic area. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
@Tinynanorobots: you are well above the 500 word limit. Please request an extension before adding anything more. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Tinynanorobots

Request concerning Tinynanorobots

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: EEpic (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Tinynanorobots (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/Yasuke

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

09:21, 14 November 2024. Tinynanorobots removes As a samurai from the lead text and replaces it with signifying bushi status against RFC consensus (There exists a consensus to refer to Yasuke as a samurai without qualification).
17:12, 15 November 2024. Tinynanorobots removes who served as a samurai from the lead text and adds who became a bushi or samurai against RFC consensus (There exists a consensus against presenting Yasuke's samurai status as the object of debate).
12:43, 20 November 2024. On List of Foreign-born Samurai, Tinynanorobots removes the longstanding definition and adds This list includes persons who ... may not have been considered a samurai against RFC consensus (There exists a consensus against presenting Yasuke's samurai status as the object of debate).
07:48, 23 November 2024. Tinynanorobots reverts to remove As a samurai in the Yasuke article after Gitz6666 opposes at , again ignoring WP:ONUS.
03:13, 4 December 2024. I restore and start a talk page discussion so that consensus can be formed.
14:10, 6 December 2024 . Tinynanorobots, when consensus fails to form for his position, becomes uncivil and engages in a sarcastic personal attack What you are saying doesn't make sense. Perhaps there is a language issue here. Maybe your native language handles the future differently than English?
14:22, 11 December 2024. Tinynanorobots removes "As a samurai" again, ignoring WP:ONUS and BRD even though no consensus has formed for his position, and no consensus has formed to change existing consensus.
08:37, 6 December 2024. Tinynanorobots explains their reasons, I don't know if samurai is the right term which is against consensus.
07:27, 28 November 2024. POV-pushing - With no edit summary Tinynanorobots tag bombs by adding Slavery in Japan.

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)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 23:06, 13 November 2024.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Tinynanorobots frequently edits against consensus, restores his edits when others revert, doesn't wait for consensus, and engages in feuding behavior. He seems to think WP:BRD or WP:ONUS don't apply to him which is disruptive, and I don't know why.

Unaccounted removals of sources 23:44, 14 September 2024 - Warning from other editor about repeated removal of content when multiple users are objecting.

AGF 12:21, 15 September 2024 - Warning from yet another editor about not assuming good faith and making personal attacks

It seems to be chronic which suggests behavior problems. Tinynanorobots also frequently fails to assume good faith in others. I don't know why as I don't have any issues with him.

Their preferred edit for Yasuke against the RFC consensus is now still in the lead section.

@Relm Sorry for the confusion. I think we talking about different edits, so I'll adjust that part. I am referring to Tinynanorobot's repeated removal of As a samurai against RFC consensus, which states There exists a consensus to refer to Yasuke as a samurai without qualification.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

18:40, 12 December 2024

Discussion concerning Tinynanorobots

Statement by Tinynanorobots

The accusations made by EE are so misleading as to be evidence against him. Most of what he is discussing is in reference to a successful BRD. I actually discussed the bold edit first on the talk, but didn't get much of a response. I decided a bold edit would get more feedback. The edits were reverted and then discussed. Gitz's main problem was OR, not a RfC violation. This was because he didn't read the cited source. Anyway, since Atkin says "signifying bushi status", I have no objection to restoring this text.

I never used any sarcasm, I know that some languages handle how they talk about time differently. It seems reasonable that a translation error could be the reason for EE asking me not to change the article, althoug my edit had already been restored by someone else and at the same time asking me to discuss that I had already discussed and was already discussing. I am disappointed that EE didn't point out that he felt attacked, so that I could apologize.

This was written in response to another user, and the whole thought is I don't know if samurai is the right term. It is the term a fair amount of sources use, and the one that the RfC says should be used. It is also consistent with common usage in reference to other historical figures. In fact earlier in that post I said this: I am not qualified to say whither or not Yasuke having a house meant that he was a samurai This is blatantly taking a quote out of context in order to prejudice the Admins against me.

@User:Ealdgyth I filed here, because the last time I filed at ANI it was suggested that I bring things here if things continue by an Admin. I try to follow advice, although I keep getting conflicting signals from Admins. I am most concerned that you find my work on Samurai and List of Foreign-born Samurai in Japan not adding anything helpful. My suggestion to rewrite the way samurai was defined on the List in order to reduce OR and bring it in line with WP:LSC was meant with unanimous approval by those who responded. Samurai is a high importance article that has tags on it from years back, is unorganized and contains outdated information. I am not the best writer, but I have gotten some books, and am pretty much the only one working on it.

I just thought that the Admins here should know about the ongoing SPI

Statement by Relm

I am the editor alluded to and quoted as 'protesting' Tinynanorobots edit. When I originally made that topic, I was fixing a different edit which left the first sentence as a grammatically incomplete sentence. When I looked at it in the editing view, one of the quotes in the citation beforehand was quoting Atkins Vera, and I mistook this for the opening quote having been changed. When I closed the editing menu I saw 'signifying samurai status' in the second paragraph and confused the two for each other as I had not noticed the addition of the latter phrase a little under a month ago. I realized my mistake almost immediately after I posted the new topic, and made this (1) edit to clarify my mistake while also attempting to instead direct the topic towards making sure that the edit recieved sufficient assent from Gitz (it did) and to talk about improvements that could be made to the opening sentence. I further clarified and made clear that I was not accusing Tinynanorobots of having done anything wrong in a later response (2).

Though many of their earlier edits on the page may show some issues, as they grew more familiar with the past discussions I believe that Tinynanorobots has made valuable contributions to the page in good faith. Relm (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Barkeep49

@Ealdgyth I think this misinterprets the ArbCom decision. So Yakuse is a contentious topic and it has a 1RR restriction, in the same way as say PIA. As in PIA administrators can sanction behavior that violates the contentious topics procedures besides 1RR. Beyond that, editing against the RFC is a finding of fact from the case. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Tinynanorobots

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

As above, I'm failing to see what exactly is against the ArbCom case rulings - I don't see a 1RR violation. But also as above, I'm coming to the view that neither of these editors are adding anything helpful to the topic area and am leaning towards a topic ban for both. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Selfstudier

No evidence of misconduct was presented. Filer Allthemilescombined1 is informally warned against frivolous filings. -- Tamzin (they\|xe\|🤷) 02:36, 19 December 2024 (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 Selfstudier User who is submitting this request for enforcement Allthemilescombined1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Selfstudier (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/Palestine-Israel articles 5 Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 16 October 2024 Concern for WP:CIVIL violation when Selfstudier told me on my talk page: “enough now.This is a warning to cease and desist with the WP:ASPERSIONS and general unhelpfulness at the Zionism article.” 3 November 2024 Selfstudier dismissed my source ISBN 9798888459683, with “Bernard-Henri Lévy is not an expert on Zionism or colonialism”. 3 November 2024 Selfstudier dismissed my source Adam Kirsch ISBN 978-1324105343 “does not appear to be an expert in Zionism or Settler colonial studies but is apparently well known for a pro Israel viewpoint". These dismissive comments are uncivil. 6 December 2024 Concerning for possible WP:GAME and WP:NOT ADVOCACY violations. Editors with one POV swarmed RM:6 December 2024 and closed it immediately for SNOW. Selfstudier immediately archived parts of this discussion, including my comments, while leaving the parts that supported their POV. 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) Otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic. Additional comments by editor filing complaint On I/P topics, my edits on numerous occasions have been reverted almost immediately, by Selfstudier and their fellow editors who seem to be always hanging around I/P, and "owning" the topic area. They are creating a hostile editing environment and are violating NPOV. Concerns for possible WP:CIVIL and WP:TENDENTIOUS violations: Abo Yemen dismissed my reasoned arguments as “feelings”:8 December 2024 RolandR dismissed the author of "Saying No to Hate: Overcoming Antisemitism in America", ISBN 978-0827615236, as a “non-notable children’s writer”:3 November 2024 Zero told me “We should stick to history books and not cite emotional polemics”. 3 November 2024 Concerns for possible WP:GAME and WP:NOT ADVOCACY violations: Smallangryplanet accused me of WP:SYNTH and reverted my edits as irrelevant to the article on Holocaust inversion: 2 December 2024 whereas the article, prior to vandalism, resembled: Nableezy added that the only material that can be relevant to the aforementioned article is that which compares Israel to Nazi Germany, ignoring that such comparisons are antisemitic.2 December 2024 Levivich asked me “Why are these academic sources relevant to the discussion? How did you select them?” and added “I won’t bother reading the other two, I'll assume they also say the same thing that everybody else says.” (referring to Katz, Segev, and Goren)3 November 2024 Valeree wrote “If you'll read this talk page rather thoroughly so that you can bring yourself up to speed, you'll probably find fewer editors making sarcastic remarks about your suggestions.” 16 October 2024 Concerns for possible WP:ASPERSIONS violations: Sean.hoyland accused me of “advocacy and the expression of your personal views about the real world” 8 December 2024 and told me to see MOS:TERRORIST 7 August 2024 and accused me of violating WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTADVOCACY:8 December 2024 Sameboat wrote: "Please take extra attention to this recent ECU whose edits to I-P articles look rather deceptive to me".11 December 2024 Concerns for possible WP:TAG TEAM violations: Sameboat wrote on my talk page about Gaza genocide, though they were not involved in the earlier discussion, warning me about WP:NOTFORUM RM:6 December 2024.9 December 2024 Selected examples of my edits which were reverted within hours or minutes (this list is far from comprehensive): 11 December 2024 by Butterscotch Beluga claiming vandalism against a University of Michigan regent was irrelevant to pro-Palestine protests because it happened off campus; 24 November 2024 by Zero arguing that an egregious antisemitic incident 'fails WP:WEIGHT by a mile' 2 December 2024 by Abo Yemen removing my additions to Palestinian perspectives comparing Israel to Nazi Germany from a section on exactly that; along with 24 November 2024 and 2 December 2024 by Smallangryplanet; 1 December 2024 by AlsoWukai removing the disappearance of the ANC's $31 million debt when South Africa accused Israel of genocide. In summary, I have experienced a pattern of consistent, and what appears to be organized, intimidation from a small group of editors. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Discussion concerning Selfstudier 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 Selfstudier Statement by Sean.hoyland I see I've been mentioned but not pinged. That's nice. I encourage anyone to look at the diffs and the context. Why are there editors in the topic area apparently ignoring WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTADVOCACY? It's a mystery. It is, and has always been, one of the root causes of instability in the topic area and wastes so much time. Assigning a cost to advocacy might reduce it. Either way, it needs to be actively suppressed by enforcement of the WP:NOT policy. It's a rule, not an aspiration. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC) Statement by Butterscotch Beluga I didn't say it was "irrelevant to pro-Palestine protests" as a whole. The edit I reverted was specifically at 2024 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses, so as I said, the "Incident did not occur at a university campus so is outside the scope of this article". We have other articles like Israel–Hamas war protests & more specifically Israel–Hamas war protests in the United States that are more in scope of your proposed edit. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC) Statement by Huldra I wish the filer would have wiki-linked names, then you would easily have seen that Bernard-Henri Lévy "is not an expert on Zionism or colonialism”, or that Adam Kirsch “does not appear to be an expert in Zionism or Settler colonial studies but is apparently well known for a pro Israel viewpoint", Huldra (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC) Statement by RolandR I too have been mentioned above, and complained about, but not been notified. If this is not a breach of Misplaced Pages regulations, then it ought to be. As for the substance, I see that I am accused of describing Norman H. Finkelstein as a "non-notable children’s writer". Norman H. Finkelstein was indeed a children's writer, as described in most reports and obituaries. At the time of the original edit and my revert, he was not considered sufficiently notable to merit a Misplaced Pages article; it was only a week later that the OP created an article, of which they have effectively been the only editor. So I stand by my characterisation, which is an accurate and objective description of the author. Further, I was concerned that a casual reader might be led to confuse this writer with the highly significant writer Norman Finkelstein; in fact, I made my edit after AlsoWukai had made this mistake and linked the cited author to the genuinely notable person. This whole report, and the sneaky complaints about me and other editors, is entirely worthless and should be thrown out. RolandR (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000 This edit by OP is illustrative. It is just a presentation of personal belief with weak or irrelevant sources. I don't see evidence of an ability to contribute usefully. Zero 00:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC) Statement by Sameboat It is clear that the filer has failed to understand my message, which was a warning about repeated violations of the NotForum policy. Instead, they have misinterpreted my actions, as well as those of others, as part of a coordinated "tag team." I raised my concerns on User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish after the filer's edit on the UNRWA article regarding its controversy, which failed to properly attribute the information to its source—the Israeli government. This filing is a complete waste of time, and serious sanctions should be imposed on the filer if similar issues occur again in the future. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC) Statement by AlsoWukai Contrary to the filer's complaint, I never made an edit "removing the disappearance of the ANC's $31 million debt when South Africa accused Israel of genocide." I can only conclude that the filer misread the edit history. AlsoWukai (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC) Statement by Valereeee The diff allthemiles links to above is me responding to their post (in which they complained about a mildly sarcastic remark by another editor) where they said, "If respectful discussion is not possible, administrative involvement will be needed." I've been trying to keep up at that article talk, so I responded giving them my take on it. I tried to keep engaging, trying to help them understand the challenges for less experienced editors trying to work in the topic, offering advice on how they could get up to speed at that particular article, even offering to continue the discussion at their talk or mine. Valereee (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC) @Liz, editors working in PIA are brought here often and bring other editors here often for various reasons, and it doesn't always mean a given editor is problematic. For instance, the particular appearance you're referring to was brought here by a suspected sock of an LTA. I've seen admins working here who don't work in PIA wonder if the fact someone is brought here often or brings others here often means that editor is a problem, and I get why it feels like some issue with that editor has to be a factor, but in my experience it isn't usually. Some of the best editors working in that area are brought here for spurious reasons, and also need to bring other editors here for valid reasons. And some of the worst offenders there avoid AE. Valereee (talk) 11:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC) Result concerning Selfstudier This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. While I'm on record as saying that the topic area could us more civility from editors, I'm failing to see anything actionable against the editor filed against here. There's an edit from Oct that isn't great but not even begining to get into my "not civil" category. Then there's a perfectly civil statement about a source from 3 Nov (Hint - "Bernard-Henri Lévy is not an expert on Zionism or colonialism" is exactly the type of discussion that SHOULD be taking place in a contentious topic - it's focused on the source and does not mention any editors at all. The full comment "There is nothing to suggest Bernard-Henri Lévy is an expert on Zionism or colonialism. As I said, it is rather simple to find a source saying what you want it to say, whether that's a WP:BESTSOURCE is another matter." is still quite civil and focused on the source - nothing in this is worth of sanctioning....) The other statement from 3 Nov is also focused on the merits of the source. The fact that it isn't agreeing with your source analysis does not make it dismissive nor uncivil. Frankly, it's quite civil and again, what is expected in a contentious topic - source-based discussion. The comment from 6 Dec is also not uncivil. The rest of the filing is not about Selfstudier and is instead an excellent example of (1) throwing a whole bunch of diffs out hoping something will stick to someone and (2) an example of why filings in this area often turn into huge messess that can't reach resolution. This is supposed to be a filing about Selfstudier's behavior - instead most of it is about a grab-bag of other edits from many other editors, and frankly, seems to be motivated by the filer feeling that they aren't being taken seriously enough or something. I'm not going to read any of these diffs because they are not about the editor you filed against and my time is worth something and we should not reward abuse of this process by this sort of grab-bag-against-everyone-that-disagreed-with-an-editor filing. The only reason I'm not going for a boomerang against the filer is that they have only been editing for about six months and this is the first AE filing they've done. Let me suggest that they do not file another one like this - it's a waste of admin time. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC) I second Ealdgyth's reading. The presented diffs against Selfstudier are not actionable, and a lot of the complaint is not about Selfstudier at all. I don't believe the filing alone is grounds for sanction on the filer, but if someone wishes to present more evidence against them I suggest they do so in a separate report. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC) I stumbled into this by accident and I don't do these requests anymore, but I wonder if filer should edit outside the subject area until they have much more experience in WP:BRD and dispute resolution.YMMV. Best-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC) Another case on this editor was just closed a week ago, is there any relation between this filing and issues brought up in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive345#Selfstudier? It seems like some editors are brought to AE on a weekly basis. Liz 08:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

No evidence of misconduct was presented. Filer Allthemilescombined1 is informally warned against frivolous filings. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 02:36, 19 December 2024 (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 Selfstudier

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Allthemilescombined1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Selfstudier (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/Palestine-Israel articles 5

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

16 October 2024 Concern for WP:CIVIL violation when Selfstudier told me on my talk page: “enough now.This is a warning to cease and desist with the WP:ASPERSIONS and general unhelpfulness at the Zionism article.”
3 November 2024 Selfstudier dismissed my source ISBN 9798888459683, with “Bernard-Henri Lévy is not an expert on Zionism or colonialism”.
3 November 2024 Selfstudier dismissed my source Adam Kirsch ISBN 978-1324105343 “does not appear to be an expert in Zionism or Settler colonial studies but is apparently well known for a pro Israel viewpoint". These dismissive comments are uncivil.
6 December 2024 Concerning for possible WP:GAME and WP:NOT ADVOCACY violations. Editors with one POV swarmed RM:6 December 2024 and closed it immediately for SNOW. Selfstudier immediately archived parts of this discussion, including my comments, while leaving the parts that supported their POV.

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)

Otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

On I/P topics, my edits on numerous occasions have been reverted almost immediately, by Selfstudier and their fellow editors who seem to be always hanging around I/P, and "owning" the topic area. They are creating a hostile editing environment and are violating NPOV.

Concerns for possible WP:CIVIL and WP:TENDENTIOUS violations:

Abo Yemen dismissed my reasoned arguments as “feelings”:8 December 2024

RolandR dismissed the author of "Saying No to Hate: Overcoming Antisemitism in America", ISBN 978-0827615236, as a “non-notable children’s writer”:3 November 2024

Zero told me “We should stick to history books and not cite emotional polemics”. 3 November 2024

Concerns for possible WP:GAME and WP:NOT ADVOCACY violations:

Smallangryplanet accused me of WP:SYNTH and reverted my edits as irrelevant to the article on Holocaust inversion: 2 December 2024 whereas the article, prior to vandalism, resembled:

Nableezy added that the only material that can be relevant to the aforementioned article is that which compares Israel to Nazi Germany, ignoring that such comparisons are antisemitic.2 December 2024

Levivich asked me “Why are these academic sources relevant to the discussion? How did you select them?” and added “I won’t bother reading the other two, I'll assume they also say the same thing that everybody else says.” (referring to Katz, Segev, and Goren)3 November 2024

Valeree wrote “If you'll read this talk page rather thoroughly so that you can bring yourself up to speed, you'll probably find fewer editors making sarcastic remarks about your suggestions.” 16 October 2024

Concerns for possible WP:ASPERSIONS violations:

Sean.hoyland accused me of “advocacy and the expression of your personal views about the real world” 8 December 2024 and told me to see MOS:TERRORIST 7 August 2024 and accused me of violating WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTADVOCACY:8 December 2024

Sameboat wrote: "Please take extra attention to this recent ECU whose edits to I-P articles look rather deceptive to me".11 December 2024

Concerns for possible WP:TAG TEAM violations:

Sameboat wrote on my talk page about Gaza genocide, though they were not involved in the earlier discussion, warning me about WP:NOTFORUM RM:6 December 2024.9 December 2024

Selected examples of my edits which were reverted within hours or minutes (this list is far from comprehensive):

11 December 2024 by Butterscotch Beluga claiming vandalism against a University of Michigan regent was irrelevant to pro-Palestine protests because it happened off campus;
24 November 2024 by Zero arguing that an egregious antisemitic incident 'fails WP:WEIGHT by a mile'
2 December 2024 by Abo Yemen removing my additions to Palestinian perspectives comparing Israel to Nazi Germany from a section on exactly that; along with 24 November 2024 and 2 December 2024 by Smallangryplanet;
1 December 2024 by AlsoWukai removing the disappearance of the ANC's $31 million debt when South Africa accused Israel of genocide.

In summary, I have experienced a pattern of consistent, and what appears to be organized, intimidation from a small group of editors.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Selfstudier

Statement by Selfstudier

Statement by Sean.hoyland

I see I've been mentioned but not pinged. That's nice. I encourage anyone to look at the diffs and the context. Why are there editors in the topic area apparently ignoring WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTADVOCACY? It's a mystery. It is, and has always been, one of the root causes of instability in the topic area and wastes so much time. Assigning a cost to advocacy might reduce it. Either way, it needs to be actively suppressed by enforcement of the WP:NOT policy. It's a rule, not an aspiration. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Butterscotch Beluga

I didn't say it was "irrelevant to pro-Palestine protests" as a whole. The edit I reverted was specifically at 2024 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses, so as I said, the "Incident did not occur at a university campus so is outside the scope of this article". We have other articles like Israel–Hamas war protests & more specifically Israel–Hamas war protests in the United States that are more in scope of your proposed edit. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Huldra

I wish the filer would have wiki-linked names, then you would easily have seen that Bernard-Henri Lévy "is not an expert on Zionism or colonialism”, or that Adam Kirsch “does not appear to be an expert in Zionism or Settler colonial studies but is apparently well known for a pro Israel viewpoint", Huldra (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by RolandR

I too have been mentioned above, and complained about, but not been notified. If this is not a breach of Misplaced Pages regulations, then it ought to be.

As for the substance, I see that I am accused of describing Norman H. Finkelstein as a "non-notable children’s writer". Norman H. Finkelstein was indeed a children's writer, as described in most reports and obituaries. At the time of the original edit and my revert, he was not considered sufficiently notable to merit a Misplaced Pages article; it was only a week later that the OP created an article, of which they have effectively been the only editor. So I stand by my characterisation, which is an accurate and objective description of the author.

Further, I was concerned that a casual reader might be led to confuse this writer with the highly significant writer Norman Finkelstein; in fact, I made my edit after AlsoWukai had made this mistake and linked the cited author to the genuinely notable person.

This whole report, and the sneaky complaints about me and other editors, is entirely worthless and should be thrown out. RolandR (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

This edit by OP is illustrative. It is just a presentation of personal belief with weak or irrelevant sources. I don't see evidence of an ability to contribute usefully. Zero 00:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Sameboat

It is clear that the filer has failed to understand my message, which was a warning about repeated violations of the NotForum policy. Instead, they have misinterpreted my actions, as well as those of others, as part of a coordinated "tag team." I raised my concerns on User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish after the filer's edit on the UNRWA article regarding its controversy, which failed to properly attribute the information to its source—the Israeli government. This filing is a complete waste of time, and serious sanctions should be imposed on the filer if similar issues occur again in the future. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by AlsoWukai

Contrary to the filer's complaint, I never made an edit "removing the disappearance of the ANC's $31 million debt when South Africa accused Israel of genocide." I can only conclude that the filer misread the edit history. AlsoWukai (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Valereeee

The diff allthemiles links to above is me responding to their post (in which they complained about a mildly sarcastic remark by another editor) where they said, "If respectful discussion is not possible, administrative involvement will be needed." I've been trying to keep up at that article talk, so I responded giving them my take on it.

I tried to keep engaging, trying to help them understand the challenges for less experienced editors trying to work in the topic, offering advice on how they could get up to speed at that particular article, even offering to continue the discussion at their talk or mine. Valereee (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Liz, editors working in PIA are brought here often and bring other editors here often for various reasons, and it doesn't always mean a given editor is problematic. For instance, the particular appearance you're referring to was brought here by a suspected sock of an LTA. I've seen admins working here who don't work in PIA wonder if the fact someone is brought here often or brings others here often means that editor is a problem, and I get why it feels like some issue with that editor has to be a factor, but in my experience it isn't usually. Some of the best editors working in that area are brought here for spurious reasons, and also need to bring other editors here for valid reasons. And some of the worst offenders there avoid AE. Valereee (talk) 11:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Result concerning Selfstudier

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

While I'm on record as saying that the topic area could us more civility from editors, I'm failing to see anything actionable against the editor filed against here. There's an edit from Oct that isn't great but not even begining to get into my "not civil" category. Then there's a perfectly civil statement about a source from 3 Nov (Hint - "Bernard-Henri Lévy is not an expert on Zionism or colonialism" is exactly the type of discussion that SHOULD be taking place in a contentious topic - it's focused on the source and does not mention any editors at all. The full comment "There is nothing to suggest Bernard-Henri Lévy is an expert on Zionism or colonialism. As I said, it is rather simple to find a source saying what you want it to say, whether that's a WP:BESTSOURCE is another matter." is still quite civil and focused on the source - nothing in this is worth of sanctioning....) The other statement from 3 Nov is also focused on the merits of the source. The fact that it isn't agreeing with your source analysis does not make it dismissive nor uncivil. Frankly, it's quite civil and again, what is expected in a contentious topic - source-based discussion. The comment from 6 Dec is also not uncivil.
The rest of the filing is not about Selfstudier and is instead an excellent example of (1) throwing a whole bunch of diffs out hoping something will stick to someone and (2) an example of why filings in this area often turn into huge messess that can't reach resolution. This is supposed to be a filing about Selfstudier's behavior - instead most of it is about a grab-bag of other edits from many other editors, and frankly, seems to be motivated by the filer feeling that they aren't being taken seriously enough or something. I'm not going to read any of these diffs because they are not about the editor you filed against and my time is worth something and we should not reward abuse of this process by this sort of grab-bag-against-everyone-that-disagreed-with-an-editor filing.
The only reason I'm not going for a boomerang against the filer is that they have only been editing for about six months and this is the first AE filing they've done. Let me suggest that they do not file another one like this - it's a waste of admin time. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I second Ealdgyth's reading. The presented diffs against Selfstudier are not actionable, and a lot of the complaint is not about Selfstudier at all. I don't believe the filing alone is grounds for sanction on the filer, but if someone wishes to present more evidence against them I suggest they do so in a separate report. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
I stumbled into this by accident and I don't do these requests anymore, but I wonder if filer should edit outside the subject area until they have much more experience in WP:BRD and dispute resolution.YMMV. Best-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Another case on this editor was just closed a week ago, is there any relation between this filing and issues brought up in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive345#Selfstudier? It seems like some editors are brought to AE on a weekly basis. Liz 08:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Rasteem

Request concerning Rasteem

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: NXcrypto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Rasteem (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

23:21 12 December 2024 - removed wikilink of an Indian railway station thus violating his topic ban from India and Pakistan.

This violation comes after he was already warned for his first violation of the topic ban.

Upon a closer look into his recent contribution, I found that he is simply WP:GAMING the system by creating articles like Arjan Lake which is overall only 5,400 bytes but he made nearly 50 edits here. This is clearly being done by Rasteem for passing the 500 edits mark to get his topic ban overturned.

I recommend increasing the topic ban to indefinite duration. Nxcrypto Message 03:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any: "topic banned from the subject of India and Pakistan, broadly construed, until both six months have elapsed and they have made 500 edits after being notified of this sanction."

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I agree that there are genuine CIR issues with Rasteem, for example while this ARE report is in progress they created Javan Lake, which has promotional statements like: "The lake's stunning caluts, majestic desert topographies, and serene lakes produce a shifting destination. Its unique charm attracts a wide range of guests, from adventure contenders to nature suckers and beyond". Nxcrypto Message 03:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Rasteem

Statement by Rasteem

This approach seems to be a coordinated attack to abandon me from Misplaced Pages indefinitely. Indeed, after my ban for 6 months. I was banned on 6 December, and in just 7 days, this report is literally an attempt to make me leave Misplaced Pages.

1. I rolled back my own edit; it was last time made unintentionally. I was about to revert it, but my internet connection was lost, so when I logged in again, I regressed it.

The internet is constantly slow and sometimes goes down. I live in a hilly location and I had formerly mentioned it.

My edits on Arjan Lake isn't any WP:GAMING factual number of edits I made; it is 45, not 50. Indeed, I made similar edits before in September and December months on the same articles within a single day or 2-3 days.

2. List of villages in Khoda Afarin on this article, I've added 5680 bytes & made 43 edits.

3. List of villages in Tabriz on this article I've added 4000 bytes & made 49 edits.

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Rasteem

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

While I don't see a change in editing pattern that indicates gaming, the edits to Arjan Lake indicate issues with competence, as the article is weirdly promotional and contains phrases such as "beast species", "emotional 263 proved species". —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Adding to Femke's point, magnific 70- cadence-high waterfalls in this area is not prose that inspires confidence in the editor's competence to edit the English Misplaced Pages. So, we have violations of a topic ban and questions about the editor's linguistic competence and performance. Perhaps an indefinite block appealable in six months with a recommendation to build English competency by editing the Simple English Misplaced Pages, and to build general Misplaced Pages skills by editing in the version of Misplaced Pages in the language they speak best during that minimum six month period. As for Arjan Lake, although the prose is poor, the references in the article make it clear to me that the topic is notable, so the editor deserves some credit for starting this article that did not exist for two decades plus. Cullen328 (talk) 08:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Brief comment to avoid the archive bot. Seraphimblade 17:46, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

שלומית ליר

שלומית ליר is reminded to double-check edits before publishing, and to try to reply more promptly when asked about potential mistakes. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2024 (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 שלומית ליר User who is submitting this request for enforcement Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:48, 15 December 2024 (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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA General Sanctions Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 10:23, 13 December 2024 claiming a source supports something it never mentions Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any N/A 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 5 April 2023 (see the system log linked to above). Additional comments by editor filing complaint The user wrote that NATO had supported accusations against Hamas citing a chapter titled Hamas and Human Rights in a book titled Hamas Rule in Gaza: Human Rights under Constraint. They cited the entire chapter, pages 56–126. The source itself is a work of scholarship, and nobody would challenge it as a reliable source. Luckily, the full text of the book is available via the Misplaced Pages Library, and anybody with access to that can verify for themselves that the word "shield" appears nowhere in the book. Not human shield, or even NATO (nato appears in searches with the results being "explanatory, twice and coordinator once, or Atlantic, or N.A.T.O. It is simply made up that this source supports that material. The user later, after being challenged but declining to answer what in the source supports it (see here), added another source that supposedly supports the material, this paper by NATO StratCom COE, however they themselves say they are not part of the NATO Command Structure, nor subordinate to any other NATO entity. As such the Centre does not therefore speak for NATO, though that misunderstanding is certainly forgivable. However, completely making up that a source supports something, with a citation to 70 pages of a book, is less so. That is to me a purposeful attempt at obfuscating that the source offered does not support the material added, and the lack of any attempt of explaining such an edit on the talk page led me to file a report here. nableezy - 23:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC) It’s a matter for AE because violations in a CT topic are AE matters and I’ve previously been told to come here instead of AN(I). What sanction? I don’t think there’s any action more serious than making up something about a source, so I’d say it would be anywhere from a logged, and first only, warning to a topic ban. The second sourcing issue isn’t a huge deal, but the first one, the diff im reporting, is IMO such a severe violation that it merits a sanction. I don’t think this is simply misrepresentation, it is complete fabrication. They cited 70 pages of a book without a quote, to a link that doesn’t have the text. Without the Misplaced Pages Library this would have been much more difficult to check. This is going back a while, but this was a similar situation reported here. If there had been some explanation given on the talk page I wouldn’t have reported this here, but the wholesale fabrication of claiming that a source that never mentions the topic supports some material was ignored there. nableezy - 14:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC) I want to be clear, I am not claiming any sanctionable behavior in the second diff. I only brought it up to say that rather than address the fabrication in the first one they simply attempted to add some other source. They have as yet not addressed the diff I am reporting here. I am only claiming an issue in that diff citing the book chapter for a book that never even says the word shield in it. nableezy - 19:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC) According to WikiBlame, the insertion of that source was here, the diff I've reported. As far as I can tell no other user has introduced that source on that page. The revision that the user below says has the sources they took from in the article's edit history is after the insertion of that source by that user. If there is some prior revision showing that source being used for that statement then I'd withdraw my complaint, but that does not appear to be the case. nableezy - 19:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC) If that is indeed reproducible then I suggest this be closed with a reminder, not a logged warning, to check the output of any tool more thoroughly. And answer questions about your edits when raised on the talk page instead of ignoring them. nableezy - 19:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC) Just noting that I verified the bug in the VE sandbox as well. Had I been told of that sequence when I asked about the edit I obviously would not have opened this request. nableezy - 18:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notified 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 The article "Use of human shields by Hamas" is intended to address a well-documented phenomenon: Hamas’s deliberate use of civilian infrastructure — homes, hospitals, and mosques — as shields for its military operations. This includes hiding weapons, constructing military tunnels beneath civilian populations, and knowingly placing innocent lives in harm’s way. Yet, I found the article falls far short of adequately describing this phenomenon. It presents vague and generalized accusations while failing to reference the numerous credible organizations that have extensively documented these practices. During my review, I discovered that essential sources were available in the article's edit history (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Use_of_human_shields_by_Hamas&oldid=1262868174). I retrieved and restored these sources without reverting prior edits, including a source referenced by user Nableezy. When it was brought to my attention that an error had occurred, I acknowledged it, thanked the user, and corrected it by incorporating two reliable references. I had hoped this would resolve the issue, but apparently, it did not. Now, I find myself the subject of an arbitration enforcement hearing that feels not only unwarranted but intended to intimidate me from contributing further to this article. I would also like to point out that the responses to my edits raise serious concerns. For instance, an image depicting missiles hidden in a family home — an image used in other Wikipedias to illustrate this topic — was removed. This raises the question: why obscure such critical evidence? Similarly, a scholarly source with credible information that emphasizes the severity of this issue was reverted without clear justification. This article should serve as a thorough account of Hamas's war crimes, which have resulted in the deaths of innocent civilians. Instead, it seems that some editors are working to dilute its substance, resisting efforts to include vital context and documentation at the start of the article. This undermines the article’s purpose and risks distorting the public’s understanding of an issue of profound international importance.שלומית ליר (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC) I want to add that what Nableezy’s accusation is a complete misrepresentation (and, at times, distortion) of the sequence of events. A reference was mistakenly carried over from a previous editor, and once it was pointed out that it lacked the necessary supporting quotes, I removed it myself. I find it difficult to accept that failing to respond immediately to an inquiry regarding a removed source (and good faith attempt to find a sufficient replacement) equates to misrepresentation. I strongly believe that using this forum to imply such a thing, based on the actual facts here, is a misuse of the process. To the arbitrators: I want to ensure the sequence of events is clear, so I request permission to strike through extraneous elements in my initial response, if necessary, to include more technical evidence while staying within the 500-word limit שלומית ליר (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC) (moved from V93's comment) It’s simple. If you copy the reference from the previous version: 'Hamas' use of human shields in Gaza' (PDF), NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence, and add it using the automatic reference tool, it changes it to: Mukhimer, Tariq (2013), Hamas and Human Rights, Hamas Rule in Gaza, New York: Palgrave Macmillan US, pp. 56–126, ISBN 978-1-349-45658-1, retrieved 2024-12-17. This is an innocent error caused by the Wiki program itself. You can try it and see for yourself. Where it led and what Nableezy allowed himself to do is a story by itself that demands investigation שלומית ליר (talk) 12:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC) While I see your point, the issue here was indeed caused by a bug in the 'Add a Cite' tool on automatic mode. I suggest you take the time to verify this before jumping to far-reaching conclusions. . שלומית ליר (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC) Thanks for checking it out and confirming; I appreciate it. שלומית ליר (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC) Moved comment to own section. Please comment only in this section. Seraphimblade 23:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC) True, and I would most definitely will check next time. שלומית ליר (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC) Statement by Supreme Deliciousness Valereee created the article Politics of food in the Arab–Israeli conflict. She is therefor involved in the topic area and shouldn't be editing in the uninvolved admin section.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:41, 18 December 2024 (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. Please forgive my ignorance, but what specific sanction are you requesting and what exactly makes this possible interconnected source misrepresentation a matter that needs AE? Is the information removed (I'm assuming it is). Is this a long-term pattern? The filing even admits that the second instance is understandable given the name of the group putting out the source. I would be more concerned if this was a continuing problem - are there other recent instances of this editor possibly misrepresenting a source? And I'm still not sure that source misrepresntation is something that falls under AE's remit, rather than just something that could be dealt with at ANI or AN? Not saying no, but I'm not sure we need the big gun of AE for this just yet. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC) I'm not sure I'm ready to (1) take a 2011 discussion as binding in 2024 and (2) decide unilaterally that "violations in a CT topic are AE matters". Sorry, but I'm not that much of a cowboy (despite the cowboy hat in my closet and the western-trained horses in my paddock). I'm not trying to be difficult and not at all trying to minimize the severity of source misrepresentation - but I do not see where this topic area has sanctions authorized for that specific behavior - civility and aspersions yeah, but I'd like to see what other admins think. I also would like to see if שלומית ליר has any statement to make (while noting that not replying here is a very bad look for them). Ealdgyth (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC) I would agree with Nableezy's view regarding jurisdiction, and was under the impression that this was already standard practice. AE is intended to address disruptive editing in designated contentious topics--source misrepresentation is definitely disruptive editing even if it was not specifically a matter of issue for the parties to ARBPIA4. _signed,Rosguill 14:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC) I'm perfectly happy to be shown that it's a matter for AE, I've just not seen it dealt with that I can remember (bearing in mind that I'm not as young as some other folks and can forget things) and I don't see it mentioned in the CT topics bits or in the case pages referred to. I prefer to err on the side of caution in these matters. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC) To my reading it would be directly justified by Misplaced Pages:Contentious_topics#Arbitration_enforcement point 2: ...requests for an individual enforcement action against aware editors who engage in misconduct in a contentious topic _signed,Rosguill 14:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC) Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive331#Crampcomes is a report where I ~recently sanctioned for source misrepresentation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry - but I find this explanation ... not quite believable. Nableezy is saying that the Mukhimer source was introduced with this diff by you. You claim that "If you copy the reference from the previous version: 'Hamas' use of human shields in Gaza' (PDF), NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence, and add it using the automatic reference tool, it changes it to: Mukhimer, Tariq (2013), Hamas and Human Rights, Hamas Rule in Gaza, New York: Palgrave Macmillan US, pp. 56–126, ISBN 978-1-349-45658-1, retrieved 2024-12-17." What automatic reference tool? And even if the tool is malfunctioning - you are responsible for your edits - especially in such a fraught topic area. Looking at the diff in question its pretty clear that the first citation is listing the author as "Mukhimer" which should have clued you in (if indeed the automatic tool is a problem) that there was an issue. And when Nableezy raised this issue on the talk page - you didn't actually try this explanation or even any explanation, you just replied "I thought you noticed and understood that I had updated the references." which is deeply concerning that you did not consider the fact that you inserted references that did not support the material (and yes, I did do a rapid read/skim of the Mukhimer work's chapter that was in that citation - the chapter is mostly concerned with Hamas' internal governance and human rights record. I saw nothing discussing human shields or even the war with Israel in that chapter (the chapter does discuss Hamas' actions against Gazans that Hamas accuses of spying/etc for Israel, but nothing about actual military conflict)). The lack of collaborative explanation and the seeming unconcern about the issues brought up are making me lean towards a topic ban, frankly. I apologize that it took me a while to circle back to this - yesterday was a day of small things breaking and needing to be taken care of and I didn't have the time in the afternoon that I expected to revisit this. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC) And add yet one more reason to not use VE.... if its some weird bug, then yes, a warning is sufficient. But, really, you need to double check when you use tools to make sure that there are not bugs (and yes, Visual Editor is buggy...) Ealdgyth (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC) I've gone on record saying that I consider source misrepresentation to be some of the most disruptive conduct in a contentious topic - it is insidious in a way that calling another editor names is not. That does not mean I support sanctions by default, but I do think we need to take such a report seriously. A lot depends on the specific circumstances - the second instance above seems like a very easy mistake to make - but I would like to hear from שלומית ליר. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC) שלומית ליר, I would like to see a specific response to Nableezy's evidence about where you got your source, so please go ahead and strike or collapse parts of your original statement (please don't remove anything entirely). NB; we are (mostly) administrators enforcing arbitration decisions here, not arbitrators ourselves. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC) I agree with Vanamonde that source misrepresentation is disruptive on its face, and the first time I see it, AGF is pretty much gone. Valereee (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC) I agree that if this was a bug -- which is really concerning -- then a logged warning is overkill, especially given this editor's inexperience. Valereee (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC) I'm not sure what "automatic reference tool" is being referred to here, but I'm generally not impressed with "It was the tool's fault." Editors are responsible for the edits they make, and while of course there's no problem with using tools to help, the editor, not the tool, is still responsible for ensuring that the final result accurately represents the sources which are cited. Overall, I'd tend toward Ealdgyth's line of thinking; source misrepresentation is an extremely serious form of misconduct and must under no circumstances be tolerated. Seraphimblade 15:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC) שלומית ליר, it has now been necessary on several occasions to move your comments to the proper section from other editors' sections or this one. Do not comment outside your own section again. Seraphimblade 09:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC) Above stuff out of the way, if this actually is reproducible, it may be wise to check Phabricator to see if such an issue has been reported—chances are pretty good this isn't the only time that bug will bite. I'm good with a logged warning to more carefully vet the output of automated editing tools before making the edit, given that. Seraphimblade 09:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC) Isn't a logged warning a bit too much for not catching a bug? I'd rather go for a reminder as Nableezy suggests. Will check Phab or open a new phab ticket when I've got a bit more time. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC) I still don't love the whole thing, but it seems that most people want to just do an informal reminder, so I've got no strong objection (of course, as long as the bug actually does get reported, if it's not been already.) Seraphimblade 17:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC) To my surprise, it's true that copying that text into VE's automatic citation formatter gives this output. Most absurd bug I've ever seen. Of course it's an editor's responsibility to check if the citation is correct, but this is not something you might think to check for, especially as a newer editor. While intentionally misrepresenting a source is highly disruptive, I don't think this weird error is sanctionable. I would like to give User:שלומית ליר one piece of advice for editing a contentious topic like this: always use edit summaries (you can change your settings so that you're warned if you forget them). That can help reduce misunderstandings. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC) I agree with Femke about how to resolve this request, including the advice to check things and to use edit summaries. I am also extremely concerned about the bug-created citation issue and wonder where is the best place to request that the error be investigated and fixed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

שלומית ליר is reminded to double-check edits before publishing, and to try to reply more promptly when asked about potential mistakes. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Request concerning שלומית ליר

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:48, 15 December 2024 (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: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA General Sanctions

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

10:23, 13 December 2024 claiming a source supports something it never mentions

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

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 5 April 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user wrote that NATO had supported accusations against Hamas citing a chapter titled Hamas and Human Rights in a book titled Hamas Rule in Gaza: Human Rights under Constraint. They cited the entire chapter, pages 56–126. The source itself is a work of scholarship, and nobody would challenge it as a reliable source. Luckily, the full text of the book is available via the Misplaced Pages Library, and anybody with access to that can verify for themselves that the word "shield" appears nowhere in the book. Not human shield, or even NATO (nato appears in searches with the results being "explanatory, twice and coordinator once, or Atlantic, or N.A.T.O. It is simply made up that this source supports that material. The user later, after being challenged but declining to answer what in the source supports it (see here), added another source that supposedly supports the material, this paper by NATO StratCom COE, however they themselves say they are not part of the NATO Command Structure, nor subordinate to any other NATO entity. As such the Centre does not therefore speak for NATO, though that misunderstanding is certainly forgivable. However, completely making up that a source supports something, with a citation to 70 pages of a book, is less so. That is to me a purposeful attempt at obfuscating that the source offered does not support the material added, and the lack of any attempt of explaining such an edit on the talk page led me to file a report here. nableezy - 23:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

It’s a matter for AE because violations in a CT topic are AE matters and I’ve previously been told to come here instead of AN(I). What sanction? I don’t think there’s any action more serious than making up something about a source, so I’d say it would be anywhere from a logged, and first only, warning to a topic ban. The second sourcing issue isn’t a huge deal, but the first one, the diff im reporting, is IMO such a severe violation that it merits a sanction. I don’t think this is simply misrepresentation, it is complete fabrication. They cited 70 pages of a book without a quote, to a link that doesn’t have the text. Without the Misplaced Pages Library this would have been much more difficult to check. This is going back a while, but this was a similar situation reported here. If there had been some explanation given on the talk page I wouldn’t have reported this here, but the wholesale fabrication of claiming that a source that never mentions the topic supports some material was ignored there. nableezy - 14:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I want to be clear, I am not claiming any sanctionable behavior in the second diff. I only brought it up to say that rather than address the fabrication in the first one they simply attempted to add some other source. They have as yet not addressed the diff I am reporting here. I am only claiming an issue in that diff citing the book chapter for a book that never even says the word shield in it. nableezy - 19:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

According to WikiBlame, the insertion of that source was here, the diff I've reported. As far as I can tell no other user has introduced that source on that page. The revision that the user below says has the sources they took from in the article's edit history is after the insertion of that source by that user. If there is some prior revision showing that source being used for that statement then I'd withdraw my complaint, but that does not appear to be the case. nableezy - 19:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

If that is indeed reproducible then I suggest this be closed with a reminder, not a logged warning, to check the output of any tool more thoroughly. And answer questions about your edits when raised on the talk page instead of ignoring them. nableezy - 19:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Just noting that I verified the bug in the VE sandbox as well. Had I been told of that sequence when I asked about the edit I obviously would not have opened this request. nableezy - 18:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning שלומית ליר

Statement by שלומית ליר

The article "Use of human shields by Hamas" is intended to address a well-documented phenomenon: Hamas’s deliberate use of civilian infrastructure — homes, hospitals, and mosques — as shields for its military operations. This includes hiding weapons, constructing military tunnels beneath civilian populations, and knowingly placing innocent lives in harm’s way. Yet, I found the article falls far short of adequately describing this phenomenon. It presents vague and generalized accusations while failing to reference the numerous credible organizations that have extensively documented these practices.

During my review, I discovered that essential sources were available in the article's edit history (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Use_of_human_shields_by_Hamas&oldid=1262868174). I retrieved and restored these sources without reverting prior edits, including a source referenced by user Nableezy. When it was brought to my attention that an error had occurred, I acknowledged it, thanked the user, and corrected it by incorporating two reliable references. I had hoped this would resolve the issue, but apparently, it did not.

Now, I find myself the subject of an arbitration enforcement hearing that feels not only unwarranted but intended to intimidate me from contributing further to this article.

I would also like to point out that the responses to my edits raise serious concerns. For instance, an image depicting missiles hidden in a family home — an image used in other Wikipedias to illustrate this topic — was removed. This raises the question: why obscure such critical evidence? Similarly, a scholarly source with credible information that emphasizes the severity of this issue was reverted without clear justification.

This article should serve as a thorough account of Hamas's war crimes, which have resulted in the deaths of innocent civilians. Instead, it seems that some editors are working to dilute its substance, resisting efforts to include vital context and documentation at the start of the article. This undermines the article’s purpose and risks distorting the public’s understanding of an issue of profound international importance.שלומית ליר (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I want to add that what Nableezy’s accusation is a complete misrepresentation (and, at times, distortion) of the sequence of events. A reference was mistakenly carried over from a previous editor, and once it was pointed out that it lacked the necessary supporting quotes, I removed it myself.

I find it difficult to accept that failing to respond immediately to an inquiry regarding a removed source (and good faith attempt to find a sufficient replacement) equates to misrepresentation. I strongly believe that using this forum to imply such a thing, based on the actual facts here, is a misuse of the process.

To the arbitrators: I want to ensure the sequence of events is clear, so I request permission to strike through extraneous elements in my initial response, if necessary, to include more technical evidence while staying within the 500-word limit שלומית ליר (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

(moved from V93's comment) It’s simple. If you copy the reference from the previous version: 'Hamas' use of human shields in Gaza' (PDF), NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence, and add it using the automatic reference tool, it changes it to: Mukhimer, Tariq (2013), Hamas and Human Rights, Hamas Rule in Gaza, New York: Palgrave Macmillan US, pp. 56–126, ISBN 978-1-349-45658-1, retrieved 2024-12-17.

This is an innocent error caused by the Wiki program itself. You can try it and see for yourself.

Where it led and what Nableezy allowed himself to do is a story by itself that demands investigation שלומית ליר (talk) 12:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

While I see your point, the issue here was indeed caused by a bug in the 'Add a Cite' tool on automatic mode.

I suggest you take the time to verify this before jumping to far-reaching conclusions.

. שלומית ליר (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for checking it out and confirming; I appreciate it. שלומית ליר (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC) Moved comment to own section. Please comment only in this section. Seraphimblade 23:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

True, and I would most definitely will check next time. שלומית ליר (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Supreme Deliciousness

Valereee created the article Politics of food in the Arab–Israeli conflict. She is therefor involved in the topic area and shouldn't be editing in the uninvolved admin section.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:41, 18 December 2024 (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.

Please forgive my ignorance, but what specific sanction are you requesting and what exactly makes this possible interconnected source misrepresentation a matter that needs AE? Is the information removed (I'm assuming it is). Is this a long-term pattern? The filing even admits that the second instance is understandable given the name of the group putting out the source. I would be more concerned if this was a continuing problem - are there other recent instances of this editor possibly misrepresenting a source? And I'm still not sure that source misrepresntation is something that falls under AE's remit, rather than just something that could be dealt with at ANI or AN? Not saying no, but I'm not sure we need the big gun of AE for this just yet. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I'm ready to (1) take a 2011 discussion as binding in 2024 and (2) decide unilaterally that "violations in a CT topic are AE matters". Sorry, but I'm not that much of a cowboy (despite the cowboy hat in my closet and the western-trained horses in my paddock). I'm not trying to be difficult and not at all trying to minimize the severity of source misrepresentation - but I do not see where this topic area has sanctions authorized for that specific behavior - civility and aspersions yeah, but I'd like to see what other admins think. I also would like to see if שלומית ליר has any statement to make (while noting that not replying here is a very bad look for them). Ealdgyth (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  I would agree with Nableezy's view regarding jurisdiction, and was under the impression that this was already standard practice. AE is intended to address disruptive editing in designated contentious topics--source misrepresentation is definitely disruptive editing even if it was not specifically a matter of issue for the parties to ARBPIA4. _signed,Rosguill 14:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  - I'm perfectly happy to be shown that it's a matter for AE, I've just not seen it dealt with that I can remember (bearing in mind that I'm not as young as some other folks and can forget things) and I don't see it mentioned in the CT topics bits or in the case pages referred to. I prefer to err on the side of caution in these matters. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    To my reading it would be directly justified by Misplaced Pages:Contentious_topics#Arbitration_enforcement point 2: ...requests for an individual enforcement action against aware editors who engage in misconduct in a contentious topic _signed,Rosguill 14:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    
    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive331#Crampcomes is a report where I ~recently sanctioned for source misrepresentation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry - but I find this explanation ... not quite believable. Nableezy is saying that the Mukhimer source was introduced with this diff by you. You claim that "If you copy the reference from the previous version: 'Hamas' use of human shields in Gaza' (PDF), NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence, and add it using the automatic reference tool, it changes it to: Mukhimer, Tariq (2013), Hamas and Human Rights, Hamas Rule in Gaza, New York: Palgrave Macmillan US, pp. 56–126, ISBN 978-1-349-45658-1, retrieved 2024-12-17." What automatic reference tool? And even if the tool is malfunctioning - you are responsible for your edits - especially in such a fraught topic area. Looking at the diff in question its pretty clear that the first citation is listing the author as "Mukhimer" which should have clued you in (if indeed the automatic tool is a problem) that there was an issue. And when Nableezy raised this issue on the talk page - you didn't actually try this explanation or even any explanation, you just replied "I thought you noticed and understood that I had updated the references." which is deeply concerning that you did not consider the fact that you inserted references that did not support the material (and yes, I did do a rapid read/skim of the Mukhimer work's chapter that was in that citation - the chapter is mostly concerned with Hamas' internal governance and human rights record. I saw nothing discussing human shields or even the war with Israel in that chapter (the chapter does discuss Hamas' actions against Gazans that Hamas accuses of spying/etc for Israel, but nothing about actual military conflict)). The lack of collaborative explanation and the seeming unconcern about the issues brought up are making me lean towards a topic ban, frankly.

I apologize that it took me a while to circle back to this - yesterday was a day of small things breaking and needing to be taken care of and I didn't have the time in the afternoon that I expected to revisit this. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
And add yet one more reason to not use VE.... if its some weird bug, then yes, a warning is sufficient. But, really, you need to double check when you use tools to make sure that there are not bugs (and yes, Visual Editor is buggy...) Ealdgyth (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
I've gone on record saying that I consider source misrepresentation to be some of the most disruptive conduct in a contentious topic - it is insidious in a way that calling another editor names is not. That does not mean I support sanctions by default, but I do think we need to take such a report seriously. A lot depends on the specific circumstances - the second instance above seems like a very easy mistake to make - but I would like to hear from שלומית ליר. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
שלומית ליר, I would like to see a specific response to Nableezy's evidence about where you got your source, so please go ahead and strike or collapse parts of your original statement (please don't remove anything entirely). NB; we are (mostly) administrators enforcing arbitration decisions here, not arbitrators ourselves. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Vanamonde that source misrepresentation is disruptive on its face, and the first time I see it, AGF is pretty much gone. Valereee (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree that if this was a bug -- which is really concerning -- then a logged warning is overkill, especially given this editor's inexperience. Valereee (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "automatic reference tool" is being referred to here, but I'm generally not impressed with "It was the tool's fault." Editors are responsible for the edits they make, and while of course there's no problem with using tools to help, the editor, not the tool, is still responsible for ensuring that the final result accurately represents the sources which are cited. Overall, I'd tend toward Ealdgyth's line of thinking; source misrepresentation is an extremely serious form of misconduct and must under no circumstances be tolerated. Seraphimblade 15:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
שלומית ליר, it has now been necessary on several occasions to move your comments to the proper section from other editors' sections or this one. Do not comment outside your own section again. Seraphimblade 09:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Above stuff out of the way, if this actually is reproducible, it may be wise to check Phabricator to see if such an issue has been reported—chances are pretty good this isn't the only time that bug will bite. I'm good with a logged warning to more carefully vet the output of automated editing tools before making the edit, given that. Seraphimblade 09:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Isn't a logged warning a bit too much for not catching a bug? I'd rather go for a reminder as Nableezy suggests. Will check Phab or open a new phab ticket when I've got a bit more time. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I still don't love the whole thing, but it seems that most people want to just do an informal reminder, so I've got no strong objection (of course, as long as the bug actually does get reported, if it's not been already.) Seraphimblade 17:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
To my surprise, it's true that copying that text into VE's automatic citation formatter gives this output. Most absurd bug I've ever seen. Of course it's an editor's responsibility to check if the citation is correct, but this is not something you might think to check for, especially as a newer editor. While intentionally misrepresenting a source is highly disruptive, I don't think this weird error is sanctionable. I would like to give User:שלומית ליר one piece of advice for editing a contentious topic like this: always use edit summaries (you can change your settings so that you're warned if you forget them). That can help reduce misunderstandings. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Femke about how to resolve this request, including the advice to check things and to use edit summaries. I am also extremely concerned about the bug-created citation issue and wonder where is the best place to request that the error be investigated and fixed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

KronosAlight

Request concerning KronosAlight

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Butterscotch Beluga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: KronosAlight (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/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA General Sanctions

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

14 December 2024

Adds "depiste being an ex-Muslim" to dismiss accusations of Islamophobia MOS:EDITORIAL.
Adds MOS:SCAREQUOTES around ‘promoted Islamophobia’ & ‘Islamophobia’ while removing the supporting context.
Changed "interpreted that statement as a threat and incitement to violence" to "claimed was a threat and incitement to violence, though no threats or violence in fact occurred" MOS:CLAIM & MOS:EDITORIAL

14 December 2024 - MOS:TERRORIST

Changes "Israeli settlers" to "Israeli soldiers" despite the source only explicitly stating them "throwing stones on settlers."

Unnecessarily specific additions that may constitute WP:POVPUSH such as adding "against civilians" & changing "prevent the assassinations of many Israelis" to "prevent the assassinations of many Israeli civilians and soldiers"

14 December 2024 - MOS:TERRORIST

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

24 June 2024 Warned to abide by the one-revert rule when making edits within the scope of the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area.
22 October 2024 Blocked from editing for 1 week for violating consensus required on the page Zionism

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

Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 22 October 2024 by ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 24 January 2024.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

All edits were made at Mosab Hassan Yousef. After I partially reverted their edits with an explanation, I brought the issue to their attention on the talk page, asking for their rationale. They replied that they were "correcting factual errors introduced by previous antisemitic editors" & asked if I "perhaps have a deeper bias that’s influencing decisions in this respect?"

They then undid my partial revert

Ealdgyth - While I can't find any comments where they were explicitly "warned for casting aspersions", they were asked back in June to WP:AGF in the topic area.

Also, apologies for my "diffs of edits that violate this sanction" section, this is the first time I've filed a request here & I thought it'd be best to explain the preamble to my revert, but I understand now that I misunderstood the purpose of that section & will remember such for the future. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 I was able to find a copy of the opinion article being cited 'They Need to Be Liberated From Their God'. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning KronosAlight

Statement by KronosAlight

This is a complete waste of the Arbitration Committee’s time.

1. That Yousef was born and raised a Muslim is important and neutral context for readers to be aware of when the article refers to claims of ‘Islamophobia’.

2. The scarequotes indicate that the claim comes from the sources provided, rather than being an objective ‘fact’ determined by a few Misplaced Pages Editors with an axe to grind.

3. This was already addressed on the Talk page and I updated the sentence to say settlers/soldiers with a further label that it needed further clarification because the source does not in fact unambiguously say what Butterscotch Beluga claims.

A few lines above what Butterscotch Beluga quotes is the following lines: “AMANPOUR: How did you take part in that? Were you one of the small children who threw rocks at Israeli soldiers?

YOUSEF: The model for every Palestinian child is a mujahid (ph) or a fidahi (ph) or a fighter. So, of course, I wanted to be one at that point of my life. It wasn't -- it's not my only dream. It's every child's dream in that territory.”

The updated Wiki page noted both settlers/soldiers and included a note that this requires further clarification, perhaps based on other sources, because it isn’t clear (contra Butterscotch Beluga) whether he is referring to soldiers or settlers.

4. It is not controversial to accurately describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation. It is simply a fact. To suggest otherwise is POV-pushing.

5. This is not POVPUSH; ‘assassinations’ against civilians during peacetime are usually called ‘murders’.

I in fact didn’t even remove the word ‘assassinations’, I merely broadened the description from ‘Israelis’ to ‘Israeli civilians and soldiers’ (as Butterscotch accepted) to indicate the breadth of the individuals in question included both civilians and combatants. This is not POVPUSH, it is simply additional information and context verified in the source itself.

All in all, a vexatious claim and a waste of the Arbitration Committee’s time.

Statement by Sean.hoyland

Regarding "I was correcting factual errors introduced by previous antisemitic editors", it would be helpful if KronosAlight would explicitly identify the antisemitic editors and the edits they corrected so that they can be blocked for being antisemitic editors. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The editor has been here since 2012. It is reasonable to assume that they know the rules regarding aspersions. It is reasonable to assume they are intentionally violating them, presumably because they genuinely believe they are dealing with antisemitic editors. So, this report is somehow simultaneously a vexatious complete waste of time and the result of the someone interfering with their valiant efforts to correct errors made by antisemitic editors. Why do they have this belief? This is probably a clue, a comment they had the good sense to revert. For me, this is an example of someone attempting to use propaganda that resembles antisemitic conspiracy theories about media control to undermine Misplaced Pages's processes and then changing their mind. But the very fact that they thought of it is disturbing. Their revert suggests that they are probably aware that there are things you can say about an editor and things you cannot say about an editor. From my perspective, what we have here is part of an emerging pattern in the topic area, a growing number of attacks on Misplaced Pages and editors with accusations of antisemitism, cabals etc. stemming in part from external partisan sources/influence operations. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

Aspersions:

Zero 10:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Vice regent

KronosAlight, you changed on 14 Dec 2024: "An open letter signed by Christian and Muslim religious leaders interpreted that statement as a threat and incitement to violence" to "An open letter signed by Christian and Muslim religious leaders claimed was a threat and incitement to violence, though no threats or violence in fact occurred".

Can you show where either of the sources state "though no threats or violence in fact occurred"? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Smallangryplanet

Wanted to add some pertinent evidence:

Talk:Zionism:

Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon:

This article gave me a very hearty laugh. It's hilarious. Nothing else to add, but congrats to the Editors for a very amusing article.

Talk:Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world:

I want to make it clear that large parts of the Arab world agreed with Hitler’s goal of exterminating the Jewish people.

Talk:2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks:

No evidence or reason to believe the attack targetted civilians, every reason to believe it targetted Hezbollah members. Also it's a bit of an overstatement to describe Lebanon as a "sovereign country".

Talk:Anti-Zionism:

Talk:Gaza genocide:

Talk:Nuseirat rescue and massacre:

It’s not how Misplaced Pages should work, and it badly distorts articles which should be neutral but are unfortunately pushes into pro-Hamas territory.

Talk:Al-Sardi school attack:

Yes, we’re familiar with your propaganda campaign masquerading as some sort of neutral position.

Talk:Eden Golan:

Can we stop acting like we aren’t creating double standards for Jews? Like there isn’t a profound problem of antisemitism among Misplaced Pages editors and moderators? It’s disgusting and shameful.

Other sanctions:

March 2024: indefinitely topic banned from the subject of flood myths for sealioning, WP:ASPERSIONS, etc
June 2024: warned to abide by 1RR
October 2024: blocked for a week

Statement by (username)

Result concerning KronosAlight

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

Much of the "diffs of edits that violate this sanction" fail to explain "how these edits violate" the sanction - to me, much of these diffs look like a content dispute. However, the "additional comments" section DOES have a diff that is concerning and violates the CT by casting an aspersion that is not backed up by a diff - the "antisemitic editors" diff. Has KA been previously warned for casting aspersions? If they have, I'm inclined to issue a topic ban, but many other editors get a warning for this if they lack a previous warning. The diffs brought up by Zero (not all of which I necessarily see as aspersions, but the "Jew-hatred" one is definitely over the line - but it's from September so a bit late to sanction for just that) - did anyone point out that aspersions/incivility in this topic area is sanctionable? I see the warnings for 1RR and consensus required... Ealdgyth (talk) 13:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- @KronosAlight: - can you address the fact that saying "correcting factual errors introduced by previous antisemitic editors" and "Is there no limits you will not cross in order to seek to justify your Jew-hatred"? Neither of these are statements that should ever be made - and the fact that you seem to not to understand this is making me lean towards a topic ban. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
KronosAlight, can you please provide quotes from the references you cited for - for instance - "for his terrorist activities" in this addition, showing that the sources explicitly supported the content you added? Calling a person or an organization is perfectly acceptable if you support that with reliable sources; if it is original research, or source misrepresentation, it isn't acceptable. I cannot access some of the sources in question. You may provide quotes inside a collapsed section if you wish to save space. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I missed Zero's comments earlier. A lot of those comments, while concerning, are generic, not directed at a specific editor. this, however, is beyond the pale. I would need some convincing that this user is able to edit this area constructively. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
@KronosAlight, can you please respond to this? I too am concerned...the quote you're objecting to wasn't from DrSmarty. It was a direct quote, scare quotes and all, from the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. You seem to have reacted to it as if it were DrSmarty. Valereee (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't like to sanction in absentia, and I'm not yet suggesting we do so, but I want to note that not choosing not to respond here, or going inactive to avoid responding, will not improve the outcome as far as I am concerned. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
They're a pretty sporadic editor...many edits over a period of a few days, then nothing for two weeks. Maybe we pin this until they edit again? Valereee (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Valereee that this editors contribution history shows a pattern of editing for a day or two at a time followed by several weeks of inactivity. So I don't think it's fair to say they went inactive here but also holding this open for multiple weeks waiting for a response places some burden on the other other interested editors. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Nicoljaus

Procedural notes: Per the rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user: Nicoljaus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed: To enforce an arbitration decision, and for edit warring, and intent to game 1rr, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing Misplaced Pages.

Administrator imposing the sanction: ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: I'm aware. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Nicoljaus

The circumstances of my blocking were:

I was looking for a Misplaced Pages account for Hiba Abu Nada to add it to Wikidata. I couldn't find it, so I did a little research. The reference in the article indicated that she participated in some WikiWrites(?) project. I didn’t find such a project, but I found the WikiRights project: https://ar.wikipedia.org/ويكيبيديا:ويكي_رايتس. It was organized by a certain Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor. I read the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor article and didn't see any outside perspective, "controversy" or anything like that, just self-representation. I surfed the Internet and instantly found information that must be in the article to comply with the NPOV. I started adding , everything went well for two days. Then:
12:53, 23 April 2024 - Zero0000 made a complete cancellation of all additions
13:14, 23 April 2024 - (20 minutes later!) Selfstudier wrote on my TP
14:20 - 14:22, 23 April 2024 -‎ With two edits (first, second) I partially took into account the comment of Zero0000 about "ethnic marking", but returned the last .
14:27, 23 April 2024 (7 minutes later!!) Selfstudier makes a second complete cancellation of all my edits, blaming POV editing
14:45, 23 April 2024‎ - I’m returning the version where I partially took into account Zero0000’s comments (removed "ethnic marking")
15:10, 23 April 2024 - Selfstudier accuses me of 1RR breach. In the dialogue, I explained that the group that really violated the rule was Selfstudier&Zero0000, who obviously acted in close coordination. My first undo was part of a counter edit User talk:Nicoljaus#1RR_breach
15:41, 23 April 2024 Selfstudier writes on Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
16:10, 23 April 2024 (30 minutes later!) ScottishFinnishRadish issues an indefinite block . No opportunity to write my “statement”, as well as an extremely bad faith interpretation of my remark as "an intent to game 1rr".

Given that the both Selfstudier and Zero0000 are currently being discussed in Arbcom (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Evidence), I humbly ask you to take a fresh look at my indefinite block and soften the restrictions in some way". Nicoljaus (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: - You mean, I need to discuss my previous edit war blocks? Well, the last one was almost four years ago and that time I simply forgot that I was under 1RR (there was a big break in editing) and tried to get sources for a newly added map, and the opponent refused to do so . As it turned out later, the true source was a book by a fringe author, which the RSN called "Usual nationalistic bullshit, no sign of reliability". Yes, it was a stupid forgetfulness on my part. Nicoljaus (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Aquillion: Even if you were correct that Selfstudier & Zero0000 were WP:TAGTEAMing (always a tricky accusation, because it's hard to separate that from just your edits being so obviously problematic that two people independently reverted them) -- That's why I wrote that my "so problematic edits" attracted attention only after two days, but two users appeared within 20 minutes. However, after months, a lot of data about the cooperation of these users appeared (and this is not my imagination): "While a single editor, Shane (a newbie), advocated for its inclusion, a trio of veterans including Zero0000, Nishidani and Selfstudier fought back. After Selfstudier accused Shane of being a troll for arguing for the photo’s inclusion, Zero0000, days later, “objected” to its inclusion, citing issues of provenance. Nishidani stepped in to back up Zero0000, prompting a response by Shane. The following day, Zero0000 pushed back against Shane, who responded. The day after, Nishidani returned with his own pushback. The tag-team effort proved too much for Shane, who simply gave up, and the effort succeeded: the photo remains absent" . I'll add that after Selfstudier accused Shane of trolling, Zero0000 appeared on Shane's page and said: "Kindly keep your insults to yourself I won't hesitate to propose you for blocking if you keep it up" . According to the table at the link , these two users cooperated like this 720 times. Probably hundreds of people were embittered, forced out of the project, or led to blocking like me.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Hello, thank you very much for transferring my remarks, now I understand how it works. I would like to clarify the issue of meatpuppetry. You directly accused me of such intentions in justifying the block, and now this accusation has been repeated . Let's figure out whether my hint that Selfstudier and Zero0000 are working too closely was so absurd? Was it really and remains so absurd that it could not be perceived as anything other than my self-exposure? I don't think so.

As for the "edit war" - I understand that edit wars are evil. In the spirit of cooperation, I tried to meet my opponents halfway, as in this case, taking into account their claim, which I could understand, in the counter edit. If such an action is also considered an edit war and a violation of the 1RR/3RR rule - I will of course avoid it in the future.--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: Hello, I understand your point that edit wars can be disruptive, particularly in a CTOP context. However, I believe it is essential to recognize that not all reverts carry the same implications. While it is true that a revert is a revert, the context and intent behind the action should also be taken into account. In this instance, I made efforts to address the concerns of the other party involved, which reflects a willingness to engage in dialogue rather than simply reverting. Furthermore, I acknowledge your reference to the 1RR/3RR rule and my history of blocks for edit-warring. However, given the amount of time that has passed, I believe I have gained valuable insights and learned a great deal. Moreover, given this topic, I think I actually learned something unlike the other side, whose history of blocks for edit-warring remains clean.--Nicoljaus (talk) 4:24 am, Today (UTC−5)

@Valereee: In response to this, I can say that I already know very well how carelessly admins impose blocks. If any further statements are needed from me, just ping me. With best regards.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

Absent from the appeal is discussion of the five prior edit warring blocks and any indication that they will not resume edit warring. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I said They have a long history of edit warring, so I'd like to see that addressed rather than blaming others above, twelve days ago. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Nicoljaus, you should be focusing on convincing people that you won't edit war in the future rather than more WP:NOTTHEM. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Nicoljaus

Statement by Simonm223

This edit looks like a bright-line WP:BLP violation via WP:ATTACK and WP:WEASEL - and removing BLP violations are generally somewhere where there is some latitude on WP:1RR which makes the actions of Zero0000 and Selfstudier more justified, not less. Simonm223 (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Aquillion

Selfstudier accuses me of 1RR breach. In the dialogue, I explained that the group that really violated the rule was Selfstudier&Zero0000, who obviously acted in close coordination. My first undo was part of a counter edit - I feel like this is obvious enough that I probably don't have to point it out, but "counter edit" is not a WP:3RR / WP:1RR exception. Even if you were correct that Selfstudier & Zero0000 were WP:TAGTEAMing (always a tricky accusation, because it's hard to separate that from just your edits being so obviously problematic that two people independently reverted them), it still would not justify your revert. The fact that they're parties to an ArbCom case (which hasn't even yet found any fault with them!) doesn't change any of this. You should probably read WP:NOTTHEM. --Aquillion (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland

"the group that really violated the rule was Selfstudier&Zero0000, who obviously acted in close coordination"...yet another conspiracy-minded evidence-free accusation against editors in the PIA topic area, the third one at AE in just a few days. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

Result of the appeal by Nicoljaus

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

I do not see any indication that Nicoljaus actually realizes the problem. The edit warring blocks were indeed some time ago, but one might think they would remember it after being blocked for it repeatedly, not to mention that being issued a CTOP notice might call a CTOP restriction to mind. And the remark in question sure looks to me like a threat to game 1RR via meatpuppetry, too. Given all that, I would decline this appeal. Seraphimblade 23:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
I see nothing in this appeal that makes me think they've taken on board the changes that they'd need to do to be a productive editor. It reads to me like "my block was bad, here's why", and that's not working as a reason for me to support unblocking. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Nicoljaus, what we need to see is you demonstrating you understand edit-warring at a CTOP, which is what you were blocked for, and convincing us you won't do it again. Arguing the block should be lifted because other editors did something you thought looked suspicious isn't going to convince us. Just FWIW, Nicoljaus, the source doesn't actually say these two users cooperated like this 720 times. It says they edited the same articles 720 times, and that's not unusual. Most editors see the same other editors over and over again in articles about their primary interest. And edit by editor 1>2 days>revert by editor 2>revert by editor 1>20 minutes>revert by editor 3 is also not at all unusual anywhere on the encyclopedia and isn't evidence of tag-teaming. People read their watch lists. Any editor with that article on their watchlist, which is nearly fifty editors, might have investigated the large revert of an edit by an experienced editor at a contentious topic. Valereee (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
@Nicoljaus, it's not that edit wars are evil. It's that they're disruptive, and particularly in a CTOP we really really don't need additional disruption and drama. A revert is a revert, even if you tried to meet my opponents halfway, as in this case, taking into account their claim, which I could understand, in the counter edit. Re: If such an action is also considered an edit war and a violation of the 1RR/3RR rule: a revert is a revert and is covered in the policy around reversions. And you have a history of blocks for edit-warring, including at other CTOPs.

It's been seven months since the block. I'm trying to come around to a way to at least allow this editor a chance to show us they've taken this stuff on board...maybe a 0RR at all CTOPs? Valereee (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
@Nicoljaus, re I believe it is essential to recognize that not all reverts carry the same implications. While it is true that a revert is a revert, the context and intent behind the action should also be taken into account. In this instance, I made efforts to address the concerns of the other party involved, which reflects a willingness to engage in dialogue rather than simply reverting. Some editors at talk pages will take your apparent intentions into account. Some will just take you to ANEW. Some admins at ANEW will take your apparent intentions into account. Some will just reblock you.

No one anywhere is promising that your intentions will be taken into account -- or even that they'll try to figure out what your intentions are -- and therefore it's completely your responsibility to read the situation you're in correctly. If you read it wrong, you're likely to be blocked again, and honestly another block for edit-warring at a CTOP is likely to be another indef, and it would absolutely not surprise me for the blocking admin to require 12 months to appeal. Valereee (talk) 15:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
No need to reply, but I'll tell you plainly I've been trying to give you opportunities to convince other admins here, and you keep wanting to dig the hole deeper. I'd support an unblock with an editing restriction of 0RR at any article with a CTOPs designation on the talk page. Valereee (talk) 13:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

PerspicazHistorian

Request concerning PerspicazHistorian

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: NXcrypto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: PerspicazHistorian (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

17:57, 18 December 2024 - removed "discrimination" sidebar from the page of Hindutva (fascist ideology) even though the sidebar was inserted inside a section, not even the lead.
17:59, 18 December 2024 - tag bombed the highly vetted Hindutva article without any discussion or reason
10:15, 18 December 2024 - attributing castes to people withhout any sources
12:11, 18 December 2024 - edit warring to impose the above edits after getting reverted
17:09, 18 December 2024 - just like above, but this time he also added unreliable sources
18:29, 18 December 2024 - still edit warring and using edit summaries instead of talk page for conversation
14:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC) - filed an outrageous report on WP:ANI without notifying any editors. This report was closed by Bbb23 as "This is nothing but a malplaced, frivolous personal attack by the OP."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Already 2 blocks in last 4 months for edit warring.

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

I do not see any positive signs that this editor will ever improve. So far he has only regressed. Nxcrypto Message 15:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

While going through this report, PerspicazHistorian has made another highly problematic edit here by edit warring and misrepresenting the sources to label the organisation as "terrorist". This primary source only provides a list of organisations termed by the Indian government as "terrorist" contrary to MOS:TERRORIST. Nxcrypto Message 03:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning PerspicazHistorian

Statement by PerspicazHistorian

By far I am also concerned how my edits were forcefully reverted without a proper reason despite providing enough references. Please check how I am getting attacked by them on Chandraseniya_Kayastha_Prabhu Page. I didn't know about the three-revert-rule before User: Ratnahastin told me about this: User_talk:PerspicazHistorian. Please grant me one more chance, I will make sure not to edit war.
In the below statement by LukeEmily, As a reply I just want to say that I was just making obvious edit on Chandraseniya_Kayastha_Prabhu by adding a list of notable people with proper references. And according to Edit_warring#What_edit_warring_is it is clearly said: "Edits from a slanted point of view, general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes are not considered vandalism." It was a good faith edit but others reverted it. I accept my mistake of not raising it on talk page as a part of Misplaced Pages:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle.
As a clarification to my edit on Students' Islamic Movement of India, it can be clearly seen that I provided enough reference to prove its a terrorist organisation as seen in this edit. I don't know why is there a discussion to this obvious edit? Admins please correct me if I am wrong.

@Valereee, Yes I read about 1RR and 0RR revert rules in Misplaced Pages:Edit warring#What edit warring is#Other revert rules. I now understand the importance of raising the topic on talk page whenever a consensus is needed. Thank You ! PerspicazHistorian (talk) 07:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I will commit to that. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC) Moved comment to own section. Please comment, including replies, only in this section. Seraphimblade 13:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

At that time I was new to how AFD discussions worked. Later on when Satish R. Devane was marked for deletion, I respected the consensus by not interfering in it. The article was later deleted. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 11:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Doug Weller , I just checked your user page. You have 16 years (I am 19) of experience on wiki, you must be right about me. I agree that my start on Misplaced Pages has been horrible, but I am learning a lot from you all. I promise that I will do better, get more neutral here and contribute to the platform to my best. Please don't block me.

P.S.- I don't know If I will be blocked or what , according to this enforcement rules, I just want to personally wish good luck to you for your ongoing cancer treatments, You will surely win this battle of Life. Regards. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 12:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Moved comment to own section. Please comment, including replies, only in this section.Valereee (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by LukeEmily

PerspicazHistorian also violated WP:BRD by engaging in an edit war with Ratnahastin who reverted his edits and restored an article to a stable version by admin. Also, I want to assume good faith but it is surprising that PerspicazHistorian claims that he did not know the three revert rule given that he has more than 800 edits.LukeEmily (talk)

Statement by Doug Weller

I'm involved so just commenting. I don't think this editor is competent. I had to give them a community sanction caste warning as they were making a mess of castes. See this earlier version of their talk page.]https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:PerspicazHistorian&oldid=1262289249] and User:Deb's comment that "It was very unwise of you to keep moving Draft:Satish R. Devane to article space when it has not passed review. As a direct result of your actions, a deletion discussion is taking place, and when this is complete and the article is deleted, you will be prevented from recreating it. Deb (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)" There have also been copyright issues. I strongly support a topic ban. Doug Weller talk 11:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I won't be involved in the decision. No more treatments for me, just coast until... Doug Weller talk 12:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Result concerning PerspicazHistorian

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

PerspicazHistorian, can you explain your understanding of WP:edit warring and the WP:3RR rule? I'd like you to read thoroughly enough to also explain wny someone may be edit warring even if they aren't breaking 3RR. Valereee (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@PerspicazHistorian, that explanation of edit warring is a bit wanting. An edit war is when two or more editors revert content additions/removals repeatedly. Even a second reversion by the same editor can be considered edit warring. Best practice -- and what I highly recommend, especially for any inexperienced editor -- is the first time someone reverts an edit of yours, go to the talk page, open a section, ping the editor who reverted you, and discuss. Do you think you can commit to that?

Re: your question on why your "obvious edit" was reverted: we don't deal with content issues here, only with behavior issues, but from a very quick look, the source is 50 years old, and using a list headed "TERRORIST ORGANISATIONS LISTED IN THE FIRST SCHEDULE OF THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1967" that includes a certain organization as a source that the organization should be described as a terrorist organization is WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH; in their revert NXcrypto provided an edit summary of "Not a reliable source for such a contentious label. See WP:LABEL." Please discuss at talk, not here; we don't deal with content here. Valereee (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Walter Tau

Request concerning Walter Tau

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Bobby Cohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Walter Tau (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/Eastern Europe#Final decision

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

4 December 2024 Creation (and subsequent editing and AfC submission) of Draft:Maternity capital. See it's page history, there's no need to supply the entirety of the diffs here.
- For context on how this subject falls under the purview, see the context given by the news article as shared on the talk page: Russia using adoption of Ukranian children during the Russo-Ukranian war. Then note how this state program directly discusses adoption support, which was adapted by Putin following the start of the war. A citation given in the draft article. The Google translated version specifically notes the changes "At the same time, residents of the new regions will receive maternity capital regardless of the basis and timing of their acquisition of Russian citizenship" (emphasis mine).
This draft, as it is written, is extremely promotional in areas and could basically be hosted on a state-sponsored website. Given the context, I believe this falls under the topic ban.

References

Bruce, Camdyn (14 December 2022). "Ukrainian official rips Russia for 'kidnapping' more than 13,000 children". The Hill.
"Путин подписал закон, уточняющий условия выплаты материнского капитала" . interfax.ru.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

26 November 2024 Notice given by Rosguill (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) that they were now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
5 December 2024 Blocked by Swatjester (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for violating the sanction based on the edits to a project page.

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

Has been made aware, see the diffs in the above section.
Alerted about contentious topics as it applies to this specific draft, on 4 December 2024 by Asilvering (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), given a warning about this specific draft and how it falls under the above purview.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

It has been repeatedly pointed out to Walter Tau that they are skirting the line of the their topic ban by specifically not mentioning the "elephant in the room", see the diff by Asilvering above. They have also repeatedly chosen to ignore advice that they stop editing in the subject area and have repeatedly claimed to fail to see how their editing is problematic. As such, I have opened this discussion here so as to get an answer for Walter Tau on their editing, see "Also, since you mentioned a "topic ban", I would appreciate, if you provide a reference to it, as well as explain how it relates to this article Materniy Capital." They claim to continuously be unaware of the ban, see also their talk page discussions.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified 24 December 2024.

Discussion concerning Walter Tau

Statement by Walter Tau

I feel, that the decision by Boby Cohn regarding my draft https://en.wikipedia.org/Draft:Maternity_capital, is "arbitrary and capriciuos" to use US legal terms : ], for the following reasons:

1) nowhere my draft mentions the words "Ukraine" or "Ukrainian".

2) this draft ] is a translation of the original Russian wiki- article : https://ru.wikipedia.org/%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB . I have heard the argument, that different languages in Misplaced Pages use different standards for articles' notability etc. Can someone please provide a web-link to Misplaced Pages rules, that actually confirms, that different standards for different languages is the currently accepted policy. I have been unable to find such statement.

3) In fact, my draft focuses mostly on the policies before 24 February 2022, i.e. before full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine.

4) Please correct me, if I am wrong, by it seems that Boby Cohn's only argument of my ban violation is the following statement in my draft of Maternity Capital. "Residents of new regions are paid maternity capital regardless of the time and basis for obtaining Russian citizenship." In my defense: I did not write that statement- it is a Google translation from the Russian wiki, actually a small part of the translated text. And with all honesty, when I was reading the translated text, it did not cross my mind, that someone may interpret so broadly. Also, this sentence-in-question does not really add much to the main subject to the article, and I do not object to its deletion.

5) Considering, that a) I did not write, but only translated the text-in-question; b) the relevance to the text-in-question to my topic ban is not apparent, particularly in the larger context of the whole article; c) I do not object deleting the text-in-question from the draft; may I suggest changing the draft to fix this controversy?

6) If there are other controversial sections/sentences in my translated draft, it may be better if someone re-writes them. Most wiki-readers, can agree with a statement, that this draft ] may not reach an "Article of the Day" status, but it has a value as a stand-alone article as well as a source of references (more-to-be-added). Walter Tau (talk) 13:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I can see now, why some editors consider the translated addition, that I made, a violation of my ban on editing Russia-Ukraine topic. It was not my intention. I fact, I agree with the deletion of the questionable sentence "Residents of new regions are paid maternity capital regardless of the time and basis for obtaining Russian citizenship.". At the same time, I would like to keep the rest of draft, so that myself and other keep working on getting it published. Do I understand correctly, that the notability of this topic is not being questioned?

Statement by TylerBurden

Walter Tau doesn't seem to think they have done anything wrong on Misplaced Pages, so it's honestly not surprising to see them continuing to push the limit despite the sanctions they have received. At some point you have to wonder if there is a foundational WP:COMPETENCE or trolling (or a combination of both) issue. Either way, yes they are clearly violating their topic ban by writing about the Russian kidnapping of Ukrainian children from the war, because that is what this whole ″adoption″ thing is. --TylerBurden (talk) 17:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Walter Tau

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

Sidestepping for now the question of whether simply not mentioning anything conflict-related would have been enough to avoid a TBAN violation, the references to "new regions" make this a violation much more straightforwardly. Justice is blind but not stupid. Walter, I think we're going to need to see recognition from you that this was a TBAN violation, if we're going to find a good path forward here. I'd also like to know who you are referring to when you reference other editors working on the draft? Auric has made some gnomish edits but you appear to be the only substantive editor. And why are you implying, on Bobby's talk, that y'all have been corresponding by email, when he denies that? -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 22:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I'll be direct: I think Walter knows what he is doing and has no intention of abiding by his TBAN, even when it was exhaustively explained to him, and I don't think we should be wasting further time here when we're almost certainly going to be right back here again within a few weeks. ⇒SWATJester 05:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Back off a one week block for violating the topic ban, and already violating it again? (The "new regions" material is unquestionably a violation.) It seems that Walter Tau is either unwilling or unable to abide by the restriction, and does not, even after explanation, understand any of the issues here (or even understand something so simple as that different language Wikipedias are independent from one another and each have their own policies and practices). Given that, I don't see anything to be done here except to indef. Seraphimblade 17:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: