Revision as of 15:28, 4 August 2009

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

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

Requests for clarification

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header

Request for clarification: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Scientology

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

• People who wish to edit or discuss Scientology-related articles through a closed proxy listed in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject on closed proxies for reasons discussed in said WikiProject's project page.
• Operators of these closed proxies:
  • Celarnor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notified in this edit)
  • OverlordQ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (notified in this edit)

Statement by Damian Yerrick

Remedy 8 ("Editors instructed") requires users "(B) To edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration". However, some Internet service providers run all users' Internet connections through a proxy. This includes or included AOL and the only ISP in Qatar (see WP:SIP). Other Internet service providers, such as all ISPs in the People's Republic of China (see WP:TOR), use other forms of connection filtering, and users of those ISPs cannot view or edit Misplaced Pages except through proxies. On behalf of people affected by an ISP's proxy, I request an explanation of why these people should remain topic-banned.

Statement by other user

Statement by OverlordQ

The method currently described by the pages on WP:WOCP has not worked since CentralAuth was enabled, as such mine has never been online, nor had any users. Q 16:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Note that the preamble to the remedy 8 rulings limits them to "edits to any Scientology-related articles or discussions on any page is directed:" — Rlevse • Talk • 12:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• I was inactive on this case, and I may not quite grasp the technical material being discussed here, so I will defer to those of my colleagues that were active on the case, and to those who can answer the technical questions better than I could. Carcharoth (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• I believe the purpose of this remedy is to reduce the prevalence of socking and mischief on these articles by ensuring that each editor on the pages edits from only a single account and does not use commonly used methods such as proxying to disguise editing through multiple accounts, editing despite a topic ban, etc. If there is a real issue with the remedy winding up having the effect of preventing non-problematic editors from editing these articles despite having engaged in no misconduct, then a modification of the remedy may be in order. Before doing so, I think we would want to know that the issue is real rather than theoretical, so a more detailed explanation of the affected editor(s)' situation may be helpful to us (this can be submitted via e-mail rather than on-wiki if there are privacy issues involved). Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• I'm going to state outright that I would not interpret that a proxy imposed by a normal, commercial or national ISP is "editing through a proxy configuration" by any reasonable interpretation: that remedy was directed at those who would seek to "anonymize" their editing by circumventing normal IP routing. This does, however, include usage of TOR or anonymizing proxies. — Coren  01:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with Coren. Use of tor or anonymising proxies or other open proxies is not acceptable. Known commercial or national ISPs are not included. Risker (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Newyorkbrad frames it well. I also agree with Coren. -- FayssalF - 20:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Newyorkbrad explains the "why" quite well. However most of the scenarios given are not topic banned. Here is an overview:
  • Misplaced Pages:WikiProject on closed proxies is not operational, so that appears to be a non-issue
  • private customers of ISPs like Qtel are not restricted simply because of the way their network is set up
  • editing Scientology via TOR is prohibited, however if someone can demonstrate to the Arbitration Committee that they have a valid reason to edit via TOR, such as Internet censorship, we committee will review the request privately.
  John Vandenberg 13:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Bluemarine

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

• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Bluemarine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notification)
• Durova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), mentor of Bluemarine (notification)

Statement by Sandstein

In Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine, on 1 February 2008, the Committee decided upon the following remedy: "Bluemarine is banned from editing Misplaced Pages for a period of one year to run concurrently with the existing indefinite community ban."

On 10 December 2008, the Committee passed the following amendment to that case (permalink):

"Limited unblock with conditions:This committee's decision in this case and the preexisting community ban of Bluemarine (talk · contribs) are modified solely to the extent that Bluemarine is unblocked for the limited purpose of his making contributions related to increasing the accessibility of Misplaced Pages to users with handicapping conditions. This includes uploading encyclopedic audio files, formatting audio file templates, and captioning those audio files, as well as editing his userpage and talkpage, all under the mentorship of Durova (talk · contribs). Except as expressly provided in this motion, the ban on editing by Bluemarine remains in effect. If Bluemarine violates the terms of his limited unblock, or makes any comment reasonably regarded as harassing or a personal attack, he may be reblocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator. If Bluemarine complies with these conditions for a period of 60 days, a request for further modification of his ban may be submitted.

Passed 7 to 0, 09:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)."

Yesterday, I blocked Bluemarine for a week following a report at WP:ANI#Matt Sanchez part 2 that he had violated these restrictions. The block has since been contested at the ANI thread by Durova and one reviewing admin, Jpgordon (talk · contribs), who unlike me believe the restriction(s) on Bluemarine are no longer in effect. As of this writing, there is also an open unblock request at User talk:Bluemarine#July 2009.

I ask the Committee to clarify:

1. whether the community ban of Bluemarine as referred to in the remedy and amendment remains in effect,
2. whether the conditional lifting of this ban and the restrictions on Bluemarine's editing as specified in the amendment also remain in effect.

Thanks,  Sandstein  05:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Allstarecho

I'd just like to clarify that Matt Sanchez, aka User:Bluemarine, was under a community ban before his Arbcom ban. His 1-year Arbcom ban did expire in February of this year, which would have been before the 60-day stipulation to end. 60-days would have put him under Arbcom ban until March when the initial 1-year ban expired in February. So technically, there is nothing Arbcom can, or needs to, rule on here as Arbcom's jurisdiction ended in February by the original Arbcom ban or in March by the Arbcom 60-day stipulation - depending on how you interpret the Arbcom ban. What is left to do is for the community to decide whether or not to lift his community ban, which again, he was placed under before his Arbcom ban.

This is all brought about because he made 6 edits yesterday while still under community ban, after having been informed he was still under the community ban back in May when he made edits. In May he was told by Durova not to edit anywhere but his talk page until the matter was resolved. Unfortunately, it went stale and was never resolved then but as he wasn't informed that it was resolved, he should have asked on his talk page what the status was.

As I have agreed with Durova in recent past discussions with her, I support the lifting of his community ban with the stipulations that he is banned from editing his related BLP article or article talk page as well as the same for the Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy article. In addition, as also agreed with Durova in recent past discussions with her, based on Sanchez's history of vile personal attacks towards other editors, should he lodge any personal attacks, he shall be immediately and indefinitely blocked again. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here} 07:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Jpgordon

Just a slight correction -- at this point I have no idea what the status of ArbCom's restricted unblocking is. It's not clear from the language whether the committee intended it to outlive the committee's original sanctions. A reasonable person could interpret it either way. --jpgordon 15:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

Recommend remanding this to the community. Bluemarine's arbitration ban has expired. The community could clarify his status and/or impose new restrictions on its own. Durova 15:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

With respect extended toward Newyorkbrad's comment, the basic structure of a new editing restriction is something the community should be able to handle quite well. In about May I made such a proposal (basically a topic ban from his old areas of conflict). There was a socking concern that got raised, which turned out to be a nonissue, but investigation delayed discussion so the proposal didn't achieve consensus (mainly because the noticeboard was fast-moving). Shortly afterward Bluemarine went away on business and has had limited Internet access since then. That's the only reason a second proposal hasn't already gone to the community. Durova 01:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Statment by Lar

This user is not worth the trouble, in my view. Their past history is filled with disputes with all and sundry. The word "collegial" is not, in my view, in their vocabulary. Recommend putting or keeping a complete ban in place. Else we'll be here again soon enough. ++Lar: t/c 09:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Sam Blacketer

I was drafting arbitrator on the original case. I also voted to support the amending motion in December, and remember thinking when doing so that it would be good to progressively lift Bluemarine's editing ban in the period leading up to the end of the year ban when he would be free to edit. Obviously any community sanction is administered separately. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by ChildofMidnight

I suggest that Bluemarine be unbanned along with a stipulation that on the Matt Sanchez article and maybe a few other closely related articles he limit his contributions to the talk pages (per standard COI type concerns). I also think a mentor would be helpful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Per wp:ani#Matt Sanchez there seems to be a good consensus in favor of revising and updating Bluemarine's statud to the following edit restrictions:

• Bluemarine is banned from the Matt Sanchez and Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy article pages.
• He is prohibited from editing LGBT article topics and related talk pages, broadly construed.
• Bluemarine is encouraged to edit subjects that are not controversial or of personal and emotional investment so as to avoid dispute and confrontations and to gain experience editing Misplaced Pages collaboratively. As the community is extending good faith, please return it by limiting yourself to the one account and remember that personal attacks will not be tolerated. If Bluemarine violates the terms of this restriction he may be reblocked for an appropriate increment of time at the discretion of an administrator.

Is a more formal vote needed or can we move forward with this as agreed to and supported by his mentor, myself, Allstarecho, and other editors who made comments in the discussion? The only concern was whether Arbcom approval of some sort was needed, but my understanding is that you want the community to make the determination.

Statement by Will Beback

I sugges that the ArbCom give some statement on this editor's status, at least on an interim basis, while a final decision is made. At the moment no one is sure what his status is.   Will Beback  talk  01:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tarc

Looking at the history of this, it would appear that this user has exhausted the community's patience. Clearly an agenda-driven editor whose goals here appear to be completely contrary to a collaborative editing project, at least in politically-oriented articles. Short of an outright ban, a topic ban would be the only other option. Tarc (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other Jac16888

I was not aware of this arbcom issue, nor am I involved in anyway, but it should probably be noted that I have just blocked bluemarine for 72 hours for this personal attack, --Jac16888 13:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• My view is that we should cut to the chase, and decide what editing restrictions, if any are needed for the editor. Once that is enacted, then the past sanctions do not matter. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• As it stands there are no more active arbitration remedies, but the community ban remains in effect (the original decision deliberately did not override that). Bluemarine can now either appeal the ban to the community, or appeal it to us. --bainer (talk) 02:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Per Bainer, with preference the community handle this. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• On an initial look, I agree with bainer's comment. I do want to look at this more closely though, so may return to this at some point. Carcharoth (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• I agree that the best path forward is to figure out what restrictions, if any, are needed going forward, rather than to focus on which past ones technically are still in effect or not. I'm not sure, however, that I agree with the preference expressed above that the community debate the restrictions, since there are sensitive BLP and other issues involved that might best not be addressed on-wiki. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Per Stephen Bain. Should Bluemarine wish to appeal his community ban, he can appeal either to the community or directly to the Arbitration Committee. I do take note of Bluemarine's talk page, and remain concerned that Bluemarine's main purpose at Misplaced Pages is to directly influence a single biographical page; this is something that Bluemarine will need to address in any ban appeal. Risker (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Recuse. John Vandenberg 14:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• For the time being, I believe the community can discuss and coordinate with the mentor all the details of any restriction or deal. -- FayssalF - 08:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: ADHD

ADHD arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

• Scuro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Literaturegeek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) diff of notice

Statement by Scuro

There are several examples of Literturegeek being uncivil during the topic ban proposal. I complained at the time on the project page but nothing came of it. This behaviour continued throughout the whole Arbitration process, particularly in the workshop area. An example was given by me in my evidence section.(In presenting her evidence Literaturegeek is being abusive and uncivil. She states, "This archive is half a megabyte of mostly paranoid obsessive ramblings about conspiracies of scientologists and antipsychiatrists, useless drama, fighting.." or "Manipulative often playing the victim role. This can even deceive administrators and make admins turn on their fellow admins"....) .

Further evidence of uncivilness was given under Stephen Bain's proposed findings of fact . (Literaturegeek and continued uncivilness - this needs to be addressed - She has been abusive during the topic ban proposal, and arbitration and this continued after Stephen Bain pointed out these issues with his proposal. For example she stated;"as scuro's essentially has been making editors experiences on wikipedia a living death until they give up and leave and still a year later he is getting away with it. What amazes me is the ability of scuro to almost get people hypnotised and manipulate them (like on this admin discussion board for example and else where over the years) that he is an innocent persecuted victim and his opponents who he forces off wikipedia and removes all their contributions are terrible people. But then again I do understand because human beings are the perfect hypnotic subjects but that is another debate for another day. He wants these big discussions to wear people out. I see now Nja is being seen by some as persecuting poor scuro and poor scuro needs a break, I have been seen as the bad party, this is what I meant by scuro being professional in how he disrupts wikipedia and the levels he goes to and why I am willing to invest so much time in this admin noticeboard as enough is enough, years of forcing editors off, deleting anything they add which scuro doesn't like. Scuro knows when to be aggressive and knows when to calm down, it is all manipulative behaviour and he invests an enormous amount of time into doing this but yet admins can't see it as they don't follow it. The only time I have been involved in official wiki discussions was a discussion was when I was being harassed by sock puppets of mwalla, a vandal. I do not enjoy these debates. She also appears to have an abrasive style and conflicts on other pages". This behaviour and "drama" also continues to date on other pages."removing childish bullshit" )

Currently she continues to be uncivil and personalize the talk pages.

1. Why was her uncivilness not mentioned in the final decision, when her uncivilness eclipsed both documented examples of Doc James and my uncivilness, and this was happening right in the middle of arbitration?
2. What can be done about this continued problem?

Statement by Literaturegeek

I shall not be replying in depth to this, perhaps it would have been better not to use the descriptive adjectives, paranoid, obsessive and rambling etc. It is an arbcom so we submit evidence against a person and their behaviour so it is difficult to criticise a person without "putting them down". Diffs, like childish bullshit and other related links as explained earlier, was due to me being stalked for over a year by an editor who was from an unnamed drug company who did not like my edits on benzos. Anyone followed around having contribs constantly monitored and admins doing nothing is going to lose their temper and ask them to stop "stalking me" on a couple of occasions. This is an old issue years old now. These other disputes scuro has found on my talk page are resolved. The NPOV noticeboard regarding antidepressants was not to do with me as I had not contributed to any great degree to the article, that editor just noticed my username on the talk page and gave me a notice and thanked me actually for helping to resolve the issue. If you read this section, Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder#npov_fact_check_tag_added, scuro character assasinated Doc James saying he is advocates xyz and also was rude, barking orders at Doc James. I see no change, the article is being treated as a combat mission and this arbcom filing is more of the same type of thing I feel. I feel the editing environment remains a battle ground hostile environment. Even though I have been trying to make compromises on adhd talk pages, still things like this attacking me pop up. I would like to move on from the ADHD articles but feel this is unlikely with the continuing drama, this on this page here by scuro above being one example of hostility.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Issues concerning behavior on the arbitration pages themselves are water under the bridge. Issues concerning conduct since the case was closed should be resolved by enhanced civility on the part of all concerned; for example, as Literaturegeek acknowledges, some of her adjectives would have been better left unused. It might be best for one or more previously uninvolved administrators to keep an eye on these pages going forward, making sure that the parties to the case comply withour decision, and perhaps bring to our attention if problems involving any of the sanctioned or warned parties continue; but I see no need for further Arbitration Committee action at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Like Brad, I don't think any action is needed here. I would urge scuro and literaturegeek and other parties to the case to work together, rather than trying to test or explore the boundaries of the case decision. I note that one arbitration enforcement request has already been filed. If that is needed, sure, but please try and focus on the article content and its sources, and not each other's behaviour. This was made clear in the case, and should be made clear each time further requests are filed. If large numbers of frivolous requests are filed, indicating that editors are looking at each other's behaviour, rather than working on article content, new restrictions may need to be imposed. Carcharoth (talk) 14:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Recuse, as I did for the case itself. Risker (talk) 11:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• During the case, evidence was not presented to demonstrate that Literaturegeek has been incivil to warrant a dedicated finding of fact or remedy. Instead the decision includes a reminder to all: "All editors editing within the topical area are reminded to remain civil". If you feel that someone is ignoring this advice, please report them to WP:WQA, WP:ANI or WP:AE. John Vandenberg 01:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with my colleagues that there does not seem to be anything actionable here at this time. — Coren  12:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Date delinking

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

• Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Pmanderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by Ohconfucius

In view of the following remedy in the recent ArbCom Date Delinking Case:

"31.1) Pmanderson is topic banned for 12 month from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions."

I seek clarification as to whether "Editing guidelines" includes the WP:Naming conventions, which is a policy page.

The user has edited the policy page 6 times since the case closed (1 2 3 4 5 6) In the fifth edit, he remove a link to the WP:Manual of Style and replaced it by a link to an article, with a possibly deceptive edit summary.

This undiscussed change may well have been contentious (it has since been reverted) and appears to involve just the scope that Remedy 31.1 refers to

I would ask for the status of the edits to this guideline be clarified in relation to the remedy. The editor has been made aware of this request. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to MBisanz: Maybe I misunderstood the function of this page, but if clerks believe it should be moved to AE, then so be it. The reason I brought it here was because I am only seeking clarification as to what was covered – I am under similar editing restraint and would gladly like to know whether same freedom applies to me. Anyway, I was not specifically after enforcement at this point, not clear as if there had been a breach.

Response to Mandy: I guess that the animosity and sarcasm from Manderson is to be expected, bearing in mind our historical antagonism. BTW, I am not one to judge whether the one "outrageous edit" was intended to game the system. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess this thread can be closed - I have now moved this request to WP:AE, per the advice from Matthew. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Pmanderson

What does this have to do with date-delinking? Why am I being dragged back into it?

Ohconfucious appears to have missed this outrageous edit in which I inserted a space between two paragraphs.

As for the edit summary complained of, it says, in full: refer to article, with sources; there are advantages to working on an encyclopedia. There are; these include access to articles on English grammar when we want to indicate what that grammar actually is; they have citations and sources; MOS doesn't.

As Roger Davies wrote, now on the talk page of WP:ARBDATE, topic bans are intended to give severely disrupted topics a break from disruption and to give topic-banned editors an opportunity to get used to working in less contested areas. The naming conventions are in fact much less contentious; it was with relief that I returned to discussing them, as I have been doing for years. Applying them is less so, as the recently concluded Macedonia case will show; I have been discussing that also, and its consequences, with several admins and some arbitrators. Nobody suggested that this topic ban applied in any way.

It may indeed be possible to apply this decision mechanically, so that it will amount to a site ban; did ArbCom mean that? (And if so, did they mean it, somehow, just for me, or does it apply to all parties alike?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to MiBisanz: If the arbitrators intend their wording to have anything like this scope, it would be nice if they would say so. But if this is simply moved to AE, would you make sure my response goes along? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Understandable. Sigh. It's another thing to actively watch. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Response to Ohconfucius: Why no; I added this line to divide a paragraph into two, as the edit summary (divide paras) says. This made that section uniform with all other sections.
• The insinuation (Cicero had a term for this figure of speech) that I have been gaming the system is incivility; so is the distortion of my username. I have two; either would be acceptable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by MBisanz

Without looking at anything beyond the first couple of lines, this looks like something for WP:AE as it does not seem to rise to the level of an intractable dispute between enforcing admins over what a remedy means. MBisanz 17:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

To Pmanderson

I'm recused on this case, so I won't be doing anything clerk-ish or admin-ish with regard to it. Best to ask another clerk. MBisanz 21:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• Recused MBisanz 17:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Comment No. Naming guidelines, while a policy, are not within "style and editing guidelines" vis a vis the scope of the date delinking arb case. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't naming guidelines as within the scope of the restriction.  Roger Davies 01:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment AE is a better venue for this request. An admin and other uninvolved editors can decide if the edits are problematic considering the letter and spirit of the editing restriction. In any given situation, it is possible for edits to be considered disruptive or good. For this particular case, I see no reason to automatically increase the range of the topic ban to the point that every edit is reviewed for a potential misstep. But if the edits are tendentious, disruptive, or controversial in other ways then it would make sense for an admin to enforce the editing restrictions in the broadest way. In my opinion, this is best decided at AE. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment; I'll concur with my colleagues here and agree that naming guidelines are not a matter of style, but of contents. Therefore, discussion there does not fall under the restriction's scope. — Coren  13:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Noting here (on the off-chance that any motions are proposed) that I recused on the original case. Carcharoth (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Per my colleagues, this (a) belongs at the Arbitration Enforcement page, if anywhere and (b) does not appear to fall within the editing restrictions. Risker (talk) 12:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• I've offered a motion in the amendments section, that if adopted, would probably render this issue moot. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• per Risker. John Vandenberg 02:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: User:The Wurdalak and User:Manhattan Samurai

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

• The Wurdalak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Manhattan Samurai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Urbanus et instructus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by Jayron32

• The issue here is whether or not The Wurdalak and Manhattan Samurai are the same person or not. There appears to be strong behavioral evidence to link the two, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Manhattan Samurai/Archive, where a May 2nd comment by Nishkid64 indicated that the case was being handled by the Audit Subcommittee. A further note by RogerDavies at Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of The Wurdalak indicates that ArbCom is involved in this case. The third account listed above was one that I thought was a clear Manhattan Samurai sock, but was instead linked to The Wurdalak. I am thoroughly confused by this, and need clarification on the AUSC's/ArbCom's position on the nature of these two accounts. Are they believed to be the same person or not? If they are not, what do I need to look for to know the difference between them. If they are, can we get the Sock categories and SPI reports merged? Thanks for the clarification on this! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 16:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Thanks to Thatcher and Nishkid below for clarifying this. It appears that there are, according to the CUs, two unrelated scokpuppeteers here which have similar MOs? Am I reading that right? If so, thanks for clearing that up. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 06:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• • • Well then, now that Thatcher has clarified that Wurdalak and MS are different people, I think I need clarification from ArbCom over reblocking Wurdalak. If he just recently used the Urbanus account, then he is in violation of his ArbCom-placed 6-month block. To any ArbCom/AUSC member patrolling this request: Should we now extend that six-month block back to indefinite for repeat socking while under that 6-month block? --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Respond to Rlevse: This is here because there were notes made to both block logs and talk pages that the block was part of an existing or pending AUSC/ArbCom ruling and I came to ask for clarification on that. Also, this HAS gone through SPI, but the SPI case noted the ArbCom involvement so I brought it here to ask for help in sorting out how ArbCom was involved and how to proceed, and for clarification on the intricacies of these two confused cases. --Jayron32 05:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Alright, I have reset the block on The Wurdalak for another 6 months. In the future, if I should run across more of his socks, I will know what to do. This clarification is now Resolved and can probably safely be archived now. Thanks to Rlevse for helping clarify the appropriate course of action (and buzzing my talk page to remind me to check in). Toodles. --Jayron32 02:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher

This doesn't really have anything to do with Audit, other than that Roger Davies of the Ban Appeal committee asked for an independent recheck. Last I knew, Wurdalak's block appeal was in the hands of the Ban Appeal subcommittee and I don't know what the disposition was. The Wurdalak (talk · contribs) and The Wurdulak (talk · contribs) (unblocked doppelganger) are not related to Manhattan Samurai on a technical level and appear to be geographically separated, although checkuser can never rule out the possibility of various forms of collusion and coordination from different locations. The technical findings with respect to Urbanus et instructus are consistent with The Wurdalak, but of course the importance of that turns on the outcome of the appeal. Check with the members of the ban appeal subcomittee on this one. Thatcher 20:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, there are likely two distinct individuals involved here. The original question was whether Wurdalak should have been blocked as a sockpuppet of Manhattan Samauri. Since they are geographically distinct, the block question would then turn on an analysis of edits, and whether this is a case of two distinct people coordinating their editing after one of them was blocked for using multiple sockpuppets. However, it appears from Wurdalak's block log that this has already been sorted out by Arbcom's ban appeal subcommittee, . Thatcher 15:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Nishkid64

I based my findings on Thatcher's well-reasoned conclusion that The Wurdalak was not related to Manhattan Samurai. Since The Wurdalak is currently blocked, and will only be unblocked pending the result of his case before the Audit Subcommittee, I decided to block his sockpuppet indefinitely. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 00:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Question and comment What arb case is this a part of? If it's not part of an arb case, why is it at clarification instead of SPI? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  • OK I see now. Yes, this should be here. As the new user is ANOTHER Wurdalak sock, I'd reset the 6-month ban to start anew or indef Wurkalak, I'll leave that to the community admins. And yes, Wurdalak and Manhattan Samurai are differnt, but there is a strong chance they are meats. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: On investigation, it turned out that The Wurdalak and Manhattan Samourai were two different people. However, during the investigation The Wurdalak had also socked on his own account (with various permutations of The Wurdalak, plus Duh Elk At War and Duh Wart Lake) so he was banned for six months. If he has socked since, the ban clock needs to be reset (or indeffed, if appropriate).  Roger Davies 01:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with Roger's summary here. To Rlevse, it is not clear where sockpuppet bans should be appealed - should the SPI case be re-opened if someone appeals? Who decides that? At the moment, ArbCom do get a fair amount of these sockpuppetry appeals, so we should work with the checkusers to make sure those appeals with merit do not get rejected. This case had some merit, but that was cancelled out by the socking Roger mentions above. Carcharoth (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Concur with Roger Davies' summary as well. Risker (talk) 12:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• per Roger Davies. John Vandenberg 02:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Per Roger. -- FayssalF - 08:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Per Roger. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)