Revision as of 16:03, 10 May 2012

Requests for arbitration

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

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Thomas Sowell

Initiated by CartoonDiablo (talk) at 18:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Involved parties

• CartoonDiablo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Chris Chittleborough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• CWenger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• PokeHomsar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Chris Chittleborough
• CWenger
• PokeHomsar

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• NPOV noticeboard attempt

Statement by CartoonDiablo

The main argument is whether sources by Media Matters should be included as criticism. For reference, this was the final version before being reverted:

Sowell has been criticized for various remarks such as a comparison he made between President Barack Obama and Adolf Hitler in an editorial for Investor's Business Daily after the creation of a relief fund for the BP oil spill. This has been criticized by liberal groups such as Media Mattersand the Democratic National Committee. However, Republicans such as Sarah Palin and Representative Louie Gohmert have endorsed Sowell's comparison.

Sowell was also criticized for an editorial in which he stated that the Democratic Party played the Race card, instigating ethnic divisions and separatism, and argued that a similar situation occurred between the Tutsis and the Hutus in Rwanda.

(Removal of Media Matters)

The editors' justifications for why it shouldn't be included are based on a violation of WP:POV or are just soapboxing as can be seen in their defenses:

• Chris Chittleborough

(Diff: 1, 2 and recently again: 3 and 4 (scroll down))

• PokeHomsar

(Diffs: 1 See also other examples of soapboxing: 2 and 3)

The POV defenses taken together are claimed to amount to a consensus. What seemed like a resolved case in the NPOV noticeboard has become an issue again.

The issues are whether or not:

1. These defenses for excluding Media Matters have any validity
2. These (in my opinion) non-valid defenses can amount to a consensus
3. Media Matters is a valid source given it's context and criticism.

Statement by {Party 2}

Statement by {Party 3}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/8/0/0)

• Decline. Content dispute. We have noticeboards that deal with whether or not a source is reliable, and dispute resolutions for achieving consensus on whether or not it should be included in an article. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• Decline. If the matter of referencing remains unresolved, you might try to find more acceptable sources to use, or try the Reliable sources or Dispute resolution noticeboards. If there is a minor issue with the conduct of the other disputants, you might try asking an uninvolved administrator to examine the disputants' actions. This dispute certainly does not require arbitration, which is the final stage of dispute-resolution on Misplaced Pages. AGK 22:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• Decline per the above, and note that when a notable entity criticizes another notable entity, and that is widely reported in RS'es, to NOT include it would be an NPOV issue. Still, it's something for, at most, an RfC if there are no attendant user conduct issues. Jclemens (talk) 23:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• Decline This body doesn't make content rulings, sorry. WP:MEDCOM may be able to help reach a resolution, though. 23:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• Decline Per above. Hersfold 00:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• Decline needs more eyes at content noticeboard or venue of some description. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• Decline Per all above. SirFozzie (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• Decline. Frustrating though it is that Media Matters has been discussed so many times and there is still a dispute about it, ArbCom is not the body to decide on the matter as we deal with conduct disputes not source disputes. SilkTork 09:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• Decline per the above. Perhaps the clerks would be kind enough to close this now as acceptance is mathematically impossible.  Roger Davies 12:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Anupam & Bobrayner

Initiated by Hipocrite (talk) at 17:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Anupam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bobrayner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mann jess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• IRWolfie- (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dominus Vobisdu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ArtifexMayhem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Abhishikt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Viriditas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Uninvolved filing party

• Hipocrite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Viriditas
• Anupam

similar to below, this user has been blocked for 24 hours, so please let his block expire before expecting a response. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Man jess
• IRWolfie-
• Bobrayner
• Dominus Vobisdu
• Abhishikt
• ArtifexMayhem

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Not relevant to the narrow issue of the EEML-like mailing list that is alleged, as it is necessarily off-wiki evidence and cannot be dealt with on-wiki.

Statement by Hipocrite

In this edit, Anupam states that "Bobrayner has been using an offsite email list in order to coordinate individuals at this report." This is a violation of pretty much everything in WP:EEML. If accurate, sanctions need to be handed out.

If inaccurate, Anupam is misrepresenting supposition as fact, and needs to be dealt with. This case is not about the larger issue of editing behavior, and no evidence about behavior outside of the mailing list should be presented.

• Multiple individuals have now commented that taking this to ArbCom was premature or disruptive - I note that ArbCom is the only body that can deal with an off-wiki secret canvassing mailinglists, per WP:EEML principle 10.5. I further note that I have zero involvement with this issue except to frown heavily on the use of off-wiki secret canvassing mailinglists, and even more heavily frowning on false accusations of off-wiki secret canvassing mailinglists. Hipocrite (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Anupam stated, and I quote, in full context "Bobrayner has been using an offsite email list in order to coordinate individuals at this report." Not "I think that," not "it appears that," not "may be," but rather "so and so has been using." He now says "indicating a likelihood of offsite coordination," and "I do not have copies of any emails or anything like that." He was either dissembling now, dissembling then, or incompetent. There is no other conceivable explanation that I can possibly think of that could explain how one could go from certainty to inference like that. I suggest that Jclemens has the answer correct when he writes "would it not just be simpler to sanction that editor than having an entire case?" Do so. Hipocrite (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by IRWolfie-

I am not sure what emailing list Anupam was referring to. No person on wikipedia has access to my email address, nor am I on any wikipedia related email lists. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Since Anupam has refused to take part in this ArbCom case: I will attempt to show what Anupam is alleging, and then tear it down again. Anupam stated on his talk page:

:My concern was that the exact same group of editors (User:Mann jess, User:Artifex Mayhem, User:Dominus Vobisdu, User:Abhishikt, User:Bob rayner, User:BD2412, User:Aprock, User:IRWolfie-, etc.) were all able to show up at RfC A, B, C, D, E, as well as this ANI report so swiftly, making similar supporting statements, indicating a likelihood of offsite coordination.

Provided are links to 4 RfC's. I did not take part in the first two RfCs on Militant atheism so I don't see how I could be involved in them, though I was editing that particular article before Anupam ever edited the page . With the Big Bang article I've replied to previous RfC's on the page , but I also am an active on the wikiproject physics talk page where Anupam posted both RfC's Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Big_Bang_RfC_.28Part_II.29 Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics/Archive_February_2012#Big_Bang. For the atheism article I was also commenting on another (unrelated) RfC the day before . I think I first started watching the article sometime around here , way before this particular RfC. We even interacted before the RfC on an unrelated manner Talk:Atheism#Restored_.22quote.22 so it should come as no suprise to Anupam that I was on that article. I also watch ANI and became aware of this discussion. I've already pointed out much of this to Anupam , but he has choosen instead to continue repeating it at ANI and his talk page as if he had not heard. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Note also this ANI case where the allegations were made Misplaced Pages:ANI#User:Viriditas_and_User:Anupam. This may help provide some context IRWolfie- (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

In summary, Anupam has made explicit claims against a number of users: . I already have made replies for some of the claims about how I arrived at RfCs: , the rest of my reply is listed above. Anupam appears to be stating that he will not take part in the ArbCom proceedings: User_talk:Anupam#Arbcom_case. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Collect's points about the ANI discussion are puzzling considering the closing admin has found that canvassing had occurred in support of Anupam and that Anupam has engaged in problematic conduct. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Anupam has mentioned editors Glider87, Fnagaton and DreamGuy about something entirely unrelated to Arbcom case, I fail to see a connection. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by potentially involved Eldamorie

Pretty sure taking this to Arbcom is premature, as Anupam is facing a community ban for deceptive editing and has presented no evidence that this is the case. Treating this like a serious comment given that Anupam has also been blocked for 24 hours over his behavior in that thread seems excessive. eldamorie (talk) 19:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

To clarify the "potentially involved" heading above, as IRWolfie mentioned, I was one of the other users that Anupam has made claims regarding - see eldamorie (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I have stricken my original comments. Given the way in which the ANI thread was closed it appears that Arbcom does need to take a look at this situation. When there is growing support for a community ban and clear support of a topic ban, when the opposition to both have been canvassed (by their own admission in one case) and yet the closing admin closes by enacting a restriction that consensus was against (1RR) then there's nothing left to do but go to arbitration. I'm not sure that the scope of the case as stated is broad enough to deal with these issues, but something obviously needs to be done. eldamorie (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Mann_jess

I'm pretty sure there is a mailing list, but it's certainly not the one Anupam is alleging, and I'm certainly not on it. I'd like to know more about it, but I have serious doubts that any improper communication takes place through the (logged?) wiki-email system, so tracking it down would be near-impossible. As far as Anupam's allegation is concerned, if anyone wishes to check the logs of my on-wiki emails, they're more than welcome. Short of that, I'm interested to see how the group of users who do appear to be coordinating will change once sanctions are imposed, if at all. If that level of disruption continues, it may be worthwhile to revisit the issue. Until then, I think we should probably just stick with the ANI case and see where that takes us.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been informed that my post above is ambiguous. To clarify, I believe that Anupam is a part of a mailing list, or other form of off-site coordination, not Bobrayner, me, and the plethora of others Anupam is now alleging. I believe Anupam is making such allegations to "even the playing field", and/or to distract from the issues with his behavior. I think there is strong evidence to suggest this, from users coming out of retirement or semi-retirement in order to votestack in Anupam's favor, to a group of 7+ users consistently showing up in the same articles (for the first time ever) only to participate in voting alongside Anupam, to a plethora of SPAs in Anupam's former disputes, to SPAs and established accounts showing up just in the nick of time to edit war in Anupam's place when he approaches 3rr on articles they've never edited before. We know that Anupam has canvassed on-wiki for this purpose, and that Lionelt has canvassed on-site on Anupam's behalf. We also have records showing that Anupam communicates via email with conservapedia staff. Based on conservapedia logs mysteriously vanishing as soon as they were discussed here, it's reasonable to conclude that off-site communication (relating to discussion here) is taking place in some format. To think that off-site coordination to votestack and manipulate consensus is not taking place, would be, in my opinion, naive. With that said, I believe the best course of action at this time is to see the ANI sanctions through, and decide if this situation needs to be revisited if the problematic meatpuppet behavior continues.   — Jess· Δ♥ 4:59 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Statement by Dominus Vobisdu

I have never contacted or been contacted by e-mail by anyone whosoever connected with Misplaced Pages. I have never activated the e-mail function of my WP account, and have never given my e-mail address to anyone. This appears to be a desperate attempt by Anupam to discredit those voting that he be banned on ANI. I see no evidence supporting his allegations. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Viriditas

In desperation, Anupam has thrown a Hail Mary pass on ANI, in the hopes that someone, anyone, willl catch it and distract us all from the evidence against him. Viriditas (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Update: even while blocked for his behavior, Anupum is still making the same accusations. This editor gives new meaning to IDHT. Just moments ago, Anupam writes, "the possibility still exists, however, of there being some coordination". Only problem is, the possibility only exists in Anupam's head, and he will keep repeating this because he knows it deflects and detracts from the case against him. If this isn't good evidence for an indefinite block, I don't know what is. Viriditas (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like arbcom to consider accepting this case, but broadening the scope to address "civil POV pushing" in general, which is the locus of this dispute. Viriditas (talk) 04:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Abhishikt

I have never contacted or been contacted by e-mail by anyone whosoever connected with Misplaced Pages. I have never activated the e-mail function of my WP account, and have never given my e-mail address to anyone. This appears to be a desperate attempt by Anupam to discredit those !voting that he be banned on ANI. I see no evidence supporting his allegations. Anyone is free to check whatever records are there.

On the contrary I think Anupam is doing such offsite email communication, evident by the fact that his Conservapedia account's user history log was wiped clean by an admin there when the ANI thread added links there. And Anupam accepted his communication with conservapedia admin here. -Abhishikt (talk) 20:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The user interaction between me and Bobrayner speaks for itself. -Abhishikt (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by (peripherally involved) DGG

I blocked anupan for 24 hr earlier today for being disruptive during the an/i, and I blocked Bobraynor 12 hours when he in his turn continued to escalate it. This seems an attempt by another party to do the same, and potentially more disruptive than anything else here. Arb com may need to act on the actual issues involved, but all of this is a distraction. All sides seem to be showing clearly that they are more intent on fighting than resolving the matter. I'm not going to block further now that this is here, but I would suggest blocking A, br, and Hipocrite for as long as it takes to resolve the original matters, which are serious enough. I think I made an error earlier today in thinking that short blocks would be sufficient to prevent further disruption. DGG ( talk ) 21:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Pine

For the sake of completeness of this review, I'll say that I have posted on DGG's talk page to ask to discuss how he handled this situation with regard to Bobraynor, but at this time I'm not proposing that DGG's choices be a focus of Arbcom's attention. Pine 22:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by bobrayner

There is no mailing list; I have not exchanged emails with any of these editors. There is an obvious and simple explanation for the presence of several of the same editors on a series of RfCs on anupam's militant atheism article. I had the article watchlisted. Similarly for the AN/I thread - I read AN/I daily anyway. The mailing-list argument does not explain why a number of other unconnected editors (not named in this case) arrived on the AN/I thread and offered similar support for proposed sanctions of anupam; again, there's an obvious and simple explanation which does not require another conspiracy theory.

There was evidence of sneaky collusion and canvassing in the AN/I thread (and previously on the Militant Atheism article but that's not on trial here) - but the dirty tricks were in support of anupam, rather than against anupam (example). There is also evidence of an anti-atheism campaign coordinated on conservapedia; after I linked to anupam's Conservapedia talkpage, an admin deleted the evidence (but I have a cached copy). Without any other visible communication, that admin was presumably emailed. I would argue that anupam made the mailing list accusation as some kind of defensive measure as sanctions appeared increasingly likely; it may have been inspired by Moreschi's comment.

I was blocked for continuing to respond to anupam's comments, primarily the mailing list allegation, and saying they were lies, but arbcom is welcome to have a look at this thread and see an escalating series of claims by anupam which, err, cannot be reconciled with reality (in particular, with diffs provided by me and other editors). The offsite emailing allegation first appeared as a response to being caught editwarring ( ) to remove a notice that another of anupam's supporters had been canvassed. I think the block was wrong; but I hold no personal grudge against DGG - rather I feel it's a side-effect of en.wikipedia's inadequate mechanisms for dealing with civil pov-pushing.

It's very hard to prove a negative, but I welcome arbcom investigation if there is any possibility to clear my name, or for anupam to be held accountable for deliberately spreading false accusations. If there's any technical record of the email feature being used, have a look. I would be happy for arbcom or a trusted third party to browse my personal mailbox, or even do a checkuser should the conspiracy-theory go in that direction. (I have a highly distinctive user-agent string for the benefit of checkuser).

I have had a few emails from the ambassador-announce-l@lists.wikimedia.org list - this is official and quite benign; recipients are bcc'd. A few other editors have contacted me through the email feature, related to ambassador-type stuff, though I always prefer to steer discussions to somewhere open; I can share these with a trusted third party, or put anonymised copies here.

I made a point of providing diffs for claims made on the drama-thread on AN/I. In the unlikely event that anupam (or anyone else) has a diff which supports the opposing notion of a mailing list, however slightly, I'd love to see it. I welcome further investigation; I have nothing to hide, and it should be obvious how I feel about these allegations being made and how I feel about Anupam continuing to escape any serious sanction on yet another AN/I thread. I hope that the existence of this case does not hinder an appropriate closure of the thread on AN/I.

The AN/I thread has now been closed, but with no sanction for some of the more problematic behaviour, such as sockpuppetry - or the accusation of running an external mailing list. It is, presumably, unlikely that arbcom can/will act on this, but I suppose it's relevant to the case. I am disappoint. bobrayner (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that Collect's comments are deeply unhelpful; but the last time I rose to the bait I got blocked; I will avoid doing so a second time. If there is extensive evidence of a wide range of policy violations, it should actually be addressed, rather than waving away the evidence as inherently disruptive because there's so much of it.

Presumably this case gets closed if anupam is indeed on a "VERY LONG break from Misplaced Pages". Would it be possible to reopen if anupam returns to editing? bobrayner (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad that anupam has responded here; but much of the response appears to sidestep the allegation. If somebody else said something bad when discussing a different issue on a different page, that's no defense. I would point out that it's not just vague speculation; in two separate edits, anupam quite specifically said that I was running an offsite email campaign against anupam and that several other editors were part of the cabal. Here's the other instance: "User:Bobrayner has added such a false notice because he emailed several users offsite in order to ban me in the first place". (There are other comments about me in that diff which are untrue but, meh, following up on all of them is impossible). That's not a suspicion or a concern or "It looks like", but a direct statement. This statement is simply untrue, and there is no sane reason to hold such a belief; other editors have explained how they arrived at different pages; but after being called out, anupam repeated the statement quite clearly. Does en.wikipedia have any kind of accountability for editors who deliberately make up serious slurs against other editors? bobrayner (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Anupam

Hello! I was informed that I should comment here so I am doing so. After User:Hipocrite left a comment on my talk page about his opening of this ArbCom proposal, I stated that:

my concern was that the exact same group of editors were all able to show up at RfC A, B, C, D, E, as well as this ANI report so swiftly, making similar supporting statements, indicating a likelihood of offsite coordination. Other users have stated, in regards to the ANI case in particular, that "from the whole discussion here that if you remove the partisans/users that are editing from a diametrically opposed real life belief to Anupam that there is/was no consensus amongst the uninvolved commenters." Nevertheless, I do not intend on participating in the ArbCom discussion on this issue as I am EXTREMELY busy in real life. In fact, after the ANI issue closes, I was planning to take a VERY LONG break from Misplaced Pages. I value the contributions of the said editors above, even if we are often found disagreeing with one another, and would prefer not to participate in an ArbCom case against them. However, I would recommend bringing up this issue at the ANI thread, mentioning this evidence of offsite canvassing and having the thread closed as being a content dispute, which is what many uninvolved editors have been saying all along (e.g. Exhibit One, Exhibit Two, Exhibit Three, Exhibit Four, Exhibit Five).

I do not have copies of any emails or anything like that and was surprised to see that User:Hipocrite opened this case without discussing the issue with me first; I, like others, merely raised a concern based on observations of behavior and that ANI is the appropriate venue for that. There was some issue with on-site canvassing; for example, despite the fact that a mediation session involving several users took place, today User:DreamGuy unilaterally removed all references to religion in the article on Thanksgiving (in you are unfamiliar with the celebration, please refer to this). In addition, he canvassed User:Glider87 and User:Fnagaton (also see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Fnagaton/Archive), stating content dispute related POV concerns on each of their talk pages "we should renew activity to prevent religious bias from being entered into that article" and "we can get even more editors interested in a Thanksgiving article free of ultra-right wing religious talking points." These concerns were raised at ANI and just today, Administrator User:JzG‎, closed the ANI thread, rightly imposing restrictions on myself, for transgressions, including my misunderstanding of the paraphrasing policy at Misplaced Pages. I feel that the proposal of this ArbCom case was created in order to distract from the situation at ANI, and is largely unnecessary. I will be leaving to go on a long break for quite some years, only editing sparsely, due to a personal situation; when I do edit, I will take the gracious advice of User:Viriditas, who accepted my apology today and recommended that I dedicate my time to working on open tasks, core topics, and requested articles. I wish the best to all of you and hope you enjoy this coming summer. With regards, Anupam 16:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Response to User:Hipocrite (copied here upon removal and request): You never took this statement along with the full context of the comment I provided at ANI, which details the same information in my statement here. Despite the comments I added on my talk page during which I was blocked, you still insisted with this proposal, rather than discarding it. Nevertheless, the case at ANI has been closed with restrictions rightly imposed on me, which I discussed in my statement here. I wish you the best, Anupam 17:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Uninvolved comment by semi-involved Saedon

I just want to note for the committee that Anupam has said on his talk page that he does not plan on making a statement here, see User_talk:Anupam#Arbcom_case. Not involving myself in this case, just pointing this out. SÆdon 00:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by MastCell

All that's needed is for some admin to close Misplaced Pages:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents#User:Viriditas and User:Anupam. MastCell  00:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Collect

The horrid mess at AN/I is apparent. Battleground posts by several are present there - including many posts alleging CANVASS by Anupam, collusion, SPA accounts etc. The case started out against Anumpam as being a matter of plagiarism, it then became a "kitchen sink" set of allegations against him and all who dared to suggest that draconian mesaures were not called for.

combines a direct accusation of one editor canvassing, and anupam "sockpetppeting"

another accusation of CANVASS, by bobraynor.

showing multiple allegations of CANVASS placed under multiple posts by an editor.

I present here WP:Collect's Law and note that one editor dominated the posts to the AN/I section.

The use of massive kitchen sink allegations at any noticeboard is a reasonable issue for ArbCom to use for a case at some point - not to pile Ossa on Pelion on Anupam, but to prevent such cases in the future. To that end, I would suggest a motion of the order of:

Noticeboards should be used sparingly, and domination of any section of any noticeboard for a vast series of complaints about any editor or editors is to be deprecated. The first proper place for dispute resolution about any vast number of complaints is RFC/U, and not Arbitration. All discussions which are made or referred to on any IRC channel, blog, project page, or off-wiki site should be noted by the person who makes such a notification, lest they be determined to be in violation of proper Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines relating thereto. Collect (talk) 11:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved JzG

I closed the ANI discussion referenced above ().

Here is my closing summary:

I have read this debate. The following facts have been clearly established:

• Anupam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in problematic conduct
• This includes plagiarism, POV-pushing and edit-warring
• There is evidence of canvassing in respect of this discussion

The overall conclusion is that Anupam is attempting to push Misplaced Pages content in the direction of sympathy with his POV, and is supported in this by others who share that POV.

My reading of the consensus from this debate is as follows:

1. Anupam is placed on a final warning with respect to plagiarism. Any further examples of plagiarism will result in an immediate and lengthy ban. No further warnings need be issued, any administrator noting plagiarised content inserted by Anupam from this date may block immediately for a period at their discretion but probably between one and twelve months, which block would be considered a community ban per the consensus here, so that any appeal would be to WP:BASC.
2. Anupam is placed on 1RR parole for 6 months.
3. Anupam may be topic banned by any uninvolved administrator from any article where he appears to be violating WP:NPOV (especially WP:UNDUE). No further warning is necessary. Initial topic bans should be of short duration but escalating durations in case of second or subsequent issues would be appropriate.

I would suggest that if the above do not yield the required improvement in Anupam's behaviour, the matter should be remitted to Arbcom, who have the patience to wade through the word-storm and pick apart genuine input from votestacking, canvassed !votes and the like.

I believe this is at the light end of what consensus supports, in reflection of the fact that Anupam has been here a long time with a clean block record.

Whether this renders this proceeding moot, I will leave to others. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/0/3)

• Holding for more statements, but on the face of it I do not think that we are dealing with anything akin to the Eastern European mailing list. The most significant difference is that this dispute is confined to a small group of editors, whereas that mailing list was used by a large group of users, and influenced an entire topic area. I also do not see any evidential basis to conclude that this is an actual mailing list, rather than an exchange of e-mails among two or several addresses, and in that event a presumption of off-wiki collusion can be made—and the editors sanctioned appropriately by the community. If I am mistaken in some respect, I will re-consider whether or not ArbCom involvement is required. AGK 22:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• Awaiting statements from others, but my first question is this: If an editor alleges a "secret mailing list" on-Wiki, yet can provide no evidence of such to ArbCom when we ask for private information submitted via email, would it not just be simpler to sanction that editor than having an entire case? Jclemens (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline and defer to the community's resolution processes, as no one is currently claiming that there is specific off-wiki private information that merits bypassing intermediate dispute resolution steps. Jclemens (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• Awaiting statements, esp. from the two editors who are currently blocked. Courcelles 23:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• Declineuntil such time they can show evidence that such a mailing list exists. And I strongly suggest that if they can't show such evidence, that they not make such remarks. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. SirFozzie (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• Awaiting Anupman - perhaps one of the clerks could unblock him a little early to present an initial statement. I do not know how we can make a decision without this. Agree with JClemens though - if Anupman has nothing to back up this very serious allegation, then the community may wish to consider if he should still be editing in that area. Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Decline, with a side note to Anupam that if he is going then he should "stand not upon the pleasure of his going, but go at once", and if he's not going, then he should avoid making allegations that he has no intention of substantiating. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Decline. The community are looking into concerns regarding Anupam. As this claim appears to be unsubstantiated (based, according to Anupam, purely on supposition - "a likelihood of offsite coordination") it should be brought to the attention of those discussing Anupam as further evidence of disruptive conduct. There appears to be nothing for ArbCom at the moment. Under Anupam's theory he should also be part of the email list as he turns up at the same discussions as those he named. SilkTork 09:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)