This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tarc (talk | contribs) at 19:14, 15 August 2014 (→Statement by Tarc: - further on the "suspected sock" angle). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Banning Policy

Initiated by Hell in a Bucket (talk) at 17:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Smallbones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Diff. 1]
• Diff. 2]
• Diff. 3]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Link 1 ] (couldn't find in archives)
• Link 2 ]
• Link 3 ]

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

There is a lot of dispute if WP:EVADE is covered under talkpage posting. It's my understanding that when banned that person is persona non grata and all edits are to be reverted. If in an article and it's not vandalism another editor may take responsibility for that edit but posting on their behalf or attempting to repost their concern is not appropriate. Enter User:Tarc. Tarc has been blasting insults, incivility and outright trolling on Jimbos page. Edits such as or this edit summary . Apparently the word cunt is not ok but telling a editor or telling me or the attitude that this is a game . There are many more edits stating that Smallbones and myself are whiteknighting, overzealous and etc. Jimbo has not replied and there is an impasse as Smallbones and I are within policy to revert on sight edits on or on behalf of a banned user without regard to 3rr. Why will we ban people then let them post if it's good contributions, there are plenty other editors with lots of great contributions banned and there is no question about it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@Konveyor, if there was significant doubts you are correct but in this case all three accounts were spouting the same thing, terms of use nonsense, it was a very very clear duck case. It was clear enough theat a checkuser was done but I didn't have the correct beginning user which from the Block log the TheKohser isn't actually the master either but an older account User:MyWikiBiz, at least according to this block log. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Tarc that's why we are here you can't understand the difference of usage of the word as a word and an epithet. Please point out where I called someone a cunt? If you want people to be CIVIL you have to actually be civil yourself, not ask if they have the balls. I do that's why we are here, you are trolling and as User:KWW rightfully says trying to pick a fight. Arbcom has dealt with the last comment you can drop your WP:STICK now, your horse is dissecated now, now move on to your disruptive trolling, time for a new issue. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Konveyor Belt

@Hell in a Bucket: "It's my understanding that when banned that person is persona non grata and all edits are to be reverted." This is not the central argument here. Tarc or anyone else does not deny this policy. Rather, the debate is whether uninvolved editors can revert suspected socks with no proof of socking, as this is what you and Smallbones have been doing. KonveyorBelt 18:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Kww

I think it's pretty obvious that Tarc is doing this solely to stir up a fight, a.k.a. to disrupt Misplaced Pages. There's no possible improvement to an encyclopedia by restoring talk page comments by a banned editor, so WP:IAR is inapplicable. As for Konveyor Belt's argument: so long as we have our restrictions on checkuser in place, an admin's best judgement is all we generally have to go on when it comes to socking and block evasion. It's apparent from the discussion that Tarc agrees that the edits are likely from a banned editor, and is "taking ownership" only as fig-leaf to preserve the comments.—Kww(talk) 18:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved editor betafive

It seems to me that if an edit from a banned user introduces content of sufficient quality that another editor in good standing sees fit to restore it after a revert, in the absence of evidence that the user in good standing is acting as a sockpuppet, the restored content should not be subject to reversion on-sight, as the alternative allows banned editors an effective heckler's veto. betafive 18:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Tarc

Hell in a Bucket is mounting a rather superlative misdirection campaign by highlighting my use of silly internet memes ("a challenger appears", come at me bro", etc...) in edit summaries. For someone who casually throws around misogynist c-bombs into discussions in this project, and someone who acts as deplorably as he did at User talk:Newyorkbrad#Word usage in defending the c-word, I find it to be the height of hypocrisy to call anyone out for incivility.

This whole mess is about a few different things, but one in particular; a fundamental difference in opinion regarding what it means to edit a page in this project, be it a user talk page or an article-space page. One site has a strict interpretation of "banned means banned", and that all edits by socket (whether proven or unproven) can and will be reverted on sight. This means that any possibly banned user who posts a question to Jimbo's talk page is automatically reverted, as well as a possibly banned user who adds a freely-licensed image to an article is automatically reverted. The other side wishes to evaluate the merits of the post or the article addition and believes that either should remain in place unless there is something egregiously wrong, e.g. WP:NPA or a topic ban violation. This is a collision of a draconian interpretation of the ban policy vs. how things usually flow in this project, and have flowed for years. Users have traditionally been granted a bit latitude in allowing banned users to post to their talk pages; I do that myself with a few people on mine. Users have also been traditionally able to "take responsibility" for revert article content and have been able to re-add it as their own if deemed a "good edit". Both of these have been denied lately; here at Jimbo's page, and one here involving a suspected sock of Russavia. I asked Kww if he plans to call for a block of the user, as he threatened to do to me, who restored the image at Dassault Falcon 7X, but have yet to see a response.

Note: despite Kww's as-yet-uncorrected false assertion here and here, I have not actually ever restored content added by a Russavia sock, though I believe his situation and the one we're going over here are two aspects of the same problem.

The other aspect of this is the situation of editors reverting suspected socks of banned/blocked users...and no, not that they are literally flagged as a suspected sock, but that the reverter him/herself is the one with the suspicion. That is how I got embroiled into this mess initially, when Hell and Smallbones were reverting an account with no block log and no SPI. The account is now blocked, but I and others are rather uncomfortable with regular users patrolling another user's talk page and removing content based on their own guesswork alone.

If this case is accepted, I would urge the committee to not focus on the who but more of the substance of what is at stake here. "Russavia" and "Mr. 2001" (alleged to be "thekohser") are being invoked here as boogeymen, people that quite frankly no one, even myself, particularly care for. We shouldn't craft policy or make decisions with the aim in mind of punishing specific editors.

So this is where we're at... "banned means banned" vs. "if a rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore it". Tarc (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Banning Policy: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/0>-Banning_Policy">

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

DragonflySixtyseven

Initiated by -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) at 02:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Involved parties

• DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Toddst1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), inactive
• Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Rlevse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), inactive

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• DragonflySixtyseven
• Toddst1
• Bbb23
• Rlevse

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• ArbCom Sadi Carnot case Oct 2007
• Nov 2007 #1 Nov 2007 #2
• December 2009
• Sept 2011
• AN Aug 2014

Statement by DeltaQuad

From incidents spanning from late 2007 to present day, DragonflySixtyseven has demonstrated issues with the dispute resolution process and the the blocking policy, in relation to his administrative actions. At least 5 times since the start of 2007, Dragonfly67 has inappropriately reverted other administrators blocks without seeking consensus at any time nor contacting the original blocking administrator. He did not even discuss the original action with the administrators making them.

Last time in 2011, when I was directly involved, Dragonfly67 avoided an arbitration request by placing himself under restriction, which he failed to follow through on when he unblocked Iaritmioawp aka PathOfExile & I really need that username.

There are 5 relevant incidents listed below:

1. The 2007 Sadi Carnot Arbitration Case (specifically the the of unblock on Sadi Carnot)
2. The Nov 2007 unblock of Snowolfd4
3. The Dec 2009 unblock of Pickbothmanlol
4. The Sept 2011 double unblock of 76.31.236.91 (the two blocks by the original admins were for different reasons)
5. The Aug 2014 unblock of Iaritmioawp aka PathOfExile & I really need that username

Furthermore DS67 seems to be taking direct responsibility (owning) for a users actions, which is a community-wide administrative duty. In the 2011 incident (see block log link above) he says "Pay attention. I said, a) I'm not convinced he's a sock, b) if he gets out of line, I'll block him myself. I'm handling this. If he misbehaves, bring him to my attention." (emphasis my own), telling other admins that they must go through him to take action on him. I did not see that at the time coming from an SPI when I made my block.

These actions make it difficult for administrators to work with DS67, and there is a repeat issue. Each time that it has been taken to ANI, admins have disagreed with the process DS67 has taken. The admins, every time have been left not happy with the result, and unwilling to wheel war for fear of getting sanctioned themselves, including myself. Also, there is a disregard for declined unblock requests at the time of some of the unblocks. I'm not here because I think desysop is the right or best option, but clearly talking it out one on one or with the community hasn't produced results. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@AGK: I don't have the perfect answer for you as to how were going to deal with this. Dispute resolution is never about knowing the outcome of it. Could it work, yes. Will it work, it's hard to say. I was hoping, as I said on DS' talkpage to refile if things didn't resolve out, so i'm not saying this won't need Arbitration yet, i'm saying not now. I'm not trying to slap arbitration procedure here, but as Floquenbeam said, this now makes it harder for me to refile down the road if I can't resolve it out. If someone had commented, the fine, I could see it, but no one did. You have already found everything that is being discussed so far at DS' talkpage, which hasn't gone far just yet. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Go Phightins!

It seems preposterous to me that this case has to remain open, notwithstanding the fact that the initiator no longer wishes to see an arbitration, and is exchanging dialogue with the other user in question. Isn't the whole point of arbitration a last resort to other forms of dispute/conflict resolution? Please let this close without someone voting accept ... Go Phightins! 19:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Floq

I understand the reopening was done because of a very specifically worded procedure here, but this would have been a great time to IAR. Now that it's back, I agree with GP that letting this fade away would be best for now. Discussion is ongoing.

And @Go Phightins!: regarding your edit summary: with two daughters, every time I see the words "let it go" now, a horrible song from Frozen starts running through my brain and I can't make it stop. If you do that to me again, I will block you indefinitely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• AGK: Well, the biggest development is that 36 minutes after it was filed, the filer decided to approach it another way, and withdrew the request before anyone - involved party, kibitzer, or arb - made any comment. I'm not sure why any other development needs to have occurred. But the filer did post on DS67's talk page, and began a discussion about it. I have no idea how they are going to deal with this, or if they will be successful, but I find it hard to believe that not giving them a chance to do so is for the best. The problem is, by resurrecting this now, before that discussion has a chance to go anywhere, I think it makes it very difficult for the filer to start a case if it doesn't work out in a week. That's why allowing it to be withdrawn (now, optimally, but in 13 hours if we must wait (or 4 hours if we count from DQ's initiation, and not AGK's restoration!)), without anyone voting accept or decline, would be best IMHO. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Bbb23

Considering that the probability is this will be declined, I just want to make a few procedural points. Although everyone was notified, those notifications were reverted when DQ withdrew the request, so they may not be aware of this request. DQ withdrew the case because, as I understand it, he thought that the only possible outcome was a desysop or nothing. I have since disabused him of that notion. Nonetheless, he still appears to want to keep this from ArbCom until there's more discussion on DS's talk page, and I believe we should honor his wish. @Worm That Turned: As is obvious from the discussion on DS's talk page, I, too, was unaware of DS's history. I'm glad I wasn't alone in that regard. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent

It seems to me the committee has enough time wasting, energy sapping pointless scutwork to do (i.e. WMF drama) without dragging cases out of the dustbin. I always thought the pillars were quite clear: Misplaced Pages has no firm rules: Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. Their principles and spirit matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Misplaced Pages requires making an exception. Let it go, let it go, turn away and slam the door! NE Ent

Statement by Nsk92

I am not familiar with the block issues that led to the current request and it seems that there is a rush to decline this case. But I feel that, as long as the case is being considered for possible acceptance, DF67's deletion practices should also be discussed. In my opinion, DF67's deletion summaries are consistently inadequate and have been so for years. I brought this matter up at ANI a few years ago but of course nothing happened. As far as I can tell, DF67 never closes any XfD's or PRODS and almost all (or perhaps all) of his deletions involves pages that have not been CSD tagged/PRODDed/XfDed by another editor. Presumably all of these deletions are done as CSDs, but the deletion summaries (with rare exceptions when G6 or G8 is mentioned) almost never indicate that a deletion is performed on WP:CSD grounds. Instead, typically DF67's deletion summaries provide a general verbal explanation such as "inappropriate use of user page", "overly promotional", "for user's own good", "notability not asserted", "this is not an article", etc. In the vast majority of cases these pages probably did need to be deleted, but that does not excuse the consistently inadequate nature of DF67's deletion summaries. First, when the specific deletion process (XfD,PROD or CSD) used to delete the page is not specified in the deletion summary, it is not clear which venue and how the page creator should use to appeal the deletion after it happened. Second, if, as it appears to be the case, DS67 deletes all these pages without CSD tagging them first, this deprives the page creators and other interested editors from the opportunity to contest deletion and possibly try to quickly improve the page. Usually, even in fairly obvious CSD A7 and A9 cases, the page's creator gets at least a few minutes of grace period to contest the deletion and try to improve the page after the page is CSD tagged and before it is actually deleted. (There are cases like CSD G6, where it is fine to delete a page without CSD tagging it first, but I would think that for most mainspace and user pages CSD tagging a page is necessary before the actual deletion). Third, it is not clear to me that it is appropriate for an admin to delete a page that he/she CSD tagged, even if a few minutes of grace period are given to the page's creator to contest a CSD nomination. CSD is a process that requires high precision and I always assumed that at least two sets of eyes (the person placing a CSD tag and then an admin performing the deletion) are needed in terms of checks and balances, except for technical cases. Fourth, many of DS67's deletion summaries appear problematic even if one interprets them as simply CSD nominations. For example, DF67 often uses "notability nota asserted" as the deletion summary for mainspace articles, e.g. After the Bounty (novel) ,Depression Alliance, EktavaGittipKyle Sweet (musician)Doctor Bizzaro And The Infinite Nim-TekKashf Al Qemmah , Liberation Day (game), Katharina Westerhorstmann, etc. It is not necessary for an article to assert notability even for surviving an AfD, and it is certainly not required for overcoming CSD A7 and A9 criteria that a page assert notability. What is needed to overcome CSD A7 and A9 is that an article provide some plausible indication of notability. There is a big difference between this and "asserting" notability. DF67 also deletes, again apparently without CSD tagging them first (and without using MfD) lots and lots of user pages; again presumably these deletions are made basically as CSD deletions, even though the deletion summaries used by DF67 do not indicate this. A typical deletion summary used by DF67 when deleting user pages is "inappropriate use of user page" User:Meikolove, User:SkeetStar/sandbox, User:Dlhobbs, User:Johnmassolo,User:Yamen atef8/sandbox, User:Natalieslittleyorkies, etc. Another favorite of DF67 is "for user's own good" User:BlueIvey,User:Fig72/sandbox,User:KieranBoyd123,User:Riley Bentham, etc. What are we supped to think happened here? Is he using CSD U5? CSD G11? Or something else? It's impossible to tell, and it is not even clear that for some of these user pages there is a relevant CSD criterion that could be invoked. Plus in general, deleting a user page is a pretty radical step that many editors take as an affront, and usually a prior warning to the author is in order possibly followed by an MfD. All of the above diffs/links refer to deletions that took place within the last 30 days. There are too many problems here as we are not talking about an occasional application of IAR but rather about a consistent deviation from our standard deletion procedures. Nsk92 (talk) 02:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

DragonflySixtyseven: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/3/0/2>-DragonflySixtyseven-2014-08-14T10:37:00.000Z">

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• Awaiting statements. AGK 10:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)"> ">

• @Go Phightins!: The procedure is quite clear.

  All: Could someone summarise what developments since this request was filed make arbitration no longer necessary? How exactly are the small group of editors involved going to deal with this? AGK 22:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• Full disclosure - I made a judgement regarding the most recent case and put down some conditions on the user in question, which I thought settled matters between DS and Bbb23. I was unaware of the history around the case and DS' previous unblocks. I don't believe I need to recuse, but if anyone feels I should, please do contact me. Now that's over - I'm awaiting statements, noting that this can be archived in 24 hours if no arbitrator accepts, as DQ has "withdrawn" his request. Worm(talk) 11:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
• Summarily decline, as withdrawn. I hope that the discussion elsewhere has been useful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
• Decline, if the filer thinks there's still hope short of arbitration, I'm inclined to hope so too. I also think that in cases like this, formal requests for comment can have a reasonable chance of success. I know that not everyone's fond of RfC/U, but it can show that the community believes a change to be necessary (or, alternatively, doesn't), and provide a firm basis for further action if those changes don't occur. The hope, of course, is that the clear statement would eliminate any need for us to take drastic action. Seraphimblade 22:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
• Decline (without prejudice) as withdrawn by filer. Salvio 09:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
• Decline without prejudice. I fully agree that this would have been a good time to WP:IAR and this needn't have been forced back open. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)