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

Revision as of 15:16, 29 January 2007 view sourceSuperDeng (talk \| contribs)1,937 edits →Unblocking of []← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 03:40, 31 January 2023 view source AmandaNP (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators45,707 edits What the actual fuckTags: Replaced Undo
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Wikimedia project page}}
	{{/Header}} <!-- frontmatter of this page -->
			<noinclude>{{pp-protected\|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>
			{{/Header}}
			{{/Case}}
			{{/Clarification and Amendment}}
			{{/Motions}}
			{{/Enforcement}}

	~~== Current~~ requests ==		]
			]
	<!-- // BEGIN TEMPLATE - copy text below, but not this line //

	=== Case Name ===

	: '''Initiated by ''' ~~~ '''at''' ~~~~~

	==== Involved parties ====

	; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

	; Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried


	==== Statement by {your name} ====

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

	----

	// END TEMPLATE - copy text above, but not this line // -->

	=== De- Adminship of ] ===

	: ''']''' filed '''09:36 AM, 29 January 2007''' 12:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

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


	==== Statement by {your name} ====
	I request that user:J Di loses her/his adminship, he/she has made numerous incivil comments towards other users, and violated the 3RR rule, on many occasions.

	==== Clerk notes ====
	:Contacted 1B6. ] 12:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

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

	----

	=== Unblocking of ] ===

	: '''Initiated by ''' ] '''at''' 19:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

	==== Involved parties ====

	:* {{userlinks\|SuperDeng}}
	:* {{admin\|Woohookitty}}


	; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
	:: ] 20:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	; Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried
	: I am perma blocked by the one admin {{user\|Woohookitty}} and was told to go here by {{user\|Fred Bauder}}.

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

	It has come to my attention that no where is it actual stated what I do/did on wiki 95% of my edits were reverts of very simple vandalism a number change here a word removal there sex, dick and boobs there most of my edits were reverting extremely simple vandalism. The real problems came with the last 5% which were content dispute and it was those 5% that caused so much drama.

	I want to be unblocked. I have been blocked now for 9 months, surely I have been thought my lesson.

	I was blocked by {{user\|Woohookitty}} in June 2006 he alone perma blocked me.

	'''To make it absolutely clear I am not after the admin who blocked me I just wanted to give a broader picture and to prove that most of the things that he said were and are not true. I strongly take absence from my previous acts and if I am unblocked and with mentorship I know that I can become a productive member of the society so I ask for a second chance.'''




	I was blocked by him for a few reasons here is the short version




	1 Sock puppetry, I really regret doing this and if I am unblocked I will not do it again. And I will work hard on resolving any underlying problems. I just want to edit wikipedia again and if I am allowed I will try my utmost not to cause trouble. I apologize for the past sockpupetry and swear not to ever do it again. Also I agree to sock puppetry probation and to a mentorship.




	2 {{user\|Woohookitty}} has been no angel and has breached many wikipedia rules, so it is only logical to remove me . This matter was for a brief period on the Misplaced Pages:Administrators noticeboard and since {{user\|Woohookitty}} had blocked he was free to write what ever he wanted in his own narrow way with many things that were not true and numerous personal attacks on me. The most obvious being perma blocking me '''which no single normal admin is allowed'''. Also he has perma blocked other users, but most of them were simple vandals with few edits. And what is interesting to note is that he continuous to not tell the truth and make personal attacks on me up to this very day, and he also changes his story when it becomes clear that he was not telling the truth in the first place.



	Bellow I have linked different statements by him and then links proving that he was not telling the truth it is as simple as pie to click on them and see that he is allergic to the truth.





	:Some examples of personal attacks by {{user\|Woohookitty}}
	:: "Deng posts on along with the passion of the nationalist fervor with which he and his supporters post"

	::"He's not going to change

	::"He isn't going to change."

	:: "Deng has been disruptive almost since day 1"

	:Examples that {{user\|Woohookitty}} does not want any insight into what he has been doing. And extra hard lobbying from his part to avoid at all cost of this matter coming up to arbcom level because then someone might actually see his behaviour and punish him for it.

	:: "The fact that this is even being discussed is completely ridiculous."

	:: "Go to ArbCom". WHY? So they can just confirm what I've said?"

	:: " As I stated above, some (including dmcdevit, who I respect greatly) have suggested arbcom but why waste their time on this?"

	::"My thoughts exactly. I mean, if this was just one vio and then sockpuppet use, I could see unblocking and giving him another shot. But he's been at this for a year now and yet he just continues on his merry way. He isn't going to change."

	:Examples of things said by {{user\|Woohookitty}} that are completely not true.

	::"He hasn't even attempted dispute resolution." {{user\|Woohookitty}} was referring to {{user\|Kurt Leyman}}

	:::Proof that "He hasn't even attempted dispute resolution." is not true

	::: There are others but one is plenty to prove that {{user\|Woohookitty}} is not telling the truth

	::"He knew about the 3RR rule and yet, even after warnings, he reverted someone EIGHT TIMES in 90 minutes." He is referring to me trying to add references to the Stalin page I did not make 8 reverts but EDITS. Back in '''May''' 2006 when they had just changed the system from the old reference system to the new one. Also that matter in it self is very complicated it was about the death toll of how many stalin killed and {{user\|Ultramarine}} is very skilled at not making reverts but adding templates and tags, in the end long after I left the death toll he left because it became clear that he was wrong when others came to the talk page and explained the numbers for him. Also I did do some reverts during these days but not 8 within 90 minutes. Also there was a long discussion going on the talk page during this period and after this period as well. The whole thing started with me re adding things that had gotten deleted, I often look at a page and compare the latest 500 or so edits to see if something has been deleted.

	:::Proof that "he reverted someone EIGHT TIMES in 90 minutes." is false

	edit

	edit

	edit

	edit

	edit

	edit

	edit

	edit

	edit




	:::Here are all edits during the time frame by all users who edited during the 24th of May 2006


	Mikkalai 00:08, 24 May 2006 <br>
	IP 71.139.7.5 02:57, 24 May 2006 <br>
	Sango123 03:04, 24 May 2006 <br>
	SuperDeng 10:37, 24 May 2006 <br>
	SuperDeng 10:51, 24 May 2006 <br>
	Ultramarine 12:05, 24 May 2006 <br>
	Mattbrundage 17:15, 24 May 2006 <br>
	SuperDeng 17:44, 24 May 2006 <br>
	C33 18:06, 24 May 2006 <br>
	SuperDeng 18:09, 24 May 2006 <br>
	SuperDeng 18:12, 24 May 2006 <br>
	SuperDeng 18:20, 24 May 2006 <br>
	SuperDeng 18:22, 24 May 2006 <br>
	Ultramarine 19:10, 24 May 2006 <br>
	C33 19:17, 24 May 2006 <br>
	Jareand 19:33, 24 May 2006 <br>
	Jareand 19:35, 24 May 2006 <br>
	SuperDeng 20:22, 24 May 2006 <br>
	SuperDeng 20:24, 24 May 2006 <br>
	Ultramarine 20:29, 24 May 2006 <br>
	SuperDeng 20:33, 24 May 2006 <br>
	SuperDeng 20:35, 24 May 2006 <br>
	Ultramarine 20:36, 24 May 2006 <br>
	Ultramarine 20:38, 24 May 2006 <br>
	SuperDeng 20:40, 24 May 2006 <br>
	SuperDeng 20:44, 24 May 2006 <br>
	IP 69.248.52.30 20:45, 24 May 2006 <br>
	Digitalme 20:46, 24 May 2006 <br>
	IP 69.158.69.49 20:49, 24 May 2006 <br>
	Keelm 20:49, 24 May 2006 <br>
	Ultramarine 20:52, 24 May 2006 <br>
	SuperDeng 20:57, 24 May 2006 <br>
	Ultramarine 21:03, 24 May 2006 <br>
	SuperDeng 21:10, 24 May 2006 <br>
	SuperDeng 21:12, 24 May 2006 <br>
	Ultramarine 21:19, 24 May 2006 <br>
	SuperDeng 21:24, 24 May 2006 <br>
	SuperDeng 21:24, 24 May 2006 <br>
	C33 21:26, 24 May 2006 <br>
	Art LaPella 23:52, 24 May 2006 <br>


	: ''About the Sock puppetry'';

	:: Some of the sock puppets are mine and some are not for example take {{User\|Daborhe}} he was blocked longed before my case come up on the request check user case and no clerk said he was mine but {{user\|Constanz}} (who now is also on this page, scroll down to Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945) just added the tag to my page and he "became" mine.

	:: Also {{user\|lokqs}} was created '''AFTER''' my original block was lifted, a 2 month block, about a week or so after and no edits had been made by SuperDeng so user lokqs could been seen new start but that did not matter it was called a sock puppet and I again was blocked for a month.

	: The Ultimate proof that {{user\|Woohookitty}} knows that he did was wrong. Is that once he found out that {{user\|Fred Bauder}} had granted me a chance to appeal {{user\|Woohookitty}} "left" wiki, probably thinking that the jug was up and that it was only a matter of time before he got blocked he changed his own user page to "I'm on an indefinite Wikibreak. I really don't need this place right now"

	: But when he noticed that I he had not been blocked he of curse then went directly back to lobbying so that I would not have any say.
	:And since it is all or nothing for him he might as well exaggerated and say things that are not true

	'''Summary'''

	I just want to edit wikipedia again and if I am allowed I will try my utmost not to cause trouble. I apologize for the past sockpupetry and swear not to ever do it again. Also I agree to sock puppetry probation and to a mentorship. To make it absolutely clear I am not after the admin who blocked me I just wanted to give a broader picture and to prove that most of the things that he said were and are not true. I strongly take absence from my previous acts and if I am unblocked and with mentorship I know that I can become a productive member of the society so I ask for a second chance.

	==== Statement by {{user\|Woohookitty}} ====
	There is a basic fundamental flaw in the statement above. That flaw is that it assumes that I am the only one who has ever blocked SuperDeng and that I'm the only one who has had problems with SuperDeng and that somehow I'm on this "crusade" to stop Deng. Look at . The idea that I blocked him just out of my own volition is pretty silly. He's been blocked by ], ], ], ], ] and ]. That is a very extensive list of blocking admins for just one user. And he's been blocked for much more than sockpuppetry. He was blocked for 3RR, disruption, personal attacks and for stalking ]. We had a situation from May to July 2006 where Kurt and Deng followed each other all over the site and reverted each other (best evidence of this is in Deng's where almost 40 edits in a row where reverts of Kurt at various articles. He got blocked 72 hours for that). And again, this isn't just me. Since the final blocking of Deng in late November, it has reviewed by several other admins, as you can see ] and on Deng's talk page. They include ], the aforementioned ] and others.

	And then we have the sockpuppet use. You can see the list of confirmed and suspected socks ]. And again, I'm not making this stuff up. ] is the list of CheckUser requests for Deng. It's quite extensive. And as you can see, the sockpuppets have generally been confirmed, even ones that weren't even being asked about, like The Green Fish. And again, I don't have CheckUser rights. These are other people who are confirming the sockpuppet use. And btw, User:Lokqs was confirmed as SuperDeng via CheckUser.

	I'm now going to answer the 8 reverts in 90 minutes thing. Hate to tell Deng this but I wasn't referring to what he thinks I am referring to. In fact, he wasn't even blocked for what he is referring to. He was blocked on May 18th by another user (]) for disruption at Joseph Stalin. He was then blocked on the 28th of May by me for the constant reverts of Kurt Leyman as mentioned above. That's where the 8 times in 90 minutes came from, not from the Stalin article. And actually, it was more than 8. Much more. From 00:32 on May 28th to 1:09 on May 28th, we have the following reverts: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . That's an incredible amount of reverts in a short time. Almost all of the reverts were of Kurt Leyman. That is the "someone" I was referring to in ]. So it was actually much much more than 8.

	And you know, the "attacks" he refers to above weren't attacks. They were true statements. Deng first edited as ] in late November 2005. His first block (which isn't reflected in the block log listed above) was in . So. Was it "from the start". Maybe not. But it was certainly early on in his time here.

	In the end, I think you can see the main problem with SuperDeng. He never takes responsibility. It's never ever his fault. All of the blocks were the faults of others. Either it was Kurt Leyman's fault or mine or some other admin. In the end, even in his statement above, there is no evidence that he didn't violate policy. It's all "it's woohookitty's fault". And as I said, I'm not making his policy violations up. He's stalked. He's violated 3RR. He's been guilty of a number of personal attacks. is indicitive of his general attitude towards others. They are always "wrong" or "pro-Nazi" or somehow at fault. is another one where he calls another user "wrong". And yes he requested a Request for Comment (on my advice I might add). But that's really all he's done in terms of working with others. is an example of how he interacts with others.

	Have I been perfect when it comes to Deng? No. Have I been a bit "bitchy" at times? Yes. But you know. He's a very very frustrating user. As you can see on his talk page, it's not like I came into this with guns blazing. On the contrary. I've actually attempted to help Deng several times when it comes to Misplaced Pages policy. But again, his response is usually to attack and to assume the worst. Did I think about leaving when the prospect of this case came about. Yes. Why? Because I have presented evidence of Deng's misbehavior at least 6-7 times. To AN. To AN/I. To admins reviewing his case. And honestly, I'm tired of it. I have gotten nothing about grief from this user since my early contacts with him. Just one example if from Feb. 11th. I had protected the Eastern Front (World War II) page due to a request for protection. Well, one of the users involved (Constanz) asked if he could request an edit to be made. Well this is a normal request. But somehow this became Constanz being a "friend" of mine as you can . So you know. The prospect of doing this yet again didn't exactly thrill me.

	One more thing. Up above, Deng says several times that I've said that he won't change. It's not a personal attack. In fact, it's absolutely true. That statement up above about his "underlying problems" is the first time I've seen Deng even acknowledge that he's done something wrong. He is the exact same user I first dealt with in 2005. He's had more chances that any user I know of. Even while he had his first long block last June, he couldn't resist making sockpuppets, thus violating more policies. He is not going to change.

	So I really hope that his block is upheld. Because. Honestly, I don't see where another chance is going to change anything. I mean. You know it's a problem user when he thinks that I am talking about one date where he made so many reverts that it might've violated policy when I was actually talking about another day when he did made so many reverts (and btw, he made 15+ edits to the Stalin article on the 24th, not 8). And there are others. And I'm sorry that this is so lengthy. --]<sup>]</sup> 21:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

	*Um. I didn't say in the post you and I both referenced to that it was 8 reverts to the same article. Verbatim...

	"He knew about the 3RR rule and yet, even after warnings, he reverted someone EIGHT TIMES in 90 minutes" . I don't see a mention of a specific article there.

	*And as for the "he hasn't presented his case that many times" thing, that's classic Deng. Even in the face of facts, he will yell "you are wrong!". And even after I put up the links to the times I've presented my case, he will still say "you are wrong!". . And , . And this is just from AN. Are there other times beyond these? Yes. But you know, I think 3 is enough to show that I've been through this a few times. It's not quite presenting but I've also given evidence on SuperDeng's page. I have always been open with him. I always try to warn before blocking and I always gave explicit reasons for the block. This idea that I have ever "hid" my actions or my intentions is silly. If Deng wants me to put links up to all of the times where I've explained to him on his talk page why I've blocked him or times where I've warned him before blocking, I can, but it's right there on his talk page.

	*So this is the problem with Deng. You present him facts and he still says you are wrong. it's just. Very frustrating. --]<sup>]</sup> 01:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

	*I'm going to try this again. Did I cite the 3RR rule in that post? Yep. But #1, the block log made no mention of the 3RR rule. And honestly Deng, what you did was worse. I cited about 20 reverts you did of Kurt and others in a half hour period. To me, does that fit the letter of the 3RR policy? No. But I think it's much worse because you hit many more articles. And in the end, this is classic you, Deng. You take a small point and completely ignore the 20 reverts in half an hour/26 reverts in 2 hours thing. In other words, no responsibility even hinted at. That's why your unbanning is probably not going to happen. Any inkling that you are genuinely going to change and the arbcom will give you another chance. You can see that in some of the responses on this page and also on your talk page. But statements like the ones given here show absolutely no inkling to change. There are no apologies I see for your past behavior. And it's extensive. It's not as if all of your blocks are based on this one 30 minute period. You've made no attempt to explain or apologize for other 3RR vios or the personal attacks or the stalking of Kurt or the fact that you've edit warred at ], ], ] and other articles. And again, this isn't just me. Look at JzG. Look at the other admins who have blocked you. The ArbCom is giving you a legitimate last chance to show them that you will change. Fred Bauder doesn't unblock people often and he doesn't do it for the heck of it. He wanted to hear a legitimate appeal, not "Woohookitty is an abuser!". Anyway, this is my last word on this subject as some point, this just becomes an argument and I don't any use in that. --]<sup>]</sup> 08:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====
	I have really only one question here: why on earth would we want to unblock this obsessive, abusive, disruptive, POV-pushing block-evading sockpuppetter? The admin community debated it, and nobody could be found who would reverse the block because the closer you look, the worse SuperDeng's editing appears. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	* Also: accusing Woohookitty of lying is not very smart - Kitty is one of our fairer admins, given to assuming good faith. As with any admin there may be errors, but I don't see any evidence of that here, only of ] on the part of Deng, patiently corrected and then firmly resisted. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

	==== Response to statement by ] by ] ====

	You were one of the people who read the ani board where I was unable to edit and {{user\|Woohookitty}} was free to write what ever he wanted but now when I have proven him wrong and proved that he was not telling the truth several times. And the closer you look like I have done and actual link things the more and more you can see that {{user\|Woohookitty}} is not telling the truth, for example he said I am no attempt to a dispute resolution when it came to Kurt I provde him wrong so he tried to ignore that part. He said that I made 8 REVERTS within 90 minutes and made it sound so that it was to the same article and now he tries to make several edits to the same article a bad thing, the only thing that is crystal clear here is {{user\|Woohookitty}} trying at every corner to change real facts and turn them into something they are not like for example me making 8 reverts to the same article which I never did which has been proven and now he is trying something new something else. And where have I pow pushed show me if you can not link it and actual prove it then dont accuse me of it. And nothing was true of what {{user\|Woohookitty}} said on the ani board which I have proven above except of curse the names ] 22:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

	* I proved that he was not telling the truth about the 8 reverts within 90 min he said that I made 8 reverts within 90 min even though I knew about the 3rr rule which applied that I did it on the same article, now he changed it. Also I proved that he did not tell the truth when he said that I had made no attempt to a dispute resolution which I linked and proved him wrong. Again and again I proved with links and the whole 9 yards that he is not telling the complete truth and unlike him I tell the whole story and do not twist or alter things. To make it absolutely clear I am not after the admin who blocked me I just wanted to give a broader picture and to prove that most of the things that he said were and are not true. I strongly take absence from my previous acts and if I am unblocked and with mentorship I know that I can become a productive member of the society so I ask for a second chance.] 23:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

	==== Response to statement by ] by ] ====

	Again we can see ] trying to twist facts and alter the fabric of reality to fit his own views. There have been some admins that have blocked me but ] wants to paint out a picture that all of them somehow share his views. So lets look at what they all did. ] did block me but that user was a close friend of ] and ] was forced to leave wiki on unrelated events. ] blocked me once for 12 hours for a 3rr which I did do, ] blocked me once for 24 hours, ] also blocked me one time but was unable to block me correctly and that is why he blocked to unblock to block to unblock which made my block log very long, ] blocked me for one month because he was accused of ] of playing favorites with me so he need to prove that he was as pure as snow, ] blocked me related to the lokqs issue which I explained above. And '''NO''' user lokqs was never a proven sock puppet until I actually said he was mine a few lines above because no ip check was possible. As can be seen this continuous pattern of {{user\|Woohookitty}} twisting and turning actual events only serves to prove his complete and total unfitness to be an admin.

	Again it is clear as day that {{user\|Woohookitty}} is not telling the truth when he says that "He's been guilty of a number of personal attacks." The only one here who is guilty of a number of personal attacks is {{user\|Woohookitty}} most recently my "rambly" request If he says that I have made many personal attacks then he must also prove it, just saying so does not make it so, and if he is unable to find any because they simply do not exists then he should be blocked this is yet just another perfect example of {{user\|Woohookitty}} twisting and turning things to fit his own views.

	And in response to {{user\|Woohookitty}} home made list is that most of those are not mine and tags have just been added such as {{user\|Daborhe}} others are most likely a creation of {{user\|Woohookitty}} just incase my case ever made it here so that he could say oo look at Deng he never stops making sock puppets.

	What can be clearly seen is {{user\|Woohookitty}} trying to hide information and make things up for example the 8 reverts in 90 min he originally wrote it so that they were all in the same article but now he changed it to several articles, he himself has made more then 8 reverts in 90 minutes if you do like him and count all articles ever edited. This is a perfect example of him trying to twist the fabric of reality to fit his own views. And he continues to twist and turn real events he was the one who said that I did 8 reverts on the same article within 90 minutes which has been proven wrong so now he was forced to change his story, and yes I did make 14 edits and 1 revert to one page during one day but those were edits again he tries to twist and turn the facts.

	Again {{user\|Woohookitty}} tries to twist and turn things he has presented my case 6-7 times then why does he not link it could it be that it does not exist or what they said did not favour {{user\|Woohookitty}}. And look at the final comments {{user\|Woohookitty}} now it is edits before it were reverts it even became so absolutely clear to {{user\|Woohookitty}} that I did not make 8 reverts to the same article within 90 minutes which he so loudly blasted but that I made edits, this and this alone proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that {{user\|Woohookitty}} has abused his admin privileges.


	* {{user\|Woohookitty}} after being proved so completely wrong was forced to change his story from 8 reverts in the same article to 8 reverts in different articles, also it is interesting to note that he does not touch the fact about other things that he has said that were not true that for example I made no attempt on a dispute resolution with kurt and the fact that I linked and proved him wrong only proves ones again that he does not tell the truth and twists things but maybe it is just my “rambly “ “nationalistic fervor” speaking.


	* What are you talking about are you changing your version yet again first it was 8 reverts to the same article within 90 minutes I proved that wrong then It became 8 reverts within 90 min to many articles and now it is 20 reverts within 30 min you really cant stick to one story now can you, and if I was you I would be more worried about losing my adminship for you personal attacks and changing your story every 2 seconds. Lets not forget the mention of me never ever trying a dispute resolution, ooh wait was is this a frog maybe? And what personal attack do you mean perhaps the" Deng posts on along with the passion of the nationalist fervor with which he and his supporters post" "He's not going to change" "He isn't going to change." "Deng has been disruptive almost since day " are you referring to those personal attacks perhaps? And the other admin who blocked did so all once except your friend that was forced out. I have replied to this but yet time after time after time after time you twist things or totally ignore them. Not so easy to argue against real links so you choose just to ignore them and make up stories. And finally do not talk or assume to know anything about what other users do or think. And it is clear that you are grasping at straws when you dig up things I did one year ago unlike the statement of 8 reverts to the same article within 90 min which you trumpeted up until I absolutely proved you wrong in the most absolute and total way or that I have never attempted a dispute resolution then what is this right here , it is clear to anyone who actually clicks on any of the links that you are not telling the truth and are twisting things to fit your own views. And now you are somehow trying to paint a picture that several reverts to several articles is bad you yourself have done 40 50 60 reverts to different articles within 60 min. It is so clear that you are twisting and altering things to fit your own views.

	==== Comment by Sam Blanning ====

	I think JzG has adequately summarised SuperDeng's past behavior, but since it's impossible to be certain at this stage whether he will or will not repeat it if unblocked, let's look at the request for unblocking:

	#''"surely I have been thought my lesson"'' - surely? I would most people to actually ''know'' whether they've learnt a lesson.
	#''"I really regret doing this and if I am unblocked I will not do it again"'' - fair enough, impossible to prove either way, but given the number of chances we give people before they get banned - well in excess of the number of chances the average organisation gives - any desire to change after being banned comes a bit late, and is probably solely centred around getting the ban lifted, not any actual recognition of why it occurred.
	#''"Woohookitty has been no angel and has breached many wikipedia rules"'' - even if this was true, it is totally irrelevant.
	#''"...so it is only logical to remove me so that I can not take appropriate actions."'' Well, there's the question for the Arbcom - should we unblock Superdeng so he can bring Woohookitty to justice, which we've inexplicably failed to do. --]<sup>]</sup> 23:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


	==== Response to comment by Sam Blanning by SuperDeng ====

	The statement of JzG does not in any way shape or form summarizes my behavior all it does is summarize Woohookitty twisted views which he posted and I was unable to comment on because he had blocked me.

	Woohookittys behavior is not irrelevant and again I have proven it with links that it is true that he does not tell the truth and twists facts. And he has been unable to prove anything of what he said on the ani board which JzG bases his statement on to be true.

	And no I have no wish to prosecute Woohookitty for his blatant personal attacks and numerous things that were not true for example that I REVERTED the same article 8 times within 90 minutes which he said several times and which I have linked and proven that he was not telling the truth. And JzG bases his statement on the fact that I reverted one article 8 times within 90 minutes to be true.

	So the question is or more correctly are have I served enough time and for how much longer will Woohookitty be able to say things that are not true and block people left and right with perma bans even though no single normal admin is allowed to do that.

	To make it absolutely clear I am not after the admin who blocked me I just wanted to give a broader picture and to prove that most of the things that he said were and are not true. I strongly take absence from my previous acts and if I am unblocked and with mentorship I know that I can become a productive member of the society so I ask for a second chance.


	] 00:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

	==== Clerk notes ====

	==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/0/0) ====
	* Decline. ] Co., ] 21:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	* Decline. No evidence that the community ban was not entirely appropriate, or that the user has learnt anything from the experience. ] 02:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
	* Decline. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
	----

	=== Ball Python ===

	: '''Initiated by ''' ] '''at''' 08:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

	==== Involved parties ====

	]

	]

	]

	; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request




	; Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried

	] see ]

	] see ]

	==== Statement by Jhall1468 ====

	] and ] have routinely added a single link to the External Links section of the ] article, in violation of ] guidelines, namely sections 1-5 under Links normally to be avoided.

	] did not agree to mediation, and appears to be the owner of the site that was linked to. Once said accusation was made ] no longer posted to the ] page and ] took his/her place.

	Link in question: . Scrolling ~10% down shows the page is inundated with affiliate links, and the "articles" listed are available elsewhere. ] 08:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

	==== Clerk notes ====
	: (This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)
	==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/0/0) ====
	* Decline. I suggest you instead take this matter up with the kind folks at the ]. ] Co., ] 10:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	* Decline. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	* Decline per UninvitedCompany. ] <small>(])</small> 15:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	* Decline, per UninvitedCompany. ] 16:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	* Decline per UninvitedCompany. ] ] 17:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	* Decline. ''']''' (]) 05:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
	----

	=== ] ===

	: '''Initiated by ''' ] '''at''' 17:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

	==== Involved parties ====

	:* {{user\|NuclearUmpf}} (formerly known as {{user\|Zer0faults}}, hereafter known as "]<s>]</s>"
	:* {{user\|Rangeley}}
	:* {{user\|Alecmconroy}}

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

	; Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried
	:*Discussion on ] has occurred regularly and nearly continuously since April 2006.
	:*There have been 3 RFC/Straw Polls and 2 Mediation Cabal cases .
	:*A ] and ] against NuclearUmpf have also tried to resolve this behavior.



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

	Rangeley and ]<s>]</s> have repeatedly disrupted Misplaced Pages by their behavior on ] and related articles.


	====={{user\|NuclearUmpf}} = {{user\|Zer0faults}} = ]<s>]</s>=====
	]<s>]</s> has a history of tendentious editing on articles involving the War on Terrorism. ] found that he has "engaged in editwarring and other disruptive editing" and has "failed to negotiate in good faith, engaging in repetitive assertions and circular logic". Despite being placed on probation, ]<s>]</s> has continued to disrupt the encyclopedia-- he has been for violations of policy. On the ] article, he has engaged in edit warring, presenting his own political POV as fact rather than opinion. ]<s>]</s> has on multiple occasions cited a particular straw poll as support for his actions, despite knowing that the poll's results were obtained through vote-stacking. He continued to knowingly misrepresenting consensus using this poll, falsely claiming his actions were supported by consensus in excess of "25-to-1", even after an administrator had reiterated that the poll was completely invalid. Similarly, he has repeatedly misrepresented consensus through "creative counting"-- knowingly excluding the opinions of users who posted before or after a narrow time window.

	:;Example edits from ]<s>]</s>:
	:*Repeated reinsertions, edit warring, presenting POV as fact:
	:*Knowingly citing a consensus based on a poll obtained through vote-stacking, despite multiple admins who reinterated no consensus was acheived.:
	:*Misrepresenting consensus through "creative counting":

	====={{user\|Rangeley}}=====
	Rangeley has engaged in the most egregious edit warring that I have ever personally encountered. He has reinserted the disputed text some '''__seventy-eight__''' times. In doing so, he has repeated presented his own opinion political POV as fact rather than opinion. He has repeatedly engaged in vote-stacking for the purposes of justifying his actions-- in one instance, for example, he contacted every single member of the to get them to vote in a poll. He continued to cite this poll, even after several admins reiterated to him that its results were completely invalid. Despite being issued direct warnings by several admins never to engage in similar conduct, Rangeley has contined to engage in vote-stacking, selectively contacting individuals likely to support his position rather than filing an RFC. Similarly, he has repeatedly misrepresented consensus through "creative counting"-- knowingly excluding the opinions of users who posted before or after a narrow time window.

	:;Example edits from Rangeley:
	:*Repeated reinsertions, edit warring, presenting POV as fact:
	::: + about 60 more edits just like them.
	:*Vote-stacking in a straw poll:
	:*Citing the result of a poll (in which he had engaged in aggressive vote-stacking) after being told by multiple admins that the poll was invalid:
	:*:''"And I dont understand why you continue to use a May poll and ignore the which was 25-4 and occured after discussion had occured and not before."''



	==== Statement by Rangeley ====
	I do not beleive that the "previous attempts at dispute resolution" he has listed are adequate proof that he has made an effort to resolve this dispute. Several of them were straw polls, for instance, some were RFC's dealing directly with a content dispute and not this issue in particular, and the one dealing directly with Nuclearumpf was about a different issue entirely. We are holding a discussion currently and trying to reach a consensus on this dispute.

	Further, I take issue with the claims he has waged against me. I did contact people within a group in June, and after ] talked to me about it I apologized for it, and took the warning not to do it again seriously. I did not "votestack" yesterday, I contacted several members who participated in creating the previous consensus - most of whom disagreed with me before later coming to a middleground with me and others - as well as contacted several members, Petercorless and Tewfik in particular, who I saw as objective, uninvolved editors who had put considerable effort into the Somalian and Lebanese war articles and shown themselves to be fair. Here is an example of my invite to discussion , where I merely ask for input without any leading on one way or another. Alec also invited people, but arguably led them on with his language . However, when I invited people, he restated a bad faith assessment in saying "Others say that you've just taken a moment to recruit meatpuppets to do your editing for you." Whoever these "others" are, their bad faith views did not deserve restating.

	As well as these, he took my quote out of context for a second time. The statement he linked to, shows me point out that he was wrong to state a straw poll to be a consensus, and further, it was not even the most recent poll taken. He did the very same thing here .

	I have been at Misplaced Pages for quite a while, and worked on this article for quite a while. 70+ reverts is a lot no matter how you look at it, however taken under the context of a nearly year long involvement, it is a bit easier to understand. I have been committed to making sure that verifiable information is presented at Misplaced Pages, not my "personal convictions." I think this is a bad faith assessment of what I have been working for. I restated most recently my view here , to summarize, a campaign is definable by its maker ("The Great Leap Forward" was definable by its maker as well), things are a part of the campaign as determined by the government carrying it out - regardless of whether something is a "great leap forward" or "fighting terror" in actuality. The US government, in authorizing the use of force, did so to "prosecute the War on Terrorism" , this is verifiable. It is therefore proper to state it here as part of the US-led campaign. ~'''] (])''' 19:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

	==== Statement by NucleaUmpf ====

	Here is the run down:

	For Inclusion:
	* Rangeley
	* KevinPuj
	* Top Gun
	* Publicus
	* TheFEARgod
	* Tewfik
	* NuclearUmpf
	* GTBacchus

	Against
	* Alecmconroy
	* Timeshifter
	*
	The items stood in the template for months with no problem. Alecmconroy appears and decides there is a concensus because 40 peopl ehave reverted the changes over the past year. However he ignores that of those 40 people many were sockpuppets, which was pointed out, some had changed their minds after having removed it. There was a past concensus that formed in a 25-2 manner for its inclusion. After this was reached there was a peace. Alecmconroy is trying to subvert that by now coming here. PS this si a content dispute and the talk page shows everyone trying to talk to Alecmconroy, but him stating he will not accept it in the infobox under any circumstances, period, not really Misplaced Pages spirit. --]<s>]</s> 18:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

	Just to note I tried pointing out that many of the past edits, from Novemeber, was me reverting a sockpuppet vandal. but it seems Alecmconroy felt it was vandalism to point this out. I would have thought if he was interested in the truth he would have left those edits in. --]<s>]</s> 19:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

	==== Statement by Bobblehead ====

	To be fair, prior to editting the article on January 26 and 27, Nuclear/Zero has not been involved in the discussion or editting on Iraq War since November. So while Nuclear was involved in previous conflicts on Iraq War (as was I), it's a bit disingenuous to include him in this arbcom case for actions he performed as Zer0faults months ago.
	--] 18:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

	==== Statement by KevinPuj ====

	It is unfortunate that an RFAr had to be brought in when it appeared that many editors were coming closer to a compromise on the proposed wording at the heading of the infobox. I would like to hear the committee's comments on not only the behavior but the issue itself. ] 18:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

	==== Statement by Timeshifter ====

	Alecmconroy compiled a who did not want "War on Terrorism" (WOT) in the infobox. Someone else linked to a May 2006 showing that many people did not want it in the infobox. I pointed out that ] and ] require that the use of the word "terrorism" be put in context. That has already been done in a long section in the article called . The wikipedia guideline on the use of the word terrorism can not be met in the limited space of an infobox. It would take at least a paragraph. Quotes ("War on Terrorism") will not suffice. Neither will the addition of a few words like "campaign", or "Bush's War on Terrorism", or "U.S. War on Terrorism," or "According to some sources, Iraq is part of WOT, while other sources say Iraq is not part of WOT", etc.. It is a complex issue, as can be seen in the article section. This wikipedia guideline has been discussed in several talk sections, too:

	I came into this dispute later than others. My interest was in how the wikipedia terrorism guideline did, or did not, apply. That specific guideline did not seem to have been discussed previously. There was a , but it was not about WOT being in the infobox. It was about whether the Iraq War was a part of WOT. That June 2006 discussion seems to be subject to . The May 2006 discussion and poll said something interesting. It mentioned that using the same logic, the Iraq War could be labeled in the infobox as something like this: "Part of Bush's campaign against the ]." The phrase "War on Terrorism" is offensive to many people in both the Western and non-Western world, because it is such an obvious propaganda slogan. Misplaced Pages should never put propaganda slogans in the narrative voice of any wikipedia page. It must be put in context.

	Another issue is that ] would also require the infobox to have the campaign names of the many insurgent groups from Iraq and from outside Iraq who are now fighting in Iraq. Also the nations and groups outside Iraq who are aiding insurgents in the Iraq War. Shall we put "Part of Iran's long campaign against the ]" in the infobox? What are the campaign names of the foreign Sunni ] fighters? The issue is not whether these slogans and campaign names exist or not. But how Misplaced Pages uses these phrases. Many Iranians, Americans, Saudi Arabians, Sunnis, Wahhabis, Shiites, etc. do not agree with the minority viewpoints of Bush and the other more radical religious extremists who are fighting inside Iraq, or who are aiding combatants in Iraq. Moderates on all sides would say "that is not my campaign, so why is my affiliation being smeared by association?"

	I think wikipedia needs a guideline saying that infoboxes should not have inflammatory info in them. That info needs to be put in context in the text of articles according to ].

	In their lists or statements about the number of editors who are against WOT being in the infobox some people conveniently leave out many of these editors who have spoken out against it just in the last month or 2:
	*savidan
	*csloat
	*Timeshifter
	*Alecmconroy
	*UnfairlyImbalanced
	*Bobblehead
	*Wgbc2032

	Also, some editors talk about some kind of previous "consensus" or "agreement". I have yet to find any kind of consensus or agreement about the WOT being in the infobox. See my previous points and links about the various polls, discussions, and interpretations of them.

	I am not saying that "War on Terrorism" is not a phrase being used. The wikipedia guideline says this:

	:Not encyclopedic:
	:* X is a terrorist group.
	:* Y, leader of the X terrorists, ...
	:* After a rapid military response, the X terrorists abandoned the hostages.

	The USA or Bush or old Congressional resolutions (before the war and before the insurgency!) make a blanket statement that the Iraq War is part of the "War on Terrorism". Putting it in the Iraq War infobox means that all opponents of the USA in this war are being called terrorists. That is in the "not encyclopedic" list. --] 11:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

	==== Statement by Publicus ====
	This incident referred by Alecmconroy is primarily a discussion of content. The discussion by all parties on this "part of war on terrorism" issue has been heated, but I have not seen any behavior issues which call for a '''Request for Arbitration.'''

	In my opinion, Rangeley has merely been a tenacious and amazingly consistent editor, especially in keeping up the original agreement on the content. The fact that he has had to make so many edits on this, has more to do with knee-jerk editing by new editors to the fray (of which I was once one of those knee-jerk editors opposed to Rangeley's position) instead of any problems on his part.

	This incident should just be allowed to run its course on the ] discussion page. Thanks. <font color="green">]</font> 03:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

	==== Clerk notes ====
	: (This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)
	==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/4/0/0) ====
	*Accept. ] <small>(])</small> 21:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
	*Decline. There has been no useful RFC on this matter, and once the content dispute is elided, there's not enough left for us to pass any remedies we haven't already passed. ] Co., ] 10:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	*Decline per UninvitedCompany. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	*Decline, per UninvitedCompany. ] 16:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	*Decline. This seems to be essentially a content dispute. The issues surrounding conduct seem secondary, and prior conduct dispute resolution insufficient. ] ] 18:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	----

	=== Prem rawat ===

	: '''Initiated by '''NikWright2'''at''' 15:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

	==== Involved parties ====
	*{{userlinks\|Nik Wright2}}
	*{{userlinks\|Gstaker}}
	*{{admin\|Jossi}}

	; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

	provide diffs showing that the involved parties have been notified on their talk pages

	; Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried


	==== Statement Nik Wright2 ====

	'''Fairness and Balance'''

	Along with others I am named in a document (which is claimed to be a sworn affidavit) which is linked from a Misplaced Pages article ] and a User talk page ], elements of that document are defamatory. The article ] itself carries no acknowledgment that there are active critics of the biographical subject of the article (Prem Pal Singh Rawat) and all links to sources which acknowledge that there are active critics and which represent the views of those critics have been determinedly removed by supporters of Prem Rawat.

	I have sought resolution of this issue by (a) contacting the Wikimedia Foundation: see Point 8. Attempted Resolution 1 ] and (b) by reference to the Mediation Cabal. see: Point 9. These two attempts are now locked in an apparent Logic Loop of circular referral. see: Point 12. ].

	I do not claim a position of NPOV - my role as a Misplaced Pages editor is 'under protest' as it appears to be the only way I can establish a 'fair and balanced' treatment of 'my position' - in this sense it is Misplaced Pages, (by linking to material which defames me) that has sought me out, rather than my having come to Misplaced Pages in any disinterested sense. I am entirely happy to be known as a critic of Prem Rawat and his organisations, I simply wish that a level playing field should exist within Misplaced Pages, between the subject of a Misplaced Pages biography and those whom the subject of the article and or her/his supporters, wish to attack. see: ].

	'''Issues Raised in the Mediation Cabal'''

	A. Imbalance of editing: Rigid policing by Prem Rawat's supporters. see: Point 1 ]

	B. Existence of a web ring - multiple sites interlinking and governed by the same POV. see: Point 1 ]

	C. Nature of the relationship between the Prem Rawat supporting organisations and the websites quoted as sources within the article. see: Point 2 ]

	D. Veracity of the defaming document. see: Point 4. ]

	E. Status of the 'publisher' of the defamatory document. see: Point 5. ]

	F. Status of Misplaced Pages editors relative to legal action entailing the defaming document. see Point 6. ]

	'''Other Pertinent Issues'''

	The matter of paid representatives of organisations and individuals acting as editors of Misplaced Pages articles about those organisations and individuals is of current concern. In this respect User Jossi ] has been open about his relationship with the Rawat promotional movement ] however perhaps some examination of his role in Rawat articles may be required despite his candour.

	==== Statement by {{user\|Jossi}} ====
	The issue at hand is if the inclusion of a web link on the article {{la\|Prem Rawat}}, whose linked page includes an affidavit ''by a third party'' filed with the ], in which Mr Wright2 is mentioned, is compliant with Misplaced Pages content policies or not.

	Mr Wight asserts that "I am named in a document (which is claimed to be a sworn affidavit) which is linked from a Misplaced Pages article". This is incorrect:

	# The Prem Rawat article does not mention Mr. Wright's name
	# The web page linked from the ] article does not mention Mr. Wright
	# The page in question contains a link to an affidavit filed with the Supreme Court of Queensland, by a person named John MacGregor. MacGregor is not affiliated with Prem Rawat or a related organization.
	# There is no direct link from the article to the affidavit
	# This affidavit names Mr. Wright in a manner that Mr. Wright may find objectionable.

	As the Misplaced Pages article does not contain a direct link to that affidavit, Mr. Wright's would be better advised to to contact the person that filed that affidavit, rather than pursue dispute resolution in this forum.

	This is the passage in question (my highlight):

	<blockquote>
	] describes that in the mid-1970s several ex-members became vocal critics. Some of the criticism leveled at Rawat derives from Robert Mishler, former President of DLM (who died in 1979) who made allegations against Rawat about purported anxiety .According to Melton in a 1986 article, Mishler's complaints that the ideals of the group had become impossible to fulfill and that money was increasingly diverted to Maharaji's personal use found little support and did not affect the progress of the Mission.<ref>Melton. ''Encyclopedic Handbook'' pp.144-5 <br />"However as the group withdrew from the public eye, little controversy followed it except the accusations of Robert Mishner , the former president of the Mission who left in 1977. Mishner complained that the ideals of the group had become impossible to fulfill and that money was increasingly diverted to Maharaj Ji's personal use. Mishner's charges found little support and have not affected the progress of the Mission."</ref>
	Another scholar, James Lewis, notes a number of ex-members made claims of brainwashing and mind control.<ref>Lewis ''The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions'', p.210<br/>"a number of ex-members became critics of the movement, attacking it with charges of brainwashing and mind control"</ref> '''In an ] article about ''opposition to Maharaji and his message'', Elan Vital claims that there are a handful of former students that actively engage in opposing Rawat, his students and organizations, and lists a series of complaints against them. ''''<ref></ref>

	<references />
	</blockquote>

	It should be noted that the affidavit in question was at a certain point mentioned in one of the articles. The mention of the affidavit was removed last year (September 2006 ) after a discussion that included an extended exchange about the lack of reliable secondary sources on the subject of the small group of "active critics" referred by Mr Wright. (added ] <small>]</small> 04:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC))

	; Mediation Cabal
	Mr. Wright filed a mediation request with the mediation cabal, but was not satisfied with the process, mainly using that process to air his grievances against Prem Rawat and related organizations, myself and other editors (which the mediator ether factored out or stroke them out). See ].

	;Other issues

	As for Mr. Wright2's assertion about criticism of Prem Rawat being "policed out" I would draw the attention of the ArbCom to the article ] (whose full contents have been recently merged into the main article by ] upon concerns of being a POV fork) in which criticism sourced to reliable sources is explored in detail. (added ] <small>]</small> 04:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC))

	Also note that the article about ] has been edited extensively by a substantial number of editors over the last two and a half years, the result of which is that it is one of the most carefully annotated and meticulously sourced biographies in Misplaced Pages. Recent editors to this article include ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and others. This is in contradiction to Mr. Wright's assessment of an "Imbalance of editing: Rigid policing by Prem Rawat's supporters".

	; Profuse links
	Mr Wright asserts that "Elan Vital is linked profusely from this and other articles". This is incorrect. See ]. The website of Elan Vital is linked four times from the article ] and twice more from other articles, as well as some talk page archives.

	; Conflict of interest
	As it pertains to my ], I would want to inform the ArbCom that after my ] to this effect, I have been extremely cautious with my edits, have only made non-contentious contributions to the article, and have as per guidelines, offered scholarly material and other sources and opinions in talk, for involved editors' evaluation. See for example ]. I have added new scholarly material here and there only after ensuring that there were no objections from other editors. I have also attempted to maintain basic talk-page discipline and encouraged involved editors to refrain from editwarring and to discuss ways to improve the article instead. Unfortunately, some editors still believe that reverting each other accomplishes something, despite the fact that it does not. See last iteration of this ].

	] <small>]</small> 23:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

	==== Statement by {write party's name here} ====

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

	==== Clerk notes ====
	: (This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)
	==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/1/1) ====
	*Please provide diffs showing that the other two involved users have been notified, and provide a brief summary of previous steps in dispute resolution attempted in the appropriate section. Thanks. ] <small>(])</small> 21:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
	*Decline. I believe that content matters raised by article subjects and others who are directly affected by an article are squarely outside our remit and inside that of the OTRS team. I note you have already contacted them. ] Co., ] 10:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	* Reject, not seeing an ArbCom case here. Will review again if more information is provided. ] 17:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	*Recuse ] 17:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	*Reject per UC. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	* Decline, per FloNight. ] ] 18:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	----

	=== Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945 ===

	: '''Initiated by ''' ] - ] '''at''' 10:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	==== Involved parties ====

	:{{user\|Constanz}}- iniated the arbitration
	:{{user\|Vecrumba}}
	:{{user\|Martintg}}
	:{{user\|Grafikm fr}}
	:{{user\|Irpen}}
	:{{user\|Petri Krohn}}
	:Various others

	;Diffs showing that the involved parties have been notified on their talk pages:
	:] -
	:] -
	:] -
	:] -
	:] -

	; Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried

	*
	* (commented )
	*

	====Summary====

	It is disputed, whether Soviet rule in Latvia (1940-1941 and from 1944 on) can be referred to as ] or not and whether the current title is ] or not. ] - ] 10:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	==== Statement by Constanz ====

	When I first saw the dispute on ], going around the question, whether Latvia was occupied by the USSR or not, I thought it wasn't a real content dispute. A couple of users, me included, have removed the POV-title tag and non-compliant tag added by some users, and even reported , believing ]'s, ]'s & others' acts would qualify as improper use of dispute tags. That's so because the side who doesn't accept the claim, that the USSR occupied Latvia, has not provided any ], that would undermine the accepted opinion. Also, it has not been clearly explained, in what way is the article . However, this seems to qualify as content dispute, not abuse.

	In my view

	#It has been proved on the talk page, that mainstream Western sources regard the events as ], and ]'s idea that “” is clearly not an accepted thesis in Western history writing. As it is proved on talk, the term occupation is widely used in this context: , incl. ], ] and similar sources
	#Although Irpen admited, that “here is no doubt that annexation was illegal from the POV of the international law” , he and other people of his view have still argued, that the term ''occupation'' must not be used. So far, they have not presented any ], but have performed their ]: Baltic states are said to have been (which is legally false, since the annexation was illegal), “were SSRs on their own rights, their representants sieged in the Supreme Soviet” and “, also interpretation with in it etc.
	#Instead of recognizing the sources presented by the other side (or citing the ]), occupation deniers sometimes link irrelevant to the subject, or express ] arguments: to admit Soviet occupation is said to be “”. Are some Britannica articles then written by Holocaust deniers? Actually, I think that there are no reputable sources which would say Latvia was not occupied by the USSR.
	#When directly asked, why should the title used in Britannica be called 'POV-title' here, then e.g ] claims the term occupation and is now, thus, POV. However, this would be original research, since once again, no sources were given.
	#I agree, that the article itself is becoming a mess: due to the dispute, whether the occupation took place or not, the article has been filled with proofs, why the events were recognised as occupation by most of the word. Once we have formally admitted the stance of Western mainstream sources (i.e that Latvia was occupied), also opinion of the majority of people who have expressed their opinion on ], we can start removing unnecessary proofs.
	#In view of this, ArbCom is asked to rule '''whether the events described in the article can be referred to as “Soviet occupation” and whether the article conforms to Misplaced Pages policies'''. ] - ] 10:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	PS. Some users have claimed, as if this were a pure content dispute. However, one should note that a ] requires grounded opinions by both disputing sides, i.e ] must be cited by ''both sides''. As it is, those who claim Latvia was not occupied, have NOT found ANY sources, they merely add tags, which they 'motivate' with their own inventions. I think this is ] or soapboxing.] - ] 09:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC) Could someone please explain me, how can a dispute be resolved, if one side refuses to recognise ] and ] (e.g majority POV)? ] - ] 09:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

	==== Statement by Irpen====

	Purely a content dispute. The article is a mess, a textbook example of ]. Its composition is a set of loosely related events arbitrary pasted together to create this article in its current shape thus making the history look even more tendentiously presented. Article's title is purposefully inflammatory. Article is full of original research and is unimprovable. The well explained tags are there to warn the reader about the article's problem. I would have AfDed that stuff but from experience AfD is usually decided based on the general validity of topic ignoring the article's having nothing to do with that. Article RfC was filed and the casual onlookers also offered changes, including the title change and to ]. None of the suggestions were implemented. So, every reason to keep the warning tags are there since the changes that would have made an article more compliant were fiercely opposed. That the uninvolved users saw the article's deficiencies proves that the tag was well justified.

	If arbcom is to insert itself into this purely content dispute, its attention to the matter would be welcome, at least from me. Suggestions and objections at the talk are given in detail and arbcom members are invited to join the discussion. Maybe it's time for arbcom to change its traditional stance on refusal get into the content disputes. If so, I have a dozen of much more important irreconcilable articles and I will be happy to bring them to the ArbCom's attention. --] 14:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	==== Statement by Martintg====

	Some members are committing tag abuse to vandalise the article because in their personal opinion the title is purposefully inflammatory. By tagging the title POV they are effectively pushing their own POV that occupation did not occur and are giving undue weight to their own POV. They offer no verifiable references to support this alternative POV, just opinion and speculation. Many other contributors have provided references that Latvia was indeed occupied, including mainstream encyclopedias such as Britannica and Encarta. The article is not an arbitrary collection of loosely related events, but a tightly related sequence of occupations that occurred during WW2, in any case this point is not a POV-title issue but one of editorial style. Only one section is claimed to be OR not the whole article, so a section level OR tag is more appropriate. The article level tags are usually placed with no explanation or without sufficient explanation and certainly no verifiable references to an alternative POV are given. Some members have admitted their preference to AfD the article, but given difficulty in this approach, have resorted to vandalising the article via POV-title tagging. The article is a mess because of this continuing ongoing focus upon the title, which is probably the intent of this POV-title tagging, to stall progress in developing this article. ] 21:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	This is beyond a mere content dispute. The issue concerns the abuse of the spirit of ], the intent of which is to reflect views held in common usage, by certain individuals who apply POV-title tags to promote a particular political view point that is not widely held. They offer no published source to support their implied alternative POV, which would be constructive in forming a consensus. Disinterested comment in and the rfcs agree that title is NPOV. Exhaustive discussion has been made on talk page regarding the term "occupation". There seems to be a core group of three individuals who seem to be immune to all evidence and third opinion and seem intent on persuing a dogmatic position. Application of article level POV tags is meant to be constructive, however in this particular case it is being used destructively because the one applying the tag has indicated a preference that the article be deleted entirely, so I don't think they are approaching this issue in good faith. ] 23:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	:I wonder how successful mediation would be when one side basically doesn't ] in the motive of others and fling all manner of baseless accusations and conspiracy theory hoping it will stick. We have ] claiming that failing to whitewash the facts of Stalinist crimes is tantamount to Holocaust denial . We have ] claiming the article is tendentious, over emphasizing Soviet atrocities while saying nothing of Nazi crimes , while in fact ] clearly states that the Nazi section is incomplete ] reiterates ] groundless accusations of tendentious editing to minimise Nazi crimes but goes even further and the accuses contributors to the article of being Baltic nationalists pushing the agenda of ] and ] in his statement below offending ] in the process, while I am presented as a single purpose account in conspiracy with ]. God only knows why they find the description of Stalinist crimes committed during the occupation of Latvia so "inflammatory", millions of Russians suffered too. Perhaps they enjoy ] or perhaps there is some other political agenda at play and this article is merely their battleground to sock it to those "nazi balts", who knows, but it is rather offensive, given tragic history Churchill characterised as that deadly comb that ran back, forth and back again over the Baltics . Frankly I don't see how mediation will moderate their behaviour. ] 11:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

	==== Statement by Vecrumba ====

	''As one of the authors, having combined two prior articles''. I have already responded at length to Irpen's objections regarding the structure being a mess, I have clearly stated it is still a work in progress that has only thoroughly dealt with the first year of Soviet occupation. (There has also been discussion, since there is an article on the Nazi Occupation, that this would be devoted to the Soviet occupation alone for improved clarity.) I have also apologized for having to put in "why an occupation" because of all those who insist "occupation" is a POV term while providing not one single shred of evidence to support that position. I have posted requests on all three Baltic States discussion pages (where this sort of dispute has also occurred) inviting ANYONE with ANY evidence to the contrary that has ANY basis in fact to present it for discussion. There has been ZERO response.

	The Occupation of Latvia lasted from the first Soviet occupation through the entire Soviet era. The Soviet presences in Latvia were an occupation for their entire duration until the reestablishment of the Latvian Republic continuous with that established in 1918. This position is accepted by the international community except by Russia, whose declaration by Russia's Duma I have cited. There is no other discussion of the alternate viewpoint, which, though I personally vehemently disagree with, would actually be quite informative: that is, why is it exactly that Russia denies the Soviet occupation? Especially when Lavrov was negotiating during the Soviet era with the Baltic S.S.R.s for the Soviet Union to declare its presence in the Baltics an occupation? (Sadly, original research based on sources directly involved--and which I have NOT included.) And why is there no other discussion? Not because the article is a POV Great Patriotic War denier, it's because there's simply no further insight to be had, not even in my "Concise Encyclopedia of the Latvian S.S.R."
	So, what is the article specifically '''non'''-compliant about?

	* '''all the sources for the article are listed'''; there is '''absolutely nothing in the article''' that qualifies as my personally stated viewpoint or as original research or, indeed, any kind of personally drawn conclusion whatsoever; I have been completely scrupulous in this regard
	* if Irpen wishes, I can footnote every last sentence from said reputable sources, his claim that the article is original research is completely, totally, and utterly baseless; sadly, the nature of the overall debate is that even when in I have quoted the Congressional Record of '''official findings of the United States government's congressional committees''', which clearly find the Soviet presence an "occupation," even those references are shouted down as biased and inflammatory; and the wailing and gnashing of teeth over Latvia's Museum of Occupation as blatant POV incarnate is not to be believed (it would appear that even Soviet documents which clearly talk about occupying Latvia are now biased by the act of merely being held in Latvian hands)
	* as distasteful as I find it, I have taken care to cite the Russian dissenting position clearly at the outset; the only reasonable official position--the declaration of the Russian Duma--is provided; and I have even refrained from making any POV observation that the Duma has not provided any evidence to support its position
	* were there any reputable evidence for the Russian official position, it would be presented--it is their position after all and it's important to understand even if it is in a minority of one; however, I have not located any such evidence; neither has anyone responded to my open invitation for any reputable content which can be cited (not their ''personal interpretations'' of the Hague Conventions on the rules of war, for example) to be included to shed light on the Russian position; instead, all that is heard is abject consternation that the word "occupation" is an insult to Russia, etc. etc., the Russians saved Latvia from Hitler, etc. etc.--conveniently forgetting that the very occupation of Latvia by the Soviet Union was the result of Hitler and Stalin dividing up Eastern Europe between them
	* as I have indicated '''and tagged''', the article is a '''work in progress'''; unfortunately my Wikitime has been spent on more urgent matters of late for which I apologize; as well, my personal time has been severely limited over the past six to eight months; and quite frankly, I got tired of repeating this argument every few weeks with a new set of protagonists and took a Wikibreak from this issue after adding the "why occupation" section, consolidated from a umber of discussions
	* now that this is potentially heading for arbitration I would welcome the opportunity to close this issue once and for all.
	I repeat my request: anyone who has any reputable evidence to the contrary that the Soviet Union did not "occupy" Latvia, please present it. That does not change, however, that the Soviet presence in Latvia was illegal, that Latvia neither legally nor voluntarily "joined" the Soviet Union, that "annexation" does not terminate "occupation," or that the legal and sovereign government of Latvia continued to function ''de jure'' in exile until the reestablishment of said sovereign authority on Latvian territory, all of which make it the '''occupation''' of Latvia.

	I fail to see how one can insist that presenting '''verified facts''' is "inflammatory." I would submit that vehement denial and constant POV tagging of facts is the true "inflammatory" action.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> —  ]</span> 07:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

	==== Statement by ] ====

	This article is a perfect example of ] edit wars waged by 2 or 3 Baltic nationalists to push their agenda on Misplaced Pages. Anyone who follows political news from this region closely (or even remotely) knows that there is currently a heavy return to nationalism in these three countries, bordering sometimes on Nazism and ], such as monuments erected to local Waffen SS troopers, desecration of WWII war monuments, and so on. Unfortunately, some people are trying to push the corresponding agenda on Misplaced Pages.

	User:Constanz has been edit warring on this article for quite a moment now. He was on this article, and have been accusing everyone who did not agree with him as "vandal" (see history) and dismissing their arguments as "Soviet propaganda". Obviously, asking him to read the corresponding policies would have been of little effect. He is trying to present his own opinion (since he's about the only one to contribute on the talk page) as "consensus" and apparently does not understand that while some sort of consensus is not reached, the tag has to stay as a warning for a casual reader. And by the way, content disputes are in no way vandalism.

	User:Martintg is currently an obvious single purpose account () whose only purpose it to help Constanz wage his revert wars.

	As for ], he did not take a part in that agenda pushing. Still, I'm surprised by his statement. If he thinks that wording like "is the most persistent fabrication of Soviet propaganda" are NPOV, he should seriously reread the corresponding WP policies. What is also interesting is the fact that he could not find pre-1991 sources calling it an occupation (check the first three refs: all of them are post-1991 material). One also has to notice that slapping together two different periods like 1940-1941 and 1941-1944, thus lowering the significance of Nazi crimes, is a form of Holocaust denial that should not be tolerated on WP.

	Finally, I would like to point out that any attempt by me, Irpen, or other users like User:Grant65, were boycotted by Constanz and Martintg. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 18:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

	: Can't find pre-1991 sources? None of those "first three" references are mine. The congressional resport is from long before 1991, I'll be glad to add as many sources through the entire period as you would like that call it an occupation. Abot the Waffen SS, Latvians (and Eastern Europeans) in general were conscripted into the Waffen SS (or joined simply to fight against the Soviets)--remember this was after the mass deportations executed by the Soviets. Your calling honoring/remembering Waffen SS as Nazi rehabilitation is simply misinformed. (The Eastern European Waffen SS were exonerated in the post-WWII trials.) As I indicated the article is in progress (and there is a Nazi occupation page--this article may be better off dealing with just the Soviet occupation). And about the Holocaust... my father-in-law was sent to warn their (Jewish) family friend to warn her... a teenager picking his way through fields of bodies reaching her house only to find her '''beheaded by the Nazis'''. Consider your words before you accuse people of Holocaust denial. You still have said nothing to indicate in any way it was not an occupation by the Soviets. <span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> —  ]</span> 04:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

	:Grafikm fr's statement is a perfect illustration to his own disputing style on Latvia article:

	*''This article is a perfect example of ] edit wars'' - since when is reflecting majority POV tendentious editing?
	*''waged by 2 or 3 Baltic nationalists to push their agenda on Misplaced Pages.'' - actually, Graf's position has only been supported by 2 or 3 revert warriors. There of their opponents.
	*''Anyone who follows political news from this region closely (or even remotely) knows that there is currently a heavy return to nationalism in these three countries, bordering sometimes on Nazism and ]'' - Does this ']' prove that the ] didn't take place (that's what Graf SHOULD be proving)? A ] very characteristic to the dispute on ]!
	*''User:Martintg is currently an obvious single purpose account whose only purpose it to help Constanz wage his revert wars.'' - I think this sentence would well characterise ] relation to Irpen.
	*And once again, the ] FAILED TO CITE HIS SOURCES, WHICH COULD HINT THAT LATVIA WASN'T OCCUPIED. Why is he hiding his ]?! How is it possible for someone to pursue NPOV without citing sources? ] - ] 12:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

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

	==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/5/0/0) ====
	* Decline. Content dispute. ] ] 19:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
	* <s>Reject; agree that this is a content dispute and not ripe for arbcom. ] (]:]) 20:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)</s>
	* Reject. What they said. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
	*Accept. A glance at is proof enough that there is more than a content dispute here. Accept to look at conduct problems like edit warring and incivility (accusations of vandalism). ]·] 01:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
	*Accept per Dmcdevit, in order to examine the conduct issues surrounding the case. ] <small>(])</small> 02:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
	*Decline. If there is a conduct issue, the disputants may bring a case addressing it alone if they wish. Otherwise, the matter as presently framed is primarily a content dispute outside our remit. ] Co., ] 04:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
	*Change to '''Accept''' per Dmcdevit and reading the actual article and talk history - this complaint doesn't go into it, but it doesn't look acceptable to me. We don't have to stick within the lines drawn by the complaint, if we don't want to. ] (]:]) 05:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
	*Accept to look at editor conduct. ] 11:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
	*Decline. Still essentially a content dispute, if a heated one; I'd prefer it if there was some evidence of a failed attempt at mediation before hearing this. ] 17:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
	*Accept to examine user conduct that is keeping the content dispute from being resolved. ] 16:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	*Decline per Kirill. ''']''' (]) 05:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
	----

	=== Administrator {{user\|Lucky 6.9}} ===

	: '''Initiated by ''' ] '''at''' 09:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	This is in regards to numerous unilateral deletions by this administrator, many of which violate ], as well as persistently deleting the complaints of said behavior, by anons, users, and admins alike. Also, for silencing Dispute Resolution brought regarding him with his delete privilege, and for indef-blocking users who only cricitized him, and for protecting his talk page for weeks at a time to stop criticism of his actions.

	==== Involved parties ====
	* {{user\|Lucky 6.9}}

	; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
	* {{user\|Lucky 6.9}}. He has protected his talk page for the past 3 weeks, so if someone will unprotect it, that can be done.

	: I have addressed this and notified Lucky on his talk page. ] Co., ] 12:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	; Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried
	* An editor started a mediation cabal case, but Lucky 6.9 .
	* Another editor , citing diffs for numerous inappropriate deletions. Lucky immediately the comment, and then him for complaining. (One edit summary alleges some incivility - maybe that happened too, but I can't find any - certainly not enough to qualify for an indefinite block. Maybe it "vanished" too.)
	* Another editor that had his work deleted, , and was ''"so fast your head will spin"'' for doing so.
	* Personal attacks like and , or this or are a persistent problem. Less-offensive edit summaries belittling people's good faith attempts as "idiocy", "crap", or otherwise worthless are constantly (daily) left - WP:biting far more than simple templates would.
	* A relevant discussion developed from the mediation case on Administrator's Noticeboard, both about his deletions and inappropriate blocking. I did not participate in the discussion.
	* I began a user conduct ] but abandoned it upon the belief that he seems to be renouncing his adminship and I don't think RfC can act upon that.
	* Placeholder for an issue dropped from this RfArb

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

	===== Completely rewritten 1/28/07 23:03 UTC =====

	The main subject has changed entirely - here is the to the old one.

	While many people have complained about Lucky 6.9, one thing everyone's surely seen is that Lucky spends an enormous amount of time cleaning up after vandals. His persistence to stick with a task that most people characterize as drudgery is enviable. His willingness to stay here for the number of years that he has, and clean up so many little messes to the point it's a major task just to peruse his edit history, speaks to a unique character who performs an essential and valuable task here at Misplaced Pages.

	The question at hand here is this: In consideration of the numerous good deeds he does, to what extent do the rules not apply to him? And when he acts in disregard of the rules, what is an appropriate consequence for someone who is essentially doing a volunteer thankless job for the encyclopedia, and whose presence should not be taken for granted?

	Is it appropriate that a good administrator be entitled to be occasionally abusive and destructive without any sort of accountability? Depending on the value he brings to the encyclopedia, perhaps so. It's very plausible that having a person hurt a few newbies' feelings with a condemnation of their efforts or a sexually explicit personal attack to an anonymous vandal's IP address on a bad day is a fair price to pay for someone who tirelessly cleans up people's crap, and that upsetting him by "desysopping" him results in a net loss to the encyclopedia - not just for his cleanup, but for a member of the community whose heart is truly part of the project, whether for better or for worse at any given time. But having such a person held to zero accountability for the rules he's trusted to enforce is also morally destructive to any community, not just Misplaced Pages.

	I don't think I'm alone here. As an essay statement currently on the user page of ]: ''"The vast majority of admins with whom I've had contact have been helpful, considerate, and professional in their approach. They're human, though, and occasionally one will develop a blind spot with regard to some issue, or a far from disinterested approach, and act against Misplaced Pages rules. What seems to happen then is that either their behavior is ignored by other admins, or (especially when the clamour of ordinary users is loud) they're subjected to a mild finger-wagging. If non-admins had behaved in the same way, they'd likely have been blocked from editing for a while — either generally or on a specific article or topic. Simple fairness demands the same treatment for the same behaviour — but given that admins are in fact expected to behave better than ordinary editors, it would seem right that they should be treated more strictly when they fall well short. Now that I am an admin, I hold the same view, incidentally."''

	If true, could a status quo like this be a scourge to the community? While it may be overreaching to desysop anyone who breaks a rule, and demoralizing to set hard boundaries on people that are supposed to be leaders, isn't it a problem worthy of consideration that no one holds administrators responsible for misbehavior? So much emphasis seems to have been placed on avoiding "wheel wars", that members of the admin community would rather support a fellow admin in allowing or perpetrating a destructive act, rather than say or do something lest they be accused of, or even be perceived as, "wheel warring".

	While thinking about the RfArb for a couple days, and considering the comments people have left, my feelings that "this guy should be lynched as an administrator" have subsided. But whether there's a problem with administrator accountability that's hurting Misplaced Pages is one that should be discussed seems undeniable to me. ] 23:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

	===== Items proposed as worth ArbCom consideration =====
	# '''Deletion of new articles'''. Often, deleted articles clearly meet speedy criteria, but were the result of a good faith effort to start a good article. What hurts people's feelings is the destruction of their work, seconds after they saved it, and perhaps not understanding that the only thing condemning their article is an assertion of notability, or some reliable sources. In many cases, '''moving a potentially workable article to user space''' would get the "crap" out of the main space, and permit the author to fix what's wrong with it whenever possible.
	# '''Abusive comments'''. There is no place for abusive comments to vandals or to authors of "crap". '''Comments in deletion summaries and warnings should be limited to the templates''', and not "get a life" comments, or a labeling of a contribution as "idiocy" or even "crap". I admit I vandalized a couple pages when I first met WP - the intrigue of the "how could they let me do that" idea was the novelty that attracted me to learn more about WP and eventually make good edits to articles. Persistently ]ing vandals and newbies (never mind making sexually explicit personal attacks upon them) is far more destructive to the project that anyone can see. My very first creation to Misplaced Pages was speedied for being nonsense, and my second was converted to a redirect for having no reliable sources. Both articles were "crap", but I learned to since start tens or hundreds of keepable articles, partly by being politely pointed to ] and ], and not by having my contribution disappear and being labeled garbage.
	# '''Accountability for minor violations'''. We block vandals constantly in the hopes that they'll take a break, think about their actions, and come back more productive than they left. Why can't the same work for administrators? We're all human. When an administrator makes a series of blatant personal attacks, can't there be a workable way to block them for 24 hours to cool off? Their administrative peers don't do that, and probably rightfully so. When an administrator misuses a delete, protect, or block, not only do their administrative peers don't want to undo that, '''nobody wants to condemn the administrator as having made a mistake'''. We have ], but it's ineffective when the administrator can and does refuse to participate, whether it's because he/she deletes the DR page outright, or because no admin can or will compel their cooperation. But when the only group that can act on them (apparently ArbCom) needs 10 days and 4 net votes to do anything, the disincentive for breaking the "little rules" like ] - the rules everyone else seems to have to follow - or by ''really'' stretching the rules to justify misuse of an admin tool - is nonexistent.

	Thank you for your consideration. ] 23:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

	==== Statement by uninvolved ] ====
	*I haven't checked everything in full detail yet, but what I've seen so far doesn't appear to warrant an arbitration case even if Lucky returns. Despite the fact he deleted talk page material, he kept archives of the stuff he deleted from his main page. The posted links by the person who requested arbitration are largely dead and the RFC wasn't even certified.

	I would ask arbcom to check if his talk page has a history of getting vandalized which would clearly explain his wish to have it deleted and or protected in his absence.

	- ]\|] 12:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


	==== Statement by uninvolved ] ====
	Meh, what is this crap. Lucky 6.9 deleted {{article\|Hershey squirt}}, an "article" on a neologism referenced solely from Urban Dictionary, and that seems to have prompted ] to ]. I storngly suspect that the amount of effort expended on arguing over that article outweighs the time spent creating it by at least three orders of magnitude. So what if Lucky decides not to reply to trolling about self-evidently valid deletions? If Reswobslc wants that article undeleted, ] is second on the left down the hall, but I for one would vote to endorse deletion - under a thousand ghits not one of which appears to be a reliable source. I undeleted the talk history so I could check the diffs above and what they amount to is that Lucky 6.9 deletes crap articles and occasionally says so in as many words, plus when he is baited by the creators of these crap articles he sometimes just deletes their comments and sometimes bites back.

	A quick look at Lucky's indicates no significant problem. The majority of the links are still red and there are not so very many salted articles as to raise a pressing concern. I'd prefer to see better deletion summaries, but that's about it.

	No prior attempts at dispute resolution, the original complaint which started the whole thing is baseless anyway, the deleted article has no evident merit and in any case no admin is obliged to debate speedy deletions if they choose not to. In short: Mgm is right, there is nothing to see here. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	* Looking at the revised version, I disagree that this is the job of ArbCom and I disagree that any meaningful number of articles should be userfied - easily 90% of my deletions stay deleted, and many of the balance are protected deleted, often by other admins. All you get by userfying is Misplaced Pages-as-MySpace (]). There are problems with the ] and how we handle it, but an RFAr on a hard-working admin started by an editor in dispute with that admin is not the way to do it. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

	==== Statement by uninvolved ] ====
	Utter crap. This is a gross waste of Arbcom's and everybody else's time. Don't you have an encyclopedia to edit with ''meaningful'' articles instead of nonsense? ]\|] 20:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	: As ] is a person who communicates with Lucky 6.9 outside of Misplaced Pages on a regular basis as noted by , this claim of being "uninvolved" is misleading and dishonest. ] 21:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
	::Communicating off-wiki with someone does not mean that I am involved in this dispute. ]\|] 22:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
	: Strictly speaking that's possible, but even just and make this person's level of involvement pretty clear. ] 23:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
	::What do those edits have to do with '''''this''''' dispute? ]\|] 03:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

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

	I have no prior involvement beyond watching RFARB, and I take no position against the appropriateness of ]'s mainspace deletions. In fact, a brief glance at his delete history suggests he has done a great deal of extremely tedious work to the betterment of the encyclopedia.

	However, the "" and "" comments left by Lucky 6.9 on Reswobslc's talk page are ''highly'' troubling. Perhaps even more troubling are the allegations of using admin tools to quash dispute resolution and of improper blocking.

	Could those voting to reject please provide some reasoning? It's evident from logs provided above that he has established a persistent pattern of "retiring" and then returning a few months later, so I hope his apparent abandonment is not considered sufficient grounds to reject. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	==== Clerk notes ====
	Moved threaded comments. Please only comment in your own section. ] 00:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

	==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/5/0/0) ====

	* Reject. ] (]:]) 20:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
	** Since someone asked for clarification below, my reasons mirror UC's. ] (]:]) 05:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
	* Reject. ] 22:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
	* Reject. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
	*Accept to look into allegations of misuse of admin rights and incivility. ] <small>(])</small> 02:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
	* Accept. ] ] 04:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
	* Decline. This case, as presented, is a mere aggregation of weak claims on minor matters (many of them stale) regarding a highly active user, combined with a recent flameout. ] Co., ] 04:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
	* Accept, per Flcelloguy. ] 17:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
	* Reject per ] Co.,. ] 16:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	----

	=== The need for existence of #wikipedia-en-admins ===

	: '''Initiated by ''' ] '''at''' 01:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	; Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried

	] is the last of the multitude of places where this has been discussed. Many ArbCom members took part in these discussions.

	====Summary====
	In megabytes of the discussions of this thorny issue, '''no evidence has been yet given that there can possibly be any "admin-only" confidential matters''' that require the closed channel. ArbCom has recognized the '''host of problems the channel and some of its members were generating'''. ArbCom de-facto took steps to regulate the channel thus asserting its jurisdiction over the matter.

	ArbCom is asked to rule whether there exists the need for such a channel and, if not, shut it down, at least in its capacity as an official Misplaced Pages-related medium. --] 01:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	==== Statement by Irpen ====
	This is not the case I was planning to launch when I talked about my planned ArbCom action recently. But I think the idea has been in the air for some time now. I will be brief since everything there is to it has been said and all sides that wanted to hear, have heard each other's arguments.

	#ArbCom recognized that the '''channel has an evil side''' and has recently made a series of actions to alleviate them.
	#Thereby '''ArbCom asserted its jurisdiction''' of the channel ''de-facto'' and the community accepted the ArbCom intercession, thus confirming the said jurisdiction.
	#The matters whose '''confidentiality''' is really necessary are related to checkuser issues, some ArbCom issues and oversight issues. As such, there '''is''' a need for ArbCom and checkuser IRC or other private medium. '''No examples have been given for inherently confidential "Admin-only" issues''' to this day,
	#while the very confidentiality of the "Admin-only" channel has been proven to be the reason of several abusive actions. ''''The illusion of confidentiality created an illusion of impunity''' among certain regulars of the channel which resulted in severe offenses, gross incivility, violations of the WP:BLOCKing policies and other malaise.
	#In view of this, ArbCom is asked to rule '''whether there is any justification to have the said channel associated with Misplaced Pages or the Wikimedia foundation'''.
	#The decision to shut down the channel, if rendered, would not in any way violate its members' freedom of speech. Nothing prevents the small group of people most closely associated with the channel from communicating in a private medium. Such a medium will, however, have no clout and '''no relation to Misplaced Pages'''.
	#As a side note, certain recusals in this case are requested.

	--] 01:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	;'''addendum'''
	I would like to add a word on the issue of the jurisdiction (or lack of it) raised by Fred and JPGordon. During the submission of the original, so called, "Giano case" the as objections to the acceptance. Nevertheless, ArbCom accepted that case over the concerns of its jurisdiction at the time. --] 05:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	==== Statement by DragonflySixtyseven ====
	Oh god, I'm participating in an Arbcom case. I always said that if I was ever on Arbcom, my first act would be to ban everyone who voted for me, and my second act would be to issue lifetime bans to all participants in all disputes.

	Anyway. My point about -en-admins is that, when we did our high-level implementation of ] last summer - rapidly deleting the categories, the templates, and related miscellany for certain notorious repeat vandals - that could not have been successfully planned in an open forum.

	Also, sometimes it's good to be able to mention deleted articles in a place where you can be confident that other people ''will'' be able to read their content. ] 02:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	====Statement by Miltopia====
	A channel for discussing admin matters, if existent, should exist the same way the channels for discussing admin stuff on-wiki is - visible to everyone. Things requiring privacy don't need to be seen by admins who aren't involved anyway, and can be taken to pms and email. Are admins an official decision-making body, or just people with extra too to implement decisions? If the latter, there's no reason why everyone shouldn't be able to see their discussions.

	The whole issue hasn't affected me at all, but I think this would be a good idea anyway. ] 03:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	====Statement by mostly uninvolved ]====
	As a non-admin, I have not been involved in some of conflicts relating to this channel but as a community member, I do share concerns about the lack of transparency with this channel. In contrast to things like the Arbitrator Mailing list, I do not see a clear need for a "closed door forum" for admins to "vent" and discuss matters that could drastically affect the community. I suppose that a fundamental question in this matter is what exactly an "admin" is and does the responsibility that the community vest upon them require for them the ability to work in isolation and apart from community oversight. I think that question affects many aspects of Misplaced Pages and would encourage the arbitrators to accept this case and help clarify the matter. ] 04:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
	====Statement by ]====
	Firstly I'm not sure this has anything to do with arbcom. What are you being asked to arbitrate? This is a policy matter, and whether the community even has authority is unclear.
	More substantively: sure IRC can occasionally be nasty (although a few logs may be atypical); all human communication can be misused. Closing this channel won't stop that. Indeed, this argument has already led to a number of less transparent, less accountable IRC channels being set up. That worries me. Self-selecting cliques are more likely to cook conspiracies and group-think. At least in en-admins there is a cross-section of admins - and someone to slap nonsense.
	Most of what goes on is useless but harmless, and could certainly be done elsewhere. However, there are solid uses. For instance, OTRS can throw up cases where a lot of eyes on an article or user can help. This channel allows me to immediately poke a cross-section of trusted users and normally get someone with the time. I can't do that on-wiki without broadcasting to the world. And I may have to e-mail 50 users to get one to help. What is useful is that the channel isn't fully transparent, yet it has a wide and varied userbase. The choice isn't between discussion with a cabal on IRC, or sharing with the community of admins, the choice is between IRC and broadcasting to world on the open internet. Any attempt to open up the channel, or make logs accessible would render it useless.--]<sup>g</sup> 10:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	:PS. I suspect this case isn't really about IRC anyway, it is just round #19 in the same old 'Giano vs the world' case. I predict accepting it will lead to a train-wreck.--]<sup>g</sup> 10:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	====Statement by Giano====

	On behalf of the Arbcom Fred Bauder has said: "''Numerous incidents involving gross incivility on the IRC channel have been brought to the Arbitration Committee's attention. We consider such behaviour absolutely unacceptable''" This means the arbcom is not asked, or required to rule on whether the channel has been abused. That is accepted fact.

	The Arbcom is asked to rule: "whether there exists the need for such a channel and, if not, shut it down, at least in its capacity as an official Misplaced Pages-related medium.". So the question is - what is done in that particular channel that cannot be done transparently on-wiki. This further begs the question: is it possible to have a page that is visible to all editors but only able to be edited by admins? To replace the disgraced channel. This is well within the Arbcom's remit.

	Possibly the Arbcom does not have the power to shut the channel down. Although perhaps as a member of the arbcom James Forrester would do so if requested by the Arbcom. However, that is hypothetical, because if people are minded to form themselves into cliques and secret societies that cannot be avoided. However, what can be avoided and prevented is the formation of abusive and malicous cliques seemingly authorised by Misplaced Pages.

	The Arbcom may feel that the multiple abuses executed in the channel, some very serious indeed, currently plastered all over the internet have brought Misplaced Pages into disrepute. The Arbcom may indeed go so far as to feel that the encyclopedia has now to distance itself from the channel to prevent further irreparable damage occurring to the encyclopedia.

	Someone below says ''"...relevant confidential business could be carried out on other existing private IRC channels, or else on new channels created to fulfil the need''". True, but that person does not address the question: is there a need? I find it hard to believe that those talking on IRC, do not, or could not have Misplaced Pages, simultaneously open on their computers, with half on eye on a newly formed admin page but if those same people prefer to watch IRC instead of Misplaced Pages, then wonders why they wish to be part of Misplaced Pages.

	A flavour of the blinkered attitudes to the welfare of the encyclopedia within the channel are illustrated by the comment on this very page: " ''#19 in the same old 'Giano vs the world''' case." Fortunately, the admin channel is not the rest of the world, it is not even the rest of Misplaced Pages, or even the majority of Misplaced Pages's admins. It is in fact a small, powerful, and very vocal collection of admins, arbitrators and their selected favourites who have grouped together to fulfil a mutual need to chat. As often happens when people have too much time on their hands chat turns to idle gossip, which in turn becomes malicious gossip, then those on the periphery of the inner golden circle become anxious to do favours to those at its heart, and this is, I suspect, is when the wrongful blocks have occurred. Such behaviour is a fact of life, that the arbcom cannot alter.

	What the arbcom can do, is create a transparent place, exclusively for admins to edit and debate within Misplaced Pages. The former admin channel can then become in name as well as existant reality, secretive club for those admins and their friends minded to accept the invitations to join it. The channel would be in no way connected to Misplaced Pages. Simultaneously on Misplaced Pages itself the logic, philosophy, and indeed honesty, behind admin's actions will be transparent to all ordinary editors (and admins) not just the chosen few. Misplaced Pages cannot have sections and departments over which it has no control, which leave it open to the damaging allegations of the last few weeks. This the arbcom can control. ] 13:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	::Bearing in mind edits such as these which may well be discussed and explored within this case, I feel it is appropriate that ] recuses from this case. I note he has already voted to reject. It is essential that the case has to be heard in a manner which is beyond reproach. ] 10:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

	====Statement by Tony Sidaway====
	We could get rid of the channel today without any protests from me; all relevant confidential business could be carried out on other existing private IRC channels, or else on new channels created to fulfil the need. However this is probably not a decision that can be made by the arbitration committee. The committee might consider accepting the case to consider any credible allegations of malfeasance coordinated or perpetrated on that or any other IRC channel, in email or by any other means (which would certainly be within the arbitration committee's scope. --] 11:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	: I agree with David Gerard to the extent that this case has resulted from factionalism surrounding Giano and some of his supporters, some of whose personal attacks are quite beyond what might ever be considered acceptable on Misplaced Pages. This is old ground, which in my opinion was not adequately addressed in the Giano case. On Irpen's decision to frame this matter as a case against the IRC channel, I view this as an inevitable result of the Giano faction's tendency to put the worst possible reading on any discussion of their very serious conduct issues and any action taken to deal with those issues. --] 18:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

	====Statement by MacGyverMagic====
	If it's the closed nature of the channel that's causing problems, then I think opening it up is a much better solution than full-out removal of the channel. - ]\|] 12:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	====Statement by Pschemp====
	I can't help feeling that this case is being directed at the channel out of frustration because certain people are upset that a few specific "wrongdoers" haven't been punished enough for their actions. Since their efforts at getting those people lynched have failed, they have taken a different approach and now want to punish everyone who uses the channel. Instead of punishing a lot of innocent people who find the channel extremely useful for matters that aren't appropriate for the entire to community to hear and removing the important support system and sanity check that this channel is, they should be filing arbitration on the specific people they feel have wronged them. Were the channel closed, as someone has put it quite aptly, "the bad stuff attributed to would happen in the private back channels instead, but the good stuff would no longer be possible..." This of course does not even take into account the fact that since this started, the channel has vastly improved. The remedies already in place are working, so requesting more (from a person who isn't even there to know they are working) is silliness. ] \| ] 15:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	====Statement by badlydrawnjeff====

	Whether the channel should be shut down is not in the purview of ArbCom, in my opinion. What ''is'' in the purview of ArbCom is the behavior of certain administrators, from gross incivility to secret blocks of users to the channel allowing access to non-administrators who are both trusted by the community (such as ]) and not trusted by the community (such as ] and ]). ArbCom has stated that they've seen the logs. The community at large is failing or inable to act to deal with the issues, the administrators are not showing the ability to police their own regarding the channel, and that is where ArbCom is being requested to step in. This should not be intended to be a condemnation of ''anyone'' in the channel, but action against the problem elements for "off-wiki" behavior that causes "on-wiki" disruption. {{unsigned\|Badlydrawnjeff\|15:52, 26 January 2007}}

	====Comment by Drini ====
	This is impractical almost nonsensical.
	::''ArbCom is asked to rule whether there exists the need for such a channel and, if not, shut it down, at least in its capacity as an official Misplaced Pages-related medium. --Irpen 01:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
	Ok, arbcom rules no need, shutdown. It won't change anything. People will join then "unofficial" channels like #inird . -- <small> ]</small> 17:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	====Statement by Betacommand====
	I do not want to make a statement I try to avoid ArbCom but this issue forces me to stray from my normal behavior. I am a regular in -admin. Saying this that does not mean that I am a cabalist and I see the need for a admin/trusted user only channel. There have been times when a situation on wiki has happened and I have one idea to handle it. But I take it to -admin and discuss it there. Some times they agree other times they talk me out of making a very foolish mistake. The issue with access to the channel is that #wikipedia has fallen to the trolls and civil discussion on that channel is almost impossible along with the issue of wikiwatch.org having logbots in that channel recording everything and posting those to the web. That includes host mask of users that don't have a cloak. that can be very hazardous as most of the time that has a user's IP address in it. In regard to access of -admin I feel that if we can trust a user that they will not post the logs without asking and not to use what new admins who ask for advice against them. Such as Newadmin joins the channel and states that that user Foo has been incivil on page blah and that the new admin is thinking about blocking user foo for 24 hours because of that. while the rest of -admin doesnt see a blockable reason. and the channel convinces the new admin to just leave a note on the users talk page instead of blocking. I do not want user who will take that conversation and hold it against the new admin. As any place on wiki that could offend the user in question and make the admin look bad. Admins go to the channel to seek advice and assistance. If we can trust a user to not spread conversation that helps no one but uses -admins for a good faith place to discuss information I see no reason that a user in good standing and good faith should not be able to request access to the channel. I have seen -admins do A LOT OF HELP to me and other new admins but I do not think it has to be admin only. But I also do not want it turning into the the troll hole that #wikipedia is a majority of the time. ] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 16:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	====Statement by Duk====
	wikipedia-en-admins is usefull. It is also an official part of the english wikipedia (I'll repost in /evidence if the case is accepted). The arbcom needs to demonstrate that the channel is accountable to the wikipedia community. They can do this by addressing the current complaints (from Giano, Irpin and whoever else there may be). --] 19:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	:'''Addendum'''
	: #wikipedia-en-admins was set up by en-wikipedians to serve the en-wikipedia community and resides in an official foundation channel. To say that it isn't or shouldn't be accountable to the en-wikipedia community is just plain ridiculous. That logic relies on 1) a weak technicality, and 2) ignores the reason and spirit in which the channel was set up - not to mention the numerous special circumstances mentioned . There is a ] about the perils of rigidly following process instead of actually thinking about a problem and fixing it.

	:The most important special circumstance that has demanded the en-wikipedia community take account of the channel is the long running Giano/Irpen case. This has dragged on and on and on, not because Giano refuses to let it go (well, unless you want to blame the victim for demanding accountability). It's dragged on because the irc leadership completely failed to provide accountability and address complaints, thus leaving it up to the wikipedia community to suffer this incredible mess. That put it smack on our plate.

	:On a different note - the foundation has ] for different irc channels regarding logging - some channels may be publicly logged while others may not. To quote Greg Maxwell: ''Misplaced Pages is not an anonymity service. When someone ... behaves in ways which are obviously harmful and malicious we should disclose their information as appropriate for the protection of our users and the betterment of our community... '' In that light, the arbcom should make public all logs of the ''Numerous incidents involving gross incivility''. It would be a wonderfully effective deterrent of future misbehavior. --] 04:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

	::Factual correction: ''"#wikipedia-en-admins was set up by en-wikipedians to serve the en-wikipedia community"'' - this is factually incorrect - it was set up by Jimbo to serve Danny and the office. One of Mackensen's and my jobs is to help remind the channel of this as needed. - ] 22:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

	:::Then why was it proposed, discussed and given specific mandates on the Wikien-l? If it was set up by Jimbo to serve Danny and the office then why haven't they taken responsibility and addressed the problems the arbcom and the community is struggeling with? David, are you saying that #wikipedia-en-admins is not accountable to the wikipedia community? It's a simple question. I'd like Jimbo and Danny to answer this too. If this channel is someones own personal little kingdom and not accountable to the community, while drawing on all the en admins for power and influence, then we have an even bigger problem. --] 01:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

	::::Indeed I am. And, like a remarkable number of things in Wikimedia, it depends on the person in charge not being insane, rather than on a complicated structure of big sticks to be played by wikipoliticians like a xylophone. Did you know that the daily Featured Article is ENTIRELY Raul's decision? Not yours or mine? He listens, considers and takes notice, but he is by no means obliged. And so on IRC, James listens, takes notice and considers, but is by no means obliged. This is not in fact an inherently horrible way of doing things around here - ] 11:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

	:::::Yes, Raul runs the daily Featured Article. But if his management of it caused a huge problem that upset the community, he would be expected to fix that problem or he would be replaced. In that way, he is accountable to the community. This is a pretty basic concept, David --] 12:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

	====Statement by CBDunkerson====
	I see alot of partial and contradictory truths in this case. It is true that the 'admin channel' sometimes carries uncivil or improper discussion... and it is also true that people sometimes exaggerate this and/or launch equally uncivil and improper complaints about it on wiki. It is true that there is sometimes a need for admins to discuss matters privately... and true that any secret communication is inherently going to increase both suspicions of wrongdoing and the actual likelihood of such. It is true that this is more a matter for the community than ArbCom... but it is also true that the community has failed to resolve it (rather spectacularly). Et cetera. So, my suggestions: ArbCom should take the case and define standards for a 'Wikimedia administration' channel. ArbCom may or may not have jurisdiction over the existing channel, but it really doesn't matter... as they ''certainly'' have the authority to establish a 'new' channel... and if the design for such met with general approval the existing channel might just be 're-molded'. I ''think'' it would be possible to address the concerns raised by '''ALL''' sides by creating a moderated channel which ''everyone'' could read, but only specific ('voiced' in IRC parlance) users (presumably 'admins' from various Wikimedia projects) could write to, and having standards to take truly confidential matters to a private sub-channel (which is very easy to do). Thus, everyone could see the general discussion and verify that it was above-board, most people can't 'talk' so it keeps the channel from being spammed, and anything which truly needs to be kept private can be split out. People could even be temporarily given 'voice' to participate in discussions relevant to them. Yes, there would still be 'secret communication', but based on what I've seen I think the need for that is actually fairly rare... and IMO people are less likely to be suspicious if Jimbo comes onto the channel and says, 'I need to talk to some people about an OFFICE issue - meet me in <#PrivateChannelName> for a few minutes', than they are currently with ''everything'' on the channel being 'secret'. --] 21:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	:<nowiki>#</nowiki>wikipedia-en-functionaries currently displays a spectacular lack of interest. Perhaps it could be declared more official, but you then have to interest admins in going there - ] 12:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

	====Statement by jbolden1517====
	I'd like to add here that I essentially left wikipedia for 6 months because of an IRC abuse. I'm still fundamentally alienated from the community and my level of activity even now is 2% of what it was prior to being a victim of an attack that was coordinated on IRC (I should mention I'm not an IRC user, and have probably instant messaged 20x in the last 15 years), so that while the problems started on IRC the damage was done on wiki.

	While arbcom has no authority to regulate IRC it most certainly has moral credibility on this issue and further can act to counter balance abuse which emerges from IRC. I'd urge arbcom to take this case and try and set forth policy about what is or is not acceptable conduct on IRC. If lobbying is unacceptable then it should be unacceptable on IRC. If people are supposed to be voting independently then they should not be simply acting based on secret evidence on a secret forum. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 20:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	=====Clarification=====
	When you say "IRC abuse", are you speaking of #admins or something completely different? --] 21:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	====Statement by InkSplotch====
	Burning down a house where conspirators once met yields nothing but a burnt out house. While I would like to see ArbCom clarify it's statement and position regarding their authority over the IRC channels (all of them bearing the Misplaced Pages name), the only claims I think are worthy of an arbitration ''case'' are the underlying complaints of conspiracy, improper admin behavior, and checkuser abuse. I suggest that ArbCom deny this case, since I don't suspect the more vocal complainants are truly willing to pursue those issues. They weren't in the previous arbitration involving these parties, and this new request doesn't convince me they are now. --] 22:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	====Statement by ]====
	I have a limited experience with the #wikipedia-en-admins, my employer forbids to use IRC on my workplace, so the most I can do most of the time is to start the client at home and read the logs. In the mid-September then there was the crisis caused by Carnildo's RFA and the blocks of Giano and Ghirlandajo explained as the consensus reached on IRC I decided to see if I am missing something by ignoring this channel and participated (mostly passively) in this channel for a week, since then I logged there a couple times more. This is my impression based on a limited experience.

	80% of the time the channel is a social venue (that IMHO is nothing wrong about), 15% of the time it is a productive place helping our project. Some of the project-related things are easy to reproduce via onwiki boards, mail lists and private chats. Some are more difficult. E.g. it is easy to ask on a close channels:"Hey, do you think XX is a General Tojo's sock?" and expect to receive an answer from an admin experienced with this troublemaker. To ask the same question onwiki maybe a grave personal attack if I am incorrect. And it is sort of silly to send this question to hundreds of maillist users.

	Still I was surprised that in a relatively short time I was on the channel it was quite a few times used against the principles that we are all trying to install onwiki: we are not driving productive contributors out, on the contrary we are bending backwards to keep them in; we assume good faith; wiki is not a battleground; we keep private data and especially checkuser results private; we speak openly for ourselves, meatpuppetting and conspiring are discouraged, etc. At that week I was on I saw Kelly Martin discussing private details obtained via checkuser of an admin (No, it was not Slim Virgin). I saw a sitting arbitrator (]) and a few highly respected admins discussing the way to get rid of a productive user (Irpen) via a "slow administrative process that looked like arbcom to them". I saw serious discussions that if only "we" could push through one of "ours" into bureaucrats the pesky RFA opposers would be irrelevant, I saw a significant collective work on a reply in WP:AN over the Giano's block presented as an independent review of an uninvolved admin. IMHO it is too much for a one week. I believe the channel foster a wrong culture that harms the project. There are many new admins there who a learning to believe that the way the #wikipedia-en-admins do it is the right way to do the admin job. There are users who believe that every admin measure directed at them is a result of an IRC conspiracy (I would believe too if I were in their shoes). Something should be done.

	IMHO the best way would be to change the culture of the channel. There should be enough people willing to object to unwiki ideas and if necessary bring wrong actions into some wiki scrutiny. I would suggest to accept to the channels a few trusted users who are vocal critics of the channel: e.g. Giano, Irpen or Baldwindrief. I believe they are contributed enough to believe that they would not leak the logs to WikiTruth or CPlot, but they would act if there is something improper doing on there and their perspective and experience might be quit beneficial for the channel. Additionally it might be useful to allow relevant logs of the channel to be used during the dispute resolution process if the logs are necessary.

	Another way would be to close down the channel. It sure would be open under another name but at least all the participants would know that what they are doing is not necessary the best practice recommended by the project. ] 01:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

	====The Committee's dilemma, by ElC====
	The Committee faces a dilemma. On the one hand, they are obligated to examine ''highly related'' misconduct that exist both on-wiki and on-irc, but on the other, by their own admission, they are (at best) crippled in exercizing authority over the latter. Thus, such cases appear forever doomed to one-sided remedies. This problematic is fundamental to the open nature of the wiki (discretion with regards to sensitive matters notwithstanding), and the question is whether members of the Committee can muster the judicial imperative (and I would go so far as to say, the political will) to tackle such issues heads-on. Which is to say, be creative in finding solutions rather than remain in semi-statis on account of the constraints of jurisdictional proceduralism. The Committee has already offered one such ''creative'' remedy, although, quite possibly, a partial one as it is likely that there are not nearly enough Mackensens to keep watch over this particular channel. The question is whether the Committee can aim at a decision that can provide some sort of closure, both for the underlying issues as well as the particulars in this case. My problem with the rational behind Fred and other members' reasons for declining is that, by defering to the community, we are effectively left with endless debate with increasingly greater chances of it becoming circular, eliptical, repeticious, and ultimately, unresolvable. I strongly urge members of the Committee to take this plunge into these unfamilliar waters, to be creative, thereby sparing the community much time& energy. ] 00:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

	==== Lack of Jurisdiction (Werdna) ====
	The movement to shut down an IRC channel is a foundation issue (a group contact must have the channel shut down, rather than the arbitration committee). Therefore, it is my opinion that the decision to shut down this channel should be made by a foundation-level decision, or similar, rather than by the English Misplaced Pages's Arbitration Committee. In either case, I find it absolutely unacceptable that the English Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee sees fit to regulate my off-wiki communications. I am an individual, and you ''will'' respect my right to privacy, and my right to undertake any communications that I like off-wiki. Misplaced Pages is not my life, and nor should it be. — ''']''' '']'' 06:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

	=====Addendum=====
	I think that, in the cases of personal attacks and incivility off-wiki, people need to exercise whatever resolution mechanisms exist on ''that'' area (in this case, speak to group contacts), rather than hiding behind the English Misplaced Pages's arbitration committee, which is here to regulate the affairs of English Misplaced Pages, and only the affairs of English Misplaced Pages. — ''']''' '']'' 07:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

	====Statement by Eluchil404====

	I urge the committee to reject the instant case for the reasons presented most cogently above by Tony Sidaway and badlydrawnjeff. There is simply no jurisdiction here and no specific cases of ''on-wiki'' abuse stemming from the channel have been identified. A case dealing with those specific claims might be a good idea (or it might not), but trying to turn this case into that one certainly is not. The ArbCom is being asked to rule on the propriety of off-wiki communications and direct the foundation to take certain steps. It should decline. ] 07:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

	====Statement by mostly un-involved Messedrocker====
	Well, here it is. My first post on an RFAR ever. Someone bronze this comment, eh? Anyways, as a person who has dealt with content disputes, I have applied the philosophy that you have to get away from pointing fingers and instead deal with the issue at hand. However, I'm willing to go in the opposite direction for this: people have to remember that access to #wikipedia-en-admins is a privilege. People who abuse the privilege simply can lose it. But it's not as simple as that – there is also miscommunication problems, misunderstanding, and let's not forget the perennial accusations of cabalism.

	I think, instead of being harsh and bringing out the big guns, we should be understanding of each other and open to discussion. We need to be able to convince each other that we're good people, because that's what we all are. #wikipedia-en-admins indeed has the ability to be useful, especially for coordinating administrative activities, but we, the people who have access to such an exclusive channel, ought to show the world we're a responsible bunch and not a clique of prats. <span style="font-size:95%">—], your friendly neighborhood ''']</span> 08:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

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

	This makes no sense as a case.

	#As far as Misplaced Pages goes, the channel is on Freenode, with Freenode dealing with the group contact, which for Wikimedia is James Forrester - the individual, not the arbitrator. #wikipedia-en-admins is quite simply not a part of en: Misplaced Pages, even though it is closely related. The ArbCom could try to force James to act in a certain way, but I predict that one Wikimedia project trying to bend another Wikimedia project to its will would be severely problematic in Foundation relations. The ArbCom should expect to hear a lot of people above it saying "Um, no."
	#IRC has an "evil side" insofar as human communication does. One could just as well say WP:AN and WP:ANI have an "evil side" considering the continuing poisonous personal attacks there over the past several months, of which Irpen just happens to have been making quite a few (and I fully hope such will be in the purview of this case should the ArbCom accept it). The thing to do is to deal with the poisonous people. I must ask why Irpen does not name the persons whose behaviour he objects to, including something resembling solid evidence.
	#When dealing with poisonous people, it helps to use something resembling solid evidence rather than hearsay. Some of the "evidence" circulating (and being spammed across email and the wiki) is edited second- and third-hand logs out of context. Admins are already avoiding the channel in case some idiot takes a line out of context and tries to use it against him.
	#The channel is not a monolithic entity. If the AC somehow convinces the Wikimedia contact it's a good idea to shut it down, the alleged poisonous people will, if existing, go elsewhere.
	#This is actually Giano round 19. If the ArbCom accepts the case, I would hope it will acknowledge that Giano is the elephant in the room, and deal comprehensively with his conduct on the wiki, particularly the recent series of quite breathtaking personal attacks by him, and the admins who consistently unblock him and enable and encourage his reprehensible conduct.
	#This case is possibly stupider than the ]. But that's just a sidenote.
	- ] 01:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

	====Chapter and verse pertaining to IRC logs and Giano round 19, by Bishonen ====
	Diffs and questions in response to David Gerard's statement above. <br>
	'''David's points 2 and 3:''' ''Something resembling solid evidence rather than hearsay.'' "Solid evidence" of IRC abuse (= records of events = logs) is not permitted to be published on the wiki. Such evidence has however been submitted to the arbcom, some of it by me. These logs have impressed the arbcom as showing "absolutely unacceptable" behaviour on #en-admins (statement posted on AN by Fred Bauder). Are you saying the arbcom goes, gullibly, by "edited second- and third-hand logs out of context"? As I've stated , my own evidence was "logged by myself and without one pixel edited, removed, or added...One neutral person, at my request, submitted his own logs for the same times as mine, and I hope that the two versions were compared." Do you say I lie? If the pristine state of my logs or the abuse they show is not to be accepted, what technique ought I in your view to have used for evidence of mine to become acceptable, or is it ''a priori'' impossible that it ever could be? <br>
	'''David's point 5:''' ''I would hope it will acknowledge that Giano is the elephant in the room, and deal comprehensively with his conduct on the wiki, particularly the recent series of quite breathtaking personal attacks by him, and the admins who consistently unblock him and enable and encourage his reprehensible conduct.''. May we have some diffs for some of the breathtaking personal attacks? is a link to the block log for Giano II, so readers can see who these unblocking scoundrels are and the unblocking reasons they give (are they bad reasons? are they bad faith?), and also the presumably neutral blocking admins, and the reasons ''they'' give. The unblockers, one time each, are myself, ], ], and ]. Leaving the special case of Jimbo Wales aside, do you have any suggestions for how to "deal with" the others ? For the sake of completeness, I should mention that the log for "Giano", the previous account, has been wiped clean, in seeming acknowledgement of the badness of the indefinite block placed by ], and I don't remember who unblocked him that time. (It wasn't me.) My memory suggests that several admins rushed to unblock. ] \| ] 13:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

	:Personal attacks and insistence on bad faith: (jump to ad hominem) (replacement of his own personal attacks, inability to recognise them as such) (reversion of others' comments in discussion) (acknowledgement of his own personal attacks and incivility, direct statement that he intends to continue) (and again) (refusal to retract accusations of professional malfeasance) . That's just in the last month. Any other editor behaving in this manner would have been community-banned in very short order. And all those who have acted in this manner and been community-banned have been equally convinced of the righteousness of their cause. I don't see how an editor who can make as a serious demand can be assumed to have any social clue about how a wiki works, particularly this one. The ArbCom has noted in past cases that the problem with regular assumption of bad faith (as is evidenced here) is that the assumer then slips into strings of personal attacks (see above).

	:I ''strongly'' suggest to the ArbCom that, should this case be accepted, Giano be restricted to article space and have a civility parole placed upon him, with only designated admins being permitted to undo blocks due to violation of it - ] 00:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
	::I sincerely hope people will take the time to click on those links that you consider grounds for a community ban. ] \| ] 01:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

	:::As I said, that's going back one month. I could go back six, or twelve, and will certainly do so should this case be accepted. The essential point is he really doesn't get it, and doesn't belong in policy discussion pages because he demonstrably doesn't know how to comport himself. Look at his consistent assumption of "you're another conspirator!" to the many, many people who've suggested to him he'll get much farther if he stops being actively and deliberately obnoxious - ] 12:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

	::::If that is intended to be a threat, I would strongly advise you not to bring the intimidating behaviour of IRC here, where it will not be tolerated. ] 12:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

	:::::See what I mean? - ] 12:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

	:::I, for one, did. They were in my opinion unacceptable, but it's important to remember that this is in the context of what more or less is starting to equate to a lynch mob. I'd be a little unhinged and uncivil in light of that, too. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] • ] )</span> 01:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::David Gerard should beware of bringing the distorted logic and solutions of #IRCadmin to this page ] 08:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
	::::Please don't add any more threaded discussion here. It's very reasonable that David did so, as I thoughtlessly put direct questions to him, but I ask everybody else to take comments to the talkpage. ] \| ] 02:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

	====Bishonen wants diffs, by Ideogram====
	, , , , , ,
	,
	,
	. Want more?

	And don't you, Giano, or Irpen '''ever''' use the word "troll" in regard to me again. That's for ArbCom to decide, not you. --] 14:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

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

	==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/5/0/1) ====
	*Reject, community policy issue. ] 03:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
	*Accept. Though certainly an unusual request, I would like to look at and clarify several issues, which I don't think we've addressed adequately yet. ] <small>(])</small> 03:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
	*Accept; there are a number of matters here (including some that we've introduced ourselves in the recent past) that warrant some clarification. ] 05:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
	*Reject. I don't believe this is within Arbcom's purview. There are other issues regarding the channel (and behavior on the channel) that might be within that purview, but the existential one is not in our control. Note: should the community ''wish'' to put the channel under the control of Arbcom, it would make some issues a lot easier to deal with. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
	*<s>Reject. A Foundation and community policy issue. ] 08:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)<s> Striking reject pending further statements that might better clarify why this belongs in front of ArbCom instead of the community. I will restate that this request seems like a policy matter to me unless someone can convience me otherwise. ] 12:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
	*Accept per Flcelloguy and for the sake of transparency since the community should be aware of Committee members' thinking on this and related issues. ] Co., ] 12:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
	*Reject. Things don't become Arbitration matters just because ArbCom members have strong feelings about them (as is certainly the case here). ] 13:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
	*Accept per Flcelloguy. ] ] 16:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
	*On further consideration, '''Reject''' - I think this is NOT within our remit and I don't think it is going to clarify anything. <s>Accept for clarification. We need to state explicitly what is within our purview and what is not, in terms of IRC. The arbcom may very well decide this isn't, however.</s> ] (]:]) 20:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
	*Reject. I see no fruitful results coming from this, and I'm not prepared to open up another venue for related conflicts without an acceptable scope (i.e. individual misconduct which continues despite ''dispute resolution''). ]·] 06:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
	----

	== Requests for clarification ==
	'''Requests for clarification''' from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process. Place new requests at the top.
	===Request for clarification regarding ] consensus finding===
	Should existing guidelines, such as those presented in the ], be treated as a community consensus until and unless consensus is established to change them? ] 11:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

	:Broadly speaking, anything that matches established community practice and is relatively uncontroversial can be assumed to enjoy a community consensus, regardless of where it happens to be written down. I would be wary, however, of extending that to those points in the MoS that ''don't'' match actual community practice (and there are a few, usually on the more obscure MoS pages) unless there has been an ''explicit'' consensus that they be adopted. ] 13:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

	::In this case, what brought the question on was a section in ] on binary prefixes. This section states that the use of XiB prefixes (such as ]) should be used rather than notation such as ] where the binary representation is more accurate. This guideline was adopted by consensus some time ago, but recently was disputed after a newer editor attempted to actually make the recommended changes, and those changes were reverted (in many cases while being called "vandalism".) The dispute has not reached the level of a consensus to change the guideline. Are there any recommendations for such a situation? ] 13:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

	:::Well, given that the MoS doesn't appear to correspond to what article editors are actually doing in practice, it's somewhat questionable whether it (still) enjoys consensus in this case. I would suggest starting a (widely publicized—try leaving notes with the relevant WikiProjects, and on the talk pages of some prominent articles) discussion with the intent of figuring out what the MoS ''should'' say on the topic (rather than the somewhat narrower yes/no question of whether what it ''currently'' says is correct). ] 13:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

	::::Will do. Thank you for your help. ] 13:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

	===Request for clarification on James Randi and Sathya Sai Baba===
	] posted a note to ] demanding that the link to ]'s webpage be removed from the article. Given the threat of banning in the post, I'd like the arbitrators to make clear their opinion on this.--] 13:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	:My request for an ''indefinite'' ban was sarcastic. I think and hope that this case will be decided too in the pending case ]. ] 20:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	:In context, I agree it's clear that that was not a serious proposal or interpretation. ] 20:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

	The point at issue here is whether ]' interpretation is correct or incorrect. As I understand it, his interpretation is that no site which contains any poorly -sourced criticism of Sathya Sai Baba may be linked to by any article, regardless of the subject of the article. This means, for example, that because a former British ] wrote an ] criticising Sathya Sai Baba in 2002, and this motion remains on the website of the ], that linking to is not allowed by any article – whether or not that article has any connection to the Early Day Motion or the MP concerned.

	I can't believe that this interpretation is accurate, because of its immensely far-reaching implications. The alternative interpretation is that the remedy only applies where the article contains some assertion related to Sathya Sai Baba, and that seems to be what was intended. ] 22:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	:I do not have any interpretation, because I have become thoroughly confused about what is allowed and not. ] 22:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

	::The threat and this request verge on disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point. ] applies to "article or on a talk page regarding Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him." The remedy has been extended to ] because Priddy's entire reason for importance, according to you, is that he is a critic of Sai Baba. He controls 4 web sites, one of which is appropriate for inclusion in his biography and 3 of which are not, because they deal exclusively with criticism of Sai Baba that is based on personal experience and non-reliable sources. You are in danger of being ] from these articles because you did not change your behavior after getting amnesty in the first arbitration case against you, by edit warring over the inclusion of the negative links. ] is not affiliated with Sai Baba or his organization, nor does his fame rest on being a notable Sai Baba critic. Therefore, the fact that you can find two pages of criticism on his website is entirely irrelevant. ] 23:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	:::Okay, thanks for the prompt clarification. I did not edit war on the entry ]. So a relevant link to a website with poorly sourced critical information about Sathya Sai Baba is fine as long the entry does not mention ]? ]
	:::Following Thatcher131's way of reasoning, the links to the websites of ] (the famous opponent of Sathya Sai Baba) are forbidden too, just like in the case of ]. Or am I mistaken? ]

	===Request for clarification on votes in the Lucky 6.9 request===
	Could arbitrators who have voted on the ] request above please provide a few words of explanation? I think the matter at least merits comment, whether or not it merits an actual case. ]<sup>]</sup> 02:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

	===Request for clarification on review of Carnildo's promotion===
	* I may be missing the obvious, but could the Committee please point to where the ] of Carnildo's promotion is stored, probably back in November? I'm sure he would like to put that behind him and I have not seen where the green light was given. -- '']']'' 20:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

	::Is it coincidence that I raised this very question on ] the day before this, almost to the hour?

	::FWIW, in the absence of any allegations of improper behavious by ] (and, as far as I am aware, his behavious has been exemplary), I think we should accept that lots of water has flowed under this bridge and we should move on. -- ] ] 12:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

	:I think this is something that some of the members on the Committee back then may be able to answer better than I can, but if the Committee back then did indeed promise a review and it has not done so yet, then it should be done so now. (However, I haven't reviewed the situation and am relying on my memory - perhaps the intent of the Committee then was to only review if there were complaints received? Can someone clarify this?) Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 03:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	::Looking at that link, it does not specify that there has to be complaints, just says that it would be reviewed in two months. <blockquote>We therefore reinstate Carnildo's adminship, on a probationary basis, for a period of two months, after which his activities will be reviewed by the arbcom.</blockquote> – ] 10:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	:::Thank you for reminding us of our promise to review the administrative actions of {{Admin\|Carnildo}}. How about taking a look and reporting any problems here? ] 15:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	::::I have taken a look through some of the talkpages and logs and find no evidence of any allegations that Carnildo has abused his administrator tools since he was resysopped.
	::::Has Carnildo has been advised that this conversation about him is going on here? Since it's not clear that he has, I will leave a note on his talkpage. ] 17:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

	The ] that the Carnildo's candidacy "failed to reach consensus".

	This is a fact, not a speculation. The ] requires consensus of the community and this has not changed. Is there any evidence that consensus of editors regarding Carnildo's adminship now exists? ArbCom needs to show that such consensus now exists or come with the creative measure to gauge it. It would be a grave mistake to have a user whose adminship is demonstrated to not have been achieved by consensus and at the same time pretend that it does not matter anymore unless the policy that requires consensus in the first place is not changed. --] 18:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
	:Eh, his adminship was reinstated on a probationary basis. If he's not causing problems then that's an end of it. The whole purpose of RfA is simply to produce admins who can service the encyclopedia without causing problems. It's 'no big deal'. That's the only purpose of the discussion there. If Carnildo is now acting as a reasonable admin, then celebrate - Misplaced Pages is better off. If he's not, then let's desysop him fast. --]<sup>g</sup> 18:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
	::Eh, adminship was reinstated against consensus. This was established by an ArbCom. Please do not skip this important step. If his exemplary behavior changed the editors' view towards his adminship, then celebrate. If ArbCom can demonstratively establish that such consensus exist, Misplaced Pages is better off. If the issue of consensus is now moot, the policy should be amended to reflect that. --] 19:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
	:::I am certain that the purpose of Naeblis' question above and Fred's throwing the floor open to inquiry was ''not'' to rehash the events and decisions made in September. The disagreements at that time are vividly remembered and the fact that the ArbCom decision in the so-called "Giano" case arguably contained some internal inconsistencies need not be rehashed at this point either. I doubt very much that given the aftermath, anyone will point to this situation as a precedent to be followed in the future, so unless there is a specific and current concern about Carnildo, I would not want to see this discussion degenerate into a discussion of past grievances. Not only would this be a distraction from writing the encyclopedia, but it would even be a distraction from the resolution of more current disputes here. ] 19:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
	::::It is a very specific concern, whether it is OK for someone to have admin buttons despite the lack of consensus. I am not calling for rehashing the events in any way without need. But ArbCom has to address the issue of consensus in ''some way''. If ArbCom sees that there is one now, its should note so in the decision of removing the probation from Carnildo's adminship. The issue of consensus is the fundamental issue of trust and cannot be swept under the rug. --] 19:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

	We did that. We are not going to reopen the case. Unless there is some problem with Carnildo's administrative work, that is the end of it. ] 02:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	:"Against consensus" or "against a baying mob including a fair number of disgruntled image copyright violators?" There were a lot of supports, and the opposes included at least one "proxy vote" on behalf of a banned user. Is there any evidence that Carnildo is causing a problem right now? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	::A lot of oppose votes were based off of Carnildo's actions during the pedophilia userbox wheel war (I know mine was). not just his thankless OrphanBot work. ] 00:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
	:Sorry, "We did that" meant you did what? I am not calling on reopening the case anywhere here, btw. --] 17:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	::JzG, I think your characterization of the opposition in Carnildo's RfA is quite unfair. While there were indeed some editors who opposed simply because of OrphanBot, these were very few (something around five or so). The vast majority of opposers were concerned because of his abuse of the admin tools last year. That said, I can find no objection to Carnildo's actions as an admin since then. While I still question the decision of the bureaucrats who promoted him, he seems to be handling the position fine. ] 08:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

	===Request for appeal of precedent from ]===

	] from the "Lyndon LaRouche" arbcom decision strike me as vaguely worded, but have been subsequently interpreted to represent a general ban on the use of ''Executive Intelligence Review'', ''Fidelio'', and other publications associated with LaRouche as sources for Misplaced Pages articles. I believe that this interpretation is overbroad (see ]) and has had unintended negative effects on the project (see ].)

	I would like to propose the following: that the policy of a "blanket ban" on cites from LaRouche publications be repealed, and replaced with a warning that such cites are simply subject to the policies laid out in ]. The Misplaced Pages policy is clear and ought to be sufficient to prevent abuses.

	It is my contention that there will be instances where it is in fact appropriate to cite LaRouche publications, particularly ''Executive Intelligence Review'', which has been in publication for over 30 years and has been called "one of the best private intelligence services in the world" by Norman Bailey, a former senior staffer of the National Security Council. There may be instances where analysis from ''EIR'' may be deemed to be OR, but there is a wealth of information, for example in interviews of prominent persons that regularly appear in ''EIR'', that should not be considered OR.--] 11:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

	: Is this being treated as a blanket ban? My reading is that the limitation on use of LaRouche-based sources only applies to Wikipedians who are supporters of LaRouche. If there are neutral editors with no connection to LaRouche who believe that these are the best available sources in any particular case, they may add them, unless there is some other decision or clarification of which I am not aware. ] Co., ] 23:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

	::If you look at the ] I am citing, plus the answers I received in my earlier ], you will see that it is indeed being treated as a blanket ban. The arbcom case in question makes no distinction between a supporter of LaRouche and a non-supporter (the "LaRouche 2" case bans ] from editing LaRouche-related articles.) --] 23:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

	:::Some classes of sources are not presumed unsuitable, such as blogs and forums, but it's only a presumption. Editors can make a case for particular sources in individual instances.

	:::The LaRouche material has several problems. His theories and methods are widely viewed as being fringe so they shouldn't be used as objective sources of information or interpretation for an encyclopedia. Just read the Washington Post article that give the Bailey quotation cited above, . Bailey himself sued LaRouche for libel and received a cash settlement and a correction. Authors in the movement often write on obscure topics with novel viewpoints, so the volume of their material, and their availability on the web, could significantly impact Misplaced Pages if widely used for sources. Readers and editors unfamiliar with LaRouche's theories may not realize that an article they're reading is based on his views of the topic. Further, the LaRouche movement editors have a problematic history at Misplaced Pages. The main editor, {{user\|Herschelkrustofsky}}, was found to have been expertly controlling several sockpuppets while engaging in edit wars over plagiarized material and LaRouche theories. It appears likely that he is still editing despite his one-year ban. There now are several single purpose accounts devoted to LaRouche articles, so it seems as if there are more editors promoting LaRouche's POV than ever.

	:::Material like this:, just doesn't belong as a source. On the other hand a user made a good case for linking to some animated geometry diagrams on a LaRouche site, and so we kept it. However the 40-page LaRouche-written article that they illustrate is characteristic of his material and of why we avoid him as a source. LaRouche sources are still in the articles that use them to source LaRouche opinions or statements, for example, ] and ]. So it's not a blanket ban.

	:::I've recently removed dozens of inappropriate LaRouche sources from Misplaced Pages articles, links that appear to have been added within the last year. That's the action which has precipitated this appeal. The ArbCom's ruling on LaRouche sources exists to prevent fringe theories pushed by aggressive editors from skewing Misplaced Pages articles. It's needed now just as much as when it was adopted. -] · ] · 09:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

	::::The ruling ] is clear. Sources that originate with LaRouche may not be used in any articles except those associated with the LaRouche movement. Jimbo's clarification backs up Will's point that LaRouche sources are not reliable in the ordinary sense, and Jimbo further says that evaluating such sources is a difficult job "for serious editors to undertake thoughtfully." Will appears to have done that. Furthermore, Uninvited's comment that neutral editors may add LaRouche sources if they are appropriate both fits in with Jimbo's remarks and excludes Tsunami Butler. So the current status quo is about right, as far as I can tell. ] 13:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

	::Of course, I disagree with many assertions made by Will Beback and Thatcher131, plus assertions that I may anticipate will be made by Fred Bauder, based on my earlier ]. Rather than responding point-by-point to those assertions here, I am asking the ArbCom to open a formal appeal on this matter so that it may be discussed in depth. --] 15:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
	:::Arbitration cases should not be reopened or revisited without clear and compelling issues. Is there a case where these sources are not being allowed? If so, they shouldn't be re-removed without discussion on the talk page - consensus is what powers Misplaced Pages. If one of the banned users is adding them, then an appeal to ] should be made. ] may be a good way to get a range of opinions on the issue. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] • ] )</span> 00:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
	::::The list of ] that I provided are all recent cases where Will Beback removed material in a manner that was, by my reckoning, arbitrary and senseless. In each case, editors from the affected pages protested on Will's talk page, making clear that they held no pro-LaRouche POV. The one older edit on the list was that was referenced in the second ArbCom case. I was not a party to these disputes.

	::::The dispute where I am a party is on the article ], where I object to the removal of quotes from an interview given by ] to the LaRouche publication ''EIR'', quotes removed by editors Mgunn and 172, with the support of Will Beback, citing the arbcom ban. I can see no valid argument that quotes from an on-the-record, published interview should be considered OR. When I raised this before in my ], I was told by Fred Bauder that "People who follow these things know." I found this explanation less than complete. --] 01:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
	:::::*The reason is straightforward:
	::::::*A Lyndon Larouche publication is not a ].
	::::::*The interview is from a Lyndon Larouche publication.
	::::::*Therefore, the interview is unreliable.
	:::::*To see how it fits, substitute "Blogspot posting", "personal communication", "forum posting" or other unreliable source for "Lyndon Larouche publication" above, irrelevant qualifiers like "published" on "on-the-record" notwithstanding. --] \| ] 02:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	As noted above, LaRouche publications are often interesting and useful. The problem is that, with few exceptions, they are original research, sometimes excellent, informative original research, but still original research. For whatever reason, the LaRouche movement is not integrated with either the academic or journalistic world, thus there is little of the give and take with makes up peer review. Bottom line, it isn't who uses them, it's what they are, unreliable sources, not because they are not sometimes brilliant, but because they are original research. ] 03:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	:Looking at ], it seems to me that ''EIR'' is both "publication with a declared editorial policy" and an example of "published news media," so that there may well be cases where it would be appropriate as a source. I do not think that it is accurate to assert that ''EIR'' is "not integrated with the journalistic world," although it is cited far more frequently in the foreign than in the domestic press.

	:The reason I think that this appeal deserves to be heard is that the ArbCom precedent, as it is presently being interpreted, makes a special, and I believe unique policy with respect to ''EIR''. It essentially makes ''EIR'' an ''exception'' to ] and ], by saying that citations from ''EIR'' may ''not'' be evaluated under these policies, but must simply be excluded out of hand. There are plenty of highly partisan media publications which are used as sources when appropriate, or excluded as sources when appropriate. If the ArbCom is to make a policy that ''EIR'' is a special and unique case, I think that it warrants a formal hearing. Incidentally, I do ''not'' think that this policy, as it is presently being interpreted, is clearly enunciated in the ] case; the ruling says that "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Misplaced Pages article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles." The interpretation that anything from a LaRouche publication is axiomatically OR comes after the fact. My personal interest is that this is also now being used to exclude ''EIR'' as a source specifically in "the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles," which also seems to go beyond what the ArbCom ruled in this case. --] 07:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	::Tsunami, LaRouche publications don't count as reliable sources, and may therefore be used only in articles about LaRouche and his movement, and even then with certain limitations — for example, when used in LaRouche-related articles, they can't be used as sources of information about third parties. That the publications are not reliable sources can be demonstrated by reading their contents, and by examining the extent to which those contents are entirely at odds with material found in publications known to be reliable. One example that serves to illustrate is that LaRouche believed employees of the British royal family were plotting to kill him just a few years ago, and he apparently warned the White House that they might be plotting against the president too. I forget the motive, but I think it had something to do with Diana. Any publication that routinely published this kind of material would find itself regarded as an unreliable source for Misplaced Pages; it isn't anything against LaRouche as such, but against material of that nature. The ArbCom rulings are one source that prohibits the use of LaRouche publications, except in limited circumstances, but other sources prohibiting that type of material are ], ], ], and ], the first three of which are policies, the fourth a guideline. To have LaRouche sources declared reliable, you'd have to change several key passages in these policies, as well as overturn ArbCom rulings. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 08:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	:::SlimVirgin, I have seen from various talk pages that you are an outspoken critic of LaRouche, as is Calton. The article you mention, which you linked from one of the LaRouche articles , is not as simplistic as your description suggests. I could also say in response that ''EIR'' warned of the demise of the U.S. auto industry, and of the Bush administration's intention to go go to war against Iran, well in advance of other media, but the other media are now echoing ''EIR'' warnings. Therefore, for a time, ''EIR'' was "entirely at odds" with other publications, but in the long run, this was not the case.
	::::An unreliable source is not wrong all the time (in that case it would still give reliable information - reliably wrong), but is a source where it is impossible (or very hard) to determine a-priori whether it is right or wrong. Thus, the existance of some correct predictions is no evidence for the reliability of a source. --] 15:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
	:::However, the issue before the ArbCom is a special case where an ArbCom decision, or rather a subsequent interpretation of that decision, has made an unusual policy. Uninvited Company asked if it were a "blanket ban"; Thatcher131 has confirmed that, at least by his interpretation, it is. Fred Bauder, who to my knowledge is the only other actual ArbCom member to weigh in in this discussion, is now saying that LaRouche publications are OR "with few exceptions."
	::::Somehow I had the impression that Thatcher131 was a member of the Arbcom. Apparently the only actual Arbcom members who have posted here are Fred Bauder and Uninvited Company. --] 17:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

	:::Note that I am not proposing any changes in ], ], ], or ]. I am proposing that the blanket ban be overturned, and let those policies work as they would under any other circumstances. It is on this issue that I request a formal hearing. --] 15:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	Rather than abrogate the remedy in this case I would like to see the sound principles involved in arriving at it applied to the other "walled gardens" which from time to time are improperly used as sources for information on Misplaced Pages. For example, the material in the ''People's Daily'', a good part of which is simply made up. Extreme Zionist material is another example, as are similar nationalistic, religious, and political writings. Indeed, any intellectual work which is based not on facts but on premises. I suppose, taken to the limit, that would include much of what passes for knowledge. We would need to develop policy which insists on some contact with reality, but avoids demanding perfection in that regard. ] 15:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	:If you are proposing the drafting of a universal policy which would encompass LaRouche sources, that makes sense to me. But if Misplaced Pages is to continue to have a specific policy which applies uniquely to LaRouche publications, I ask for a formal appeal.

	:I am also requesting some sort of relief on the specific issues I raised. The practice of hunting down and purging LaRouche citations as in these ] seems silly and disruptive. I don't think the arbcom should condone it. I am also asking for some sort of intervention with respect to ] and related articles, where there are perennial edit conflicts because of a few highly aggressive critics, who have opened accounts as editors at Misplaced Pages and wish to load those articles with self-citations. If it is forbidden to supply material, such as the aforementioned quotes from interviews, from LaRouche publications in response, it becomes very difficult to balance the articles, creating problems from the standpoint of both ] and ]. --] 22:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
	::I strongly agree that this issue needs further discussion, although I'm unsure if ArbCom is the right venue. As these kinds of otherwise considered crank sources become more popular and, to a degree, accepted, it is important for us to acknowledge them, so that the integrity of our NPOV policy is maintained. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] • ] )</span> 01:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
	:::''The practice of hunting down and purging LaRouche citations as in these examples seems silly and disruptive''. Nope. Given Mr. LaRouche's range of -- shall we say odd -- opinions on a wide variety of subjects 'ask him about 20th-century music sometime) and his and his followers's willingness to push them aggressively, I'd call it the opposite of "silly and disruptive". --] \| ] 08:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

	=== ] clarification===

	The final decision notes that "It is the responsibility of the administrators and other responsible parties to close extended policy discussions they are involved in."

	#What is a "responsible party?"
	#What sort of expectation is it to close an "extended policy discussion?" At what point is it "extended," and at what stage is it okay to throw in the towel? At an arbitrary moment or simply when the discussion becomes "disruptive?"

	Thanks. --] <small>]</small> 22:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

	:An established and respected user who is not an administrator could close a discussion. An extended policy discussion is one in which most aspects of the question has been discussed, alternatives considered, in short, a full discussion. Good judgement is needed to determine when consensus has been reached or when it is obvious there is no consensus. When the discussion becomes disruptive, more heat than light, it is probably past time to close the discussion and declare a result. ] 22:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
	::So nothing really specific, per se? --] <small>]</small> 01:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
	:::The subject does not lend itself to bright line rules. The question is whether the question has been fully discussed and a decision reached. ] 01:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

	::::Jeff got me thinking, and.. that's not really useful. It's basically saying "If you think you're right then say so and tell everyone to shut up". Won't everyone think they're right in a discussion/dispute/etc? If the situation is reasonably clear one way or the other then we usually don't have to resort to something like this to end it. The situations this is supposed to be helpful in are usually too unclear to actually use this. -- ] 05:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

	:::::] involved a matter where there was a consensus, but no closing. Based on lack of closing, an opposition party engaged in move warring. That was the problem we were trying to address. ] 03:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

	::::::I guess that's one way to look at it, but the solution offered still isn't helpful. Nothing personal. -- ] 04:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

	*As Fred Bauder said, the gauging of consensus is not something that lends itself well to hard line rules. That is why we have a special permission for users that guage consensus in promotions - bureaucrats (they do other things, too, but that's why the permission was created IIRC). It's a tricky business, but not unsurmountable. When in doubt, further discussion can never hurt. Requests for third (or hundredth) opinions can be useful. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] • ] )</span> 00:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	::Ned, in this situation the result ''was'' "reasonably clear" (80% supermajority over a relatively minor issue) but a vocal minority engaged in move warring and disruption. We all agree to operate on consensus, and in most cases policy discussions sort of peter out when the parties get bored, or realize they are losing, and find other things to do, leaving the active particpants to implement the consensus result. Here there was a small but very vocal minority that did not accept the result, possibly because the people who were telling them that they lost were the people they had been arguing with all along, and possibly because there is no "official" way to close a policy discussion. (Unlike XfD, where there is a clear procedure for ending the discussion, announcing the result, and implementing it.) The arbitration remedy authorizes the participants in a debate to close it when consensus is demonstrably achieved, and announce and implement the result. (Although, with all due respect to Fred and the other arbitrators, I think it should have said "uninvolved" editors or admins, and I would hope that in future situations, a majority faced with a vocal and upset minority would seek outside help.) ] 00:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	:::Well, a good many of us thought it was obvious from day one, but a big problem was how it appeared to people outside of the debate (specifically, how it was being represented outside of the debate). Not only that, but more than once we had "announced" an end/consensus during the debate, so technically we ''did'' do the very thing suggested. I understand and agree with the meaning of the statement, but this statement as a tool to help avoid such conflicts in the future doesn't seem very helpful to me. -- ] 05:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	::::It's better than nothing? At this point you can take a future conflict to ] and say: "see, here we discussed a policy, and here's the consensus, and here we announced it per the ''Naming Conventions'' case decision, and Thatcher is still move and edit warring over it, so please enforce the decision by blocking Thatcher until he gets the message." At least it clearly puts the burden of proof on the minority to show that a consensus was not reached, rather than on the majority to prove that consensus exists. ] 05:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	=== ]' status in cases ===
	Surely some here know me for being an AMA advocate that from time to time appears in the halls of ArbCom defending people. This time, I have a doubt. What status have formal or informal advocate during a case? Are we "parties" or just "others"? If we are "parties", then, can we make motions, endorse them, object, request in the workshop or just comment as an uninvolved user? My opinion is that advocates should be considered a party, as we're involved (indirectly, yes) in the case... but, in the other hand, no arbitrator has ever thought on ruling on an advocate... It's quite confusing to me and that's why I request this clarification. Thanks in advance! --] 19:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
	**Any user may be an informal advocate, but an AMA advocate speaks for the user they represent. They are not a party but may speak for the party they represent. In the past no advocate has effectively represented a user, but the role is open. Great care should be taken to make only motions which make sense to the arbitrators. Focus on adequately presenting relevant evidence in a useable form and on framing proposals in terms of core Misplaced Pages policies. ] 02:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''': A rule that a party's advocate in a mediation automatically becomes a party to an ensuing arbitration case might inadvertently discourage editors from taking on the role of advocate. Hopefully, it is a rare situation in which an advocate's own conduct becomes the focus of inquiry by ArbCom, so I don't think formal "party" status is necessary. A sensible rule would be that advocates have the same standing as any other editor to present evidence, make workshop proposals, etc., but that of course when an advocate is commenting in the capacity of advocate, it's good practice to note that fact. When an ArbCom case is filed, providing courtesy notification to anyone who was acting as an advocate is also an appropriate thing to do. ] 19:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' • As an advocate myself, I would say that we are just another editor, and should be treated as such. There should be no preferential or special treatment given, and their status as a party should be judged on the merits, or lack thereof, of their actions, and the length of their involvement. If they are not directly involved in the dispute, other than by acting as an advocate, than I would be compelled to think that they would not be a party. After all, we do not bring the previous mediator on a case into a case simply because they were the mediator in the prior attempt at dispute resolution. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] • ] )</span> 19:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

	*I'd suggest doing something like putting the comment in the party section and then signing it, say, "NvT as advocate for RealParty". Unless acting directly as advocate -- i.e., speaking for them -- then you're just another editor with a hopefully useful comment. I think ArbCom can figure out the difference between the real parties and the advocates and is unlikely to include the advocates in any remedies... --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

	**Well, that's what I myself do: add "] (aka Neigel von Teighen) ] advocate for User" in the party list and then adding a diff to anything that certifies me as advocate. What I expect from ArbCom is a little guideline on what to do, not a policy. Something we can rely on when an advocate (formal or informal) has doubts on what to do. That's it what we need. --] 09:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

	*'''Comment''' • I would assume an Advocate is not a party, but an advocate for a party. In a given case were an Advocate represents a party, and performs actions as any other editor, it may raise COI issues. ] 22:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

	*'''Comment''' Neigel asks ''"can we make motions, endorse them, object, request in the workshop"''. It seems to me the answer is "yes, of course; ''anyone'' can do all that stuff, party to the case or not". As far as I can see, absolutely nothing hinges on whether advocates are considered parties. What am I missing here? ] 05:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

	**Nobs has hit the point that led me to make this request. There can be COI problems like this: User X makes a motion and Advocate endorses it, counting as two "moves" for the same party in a same "turn"... (proposing-endorsing) I don't know if I'm clear enough... It turns me to be rather unfair in some way... although anyone could go and request an advocate too. Simply put, what I request is a little official guideline written by ArbCom so no doubt nor conflict arrive... Maybe am I being too silly? If so, tell me and withdraw this. --] 17:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

	Advocates have no formal status during arbitration (or, stated another way - they are the same as everybody else). In the past, they have shown themselves clearly and conclusively to be impediments to the arbitration process. In cannot think of a single case they have helped in any way. In short, the AMA is useless. ] 18:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
	*Well, I really know we're an impediment, but we try to do the best we can, including myself. And have an idea: please send me a feedback on my work on the ongoing Starwood case after its closure and tell me how I did it and what shall I improve or if I was really useless? Honestly, it can be a good start! --] 19:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
	**I can't speak to the Starwood case (which I haven't yet looked at), but in all past cases, the AMA advocates' arguments have amounted to nothing but pettifoggery. If you wish for things to go different, then - and I say this admittedly without looking at what you have been doing there - I strongly suggest you advocate for the person are representing, and avoid resorting to the AMA's standard toolbox of dilatory tactics. ] 21:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
	*Personally, I feel that Advocates ''could'' be of use, but currently and in the past they have '''not''' been. The problem is that when someone makes an argument on one person's behalf and it is struck down, they tend to take it as a slight against them. I feel that it is important that AMA advocates hold themselves to a certain decorum when working in a case. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] • ] )</span> 18:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
	**This is why we thought in our ] to do gather arbitrators with our Coordinator and Deputies to talk about these things... Well, in summary, the answer to my request is: "Advocates are the same as anyother editor in the case". Have I undertood it well? If so, then, we can say this request is closed, wouldn't be? --] 11:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

	*I honestly must say that I find myself taken aback by comments such as ''"In short, the AMA is useless,"'' but I cannot deny that ''historically'' such observations have been true. In the past, members of the AMA were causing havoc by bringing cases that were far too young in the ] process to MedCom and ArbCom. This, in turn, was mostly due to two things: 1) Advocates who did not have enough direction or practical experience and 2) the fact that the AMA was practically inactive and running "on its own" without any sort of supervision or direction. People were "signing up" with no communication between members and no idea of what to do, the request system was horrific, and the previous Coordinator had resigned months earlier with no acknowledgment from the Association. (This is the state I found it in when I joined). <br/><br/>Recently, with many Advocate efforts, there has been a resurgence in membership, a reorganization of our structure and and influx of zeal to help and because of that the AMA is back on its feet. We've kept the same goal that we initially held (helping disputes on Misplaced Pages) yet have a very different way of going about things. As a result we have ''already'' relieved ArbCom of dozens of cases and saved many hours of precious time by reducing the escalation of conflicts as they arise and are referred to us.<Br/><br/>Things are working well, but they are far from perfect yet, and I feel that the next logical step is for the AMA to foster a closer, functional, and working relationship with ArbCom in order for our processes to be more efficient, and in the end, put less strain on ]. If we end up doing "our job" properly, even fewer cases will rise to the level of Arbitration, and those that do should be properly researched, formed and submitted. What my wishes are in discussing this would be to see that there is some cooperation between us to further these goals and make Misplaced Pages a better place. <Br/><br/>-- (AMA Coordinator) <small>]</small> <tt><b><font color="#0033CC">]</font></b></tt> <sub><B><font color="#000000">(]/])</font></B></sub> 03:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

	I had suggested that we open a formal hearing on this but there wasn't much interest from the other members of the committee. I'll throw out a few comments informally here since I've seen the AMA in action before and have a few specific concerns and believe I can see both sides:
	* The AMA was organized by individuals who were not especially supportive of the arbitration process. A clean break or a repudiation of this viewpoint might be appropriate.
	* Arbitration Committee members love to see clearly and concisely presented cases. If that's what you do, great, you'll find that you have our full support in about a picosecond. On the other hand, if you expand cases unnecessarily with trivial counterclaims, you'll be walking in the footsteps of your predecessors.
	* If you're going to do this, part of your job is to control your clients. They shouldn't be participating themselves in cases except to offer testimony.
	* If a request for arbitration includes a statement from someone stating that they wish to be represented by a member advocate and that they are going to refrain from direct participation in the case themselves, I would respect that and would expect that most other committee members would as well, as a practical matter.
	* I would be open to a more formal or official role for advocates once advocates have established a track record as an asset to arbitration itself in addition to helping out by steering cases to the most appropriate forum.
	] Co., ] 10:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

	*I am very encouraged by ]'s statement above. The function of AMA, done well, can provide a very valuable service to the community and the ArbCom. I also support UninvitedCompany's reccomendations above. ] ] 19:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)



	==Motions in prior cases==

	:''(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)''

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

	==Archives==

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

	]
	]

	]
	]
	]

Latest revision as of 03:40, 31 January 2023

Wikimedia project page

ArbitrationCommittee

Dispute resolution (Requests)
Tips
Assume good faith Use etiquette Be civil Be open to compromise Discuss on talk pages Failure to discuss Help desk (Request)
Content disputes
Third opinion (Request) Mediation Noticeboards Request comments (Request) Resolution noticeboard (Request)
Conduct disputes
Administrator assistance (Request) Arbitration (Request)
v t e

Misplaced Pages Arbitration

About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)

Track related changes
v t e

Shortcuts

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Misplaced Pages. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Request a new arbitration case
Request clarification or amendment of an existing case
This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed
Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
Arbitrator motions
Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	21 Dec 2024	11 Jan 2025

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: American politics 2	none	(orig. case)	15 January 2025

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

Shortcuts

About this page

Use this section to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority).

Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests.

Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace.

To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

File an arbitration request

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
- Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

This page is for statements, not discussion.
Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, e.g. off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
Declined case requests are logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)

Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
- Click here to file a referral from AE requesting enforcement of a decision.
- Click here to file a referral from AE appealing an arbitration enforcement action.
Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Clarification and Amendment archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126
127	128	129	130	131

Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1–2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
- Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

Arbitrators and clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Shortcuts:

Clarification and Amendment archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126
127	128	129	130	131

Amendment request: American politics 2

Initiated by Interstellarity at 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected: American politics 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Contentious_topic_designation

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

Interstellarity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Contentious_topic_designation

Request to push the year of the contentious topic designation to be later.

Statement by Interstellarity

I would like to request that the designated year of the contentious topic designation to be pushed somewhat later. The year 1992 was decided as the best compromise at the time. I feel that enough time has passed and we can possibly push it later and get an idea of how the cutoff is working. Four years ago, we only considered election years, but I think it would be better in this discussion to consider any year, regardless of whether it was an election year or not. I would like to throw some ideas on what the new cutoff could be.

1. Everything 2000 and after - Most of the disruptive editing on American politics has been after Obama left office and I would strongly oppose moving the cutoff anywhere after 2017 since Trump is the incoming president and was president before. Other than the 9/11 attacks, I don't antipate much disruption during this period.
2. A cutoff that automatically moves every year - say we choose 20 or 25 years (2005 or 2000) as our moving cutoff, the next year it would 2001 or 2006. That's basically the gist of it.
3. Everything 2009 and after - Another possibility that's somewhere in the middle of the road between the broad 2000 and the restrictive 2017.
4. Everything 2017 and after - this is the strictest cutoff I would support especially since the incoming president was president during this period and the disruptive editing is at its highest.

I hope the arbitrators, with community input, can see the changing needs of Misplaced Pages and act accordingly to acknowledge as time passes. Interstellarity (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: OK, that's an interesting point. On the topic of sanctions between 1992 and 1999, I haven't checked the number of sanctions for that period, but my guess would be some low number. If the disruptive editing is very minimal during this time period, it could be covered by our normal disruptive editing policy. If there are specific topic areas of that period that deserve sanctions stronger than the disruptive editing policy, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. Interstellarity (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment by GoodDay

2015, would likely be the appropriate cutoff year, if we're not going to go along with a U.S. presidential election year. Otherwise, 2016. The automatic date readjustment idea, is acceptable too. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Rosguill

I think periodically revisiting the cutoff date is reasonable. Looking through 2024's page protections, the overwhelming majority concern then-ongoing political events or individuals, with a handful of pages concerning events 2016-2022, and only one page about a historical event prior (9/11). User sanctions are obviously much more difficult to retroactively map onto a temporal range of history, but they're also a minority of logged AE actions for AP2. On that basis, moving the cutoff to 2016 seems reasonable. _signed,Rosguill 22:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

American politics 2: Clerk notes

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

American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion

@Interstellarity: I guess the question I would have is: of the AP2 sanctions imposed in 2023 and 2024, how many wouldn't fall under post–2000 American politics, broadly construed? If the answer to that is 0 or some very low number, then I could see narrowing the topic area. (If there's a user sanction that partially relies on edits in the 1992–1999 politics area, I would count that too.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
The following actions were taken in 2024 under AP2 regarding pre-2015 topics:
- Cloward–Piven strategy indef pending changes
- September 11 attacks indef consensus required restriction
- The Right Brothers indef semi

All other actions taken there are pretty clearly due to post-2015 developments, and would be acceptable with a cutoff of 2015. Inclined to support such an amendment. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

My initial gut feeling is that 1992 was the beginning of the end of... regular? politics in the US, so it makes sense as a starting point. If articles about that time period aren't causing a problem then I wouldn't be opposed to shifting it. I would be hesitant to go much past 2000, since I've seen that some articles from that era still being fairly contentious. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Motions

Shortcuts

This section can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Motions.

Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives.

Make a motion (Arbitrators only)

You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment.

Requests for enforcement

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important informationShortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344	345	346	347

Lemabeta

Lemabeta has acknowledged the warnings here to take more care and stay well clear of articles from which they are restricted from editing. Further violations are very likely to lead to sanctions, up to and including an indefinite block. Seraphimblade 12:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Lemabeta User who is submitting this request for enforcement EF5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Lemabeta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 5 Jan 2025 - Made a draft on a European ethnic group, which they are currently barred from doing. 4 Jan 2025 - Started a page on a Georgian ethnologist. If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics) Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above. Additional comments by editor filing complaint I likely filed this improperly, but to sum it up they continue to make pages in a scope they were banned from. E_F 20:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC) On the bullet point, I’ve never filed an AE report before, and I wasn’t sure if “block” meant T-ban, p-block, etc., so I just picked whichever one made the most sense. E_F 21:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC) (Not sure if I’m allowed to reply here) I’ve never filed an AE report before, and I wasn’t sure if “block” meant T-ban, p-block, etc., so I just picked whichever one made the most sense. E_F 21:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC) Response to Bishonen. Moved from results section. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC) (RES to Bishonen) That's fair. When starting the AE, it only gave me nine options, none of which seemed to fit right. The third bullet ("Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on DIFF by _____") didn't seem to fit, as the sanction wasn't for verbal conduct. E_F 22:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Here Discussion concerning Lemabeta Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by Lemabeta Yeah, my bad. Didn't realize translation of a page of ethnographic group would count as a violation of my topic ban about "history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed" I recognize my mistake. --Lemabeta (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC) Ethnographic groups and cultural heritage are related but distinct concepts. An ethnographic group refers to a community of people defined by shared ancestry, language, traditions, and cultural identity. In contrast, cultural heritage refers to the *practices, artifacts, knowledge, and traditions preserved or inherited from the past. But cultural heritage is indeed a component of ethnographic groups. So i don't believe ethnographic group should be considered as either history of the Caucasus or cultural heritage. Lemabeta (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC) In my opinion, cultural heritage (both tangible and intangible) emerges from ethnographic groups but does not define the group itself. Lemabeta (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC) I think ethnographic groups fall under the category of Ethnography, or even socio-cultural antropology but for sure not cultural heritage. Lemabeta (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC) I understand, i already apologized on my talk page for this accident. I will not repeat this mistake again. Lemabeta (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Lemabeta This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. I don't see Lemabeta mentioned in the case itself, but they're currently under a topic ban imposed by a consensus of AE admins from "the history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed". theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC) To be fair, when you click above to add a new enforcement request, the template states: ;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] <!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> voorts (talk/contributions) 20:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC) Didn't realize translation of a page of ethnographic group would count as a violation of my topic ban about "history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed" @Lemabeta: what did you think "the history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage" meant? I think it's pretty obvious that that an article on an ethnic group from the Caucasus and about an ethnologist who writes about that region is covered by your topic ban. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC) Note that I've deleted Draft:Rachvelians as a clear G5 violation. I think Mate Albutashvili is a bit more of a questionable G5. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC) Your definition of "ethnographic group" includes the phrases "shared ancestry" (i.e., history), and "shared ... traditions" and "shared ... cultural identity" (i.e., cultural heritage). Your attempt to exclude "ethnographic group" from either of the two categories in your topic ban is entirely unpersuasive, particularly since your topic ban is to be "broadly construed". voorts (talk/contributions) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC) @Tamzin: this doesn't seem like a mistake to me, but I'm okay with a logged warning here. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC) @Bishonen: This is about violating the TBAN. Per my response to leek, I think the issue is with the AE request template, which is a bit unclear. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC) @Bishonen: I don't think a block is needed here, but the next violation, definitely. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC) @EF5: They were "reviously given ... contentious topic restriction", the topic ban at issue. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC) @Lemabeta: Not every single thing you could write about an ethnic group would fall under cultural history, but that's not really relevant on the Rachvelians page, where the History section was entirely about their cultural history, even containing the words highlighting their ethnographic and cultural identity. There's a reason we use the words "broadly construed" on most TBANs, and a reason we encourage people to act like they're TBANned from a broader area than they are. (Consider: Would you feel safe driving under a bridge where clearance is exactly the same height as your vehicle? Or would you need a few inches' gap to feel safe doing it?)This does seem like a good-faith misunderstanding, so if you will commit to not making it again in the future, I think this can be closed with a clarification/warning. But that's an important "if". If you want to argue semantics, then the message that sends to admins is that you don't intend to comply with the TBAN, in which case the next step would be a siteblock. -- Tamzin (they\|xe\|🤷) 21:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC) EF5, I don't understand your "Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above" statement, can you please explain what it refers to? This T-ban? Lemabeta's block log is blank. That said, I'm unimpressed by Lemabeta's lawyerly distinctions above, and also by their apology for "accidental violations". I'll AGF that they were accidental, but OTOH, they surely ought to have taken enough care to realize they were violations; compare Voorts' examples. I suggest a block, not sure of what length. A couple of weeks? Bishonen \| tålk 21:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC). EF5, OK, I see. Blocks and bans are very different, and the block log only logs blocks. Bishonen \| tålk 22:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC). It seems that the general consensus here is to treat this as a final warning, and Lemabeta has acknowledged it as such. Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close as such. Seraphimblade 01:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Lemabeta has acknowledged the warnings here to take more care and stay well clear of articles from which they are restricted from editing. Further violations are very likely to lead to sanctions, up to and including an indefinite block. Seraphimblade 12:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

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

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Lemabeta

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: EF5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Lemabeta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision

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

5 Jan 2025 - Made a draft on a European ethnic group, which they are currently barred from doing.
4 Jan 2025 - Started a page on a Georgian ethnologist.

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

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I likely filed this improperly, but to sum it up they continue to make pages in a scope they were banned from. E_F 20:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

On the bullet point, I’ve never filed an AE report before, and I wasn’t sure if “block” meant T-ban, p-block, etc., so I just picked whichever one made the most sense. E_F 21:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

(Not sure if I’m allowed to reply here) I’ve never filed an AE report before, and I wasn’t sure if “block” meant T-ban, p-block, etc., so I just picked whichever one made the most sense. E_F 21:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Response to Bishonen. Moved from results section. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

(RES to Bishonen) That's fair. When starting the AE, it only gave me nine options, none of which seemed to fit right. The third bullet ("Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on DIFF by _____") didn't seem to fit, as the sanction wasn't for verbal conduct. E_F 22:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Here

Discussion concerning Lemabeta

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Lemabeta

Yeah, my bad. Didn't realize translation of a page of ethnographic group would count as a violation of my topic ban about "history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed" I recognize my mistake. --Lemabeta (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Ethnographic groups and cultural heritage are related but distinct concepts. An ethnographic group refers to a community of people defined by shared ancestry, language, traditions, and cultural identity. In contrast, cultural heritage refers to the *practices, artifacts, knowledge, and traditions preserved or inherited from the past. But cultural heritage is indeed a component of ethnographic groups.

So i don't believe ethnographic group should be considered as either history of the Caucasus or cultural heritage. Lemabeta (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, cultural heritage (both tangible and intangible) emerges from ethnographic groups but does not define the group itself. Lemabeta (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I think ethnographic groups fall under the category of Ethnography, or even socio-cultural antropology but for sure not cultural heritage. Lemabeta (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I understand, i already apologized on my talk page for this accident. I will not repeat this mistake again. Lemabeta (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Lemabeta

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

I don't see Lemabeta mentioned in the case itself, but they're currently under a topic ban imposed by a consensus of AE admins from "the history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed". theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
To be fair, when you click above to add a new enforcement request, the template states:
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
 voorts (talk/contributions) 20:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Didn't realize translation of a page of ethnographic group would count as a violation of my topic ban about "history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed" @Lemabeta: what did you think "the history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage" meant? I think it's pretty obvious that that an article on an ethnic group from the Caucasus and about an ethnologist who writes about that region is covered by your topic ban. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Note that I've deleted Draft:Rachvelians as a clear G5 violation. I think Mate Albutashvili is a bit more of a questionable G5. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Your definition of "ethnographic group" includes the phrases "shared ancestry" (i.e., history), and "shared ... traditions" and "shared ... cultural identity" (i.e., cultural heritage). Your attempt to exclude "ethnographic group" from either of the two categories in your topic ban is entirely unpersuasive, particularly since your topic ban is to be "broadly construed". voorts (talk/contributions) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@Tamzin: this doesn't seem like a mistake to me, but I'm okay with a logged warning here. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@Bishonen: This is about violating the TBAN. Per my response to leek, I think the issue is with the AE request template, which is a bit unclear. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@Bishonen: I don't think a block is needed here, but the next violation, definitely. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@EF5: They were "reviously given ... contentious topic restriction", the topic ban at issue. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
@Lemabeta: Not every single thing you could write about an ethnic group would fall under cultural history, but that's not really relevant on the Rachvelians page, where the History section was entirely about their cultural history, even containing the words highlighting their ethnographic and cultural identity. There's a reason we use the words "broadly construed" on most TBANs, and a reason we encourage people to act like they're TBANned from a broader area than they are. (Consider: Would you feel safe driving under a bridge where clearance is exactly the same height as your vehicle? Or would you need a few inches' gap to feel safe doing it?)This does seem like a good-faith misunderstanding, so if you will commit to not making it again in the future, I think this can be closed with a clarification/warning. But that's an important "if". If you want to argue semantics, then the message that sends to admins is that you don't intend to comply with the TBAN, in which case the next step would be a siteblock. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 21:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
EF5, I don't understand your "Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above" statement, can you please explain what it refers to? This T-ban? Lemabeta's block log is blank.

That said, I'm unimpressed by Lemabeta's lawyerly distinctions above, and also by their apology for "accidental violations". I'll AGF that they were accidental, but OTOH, they surely ought to have taken enough care to realize they were violations; compare Voorts' examples. I suggest a block, not sure of what length. A couple of weeks? Bishonen | tålk 21:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC).

EF5, OK, I see. Blocks and bans are very different, and the block log only logs blocks. Bishonen | tålk 22:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC).

It seems that the general consensus here is to treat this as a final warning, and Lemabeta has acknowledged it as such. Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close as such. Seraphimblade 01:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

GokuEltit

Issues on the Spanish Misplaced Pages will need to be handled there; the English Misplaced Pages has no authority or control over what happens on the Spanish project. This noticeboard is only for requesting enforcement of English Misplaced Pages arbitration decisions. Seraphimblade 22:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I was blocked from Misplaced Pages for ignoring the formatting of a table, I edited an article wrong, Bajii banned me for 2 weeks, but it didn't even take 1 and Hasley changed it to permanent, I tried to make an unban request, they deleted it and blocked my talk page. I asked for help on irc, an admin tried to help me make another unblock request, but the admin jem appeared and told me that I was playing the victim and banned me and expelled me from irc. I just want to contribute to the platform GokuJuan (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC) @GokuEltit: This is a complaint about Spanish Misplaced Pages - see es:Especial:Contribuciones/GokuJuan, where you have a block history from August 2023 to September 2024 (machine translation). Your block affects Spanish-language Misplaced Pages - it does not affect English-language Misplaced Pages.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC) You also had some blocks on Commons, but they have expired.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Issues on the Spanish Misplaced Pages will need to be handled there; the English Misplaced Pages has no authority or control over what happens on the Spanish project. This noticeboard is only for requesting enforcement of English Misplaced Pages arbitration decisions. Seraphimblade 22:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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

I was blocked from Misplaced Pages for ignoring the formatting of a table, I edited an article wrong, Bajii banned me for 2 weeks, but it didn't even take 1 and Hasley changed it to permanent, I tried to make an unban request, they deleted it and blocked my talk page. I asked for help on irc, an admin tried to help me make another unblock request, but the admin jem appeared and told me that I was playing the victim and banned me and expelled me from irc. I just want to contribute to the platform GokuJuan (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@GokuEltit: This is a complaint about Spanish Misplaced Pages - see es:Especial:Contribuciones/GokuJuan, where you have a block history from August 2023 to September 2024 (machine translation). Your block affects Spanish-language Misplaced Pages - it does not affect English-language Misplaced Pages.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

You also had some blocks on Commons, but they have expired.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Boy shekhar

Blocked by Rosguill as a regular administrative action. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Boy shekhar User who is submitting this request for enforcement Daniel Quinlan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Boy shekhar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics/India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it This edit violates the topic ban because it is in the topic area. It's also based on an unreliable source and the section header includes a derogatory term. Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any Here is the topic ban for persistent insertion of original research, use of unreliable sources or no sources at all, and tendentious editing. If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics) Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 14 August 2020 by Doug Weller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 15 March 2020 (see the system log linked to above). Additional comments by editor filing complaint I've edited the article so I am involved. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC) @Vanamonde93: No, I don't think you're being too harsh. I think you're right. My thinking was that if I was uninvolved, I would have blocked them under WP:CT/IPA so I sleepily submitted it here last night instead of ANI, which is what I should have done. Daniel Quinlan (talk) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Diff of the AE notification Discussion concerning Boy shekhar Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by Boy shekhar Statement by Vanamonde This user hasn't edited for 4.5 years since they were TBANned, and none of their 31 edits show any ability to follow our PAGs. At the risk of sounding harsh, an extended AE discussion is a waste of time; a passing admin should indef them (I cannot, I am INVOLVED on most of the content they have edited). Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC) @Daniel Quinlan: Apologies if that sounded like a criticism of you, it wasn't intended as such: I'm just advocating for the first uninvolved admin who sees this to block and close. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC) Result concerning Boy shekhar This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Vanamonde93's assessment is spot on, the edit in question is the kind of gross violation of WP:NPA we indef people for on the spot even when it's not a TBAN violation. Blocked as a regular admin action. Although I will say, without knowing how exactly Vanamonde93 is involved here, this is so far beyond the pale that they could have gone ahead and blocked on an "any reasonable admin" basis. _signed,Rosguill 04:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked by Rosguill as a regular administrative action. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Boy shekhar

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Daniel Quinlan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Boy shekhar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics/India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan

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

This edit violates the topic ban because it is in the topic area. It's also based on an unreliable source and the section header includes a derogatory term.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Here is the topic ban for persistent insertion of original research, use of unreliable sources or no sources at all, and tendentious editing.

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

Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 14 August 2020 by Doug Weller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 15 March 2020 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I've edited the article so I am involved. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: No, I don't think you're being too harsh. I think you're right. My thinking was that if I was uninvolved, I would have blocked them under WP:CT/IPA so I sleepily submitted it here last night instead of ANI, which is what I should have done. Daniel Quinlan (talk)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff of the AE notification

Discussion concerning Boy shekhar

Statement by Boy shekhar

Statement by Vanamonde

This user hasn't edited for 4.5 years since they were TBANned, and none of their 31 edits show any ability to follow our PAGs. At the risk of sounding harsh, an extended AE discussion is a waste of time; a passing admin should indef them (I cannot, I am INVOLVED on most of the content they have edited). Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@Daniel Quinlan: Apologies if that sounded like a criticism of you, it wasn't intended as such: I'm just advocating for the first uninvolved admin who sees this to block and close. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Result concerning Boy shekhar

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

Vanamonde93's assessment is spot on, the edit in question is the kind of gross violation of WP:NPA we indef people for on the spot even when it's not a TBAN violation. Blocked as a regular admin action. Although I will say, without knowing how exactly Vanamonde93 is involved here, this is so far beyond the pale that they could have gone ahead and blocked on an "any reasonable admin" basis. _signed,Rosguill 04:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

שלומית ליר

Request concerning שלומית ליר

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Smallangryplanet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: שלומית ליר (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation of how these edits violate it

ShlomitLir (שלומית ליר) created their account back in 2014. The breakdown of their edits is as follows:

2014 to 2016: no edits.
2017 to 2019: 1 edit per year. None related to PIA.
2022: 7 edits. Mostly in their userspace.
2023: 21 edits. Again, mostly in their userspace. Made two edits in the talk page of Palestinian genocide accusation complaining about its content and calling it “blatant pro-Hamas propaganda”.
2024: Started editing after a 10 month break at the end of October.
- Made 51 edits in October and 81 edits in November (copyedits, adding links, minor edits).
- In December, that number rose up to almost 400, including 116 in December 6 alone and 98 in December 7. Became ECR that day.
- Immediately switched to editing in PIA, namely in the Battle of Sderot article where they changed the infobox picture with an unclear image with a dubious caption, and removed a template without providing a reason why.
- They also edited the Use of human shields by Hamas article, adding another image with a caption not supported by the source (replaced by yet another image with a contextless caption when the previous image was removed) and WP:UNDUE content in the lead.
- they also voted in the second AfD for Calls for the destruction of Israel despite never having interacted with that article or its previous AfD. They have barely surpassed 500 edits, but the gaming is obvious, highlighted by the sudden switch to editing in PIA.

More importantly, there's the issue of POV pushing. I came across this article authored by them on Ynet, once again complaining about what they perceive as an anti Israeli bias on Misplaced Pages. They have also authored a report for the World Jewish Congress covering the same topic. The report can be seen in full here. I think that someone with this clear POV agenda shouldn't be near the topic.

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 2023-04-05 and re-iterated on 2024-11-25 (see the system log linked to above).
Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 2024-12-18 by Femke (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Adding some additional comments on 2025-01-16: On top of POV issues, the user has a number of tweets that appear to be a clear admission of gaming, implicit canvassing, creating and sharing lists of potential "most biased articles", and clearly calling for specific edits. They've also been cited as coordinating an off-wiki coordination hub for editing Misplaced Pages. If this - combined with the tweets, the forms, the op-ed and the report to the WJC, all under this user's name (that they also use to edit Misplaced Pages - this is not outing) isn't a clear cut case of canvassing, I don't know what is. Smallangryplanet (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Notification diff

Discussion concerning שלומית ליר

Statement by שלומית ליר

I believe contents of this filing to be in clear policy violation and have reached out to the arbitration committee for further clarification before commenting further.שלומית ליר (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Thebiguglyalien

This is the first ARBPIA report since the proposed decision was posted at ARBPIA5 and it's specifically a matter of POV pushing, responding admins should be aware of the "AE topic bans" remedy. The committee is discussing whether to implement a remedy stating that admins at AE are "empowered and encouraged to consider a topic ban" purely for biased editing. So far, the argument against is that it's redundant because AE admins are already supposed to do this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-03-29/Special_report

Statement by Selfstudier

To the extent that it is relevant, the WJC report was discussed at Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-03-29/Special report. Selfstudier (talk) 11:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by starship.paint (2)

I would to like to raise this 9 December 2024 edit at Battle of Sderot, where there had been an existing unsourced paragraph (On the morning of October 7, a tour minibus...) that שלומית ליר added a reference to (archive 1 / archive 2) from the Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation. The reference is relevant, but I believe it may not verify every detail in the Battle of Sderot paragraph (e.g. "Netivot", "Holocaust survivors"). The reference contains a short paragraph of text and a video that is 4:21 long. I can't watch the video in the reference, but I believe it is this same YouTube video that is 4:20 long which contains the same screenshot as the reference, on the same topic. Most of the video is an interview of the daughter of a dead victim who was on the bus (the daughter had been on the phone with the victim), except for 1:58 to 2:13 which appears to be a quote from the bus driver. The publisher themselves do not have too much reporting in their own voice (on the video), yet this reference was used to cite a paragraph entirely stated in Wikivoice. No attribution was made to the relative or the bus driver, or to the publisher. I can't be totally sure though, due to unfamiliarity with Hebrew. starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by xDanielx

@Arcticocean: I don't really see how NPOV can be read as requiring edits which support both sides of a controversy. Our content policies don't impose any positive duties; they only tell us what not to do. The text of the policy doesn't support the notion that a pattern of edits could be in violation, even if no particular edit is in violation.

In principle, such a pattern of edits could violate the UCoC policy, but I don't believe this board has ever enforced it. If it were to be enforced, I think it should be for more serious violations like the double standards that e.g. this attempted to demonstrate, rather than mere opinion-driven editing which applies to the vast majority of CTOP editors. — xDanielx /_C\ 03:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Hemiauchenia

This user has engaged in off-wiki canvassing regarding the IP conflict. Take the following recent tweet from the 12 January permanent archive

For posterity in case it is deleted it contains the following remarks:

If you can't handle the facts, just delete them Propaganda on @Misplaced Pages includes targeting Israel, demonizing it, and erasing inconvenient truths, from falsifying war outcomes to deleting Israeli inventions and attempting to erase the reality of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Along with this is a screenshot of the current AfD Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Palestinian suicide attacks. People are of course allowed to be caustic about Misplaced Pages off-wiki, but calling out a specific AfD with highly charged rhetoric, essentially inciting canvassing seems out of line. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

For those concerned that this might be outing, שלומית ליר is very open about their real life identity on their userpage. See (archived). If you reveal your real identity on Misplaced Pages, your tweets about Misplaced Pages on your Twitter account connected to your real-life identity are fair game to mention. There's also reverse confirmation in this tweet . Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Cdjp1

As we seem to be ok to pull evidence from the statements of the editor in question, they have also commented more recently about running interference on Misplaced Pages (archive) in response to a question of if Misplaced Pages can be "saved". -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning שלומית ליר

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

Users are allowed to have a POV - it's a rare user indeed who edits a contentious topic without having some strong opinions about it. For conduct to be actionable at AE it needs to be an actual policy violation. The misleading use of images doesn't rise to the level of AE action in my view, and judging whether an addition like this is UNDUE is not within AE's purview, as long as it is supported by the source. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
The PIA5 remedy hasn't passed yet, and its interpretation is as yet unclear to me: but in my view we are already empowered to deal with biased editing, in the sense of editing that violates NPOV. What I'm not willing to do is sanction on the basis of someone's opinions alone; they have to be shown to have let their opinions get in the way of following our PAGs. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
I see some evidence - based on Arcticocean's digging below - that שלומית ליר is using images without sufficient care, but I don't see that rising to the level of a sanction. As to the rest, xDanielx is correct - nowhere do our policies require treating both sides of a conflict equally - indeed our PAGs discourage false balance. Those diffs could be actionable if they individually or collectively violate policy, but I have yet to see evidence of that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
The off-wiki canvassing is a problem. It merits a warning at least, I don't know if the formality thereof matters. If there was evidence that שלומית ליר was aware of WP:CANVAS I would consider something more stringent. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
While I understand Vanamonde93's concerns, I think that we are required to assess the totality of the user's contributions. Contentious topic editors are required to uphold NPOV. Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics#Guidance for editors places an obligation to Within contentious topics,… edit carefully and constructively… and… adhere to the purposes of Misplaced Pages. The linked page provides that Misplaced Pages is written from a neutral point of view… We strive for articles with an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight for their prominence. If an editor is only adding content that significantly favours one or the other side to the conflict, this is incompatible with their contentious topic obligation. That is because an editor making only one-sided edits will simply not be taking the necessary steps to ensure that the whole article is written from a neutral point of view. As their number of one-sided edits increases, the likelihood decreases that the editor is ensuring our content is neutral and impartial. Once we reach the point of being sure that they are not attempting to ensure neutrality of content, we can conclude the editor is not meeting their contentious topics obligations and we can issue a sanction. This can only be assessed with hindsight and by looking at the editor's contributions as a whole. arcticocean ■ 20:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Assessing the topic area contributions of the respondent (שלומית ליר) since they became extended-confirmed at 17:33, 8 December 2024, there is cause for concern. I counted 19 edits to the area conflict. Taken together, they significantly skew the articles negatively against the opposing side of the conflict:

Adding a citation for a claim that Hamas terrorists shot dead a group of Israeli tourists.
Replacing map with a photograph of victims of violence.
Removing an outdated maintenance tag which was perhaps casting doubt on the relevant section, Massacre of pensioners, and again.
Adding specification to claims of the use of human shield (specifying who has made the claims), therefore giving greater weight to the claims, in a context where the claims were already described at considerable length; adding another reference to that claim; and adding another.
Adding an image contentiously captioned 'Weapons Found in a Mosque', then again Rockets hidden at a house, both to the first line of the article.
Adding, without sufficient context, an assertion that a philosopher has determined that one side of the conflict is culpable and expanding other coverage of culpability of that side.
On the talk pages, there has been a tinge of failure to AGF although I would be prepared to look past that (it was like meeting like). I am skipping a few further and insignificant talk page comments.
There are then edits to LGBTQ rights in the State of Palestine: inserting a reference to execution into the first sentence of the lead; adding more references to news coverage of executions of LGBT+ people by the other side of the conflict. At Houthi movement, there is then an expansion, again of the article lead, to add references to terrorist attacks (with follow-up).

Assessing the edits as a whole, it is difficult not to conclude that the respondent user is failing to meet their contentious topics obligation to edit neutrally in this topic area. As the number of edits is so far limited, if a sanction is imposed, it could justifiably be light-touch. arcticocean ■ 20:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@XDanielx: Thanks for commenting. Most of the edits do not have a neutral, encyclopedic POV. There is an effort to influence our articles away from neutrally describing the subject without taking sides, contrary to WP:NPOV. Even if each edit in isolation is insufficient for sanctioning, taken as a whole the edits show an inability or unwillingness to edit neutrally. One non-neutral edit shouldn't be sanctioned; twenty is a different story. This is not about the percentage of biased edits but about the weight or amount of them. Therefore, the assessment wouldn't really change even had the editor made some 'neutral' edits along the way. I'm happy to concede that editors cannot be compelled to balance edits of one bias with edits of another, but I don't think that comes into it. In a nutshell, this is about Misplaced Pages:Advocacy. arcticocean ■ 08:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The offwiki canvassing is a problem...שלומית ליר, you're fairly inexperienced here. Were you aware WP:canvassing is not allowed? Valereee (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I take it that per Barkeep49's brief oversighting of potentially-sensitive content in this report (Special:Diff/1269845558), and then restoration of the same (Special:Diff/1269848988), concerns of outing have been investigated and the report can proceed on its merits? _signed,Rosguill 19:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
That's correct. I got a request, I didn't really feel it was OUTING, but as I indicated in my edit summary OS is a tool of first resort. I consulted with the OS listserv and received some responses quickly agreeing with me and so I unsuppressed and restored the material. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Luganchanka

Request concerning Luganchanka

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Luganchanka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons

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

19:55, 12 January 2025 Reversion to version of article where the article says "He is a child sex offender" in the second sentence despite consensus at BLPN discussion that this is problematic because Ritter never actually interacted with a real child.

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

18:28, 12 January 2025 BLP CTOP warning given

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

At BLPN, there has been consensus that the version of the article describing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the second sentence of the article is problematic, as he did not actually have sexual contact with a child, only a police officer impersonating one. Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Scott_Ritter_Biography_-_Noncompliance_with_MOS_and_BLP_Guidelines. Luganchanka has been persistently edit warring against this apparent consensus. For which he has been warned by @NatGertler: , which he subequently blanked There has been persistent objection to descrbing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences of the article going back to at least August Talk:Scott_Ritter#First_sentence, but Luganchanka persistently cites a "consensus" for its inclusion that as far as I can tell does not seem to exist, with Luganchanka aggressively editing to enforce its inclusion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Luganchanka's response is disingenuous and misleading. Look at the Talk:Scott_Ritter#First_sentence discussion I linked above. Nobody other than Luganchanka thinks that Ritter should be described as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences of the article. The dispute isn't about whether or not the convictions should be mentioned in the lead at all or not, it's specifically about the use of the phrase "child sex offender", and there is no consensus to include that as far as I can tell, despite Luganchanka's vociferous claims to the contrary. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

RfC opened Talk:Scott_Ritter#RfC:_Ritter's_sexual_sex_offenses_convictions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

20:27, 12 January 2025

Discussion concerning Luganchanka

Statement by Luganchanka

The intro on the Scott Ritter page had remained largely the same for several months, as you will see on the talkpage it is an intro approved, and reverted to, by multiple senior editors. There has been a recent flurry of activity / edits. While I WP: assume good faith, it does look like those edits are attempting to downplay / whitewash Ritter's sexual offence conviction(s). I have not been 'aggressive' at all, rather I have simply referred contentious edits to the talkpage to build consensus, attempting to do my duty as a good Misplaced Pages editor.Luganchanka (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Please see the Talk:Scott_Ritter, where there has been a clear consensus reached, on more than one occasion, and by senior wikipedia editors, that Ritter's sexual offence conviction should be included in the lead to the article. My edits have simply been aimed at ensuring this consensus reached is maintained in the article.Luganchanka (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you to @Valereee and @Red-tailed hawk for your feedback. If you see the Talk:Scott_Ritter, discussions - 14 August - Vandalism by removing all reference entirely to Ritter being a "Convicted Sex Offender" and First sentence. The latter discussion ended on 26th September, and resulted in the intro we had until a flurry of edits the other day, trying to move information on Ritter's sexual offence conviction, downplay it, whitewash it etc. My edits were aimed at restoring the edit reached by consensus, which had been in place for several months until the recent raft of edits with the clear aim of moving / downplaying Ritter's sexual offence conviction.Luganchanka (talk) 06:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for this (nest), I really do appreciate your feedback and advice here!!Luganchanka (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC) (moved from admin-only section — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC))

As per Rosguill's comments:

"Unfazed by "Emily's" age, Ritter asked "Emily," "you want to see it finish?" Ritter then turned on the webcam and ejaculated in front of the camera for "Emily." Detective Venneman then notified Ritter of his undercover status and the undercover operation and directed Ritter to call the police station."

https://casetext.com/case/ritter-v-tuttle

Luganchanka (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by NatGertler

Editor's edits today focused on trying to main a negative descriptor of what subject believed, despite it not being in the three sources that were listed (nor in the old version they ultimately reverted to.) Efforts were first trying to simply restate the claim, then trying to source it to an opinion piece (problem) from the Washington Examiner (also a bit of a problem, per WP:RSP), then trying to state as a fact what had merely been stated in a non-prime article as an accusation. BLP concern was pointed out repeatedly via edit summary and on Talk page. Removal of unsourced contentious BLP claims and even false claims is not "whitewashing" despite how editor wishes to depict it, it is in accord with our practices. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Luganchanka

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

@Luganchanka: whether you're correct or not, you were edit warring. I believe an indef block from the article and/or a temporary site block would be an appropriate sanction here. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for 48h for violating 3RR based on the report at WP:AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Luganchanka, edit-warring to remove negative content at a BLP is an exemption to 3RR. I see that NatGertler mentioned this in their edit summaries and at talk. As voorts points out, it doesn't matter whether you're right when you're reverting an edit that is being claimed as an exemption, even if you believe Rosguillwhiyou are "ensuring this consensus reached is maintained in the article". The solution is to go to talk, discuss, and get consensus. If you'd like to respond, ping me to your response at your talk and I'll post it here. Valereee (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
@Luganchanka, if you really believe those two sections -- senior editors, indeed, this one was between someone with 13 edits and somcoen who wasn't ECR, for heaven's sake -- somehow prove consensus was strong, and you think that means you can ignore all the later ones -- at one of which you didn't even respond to a ping, where people were objecting -- then this is maybe looking like a WP:CIR issue.

But even if you had been somehow editing to support a consensus you believed was settled, you cannot edit-war contentious material into a BLP when others are objecting to it. The solution, always, is to go to talk, discuss, and reconfirm consensus. There is zero urgency to have this information in the article. Including something negative in a BLP is not something you should ever edit war over. Valereee (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Luganchanka's reading of the state of consensus on the talk page as supporting their edits is so far off base that it borders on being a CIR issue if it's sincere. Indef block from Scott Ritter seems appropriate. _signed,Rosguill 22:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I see RTH's point about the "First sentence" section in isolation. I'd note that the link to WP:FORUMSHOP isn't really appropriate here, as bringing the discussion to BLP/N was an appropriate action (if it was then brought to NPOVN, NORN, etc., that would be forumshopping). I'd like to see some actual contrition around the edit warring and frivolous accusations of whitewash before writing this off as time-served. _signed,Rosguill 15:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
That's fair; I'll strike the link. My point in including it was that, when conversations fragment, we sometimes get these sorts of chaotic incidents. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Understood, I think that meaning was clear for us here in the admin section, but I could easily see a new editor misinterpreting it unintentionally. _signed,Rosguill 15:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I am not at all comforted by the fact that Luganchanka has proceeded to make Special:Diff/1269831044. The cited BBC source does not state masturbated and ejaculated on camera, saying only graphic sex act. As written, this is essentially another BLP violation, building a case that a ban from this topic is needed. _signed,Rosguill 16:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Having reviewed the other sources, reliable sources do confirm the masturbation claim (, ) but not ejaculation, which appears to be supported only by New York Post, a generally unreliable source. Luganchanka, in light of this clarification, can you please address your decision to include the claims as you initially wrote them? _signed,Rosguill 17:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
The detail is in the record of Ritter v. Tuttle (case No. 3:15cv1235 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 14, 2018)), so it isn't completely made up. But I would also like to hear from the user on this point as to whether there was secondary sourcing here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Seeing Special:Diff/1269853673 here and Special:Diff/1269853955, Special:Diff/1269845272 at Talk:Scott Ritter, I see no comprehension of the use of primary vs. secondary sources, nor any reflection of their past errors in engaging with this topic. I believe that a block from the page is needed to prevent further BLP violations as they have shown no understanding of the relevant policies even after being given several warnings, reminders and opportunities to revise their position. _signed,Rosguill 18:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@Luganchanka:

WP:BLPPRIMARY calls upon users to not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. There are some narrow exceptions (when primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source), but adding material to the article not found in reliable secondary sources is... suboptimal at best under our biographies of living persons policy.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
@Luganchanka: Would you please provide a direct link to the talk page section you are referring to when you say there has been a clear consensus reached, on more than one occasion, and by senior wikipedia editors regarding the lead? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
@Luganchanka and Hemiauchenia:

It does seem that the discussion at Talk:Scott Ritter#First sentence does indicate some support for that language i.e. (convicted child sex offender) in the lead, with some general lean against putting it in the first sentence. So, while There has been persistent objection to descrbing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences is true if it means the literal first sentence, I do see a rough consensus to include the material in the lead section in some way in that discussion.

That being said, the BLPN discussion had a bit of different tone and tenor from the discussion on the talk page. There was notification about a BLPN discussion on the article's talk page, but Luganchanka, despite having been pretty vocal about this subject in the past, hadn't participated in that BLPN discussion. They instead grounded their edits in the argument that the article's talk page had consensus for the current content, and nothing on the article's talk page had changed that consensus. And that much was true. In any case, we've got ~~two different forums with two different answers~~two different forums with two different answers here, which appears to be what's leading to the whole kerfluffle.

Then the analysis comes to whether or not the label is a straightforward BLP violation, requiring us to read the sourcing in the article. This NY Times piece, which is cited in the body of the article (but not the lead), does state that Ritter was convicted unlawful contact with minors and other charges in the state of PA (the PA statute is here; "unlawful contact with minors" is the verbatim name of the crime). When dealing with a sting operation, PA treats it as an offense of the same grade and degree as if the criminal had actually contacted a child (unless it's a lesser crime than a third-degree felony, in which case it becomes a third-degree felony). This is an extremely common practice in the United States (there are lots of philosophical questions regarding mens rea and actus reus here, but that's not really relevant here). In any case, labeling this to be a child sex offense (or, alternatively, to simply use the name of the crime in the article) does not appear to be straightforward malice/POV-pushing/libel, and a reasonably informed individual might shorten it in this way. Whether or not that is wise or optimal to shorten it is the proper subject for content discussion.

Aside from the edit warring (which was not acceptable, and was aptly handled by a block), this looks like a content dispute. A heated one involving a living person, sure, but a content dispute nonetheless. I see good-faith—albeit passionate—disagreement. If the editors were to come together and engage in one forum (such as the article's talk page, where this has been discussed a bunch), rather than splitting the discussion over multiple pages, I feel like we might have our best shot at attaining a consensus going forward.

In short, it looks like the conversation fragmented, and consensus-building broke down. Edit warring ensued, which was bad, but we've already blocked for that in order to dissuade it going forward. A Request for Comment on the article's talk page for what the lead should look like is probably the best way to go forward here.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

BabbleOnto

Request concerning BabbleOnto

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: ජපස (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: BabbleOnto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19#Contentious_topic_designation

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

11 January 2025 Sealioning
11 January 2025 Refusal to get the message
11 January 2025 Personalizing an argument.
11 January 2025 Railroading the discussion.

This is all after I warned them about WP:AE sanctions, and they dismissed my warning out of hand. Very nearly a WP:SPA on the subject. I see no reason to continue tolerating this kind of obstinate tendetiousness. Additional diffs available on request from admins, but looking at the user history should suffice to indicate the problem is obvious, I hope.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 9 Dec 2024 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is a WP:SPA with respect to the topic and their disruption surrounding it has been subject to at least one WP:FTN thread that remains active: Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Gain_of_function_research. The hope was that they would WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on from this, but it seems they either will not or cannot. jps (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning BabbleOnto

Statement by BabbleOnto

I would first like to begin by point out the person filing this complaint is involved in the content disputes at issue. They have frequently left "warnings" which read more like threats on my talk page and others' talk pages for people who disagree with them. Nor would I be the first person who would they would get banned from this topic for disagreeing with them.

To be honest I'm not entirely sure what it is I'm being charged with doing.

I think in general the user is alleging I've been uncivil, unhelpful, and, in their words, obstinate and tendentious. I know when someone disagrees with you it may feel like they're getting in your way and acting in bad-faith, but that's not always true. I've never tried to be disruptive or uncivil. I've admitted when I was wrong, I've dropped arguments that were clarified to be wrong, I've tried to find compromise, at times begging people to provide their sources and work together. And when those editors refused to, I didn't provoke any further.

I now address the specific edits in the complaint:

1. I don't see how this is sea-lioning. The user misquoted the article. I pointed out the misquotation, then addressed a accusation against me that I was second-guessing the sources (A claim which was never substantiated). I then said any source would have to support that actual claim which was in the article. I don't know what this violates.

2. I don't see how this is refusing to get the message (IDHT). The other party is making direct claims alleging I said something. I did not say it. I replied with what I actually said. What part of that interaction is saying "I didn't hear that?"

3. Admittedly probably the strongest of the four allegations. I'm not pretending I was perfect in all of my comments. I should have kept my criticism strictly to their argument. I ask you to read it in context and keep in mind you're viewing a hand-picked assortment of my worst edits, and this is the worst they could find. Also consider that conversation accused me of having a basic reading comprehension problem, perhaps you can see I lose my cool sometimes too.

4. I'm not even really sure what "railroading the discussion" means. Thus, to keep this section short and to save words, I don't know what I'm being accused of doing wrong here.

All of this has stemmed out of arguments over two sources. I have tried to find compromise, I have tried to negotiate, I have tried to build consensus. I've been going through the proper channels, I've been participating in the RfC, I've been discussing it on the ANI, I source every claim I make, for a month now I've been trying to constructively explain my side and defend my argument against challenges. It's incredibly frustrating to now be facing an Arbitration Enforcement on grounds that I'm not working with others. BabbleOnto (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Edited. BabbleOnto (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

I've interacted with BabbleOnto in several threads. There's a few problems, but ultimately, I think they have a certain opinion on what the article should say, and will debate endlessly to get the article changed to their position. I mean, sure, reasonable people disagree on how to interpret sources and apply policy, but I don't think BabbleOnto is actually interested in faithful application of policies to write high quality articles based on good sources.

That's not terribly problematic by itself, but most discussions with BabbleOnto are exhausting. Rather than actually trying to understand someone's argument in good faith, I think BabbleOnto replies to editors by picking out parts of an argument, interpreting it in the most disfavourable way possible, and making a superficially reasonable response ad nauseam. They reply endlessly in this manner. As well as misrepresentation of opponents' arguments, on multiple occassions BabbleOnto has either misrepresented sources or hasn't read their own sources. I can't think of a single thread where BabbleOnto didn't have the last word, or a single thread where it seemed like BabbleOnto was actually trying to understand the arguments of other editors in a charitable way. As such, I think it's very difficult to work collaborately with BabbleOnto on the lab leak theory and related articles. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Newimpartial

As the editor to whom BabbleOnto was responding in the diffs of the filing, I feel compelled to comment now that they have defended (to varying degrees) their first three diffs. I will reply as briefly as I know how to their defense of the diffs, as revised.

1. BabbleOnto is now doubling down on the claim that I misquoted the article. I didn't "misquote" the article - I didn't quote the article, and I explained what my comment meant in the rest of the (now collapsed) thread that ends here. Also, I provided a clear explanation of why I thought they were second-guessing sources later in the thread, but BabbleOnto never responded to that explanation. They are now responding to the accusation of WP:CPUSH with pure WP:IDONTHEARTHAT.

2. On this they say, now, that The other party is making direct claims alleging I said something. I did not say it. This is repeating a misreading they made in the original thread, where they mistook a statement I made about another editor's comment as if it were about theirs. In this "defense", I see no attempt to read thoughtfully what other editors say in reply to them and revise their understanding accordingly; all I see is zero-sum mentality and WP:IDHT.

3. BabbleOnto is now justifying an edit where they said to me, You have a habit of inserting small lies into everything you say and You're not adding anything constructive. You're just refusing to explain anything and saying conclusory statements, or lying about what you said - all this based on a misreading of what I had actually written - because I was going to refer to a basic failure in reading comprehension two hours later. This seems like a time travel paradox.

4. They don't bother defending themselves on this one, but just to point out the actual issue with the diff, they doubled down on their accusations that I said a material lie, and that I lied when said that quoted the article out of context. Pointing out being caught lying and then proceeded to STRAWMAN the rest of my comment to which they were replying. If they had read my prior comment with a reasonable level of attention, they would have understood that there were no "lies", just a misunderstanding or two in each direction. But WP:IDHT again; even in responding to this filing BabbleOnto is still insisting I did things that I quite obviously didn't do.

It is exhausting to deal with this kind of quasi-CPUSH (not quite civil, but certainly push) behaviour. The Talk page in question has seen a recent influx of single-purpose or nearly single-purpose POV accounts, and in terms of editor energy, this one certainly seems not to be a net positive for Misplaced Pages as a project. Perhaps if they edited away from Covid and US politics, their track record might improve. Newimpartial (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Objective3000

Just a quick aside to Valereee's aside: Contentious topics are a terrible place to learn.... Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory currently has posts from 19 editors lacking the edits for extended confirmed. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@Valereee, this is also a problem at other CTOPs, and is likely to become more problematic. I assume due to off-Wiki forums. ECR might just produce more users gaming EC. I thought it would be useful to put your aside into the CTOP template at the top of CTOP TPs. But that assumes folks read it. Walt Kelly said something along the lines of: “If only I could write, I’d write a letter to the mayor, if only he could read." This discussion is likely better off elsewhere. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by JoelleJay

At the very least, can we get more admin involvement on the lab leak page so trolling like this doesn't disrupt things even more? JoelleJay (talk) 07:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by IntrepidContributor

I have been observing BabbleOnto and while there are valid concerns about bludgeoning, I think the proposed sanctions are too much. His engagement in the Covid lab leak topic is driven by commitment to WP:NPOV, which our articles fail to adhere to, and he made the mistake of arguing with editors who were never going to listen (resulting in what looks like sealioning on his part). He's not only editor to raise issues in the topic and engage in good faith discussion, only to find themselves pulled to AN or AE disputes after staying out of the seasoning traps and refusing to capitulate to threats. In a parallel AN case concerning another editor in same topic, I suggest there may be possible off-wiki coordination , but it can also be on-wiki ().

One need only cross-reference names from Feb 2021 RfC, checking those that voted for labeling COVID-19 lab leak as conspiracy, with the names of complainants here. Contrast all these old timers with the steady stream of tens if not hundreds of regular editors complaining that our article fails NPOV, and see that their gentle approach doesn't work . Our chief complainant is already preparing his next case , and this might not be his first.

I suggest that administrators consider a 1 to 2 month topic ban for BabbleOnto to provide opportunity for him to correct his approach, while staying alert to the tactics of POV editors trying to draw them into content debates to influence outcomes.

IntrepidContributor (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Result concerning BabbleOnto

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

BabbleOnto, please edit your statement down further to fit within the restriction. This also serves as an opportunity to rephrase your defense, which currently is not convincing at first glance. ProcrastinatingReader's description of the situation seems quite apt, particularly BabbleOnto replies to editors by picking out parts of an argument, interpreting it in the most disfavourable way possible, which is currently a pretty fitting description of your response to them here, given that you zeroed in on the "superficially reasonable" part and ignored the much more serious parts of the testimony. _signed,Rosguill 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Ok, having read through nearly every edit that BabbleOnto has made, I agree with the complainants that not only does BabbleOnto engage in sealioning, it appears to be almost exclusively what they do. The discussion at Talk:Brian Thompson (businessman)/Archive 2 exhibits perhaps even more concerning argumentation than the diffs provided in the initial report. Throughout these discussions, BabbleOnto tends to demand a standard of stating the obvious (with respect to the context of said sources) that is absurd, and continues to lawyer for such standards even when the situation becomes WP:1AM. When criticizing sources' ability to account for basic claims, I can find no examples of BabbleOnto themselves attempting to find sources that would resolve the issues they identify--this is uncollaborative behavior. There is a clear pattern of engaging in this behavior across recent US politics topics consistent with the scope of Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics/American politics. The only saving grace to BabbleOnto's track record is that none of this has translated into disruptive editing of actual articles, just unproductive engagement on talk pages. I am currently in favor of a topic ban from post-1992 American politics; if they are actually here to build an encyclopedia and not to provide a punching bag for debate club, they can use this opportunity to learn more constructive patterns of editing in topics that they are less personally invested in. _signed,Rosguill 01:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Valereee in line with their follow-up response, I take Objective3000's comments as potentially a basis for community discussion rather than a call for protective action on the lab leak talk page right now. _signed,Rosguill 21:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I have to agree, this looks like sealioning. BabbleOnto, you're new here, and I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt about your ability to learn to collaborate. WP works on collaboration and consensus, and sometimes consensus goes your way, sometimes it doesn't. You have to be willing to shrug, walk away, and go work on something else when consensus is against you. And you absolutely must not insist everyone else keep answering you until you're satisfied with their answers. I've seen editors at both the Thompson and the lab leak talks tell you they don't actually owe you an answer to your satisfaction.

Do you think you can learn to do that? Because if you don't think you can, this may not be the right hobby for you.

As an aside, I'm going to recommend what I always recommend to new editors who end up here: Contentious topics are a terrible place to learn. Go edit in noncontentious topics, where other editors are a lot less exhausted and have the energy to be more patient with new editors. Valereee (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@Objective3000, hm, yes, and Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory also has 37 archives, and even with archiving at 21 days, 20 sections. Do you think an ECR is something that talk page needs? That's not part of the authorized restrictions an individual admin can place...hm, and I'm not sure of the policy w/re most efficiently getting that done and wasting the fewest people's time. @Rosguill? Valereee (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I would object to ECPing the talk page. COVID-19 isn't subject to ARBECR generally, though this specific article is protected. The purpose of protecting the page (in this case) is to push newer users to the talk page, where they can discuss changes they want made (such as by edit requests) and contribute towards consensus-building while not edit warring. Protecting talk pages is truly, truly a last resort. Ordinary good faith people would be entirely shut out and silenced—we'd not even get edit requests—and I frankly don't see anything near the level of disruption/LTA abuse that would justify jumping straight to WP:ECP. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk, not ECP. ECR: non-EC are restricted from anything but making edit requests. Valereee (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I see. In any case, ECR is the sort of remedy that should be reserved for more or less when all else fails—it’s still super restrictive. If new users/inexperienced users are trying to contribute towards consensus-building on the talk page (or even if they’re doing ordinary confused new editor things), and aren’t edit warring, I don’t think we’d actually be preventing disruptive edits by enforcing ECR.

Suppose someone in good-faith sees “anyone can edit”, and they want to edit something topical. But then they see that the page that they want to edit is protected. They read the explanation that appears after clicking the “view source” tab. They then read that they can discuss this page with others, click on the first blue link, and then make a section using the “add topic” button in order to start a discussion.

“OK”, the newbie thinks, “maybe I will find someone else who agrees with me, or I’ll at least get some answer as to why the article is this way”. They leave their computer and come back in an hour. They then discover that their question has been removed by some random editor with edit summary “WP:ARBECR violation, user not WP:XC; malformed edit request” and find a contentious topics notice on their own user talk page, all because they don’t make a properly formatted edit request (i.e. “please change X to Y”). Or maybe they wont navigate the talk page history and they’ll angrily post that their earlier comment was deleted. Or maybe they just won’t come back. To top it off, nothing at any point in this process was obvious to them that such a requirement existed—there is no edit notice that says so, and so they couldn’t know.

WP:ECR is WP:BITEy. It dissuades new voices from joining conversations, and it makes it somewhat hostile to true newbies. In particular, it dissuades people who, for example:

Are Not hardcore/insane enough to deal with intense wiki-bureaucracy;
Are unable to cope with handling unfamiliar wikitext markup when making edit requests for anything that is not a trivial word change, or who have abstract changes in mind more than concrete ones;
Do not want to spend an hour of their time to figure out how to say the magic words to summon another editor to fix a typo.

The chief way that ECR works is by making LTAs/sockmasters have to put on a lot of effort or make a lot of edits. This raises the (time) cost of socking, and it has the benefit of possibly exposing tells along the way. But that also means that we’re imposing the same thing on good-faith newbies.

When deciding whether or not to impose ECR, we have to balance that it is extremely BITEy to good-faith newbies against its ability to prevent disruption. There are times where we are basically left to throw our hands up because of LTA/sockmaster abuse, and conclude that the tradeoff is worth it; the ArbCom has done this for certain contentious topics. But, the ArbCom had the wisdom to not enable ECR as a page sanction across all contentious topic areas—there is a very real tradeoff that needs to be really carefully considered. And I don’t the tradeoff leans towards embracing ECR here. — Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 15:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm don't think we need to have this discussion here and now, but I don't disagree it's bitey and needs to be used only where necessary. I was just asking the question of someone who is working at that article: is this an article talk where it's necessary? Valereee (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Marlarkey

Marlarkey p-blocked from Declaration of war and formally warned to be more mindful of policies, guidelines and best practices when editing CTOPs, particularly PIA _signed,Rosguill 19:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Marlarkey User who is submitting this request for enforcement WeatherWriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Marlarkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced WP:ARBPIA Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 19 August 2024 - Mainspace PIA edit prior to EC status. 19 August 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request and acknowledgement of aforementioned edit. 19 August 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request. 21 November 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request. Accused another editor of vandalism. 21 November 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request. Says, "I don't give a stuff about what you or Israel say about the declaration." 21 November 2024 - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status. Accused editor of "vandalism" in edit summary. 21 November 2024 - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status. Accused editor of "vandalism" in edit summary. 13 January 2025 - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status. 13 January 2025 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request. 13 January 2025 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request..."Someone has reverted my removal of Israel - Hamas AGAIN* so I've taken it out AGAIN." 13 January 2025 - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status. 13 January 2025 - Self-revert of direct previous mainspace reversion that was prior to EC status. 13 January 2024 - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status...Made while this enforcement request was being typed up. This reversion by Marlarkey is of an edit with the direct edit summary of "Per WP:ARBPIA". User is 100% disregarding CT requirements. Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any N/A. No previous blocks or topic bans. If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics) at 15:29, 21 November 2024. Additional comments by editor filing complaint User has been on Misplaced Pages (on and off) since at least January 2010. It seems there is a WP:CIR-related issue on ArbCom PIA/Contentious topics, given the very clear lack of ignorance of the ArbCom Notification and subsequent edit summary arguments. I do not necessarily believe a block will be of use in this case, due to this editor's on-and-off Misplaced Pages editing status (less than 500 edits since January 2010). Either a topic ban and/or a 1,000 EC status requirement (i.e. EC-status requirement is something higher than 500 edits) is being requested. The Weather Event Writer* (Talk Page) 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC) One of the edits by Marlarkey listed above from 13 January 2025 has been removed by ScottishFinnishRadish for Marlarkey not being ECR logged. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC) @Marlarkey: I want to keep assuming good faith, so I wanted to let you know that WP:ARBPIA is what we call "broadly constructed". If you read WP:PIA, it says, "These are the current arbitration remedies applicable to any pages and edits that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." The edit you are attempting to me is related to the Arab-Israel conflict. The page itself does not have to be entirely about the war to be covered under the restrictions. Any edit that is at least, even slightly related to the conflict is covered under the restrictions. While the page is about declarations of war throughout history, the specific edit is related to whether the Israel-Hamas war was a declaration of war. That is obviously related to the conflict, given it specifically is in regard to the Israel-Hamas war. That is why the edits were reverted and why this violation report was filed. Hopefully that makes sense. Also, just a quick side-note, accusing other editors of vandalism is assuming bad faith and is not really how Misplaced Pages operates. You should always be assuming the other editors intents with good faith. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC) @Marlarkey: We are all working together to create a better encyclopedia. No one is against you and we do wish for all to edit Misplaced Pages. The ArbCom restrictions require that you have (1) at least an account of 30 days old and (2) at least 500 edits, to be able to edit content anywhere on Misplaced Pages regarding the Israel-Hamas war. At the time of all the edits linked above, you did not have 500 edits on Misplaced Pages. You were roughly at 490. At the time of this, you now have over 500 edits, which means you could now edit content regarding the Israel-Hamas war. That said, this report was made because of the several edits you made prior to reaching the 500 edit requirement. Please understand this is for the edits that you made which were in clear violation of the policy, which requires you to have 500 edits prior to editing anything even remotely related to the conflict. This report was not that you are incorrect with your removal of the content. Not at all. This report is because you removed the content before you were allowed to (i.e. the 500-edit mark). Please understand we all are on the same-side here and no one is vandalizing anything. Once this is resolved, I would be more than happy to calmly discuss the content changes with you. I hope you can understand that this report is specifically because you made the changes before you were allowed to and not at all regarding the content in those changes. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC) @Rosguill: After my last reply, I realized I went 105 words over the 500-word limit. I would like to request that 105-word extension (so I do not have to reword or remove the last reply I made). I do not plan to reply again as I think everything I needed to say and link to has been said and linked to. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Discussion concerning Marlarkey Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by Marlarkey WeatherWriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly reverting edits which are removing information outside the scope of the page in question. My edits are validly citated within the scope of the page. WeatherWriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has cited WP:ARBPIA but that is not relevant to THIS article which is not a Palestine-Israel article. This article is not a contentious topic - it is factual. My edits are WP:NPOV. This article is about declarations of war - the opening statement states "A declaration of war is a formal act by which one state announces existing or impending war activity against another." 1. Hamas is not a nation state - So Israel vs Hamas should not be included in the article 2. Hezbollah is not a nation state - So Israel vs Hezbollah should not be included in the article 3. Russia vs Ukraine are both nation states - the question then is whether there has been a declaration of war. In the case 1 & 2, the removal of these two entries is WP:NPOV and the inclusion or otherwise in this article is in no way a comment on the conflict in question - only whether they constitute a declaration of war by one nation state on another. Which they do not because they are nation states. In the case of 3, the inclusion of Russia vs Ukraine only relies on whether there has been a declaration of war. The citation I gave is documented evidence of Russia announcing that a state of war exists between Russia and Ukraine. I suggest that by taking the action they have that the complainant is the one acting in a that asserts a political opinion about the conflict The reference by Weatherwriter to 21 November 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Is only a partial quote - what I actually said was "I don't give a stuff about what you or Israel say about the declaration. I care about whether it is in the scope of this page." The key is the final point - the scope of this article and whether the edits are validly cited in accordance with the topic of the article...namely a list of declarations of war. Weatherwriter reversions of my edits serve to support a political opinion on a page which is about facts. I'm pretty angry about being accused in this way when MY edits were factually based and neutral point of view, whereas by reverting my edits it does precisely the opposite, allowing contentious and politically biased information to infect the page. GRRRRRRrrr Marlarkey (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC) On another point, following me reviewing the information in this complaint by WeatherWriter... "If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)" The complainant cites a link to information which I have JUST accessed and have never seen before just now. I was NOT aware of this information so it is false to suggest that this constitutes evidence that I was aware. Again this makes me angry at the accusations being made against me. If you don't want people editing and contributing to wikipedia then please just say so. GRRR Marlarkey (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC) I give up... I'm being accused and being told off for responding to the accusation. I don't know anything about this procedure, have never seen this page before and know nothing about how this works because its new to me. But I get it - I'm not part of the club that decides things... so I'll let you get on with that. Marlarkey (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC) (Moved from WeatherWriter's section I get it - you'd rather call me out by this procedure than have an accurate encyclopaedia article. You've made accusations against me and put me through this over restrictions that I knew nothing about and policies I knew nothing about. I simply came across something inaccurate and followed what I understood to be WP principles and made an objectively accurate edit. So now the end result is that an inaccurate article containing a politically biased assertion is going to stay live. Marlarkey (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC) Result concerning Marlarkey This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Marlarkey, you have gone a bit over your 500 word allotment for responses. Please do not comment further unless directly asked to. I will remove an additional reply that was both over your limit and in the wrong section. _signed,Rosguill 00:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC) Weather Event Writer, extension granted as that's essentially what Marlarkey has already taken. _signed,Rosguill 01:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC) Ok, having now reviewed Declaration of war's page history, its talk page discussion, and Marlarkey's contributions more generally, I find that: Marlarkey has repeatedly violated WP:PIA at Declaration of war since having received a CTOP notice Irrespective of whether it is correct or not to include the Israel-Hamas war, Israel-Hezbollah war, or wars between states and non-state entities more broadly, WeatherWriter's edits to the page are plainly not vandalism, which has a specific (and serious) meaning on Misplaced Pages It appears to be a long-term status quo to include non-state entities provided that there is a citation to some sort of formal declaration of war, and the page's inclusion of conflicts involving non-states Ambazonia and SADR do not appear to have been challenged at any point. Marlarkey is incorrect to assert that their edit is objectively accurate. Whether the edit is accurate is subject to community consensus, and the talk page arguments in favor of inclusion base themselves on RS reporting which is a valid, policy-compliant argument. Marlarkey's arguments that a declaration of war can only occur be between two states do not make any reference to a reliable source stating this; while that text is currently in the lead of the article, it does not have a citation nor is it clear that any citation in the article directly backs this. In light of discussion at Talk:Declaration of war, which at this point shows multiple editors in favor of keeping the Hamas and Hezbollah wars, only Marlarkey firmly for removing them, and one other editor calling for discussion as of December 31st, Marlarkey's edits to unilaterally remove the entries in January amount to slow-motion edit warring Given that Marlarkey has had an account for well over a decade, has edited a wide variety of topics, hit 500 edits while this was happening, does not appear to have otherwise shown interest in Israel/Palestine topics, and that the edits at Declaration of war don't fit into any clear POV-warrior pattern, I don't think that pulling extended-confirmed or issuing a PIA topic ban would help. I'm thus inclined to suggest an indefinite partial block from Declaration of war (but not its talk page) as a regular admin action for edit warring, and a logged warning to be mindful of CTOP standards. _signed,Rosguill 04:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC As Marlarkey stated that they were unaware of CT, I wanted to confirm that I double checked and found that the CT notice was properly left in November. If Marlarkey chose not to read it, well, that's rather on him—we can only leave messages, we can't force people to read them. I would otherwise agree with Rosguill's assessment. Seraphimblade 12:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC) I entirely endorse Rosguill's reading of this. I am not happy about Marlarkey's approach to our restrictions, but I don't see this as EC gaming, and I can't see how pulling EC rights could be justified at this stage. As such I endorse the proposed page block and logged warning. Marlarkey, you seem to believe that because you are right on the substance you can ignore process and guidelines - that simply isn't true. The arbitration committee has consistently held that being right isn't enough; you need to be able to edit within the scope of our policies. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC) Pretty much everything Rosquill said. Marlarkey, it doesn't look like you have a huge amount of experience working in WP:CTOPs. I'm sorry you're finding this upsetting, but CTOPs are a whole 'nother world, and you're either going to have to learn how to nonproblematically work there, or not work there. Valereee (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC) FWIW, the CTOP warning was left on your talk page. You've got your archiving set so aggressively that you may be missing a lot of messages, and it's completely plausible that you missed this one, which was only on your talk for two days, and after it was left you didn't edit for a month. However, we do assume that if you've got your archiving set that aggressively, you're keeping on top of anything important by checking your notifications to make sure you didn't miss anything. You can probably prevent this happening in future by having your talk page archive no more frequently than you typically go between editing sessions, leaving maybe the five most recent messages unarchived, and/or being sure to check your notifications when logging back in. Any one of those three and you've have likely seen the notification. Valereee (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Marlarkey p-blocked from Declaration of war and formally warned to be more mindful of policies, guidelines and best practices when editing CTOPs, particularly PIA _signed,Rosguill 19:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Marlarkey

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: WeatherWriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Marlarkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA

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

19 August 2024 - Mainspace PIA edit prior to EC status.
19 August 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request and acknowledgement of aforementioned edit.
19 August 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request.
21 November 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request. Accused another editor of vandalism.
21 November 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request. Says, "I don't give a stuff about what you or Israel say about the declaration."
21 November 2024 - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status. Accused editor of "vandalism" in edit summary.
21 November 2024 - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status. Accused editor of "vandalism" in edit summary.

13 January 2025 - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status.
13 January 2025 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request.
13 January 2025 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request..."Someone has reverted my removal of Israel - Hamas *AGAIN* so I've taken it out *AGAIN*."
13 January 2025 - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status.
13 January 2025 - Self-revert of direct previous mainspace reversion that was prior to EC status.
13 January 2024 - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status...Made while this enforcement request was being typed up. This reversion by Marlarkey is of an edit with the direct edit summary of "Per WP:ARBPIA". User is 100% disregarding CT requirements.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any: N/A. No previous blocks or topic bans.

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics): at 15:29, 21 November 2024.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User has been on Misplaced Pages (on and off) since at least January 2010. It seems there is a WP:CIR-related issue on ArbCom PIA/Contentious topics, given the very clear lack of ignorance of the ArbCom Notification and subsequent edit summary arguments. I do not necessarily believe a block will be of use in this case, due to this editor's on-and-off Misplaced Pages editing status (less than 500 edits since January 2010). Either a topic ban and/or a 1,000 EC status requirement (i.e. EC-status requirement is something higher than 500 edits) is being requested. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

One of the edits by Marlarkey listed above from 13 January 2025 has been removed by ScottishFinnishRadish for Marlarkey not being ECR logged. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Marlarkey: I want to keep assuming good faith, so I wanted to let you know that WP:ARBPIA is what we call "broadly constructed". If you read WP:PIA, it says, "These are the current arbitration remedies applicable to any pages and edits that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." The edit you are attempting to me is related to the Arab-Israel conflict. The page itself does not have to be entirely about the war to be covered under the restrictions. Any edit that is at least, even slightly related to the conflict is covered under the restrictions. While the page is about declarations of war throughout history, the specific edit is related to whether the Israel-Hamas war was a declaration of war. That is obviously related to the conflict, given it specifically is in regard to the Israel-Hamas war. That is why the edits were reverted and why this violation report was filed. Hopefully that makes sense. Also, just a quick side-note, accusing other editors of vandalism is assuming bad faith and is not really how Misplaced Pages operates. You should always be assuming the other editors intents with good faith. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Marlarkey: We are all working together to create a better encyclopedia. No one is against you and we do wish for all to edit Misplaced Pages. The ArbCom restrictions require that you have (1) at least an account of 30 days old and (2) at least 500 edits, to be able to edit content anywhere on Misplaced Pages regarding the Israel-Hamas war. At the time of all the edits linked above, you did not have 500 edits on Misplaced Pages. You were roughly at 490. At the time of this, you now have over 500 edits, which means you could now edit content regarding the Israel-Hamas war. That said, this report was made because of the several edits you made prior to reaching the 500 edit requirement.

Please understand this is for the edits that you made which were in clear violation of the policy, which requires you to have 500 edits prior to editing anything even remotely related to the conflict. This report was not that you are incorrect with your removal of the content. Not at all. This report is because you removed the content before you were allowed to (i.e. the 500-edit mark). Please understand we all are on the same-side here and no one is vandalizing anything. Once this is resolved, I would be more than happy to calmly discuss the content changes with you. I hope you can understand that this report is specifically because you made the changes before you were allowed to and not at all regarding the content in those changes. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@Rosguill: After my last reply, I realized I went 105 words over the 500-word limit. I would like to request that 105-word extension (so I do not have to reword or remove the last reply I made). I do not plan to reply again as I think everything I needed to say and link to has been said and linked to. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Marlarkey

Statement by Marlarkey

WeatherWriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly reverting edits which are removing information outside the scope of the page in question. My edits are validly citated within the scope of the page. WeatherWriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has cited WP:ARBPIA but that is not relevant to THIS article which is not a Palestine-Israel article. This article is not a contentious topic - it is factual.

My edits are WP:NPOV. This article is about declarations of war - the opening statement states "A declaration of war is a formal act by which one state announces existing or impending war activity against another." 1. Hamas is not a nation state - So Israel vs Hamas should not be included in the article 2. Hezbollah is not a nation state - So Israel vs Hezbollah should not be included in the article 3. Russia vs Ukraine are both nation states - the question then is whether there has been a declaration of war.

In the case 1 & 2, the removal of these two entries is WP:NPOV and the inclusion or otherwise in this article is in no way a comment on the conflict in question - only whether they constitute a declaration of war by one nation state on another. Which they do not because they are nation states.

In the case of 3, the inclusion of Russia vs Ukraine only relies on whether there has been a declaration of war. The citation I gave is documented evidence of Russia announcing that a state of war exists between Russia and Ukraine.

I suggest that by taking the action they have that the complainant is the one acting in a that asserts a political opinion about the conflict

The reference by Weatherwriter to 21 November 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Is only a partial quote - what I actually said was "I don't give a stuff about what you or Israel say about the declaration. I care about whether it is in the scope of this page." The key is the final point - the scope of this article and whether the edits are validly cited in accordance with the topic of the article...namely a list of declarations of war.

Weatherwriter reversions of my edits serve to support a political opinion on a page which is about facts.

I'm pretty angry about being accused in this way when MY edits were factually based and neutral point of view, whereas by reverting my edits it does precisely the opposite, allowing contentious and politically biased information to infect the page. GRRRRRRrrr

Marlarkey (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

On another point, following me reviewing the information in this complaint by WeatherWriter... "If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)" The complainant cites a link to information which I have JUST accessed and have never seen before just now. I was NOT aware of this information so it is false to suggest that this constitutes evidence that I was aware.

Again this makes me angry at the accusations being made against me. If you don't want people editing and contributing to wikipedia then please just say so. GRRR Marlarkey (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I give up... I'm being accused and being told off for responding to the accusation. I don't know anything about this procedure, have never seen this page before and know nothing about how this works because its new to me.

But I get it - I'm not part of the club that decides things... so I'll let you get on with that. Marlarkey (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

(Moved from WeatherWriter's section I get it - you'd rather call me out by this procedure than have an accurate encyclopaedia article. You've made accusations against me and put me through this over restrictions that I knew nothing about and policies I knew nothing about. I simply came across something inaccurate and followed what I understood to be WP principles and made an objectively accurate edit.

So now the end result is that an inaccurate article containing a politically biased assertion is going to stay live. Marlarkey (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Result concerning Marlarkey

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

Marlarkey, you have gone a bit over your 500 word allotment for responses. Please do not comment further unless directly asked to. I will remove an additional reply that was both over your limit and in the wrong section. _signed,Rosguill 00:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Weather Event Writer, extension granted as that's essentially what Marlarkey has already taken. _signed,Rosguill 01:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok, having now reviewed Declaration of war's page history, its talk page discussion, and Marlarkey's contributions more generally, I find that:

Marlarkey has repeatedly violated WP:PIA at Declaration of war since having received a CTOP notice
Irrespective of whether it is correct or not to include the Israel-Hamas war, Israel-Hezbollah war, or wars between states and non-state entities more broadly, WeatherWriter's edits to the page are plainly not vandalism, which has a specific (and serious) meaning on Misplaced Pages
It appears to be a long-term status quo to include non-state entities provided that there is a citation to some sort of formal declaration of war, and the page's inclusion of conflicts involving non-states Ambazonia and SADR do not appear to have been challenged at any point.
Marlarkey is incorrect to assert that their edit is objectively accurate. Whether the edit is accurate is subject to community consensus, and the talk page arguments in favor of inclusion base themselves on RS reporting which is a valid, policy-compliant argument. Marlarkey's arguments that a declaration of war can only occur be between two states do not make any reference to a reliable source stating this; while that text is currently in the lead of the article, it does not have a citation nor is it clear that any citation in the article directly backs this.
In light of discussion at Talk:Declaration of war, which at this point shows multiple editors in favor of keeping the Hamas and Hezbollah wars, only Marlarkey firmly for removing them, and one other editor calling for discussion as of December 31st, Marlarkey's edits to unilaterally remove the entries in January amount to slow-motion edit warring
Given that Marlarkey has had an account for well over a decade, has edited a wide variety of topics, hit 500 edits while this was happening, does not appear to have otherwise shown interest in Israel/Palestine topics, and that the edits at Declaration of war don't fit into any clear POV-warrior pattern, I don't think that pulling extended-confirmed or issuing a PIA topic ban would help.

I'm thus inclined to suggest an indefinite partial block from Declaration of war (but not its talk page) as a regular admin action for edit warring, and a logged warning to be mindful of CTOP standards. _signed,Rosguill 04:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC

As Marlarkey stated that they were unaware of CT, I wanted to confirm that I double checked and found that the CT notice was properly left in November. If Marlarkey chose not to read it, well, that's rather on him—we can only leave messages, we can't force people to read them. I would otherwise agree with Rosguill's assessment. Seraphimblade 12:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I entirely endorse Rosguill's reading of this. I am not happy about Marlarkey's approach to our restrictions, but I don't see this as EC gaming, and I can't see how pulling EC rights could be justified at this stage. As such I endorse the proposed page block and logged warning. Marlarkey, you seem to believe that because you are right on the substance you can ignore process and guidelines - that simply isn't true. The arbitration committee has consistently held that being right isn't enough; you need to be able to edit within the scope of our policies. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Pretty much everything Rosquill said. Marlarkey, it doesn't look like you have a huge amount of experience working in WP:CTOPs. I'm sorry you're finding this upsetting, but CTOPs are a whole 'nother world, and you're either going to have to learn how to nonproblematically work there, or not work there. Valereee (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
FWIW, the CTOP warning was left on your talk page. You've got your archiving set so aggressively that you may be missing a lot of messages, and it's completely plausible that you missed this one, which was only on your talk for two days, and after it was left you didn't edit for a month. However, we do assume that if you've got your archiving set that aggressively, you're keeping on top of anything important by checking your notifications to make sure you didn't miss anything.

You can probably prevent this happening in future by having your talk page archive no more frequently than you typically go between editing sessions, leaving maybe the five most recent messages unarchived, and/or being sure to check your notifications when logging back in. Any one of those three and you've have likely seen the notification. Valereee (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

DanielVizago

Request concerning DanielVizago

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Schazjmd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: DanielVizago (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_and_sexuality#Final_decision

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

29 Dec 2024 Added Category:Misandry to a BLP, after CTOP notification and several talk page messages notifying DanielVizago that the category is not to be applied to articles about individuals (per category description, This category is for issues relating to misandry. It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly misandrist.);
4 Jan 2025 and 5 Jan 2025 Removing sourced content from Misogyny that states misandry is not a major an issue as misogyny;
5 Jan 2025 Changing content in Male privilege to emphasize misandry (reverted by another editor with edit summary rv, poorly sourced (sources supplemented by WP:OR and WP:SYNTH), earlier version was better, closer to sources);
13 Jan 2025 Added "bimisandry" to Biphobia, citing 4 sources, none of which include that term;
14 Jan 2025, weird edits adding Category:Female rapists with piped names to unrelated articles, then added those names directly to the category page;
14 Jan 2025 restored the "bimisandry" edit to Biphobia, then added a 5th ref that includes the term but is just a blog; I left a 4th-level warning on talk page;
14 Jan 2025 (after final warning) adds ] and ] to Hurtcore; those two individuals don't have articles and there is no mention in this article of their charges or convictions, even though the category solely consists of articles of female individuals who have been convicted of rape in a court of law.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None

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

I alerted them on 28 Dec 2024

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Above diffs are all edits after the CTOP notification was provided. Before then, DanielVizago misapplied Category:Misandry to 46 articles, which is what caught my attention. Their attempts to add "bimisandry" to Biphobia started 16 Dec 2024. On 28 Dec 2024, DanielVizago added a lot of content to Supremacism about misandry, which another editor reverted with edit summary remove recently added pro-fringe section and put back the excerpt. Most of their 122 edits have been reverted by multiple editors.

Before the level 4 warning, I tried guiding DanielVizago away from CTOP; they don't engage on their talk page. (They've posted there once, to say "thanks" in response to a warning.) With their refusal to communicate, poor sourcing, and non-NPOV edits, I don't think they should be editing in this topic area. Schazjmd (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning DanielVizago

Statement by DanielVizago

Statement by caeciliusinhorto

Since this report was opened, DanielVizago has continued to make questionable edits adding articles to Category:Female rapists.

Possibly the worst edit, categorising a living person who has been accused (but not charged, let alone convicted) of sexual assault as a rapist (cf. WP:BLPCRIMINAL)
This edit adds the category to a disambiguation page on the basis of one of the people listed on that page, who had in fact been convicted not of rape but of sexual activity with a minor
this and this edit categorise two sexually-motivated murderers as rapists despite no evidence that they ever raped anyone in the article (cf. WP:CATV)

Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning DanielVizago

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

I've p-blocked from article space to see if we can get this editor communicating. Valereee (talk) 12:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: