Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Request for extension: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 (October 2008)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Involved users

• Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party;
• TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notification).

Statement by Phil Sandifer

TTN was banned from deletion activities for six months for his failure to work "collaboratively and constructively with the broader community" on the area of notability and deletion. Since the expiration of his ban, his contributions have been entirely to "merge" content (I say merge because, in fact, he simply redirects pages without discussion), and mass-nominate articles for deletion. For instance, his mass-redirection of articles with identical edit summaries: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] and so on. These edits were unaccompanied by any edits to talk pages to garner consensus. Indeed, even as the very policies he cites as justification are under heavy discussion, including an RFC that got a watchlist notice, TTN has made no contributions towards seeking consensus. None. Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise shows no comments by him.

Regardless of the appropriateness of his nominations, this is the behavior he was previously sanctioned for. And he has returned to it. The routine norm, in such cases, is, at a minimum, to restore the sanctions that were actually effective at preventing the behavior.

Therefore, given his continued failure to work collaboratively and constructively, and the fact that he has returned to the exact behavior that got him previously sanctioned, I request that the arbitration committee restore Remedy 1 from the relevant case without expiration. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

In response to some of the comments below, this is not about the accuracy of TTN's deletion nominations. I would vote delete on about half of them myself. The issue is not whether his proposals are within consensus or not - it is on whether he is working collaboratively and constructively with the broader community. That necessarily involves some level of dialogue with said community. As for the suggestion that editors of fiction articles are also working outside of consensus, I do not see extending this remedy as precluding enforcement against other problematic users, and I would be surprised if the arbcom did.

A further piece of evidence as well. I encourage anybody to look at [6]. Those are TTN's talk page contributions. Note that the overwhelming majority of them are redirects or template removals of pages. There are only a handful of cases - once every two or three days - where TTN is discussing his edits. Compare to the 8 edits he has made so far to talk pages making any discussion of his edits in October to the over 250 edits he has made so far to articles either nominating them for deletion or merging them in October. That is in no way, in letter or spirit, complying with the directive to work collaboratively and constructively with other editors. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Protonk, I'm not pillorying TTN over the deletion or merger. But if we don't have a consensus on these issues, and I agree with you that we don't, we need to try to find one. Please explain to me how over 250 merges and deletions in a week with only 8 comments on talk pages about them constitute attempts to find consensus, or to work with other editors. Please explain to me how TTN is in any way complying with the instruction that previous non-compliance with led to a six month ban from these issues. Because otherwise, this seems straightforward - he was previously sanctioned for something. He is doing it again. What's changed? Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

In response to Bainer's comments, with all due respect, the claim that there is nowhere to discuss these issues except for AfD is absurd. When merging articles, the article talk pages are a fine place to discuss merges. (Or, more accurately, redirects) For the large batch of episodes of the TV show Heroes he recently mass redirected I would think that stopping in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heroes might have been effective.

Were TTN interested in discussion and consensus-building, even with the continued contentiousness of a general guideline for fiction, many opportunities were available to him, not least of which was participating in the RFC to work on the notability issues for fiction. That TTN ignored all of these channels and ignored attempts to build consensus on this issue does not seem to me to be a good thing, and I am, frankly, baffled how you can suggest that AfD was the only channel open to him. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I am, frankly, dismayed to see the overall conduct of the Arbcom in this - after two rulings that clearly establish a bar for actions in this area to clear - seeking consensus, discussing, and working with other editors - the arbcom seems to, now that the case has made it to them a third time, they seem to be simply backing up from their previous ruling and deciding that the whole thing is a content dispute. While I understand their reluctance to be involved in notability issues, given that they have twice issued a ruling on exactly this issue to decide that suddenly it is a content issue that they cannot rule on is baffling. Perhaps one of the arbitrators could better articulate why mass nomination for deletion has suddenly become a content rather than a conduct issue. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by SirFozzie

You know, I'm beginning to think "Episodes and Characters" is the ArbCom version of the Chinese Water Torture. I think TTN has been working within Wikipedia Guidelines. One can never fruitfully seek consensus to delete or redirect on a talk page, quite frankly, the most interested (or should I say biased) people to keeping an article on that article. I suggest that ArbCom deny this request and tell BOTH sides to continue to work within policy, rather then constantly seeking the heavy hammer of ArbCom to do their work for them. SirFozzie (talk) 07:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by sgeureka

...And another E&C arbcom thread aiming to expose TTN as the evil culprit, while fan editors are sooooo totally working "collaboratively and constructively with the broader community", restoring articles that fail WP policies and guidelines left and right instead of fixing the deficiencies to a minimum level so that the messenger (TTN) leaves them alone. (I'd say more but these may-I-say-misguided TTN-arbcom appeals are just getting tiresome.) – sgeureka ^t•c 11:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by CBDunkerson

TTN recently nominated Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch for deletion. The discussion was closed as a snowball keep. TTN then immediately placed a merge tag on the article. That's just not 'working within consensus'. There was an overwhelming consensus to keep the article. NOT to make it a redirect to a brief mention in another article, TTN's acknowledged definition of 'merge'... otherwise known as deletion. Continually pressing against the lack of general consensus around notability standards for fictional topics with constant deletion efforts is IMO bad enough... but ignoring consensus when it does form is a problem. When he loses an argument he needs to accept that. NOT try to get the same result people just overwhelmingly rejected through the back door. --CBD 12:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Protonk (talk)

This is the same basic request as the previous request for clarification. The answer here should be the same. We don't have a functioning guideline to deal with notability of fictional subjects--specifically those which do not cite any sources. Many, many articles on fictional subjects will either never have sources or will never cite sources (because people can't be bothered). Until we have some community accepted guideline for inclusion it doesn't help to pillory TTN over the deletion or merger of these articles.

His case came to ArbComm because of edit warring over merger tags and redirects. Proposing mergers and nominating articles for deletion isn't the same thing. It is clear that what TTN wants to do is reduce the number of fictional articles we have on wikipedia. I don't think that the result of the previous case should read "TTN cannot work to reduce the number of fictional articles". I agree that people are pissed about the Monty Python thing, although the merger proposal was perfectly reasonable. I have fewer defenses for this copy/paste AfD rationales, but I don't think either act is a refusal to respect consensus. when I say pillory I don't mean you in particular. I mean to say that the debate is larger than TTN and that without some clear resolution of that larger debate we can't blame him for forcing current community standards on articles that people like.

Statement by Kww

TTN is working as cooperatively as possible with people that don't tend to be cooperative. He is bringing the articles to AFD, and participating in the AFD discussions. He is not performing unilateral redirect and mergings, because, even though they are far more efficient, he was told to stop.

As for Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, there actually is a cooperative merge discussion going on at Talk:Monty Python and the Holy Grail#Merge, where most of the participants are being polite and cooperative. The snowball keep came as a result of a pile-on by fans, not as a result of any policy based discussions.

I think we are at the point where reporting TTN to Arbcom is more of a problem than TTN himself.—Kww(talk) 17:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Kung Fu Man

TTN is a pain in a great deal of asses here on wikipedia, mine included. However, for the most part he is trying to be cooperative and clean things up and do it by the books: case in point an AfD that was closed by him after two people pointed out quickly the characters in the nominated article were mentioned in other books and notable. I seriously don't think at this point in time this is necessary at all.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by nifboy

As I complained about in the previous RFAR thread, as well as an AfD filed solely because TTN didn't, this feels increasingly like bureaucracy creep. AfD is increasingly treated like a CYA, discouraging WP:BOLD across the project. Nifboy (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

"As for the suggestion that editors of fiction articles are also working outside of consensus, I do not see extending this remedy as precluding enforcement against other problematic users, and I would be surprised if the arbcom did." This comedic request for clarification would indicate that the current ArbCom actually do think that. In the end, what do we want Wikipedia to be? If we want it to be a free-for-all without regard to independent notability, feel free to reset TTN's sanction. If we want it to be an encyclopedia, he's going about it in the only way possible - there is intrasigence on both sides here and I don't see that concentrating on TTN - yet again - is particularly helpful. Let's face it, he's not exactly doing it for his health [7].Black Kite 22:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by DGG

I see no real evidence of cooperation. Day after day he continues to nominate 5 to 10 articles for deletion without considering the possibility of merge or redirect--if asked about why he has not done so he almost always ignores the question. Day after day he uses the same deletion summary, without indicating anything about the individual article--he does not help the discussion by even indicating what work of fiction it is or what role the character plays; when asked to clarify his deletion summaries he ignores that also. He generally nominates articles at the same time of widely varying importance from different fictions; either he is working indiscriminately, or deliberately making it very hard to defend intelligently: he can use the same deletion argument for everything, since he includes every possible reason for deleting an article, but a defense of the article has to be focused & cover them all in detail. He continues sometimes to redirect without discussion. I'm not going to add to the diffs here-- 99 % of the diffs on his contributions show this, so there's hardly need to select. But as an example, showing his consistent pattern of asking for sources and then, if found, denying relevance, see "Most recent prime-time episodes are reviewed by a number of sources" used by him as a delete argument! The one sensible close pointed out by Kung Fu Man was yesterday, and he's been quiet since--after it became clear this was going to be filed. This matches what to me is the proof of his bad faith is the immediate resumption of deletion activity immediate after the arb com moratorium. His enforced departure from merge/deletion/redirect will not hurt the deletionist cause any more than his previous enforced departure did: there are enough others trying to carry out a rationalisation of the content, generally in a less damaging way. The victory at Wikipedia discussions should not go to the most stubborn. DGG (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

the BRD approach requires being willing to enter into Discussion,and only works when people are reasonable about it. There are other editors who sometimes may be unreasonable, but not to this extent. Failing to agree on a guideline discussion is not being disruptive, and not in the same category as making massive afds and redirects. That people did not all want to adopt someone's proposals does not mean they are disruptive. DGG (talk) 07:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC).

Statement by Sjakkalle

What ticks me off with TTN is not that he has very strict (in my opinion way too strict) standards for fictional topics. It is that he has apparently no interest at all in creating any content whatsoever. His edits are overwhelmingly target towards removing or deleting content. Even while he was banned from AFD-ing or merging fiction topics, his main activity consisted of "trimming" fiction topics.

It also concerns me that TTN has a tendency to fire off AFD nominations at machine gun pace; with several nominations taking place within the space of a few minutes. Has he taken enough time to review each article he nominates, and think carefully through what alternatives there might be to deletion?

I have worked with a lot of users who could be described (sometimes by themselves) as "deletionist", and I can recognize them as excellent contributors; their deletionism is tempered by excellent content writing. Therefore, they realize and can empathize with the challenges in locating sources. They become peer contributors who can discuss and work cooperatively, instead of policemen who hammer down on everything. I can only hope that TTN will redirect his energies towards some article writing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Stifle

I massively oppose any reinstatement of sanctions against TTN. He is doing a very good job clearing up unencyclopedic material, is doing it civilly, and is coming up against entrenched opposition from vested interests. Stifle (talk) 10:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by MuZemike

As feared, it is my opinion that this (as well as any such discussion involving TTN) has devolved into a inclusionist/deletionist debate. A lot of the AfDs he nominated I happen to agree with, but some I also have disagreed; but that's beside the point. It seems that more than anything many users — which include obviously biased editors, fanboys, and others with extremely vested interests in articles to the point of ownership — want TTN with a proverbial rope around his neck, even to the point that some users have resorted to sockpuppetry and even death threats. I only see this as a ploy to keep bugging ArbCom until they get the result they so desire. MuZemike (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by CharlotteWebb

I don't see how TTN's immediate resumption of the same behavior that let to a six-month topic ban (from merging and AFDing articles related to fiction) can be anything other than exhausting the community's patience. He's certainly exhausted mine. I don't usually edit articles related to fiction, but I do often read them whenever I can. Quite frankly it pisses me off when I have to dig through the edit history or look on Deletionpedia to find the information I'm looking for.

I urge the committee to accept this case and consider issuing a ban of greater duration and breadth. — CharlotteWebb 21:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Randomran

I just don't see any real policy breach. He's using Wikipedia's process as it has been designed:

• Be bold
• Revert edits you disagree with
• Instead of revert warring, discuss. (For example, AFD or a merge discussion.)

Bold editing is not only acceptable, it is encouraged. "Any changes you make that turn out badly can be reverted, often quite painlessly." And indeed some of TTN's changes were reverted. I disagree with many of his editing decisions, but he certainly has the right to try them out, as much as people have the right to revert them. I would only have an issue if he started revert warring, or canvassing, or waiting around until no one was looking to try the exact same thing again. But so far, he seems to get the WP:POINT whenever the consensus forms. That's good, isn't it?

The other complaints are more dubious. Nominating articles for AFD with an explanation of the policy violation is insufficient? Suggesting a merge after a failed AFD is disruptive? In my view, starting a discussion is almost always a *good* thing. That's where editors get to challenge his view of the content and build a consensus with or against him. Consensus building is always helpful! I repeat for the sake of summarizing and emphasizing: starting a discussion about content is almost always good faith, and almost always helpful.

(As an aside, the same isn't true for starting a discussion about a user's behavior. It seems there are a few editors who have piled in because TTN breached sanctions that expired a month ago. You can't ask to throw someone back in jail just because they're exercising rights that they were previously entitled to.)

The only time when discussing content stops being helpful is where it becomes repetitive, out of step with settled policy or consensus. Where discussion becomes WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or WP:FORUMSHOPping. But that means that the editor has to be shown that he/she is re-opening the same issue over and over. Someone has to make a good faith effort to educate the problem editor, rather than jumping into accusations or bureaucratic sanctions. For example, the idea that a few reliable third-party sources are insufficient for notability seems to go against consensus -- let alone what WP:N says. I haven't taken a closer look at this particular content dispute, so maybe there's actually a policy reason that justifies TTN's viewpoint. But you won't know until you actually try to discuss it with him, preferably at his talk page away from any specific content.

As someone who just wants articles to meet guidelines -- no more and no less -- I'm sympathetic to people who are frustrated with extreme deletionists or inclusionists, who invent their own standards for inclusion. Even though extremists seldom get their way, it can be frustrating to butt heads with them over and over, after one issue has been settled. I don't think it has gotten to that point yet because I haven't seen TTN trying to re-open settled issues in a WP:POINTy or WP:GAMEy way. But everyone should do what they can to make sure it doesn't go there. That's equally true if people keep requesting new or extended sanctions against TTN without showing a real policy/guideline breach. Randomran (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Masem

If people believe TTN's present actions (which are generally targeting articles that do lack notability, and with methods that follow the WP:BRD approach) are against ArbCom, then we should be bringing up those editors (both inclusionists and deletionists) that are prevent any sort of compromise in the last year and half to resolve issues with fiction and notability. We've tried to offer a middle of the road solution (the current failed WP:FICT proposal), we're trying to work out how to resolve this on the general scale with the general notability guideline, but the same names keep coming up (for opposite sides of the issue) saying these doesn't meet what they want. Given that the second part of the ArbCom decision was to get all involved editors to work cooperatively to revolve the issue of notability and episodes and characters, and these people are not helping towards a compromise, then they are as much at fault as TTN is above by his current actions...

But of course, I'm not going to call these names forward for ArbCom arbitration, just as much as I don't believe that TTN is doing anything against the overall ArbCom case. But it is important to remind those that would like to see nothing less than TTN banned from editing WP forever that the decision was not unilaterally towards TTN's actions; cooperation and compromise are needed as well. --MASEM 23:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by jc37

In general, as bainer notes below, there is really no "common practice" when it comes to such articles. Such AfD results often vary wildly.

Let's presume that someday we do develop some sort of policy/guideline, which most everyone can agree on.

Does that mean that we're then going to have to go back through all these articles which have been deleted/merged/redirected, and restore them? A herculean task, which should never be necessary, but will be, regardless.

I've seen enough fait accompli to understand that while theoretically, deletions (and moves, and merges, etc.) can be undone, it's usually much more difficult in practice.

I think this is just another case of "everyone's got a divergent opinion", and there are those who don't want to see the house burned down before the process of remodeling has been completed.

Incidentally, here's another "start" to such a discussion: Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise. - jc37 08:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Y|yukichigai

While I have no particular love for TTN, at this point I'm not exactly calling for his head either. He has nominated a rather large number of articles for deletion and redirected several others in the wake of his restriction lapsing, which I think is a bit excessive, but he doesn't seem to be engaging as much in the same "revert every attempt to restore the article and ignore all discussion" behavior which rallied the figurative Angry Mob With Pitchforks and Torches last time around. The fact that he is still doing it at all is troubling though, because it's causing the same sort of issues that effectively led to a wiki-wide edit war, only this time it's happening slower.

I honestly think TTN has put forth an effort to change, but somehow he's not quite gotten a handle on the whole "you don't have the final say" part of things. At this point I wouldn't endorse an indefinite re-extension of the restriction, but I would endorse a temporary re-extension for a few months just to "gently" re-affirm the point of the last RfArb. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 15:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add that after reading Wizardman's statement I most definitely agree: ArbCom needs to make some sort of definitive statement regarding TTN's behavior, one way or the other. Anything resembling a "no consensus" will simply delay things for a few months (or weeks) whereupon a new request for clarification will show up again. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 22:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Gazimoff

I raised this same issue at this same venue about three weeks ago. I was hoping that the concerns and issues would be thrashed out, but it's disappointing to see that it's returned to this venue.

To be honest, I do not have a problem with TTN raising articles for deletion, or creating redirects, or merging content. These are a much needed part of the general content editing process that helps promote good articles. Although I would be happier if TTN demonstrated that he searched for sources himself before removing content, I can understand why it takes place.

My primary concern then, as it is now, is the througput or the rate at which he carries out content removal actions or raises AfDs. It is the volume of work that I feel causes concerns amongst the content creators in the community, and which I'm almost certain has brought this back here. It's not a content dispute, as I'm sure we can come to agreeents on content through other processes. It's behavioural - his activity occurs at such a rate that it stretches the ability for other editors to respond to his concerns.

I would encourage TTN to work with Wikiprojects in order to discuss his article concerns becore embarking on mass or large scale actions. I would also urge TTN to throttle or limit the rate at which he removes content or raises AfDs in order to ensure that the rest of the editing community has a legitemate chance to respond to his concerns.

Many thanks, Gazimoff 18:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Josiah Rowe

It's been suggested that TTN is operating under WP:BRD. He's certainly being bold, and many of his edits are indeed reverted — but in proportion to his bold edits, there is very little discussion. I don't know if further sanctions are appropriate or needed here, but I do think that a strong encouragement towards more discussion and civil engagement with other editors would be helpful. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jayron32

I am entirely uninvolved in this situation, I was never involved in any of the deltions, nor any discussions involving this user or this problem in the past. I am merely commenting as someone who has been a passive observer for months. This is not about the deletions of articles of TV characters, this is about the specific behavior of TTN with regard to making WP:POINTs, especially as it comes to these articles and his behavior at AFD and other places. The act of proposing mass deletions of entire groups of articles with little or no rationale is disruptive. That each of his deletions has the exact same deltion reason shows that he has no intention of considering each article on its own merits, the speed of these nominations shows that he isn't considering that there may be some articles which are deletable, and others which DO pass muster. It would appear from his actions that he is merely trying to delete an entire class of articles at Wikipedia, and as such, is attempting to use AFD to create policy. However, this is old news, because this is the exact same behavior that led to the recently expired sanctions. Seriously, the expectation of setting an expiration date on the sanctions is that, after the sanctions, the behavior would change in some meaningful way. The behavior has not, so the sanctions should return. The points made by bainer below may be 100% accurate, but not one of these statements excuses TTN for disrupting the process in this way. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Pixelface

TTN is now on a mission to purge the "video game and anime and manga character categories."[8] I brought up videogame characters[9] in the E&C2 Arbcom case [10], 7 days after Newyorkbrad changed the injunction to be only about TV characters [11]. On February 28, Newyorkbrad proposed the remedy that ultimately passed and that restricted TTN concerning articles about TV episodes and characters [12] — which was 3 weeks after I brought up the issue of videogame character articles. Category:Video game characters has 1,166 articles in it according to this tool, and Category:Anime and manga characters has 2,698 articles in it according to the same tool — for a total of 3,864 articles. Evaluating the articles in those categories may actually not be a bad idea. But I think TTN is the last editor who should do it. Is there not a point where a certain number of AFDs per day started by one user becomes disruptive?

TTN has created the articles Darkrai (a Pokemon), 5 LOCs List of Monsters, Inc. characters, List of Samurai Shodown Characters, List of Histeria! characters, List of Last Blade characters, List of One Piece characters, and 2 DAB pages Konk and Slowpoke. TTN appears to know a good deal about Dragonball, Naruto, and Pokemon, and I think TTN should continue to contribute to those areas. But the speed that TTN is nominating articles for deletion puts a huge burden on editors actually willing to do research — research that TTN himself seems absolutely unwilling to do.

In November 2007 in E&C1, TTN said[13] "I'm just going to be utilizing AfDs more often rather than revert warring." In E&C2, TTN was placed under editing restrictions for six months. During that time he was blocked twice for violating his restrictions. When those restrictions expired, TTN began (and continues) a mass deletion spree with cut-and-paste nominations, using Twinkle. A remedy proposed in E&C2 prohibiting the use of Twinkle to mass nominate articles for deletion was ignored by arbitrators.[14] If the articles in question are really so egregious that they need to be evaluated now, I'm confident that some other editor (one not involved in E&C1 or E&C2} can do it. For example, WikiProject Anime and manga and WikiProject Video games could be of help. You might say that other people are evaluating the articles, because TTN is nominating them for deletion, and other editors are discussing them, but a robot could make the same cut-and-paste nominations at the speed TTN is making them. There is no deadline, WP:FICT isn't even a guideline anymore, WP:PLOT never had consensus to be policy, and WP:N is in flux. Personally I think TTN has continued to fail to work "collaboratively and constructively with the broader community." I think TTN may have learned some bad habits from the suspected sockpuppet (and troll) Wiki-star at Talk:Majin Buu, the talk page of an article about a Dragonball character.

I have personally never seen TTN add any material with citation to any article (although I would happily welcome some evidence of that). It appears to me that someone, somewhere hurt TTN's feelings. Everything to him is "pointless" or "unnecessary." I don't know how old TTN is, but a troll was calling TTN a "bastard"[15] 7 days into TTN's editing and that may have had a big influence on TTN's future willingness to interact with other editors. I think TTN learned long ago that it was much easier for him to just do whatever he wanted without trying to talk with other editors — this is evident on early archives of his user talk page. So the effect is that of a steamroller. TTN is exhausting the community's patience. Although he does appear to have a handful of supporters.

A principle in E&C2 stated "It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change." I think the volume that TTN is producing new AFDs with Twinkle goes against that principle. I would support an indefinite extension of TTN's previous editing restrictions. I would first support another 6-month extension, but I fear that will only mean another appearance before ArbCom in six months. I think TTN may possibly be helped with some mentorship, which, in hindsight, should have been a remedy in E&C2. --Pixelface (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

In response to Thebainer, "One has to begin with the observation that the community has failed to produce a notability guideline particularly for either television episodes or fictional characters", then why is TTN is acting like there is one? I've previously suggested that WP:EPISODE be turned into a notability guideline (since TTN was claiming it was anyway) and during E&C2 I asked Newyorkbrad to designate a place for the parties to "develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question." I also asked about mass AFDs in March [16]. There was an RFC on WP:FICT in June and TTN did participate. But FICT failed to achieve consensus, and it was eventually marked an essay and fully protected. From there, Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise was started. Before that, I suggested to Masem that a survey be started at WT:FICT. I've written up a draft of the survey and I still think it's a good idea. At one point, WP:FICT *was* based on AFD precedents, but the guideline gradually mutated into the mess it is now. It may be that Wikipedia needs a better system of creating and modifying policies and guidelines than the current free-for-all. --Pixelface (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Fordmadoxfraud

I edit a lot of comics articles, and I am aware that the community in which I operate, and that of many other media-related subjects, such as anime and television, have not entirely grokked the utter necessity for reliable sources in all that we do. However. This is not a failing that is remedied by wholesale removals of content or by alienating interested editors who need improvement. TTN might be knowledgeable about the subject, but until his production of references for articles (which, so far as I can tell, stands at exactly zero) comes even remotely close to his deletions, merges and nominations, he can only be seen as putting undue weight on the editors already working to improve and ref these articles.

Several editors have voiced fatigue at the return of this subject, of "another" TTN thread at arbcom, and have dismissed concerns raised against him as those of "vested interests" and "fan editors" who have their knives out for TTN because he culls their pet articles. The majority of TTN's nominations and merges are not horrendous bad calls, but that is not the point: when an editor merges and nominates for deletion with such hyperbolic frequency, and in only communities in which he offers absolutely no other participation--or even the barest word of discussion--that editor is a disruptive influence. Particularly when a pattern of behavior which yielded a six month block is entirely resumed with no change in nature or character.

Those who are suggesting that the debate here is bigger than TTN are also missing the point. TTN is not serving as a scapegoat for the community's utter failure to develop generally accepted standards of notability regarding fictional topics. TTN is an editor who refuses to offer even a token level of discourse with the affected communities and editors.Ford MF (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Response to VasileGaburici: Again no one is saying that the creation of redirects or the bringing of articles to AfD are, in themselves, bad things. These are both valuable services to the community at large. The people demurring here seem to be under the impression that people are saying "this guy redirects and deletes stuff", and therefore is bad, which makes the discussion about inclusionism/deletionism, which is an offramp to nowhere that effectively stymies any discussion of the effects of TTN's behavior. This is not the issue.

The issue is that TTN's entire, prolific (or whatever negative proliferation is) mode on Wikipedia is to remove content with a volume and frequency that effectively blocks the interested communities from responding intelligently to the concerns that he raises. If he can be said to be raising concerns at all, as his talkpage contributions are, putting it charitably, minimal. There is no conceivable way in which TTN can be said to be "working with" the interested communities at all. And to the people who demur "but these communities have a vested interest in the material and cannot be counted on to be impartial in these discussions", all I have to say is "duh". That's why communities exist in the first place. That doesn't mean it's okay to utterly ignore discourse with the communities, which is essentially what TTN does. You would be hard pressed to find, in TTN's voluminous contributions, much of any edits made to wikiproject spaces. His monomaniacal devotion to articles of a very narrow subject range and his utter refusal to address the concerns about his behavior made by a number of Wikipedia colleagues, constitute a pattern of continuous disruptive behavior. The fact that his disruption is caused via the processes of merging and deletion is a non-issue. Ford MF (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Wizardman

Seems like every other week TTN's back here, deserving or not. So I ask arbcom, make a ruling. Either permanently restrict his edits the way they were in E+C 2, or don't restrict his edits and bar future discussions to do so. It's going to have to be one extreme or the other just so we can finally put this to rest. A no consensus will see this continue again, and again, and again. Wizardman 21:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by VasileGaburici

Reading this new October 12 AN/I thread made me come here. I agree with the statements made by Stifle and MuZemike above. Ironically, the results of the AfDs initiated by TTN often are merge/redirect (see AN/I thread for examples), exactly what he was banned from doing by himself, except that after an AfD some community consensus is established for the article in question. So, in the absence of any guidelines to the contrary, I don't see disruption on behalf of TTN for bringing articles to the attention of the community, as Thebainer pointed out. On the other hand the editors (some of them admins) that are constantly asking for TTN's head are disruptive because they are trying to subvert the well established AfD process. VG ☎ 02:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by How do you turn this on

Since his restriction was lifted on 10 September, TTN has done not much more than create hundreds of XFDs for episode and character subjects, with his first being on the 11th. It seems to me he's sat out the ban fine, but the moment it's lifted, has reverted to the behaviour that started it in the first place. I, like Wizardman, ask ArbCom to make a more permanent ruling on this. It's not that the nominations in themselves are disruptive; it's the appearance that he's held it all in in the six months he was banned from doing it, and has made thousands of edits in the banned area since his ban was lifted, compared to June, July and August when he made significantly fewer edits. A temporary restriction clearly isn't working, and as Phil points out at the top, he doesn't seem particularly interested in discussing, which is really one of the bigger issues here. -- how do you turn this on 20:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Carcharoth

Just a quick statement in direct response to what Flonight said. I think your position is reasonable, until one remembers that deletion (and nomination for deletion) is quicker than article improvement. It is possible for a small rump of "deletionists" to focus on a particular area and overwhelm the efforts of those wanting to keep poor-quality articles and take the time to improve them. Equally, it is possible for those creating poor-quality articles to overwhelm the "improvement" and "deletion" camps. So what I think you have here is three camps:

• (1) a fast rate of article production by "fans"
• (2) an attempt by "deletionists" to stem the tide (foiled by local consensus by "fans")
• (3) an attempt by "inclusionists" to keep articles and improve them.

Both (2) and (3) are being overwhelmed by (1), since that is the fastest process. (3) is being overwhelmed by both (1) and (2) as it is the slowest process. What is needed here is better management of the workflow. Either turn off (or reduce) the source of new articles (could have unintended consequences) or place strict limits on the rates at which processes (2) [deletion] and (3) [article improvement] take place. The point being that these two processes should not be responsive to each other, but they should both be responsive to the rate of article creation. i.e. If the rate of article creation goes up, the amount of deletion debates should go up (if the articles are good, they will be kept anyway). If the rate of article creation goes down, people should turn their attention to article improvement to allow the rate of article creation to recover. Otherwise, the logical end point is that the rate of article creation will eventually plateau, article deletions will carry on at the same rate (i.e. faster than article improvement) and the endpoint will be that the level of articles will stablise at a level that "deletionsists" would prefer, and not the level at which "inclusionists" would prefer. Eventually, as the good articles get written, the level will increase again to the "inclusionist" level. But a lot of goodwill will be lost in the process. Carcharoth (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• One has to begin with the observation that the community has failed to produce a notability guideline particularly for either television episodes or fictional characters. The best there is is the general fiction notability guideline. In the absence of any specific guidance, there are really no methods available to seek the input of the community at large about such articles other than deletion debates; indeed, that's the approach envisaged by the general guideline. On what has been presented here, TTN is not repeatedly nominating articles, nor being disruptive within the discussions. The Committee is being asked (again) to remedy the community's failure to produce some coherent approach to these articles by banning someone with a particular point of view about them, and I do not think that is right. --bainer (talk) 22:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Re Phil Sandifer, I should emphasise that I was discussing methods for seeking the input of the community at large, as opposed to obtaining what is usually called the "local consensus" (at the article talk page, or in this context also at the WikiProject page). Really the only alternative to attract a broad array of input other than a deletion debate is a request for comment on the article, and that is even less feasible. --bainer (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Re Phil's "dismay": yes there have been two cases on this matter before, but you are not correct to say that this request relates to exactly the same issues. The evidence here does not indicate that the same types of behaviours that were at issue in the earlier cases (eg, edit warring) are being repeated, and I have already explained why I am of the view that merely nominating articles for deletion, in this subject area, without anything more, cannot be considered problematic. --bainer (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Re Pixelface, I agree. The project does need a better method for developing policies, but per Flo, that method is not de facto development by ArbCom ruling. --bainer (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• This is primarily a content dispute, so I reject further involvement as the situation now stands. As I noted in my recent comment on this topic on this page, TNN (nor any other user as far as it relates to this current situation) has not violated any policy or conducted himself in a manner that is disruptive. This is a classic case of one side of the dispute seeing disruptive editing where none exists because they have a difference of opinion with the involved editor. Rather I see this as a two sided issue, with some users thinking that loads of non-notable articles are started and that the Community has trouble keeping up with removing them so many AFDs/mergers are needed. Other users think that too many notable articles are being put up for deletion or merger discussion. Both sides in the conflict feel that the situation will be out of control if the other side is allowed to continue unchecked. As pointed out by bainer, since the Community has not reached consensus on a policy/guideline on the topic, we have repeated cycles of the issue causing content disputes. The Community needs to find a way to write this policy and not look to the Committee to do it through Committee ruling that causes a back door policy decision that one side can link to in future discussions. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for appeal of block to User:ResearchEditor (October 2008)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

• ResearchEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party (by email)
• Moreschi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), blocking admin [17]
• Hersfold (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), reviewing admin (self added)

Statement by ResearchEditor

I believe that I have shown at here that the blocking admin Moreschi here had a conflict of interest when blocking me. He had a vested interest in blocking my POV from the SRA page. As per here" Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely toexist....administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools." Also, I have been unable to defend myself in front of the wikpedia community at here which I should have been able to do before such a lengthy block occured.

Further statement by ResearchEditor

In response to the statement by WLU. WLU is hardly an impartial party in this matter. His extremist point of view on the SRA topic is clearly shown here which is a quote from the SRA talk page. This point of view ignores a large portion of the research and promotes the views of a few extremists which is diametrically opposed to mine. The entire point of this and all prior actions was to block a more balanced editing POV on the page, toward the extremist one that now presently exists.

In response to Hersfold, there is no conclusive evidence that I have used alternate accounts. The only "evidence" was geographic proximity, which in a large town could be anyone.

In response to Moreschi, his conflict of interest was obvious and is shown here where numerous quotes of his show that his POV is diametrically opposed to mine. He should have excused himself from any administrative action in this matter, due to his clear conflict of interest.

In conclusion, it is obvious that this and all preceding administrative actions against myself have been about blocking a more balanced POV of being placed on the SRA page, instead of the extremist position backed by only a few researchers that presently exists there. — ResearchEditor 13:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Posted by — Coren ^(talk)'

In reply to WLU's 10/21/08 statement, my follow up statement is very relevant. All administrative actions taken against myself and my editing were to ensure the control of the content on the SRA page to promote WLU's one-sided extremist point of view promoting panic theory, which in no way represents a balanced view of the literature in the SRA field. Editor WLU has fully participated in every aspect of debate to make sure that only his point of view is on the page. Moreschi's conflict of interest is very obvious, as shown here, which clearly shows his diametrically opposed POV to mine, as well as his various actions as an editor and administrator to get me banned from editing the page. Moreschi should never have banned me, since he has a clear conflict of interest. This is clearly a POV dispute and it has been all along. Content control of the SRA page has been the clear motivation of the Moreschi and WLU and this is clear from all of their statements at the diff above and here.

In reply to Hersfold's 10/21/08 statement, it appears that there is no conclusive evidence that I should be blocked, other than possibly some mysterious checkuser criteria he mentions. And at here the only item mentioned is an IP check. The only "evidence" presented was "geographic similarities." In essence, anyone could have made these edits.

I am requesting that due to 1) A clear conflict of interest of the original blocking admin Moreschi, 2) Inconclusive evidence of any violation of wiki policy and 3) the obvious motivation of the WLU and Moreschi to control the content of the SRA page and block those that disagree with their POVs, that this ban be rescinded immediately.

posted by Rlevse at RE's request — Rlevse • Talk • 09:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by WLU

Note that Moreschi blocked ResearchEditor for evading a page ban based on this RFCU. ResearchEditor has been banned from editing the satanic ritual abuse and related pages (with the ban was sanctioned here) and though Moreschi started the discussion, many, many other editors weighed in and the consensus was ResearchEditor was a tendentious editor pushing a fringe point of view that was not supported by the mainstream scholarly opinion. The ban is a separate issue from the block, and Moreschi seems completely within his rights to institute a block for evading a community ban through sockpuppeting, confirmed through a RfCU. This block has nothing to do with blocking a POV, and is actually about ResearchEditor evading a community ban. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 00:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The "follow-up" statement is completely, completely irrelevant. This is not a content dispute, it's about sockpuppeting to evade a community ban. The POV of Moreschi and myself are irrelevant - Moreschi was basing his block on an independent decision regarding the results of a RFCU. My post was to demonstrate the context and history of the block. Neither have anything to do with our POV or position on satanic ritual abuse. A RCU is always a judgement call; in this case the judgement was that based on geographic similarity of IP addresses and contribution history it was likely ResearchEditor was using a variety of accounts to avoid his/her ban. The only decision I see the arbcom possibly having to make would be regards the correctness of Tiptoety's assessment of the RCU results. This is not a POV dispute. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 15:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Hersfold

I am adding myself to this request as an administrator who twice declined ResearchEditor's requests for unblocking. When I reviewed the checkuser case, the terms of the topic ban, and the contributions of all accounts involved, it seemed very clear that this user was repeatedly using alternate accounts in an attempt to circumvent the ban, placed for the reasons WLU has outlines above. ResearchEditor's main argument against the block appears to be the perceived conflict of interest held by blocking administrator Moreschi at the time of the block. However, since three administrators have looked into the situation on ResearchEditor's talk page, and two of those admins (one myself) have declined to unblock him, this would appear to fall under the de facto definition of a community ban, that is, "no administrator is willing to unblock." As I said on ResearchEditor's talk page, if a block is endorsed by another administrator, then he is in effect blocked by all those endorsing the block. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

In response to ResearchEditor: You may not be aware, however Checkuser looks at more information than simply your IP address. Even if your geographic location was similar, the investigation probably would not have been marked as "likely" if several other technical indicators had not also pointed out a relation between you and the other accounts. That's all I can tell you, as I am not a checkuser myself and only know for certain what information the basic tool provides; I believe the checkuser tool here has some features added to increase the usefulness of investigations, and in any event publicly posting what we look at would be a Bad Thing^TM in case other sockpuppeteers got wind of it. Furthermore, there is the issue of the similar contribution history, which checkusers and regular admins alike take into consideration as well. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Moreschi

ResearchEditor is clearly a tendentious editor. His accusations that I had any sort of conflict of interest here are completely spurious. Tedious months of trying to restrain his grosser excesses, previously as Abuse truth/Abuse t, do not count as having been engaged in a content dispute with this fringe POV-pusher, particularly since I have almost never actually edited the SRA page itself. Please dismiss ASAP so the 1-year block can be reinstated. Moreschi (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• Received by email to Clerks, posted on behalf of appellant. — Coren ^(talk) 00:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• The sockpuppetry indicated at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ResearchEditor would generally have been enough for an indefinite ban, regardless of who did the blocking. You are topic-banned from the SRA article, and your use of sockpuppets to get around the ban makes it clear you have no intention of abiding by Wikipedia's policies. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
• Sorry, but I believe the ban was correct. If you want to establish your usefulness to Wikipedia you might try another project for now, and there demonstrate collegial and neutral editing on a wide range of topics. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse the ban. The socking to avoid the prior topic-ban was the trigger for the one year ban. FloNight♥♥♥ 10:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to amend prior case: C68-FM-SV (October 2008)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

• Alecmconroy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notified [18]

Statement by Alecmconroy

Regrettably, circumstance lead me to request the committee consider reviewing its decision in this case, with an eye toward issuing stronger sanctions against one of the parties.

In as brief as possible:

• In September, SV (as a party in this case) was strongly admonished in what I interpreted as a "final warning" to alter her behavior.
• Since that time, Arbcom has been privately considering the allegations SV made against Lar and Mackenson. In that case, SV has continually refused to "provide the Committee with a clear and substantive statement of complaint" regarding her allegations against Lar and Mackenson, despite numerous requests to do so from the committee. At the same time, she did not offer any retraction of her earlier public allegations.
• By 20 Oct, in the SV-LAR proposed decision, seven arbs had endorsed another warning to SV in the form of finding which said:

"SlimVirgin's choice of a forum of discussion was unhelpful, in the sense that magnification and further drama were the likely result. Given the sensitivity of the concerns, it would have been far preferable to have raised them privately with the Committee or with the Wikimedia Ombudsmen rather than in extensive public discussion—an approach that left the CheckUsers unable to fully respond and created risks to the privacy of third parties."

• Despite the numerous warnings to conduct the case in private, on 20 Oct, SV again made a public statement in which she re-iterated her allegations against Lar and Mackenson. diff redacted for privacy
• In response, NYB again warned against further public discussion. An arbcom clerk archived the discussion, and another clerk then blanked SV's statement from the archive. The committee stated that

"Parties are instructed to make no further posts to this page pending further input from arbitrators. Other editors are urged to do the same."

• In response to these warnings, On 21 Oct, SV again violated Arbcom's request-- posting on the talk page despite instruction not to do so.[19].
• A clerk removed the comment and again warned SV that Arbcom had instructed parties not to post on the page.
• Again on 21 Oct, SV immediately re-inserted it, again directly violating the request not to post on the page.

In short, SV was warned about her behavior in the C68-FM-SV decision. She was again warned by the proposed decision which had been endorsed by seven arbs. She was yet again warned by NYB and the arbcom statement not to post. She was still yet again warned by a clerk. Despite these multitude of warnings, SV yet again persisted in the violating the warnings and editing disruptively.

In the remedy "Further Review and Sanctions", the Committee promised that they would "impose substantial additional sanctions, which may include desysopping in the case of parties who are administrators, without further warnings in the event of significant violations"

When the C68-FM-SV sanctions were being discussed, I defended letting SV off with a warning, and I argued she would likely change her behavior after so strongly-worded a warning. The span of 34 days has, regrettably, shown her behavior to be unchanged. If anything, the behavior appears to have worsened.

This cannot be allowed to persist. In addition to the direct harm caused by bad behavior, there is an inherently corrosive effect in allowing one individual to completely ignore so many repeated warnings without consequence. For these reasons, I humbly request Arbcom consider some further sanction against SV. --Alecmconroy (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Response to Sam Blacketer: I was very uncertain of the proper venue for this. Could be a new case, could be at SV-LAR, could be at the C68-FM-SV case page, or could be a clarification. I didn't put it at SV-LAR because that case's central focus is on events that happened in private in March, whereas my concerns are with events that happened in public in October. But please, feel free to move this request to wherever you and the other arbs & clerks feel is the proper venue. -Alecmconroy (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Response to Bainer: Just want to clarify-- I'm not concerned about SV's behavior last March/July. We can't expect her behavior in March to have been affected by a warning she received in September. My concern is about SV's behavior during the past week.

As it happens, most of that behavior took place on a Arbcom page-- but that's more or less irrelevant. The location of her behavior isn't important. What's important is that this week Arbcom gave SV some very, very clear "lines in the sand" and warned her repeatedly not to cross them-- and she crossed every single one of them anyway. --Alecmconroy (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

More than anything-- all the debate about the original dispute is irrelevant. Arbcom told her "DO NOT POST THIS" and she posted this. Arbcom told her "DO NOT POST _ANYTHING_" and she posted something. A clerk told her "DO NOT ADD THIS COMMENT" and she added it back.

And still, not a single block has been applied, not a single sysop bit has been flipped. I bet you, right now, if I were to go and edit that page that no one is supposed to edit, I would be given NO warnings, no second chances, no do-overs. I bet if I edit warred against an arbcom clerk, the time it took to block me could be measured with a stopwatch. And I for one, am quite sick of there being two sets of rules around here. --Alecmconroy (talk) 03:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Willing to withdraw this

I submitted the motion in the thought that have an outsider raise it would make it easier to resolve the situation, rather than forcing arbcom to be both "plaintiff" and "jury" in the dispute. But, if the opinion of the arbs is that its existence being helpful, I'm happy to withdraw the request. (although I'll let a clerk or someone wiser than myself make the actual withdrawing/archiving. ). --Alecmconroy (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Avruch

First I should say that I am hesitant to involve myself in this, but I feel both a debt to Lar and a responsibility to point out an injustice that I believe is taking place. Perhaps that puts me on the same level as others - upset by a perceived injustice, taking action in a public forum where many will read of my dismay.

SlimVirgin has repeated and even reinforced her initial accusations against Lar. She has rejected the judgment of the Arbitration Committee and ignored its advice to move on or to make her claims in private, where they can be addressed without the risk of releasing private information or unnecessarily damaging the reputation of a highly trusted member of the community.

The irony is that she posts the following, and variations, in multiple forums: "I've been prompted to speak out because I'm currently being prevented from publishing a defence of myself in a case where I'm being publicly criticized." On her talk page SlimVirgin cites principles of procedural fairness - specifically, that the accused is entitled to view the evidence against him or herself with the confidence that no evidence bearing on judgment is withheld by the accuser. In this case the committee has in fact observed the principles of procedural justice - resulting in substantive harm to the accused: a series of accusations against Lar, with increasing severity, have been made for which he has been denied the opportunity to fully respond.

I don't see that SlimVirgin has been encumbered at all - she has made her case on the mailing lists, on her talkpage, on Jimmy Wales' talkpage, on arbitration pages, on administrator noticeboards and the talk pages of other editors and arbitrators.

These caustic disputes on Wikipedia between trusted community members bring out the worst in us - they reinforce the public image of a Wikipedia divided into sides and factions, where loyalties and alliances are determinative. I don't personally know how to solve this very serious problem, but I do strongly believe that we should begin by basing our conclusions on evidence instead of innuendo. We should expect and require that serious allegations require serious evidence, because lower standards make our community weaker and put the reputations and work of committed editors at risk. Many extraordinarily productive editors have left in the last year, some even in the last month, because of accusations and conclusions based on an inaccurate presentation of the facts. It's a community imperative that we not allow this to continue unchecked.

I'll stipulate that I have no way to know if SlimVirgin's allegations are accurate; no way to know if misunderstanding or malice by either party underlies the dispute. But I would like the Committee to consider bringing this to a close, by definitively stating its conclusions. Accusations of misconduct against figures who have been granted the highest levels of trust in the community are corrosive - they impact the ability of all checkusers, stewards and other trusted figures to carry out their work. If Lar is not found to have abused his position, then further accusations in public forums should be prohibited.

Avruch ^T 01:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I should echo one thing that Sticky has said and contradict another - first, he is completely correct that if the proposed decision talkpage (or any other page of that case) were open to editing then these problems would likely be brought there. Second, there is quite a difference between telling an editor to stop making specific and unfounded allegations against another editor and preventing her from issuing valid criticism of the arbitration committee. The second is something she has a right to do, and the first is not. Avruch ^T 02:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Sticky Parkin

If the talk page of the proposed decision was open people could make this suggestion there rather than here. I don't think SV has done anything like this in the last several days since the proposed decision talk page was protected, so it's not persisting behaviour. I can see her point about not being able to make her case against the things said about her in the discussion section on the proposed decision page itself, and I feel that people who are having 'official pronouncements' made about them should be allowed right to reply in the same venue, especially if comments are being made about them by the Official Arbitrators which they consider false, which will be available for people to see for the forseeable future. But that's a matter for a change to how all arbcoms are constructed, I suppose, and I think that's all SV is saying on her talkpage etc, which she has a right to do, in the same manner as User talk:Giano II makes his thoughts clear about how arbcom is run. It wouldn't be particularly right to sanction someone just for (rightly or wrongly) criticizing arbcom, within reason. Otherwise, perhaps no institution would ever changeSticky Parkin 02:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes Aruch what I was saying is I don't know if she's said any other accusations against lar since the talk page was protected, if so then she hasn't since she was told not to a week or go or whenever, and being told not to then was enough. The evidence is private, hence Alec and the rest of us might not have a clue what we're talking about. That said, why didn't Alec just email arbcom with his concerns instead? But that would have no visible acknowledgement or proof of the question/proposal having been made, so perhaps less chance of leading to a response, and also not feel as fulfilling, perhaps. As such, he is in the perfect position to empathise with SV.:) Oh hang on, that would be if his comments were blanked.:) Sticky Parkin 18:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by InkSplotch

Without commenting on the issue here, I would like to point out the only subpage in the current Lar/SlimVirgin case is the Proposed Decision page, which is currently protected both main and talk. Without a workshop or any means for the community to provide input, it seems to me Alec proceeded in the only way available to him.

I understand the reasons ArbCom shutdown the talk page, and support them. I would, however, suggest that if they need to continue deliberating they consider provisionally unprotecting the talk page. The proviso being, should things get out of hand any admin could reprotect with the blessing of ArbCom. It's just that, the longer this decision takes, the more frustrated the community will become being unable to speak about it. --InkSplotch (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by MONGO

Alecmcconroy appears to be overinvolved in "fixing" what he perceives as problems...yet has added little to nothing as far as encyclopedic material for the bulk of this entire year[20]. I think the arbitration committee needs to cease considering any cases brought forth from what can arguably be easily seen as editors who are here for little other than harassment and creating drama.--MONGO 00:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by jd2718

This request relies on a finding from an arbitration that is not yet closed. That is reason enough not to consider it. But I agree with SP, above, that the closed talk page is a problem. Open it provisionally, with strong warning to stay on topic. Jd2718 (talk) 11:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

• This case was initially provided in a format not in line with that suggested; for the purposes of easy navigation, I have brought this thread as much in line with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Request template for all other requests as I possibly can. The thread pre-reformatting can be reviewed here. No parties to this case were listed by the filer; it may be necessary for Alecmconroy to evaluate whether any parties should be provided. (Please remember any parties must be notified, and diffs of those notifications provided above.) AGK 22:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• My preliminary view is that any misconduct on a different, ongoing arbitration case would be handled within that case rather than by amending a previous one. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Sam. Furthermore, it is important to note that the cases ran concurrently, and these proposals relate to matters that took place before this case was decided and the remedies implemented. --bainer (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
• Every aspect of the SlimVirgin-Lar case has been miserable for everybody affected. I would like to avoid it becoming more of a public spectacle than it already has, if that is even possible at this point. I understand the nature of the request being made and the rationale offered in support of it, but I fear that action on it would be most unlikely to be helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification: Lyndon LaRouche 2 (November 2008)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

• Guillermo Ugarte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Will Beback (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Statement by Guillermo Ugarte

I have a question concerning an ArbCom decision [21] and how it might apply to the article Bretton Woods II. On October 21, I made an edit to that article, which was only a few weeks old and described as a "stub." I added material from the Italian paper Corriere della Sera, an article called "The Bretton Woods II of LaRouche and Tremonti." The article, which included an interview with Italian Economics Minister Giulio Tremonti, established that LaRouche had been a long-time proponent of the Bretton Woods II concept, and that Tremonti had been influenced by his ideas. I also added a link to LaRouche's original 1997 proposal which had been promoted world-wide, including by Ukrainian parliamentarian Nataliya Vitrenko. Here is a link to my edit[22].

I was surprised when two editors, Will Beback and Boodlesthecat, immediately removed this material, making angry and discourteous edit summaries[23] and talk page comments[24] to the effect that it couldn't possibly be true, that Corriere della Sera was not a significant publication, and that Tremonti was not a significant person. What followed was a series of messages on my talk page from Will Beback which I found very unpleasant because I felt that they were intended to intimidate me. He said that my edit had violated earlier decisions by the Arbitration Committee, specifically that "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles."

Looking back at my edit, I would say the following:

1. Corriere della Sera is the preeminent newspaper in Italy, so it could hardly be considered "work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement."

2. The Corriere della Sera article establishes that LaRouche is notable with regard to the topic of Bretton Woods II (i.e., "The Bretton Woods II of LaRouche and Tremonti") so the Bretton Woods II article may certainly be considered "closely related" to LaRouche.

3. Under the circumstances, it was not wrong to link to the original proposal of LaRouche, which predates other uses of the term by minimally four years.

Please let me know whether you disagree, because I have the impression that Will Beback is threatening to block me if I "repeat edits like that." --Guillermo Ugarte (talk) 10:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I don't know what Will Beback means when he says below that he's "analyzed" my contributions, but I dispute his finding that I am anyone's sockpuppet. If that serves as an pretext for not addressing the substance of this complaint, then that is truly unfortunate. And if he is mailing out evidence, he can start by mailing it to me, so that I can assess its quality and dispute it. Guillermo Ugarte (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by John Nevard

Comment: Discussion of (ir)relevance of content on the talk page. John Nevard (talk) 00:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Will Beback

The ArbCom has dealt with three full cases related to the LaRouche movement and editing by user:Herschelkrustofsky (HK):

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others

HK has been admonished, put on probation, blocked and eventually banned. On September 19, 2008, a checkuser found that seven active accounts active on LaRouche topics were sockpuppets.[25] Subsequent analysis at Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Herschelkrustofsky revealed that all of those accounts, plus others previously blocked, were socks of HK. Analysis further showed that after one set of socks has been blocked a new set appears a short time later. Almost every single "LaRouche editor" has turned out to be a sock of HK. (A few have been socks of user:Cognition, and a few appear to be other people.)

The contested edits [[26][27] by this brand-new account placed LaRouche at the center of a proposed international conference, based on a single comment by an Italian finance minister and supported by citations to the Schiller Institute. This is exactly the type of promotion that was covered in the previous requests for arbitration. For example, another initiative of the LaRouche movement is something called the "Eurasian Land-Bridge", basically a network of highways and railroads. When a new highway was proposed in Asia, HK sought to show that LaRouche's proposal had been adopted, even though the proposals bore only a slight resemblance.[28] HK used four sock puppets and two IPs to edit that article over a two-year period.

I don't object to a properly phrased and weighted summary of the Corriere della Sera article in Bretton Woods II, or to a link to the relevant LaRouche article. My warning to Guillermo Ugarte concerned using the Schiller Institute as a source outside of LaRouche-related articles, and promoting LaRouche beyond what is borne out by 3rd-party sources. He replied that he wanted the matter clarified, but refused to discuss it with me.

I see no evidence of what Guilemro Ugarte calls "angry and discourteous edit summaries and talk page comments". My postings to his talk page did not threaten him. User talk:Guillermo Ugarte#ArbCom decision I simply pointed out the problematic behavior and asked him to avoid making similar edits in the future. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

PS: I have now analyzed Guilermo Ugarte's contributions and find that they follow the same pattern as the HK socks. Based on that analysis, on the similarity of edits, and on the new account's arrival shortly after the blocking of previous socks, I am confident that this is another HK sock account. I can give more details by email. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

PPS: When a HK sock was blocked last year, another HK sock pestered me for details on how the sock determination was made. [29][30] This appears to be a re-run. None of the evidence is secret. But I'm not going to show a long term puppetmaster how to avoid detection. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• To Will Beback, please e-mail the information you mention to the ArbCom mailing list. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification on arbitration restrictions with respect to ArbCom election (November 2008)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

How do my arbitration restrictions apply with regard to the current ArbCom election? Specifically, I am barred from communicating with and even acknowledging the existence of one of the candidates. Will the ArbCom allow me to submit questions to that candidate as part of the process? Furthermore, will I be allowed to take part in the vote on his candidacy? This is a request for clarification, not an appeal. Everyking (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I want to stress, going back to the crux of the entire case in 2005, that the right to ask questions or vote is something I am happy to sacrifice—provided the same restriction applies to Phil Sandifer. The crux of the case was that Phil wanted to preserve his right to criticize me while depriving me of my right to criticize him; the reason our pre-arbitration agreement fell through was because he chose to speak critically about me while I had already agreed to refrain from speaking critically about him. All I have ever asked with regard to Phil Sandifer is that the ArbCom treat us equally and apply either mutual restrictions or no restrictions; currently, restrictions apply only to me, treating me as a stalker and harasser while making Phil appear to be a victim, which is a smear on my reputation—and that's the central reason why I have objected so frequently and vigorously to these sanctions over the last three years. So in effect what I am asking in this particular matter is that the ArbCom either grant me the right to question and vote or formally withdraw Phil Sandifer's right to question and vote in the event that I were to run for ArbCom (which I am not planning to do this year).

Another situation also comes to mind: AfDs. On several occasions, Phil has nominated articles for deletion when I felt they should be kept, but because historically the ruling has always been interpreted contrary to my interests, I was afraid to actually register my opinions in the AfDs. Will the ArbCom on this occasion clarify whether the ruling should apply to AfDs? Mind you, the same situation as above applies here: I am happy to sacrifice this right if the same restriction is applied to Phil. Everyking (talk) 06:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Based on the comments from the arbitrators so far, I gather that there is a strong consensus in favor of letting me vote and a somewhat weaker consensus in favor of letting me ask questions. I doubt that I will ask Phil any questions, but if I do I will be careful to do so in as uncontroversial a manner as possible. Would it now be possible for the arbitrators to also comment on the issue of AfDs, as I mentioned above? Everyking (talk) 05:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

In response to Phil, I am not seeking a "one-time exception"; I am seeking the right to vote and ask questions any time Phil runs for ArbCom, not just on this single occasion. I hope very much that these restrictions will not exist for much longer, but that isn't something I can count on. Everyking (talk) 05:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It does not seem to make any sense to say, as FloNight is saying, that I can question and vote but not register my opinion in AfDs. The former deals directly with Phil Sandifer, while the latter deals with content and does not involve any kind of direct exchange with Phil. Furthermore, it seems quite unjust to tell me I must exclude myself from a content issue simply because Phil happened to get involved with it. As an extreme case, we can envision a scenario where Phil nominates something I wrote for deletion: what then? I can't even argue for the preservation of my own work? Everyking (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Response to Jehochman

This request is about allowing me the opportunity to participate in the election on an equal basis. I have no particular question in mind and I don't know if I would make use of the opportunity to ask a question. I would certainly vote, though, if that was allowed. Everyking (talk) 00:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Jehochman

I am unfamiliar with the details of this case. In general it would be a step towards civility if editors did not view these elections as an opportunity for target practice with their favorite throwing axe. No, conflicts should be sorted via dispute resolution. An oppose vote should be allowed, even if the editors have a history or if there is an injunction prohibiting interaction. However, asking loaded questions or placing an excessive volume of criticism on the candidate's discussion page might be disruptive. This standard should also be considered for our requests for adminship process. Jehochman ^Talk 00:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Scott MacDonald

I'm not really getting this. Sure, Everyking should be able to record his inevitable "oppose" to Phil's candidature. But what on earth can be his pressing need to ask an election question? If he's restricted from interaction, then he shouldn't interact. Let's face it, it isn't as if candidates are going to be so short of questions that Everyking is going to have a pressing need to interrogate. Pragmatically, his question is unlikely to make any difference to this election at all. (And, on the odd chance, his question is uniquely profound, he can phone a friend to ask.)

Frankly, this looks like an opportunity to wikilayer in a way that looks on paper justified, but in truth is drama for no return. When people are put under sanctions, then there is a cost - thankfully, the cost here is a "right" that Everyking neither needs, nor the exercise of which would be in least beneficial to the project. --Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Ultraexactzz

In theory, objectionable questions can be removed if consensus deems them offensive or unacceptable in some fashion. I have no particular preference or request for the committee in favor or against permitting Everyking's participation, but I would note that a process exists for removing problem questions. Similar rules exist for voting, where votes with personal attacks or other shenanigans can be truncated or removed entirely. Looking from a process standpoint, then, there is little to fear from a user posting objectionable questions or votes, as both would swiftly be removed.

Scott MacDonald raises an interesting point, as the sanction - as currently worded - might preclude even a vote in the election, such vote being construed as a "comment about..." which is prohibited. Everyking is an eligible voter - being under Arbcom sanction does not itself disqualify him or anyone - so I might recommend that the committee either explicitly permit him to cast a vote, either normally or without further comment, or alternatively, permit him to cast a proxy ballot in some fashion yet to be determined. Either way, the committee's decision clearly did not contemplate a situation like this, so a clarification is definitely in order. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Phil Sandifer

Sorry - I somehow missed the notification here. In any case, I have no problems whatsoever with a one-time exception for this, and would encourage the committee to allow Everyking to ask whatever questions he wants. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by A Nobody

Given than Phil Sandifer himself writes above that he encourages the committee to allow Everyking to ask whatever questions he wants, I second and agree with that sentiment that Everyking should be allowed to ask questions in the upcoming election. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• Phil Sandifer notified.--Tznkai (talk) 07:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comments moved to appropriate sections.--Tznkai (talk) 07:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
• Section heading now links to relevant case.--Tznkai (talk) 07:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
• I believe the opinion of the committee can be summarized as "Everyking may both vote for/against and pose questions to Phil Sandifer during Arbitration Committee Elections, as long as such things are done within existing policy and reason." I'd like to shuffle this off as resolved in 24 hours or less.--Tznkai (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
• Everyking has asked me hold on clearing this off the table until there is a clarification on Everyking's participation in AfDs. Is this clarification likely to come?--Tznkai (talk) 13:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator comments

• I do not think the existing restrictions can reasonably be construed as forbidding Everyking from posing general questions to, or voting for or against, the candidate in question. Tentatively and subject to further input, although the literal interpretation is more debatable, I would also oppose interpreting the restrictions so as to bar Everyking from posing individualized questions to the candidate, although any questions focusing on the events of several years ago that led to the restrictions (which events I have not studied in detail and have no comment on) should be avoided. Before a consensus is reached here, however, a Clerk should kindly provide Phil Sandifer with notice of this thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
• I broadly agree with NYB here. The matter of individual questions is, admittedly, somewhat more vague than one of general questions (which, in the current structure, are posted to a central page and therefore don't constitute interaction in any case) or voting; but I am inclined to let you ask questions freely, so long as they don't cross the line and become harassment of a candidate—which should already be covered by standard conduct policies. Kirill ^(prof) 00:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
• Agree with the above; as long as Everyking is asking reasonable questions in a calm way, he ought not to be prevented. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• Many users are aware there has been historical "bad blod" between these two, so any questions asked will surely be reviewed with that knowledge. If the questions are fair and good ones, then I would not wish Everyking to be deprived of sufferage to ask them. Whoever is appointed he will have to live with it. Because of the history though, a pointy or "biased" style of questioning or vote comment, or a question that was not asked in a fair and balanced way, might get seen negatively, and may result in a decision that it's best to separate them again (or at least have the wording of his questions checked before posting).

  So on principle, I would not interpret the existing decision to prevent Everyking asking reasonably useful questions to Phil Sandifer as a candidate, and I would not interpret them to prevent him voting. I would not intercede if he happened to state fairly, "I do not feel confident in you" or explained any concerns in a balanced manner, for example. But if the questions or vote did cause concern, or became a rehash of past history cases, then I would look for Everyking to be responsive to others, and if necessary, for intervention or "sanitization", to ensure it isn't misused. Bottom line is, yes, he has the right to ask sensible and fair questions and to cast a vote of his opinion. Just not a right to misuse or "platform" in doing so. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Newyorkbrad. General questions and voting by you on all candidates would never have raised on eyebrow by anyone. Since Phil Sandifer chose to run for a position where listening to heavy criticism by users is the rule rather than the exception, his ability to answer a few fairly worded question should not be a problem. If the questions cross the line to harassment then our usual user conduct standards as well as the sanction can be applied by the community. Unsolicited advice (so feel free to ignore): Everyking, I encourage you to use your suffrage as a way to impress the Community with your ability to participate in a way that adds good value to important Community matters. I see this as an excellent opportunity for you to change some minds about your ability to review situations and make appropriate insightful comments about a matter. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I think that it is okay for you to comment on Afd's that Phil Sandifer starts, as long as you comment about the content in question and not him. If needed, we can vote on this.But perhaps, several comments (if others agree) will work. I'm going to notify Phil, so he can let us know if he objects. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Left a message on Phi's talk page. Let's see what he says. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you Everyking for not commenting on any Afds in the past. For now, I think we should continue with this practice. So to clarify for the record and to answer your question, Everyking continue your practice of not commenting on Afd's that Phil Sandifer starts. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
• It seems that everyone is in agreement here: the restriction either does not apply or will not be enforced in relation to questions and voting with respect to the election. I think this can be safely archived now. --bainer (talk) 11:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to amend Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek (November 2008)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

• White Cat

Review of White Cat's sanction related to mediation

White Cat has requested the Arbitration Committee review and lift Remedy 1 in the Coolcat, Davenbell, Steretek Case.

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

I would suggest that this motion isn't as straight forward as some seem to think it is. White Cat was originally banned from mediating disputes because he was mediating them where he had a clear point of view and often made the situation worse. Lifting a ban on mediation would allow White Cat to request to join the mediation committee and probably free reign to mediate any dispute he feels like for the mediation cabal. I suspect that a request to join the mediation committee would be unsuccessful, but I also suspect that participants of mediation cabal mediations would not be aware of the full facts and therefore accept him as the mediator. There's little stopping him from getting involved in the highly contentious disputes where his involvement could potentially be highly problematic. To put it bluntly, whilst White Cat does some extremely beneficial work on wikimedia projects, I believe he doesn't have the right demeanor to mediate any dispute here. I've seen him jump into too many disputes head first without looking at the overall picture or understanding what it's about. I'd thereofre suggest that the ban on White Cat mediating should stay in place indefinitely - there's plenty of other things he can do here. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by White Cat

To clarify the concerns of Ryan Postlethwaite and anyone else. I am uninterested in mediating at this point. When I tried to mediate in 2005, I was merely trying to help (no good deed goes unpunished). I was not trying to destroy wikipedia. I understand I was no good at mediating back then and I am unsure if I am any good at mediating right now. So I myself feel I am less than ready to mediate and wouldn't expect anyone else to feel otherwise. I hope people can agree with thus far.

Mediating is an art not everyone can do. Many users on Wikipedia should never mediate a dispute but this does not mean they should be banned from doing so. There are many users out there who should never touch Mediawiki:Common.css but that should not mean over 80% of the current admins should be sanctioned by arbcom from doing so.

Despite all that I am very tired of explaining the circumstances behind the ban even on issues when the ban itself does not apply. The circumstances behind it is quite complex and it gets more complicated over time. If anyone asks...

• I would need to start explaining the entire dispute between me and Davenbelle (aka Moby Dick aka Jack Merridew) and that four year old harassment case. After all Davenbelle played a key role.
  • I would need to explain all remedies in the rfar case on 2005. (linked case)
  • I would need to explain all remedies in the rfar case on 2006. (Moby Dick case)
  • I would need to explain issues surrounding User:Diyarbakir in 2007 and the relevant checkuser case.
  • I would need to explain several issues surrounding User:Jack Merridew in 2008
  • The complexity of that case may get even more complicated over time.
• I would need to explain other remedies concerning me on the 2005 case. (linked case)
• I would need to do my best in explaining why this remedy will not ever expire (how it only expires if and only if I get an official MedCom seat and how that will not happened to a user who has an outstanding arbcom sanction on Mediation).

...and so on...

The arbcom ban was and still is a bit flawed too. It does not even clarify what kind of an action would be taken in the event of me mediating. I guess what I am trying to say is the arbcom remedy has a lot of room where I can game around. To date I have made no attempt to game around the remedy. Basically the remedy itself was never used. I am told it was in fact ancient history no one cared about until I brought it up.

So please give me a break.

-- Cat ^chi? 07:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Mediation Cabal Coordinators

Following discussion between the three coordinators of the Mediation Cabal we have come up with a simple plan if User:White_Cat wants to take a case at MEDCAB. For the first mediation he takes it will need to be co-mediated with an experienced mediator. In this instance "experienced mediator" will be someone chosen by the coordinators.

It cannot be categorically stated at this time who that will be, as it will depend on availability of mediators to mediate. Subsequent mediations at WP:MEDCAB will be watched as is done by the coordinators for new mediators. This is to ensure those who come to the Mediation Cabal for dispute resolution get the best possible mediation provided by volunteers.

Although MEDCAB is the normal venue for informal mediation, we have no jurisdiction to maintain informal mediation outside the cabal, eg. Third opinion. We will do what we can to assist. Any additional needs from us for mediation conducted outside MEDCAB, will need to be stated and discussed with us.

Signed by Mediation Cabal coordinators

Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review}
Xavexgoem (talk) Huzzah!
PhilKnight (talk) Huzzah! indeed

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

• Six supports now. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• After discussion with White Cat and reviewing the past circumstances that lead to the sanction, I support lifting the sanction that restricts mediating. Based on my conversion with White Cat, he does not intend to immediately start involving himself with mediating disputes, but would like to be able to participate in discussions without the burden of explaining the reason for an active ArbCom sanction. Given the long length of time from the date of the sanction (Case Closed on 5 October 2005), I think it is a reasonable request and make the following motion to lift the sanction.—Preceding unsigned comment added by FloNight (talk • contribs) 17:06, November 15, 2008
  • Comment:Ryan, you misunderstand the current sanction. The ruling did not prevent him from requesting to join MedCom, it merely restricted informal mediation, so there is no change in status with the Mediation Committee. In general, I'm not comfortable leaving an indefinite ArbCom sanction hanging over the head of an user when lifting the sanction will cause no harm. I've discussed his interest in doing mediation, and he tells me that it is not something that he plans to do at this time. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you Seddσn, and Xavexgoem. It sounds like a good plan. Your prompt attention to this matter is very much appreciated. ;-) FloNight♥♥♥ 15:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
• I have asked the Mediation Committee to submit their view on this, and will be guided by what they feel. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Note that nothing in that ruling prevents White Cat joining MedCom (in fact the sanction automatically ends if MedCom accept him); it does however prevent him mediating informally or as part of Medcab. I do not have a problem with open ended sanctions, provided they are subject to periodic review to see if the consensus is they are still needed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Motion to lift Coolcat, Davenbelle, Steretek Case Remedy 1.

1) Remedy 1 in the Coolcat, Davenbelle, Steretek Case is no longer in force.

There are 11 active Arbitrators, so a majority is 6.

Support:

1. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
2. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
3. Support. I'd like to clarify why I am supporting this. Mediation is a totally optional process, in all forms. By supporting the removal of this sanction, it is still possible for users who are unhappy with White Cat mediating their disputes to refuse to let him mediate their dispute, and seek another mediator, so it's not like we're forcing him on users who do not want him. It seems somewhat silly, at this stage, to refuse to let White Cat mediate if a group of users are happy with him doing so for their dispute. --Deskana (talk) 19:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
4. Kirill ^(prof) 20:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
5. Per Deskana. --bainer (talk) 11:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
6. All of us find our niches at different roles within the project, and I don't think that mediating is the highest and best use of White Cat's particular skill-set, but I can understand his desire to get this years-old restriction off the books. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Pending response from the Mediation Committee. If the Mediation Committee had sufficient doubts as to not recommend this, then I would wish to think twice and discuss further, before saying otherwise. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Motion to amend Bharatveer case (November 2008)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

• Toddst1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Bharatveer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (currently blocked but notified)

Statement by Toddst1

Bharatveer (talk · contribs) has a long history of disruption of Wikipedia, particularly on India-related articles. Before and as the subject of remedies and restrictions from the previous RFAR, he or she has been blocked numerous times for 3RR violations, parole violations and most recently by me for incivility and disruptive editing, bringing the number of blocks to a total of 10. 4 of these blocks occurred after the previous RFAR. The restrictions and remedies meted out in previous RFAR: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Bharatveer#Remedies expired 3 weeks ago on 21 October 2008.

Since the subsequent blocks are the result of very similar issues to the previous RFAR, (reverting in violation of restriction, 3RR, incivility) and it is clear that this problematic editor has not changed his or her problematic pattern of editing, I am asking that the duration of the previous remedies and restrictions be extended for at least another year, and possibly tightened at the committee’s discretion.

Bainer's request for further evidence: Bharatveer's Block log is the evidence. Is more needed than that? Toddst1 (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Response to bainer's question: I couldn't call my involvement a content dispute:

• I had no known involvement with Bharatveer until yesterday when I started investigating this AIV report about the editor.
• While the report did not seem to warrant a block on its own, I did see editing that concerned me in this AFD nomination for a well-sourced article and much more so at Binayak Sen and issued this 3RR warning.
• I looked further and found a new unrelated edit that removed sourced, well placed, and on topic content . Since the edit didn't look constructive at all to me, I reverted (this is the edit that bainer called "content dispute") and left what I considered a final warning. (At this point there still was an outstanding AIV report for vandalism)
• I blocked the Bharatveer after this accusation.
• Just to be sure, I posted this thread on ANI asking for a full review of my block and its length.
• After the block and ANI post, I tried to explain further to Bharatveer why that reversion of mine was done here. If you don't take the chronology and context into account, I suppose it might appear to be a content dispute.

I hope this helps.Toddst1 (talk) 02:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

While I welcome a review of my actions here (as I did at ANI), I ask that the arbs review the statement by Dseer from the original case as I think it is applicable and appropriate here - specifically the part about dealing with other editors. (I haven't observed any bigotry) Toddst1 (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Pectore

While Bharatveer has some major editing issues (I would personally suggest a long Wikibreak, as that should clear the ol' cranium a bit), we need to look at the conflict on such pages more holistically and perhaps look at other users involved in this edit-warring. My philosophy is that it takes two to tango, and that as a failed mediation case shows, there is a gigantic dichotomy of perception between certain groups here. Incivility and belligerence is sadly the norm on both sides of the dispute, and I've certainly witnessed some vile invective and falsification, the most humorous from users discussing the validity of english language sources who can barely speak English themselves.

Point by point look at issues raised.

• Hindu Taliban is a gigantic neologism. I personally think its notable and would not vote delete on it, but a report filed by some trolling IP is meaningless. South Asian articles are filled with these ideologues, hoping to gain their fifteen seconds of fame. Unless we see more evidence of wrongdoing, theres nothing here to go off of. I can see where BV is coming from on this issue, but I think there is enough legitimate criticism of such a nebulous term that he is missing by concentrating solely on elimination.
• The Binayak Sen article is a huge clusterfuck. The article needs to be shortened, and Bharatveer's version made the article almost readable. If anything he should be commended for confronting a hagiographical IP warrior.
• Chandrayaan - Bharatveer is definitely at fault here. I see no reason to remove the statement of Obama. The world revolves around America, get over it. However, let us see what BV has to say. ;)
• His accusations hardly merit a block in any way. There is no justifiable basis for using an almost civil statement as a pretext for a punitive block, when that is not even the purpose of a block.
• Wikipedia:Ani#Block_review_please brought no real consensus. Moreschi supported the block, Gnagarra didn't.
• Also I would request Bainer to bring forth his evidence of Todd's edit warring, so that we can view that in light of Todd's case.

Ayubowan.Pectore^talk 04:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Dseer = worthless evidence

Dseer appears to be little more than an attention-craving troll, whose testimony is extremely suspect. He seems to be an ideologue, whose evidence was countered by a few users 1, 2. Both these users certainly had their own issues, but the fact of the matter is that testimony from ideologues is meaningless.Pectore^talk 02:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Otolemur crassicaudatus

Pot. Kettle. Black. Really? Here's what 30 seconds of digging got me

• Removing an extremely well sourced criticism of the Communist Party of India. Hmm, interesting how you accuse Bharatveer of the same
• Use of ideologues (Arundhati Roy) to create illusions of societal criticism [31][32], when under no interpretation of WP:RS or WP:BLP is such non-expert testimony welcomed.

Again, pot, kettle, black. What we have are two users in glass houses throwing stones at each other. lol.Pectore^talk 02:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Googlean

A bad hand sock used solely for POV pushing is calling out a POV pusher? Thank you for defending Wikipedia, Googlean. Administrators can view a relevant ANI thread and a relevant Sockpuppet case for more details.Pectore^talk 02:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, looks like Googlean has been indefinitely blocked for being a sockpuppet of Avineshjose.Pectore^talk 02:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Tinucherian

Apparently, Tinucherian and Googlean are fighting the evil Hindutva cabal on Wikipedia. Never mind that half this "cabal" isn't even Hindu. Gigantic ideologue if I ever saw one.Pectore^talk 02:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

In short

Basically a bunch of trolls throwing accusations around at Bharatveer (with the exception of Todd and Relata refero) when they have amazingly bad problems with POV-pushing, edit warring, and incivility themselves. If Bharatveer is blocked, Wikipedia certainly can do without the "crusaders for truth" as well, with their fanciful ideas of "cabals" and such.Pectore^talk 02:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Bharatveer

I believe that User:toddst's response results from his non-implementation of a core WP policy of "Assuming good-faith". According to User:Toddst, he started his "actions" after an ANON reported at AIV AIV_editdiff(12:01, 11th November). Please see the article Binayak Sen. Please note that many WP editors (including me) have reported the edits of this particular SPA even before.)see Talk:Binayak Sen & my request for intervention at User:Flewis's talkpage (edit_diff@User_Flewis)(Time 11:48;10th November). Please see my contributions at Binayak Sen. I had tried to clean up that article within WP policies and guideline. I had tried to add more references and I had tried to "balance" the article by "removing" statements from different organisations, which was "irrelevant" to the article. Please see how another uninvolved editor (User:Shovon) also tried to bring admin intervention in the article. User:Toddst instead of seeing all these has in turn accused me of WP:OWN.

Just after this, he made a string of edits ( wikistalking) where he tried to modify/ remove most of my edits in different un-related pages (please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Toddst1).(Articles include Tehelka, where he "moved" my added reference to another section; Hindu Taliban, an afd page initiated by me , where user:Toddst personally attacked me and finally at Chandrayaan.

Please note User:Toddst's remark at AFD page and his conclusion of my edits in Chandrayaan page. It will be very clear that User:Toddst instead of "Assuming good faith" is doing just the reverse. He says "You really seem to be on a roll here. What's up with this edit? It seems like the information you are removing is well sourced, well placed, and on topic. Frankly your action here looks like either vandalism or POV pushing. Stop. Toddst1 (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)" In this case , I had just removed "politics" from a "scientific" article( note that comments from NASA & ESA were not removed). User:toddst needs to explain his edits here as to why he felt my edits were "Vandalism". I would like to conclude my statement this arbcom proceeding need to stopped as it is very clear that there is nothing "substantial" in User:Toddst arguments. Also please note User:Toddst attempts to gather "support" (from admins who had previously blocked me).-Bharatveer (talk) 05:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Please note User:Toddst's reason for blocking me([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Toddst1&diff=prev&oldid=251093994 edit_diff@todd).-Bharatveer (talk) 06:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

(Transcribed from User's talk page)

Fellow editors, Please note that User:Toddst's explanation is still pending regarding my "block" . As per the block message , I was accused of "vandalism" charges. I request fellow WP editors to have a re-look at my contributions (mainly Binayak Sen & Chandrayaan.(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bharatveer). In Binayak Sen article, Please see the "clean-up work" i did (BinayakSen_cleanupVersion). Please see the talkpage,(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Binayak_Sen), where i tried with many other WP editors to stop SPA's attempts to push their propaganda. It should also be noted that, I had tried to bring "admin-Intervention" in this article. In this context, User:toddst should explain how these edits will constitute "vandalism". Please note that even regarding 3RR, I had tried to be within limits of this rule, while editing this article. Even if, this charge of 3RR is true, it should be noted that I was the only person who got blocked due to this(which shows the One-sided nature of this block). I have been in WP for at least 2 years now , I am seeing for the first time , an AFD creation and a removal of political statements from a scientific article being labelled as POV charges. It should also be noted that after my previous Arbcom restriction, Many WP Editors have tried to discredit my WP edits pointing out the arbcom restrcition on me. ( for eg. Please see edit_diff@Kerala).-Bharatveer (talk) 06:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Editors like User:Tinu Cherian and others have raised false allegations that all my edits are biased( hindutva??), But I submit that I have tried to edit WP by following all WP policies ( NPOV, WP:cite etc). Please see my contributions at Shehrbano Rehman ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shehrbano_Rehman&action=history); Barkha Dutt([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barkha_Dutt&action=history);, which would prove otherwise.-Bharatveer (talk) 08:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I request arbcom to take a re-look at my previous block. If you would see, one of my previous blocks was for "removing" messages from my user page. I was blocked for my comments""vandalistic edits from an unresponsive editor who revels in deleting discussion from article talk page". The reason for block was given as "Incivility & disruptive editing".(see Usertalkpage_BV. Even in the last block, User:Toddst's reason was for making "making false accusations of "personal attacks", and "Harassment" against him. Please see User_talk:Bharatveer.-Bharatveer (talk) 06:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Otolemur crassicaudatus

Bharatveer (talk · contribs) has a history of chronic POV pushing in India related articles which is primarily characterized by an extreme form of Hindu fundamentalism. I am giving here only a few examples of his disruptive edits:

• Deletion of well-sorced information with an edit summary "rm irrelevant comments" from a section titled "International reaction" in the article Chandrayaan-1.
• [33] deletion of reliable source with an edit summary "rm as per WP:RS"
• [34] removal of an important sourced statement from lead, despite the fact there is academic consensus that Bajrang Dal is a militant organization.
• Bharatveer's comments on neutral and uninvolved administrator Toddst1 is extremely unfair. He unjustly accused Toddst1 of "not assuming good faith", and falsely claimed Toddst1 is "harassing" him.

Bharatveer is a pro-Hindutva POV pusher and is well versed in misinterpretation of various Wikipedia policies to serve his own POV. His contributions are primarily in India and Hindutva related articles, and with POV. He was warned many times, but did not change his behavior. This is the time to take final decision. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Further false accusation by Bharatveer

After my statement above in this case, Bharatveer has falsely accused me of making personal attack against him. I have asked him to point out where is the personal attack. Per WP:NPA, Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack. Bharatveer has already crossed the line and I hope the arbitrators will be able to find a solution to deal with this user. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Tinucherian

I regret to say Bharatveer (talk · contribs) has a long history of POV pushing, edit warring and disruptive editing on Hinduism and Christianity and other religious violence related articles.

• eg: Religious violence in Orissa.
  • Diff]: He injects POV news from unreliable sources like odishatoday.com and removed references to India's top new channels like ndtv.com . I removed his unreliable sources ( though I didnt remove his POV pushing statements like Illegal beef trade and asked for a reliable citation ) . Bharatveer reverted challenging to prove that odishatoday is RS. Further discussion can be seen in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#odishatoday.com . It is evident from the 1) A quick search in odishatoday.com tells for the word "Christian" would give you a list of articles [35] [36] undoubtedly showing its anti-Christian stance. 2) Special:LinkSearch/*.odishatoday.com no other articles have citations in WP from the above site. How is that its only Odishatoday that publishes the news that Bharatveer wants to , when these recent violences are reported by almost every new channels in India ? User:Bharatveer seems to take over the POV Pushing where a banned editor User:Jobxavier left. Technically, Bharatveer was close to WP:3RR at Religious violence in Orissa and Binayak Sen.
• Anything that is anti-Hinduvata , he tends to object like this , though the result of this AFD is very evident.
• Even after Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Bharatveer, one year editing restriction, it is evident that Bharatveer continues to be problematic editor with huge POV pushing and Uncivility. Please also note that Bharatveer has been blocked several times even during the editing restriction period.
• With another user Tripping Nambiar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) having a very similar editing pattern, I suspect it is another sock of Bharatveer (talk · contribs · count) and a checkuser is highly neccessary and should be conclusive.
• Today I happened to see this POV edit by an IP ( an article Bharatveer was active) removing references to reliable sources like Press Trust of India and Rediff.com and adding references to dailypioneer.com by 76.184.222.189 (talk · contribs) . An investigation led me to Chandan Mitra who is the the owner of the newspaper/website and also a BJP ( a pro-hindutva party) MP , which makes it evident why the paper is baised. With Bharatveer himself interested in Chandan Mitra and Bharatveer username currently blocked , My stupid mind suspects a loop. It is good to see a CU who was editing as 76.184.222.189 (talk · contribs) .

With all these disruptive editing , It is clear that Bharatveer is hindrance to very purpose of Wikipedia. He was warned many times, but never did he try change his behavior and be constructive. -- Tinu Cherian - 05:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

A RFCU on Bharatveer Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bharatveer was filed to help arbitation. -- Tinu Cherian - 12:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Pectore , I request you to stop bad faith and baseless accusations aganist all others. I am not fighting any "evil" Hindutava cabal. A wikipedia it is my duty to uphold the interest of wikipedia , so that its content is NPOV, reliable and verifible. Can you point to one instance that I have tried to do any kind of POV push like Bharatveer or Jobxavier. Half the cabal is not Hindu ? You must be kidding ? First of all, please seperate Hindu and Hindutva . I have probably more knowledge of Hinduism than you and have great respect and appreciation for the religion. As a avid reader of theology, history and religion, I have more sacred and religious books of Hinduism and Islam that you might probably have. Btw Jobxavier is a fake christian username and it is not rocket science to understand the interests of Jobxavier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and his socks ( See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jobxavier and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jobxavier ) -- Tinu Cherian - 07:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by googlean

I am too very sorry to comment that Bharatveer has a history of disruptive editing in religious articles, especially POV hands in Hinduism and Christianity related stuffs. I wish to present some evidences below:

• I started watching Bharathveer at this comment to me where I was correcting some pov edits in Murder of Swami Lakshmanananda article.

• Later, in this edit, he removed a reliable source of NDTV & pushed pov from an unreliable source.

• I later moved to RS/N to gather more opinions. However, instead of discussing the issue, Bharathweer started edit-warring with me over that unreliable source in Religious violence in Orissa.

With above interactions with me, I strongly feel that Bharathveer has POV hands in Hindu related articles & on the other hand, well knowledgeable in Wikipedia policies which he misinterprets to support his POV’s. Thanks. --Googlean ^Results 07:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Relata Refero

If the ArbCom deems it necessary, I can dig up episodes from earlier this calendar year, when User:Bharatveer was on the editing restriction of 1RR/W, and actually made one revert a week to regularly several articles. At the very least, s/he needs to be kept on this editing restriction. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Moreschi

Kindly ban. It's time we washed our hands of this user. Quite apart from anything else, I'm bored of blocking him. Moreschi (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• Bharatveer's statement transcribed from this version of User:Bharatveer's talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 07:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Recuse - I just blocked Googlean, who I hadn't remembered had made a statement in this case, so I am afraid I must recuse myself from any further clerking on this matter.--Tznkai (talk) 03:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Please provide Bharatveer with notice of this request. If he wishes to respond while he is blocked, he can post a statement on his talkpage and a Clerk should copy it to the appropriate section here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• done Toddst1 (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you; awaiting statement from Bharatveer and input from other interested editors. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Looking at Bharatveer's recent behavior, this seems to be a pretty obvious case; I've proposed a pair of motions below. Kirill ^(prof) 01:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
• I would like to see a presentation of evidence (and a response from Bharatveer) before voting on any motions. Toddst1, you also seem to have been in a content dispute with Bharatveer when you blocked him ([37]), would you like to explain that? --bainer (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Motions

1) Bharatveer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

There are 11 active Arbitrators, so a majority is 6.

Support:

1. First choice. Kirill ^(prof) 01:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
2. First choice. Last year's editing restrictions did not stop the disruptive editing so this year a different approach is needed. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
3. First choice. The requisite improvement in behaviour since last year's case is manifestly absent. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
4. Third choice, prefer 1.2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
5. First choice. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
6. Second choice. James F. (talk) 01:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1.1) Bharatveer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to a comprehensive editing restriction indefinitely. He is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. If he exceeds this limit, fails to discuss a content reversion, or makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling in the Bharatveer case.

There are 11 active Arbitrators, so a majority is 6.

Support:

1. Second choice. Kirill ^(prof) 01:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
2. Second choice. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
3. Second choice. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
4. Second choice, prefer 1.2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
5. Third choice. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
6. First choice. James F. (talk) 01:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1.2) Based upon multiple incidents of inappropriate editing despite prior restrictions imposed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bharatveer, Bharatveer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of 60 days. Following this period, Bharatveer is subject to a comprehensive editing restriction indefinitely. He is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. If he exceeds this limit, fails to discuss a content reversion, or makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for an appropriate length of time up to 90 days. After three such blocks, he may be blocked for up to one year.

There are 11 active Arbitrators, so a majority is 6.

Support:

1. Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
2. Second choice. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
3. Third choice; I don't think a two-month block is going to be particularly beneficial here. Kirill ^(prof) 06:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
4. Also, second choice. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
5. Third choice. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
6. Third choice. James F. (talk) 01:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.