Revision as of 04:40, 21 September 2009

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

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Requests for arbitration

Law's unblock of ChildofMidnight

Initiated by  Sandstein  at 07:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Law (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Notification of Law
• Notification of ChildofMidnight

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

This is a divisive dispute between admins; previous discussion is found at

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#ChildofMidnight
• User talk:Sandstein#Child of Midnight

Statement by Sandstein

By a motion of 29 August 2009 modifying Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#Remedies, ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was "topic-banned from Obama-related articles for six months, and any related discussions, broadly construed across all namespaces". He and Wikidemon (talk · contribs) had already been ordered "not to interact with each other" on 21 June 2009.

Today, Wikidemon submitted Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#ChildofMidnight. I usually patrol WP:AE, and after reading the evidence in the request and ChildofMidnight's reply, I blocked ChildofMidnight for a month, both for his repeated violation of the topic ban and for his violation of the interaction remedy through his reply. (It was later pointed out to me that I misread the remedy and that the maximum block length should have been a week; apologies for this.)

ChildofMidnight submitted an unblock request (including , ) that in my experience would normally not have been accepted based on its incivil language alone. At 03:51, 20 September 2009, Law (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), an administrator, informed me that he would unblock ChildofMidnight, and without either waiting for my reply or engaging in any community discussion he unblocked ChildofMidnight at 04:15. He later declined to reinstate the block (at its proper length of one week), which leads me to request arbitration (instead of wheelwarring, of course).

A very brief review of Law's contributions indicates that he and ChildofMidnight have recently interacted in a quite familiar manner (, , ). This, as well as the remarkably short time (24 minutes) between the unblock request and Law's reaction, may be an indication that Law might not have been acting as a neutral, uninvolved administrator in the processing of ChildofMidnight's unblock request.

By unilaterally undoing a block that was clearly labeled as an arbitration enforcement action, as well as more generally by undoing a block by a fellow admin without consulting anybody, Law has acted in a manner unbecoming an administrator and I ask the Committee to take the steps required to ensure that its decisions can be effectively enforced in the future. Should the Committee decline to do so, I regret to say that I will no longer undertake any arbitration enforcement tasks, because that would then be an exercise in futility.  Sandstein  07:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Law

So far, all of Law's comments in this matter ignore that my block was explicitly not only for ChildofMidnight's violation of the topic ban (for about the third time), but equally for his violation of the restriction against interaction with Wikidemon that his offtopic ad-hominem tirade constituted. Also, Law misstates my request. I do not consider AE futile if I do not get my way (about whether the topic ban was violated; I'll of course accept any consensual determination of that issue), but I do consider it futile if it becomes accepted practice to unilaterally undo arbitration enforcement actions without discussion.  Sandstein  09:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Should the Committee decline to do so, I regret to say that I will no longer undertake any arbitration enforcement tasks, because that would then be an exercise in futility. That is the equivalent of taking your ball and going home. There is not other way to interpret this remark. If you take an issue as far as ARBCOM, you need to be prepared that you may not have been in the right here and it has nothing to do with an ARBCOM decision. I will engage you no further. You clearly do not see that I await a decision, respect that decision, and whichever way the wind flows, I will abide. I suggest you do the same. Law _{type! snype?} 09:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Ched

I think it is fallacious to assume that an article is only related to Barack Obama if it is mentioned in the presumably comprehensive article about him. Per WP:SS, much relevant material will be only mentioned in the subarticles (if at all). For instance, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, while undoubtedly related to Obama, are not mentioned at all in the article about him. At any rate, ACORN#ACORN in political discourse, which mentions Obama multiple times, explains why the organization is politically relevant to him and certainly falls into a broadly construed topic ban concerning him.  Sandstein  09:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment regarding the statement by ChildOfMidnight

ChildOfMidnight has made a statement of sorts at User talk:ChildofMidnight#Arbitration request (permalink, my attempt to copy it to this page was reverted). The one part in the statement that merits comment is ChildOfMidnight's reference to the article Contempt of cop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which I started in July (most probably marking the first time that I started an article about the U.S.). ChildOfMidnight made several changes to the article, apparently ascribing some political motivation to my version of it (while, in fact, being Swiss, I have not much of an opinion about most aspects of US politics). His changes have, as far as I can tell, by now been undone, mostly by other editors. Up until this evening I had forgotten both about the article and the fact that he, too, had edited it. Even now, on reflection, I do not believe that this no-longer-current content disagreement in a different topic area makes me involved with respect to him, though I will of course respect any other determination by the Committee.  Sandstein  19:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tznkai

This is not nearly ripe enough for arbitration yet, but if it gets there, I hope it ends with someone whacking me upside the head for trying to put out this fire.--Tznkai (talk) 07:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Despite my best efforts, Law and Sandstein seem committed to arbitration. I remind ArbCom of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science#Motion to clarify the interpretative role of administrators, and of WP:AERFC which had, among other things, many comments about how AE is understaffed and a flawed process. As I am now pretty much done with trying to put out the fire, I just like to note that administrators need to avoid having pissing contests. In fact, they need to do more than that, they need to actively work together or the entire effort is pointless. I am not sure yet what ArbCom can do about getting that to happen, if anything, but I think it is at the core of the dispute here - not any of the red herrings listed.--Tznkai (talk) 08:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Law

I believe I am uninvolved by virtue of the fact that I have never dealt with CoM as it pertains to his editing restrictions. I do not see how 'uninvolved' means that I am not allowed any interaction with the editor. If this were true, I would have little to offer as far as administrative actions as I have several editors with which I have interacted.

Editors are the ones who add and build articles. So I do not interpret the topic ban to mean that if editor or IP X inserts Obama's name to article X, that CoM is systematically obligated to stay away from that article. As I mentioned, it is no secret that Obama recently referred to Kanye West as a 'jackass.' However, I do not feel that CoM should be restricted from improving the Kanye article.

Editing Michelle Obama is problematic. Editing Kayne West is not. ACORN was incorporated nearly 40 years before the highest profile person in the world was voted into office. It is only by virtue of the fact that Obama is the US President, that one could possibly perceive that this article should be off limits to said editor. I refuse to believe that ARBCOM intended that any mention of the President of the United States in any capacity, in any article, automatically merits a block. The ban was intended to prevent CoM from editing Obama-related articles. I do not think that ACORN is an Obama-related article simply because information was added to the article that mentions the standing President.

Sandstein's assertion that if things do not go his way he will consider ARBCOM an exercise in futility is also very disconcerting. I'm clearly willing to abide by any decision is made - I just feel that until that decision is made, the user should remain unblocked.

Statement by SirFozzie

In general, it's long standing "law" that a topic ban is meant to prevent someone from editing in a topic area where there's an issue with that person's editing. In other words, it's what they're editing about that's the issue, not the name of the article.

Looking at the edits referred to on AE, on the article of Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. This is a highly charged subject, where attacks on one could meant as an indirect attack on someone else (IE, casting ACORN in bad light, hoping that the bad light will reflect badly on Barack Obama). So, while it's borderline, I would be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to CoM, and thus consider the edits to be NOT a violation of the topic ban.

However, I'd like to note with concern this edit, amongst others mentioned on the AE thread which indicates that CoM is treating WP and these articles as a battleground. Obviously, the lesson has not been learned here, and if not corrected in the near future by CoM, I would recommend that the existing topic ban be expanded to include all political related articles.

As for the unblock by User:Law.. while, as I've said that I'd be willing to give the benefit of the doubt to CoM with regards to this, I do not think Law's actions were warranted and/or helpful in this area. Unilaterally undoing another administrator's action without discussion or consultation does nothing to help an already heated enviroment. It was in a grey area, and Law should have discussed it with others on AE or elsewhere before undoing Sandstein's actions. Perhaps it's time to take a look at the perennial proposal of changing the definition of WP:WHEEL from the current: DO/UNDO/REDO (where it's the third action) to a more realistic and simple "Undoing another administrator's action without discussion and/or consultation." SirFozzie (talk) 09:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Ched Davis

I request permission to make a comment in regards to this matter. Without prejudice to any party involved, as I do have the utmost respect for all editors mentioned here, I would like to address the issue of the "topic ban". I believe that the Obama related articles (broadly construed) needs to considered in any decisions made in this particular case, and would like to ask that the committee consider a couple points.

1. That the Barack Obama article is a Featured Article
2. Criteria for a featured article 1 (b) states:

   (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;

3. In doing a search through the Barack Obama article, I was unable to find either the term "ACORN", or "Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now" listed anywhere in the article.

I truly believe that consideration should be given to these facts. Thank you. — Ched :  ?  09:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Sandstein

Thank you for both the reply and the links. I must confess that even though I've been active in the US Political area since the Jimmy Carter era (IIRC the 1976 election, although it's possible that the 1980 election was my first), I am very ignorant of much in the Misplaced Pages area of politics. I am even more ignorant of ArbCom procedure, and intent. As such, I often struggle with the concept of Misplaced Pages:Assume clue vs. Misplaced Pages:Assume no clue. When confronted with these conundrums, I attempt to WP:AGF, and trust that all parties involved are here to improve the WP project. I am aware that CoM has been involved in some contentious topics and threads, but I believe that any editor frequenting these difficult areas (US Politics) will often become a high profile editor who's actions are under extreme scrutiny. I have noticed that while CoM does have a block log, that many of the items are adjustments, retractions, or modifications to the original blocks. This indicates to me that perhaps there are misunderstandings and over-reactions to editors who frequent the US Political venues. I know that when editors are brought before any type of judgmental venue, such as AN, ANI, or ArbCom, that often the final declarations can be harsh. I believe that the root of the problem is the deep political divide between the US political right (conservative), and the US political left (liberal), and I can not fathom a simple solution to such an expansive problem. I think it is very unfortunate when administrators find themselves at such odds with one another, as it sets a bad example for the rest of the community. By construct, administrators should have within their wherewithal to resolve the inevitable disagreements peacefully, rationally, amicably, and without rancor. My original comment was merely an attempt to point out that while one person may interpret an ArbCom sanction in one fashion, I believe that it's entirely feasible that another person may interpret the exact same wording in a completely different manner. It's my opinion that when this happens, we better serve the project and the community by limiting our sanctions to the least restrictive options; at least until the matter(s) have been discussed, and some sort of consensus has been reached. I thank the committee for it's time and use of their page(s), and I wish all the very best. — Ched :  ?  11:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by MickMacNee

To Ched: You will not find a single mention of the birther controversy article in the text of the Obama article either, which nullifies that analysis. MickMacNee (talk) 09:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

This type of request does not surprise me as parties can say and do things hastily in the heat of the moment. However, though it may be humanly impossible for some parties to work together, I have no doubts that these 2 can work well together. In such circumstances, it is definitely not pleasant to see two such constructive established users (administrators in this case) listed as two opposing parties in a RfArb which could be so easily resolved outside of arbitration-pages - if both parties were ready to give a little more and take a little more. I think a case or motion will lead them astray and simply exacerbate the core problem. They both need to be led to the right path. Perhaps a more useful outcome would arise if even a couple of arbitrators talked to them informally so that they come to an understanding.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

As for ChildofMidnight and Wikidemon, I think adopting Carcharoth's proposal would be useful for that issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any responses to Lara's point below...even ignoring typical community practice, the block itself did not comply with the enforcement provision which was imposed by the same ArbCom who are nodding their heads now. It's a worry that about half of ChildofMidnight's block log consists of actions that are problematic or unjustified in some way or another; and perhaps the worst part is that it looks like the beginning of a horrible trend. Instead of acknowledging this problem after looking at everything properly, you'll continue to nod your heads? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Tarc

• Certainly didn't expect to see this in RFAR this morning. IMO these wiki-restraining orders are a bad idea and a hassle to enforce, but if we're going to stick with them as an enforceable remedy, then allowances must be made for one party to seek redress when the other violates it, just like their real-life counterpart. IRL, the victim doesn't wait for the cops to drive by and happen to see the violator in the front yard. Assigning admins to speak for them seems like a bureaucratic nightmare and just adds another layer of mess to go through, and I've never like the idea of off-wiki discussion of on-wiki issues; all of this should be as transparent as can be. Neither parties should be sanctioned under the "no contact" for filing and responding to the filing, respectively. Yes, I feel CoM was entitled to a response, but the response itself is problematic (accusations of stalking/harassment, name-dropping me, general tirade against The Man Keeping Him Down).

• The unblock by Law was questionable, to put it mildly. An admin motivated enough to unretire to take care of a blocked user that he has past friendly relations with (linked in Sandstein's section), to override another admin's interpretation of an ArbCom sanction, and to unblock when the unblock request and follow-up are laced with invective, personal attacks, and the usual "everyone's fault but mine" shtick? That just doesn't add up, along with the fact that this is now about the 4th or 5th time CoM has violated the ArbCom restrictions.

• Finally, no one has said that any article that mentions Obama by name is under the ArbCom restriction; I'd really like to see this canard put to rest, as even admins seem to be using it with abandon. Tarc (talk) 13:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• PS: Interesting to see admins adding fuel to the idea that editing sanctions are a source of ridicule. Tarc (talk) 03:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

I think that a block over editing the ACORN article is reidiculous. Right now every law and bill will be slightly Obama related. Christ he's our President. I think the limits need to be defined as to what is exactly Obama related. I personally think both admin were acting from good faith. I do not think that a block should come out of the ACORN edits. At most if consensus is such that it is a prohibited area Tell COM. Just because he is in Arbcom doesn't mean it excuses us from assuming good faith, it does make out rope a little shorter but there was something everyone saw in COM or he would've been banned not subject restricted. A clear and definitive definition of what's allowed will prevent such misunderstandings. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

I am not an admin, and have followed the large collection of ArbCom rulings against CoM only vaguely. I have encountered CoM's disruptive editing practices in several places, including recently ACORN which prompted this, so am concerned about the unblock.

Law's ill-conceived unblock has the extremely harmful effect of trivializing ArbCom rulings. Moreover, we are now in the awkward situation of giving CoM a "free pass" on any bad behavior for the near future. If CoM engages in contentious edit warring, belligerent comments, or other violations that have frequently characterized his editing, no admin can block him without engaging in wheel warring. Emboldening disruption is a really bad idea, all the more so for an editor with many preexisting sanctions.

The only right thing here would be if Law would voluntarily reinstate the CoM block, though for the one week given in prior ArbCom rulings, rather than the one month that Sandstein has recognized as a misreading. Unfortunately, it appears Law has become more engaged in vindicating his position out of ego than in promoting the clear operation of arbitration rulings. LotLE×talk 17:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Protonk

A few short points, back with more later:

1. Stating that Obama is related to ACORN only by virtue of his presidency is so far from the facts on the ground as to almost be deceptive. More evidence from some reliable sources on that later (I won't belabor the point but this is decidedly not like editing Skip Gates's article, it is much more closely connected)
2. AE is chronically understaffed partially because it is thankless complicated work (I'll note here that I don't have a single edit to AE and promised myself that I would steer clear of most permanently arbitrated disputes like Eastern Europe, Ireland, US Left-Right politics, etc.). But it is also understaffed because stuff like this happens all the time. One admin undertakes an Arb. Enforcement only to find his action reversed rendering the entire process moot. If Sandstein wanted to re-block CoM he would have to go to AN or AN/I and get a consensus there that the unblock was wrong, bringing back all the problems which brought the case to arbitration in the first place. Bringing enforcement of an action to the community where the enforcement itself is only in place because the community can't litigate the debate is nuts.
3. This is yet another example of the implicit problem generated by WHEEL's prohibition of the "third action". A second mover advantage is generated. The admin with real power here is the unblocking admin because it is their action which is irrevocable, not the first admin's. I'm not arguing that either admin's actions should be totally immovable or transient but there shouldn't be a big imbalance between the two. Both the blocking admin and the unblocking admin should be forced to think about their actions in light of possible consequences.

Some supporting evidence to come, probably tomorrow. Protonk (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Xenophrenic

On the question of "is ACORN broadly construed as an Obama-related article?", there is a relevant bit of information overlooked by some administrators. CoM's first edit on the ACORN talk page since his topic ban makes clear that his interest lies with just one specific part of the article: ACORN is a partisan organization. It's simply innacurate to state otherwise. They have parts that are non-partisan so as to be compliant with funding requirements, but other segments are very active politically and in endorsing and campaigning for Democratic candidates. ACORN has endorsed only one presidential candidate, Barack Obama, and ChildofMidnight argues that makes ACORN partisan. While Admin Law argues that the relationship between Obama and ACORN is minimal, it is precisely that relationship, IMO, however significant, CoM targeted with his edits. If Law's only justification for lifting the block is that the topic ban doesn't cover edits to the ACORN article, I believe Law was in error. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe even CoM considers ACORN to be related to the Obama articles. In response to an editor on the ACORN talk page loudly proclaiming that the ACORN article was biased, and guarded by like-minded biased editors, CoM responded here:

"Censorship is quite common on Misplaced Pages. A pack of partisans hangs out on the Obama articles and related subjects and tries to keep out all notable dissent. It's pretty saddening and there's an Arbcom proceeding dealing with it. Believe it or not they're siding with those violating the wp:NPOV guideline. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Did CoM just infer that the ACORN article was a related subject, or am I misreading? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Wikidemon

I have nothing to add to my AE request, and my participation here will not help sort out administrators' blocking decisions. So I'm here only at Carcharoth's request, and will comment only on why I have participated here, and why editors like me need a venue to seek enforcement of orders to which they are a party.

Here are all the Obama ArbCom actions where I've participated after the case closed:

• My latest request is limited to preserving my ability to edit Obama-related material on Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, an article where I am very active. I discussed diffs that modify my edits, and talk page accusations directed at me and fellow editors working on the same article sections. For CoM to edit Obama-related material on an article where I am editing Obama-related material throws him into contact with me, and I have to abandon the article to avoid that. I made a breakthrough yesterday reconciling a long-term dispute over whether "non-partisan" applies not only to ACORN but many other articles about American nonprofits with a political position. I created Nonpartisan (American organizations) to explain the whole thing and encouraged editors to distinguish between the common meaning and the legal definition of nonpartisan. That was welcomed by all sides and ended a content dispute. By jumping in the middle after I thought I had settled it, CoM was not only stirring up trouble in violation of his sanctions, he was kicking me off the article. Petitioning ArbCom is my only resourse. I interpret the restrictions very strictly to mean no contact or communication at all outside of ArbCom, so I do not feel free to continue on talk ages, ask an administrator for help or even use email, because that would all be interacting indirectly.

Two parties subject to a mutual injunction much have recourse to request relief from violations by the other. If not the injunction is empty or worse. Parties may comment on their own cases. The only exception is vexatious litigants, but bringing a successful case on a matter that affects oneself is not vexatious. These are fundamental to all bodies that decide cases. Every single request I participated in was upheld, either by a block, a ruling, or a statement that the behavior, though improper, was not within the strict scope of the case. They are limited to matters that affect my work here. Thus, all are in good faith. I could have ignored being called a Nazi, but that edict would have to come from a higher power than ArbCom. You can see another editor's reaction here, and Jimbo was not amused.

Using intermediaries or email has some appeal, but I don't think it is workable. Would an admin truly volunteer to be my spokesperson before ArbCom, and could I count on them to be available and listen? We don't really work through attorney representatives here, right? I'm afraid this could become an unnecessary layer, a hearing with one judge and one party, carried out in secret, with no public comment. It seems to go the wrong direction.

What may be better is a public way to informally ask for permission to file a case, and quickly vet possibly actionable issues. Interaction-restricted editors can limit comments and diffs strictly to violations that affect their own ability to edit, something I already strive to do. None of this would be necessary if there were no sanctions violations. This shouldn't have to happen at all, but if it does the key thing is that there is a way to request relief.

Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Jennavecia

If the original block had been for a week, we probably wouldn't have seen an unblock. Instead, we saw an edit of a month over a grammatical improvement to prose in an article that mentioned Obama. 5 Arbs agreeing that was spot-on. Awesome. But no. A month for that? Please. Reblock for a week from the time of the original block. Problem solved. Straight to ArbCom? Cut the drama, we've got more important things to deal with. Lara 03:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

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

• I've now read through the threads linked above. My view is that this can be dealt with by motion. Sandstein was correct to block ChildofMidnight under the arbitration remedy (both for the article editing and for the comments on Wikidemon). Those protesting that people can follow CoM to articles and frivolously add Obama connections to those articles, are missing the point. If that happens, CoM should e-mail ArbCom and we will deal with it. In the meantime CoM should be editing articles that do not mention Obama at all. There are literally millions of articles that have nothing to do with Obama. The point of the ArbCom remedies was to steer people away from this area, not allow them to hover at the fringes. As for Law's unblock, on initial inspection, I see no good reason for the unblock, which was compounded by not engaging in discussion first. If this is a one-off incident, then a motion to admonish Law may be sufficient to warn people off acting like this in future when arbitration request enforcements are being disputed. Finally, the question of Wikidemon filing the request is problematic. There is sufficient bad blood here that I think a clarification requiring Wikidemon not to file requests about CoM (and vice-versa) would help here. Both should e-mail the Arbitration Committee if they think a breach of the interaction remedy is going unheeded, or they should be assigned an administrator who can raise such matters on their behalf. But reporting breaches of other remedies (which is what Wikidemon did in part here by objecting to the article editing) is just perpetuating the animosity between them. Having said that, I will wait for statements from CoM and Wikidemon, before proposing anything. Carcharoth (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Noting ChildofMidnight has commented on my talk page here. I agree with Xenophrenic's analysis above. Carcharoth (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• Noting my general agreement with Carcharoth's comments. In addition, even if one perceives the connection or topic relation as tenuous, the plain English phrase "broadly construed" should remove any doubt. If an editor is under a "broadly construed" topic ban, the restriction covers any article that could be reasonably considered related under an inclusive interpretation of the restricted area. Considering such, it is easy for me to see how ACORN is perceived as related to Obama and difficult to understand how it can be considered unrelated under a broad interpretation of the Obama topic area. Also, as Carcharoth, I am waiting for further statements before moving forward. Vassyana (talk) 12:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
• I broadly concur with my colleagues and will wait for further statements.  Roger Davies 13:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
• Absolutely agree that the remedy as written would prohibit CoM from editing ACORN so the block was right on. If an admin did not understand the reason for the block, then they need to discuss situation with the blocking admin or make a request for a broader consensus at AE. To the larger issue of a case or motion to formally address the issue, I would like to hear more comments from arbs and replies from the involved parties first. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
• The block was correct on its face, and I'm very much surprised that another administrator would take it upon themselves to overturn it without actual discussion with the blocking admin. — Coren  21:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Dr90s BLP-POV violations, incivility, sockpuppetry

Initiated by Thibbs (talk) at 20:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Thibbs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• 43.244.132.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dr90s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Notification for 43.244.132.168
• Notification for Dr90s

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Article talk-page discussions: 21/11/08-16/01/09 (some admin involvement), 15-20/12/08 (moderated by admin Hermione1980), 14-17/06/09, 16-18/06/09, 18/06/09
• User warnings/alerts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
• User notifications: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
• SPI Reports: 1, 2-4
• BLP/N Report: 1
• Administrators' Noticeboard Reports: AN/I #1, AN/3RR, AN/I #2
• Other: RFP, NPOV report (not directed at Dr90s in isolation)

Statement by Thibbs

This makes the 7th time I will have filed a report on this user, a well-known sockpuppeteer with a history for BLP-vandalism and incivility. Filing reports takes me a lot of time and energy and in this case I am looking to streamline the process so that I can spend less time filing reports and more time editing. As a sockpuppet case, the natural place for me to post is at SPI. I am generally quite pleased with the way the SPI reports have gone, however I find myself explaining the same story over and over and over again to new administrators who are not as familiar with the history of this puppetmaster as I am.

I have twice sought and was granted designated administrators who I could go to in order to streamline the process, however at the moment one has retired (User:Hermione1980), and the other is on a 3+ month WikiBreak (User:Tanthalas39).

The reason I am filing this report is to request an official ArbCom-signed topic ban or total ban on Dr90s and his sockpuppets. If this motion is granted, I will have an additional reason (i.e. "Evasion of bans or other remedies issued by the arbitration committee (closed cases only)") to request that official action be taken at SPI. This will streamline the process for me and improve the ability of the community to react to further SOCK violations by this indefatigable vandal. -Thibbs (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Note - Just as a quick update: I filed with SPI and the immediate problem has now been solved (i.e. the user has once again been banned). I still think a figurative ban would help in this matter and that it would be noncontroversial and easy to apply, but I will respect ArbCom's decision. -Thibbs (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Nathan

I don't think this really requires an arbitration case; the sockmaster is clearly not welcome at Misplaced Pages, and de facto banned even if no official sanction is on record. Thibbs has established a record of finding groups of sockpuppets in this area, and I think the clerks at SPI (of which I am one) would be willing to consider his checkuser requests with somewhat less exhaustive evidence than he has been posting. We do review the case archives, and a whole history isn't necessary for each new report.

If you like, you can ping me on my talkpage if you find a report isn't being processed quickly enough - but we are usually pretty good at keeping up. Nathan 22:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by {Party 2}

Statement by {Party 3}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/0/1)

• I appreciate the good faith and frustration of the filing party. However, I think it is clear at this point that the sockmaster in question is community-banned and that any additional socks should also be banned, especially if they continue to edit in the same unacceptable fashions that led to the ban in the first place. The structure of the WP:SSI pages has become rather more complex than it used to be, which I hope is not deterring valid reports of serious problems, but opening an arbitration case just to expedite the paperwork there should hopefully not be necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• In agreement with NYB and noting that SSI seems fit for the case as noted by Nathan above, decline. Vassyana (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• Decline This is for SPI or ANI. If he's community banned, he could be dealt with swiftly by the admins. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per preceding - SPI is way to go, and there are other means of addressing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• Decline. A ban by the Community or an indef block of a sock account by any admin works better because it is faster. SPI or ANI is definitely better in this situation. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per above. Sockpuppet investigations and various noticeboards are a better way to handle this. If that doesn't work, or there are systemic problems causing frustration, do ask around to get advice on how best to deal with this. Carcharoth (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per my colleagues.  Roger Davies 13:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)