Revision as of 19:27, 19 July 2013

Requests for arbitration

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

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Delicious carbuncle

Initiated by — PinkAmpers& at 02:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Involved parties

• PinkAmpersand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• DC

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ#Delicious carbuncle severely admonished and warned
• User talk:Delicious_carbuncle/Archive 10#Misplaced Pages:Child protection
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive791#Delicious Carbuncle -- child pornography trafficking allegations
• User talk:Delicious_carbuncle#WP:Child Protection "not on wiki" clause (permalink as of filing time)
• WP:AN#Wikipediocracy and outing (permalink as of filing time)

Statement by PinkAmpersand

A year ago, ArbCom resolved:

Delicious carbuncle is severely admonished for posting another editor's non-disclosed private information on an external website and warned that should they do so again, they will face sanctions, up to and including an indefinite site ban from Misplaced Pages.

Recently, he posted an article on an external site that alleged that a certain user (who shall go unnamed here) is a member of the KKK. That article included the following (alleged) information that, to my knowledge, has never been published on-wiki: the user's email address; his full legal name; other websites of which he is a member, including his Facebook profile; his age; his alma mater; and a place where he may have worked. DC justifies this by claiming that the editor is a member of the KKK and a possible pedophile (though the latter claim is not supported as well as some of his previous pedophilia allegations – several of which he repeated on-wiki, in direct violation of WP:CHILDPROTECT ). However, there's nothing in policy saying that bigots (if this user is one) are not entitled to be free of harrassment and privacy violations. Furthermore, DC has repeated some of these claims on-wiki; admittedly, he didn't state the editor's name, but there was already a link to the blog post in that discussion. (Note also that the July 2012 admonishment said to stop outing people, period, not just to not bring it up on-site.)

I was leaning toward starting an RFC/U, but I think that if the previous ArbCom remedy is to be taken at face value, the appropriate thing is for me to start a request here, so that a full case may be had examining DC's conduct, or so that the Committee can resolve the issues by motion. — PinkAmpers& 02:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• @All: I repeat my assertion that DC's post on AN constituted bringing the harrassment onto Misplaced Pages... The diff no longer works, but the relevant quote is I can also confirm that it contains the real life name of a long-term WP user and exposes them as a self-declared member of the Ku Klux Klan. Like I said, while it's true that that post didn't contain a link to the outing, I think it constitutes harrassment nonetheless; you'll note that it's the first post in that thread that actually repeats the allegations, and thus is the one that's the most likely to get more people to go and read the article.

Even if you reject that line of reasoning, I'd argue that you can call these "exceptional circumstances": By posting this editor's alleged place of work, DC appears to be deliberately targeting his livelihood. By accusing him of KKK membership, he further runs the risk of seriously harming the editor's personal and/or professional reputation. Off-wiki harrassment is normally along the lines of "lol, he's so gay, here's some screenshots we took of a dumb old userpage of his, and an out-of-context collection of all the worst things he's ever said". This goes far beyond that. — PinkAmpers& 14:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

@TDA, I don't think the middle name is a trifle; his claimed real name is common enough that it would be almost impossible to identify him without further information. Remember that WP:OUTING specifically says it's only acceptable to post personal information that has been stated on Misplaced Pages; it also notes that Personal information includes legal name ... — PinkAmpers& 14:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Salvidrim!

I have concerns about any ArbCom action or decision involving off-wiki issues. In my opinion, discussions on some online forum are as irrelevant to ArbCom than what I told my mother on the phone yesterday (which did involve revealing personally identifiable information about other Wikipedians, if you must know); if there are legal issues of privacy invasion, it needs to be taken up with the judicial system. Otherwise it's a non-issue. However, all the information put forward in this particular case was gleaned from publicly available data that anyone could peruse, the largest part of it already on-wiki, (as opposed to hacking, or some other form of illicit data-collection), and thus any claim of privacy infringement falls dead on the spot. I strongly agree that if non-public information about a minor was posted on Misplaced Pages, immediate and decisive action would need to be taken and I would be the first to enforce that matter. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 03:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

The editor being discussed in the blog had previously used his first name as his signature and has at least one page in his userspace where he gives out his last name several times, in addition to instances when he uploaded images under his own name. I don't know if he gave out his middle initial, but I would consider that a trifle. My impression is that posting personal information is not an issue here. Not sure how an arbitration case would achieve anything as, even if DC were to be banned, he would still be able to write blog posts. Any proposed case should involve some on-wiki conduct and this situation does not seem to have any serious and persistent on-wiki conduct to consider.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I would note that the whole case against the editor mentioned in the blog post is the inclusion of an image in a userspace gallery on Commons. This is the meat of the accusation and it is quite thin. DC stretched that out in the blog post and made a lot of insinuating remarks, filling in the gaps with other stuff that wasn't really what he wrote it to say, but fundamentally the post fails to actually prove what it is intended to prove. He constructed this allegation on the flimsiest of evidence and I thus do not think it would be a very good idea to act on DC's desire to get the editor blocked as some are suggesting below.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Anthonyhcole

Clarification: In the AN discussion I removed the link to the blog entry because it breached at least the spirit of our outing policy. I was wrong. On re-reading the blog, (and following the links) I found this Commons page and this Misplaced Pages page where the editor unambiguously connects his username with his real name. In the AN discussion, Jayen466 refers to multiple such disclosures on-wiki.. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC) Note: there was an edit-conflict here. The two statements by Herostratus and Apteva were posted while I was composing my statement. For more detail, please see the page editing history. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Given that we're dealing with the reputation of an identified person and nothing can be known for certain, I'd like to see this closed immediately; and given the weight of probabilities here, I'd like Kintetsubuffalo banned immediately, quietly from all Wikimedia sites. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Is this still open? Wikipediocracy is essential to the health of the project. Their criticism was directly responsible for the tightening of our chapters' COI provisions, they nailed Qworty, they pointed out the inappropriate relationship between the WMF and the Kazakh government-sponsored de facto chapter, they nailed the (were there more than one?) pedophilia advocate on Commons, etc., etc... They do what the cult-like ethos here prevents us from doing.

As Peter Cohen points out below, if you discipline DC (or label him a suppressive person) for this seemingly-sound bit of scrutiny, you'll be like the deluded dowager who sacks her butler for holding up a clean mirror to her wrinkles. And, again per Peter, if you punish DC for what he says on WO while saying you can't possibly take into account what an admin says on IRC, you will reap well-deserved widespread contempt for at best inconsistency, while most will see it as frank elitist hypocrisy. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Herostratus

Accept the case.

While it's true that within reasonable limits we tend to disregard off-wiki behavior, there is virtually no organization in the world that at the limits doesn't consider behavior outside the workplace when assessing suitability for continued employment. Very few organizations will employ serial killers, for instance, even if they aren't killing anyone at the office.

The question at hand is, is Delicious carbuncle's off-wiki behavior egregious enough that he's no longer welcome here? Well, if trying to destroy the lives of other editors, whether for fun or out a moronic vigilantism or whatever isn't egregious enough to get one shown the door, what the heck would be?

Obviously Delicious carbuncle can't be here any more after this. Right? I mean, who's next? Me? You? Could be anybody, since it's apparent that he goes off half-cocked and doesn't seem the have the acuity to really know what he's doing. I'm not sure if anybody is safe with this guy around. Granted, banning him won't change that, but it'd be a sign that we at least disapprove of people trying to, you know, ruin members of our editorial staff.

If Kintetsubuffalo is a proximate danger to young people or has other clearly disqualifying attributes, Delicious carbuncle could have contacted ArbCom privately, or failing that run a RFC/U or something. But even though he didn't, the merits of Delicious carbuncle's case (made at WO) against Kintetsubuffalo has bearing on the matter, though. If Kintetsubuffalo is really a dangerous or terrible person, then there'd be considerable justification.

I'm not seeing that right off. It sure looks to me like like Kintetsubuffalo is an oddball (like many of us) and he may be some kind of Nazi and so forth is a vague way, or at any rate play one on the internet. He hasn't proclaimed any of this loudly ("This user is a Nazi" or whatever). If he pushes a pro-Nazi POV there're ways to deal with that.

Regarding the girllover logo, I don't think you can get too far left of me on the subject of editors advocating that sort of thing: we shouldn't put up with it period, and those editors need to be gone, and I've gone after a few myself. On the other hand, for goodness sake, we're not haters (I hope), at least against people not known to have committed a crime, nor vigilantes.

It's entirely possible that Kintetsubuffalo needs to be asked to not edit here anymore. That's a separate issue. I don't know the answer. The girllover logo thing is a very bad sign for sure. I do know that, absent proof of criminal behavior or a loud and public advocacy of an egregiously toxic philosophy, he doesn't deserve to be destroyed as a human being.

Calling someone a pedophile in public is a very, very serious and reckless thing to do. It can get people beaten up or killed, you know. Let's not have this, OK? Herostratus (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Mathsci

This is not suitable for a full case or for any public discussion on wikipedia. As far as external websites are concerned, the arbitration committee have in the past formed their own views, case by case. There are several issues involved here some of which should have been brought up in private with the arbitration committee. Almost all of them can probably be decided in private by the arbitration committee. Mathsci (talk) 06:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC) Note: there was an edit-conflict here. The two statements by Apteva and Anthonyhcole were posted while I was composing my statement. For more detail, please see the page editing history. Mathsci (talk) 06:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC) modified 7:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Delicious Carbuncle has already been reported at WP:AE. So far 2 administrators have written that this is a matter for arbcom. Mathsci (talk) 07:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Apteva

Even without having a link to the Arb statement "Delicious carbuncle is severely admonished ..." I would say that this is an AE matter, and does not require ARB, unless the result is a suggestion for a site ban. So I would start by moving this discussion to WP:AE and discuss sanctions if any there. It should be noted that even discussing previously available information is not acceptable, and if they did not understand that, this should be explained first, before imposing sanctions. For example, if an editor posts their real name and then deletes it, it may be available in history, but the fact that they deleted it is a clear indication that they do not want it used. The safest thing to do is ask first. Apteva (talk) 06:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Andy Dingley

This is a request about Delicious carbuncle, not about an editor who has been targeted for outing by DC. That might be a separate case, but it's not this case.

The wording of last year's stern warning to DC was, "for posting another editor's non-disclosed private information on an external website". "Another editor", not "Fae", even though that case had been raised in relation to Fae. Arbcom could easily have warned DC not to go after Fae (and that alone) but they didn't, they warned "don't go after editors" in the more general sense. This new post is a clear breach of that.

There has been a claim of "public interest", in that it's OK to lynch editors on the WO site, provided that they're bad enough that they deserve it. I see nothing in WP:NPA etc. to support this. We have policies to not attack or out others, those policies are applied as a blanket to all editors, no matter how disagreeable.

An obvious reason to reject this lynchmob mentality is simply that WO is far from a credible, robust or trustworthy group to appoint themselves as judge and jury over the morals of other editors.

I would also note that I'm also currently being attacked and outed at WO (albeit less prominently than this case): active WP editors consider it acceptable to term me a "scumbag", my friends and family are insulted and their photos posted too. If DC is claiming that I'm a white supremacist and thus fair game for the next WO lynching (another WP/WO editor has suggested my name as their next target), then would he please be upfront about it and say so.

Please also note my recent raising of this, and very closely related WO issues, at WP:AN etc. WP:AN#Wikipediocracy_and_outing Andy Dingley (talk) 08:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

@Worm - Perhaps you should ask that of Arbcom as of last year, when they issued a warning about, "posting another editor's non-disclosed private information on an external website". This is not a new action that's needed here, but an enforcement of an existing one.

As to the specific problem, which is of course a real problem, then we have a similar issue with WP:NLT. We can't stop legal threats, or posting abuse to WO. However we have already recognised that such actions are incompatible with remaining an editor here.

Many of WO are simply banned editors with old grudges. It's inevitable that they're going to wash up somewhere. However there are too many editors who are active on both sites and who want it both ways: exercising the privilege of editing at WP, whilst using WO as a rules-free soapbox to attack other WP editors, seeing themselves as safe from CIVIL et al. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by LiquidWater

I welcome an arbitration case on this issue. What DC has published is clearly in violation of several WP policies, and the warning he received does not seem to have had any effect on his current editing. He is also uncooperative with the filing party, arrogantly dismissing the request. This case should definitely be opened. LiquidWater 07:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

To @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: There are other infos disclosed by DC, including his Facebook images, alledged membership on a White supremacist website, and accusations of paedophilia because of some insane combinatorics, that obviously are inappropriate. Disclosing your name does not mean that you consent do have your entire private life exposed to the public in a way that is far from flattering. LiquidWater 11:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

@Tarc: The people at WO know wery well that they are operating in a gray area of our policy, and they exploit it to full extent. LiquidWater 19:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

@DC: Thank you for your statement. You state that you did not publish the alleged middle name of the user, but you did. It's under the "Scouting" sub-section. There are two "names" that you use as the person's middle name, none of whom have been published on WP to my knowledge. Neither has he published a link to his Facebook profile or links to the sites that you allege that he has posted to. I think the claim that you have "left it to the readers to draw their own conclusions" is quite silly, when the article clearly shows the person/user in a bad light. If this was posted to WP, it would clearly be a blockable offense under WP:OUTING. LiquidWater 17:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

@Peter Cohen: There is clearly an issue with a WP editor allegedly outing and harassing a long-standing, good faith editor that he is supposed to be cooperating with on creating a good encyclopedia. The ArbCom banned Michaeldsuarez indefinitely, in the same case where DC was "severely admonished and warned", "for creating a page on an external website designed to harass another user". I believe that DC has done the exact same thing in this case, and when you consider his previous run-ins with Arbcom, I hope and believe that the committee will take this seriously. Protecting our editors from allegations, attacks and harassment is one of the most important tasks of Arbcom in my opinion. LiquidWater 17:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

@John Lilburne: As I said, Arbcom has already set a precedent regarding off-wiki harassment and outing in the Fæ case, like I pointed out above. If the committee intends to be consistent, they should follow up on that ruling and take appropriate action in this case. LiquidWater 18:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

@Anthonyhcole: I wouldn't have had any problem with WO, I might even have supported them, if only they reported their alleged findings directly and confidentially to the appropriate, trusted people on WP (like Arbcom), but the way and manner that they do is not good-faithed and screams for drama and attention. LiquidWater 19:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Kiefer.Wolfowitz

There is no case, since the information was already publicly available. There was no outing.

This seems to be another example of the failure of WP:Child Protection and ArbCom to remove editors who behave like child-predators from Misplaced Pages. WMF should hire an outside review, perhaps asking for help from the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, who each have child-protection policies that comply with COPA/COPPA.

(Redacted) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Hillbillyholiday81

The ongoing Kiefer.Wolfowitz/Ironholds case suggests that the wikipedia-en-admins channel is considered "off-wiki" If this is so, Delicious carbuncle posting something on a totally independent website cannot fall under the scope of ArbCom.

Below, WormTT has recommended posting links to any actionable on-site postings made by Delicious carbuncle. I've had a good look and there are none. I think this case should be closed post haste. -- Hillbillyholiday 10:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by ErrantX

@WTT; I think if anyone has done anything sanctionable on-wiki it is Andy, PinkAmpersand and a couple of others. i.e. they have brought the matter here, essentially doxing the editor in question on-wiki. I was very close to blocking both of them last night for it but I desisted because frankly the drama is not worth it. But I think any case needs to examine their behaviour.

Bottom line is; individuals can write what they like on external sites. I don't entirely approve of the tone of the blog post in question, although the information in it is concerning. But what can be do about it? Simple answer; not post about it or talk about it on here.

Misplaced Pages has a strong policy against outing and doxing. However the bottom line is that it is hard to be truly anonymous, and that all we really have is a gentelman's agreement for this site. The individuals that broke that agreement, unfortunately, do not include DC. --Errant 10:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

The editor about whom DC wrote elsewhere voluntarily disclosed his name on-Wiki. The editor voluntarily and openly disclosed other information about himself in various places, including self-identifying his rank in the Ku Klux Klan. No "non-disclosed private information" is involved. No WP:OUTING is involved. No evidence of harassment has been presented, except to the extent that Pink Ampersand's repeated misrepresentations concerning DC may be viewed as harassment. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Collect

Iterating my prior post at AE:

Wikipediocracy is frequently sophomoric (heck - so are some things on Misplaced Pages, for that matter.) The question is not "attack" as that is such a broad claim that even saying "Editor Gnarph uses long words" falls into that category. So we must decide first if the incident alluded to here actually is "outing" else it clearly is outside the purview of ArbCom, and only then if the matter is of such import that it requires action here. I did not think when I just read the post that it meets those criteria. Collect (talk) 11:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

In episode 42 of this ongoing saga, now on a new channel, the same exact points apply. Collect (talk) 11:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

Doxing is an odious form of harassment. When one Misplaced Pages editor harasses another on some external site, our proper reaction is to ban the editor performing the harassment. This may not stop them, but it sends a clear signal that if you want to participate in this project you may not harass the other editors here or there or anywhere. ArbCom should hear the case to determine whether such activities have been going on, and to issue a ban if they have. Jehochman 13:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

@Tarc, if an editor continues harassing another editor after being told that it's not acceptable, then we don't need them. Misplaced Pages is not for fighting. If people want to fight, we must kindly, firmly show them the door. Whoever participates here peacefully should be free from having their motives or identity discussed in uncomfortable ways on external sites. Jehochman 20:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

@Nyttend, if I am part of an organization, my comments about that organization and its people are relevant anywhere I make them. For instance, if I set up a Tumblr page to cast aspersions at a co-worker, my employer can take notice and fire me for creating a hostile and unproductive work environment. When one Misplaced Pages voluteer goes off site to attack or harass a second volunteer in public, there is nothing improper about us taking notice, and telling the first volunteer that they are no longer welcome to participate here.

I agree that WP:BADSITES is not policy and never will be. However, just because the community has rejected labeling particular sites forbidden, does not mean that anybody can say anything anywhere without consequences. There is a difference between responsible commentary or criticism and improper personal attacks that may constitute harassment. Jehochman 10:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Resolute

One of the problems here is that DC's off-wiki actions inevitably find their way on wiki, usually posted by DC himself. He has frequently started discussions on Jimbo Wales' talk page (several of them revdel'd; example) where he promotes his Wikipediocracy blog posts where he outs editors. This places his doxing and harassment well within the scope of Arbcom's powers. Resolute 14:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by MONGO

I second Jehochman's comments above....more to state later.--MONGO 13:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

We can't regulate what others do at external sites. Arbcom did ban an editor under the old case against me primarily for his harassment of the MONGO moniker at Encyclopedia Dramatica. There, efforts were unsuccessfully attempted to decipher my real life identity. Some of that was brought onto Misplaced Pages by ED partisans...and this situation is akin to that one. It is our duty to protect our editors and to make sure they can edit this website with as little harassment as possible from outside websites. One way we do this is by way of policy which already makes it clear that we shouldn't link to outside harassment. If what is posted at Wikipediocracy indicates that one of our editors is X then that information can be emailed privately to arbcom. It is of paramount importance that we do what we can to protect our editors from internal and external harassment.--MONGO 16:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Mark Arsten

I don't really buy the idea that this is an off-wiki issue. DC has linked to or discussed his blog posts about Wikipedians' personal info on-wiki on multiple occasions. If User:X outs or harasses User:Y on example.com, then it may be an off-site issue, sure. But if User:X then comes to Misplaced Pages and says, "There's some lurid info on User:Y at example.com" then it surely becomes an on-wiki issue, no? Mark Arsten (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Mangoe

Those who remember the days of yore may recall that I am deeply opposed to WP:BADSITES, and that I am the primary author of Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is in the real world. Ordinarily I would be opposed to discipline in this case given that the identity of the editor in question is all over the place here. Having tracked down the attack in question, however, it goes way beyond simple identification, and continues to insinuations of criminal predilections on the part of the attack's target. The merit of the accusations has been questioned there, and I concur with that doubt. Another editor was blocked in the referenced case for mounting such an off-wiki case. I also have my doubts as to the effectiveness of discipline under the circumstances, since it's extremely doubtful that actions here could stop anyone from mounting such attacks; nonetheless it seems to me that the action invites exercise of the remedies from the old case. Mangoe (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

On considering Peter Cohen's response, I concur with him that accepting this case is a bad idea. Mangoe (talk) 19:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Tarc

Recollecting the Wiki-truism "blocks are preventative, not punitive" which cuts to the heart of the matter here, in that trying impose order on off-wiki events is like trying to nail jello to the wall. Ask yourself, if this case were to be accepted and adjudicated in the manner that some pitchfork-wielders above hope, what exactly would a block of the blog author prevent ? Give a single concrete example of how the Misplaced Pages would be better the day after such a ruling than it was the day before. Just one, to show how the project is better off by preventing this person form editing this project. That blog/forum website will still exist the day after. Any Misplaced Pages editor judged to be a detriment to society as blog subjects' past have been could be the subject of the next blog entry, a block will not change that.

So if you're going to accept this case, reflect mightily on the why of the acceptance and the what you hope to accomplish in the end. If the "why" is because a journalist who also happens to be a Misplaced Pages user exposed a bad Misplaced Pages user off-wiki, with no on-Wiki aspect whatsoever, or if the "what" is answered by "to send a message", then you're doing it for the wrong reason entirely.

Think about what you (as individuals, not necessarily as an Arb board) can do to address the substance of the blog's complaints, rather than target the messenger. Tarc (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by John Lilburne

It seems to me that some editors here think that on the one hand it is fine to post information about minor celebrities on this site, but that one the other hand it is not OK to post information about people here on other sites. Wasn't there a kerfuffle on this site recently about some cookbook writer and her racist language, if a cookbook writer why not an editor on wikipedia? Some above and below are whining about chilling effects, yet I see in deletion reviews and talk pages people here expressing the view that if some one didn't want an article here then they should never have taken a career as a writer, or to paraphrase Mr Dingley that they should never have been born. Janus, Janus, Janus. John lilburne (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

@‎LiquidWater Protecting our editors from allegations ... and how are they supposed to do that? If what is said on IRC admin channels is unsanctionable then something on a blog post is equally so. Trying to carve out a difference between the two won't wash outside of these pages. More and more tired editors on this site are coming to this conclusion. But knock yourself out trying. John lilburne (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Even if they were equivalent we have a far more recent case of an admin and WMF employee denigrating, demeaning, and inviting others to laugh at another editor on IRC. Are you perhaps claiming that different rules apply to admin/WMF employees. John lilburne (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Carrite

This makes two more or less reckless pedophilia-related intimations on Wikipediocracy in the past couple months. If those charges are false and defamatory, that's a matter for the legal system between the parties involved. I think we can all agree that defamation of character is bad and that false accusations are potentially defamatory. That said, there are insufficient mechanisms for oversight of Misplaced Pages editors: the cult of anonymity rules triumphant and the unsavory problems associated with it, such as, for example commercial promotion, the defamation of political opponents, the advancement of crackpot theories and racist bile, and so forth proceeds unchecked and uncheckable on site. Like it or not, Wikipediocracy does us all a favor by bringing close scrutiny to perceived bad actors. This makes for a somewhat uncomfortable situation for those of us who exist in both worlds, both as committed Wikipedians and outspoken critics of the various systemic flaws of WMF and Misplaced Pages as an institution. This we live with. I think the prevailing sentiment that on-wiki and off-wiki are two separate things is correct. There is no "outing" here, all parties agree, and the warning signs for increased scrutiny are documented. Let the critics scrutinize, sometimes good results happen (see: Qworty). En-WP has no sufficient mechanism for these sorts of things, that much should be clear to all. If false charges appear on-wiki, at that point it becomes a potential matter for ArbCom, not before. Carrite (talk) 01:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Nyttend

Absolutely do not take this case. If Arbcom start sanctioning people for offwiki things, they'll be going way past what's reasonable: our policies only apply to our website, and not to other websites. It would be as big an injustice (in principle, although of course not as much in practice) as one country claiming that it had the right to punish people from other countries for doing things that were against the first country's laws. Nyttend (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker

Seems we have several questions, which cannot be answered in the abstract; so, if there is a need to answer them one would need a case, and it would in part need to be considered off wiki (which only Arbcom can do). Is this criticism or is this harassment? If it is harassment, should this User be subject to a remedy? Are there actual or potential on-site effects, here? Should a User who harasses another User in order to effect Misplaced Pages edits, policy or on-site actions be subject to a remedy?

People can choose to be Misplaced Pages Users or not, but under Misplaced Pages policies, they also have obligations. As to whether not having editing privileges is a punishment; it's not -- it is a remedy for a considered conclusion that the operator cannot, for the time being, be a User, under Misplaced Pages policies. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

@Nyttend: see long arm jurisdiction and multiple citizenship. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Intothatdarkness

If ArbCom has already decided that they cannot consider evidence from an IRC channel that any reasonable person would conclude is directly connected with en-wiki (referring to the KW/Ironholds case and the decision regarding IRC evidence there), I fail to see how they could take action here. If there is nothing on-wiki to act on, the case should be rejected. Since Badsites has been rejected many times, accepting this case as worded might give the appearance of a double standard, which is something I suspect the committee does not want to do. This is not a comment about offsite conduct, but rather an appeal for ArbCom to exercise consistency in their standards. Intothatdarkness 14:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Delicious carbuncle

When I commented in the AN thread started by Andy Dingley, there was no link to my blog post. My comments were in relation to speculation in that thread that there was no way of knowing that the "Delicious carbuncle" who wrote the blog post was the person using the same handle here (i.e., me). When I wrote those comments, no one had identified the editor by name. In fact, Andy Dingley had linked to two separate blog posts about two separate editors, only one of which was written by me.

I sent ArbCom an email to alert them to my blog post when I first noticed that it had been posted. Although they have keep assuring me that they will do a better job of responding to my emails, I received no reply other than the auto-generated bounce message. If they have questions, they are welcome to contact me. Incidentally, the blog post does not give the middle name of the user in question, contrary to comments made here by PinkAmpersand and The Devil's Advocate. Nor did I state that the editor in question is "possible pedophile". I have quite deliberately left it to readers to draw their own conclusions based on the facts presented. If there is some dispute about the facts presented, I suggest that people leave a comment on the blog, get in touch with me, or get in touch with the moderators at Wikipediocracy.

PinkAmpersand has identified himself as a party to the arbitration request, although he has not made any statement indicating in what way he should be considered to be a party. Andy Dingley, the editor who raised this issue on a high-profile internal message board, has not been named a party. PinkAmpersand seems to be concerned by statements made by me off-wiki, but is ignoring the fact that it was other editors who raised this on-wiki, linked to the blog post, and inserted the name of the editor in question. I am sure that his next step will be to start what will surely be a divisive and unruly RFC/U. I have been made a scapegoat for some editors' dislike of Wikipediocracy.

It would be a mistake for ArbCom to accept a case brought by an uninvolved party for the purpose of pursuing an agenda of their own. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Peter Cohen

I remain in doubt as to what people who are in favour of this case being accepting hope to achieve. My strong impression is that, if forced to make a choice, DC places a higher priority on producing his blogs on Wikipediocracy than on remaining on Misplaced Pages. I get the impression that some people think that they will achieve something by getting him banned. But what? Wikipediocracy has succeeded in catching the eyes of a number of journalists and feature writers. If one of DC's blog posts gets picked up by one of these professional writers, do people think that they will neutralize them by saying that they were based on what someone banned from Misplaced Pages had written? People will simply ask why (s)he was banned and, if the answer is that (s)he was banned for identifying predatory paedophiles and members of racist organisations who are active on Misplaced Pages, then it will be the Wikipedians who end up looking stupid. What DC writes will stand or fall by the quality of his/her research. If people want to undermine him/her, then they have to identify flaws in the actual content of what (s)he says or implies. And if the flaws mean that (s)he has libeled innocent people, then you can achieve something by pointing that out. But if you fail to engage with the content of what DC writes and just scream "doxing" and get him/her banned, then those who advocate and implement the banning are the ones who the world will condemn, not DC. (And does anyone not think that DC and Wikipediocracy will play his/her banning for all they can?) In any case Arbcom have just made clear that they think that what people say on the Misplaced Pages IRC channels are outside their jurisdiction. Why on earth should Wikipediocracy be inside it?--Peter cohen (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Delicious carbuncle: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <2/2/0/5>-Delicious_carbuncle-2013-07-18T09:26:00.000Z">

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

• The arbitration committee is an on-wiki body, which has the ability to make decisions on on-wiki behaviour. If off-wiki behaviour aggravates the situation, the committee will take that into account - but if we're only talking about off-wiki behaviour, then any sanction imposed by the committee will not stop the person carrying on. With that in mind, I've got a few questions for anyone who believes this case should be opened. Has Delicious carbuncle done anything sanctionable on-wiki? If yes, please detail it. If no, how do you believe that any sanctions the arbitration committee can impose will actually improve the situation? Worm(talk) 09:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)"> ">

  Salvio (and Andy), if Delicious carbuncle was acting in this manner to control content on Misplaced Pages, to get an upper hand in a dispute or to exacerbate grudges, I could see your point. In those cases, we'd have something definite to look at. That's not what's happening though, the users (to the best of my knowledge) have had little or no interaction with Delicious carbuncle before. There is certainly a chilling effect, there are editors who do not feel free to make comments lest they be targetted by this off-wiki site, but the chilling effect is related to the site as a whole. That is an issue, but again, not one that the arbitration committee can handle. Worm(talk) 10:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• I disagree in part with you, WTT. Misplaced Pages works by consensus, which means that, for it to function properly, all editors must feel able to freely express their opinions; if someone's actions have a chilling effect and lead to users being afraid of making comments lest they be targeted off wiki, then that's a serious problem and though the conduct in question took place on a different site, we need to be able to do something: in these cases, while the activity may occur off wiki, its consequences are perceived on wiki. Of course, to be actionable, such actions must be so egregious that they make it impossible for others to interact with the person in question (i.e. criticism would never be enough and neither would be mere insults).

  Not to mention that there is no policy preventing a person with weird or even disgusting ideas from editing Misplaced Pages, provided they don't violate the site's policies (which means that we shouldn't care if a racist edits Misplaced Pages, provided he doesn't make racist edits – with paedophiles, of course, it's different, because they are dangerous even if they don't make any edits at all, since they might use Misplaced Pages to get in contact with children). Policies were never meant to protect only the good ones.

  Then again, in this case there was no outing: Kintetsbuffalo disclosed his identity sua sponte on wiki and, as I keep repeating, no policy can demand that people play dumb. Salvio 10:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

  • On second thoughts, Pink Ampersand has no legitimatio ad causam here.

    Perhaps the parties aren't trying to go through traditional dispute resolution because they weighed the balance and don't want to participate in the case and spread around their personal information even more than it already has been. You're most right. Who cares what the subject of the exposé thinks: we should force our opinion on him, because, basically, we know better. Decline. Salvio 17:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

    • I want it noted here on the public record that we now have another arbitrator who uses more Latin legalisms than I do. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
      • That's only because I ignore their English counterparts: I graduated by correspondence... Salvio 18:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Awaiting the likely flood of statements on this, but some thoughts:
  • ArbCom has been contacted many times by people who disclosed their real life indentities on Misplaced Pages at one time or another but want "outing" material oversighted or revdel'd. This always irks me, because Arbcom and the functionaries do not exist to construct a barn door after the horse has bolted, nor to clean up or hide users' mistakes. In this case the user in question posted more than enough information to identify themselves, so the issue isn't outing and doesn't violate the letter of DC's restriction.
  • With that said, there is another aspect to consider, whether the material is intended to harass and users contributing to said harassment. DC certainly wants actions to be taken against the editors he posts articles about, even if he himself is not actively pursuing them on-wiki. I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that this violates the spirit of his restriction, if not the absolute letter, which is a failure of ArbCom's own finding.
  • As stated several times, including in the case we just accepted, the end results of the BADSITES mess of seems-like-forever-ago is that we don't sanction Misplaced Pages users for off-wiki activity without evidence of a problem with their direct activity on-wiki. It means, taking a recent example, that ones' comments on off-wiki forums are irrelevant if their behavior onwiki is not an issue; this is a compromise that cuts both ways and I see as deeply problematic in several ways, but I also don't see as a problem with a solution just hanging on the low branches for us. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 11:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think it's right to say we could never sanction an editor for his or her conduct off-wiki. See, for example, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch; see also here. We have repeatedly stated, however, that we would do so only in extreme circumstances and I think this is common ground among most or all of the arbitrators. Thus, the issues raised by this request are (1) whether Delicious Carbuncle's off-wiki post(s) are unacceptable; (2) whether they are so unacceptable that they could warrant sanction even if the issue were entirely off-wiki; (3) alternatively, whether they are related to any problematic conduct on-wiki; and (4) whether any or all of these issues should be discussed on-wiki or elsewhere. Awaiting further input on these issues, which should focus on substance rather than rhetoric or name-calling. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• We have repeatedly postponed consideration of such related issues as "linking to outing", and DC's conduct has already been the subject of arbitration proceedings. Nevertheless, these issues are still having a deeply disruptive effect on the community, and the previous arbitration decision appears to have been ineffective. I am therefore inclined to accept this request, but will await Delicious carbuncle's input. AGK 21:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Note: User talk:Delicious carbuncle#Notification. Delicious carbuncle appears not to be planning to make a statement. Query whether we should proceed on that basis, or whether we should formally request his input. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Thank you – I did not realise his absence from this page was deliberate. I formally request a statement from DC, because I think his response to the prospect of this case and his rebuttal to the filing party's statement would be illuminating; however, I do not think we will be unable to proceed (one way or the other) without his input. AGK 03:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Accept. There are serious issues here that need looking at, and some of the material may be private, or at least best considered in camera, so ArbCom is best placed to look into that. SilkTork 10:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Decline. I see no evidence of any actual dispute—or, indeed, any substantive interaction—between PinkAmpersand and Delicious carbuncle; consequently, there is nothing here for us to resolve. We should be very hesitant to accept a case brought by someone with no apparent relation to the claimed dispute; the fact that none of the presumed parties appear to desire dispute resolution is a strong indication that the matter is being adequately handled without our involvement. Kirill  13:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The Arbitration Committee isn't not an adversarial court, and we do not have standing rules. Perhaps the parties aren't trying to go through traditional dispute resolution because they weighed the balance and don't want to participate in the case and spread around their personal information even more than it already has been. As you are no doubt aware from the volume of emails we have received about this Kirill, not everyone is happy with DC and others' posts. Accept per SilkTork. NW (Talk) 13:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
    • While we cannot force anyone to pursue arbitration, neither can we allow one side of a dispute to shield their conduct from scrutiny by having uninvolved intermediaries pursue it for them. If we accept a case constructed so that the parties include Delicious carbuncle but not any of the people he is alleged to have harassed, then it seems we've already prejudged the outcome. Kirill  14:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Like, AGK, I'd like to see how Delicious carbuncle responds t the clerk's post on his talk page before voting. Courcelles 15:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Mars

Initiated by Robert McClenon (talk) at 16:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Robert McClenon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• WarrenPlatts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BatteryIncluded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Robertinventor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AWarrenPlatts&diff=564241076&oldid=564023988

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ABatteryIncluded&diff=564241227&oldid=563846231

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ARobertinventor&diff=564241419&oldid=564172220

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Attempt to resolve

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Mars&diff=562144138&oldid=562130147
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Mars&diff=562857647&oldid=562853738

Multiple article content Requests for Comments have been opened. Links are as follows:

Talk:Planetary protection

Talk:Mars sample return mission

Talk:Manned mission to Mars

However, conduct issues are preventing effective resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon

There is a content dispute concerning articles about the (human and robotic) exploration of Mars. The content issues are primarily about the extent to which there should be coverage of risks of return of Martian organisms to Earth.

However, user conduct issues make it nearly impossible to resolve the content dispute.

The Arbitration Committee is not being asked to resolve the content dispute, but is being asked to address conduct issues that prevent resolution of the content dispute.

Evidence is at present available on the page: User:Robert McClenon/Mars Notes

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Summary

The underlying content issue has to do with the risks of Martian exploration, primarily with regard to the return of Martian samples, possibly containing life, to Earth, but also other risks, such as to human astronauts. One editor, Robert Walker, wishes to document these risks at length, both with mainstream references and with fringe references. He also has a difficult discussion style in that he tends to post walls of text to article talk pages, which have the effect of a filibuster. Two editors, Warren Platts and BatteryIncluded, wish to remove all of his contributions. The latter two editors have resorted to personal attacks and bullying on Misplaced Pages to try to topic-ban him, and used a vote on a contentious AFD to decide to remove all of his contributions. Recent efforts to resolve the content issues by formal Requests for Comments to bring in a larger audience resulted in a merge proposal that was the subject of an RFC being closed by Warren Platts based on a transient consensus. It was subsequently reopened, but it appears to the filer that normal dispute resolution has been stifled, and that Warren Platts and BatteryIncluded are claiming ownership of the contested article in order to exclude both fringe material citing risks of exploration of Mars and mainstream material to the same effect. ArbCom intervention is requested. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Possible remedies

Appropriate remedies might include discretionary sanctions on articles related to the exploration of Mars, and interaction bans between Warren Platts and Robert Walker and between BatteryIncluded and Robert Walker. If personal attack parole is still an available remedy for the ArbCom, it might be considered. Also, it might be useful to caution editors strongly that content disputes should be submitted to formal Requests for Comments to attract more participants to obtain a broader consensus, rather than have slow-motion edit warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC) @Penwhale: I have included headings and will provide a summary. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Warren Platts

The two Roberts have wasted enough of my time. I quit. That should satisfy you Mr. McClenon. I got an AIAA paper and NASA grant to write. There is a reason people refer to the Misplaced Pages as "The Oracle". Logging out. Warren Platts (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by BatteryIncluded

After more than 45 pages (screens) by R. Walker claiming that cosmic radiation is "harmless" to life , , I am very happy not interacting with Robert Walker any more, an WP:SPA and IMO: a troll on a soap-box that demands his "freedom of speech".

Yes, I fully agree with WarrenPlatts in that the information introduced by R. Walker are editorial rants, and fringe at best; and in the case of "harmless cosmic radiation": is simply WP:CHEESE.

Comically, my agreeing with W. Platts, brought about sock-puppetry charges by Robert Walker, (, and User talk:Robertinventor#Your errors). Although Robert McClenon "officially" claims I am not likely a sock-puppet, he seems obsessed at at implicating me in the fray as if I was.. If it was not funny enough, R. Walker even blames me in this edit summary for an edit done by WarrenPlatts.

McClenon's summary is another charge that I am a suck-puppet of Platts: "Warren Platts and BatteryIncluded wish to remove all of his contributions, personal attacks and bullying on Misplaced Pages to try to topic-ban him." I specifically requested to not ban R. Walker , so McClenon is not a neutral party as he pretends.

So once again, I strongly decline McClenon repeated requests that I be forced to interact with R. Walker and be part of his edit war. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Robert Walker

Sorry didn't realise you'd be ruling so soon. You may be right but to explain some things:

I have a tendency to write a lot, and to write too much when I panic. All my writing on this topic removed in a few weeks plus many extreme insults, lead to anxiety and panic. That's the reason for the volume of text and I apologise to those inconvenienced.

The material deleted is notable, with sources such as ESF, NRC, Office of Planetary Protection. All those sources cover topic of exceedingly low probability but possible environmental disruption of Earth by a returned sample which is not WP:FRINGE.

Concerns of possible environmental disruption was raised by Carl Sagan in 1970s. Need to take precautions against this was confirmed by later studies.

The main differences are:

• Official POV - safe sample return to Earth possible provided suitable precautions are taken against environmental disruption and other contamination
• ICAMSR - Only possible after extensive "in situ" examination on Mars and quarantine in orbit.
• Zubrin - risk has no scientific validity.
  
  

You have to talk about this to cover the topic adequately. It is important to make clear that the official view is that return can be carried out safely.

The problem I had was impossibility of dispute resolution due to opponents conduct. The situation has eased mainly because I no longer try to edit on these topics. The MSR article is now less biased after others listened to my comments on the talk page, am happy there. But overall Mars Project and Misplaced Pages remain biased towards Zubrin's end of the spectrum as a result of removal of so much by Warren Platts. In the whole encyclopedia, two pages remain, both short, plus one section and other shorter mentions.

Mars Project also no longer has Concerns sections in its Mars colonization articles.

Also all material stating a possibility of present day habitability of microhabitats on the surface of Mars has been removed, or qualified as impossible. This was subject of a multi day conference last February, and numerous papers. News summary: Mars May Be Habitable Today, Scientists Say. How can you call that WP:CHEESE?

Dispute resolution impossible, Warren Platts is too disruptive. Battery Included refuses to speak to me.

I do have a bias, declared it early on. My opponents have a bias too, towards Zubrin's minority view on contamination issues. I offered to rewrite with help of friend of similar POV to them. My main opponent rejected that, saying . That is not practically possible, as you can judge from notes.

For more including drafts, Goals for Arbitration

On socking, was misunderstandings on my part plus inexperience, now cleared up with help of Robert McClenon and Farthered. I do not wish to press allegations, and the furthest it got was asking more experienced wikipedians for help.

Comment by Someone not using his real name

Maybe this should have been reported to WP:AN or WP:ANI first? It looks like there's only one editor here who has caused most of the problems by more or less civil, but surely very determined WP:POVPUSH. I think a community topic ban would be a rather likely outcome. As for any suspected sockpuppets, that should be reported to WP:SPI. I don't see how an interaction ban between BatteryIncluded and Robert Walker could possibly work out given that the two are the main actors on the article's talk page. User:Snow Rise has provided a third opinion over there, which is probably a better summary of the dispute than what has been presented above. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Since I don't see a link above, the AfD started by Warren Platts is Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Concerns for an early Mars sample return. The text in question can be read here. Looking at the subsequent discussion on Talk:Mars sample return mission, I see that although Robert Walker has continued posting voluminous advocacy for his alarmist POV, there are enough editors (including Warren Platts) working to keep that in check. I conclude that this is not something that the community can't handle, so I would recommend that ArbCom decline this request. In particular, the proposed interaction ban with Warren Platts is an obviously bad idea that would facilitate fringe POV pushing and be detrimental to article content. If anything needs to be done is to topic ban Robert Walker if he exhausts the other editors' patience, but he seems to have moderated his approach somewhat . Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Back-contamination is worth reading, well, if you like gigantic monologues. I should note that the "evil-doer" there (meaning the person who deleted Robert Walker's contributions to that page) was someone not named as a party here. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by DanHobley

I am a longstanding editor on mainly other sections of the Mars project, and became aware of issues surrounding Mars Sample Return articles through that talkpage. I have been attempting to resolve some of the specific science and article content issues behind this RfA, and have done my best to shepherd the talkpage discussions to resolvable specific issues.

I feel this action was taken too prematurely, and has only aggravated a situation that was already starting to ease. While BI and WP have manifestly been uncivil and hostile to RW, it’s also worth noting that RW has also violated a string of wiki policies, often repeatedly (and some of them still – esp. WP:SOAPBOX), which is what initiated this whole thing. See, e.g., RM’s notes here. I emphasize that the issue here is protocol, civility and personality based; I would categorize the bulk of BI’s and WP’s actual edits as legitimate, if executed rudely.

The article merge Interplanetary contamination -> Planetary protection by WP, which apparently triggered RM’s call for this RfA -User_talk:Robertinventor#Improper Merger – was quickly reverted, with a sincere apology from WP for screwing it up . I note BI is a very active, skilled, and helpful editor on the Project Mars pages. A wideranging ban on him from this project would be both disproportionate and actively harmful to the project. WP is also a valuable voice. I also endorse most of what the anonymous commenter above has pointed out. The Mars community can handle this (Mars sample return is already approaching consensus), but not if these key players can’t take place in the discussion.

I recommend the committee ‘’decline’’ the case. While those editors actions have been aggressive, this has largely passed, and IMO any action from RM’s list above that could be taken would actively harm the wiki more than it would help. DanHobley (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Nyttend

Absolutely do not take this case. If Arbcom start sanctioning people for offwiki things, they'll be going way past what's reasonable: our policies only apply to our website, and not to other websites. It would be as big an injustice (in principle, although of course not as much in practice) as one country claiming that it had the right to punish people from other countries for doing things that were against the first country's laws. Nyttend (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Please ignore the above statement. It was meant for the case request regarding Delicious Carbuncle, and I somehow didn't notice that there were two separate case requests. I have no opinion on the Mars case request and hope that this statement won't be taken into account. Nyttend (talk) 01:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• Just a note for the two Roberts: Your notes are really hard to read (cannot accurately tell who wrote what); also, arbitrators normally prefer a summary of events; you don't have to supply every evidence at the same time, but readability, as well as concision, matters. - Penwhale | 10:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Mars: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <1/6/0/0>-Mars-2013-07-14T19:44:00.000Z">

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

• Awaiting statements. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)"> ">
  • Decline at this time. Although I see both conduct as well as content aspects to this dispute, some of the editors have opined that tensions are easing and that we should give the problem time to sort itself out. If necessary, the issues can be brought through earlier steps of dispute resolution or on ANI. Please note that our declining to accept the request for arbitration doesn't mean we consider the dispute unimportant, simply that there are likely to be better ways of resolving it than an arbitration case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• This looks very much like a content dispute at the moment, I would advise the parties to look at other methods of dispute resolution first of all, such as mediation or the dispute resolution noticeboard. The important thing is to get more eyes on the matter, to help reach some consensus. However, I don't believe the case currently requires arbitration, so I decline. Worm(talk) 09:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• Decline per NYB. NW (Talk) 15:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• Decline pretty much per NYB Courcelles 15:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• As this matter has been through some attempts to resolve by the community - including the third opinion not linked above by the initiator; and it appears to a fairly clear case of User:Robertinventor (also known as Robert Walker) driving other users to distraction, and not listening to reason, we could deal with this by motion, topic-banning Robertinventor from the Mars topic. I feel this page: User:Robertinventor/Present day habitability of Mars dispute is useful. Robertinventor created it on 15th July - even though on that date, the statement he regards as BatteryIncluded's OR, was cited to Biogeosciences, a peer-reviewed journal. We don't need to send this back to the community and waste any more time. Content editors need protecting from other users who are attempting to pursue their own or fringe theories, and are not listening to reason. The incivility that has taken place toward Robertinventor also needs commenting on, as it is not acceptable; however, it is somewhat understandable, and so mitigates any need for a formal admonishment. SilkTork 10:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

For clarity SilkTork added an accept vote to the tally. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• • I understand SilkTork to be suggesting that we have a situation here whose proper outcome is obvious, so we could adopt a remedy by motion. That is a quite defensible position—but isn't it the same type of procedural innovation that the Committee is in the process of deciding, in connection with the Syrian Civil War matter, that we shouldn't engage in? Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Decline per NYB. Kirill  14:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Decline per NYB. Salvio 18:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)