Revision as of 06:54, 17 February 2010

• 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

ChildofMidnight

Initiated by Ryan Postlethwaite at 20:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• ChildofMidnight

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

I wish to bring to the attention of the Arbitration Committee the conduct of ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as I believe we have issues which need the involvement of the committee. ChildofMidnight injects himself into just about every single high drama discussion on Misplaced Pages. Instead of helping to resolve the dispute, he flings personal attack and cries of admin abuse left right and centre. His recent RfC documents this quite well with a long list of unsourced accusations against other editors and general defamation of other contributors. The RfC showed extremely strong support towards the filer with a large number of contributors helping to certify the RfC and few people commenting in support of ChildofMidnight - this shows that his behaviour is viewed as unacceptable by a large proportion of the community. Since his RfC, he has continued his battleground mentality in the global warming topic (and that is clearly one which needs calm minds rather than a "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality). This has led to a long thread currently on the administrators' noticeboard (see here for the discussion) which was started because ChildofMidnight was blocked. Whilst the block for a specific incident was in my opinion (and a few others) viewed as poor and he was swiftly unblocked, the long thread that has ensued shows that ChildofMidnight has continued to display his problematic behaviour despite his recent RfC.

It should be pointed out that ChildofMidnight was subjected to two remedies in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles - He was topic banned from Obama articles and admonished and restriced. Putting this together with his problematic conduct in the global warming field, this is clearly an editor who is disruptive in a number of high drama areas and I believe the Arbitration Committee are the best people to look over his conduct and decide on appropriate remedies. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

CoM should feel free to add his statement above this, I'm more of an observer here. I just wanted to point out that the list of parties does not really reflect the breadth and depth of disputes in which CoM is involved, but the list of certifying parties and statements on the RfC is quite compelling. Durova, in particular, is these days a torch-bearer for WP:AGF. Several people have opined that CoM could save an awful lot of trouble by just ditching the hyperbole and superfluous rhetoric, but the reverse seems to be happening. Even if it did happen I see a user who is not right enough of the time to justify the tenacity with which they approach every single dispute; fights seem to be picked almost at random and based largely on the admins involved not the merits or otherwise of the individual case.

I think a topic ban on climate change (to add to Obama) and an injunction against becoming involved in other people's disputes is probably the only way short of an outright siteban to reduce the massive time-sink caused by this user. It's been steeply downhill since he Godwinated a discussion last year and I don't see any way out of that hole without forcibly separating him from all his current conflicts and stopping him taking on any new ones. That is, of course, if the committee even thinks he's worth one last final last last final last chance after all the others... Guy (Help!) 22:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Bigtimepeace

I suppose I know as much about this situation as anyone, having initiated the RfC about ChildofMidnight after months of interactions that were, to say the least, nettlesome. It should be said at the outset that ChildofMidnight views me quite negatively, so no one should take on faith what I have to say here as I cannot be described as a completely disinterested observer, though I think I've generally been pretty objective throughout this ongoing problem and have genuinely worked in the spirit of "resolving a dispute."

I've really hoped to avoid an ArbCom case, and I'd still like to do that. If others deem it necessary and the committee wants to take the case then that's fine too, but I still can't help thinking that we should be able to resolve this outside of a case. I particularly draw the committee's attention (and that of other editors) to this subthread of the discussion on WP:AN already referenced by Ryan, where User:Spartaz has proposed a possible remedy that has gained the support of a couple of other people. Unfortunately that conversation seems to be flagging and possibly does not have enough eyes, but some sort of community-imposed remedy regarding ChildofMidnight seems more ideal than an ArbCom case (for one thing we haven't tried it yet), though I understand the argument for coming straight here instead.

At base I view this as a sad and completely avoidable situation. The consensus of the RfC was clear—ChildofMidnight does a lot of good work and is valued as a contributor to this project but also has caused an unacceptable amount of disruption. The latter could be corrected very easily by simply adopting a different approach to interactions with other editors, which would in part require a healthy injection of assume good faith into ChildofMidnight's approach to Misplaced Pages matters. C of M has in the past raised complaints which are valid, but often (not always, which is why there is hope) does so with such vitriol and the-other-fella/lady-is-evil mentality that it proves enormously disruptive to collaborative editing. What is sad to me is that this is completely unnecessary, yet numerous good-faith efforts to steer ChildofMidnight onto the straight and narrow have fallen on deaf ears (the helpful comments here are just the latest example).

ChildofMidnight undoubtedly thinks I have it in for him and unfortunately I cannot convince him otherwise, but in no way is that the case. My involvement in all of this is completely by happenstance and goes back to doing admin work on the Obama articles last spring, and at this point I just want the problems so clearly documented (and agreed to) in the RfC to stop and for ChildofMidnight to continue editing as they do 80-90% of the time—constructively and in good faith. If ArbCom can come up with remedies that help (and personally I would not even consider supporting anything as drastic as a ban or lengthy block at this point) then I'm all for it. If the community can come up with a workable approach on the WP:AN thread then that's great too. The status quo is not working though. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the scope, while I agree with JohnWBarber that there are a lot of problems with the global warming editing nexus, I don't think that should be rolled into an ArbCom case about ChildofMidnight if we have one. Examining other editors who have had significant contact with ChildofMidnight could of course be appropriate, but if we need an Arb case for AGW articles that should be completely separate as it goes well beyond ChildofMidnight, and ChildofMidnight's issues go well beyond global warming articles. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by JohnWBarber

It's a bit of an odd time to be filing this against CoM, because he hasn't done anything even worth a block recently, he's taken a break and he's taken back some of the statements he made that others objected to. Nevertheless, the issues surrounding him go way back and it's difficult for any single person to read through the huge history. Numerous friendly editors have asked CoM to chill out, and I'm willing to chat with him about this in private in order to keep the situation calm.

Ryan Postlethwaite writes: battleground mentality in the global warming topic (and that is clearly one which needs calm minds rather than a "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality). True, and therefore RP's focus is too narrow. CoM is far, far, far from the only editor at the AGW ("anthropogenic global warming") articles with sharp words coming from his keyboard. The focus of this should be broadened to include the continued problems at those articles. The general sanctions regime has helped move some of the incivility and personal attacks off the discussion pages and onto the sanctions reports page, which is an improvement, but accusations that admins are playing favorites may be true. Over at A/N, I haven't been able to get a good explanation from User:BozMo about his differing treatment of CoM and William Connolley.

The focus of this should also be broadened to include behavior by editors who attack CoM, repeatedly, without provocation. CoM's own reaction to these attacks is sometimes unfortunate, but the attacks against him are real, provocative and hurtful. It'd be in the best interests of Misplaced Pages to straighten out User:Tarc, User:Mathsci and probably others. I've posted some diffs about those two at the A/N discussion and I've got a few more to add here when I have time. (Tarc vs. CoM: Tarc's attitude at AN/I and at warning admin's talk page and later MATHSCI vs. CoM: here's a combination of many edits by CoM, minding his own business back in October , and here's a sudden visitation from William Connolley and hot on Connolley's heels is Mathsci to revert all of CoM's work , that Oct 8, 2009 edit is the only time Mathsci ever had an interest in editing Honey; more: , read this short thread and edit summary from Dec 15 M's reaction is to what looks like friendly raillery based on M's Dec 5 announced participation in his "bacon challenge"); then, twelve days and thirteen days after the Dec 15 dust-up, CoM is fine for Mathsci to chat with. Then it's back to antagonism later. If Mathsci was friendly with CoM for a while, what made him so upset with CoM later? If M's participation in CoM's "bacon challenge" wasn't friendly, why did M say he would participate? If M finds CoM so obnoxious, why did M chat with CoM on his talk page in late December, two weeks after the last tiff? Mathsci was either disturbingly erratic or playing some kind of weird, taunting game with CoM. Either way, it's spooky a wild rollercoaster of friendliness and intensely angry words that, if it were directed at me, would bother me mostly for its bizarre swings; but I don't know everything that was going on, and perhaps CoM is/was fine with it. It seems to me it would make the environment stressful.

No editor should have to put up with Tarc's and Mathsci's behavior (most of which is outside the AGW article area).

When CoM complains about being unfairly treated, he's right in at least some occasions I've seen and probably wrong at other times. Admins get upset at him and some of his statements invite that. Postlethwaite calling him a "drama-loving troll" at the top of his A/N posting, a statement that was totally unnecessary to RP's stated purpose for the thread, is a small example of bad admin behavior. User:BozMo's block seems to be another. It might be worthwhile for ArbCom to appoint volunteer admins to handle the AGW general sanctions regime: I don't know if the accusations of biased conduct against admins there are true, but in principle it would be easy for biased admins to be attracted there for just the same reason that biased editors are. If biased admins are found to be a problem, ArbCom could appoint very seasoned, even-tempered admins who can keep their own POV out of the picture. Misplaced Pages sucks at covering big, controversial, hot topics, and this is one way of improving the picture. The AGW brouhaha is heading back to ArbCom anyway. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)promised diffs about Tarc and Mathsci added -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• @RyanPostlethwaite For someone complaining of CoM's unsourced accusations against other editors where was the sourcing for "drama loving troll" in the statement you refuse to take back days after you posted it? Come to think of it, how exactly would one source that broad, vague insult (at the top of an A/N thread, no less)? If ArbCom takes the case, use it as an opportunity to remind admins not to sink to the level they're accusing others of stooping down to. JohnWBarber (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• @Mathsci -- refactored, replacing "spooky" with what I meant by it. I certainly hope I'm misreading the history; no personal attack intended. Tension between Mathsci and CoM is the only relevant subject here and all I have to comment on regarding Mathsci. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Tarc

Barber's name-dropping jabs aside... it is regrettable that it has to come to this; ChildofMidnight perceives a great many editors, admins, and ArbCom members lined up against him, but in reality, his greatest opponent is himself. AN and AN/I have been tried. Topic bans, interaction bans, Arb Enforcements, Amendments, blocks imposed, some stick, some get rescinded. An RfC concluded with overwhelming opinion that CoM needed to change his ways, and he wrapped it up by launching broadsides against the completely uninvolved admin who closed it. This has been a long and steady downward spiral ever since last year's case, and it seems that another ArbCom is an inevitability. Tarc (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Addendum; this really should not be viewed through just the narrow lens of the global warming mess, as this are behavioral issues that far predate that. All of the stuff going on in that topic area is probably heading to ArbCom sooner or later all on its own by the looks of it. Tarc (talk) 03:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by ZuluPapa5*

I've recently encountered Child of Midnight (CoM) in the Climate Change articles, which are under probation. There are concerns about maintaining a NPOV, incivil article ownership and bias Probation Enforcement . Fortunately, CoM is one of the few who has made efforts to raise awareness to help improve the article environment (this is in my motivation here too); however, he was then caught up in a bad (maybe bias itself) block that preceded this Arbitration request. I believe this editor has fair and meritorious intentions for Misplaced Pages. His style has upset others; however, he has demonstrated good humor and diligence to go in where others run away, or are driven off, so as to benefit this project and .... the other editors who may be suffering a bad wrap. Admonishing his tone of language might be beneficial; however, I believe restricting his topics will not help Misplaced Pages. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

View by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

I don't think the listed parties would need any assistance to turn this case into an exceptionally ugly one. So if there are other means of resolving the issues, I strongly advise to bang the parties heads together and make them use those methods; the sense of urgency probably only adds more heat than light in the disputes (plural) being raised in this request. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Mathsci

I am commenting here because JohnWBarber left a note on my talk page. Unfortunately most of what JohnWBarber has written about above is completely stale and largely inaccurate. Some aspects relating to WMC have already been discussed in detail in the Abd&WMC ArbCom case.

ChildofMidnight seems for a brief period to have followed (wikistalked?) my creation of new articles. He attempted to edit an advanced article that I created essentially on my own, Butcher group, at a very early stage and left unhelpful comments on the talk page, which Charles Matthews later described as uninformed and off-topic. He also made some superficial edits to a very early version of Chateau of Vauvenargues, another article I essentially wrote myself - there CoM misunderstood the term bastide. Most of my time in article space is spent editing articles on mathematics, biographies, French culture or music (currently Handel concerti grossi Op.6, still in the works, following on Bach's Canonic Variations).

Subsequently I have not interacted with ChildoMidnight in article space, although we edited World Porridge Day together. He has subsequently asked me on my talk page about things related to French culture and once threatened as a joke to spank me. I participated in Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight, with the hope of helping him improve some aspects of his behaviour (cf the friendly discussion on the associated talk page). I have watched with some exasperation as he has repeated the same behaviour criticized there on the Climate Change probation page. His influence there has been to create chaos. I personally do not edit any global warming articles, nor have I expressed any view about global warming on wikipedia. I do feel that CoM has wasted a lot of time with unhelpful remarks and dramamongering on the Climate Change probation page. My personal view is that CoM is a likeable and useful editor, particularly in food related articles, but that elsewhere he seeks out drama too often. I think JohnWBarber's analysis of my editing is fundamentally flawed and that he should be more careful what he writes. In real life I am very busy. I oscillate between France, the USA and currently the University of Cambridge, where I am teaching a graduate course in Part III of the mathematical tripos and supervising undergraduates at my college. Inferences about my editing habits cannot really be made: I haven't been back in my home in France for a prolonged period since Christmas Eve and just before that my student had his thesis defence and I was running a one week conference. (Most of this information has in fact been mentioned by me on wikipedia.) I try not to bear grudges against wikipedians: that much should be clear from the remarks I made about User:PHG on WP:AE and my responses to user:Elonka's request for a mini-wiki meetup on my home territory.

ChildofMidnight exhibits two kinds of editing behaviour on wikipedia, one constructive and one disruptive. JohnWBarber seems surprised that wikipedians write about or react to these two opposite types of behaviour in completely different ways. On the other hand that's no excuse for him to use the word "spooky".

In this particular case it might be in the best interests of the encyclopedia for CoM to be topic banned from some or perhaps all project pages, but I hope that this could be decided by the community rather than ArbCom. I think ArbCom should refuse this case, which will only generate time-wasting drama. JohnWBarber's statement above is an example of such dramamongering. Mathsci (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

JohnWBarber, despite his refactoring, is still being deeply offensive in incorrectly proceeding as if there were some underlying social element to wikipedia - some kind of club for friends like Facebook. Here we are judged on the quality of our edits. I hope that my recent articles, which have been long and difficult to write, will speak for themselves. His own brand of crass schoolboy pseudopsychological analysis of random interchanges is extremely offensive. In normal circumstances he should strike most of the snide innuendos that he has written. These would normally merit some form of block. He seems to have lost all sense of proportion. There is no "relationship" between CoM and me, although as I've said I do quite like him when he is well behaved. I appreciate that JohnWBarber is a relatively recent arrival to wikipedia and might not therefore be familiar with normal decorum here. However, his completely unsupportable statements about me continue to cause deep offense. They are unreasonable and irrational attacks on a well established editor. What on earth does he think he's doing? If JohnWBarber mistakes exasperation at CoM's outbursts and misrepresentations as anger or otherwise, he should probably not be be participating in this request for arbitration. Mathsci (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Here for future reference is the diff of what CoM wrote to me in December , the "joke" I mentioned above. I would be extremely interested to hear JohnWBarber's explanation of this kind of interchange. What CoM wrote to me was not very nice at all. This was one of many visits by CoM to my talk page. Here is another more recent one. Mathsci (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

JzG has developed a skill for diplomacy. Not sure if I deserve his kind words, but here goes. We've all been concerned that this was headed toward either arbitration or a community sanction. ChildofMidnight is a prolific article creator mostly on encyclopedic and uncontroversial subjects, but has become better known to the community at large for two hot button political topics and for noticeboard participation which is often counterproductive.

CoM can be responsive to feedback when it's provided respectfully and gently. A few days ago a community consensus agreed that the most recent block on CoM was unnecessary, then CoM announced a wikibreak. That break is a very good idea. Although the break and that degree of responsiveness probably aren't enough to resolve the problems, they are steps in the right direction.

The best long term results usually happen when we encourage steps in the right direction. We have all seen the occasional administrator who blocks an editor shortly after the editor makes a retraction: it discourages the editor from attempts to be reasonable--why even try to do things right when one is going to get it anyway? The same effect holds true for arbitration. So although this case request is meritorious in many ways, it's also timed and framed in ways that undermine its chances of any good outcome and filed by someone whose recent statements have been heated.

Where is this headed? Suppose one takes Ryan Postlethwaite's opinion at face value; the counterargument is that trolls thrive in muddy waters and this is messier than it needs to be. I view CoM as a very good writer of culinary articles who runs a malfunctioning wheat-from-chaff separator and is equally sincere about whichever result it produces. If my Wiki Witch Crystal Ball is working, CoM will view Ryan's filing as a vendetta, and will react with an indignation that will appear--from Ryan's perspective--to confirm Ryan's worst opinions while leaving the Committee with very few options for remedy. Meanwhile a chorus of global warming skeptics will claim biased treatment and those complaints will resurface at the next global warming arbitration. Child of Midnight may need arbitration soon and perhaps another filing will happen next month or next summer. If so it would probably start on a better footing. If you want to do anything other than siteban CoM, please reject this case.

Statement by TS

I suggest that the most timely and drama-free way to address the problems would be to extend existing remedies by motion noting the community's feelings about the disruptive aspects of this otherwise valued volunteer, and curtailing his undesirable pot-stirring. --Tasty monster 19:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC) (Tony Sidaway on phone)

Statement by BozMo

Personally I sympathise most strongly with both of Guy and Durova above. At times CoM seems to make insightful comments and be an interesting contributor and at others he seems almost to be throwing a tantrum; accusing any authority of abuse without any differentiation. As a parent, I have learned that patience and positive feedback work better in the long run than sanctions but as a parent I have both stronger obligations and also a better foundation of relationship than exists for dealing with an editor like CoM on Misplaced Pages. Whether we should move to ban CoM from certain areas or behaviours or try to rebuild mutual trust per Durova in the end is a reflection on whether you think Misplaced Pages is a community or a project. The answer to this question is not trivial. --BozMo talk 20:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Beeblebrox

There have been some very insightful statements made here already, and I'm only marginally involved so I'll be brief. CoM is a great contributor of content in many areas, but he often responds in an overly-defensive manner if he feels attacked and has repeatedly failed to AGF with his fellow editors. However, he is far from the only user involved in what he has correctly characterized as a "toxic environment" surrounding climate change related articles. This situation is becoming a real embarrassment to the project, and I think stricter, swifter enforcement of the already existing sanctions in this area, and possibly expanding those restrictions is something the committee should also consider. Many users, including myself, don't want to touch these articles with a ten foot pole at this point because of all the acrimony on the talk pages, and the never-ending TLDR circular debates that never seem to be resolved. I realize the matter under discussion is CoM's behavior, but there is also a larger issue to consider here. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Aymatth2

CoM is an original and prolific editor who has started many useful articles and improved many others, often pushing the boundaries and adding a lot of value. CoM sometimes tries to remove perceived bias from articles on controversial subjects. That can lead to kickback from editors with different opinions, and to passionate, heated and sometimes futile debates. When my children were small they often got into arguments with each other. My advice to them was "I don't care who started it, quit fighting". Years later, we are still on good terms. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Response to example

I looked at this diff, which was puzzling. Then I scrolled down and looked at the exchange: typical of CoM. See User talk:ChildofMidnight/Archive_15#EWUB. Maybe I am just as bad, which is why I don't see the problem. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• Just noting that it may be a while before a response is posted as on the 13th ChildofMidnight felt that a short break was in order, posted here. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/0/0/4)

• Accept. Steve Smith (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Noting that if this case evolves in a direction that is primarily or even largely about the AGW issue, I will recuse. Steve Smith (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Planning on accepting, but do not like to formally accept a case until both sides have a chance to make a statement. SirFozzie (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: I'd like to hear what ChildofMidnight has to say.  Roger Davies 21:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: Awaiting some response from ChildofMidnight. Should the case be accepted, I would be inclined to restrict it to CoM's editorial behaviour; this is not the proposed case in which to consider the climate/global warming issue as a whole. Risker (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Accept and restrict to CoM's behavior. Shell 04:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• Hold until ChildOfMidnight either submits a statement or resumes regular editing without submitting one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Transcendental Meditation movement

Initiated by MuZemike at 19:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties

Involved administrators

• MuZemike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) filing party
• Will Beback (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• J.delanoy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Dominic (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Jpgordon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Dreadstar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Involved non-administrators

• Kala Bethere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tuckerj1976 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jmh649 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fladrif (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• David spector (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Littleolive oil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TimidGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Roseapple (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bigweeboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Luke Warmwater101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Keithbob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ChemistryProf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Haworth777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hickorybark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rbonthala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Soren0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Infomillionaire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Viyyer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dumpala.dn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hassna.dibaba1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vuara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ruinia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• EddieC Vito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Involved IPs and IP ranges

209.152.112.0/21

• 209.152.117.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 209.152.115.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

69.18.0.0/18

• 69.18.16.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 69.18.2.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 69.18.36.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 69.18.4.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 69.18.4.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 69.18.5.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 69.18.50.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 69.18.50.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 69.18.50.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 69.18.53.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 69.18.62.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

63.162.80.0/23

• 63.162.80.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 63.162.81.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 63.162.81.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 63.162.81.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

76.76.224.0/20

• 76.76.228.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 76.76.232.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 76.76.232.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 76.76.232.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 76.76.232.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 76.76.233.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 76.76.233.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 76.76.237.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest noticeboard discussions:
  • Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Transcendental Meditation
  • Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 35#User 76.76. etc and Transcendental Meditation Article
  • Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 30#Article: Transcendental Meditation, Users TimidGuy and Littleolive oil
  • Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 2#Transcendental Meditation
  • Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 5#Transcendental Meditation
  • Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 11#Transcendental Meditation
• Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive70#Use of "crackpot" in John Hagelin
• Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 17#Yogic Flying and the Maharishi Effect
• User talk:Bigweeboy#Sockpuppets
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation movement
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation
  • Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 23#Every morning a different IP
• Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/TM editors
  • Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/TM editors/Archive

Statement by MuZemike

After communicating on-wiki and with a couple of editors privately about this quickly-escalating issue regarding articles related to the Transcendental Meditation movement (including some BLPs that have been reported in the past to the BLP noticeboard). I see many parallels with the Scientology ArbCom case (WP:ARBSCI) in which I think it's now time for the Committee to help sort out. According to the Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/TM editors/Archive and the various checks that were run during the course of this SPI case and before, there is also some private matters and evidence by a few editors in which I believe the Committee will have to look at and sort out. In my capacity, I have been involved in giving advice as to what should be done here. I recommended that we go through with the SPI to see if it would have been possible for the community to handle this without resorting to Arbitration. After seeing the latest CheckUser results and now fully realizing the complexity of this situation, I do not think that will be possible, and I believe the Committee will need to step in and help out here. After a very lengthy SPI case which has gone on for over two weeks, it is of my opinion that any single administrator cannot and should not sort this out alone.

In a nutshell, this is about a group of editors involved with articles regarding the Transcedental Meditation movement (TM). Many of these editors and IP ranges are from Fairfield, Iowa and Maharishi Vedic City, Iowa, which is home to the Maharishi University of Management, who runs the TM movement. As said in the SPI case and as with the Scientology case, many of the editors seem to be single-purpose (see proposal 10.1 in the ARBSCI case) and likely meatpuppetry (see proposals 11 through 14 in the same ARBSCI case) with the possibility of some sock puppetry going on.

I have listed all users and IPs (including ranges) involved in the SPI case as well as all those who participated in the SPI case, including those CheckUsers involved in running the various checks. –MuZemike 19:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Will Beback

The Transcendental Meditation movement is often considered a new religious movement, has been called a cult, and has been accused of promoting fringe theories and pseudoscience, including dubious medical treatments. It is an international movement with real estate valued at over $3.5 billion.

The TM editors have engaged in POV pushing, tag team editing, tendentious editing, and have bitten newcomers and driven away even established editors. Their COI issues have been raised repeatedly, but they have rebuffed previous complaints.

While many accounts have been found to be using the same IP range, nine accounts have been significantly involved in TM articles recently. (Note: there have also been other accounts tied to the movement that edited the articles heavily in the past but are now inactive: Nima Baghaei, Lumiere/-Lumière/Étincelle, Peterklutz/85.30.186.206, Maharishi International Publications Department/212.178.127.50, Sparaig)

• Bigweeboy
• ChemistryProf
• Haworth777
• Hickorybark
• Keithbob
• Littleolive oil
• Luke Warmwater101
• Roseapple
• TimidGuy (sometimes editing logged-out as 76.76)

These nine accounts have dominated the TM-related articles. Their POVs are indistinguishable from one another.

In addition to being the lead editors on topics directly related to TM, some of these editors have also been strongly involved in promoting the movement's POV on tangentially related articles such as What the Bleep Do We Know!? and Flipped SU(5).

A leaked document posted on an "anti-TM" blog describes a plan to coordinate responses by TM insiders to blog threads that concern TM. It refers to the existence of "team captains" who can coordinate a team response, including handing off issues from one person to another in cases of disputes. It seems likely that, at a minimum, the same coordination is occurring regarding Misplaced Pages editing.

Background: In 1971 the newly formed Maharishi International University (now called Maharishi University of Management or MUM) bought the campus of a defunct college in Fairfield, Iowa. Since then that small town has become a "magnet" for TM practitioners and the adjoining settlement of Maharishi Vedic City, Iowa is the literal capital of the movement's Global Country of World Peace. Members of the movement are well-known for frequently repeating that "over 600 studies" have proven the benefits of TM and other products and techniques taught or sold by the movement. Most of those studies have been conducted by the faculty of MUM. While the MUM does not actually run the movement, the movement in the U.S. is run from Fairfield/MVC by people such as Bevan Morris and John Hagelin who work at MUM.

Statement by Jmh649 (Doc James)

I agree with the above. This has been an ongoing issue of a COI / POV editing by a small group of persistent editors. This needs to be settled. I first edited this topic area Jan 19 2010 after coming across a discussion at WP:MED. My first edits were adding a 2007 review article which was somehow missed in favor of primary research from the 1970s. . The main issues since then has been multiple attempts to obscure and / or misrepresent the conclusions of this review by editors from TM movement.

Attempts include

Most of the results of the review were removed from the lead here and the remaining bits were reworded to make it less understandable by Olive Again Olive tries to change the meaning of the text to make it sound like this review is limited rather than the evidence it is based upon being limited. and again An attempt to reword it so that the review does not appear to related to TM Here TimidGuy attempts to obscure the conclusions of the review And again and again Here he claims a different review is an update of the 2007 review which it is not Here Chemistry Prof attempts to weaken the conclusion And again And again

I subsequently added a Cochrane collaboration which was not in our article. Here TimidGuy adds text not in the summary of this review in what appears to be an attempt to weaken the conclusion And again Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by J.delanoy

I was asked privately to look at several accounts involved in this back in early January. I don't actually remember much about what I found (transferring to a new university does not have a beneficial effect on one's memory), but based on what I wrote, I had decided that it was too complicated for me to deal with. I can forward my half of the conversation to arbcom-l if desired. J.delanoy_adds 20:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Fladrif

I concur that this is a matter that will take ArbCom to deal with. The Scientology ArbCom decision is directly on point and controlling precedent for this situation. Prior attempts at informal dispute resolution have been numerous and utterly fruitless. Direct instructions from Admins to COI Editors that they not edit the TM-related articles at multiple WP:COIN discussions are openly and defiantly ignored. Sockpuppetry/meatpuppery is rampant, as noted above. More to come, I expect. Fladrif (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The sources and links already provided by others provide ample support for accepting the Arbitration request, so I'll not expand on those. The Fairfield sockdrawer editors can speak for themselves as to whether they think that the request should be accepted, but I note that one of them recently expressed a strikingly enthusiastic desire that this go to Arbitration. Fladrif (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Jpgordon

This does seem to me as exactly analogous to the Scientology cases. I've not analyzed any behavioral evidence, but the technical evidence I have seen warrants ArbCom's attention. I recommend accepting the case. --jpgordon 20:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

As filing party on the two most recent Scientology arbitrations, agreeing with Will Beback's assessment. Unlike the recent Chabad Movement case which was a content dispute with no tangible evidence of conflict of interest, this time technical evidence links a large number of accounts to a very narrow set of IP addresses.

The fact that these happen to be small religious/spiritual movements is relevant only to the extent that a firm distinction deserves to be expressed: adherence to a belief system does not in itself generate conflict of interest. Individual adherents of belief systems--old or new, large or small--are all welcome to edit Misplaced Pages and need not fear sanction when they edit in accordance with policies.

It does, however, generate a conflict of interest to edit from organizational computers and Internet connections. That holds equally true for spiritual organizations, manufacturing firms, political parties, etc. Whenever a large number of accounts appear to be editing with the same organizational WP:COI toward the same promotional goals, and normal community attempts to curb that behavior fail, we should respond with equivalent and appropriate firmness no matter who they are. Durova 20:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Keithbob

• I am an independent editor. I am not a sock puppet or a meat puppet. I am in fact a neutral editor who abides by WP:COI. I urge the Committee to accept this case so that I may have the opportunity to present evidence to demonstrate this.
• There are two Users who edit almost exclusively on the TM article(s). One (Kala Bethere) has been cited in two diffs submitted by Will Beback in his statement above. Curiously, both these users, Kala Bethere and Tuckerj1976, are absent from the Involved Parties list and so I have added them to that list and notified them of this proposed Arbitration case.-- — Kbob • Talk • 02:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Dreadstar

I agree that this case should be accepted by ArbCom, primarily to settle the endless stream of COI accusations once and for all. Other issues also need to be investigated and addressed; including the behavior of editors involved in the TM articles who are constantly engaged in incivility, personal attacks, and tendentious and disruptive behavior; as well as addressing what appear to be other sockpuppets and SPA accounts, all editing from what seem to be an "anti-TM" pov. Any evaluation of claims that certain editors appear to be “promoting” TM should also take into account the continual addition of negative content by "anti-TM" editors, which may make it superficially appear that the others are “promoting” instead of abiding by NPOV. I'm also concerned that we are apparently indicting as "TM promoters," the entire city of Fairfield, Iowa and all the IP address ranges of the local ISP. It seems a bit too broad of a scope to me.

I would also like ArbCom to look further into the issue of what has been termed "pseudo-outing"; where an editor had previously posted personal information, but later redacted it, only to have it repeated by other editors on multiple article, user and noticeboard talk pages. ArbCom partially addressed this in Misplaced Pages:ARBMAC2#Outing, but in light of potential safety and peace-of-mind concerns from real-life, off-wiki harassment due to the revealed personal information, I hope ArbCom can tighten the restrictions on repeating redacted personal information. If there is a need to use the redacted personal information, then that use should be restricted – to emails to Arbitrators or possibly administrators working on an issue that requires it, but it should never, ever be re-posted on Misplaced Pages. And we certainly shouldn’t be gauging how to handle those who repeat redacted personal information by the very narrow scope of WP:COI. Dreadstar ☥ 03:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Sole Soul

SirFozzie, imagine a judge say what you've said before hearing from all the parties. I'm sure you will be open minded, but you have to send that message to the involved parties. Sole Soul (talk) 03:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Olive

I would ask that this case be accepted for Arbitration. Consistent and constant mischaracterization, incivility, harassment, clear agenda, as well as systemic bias have become the editing norm on some of these articles. These systemic biases, perceptions that are underlying and I hope are unconscious, skew and set the scale for what is neutral. Such a standard, set over time because of the consistent and repeated accusations, and the inability of editors to rebut or refute the numerous accusations on numerous articles, becomes a created and eventually accepted truth. This is a dangerous standard and modus operandi for any collaborative project. The environment on many articles has increasingly deteriorated and become almost untenable, and at this point it would seem only clear directions from arbitration could remedy the situation.

I am not a sock or meat puppet. I am, as I have stated numerous times, a neutral editor and stand by my editing record.

I would suggest that the similar IPs are a result of internet providers that supply bandwidth not only to SE Iowa, but also to the university, and uses dynamically assigned IPs.

I would assume that this case will be dealt with on its own merits and not as has been suggested on several ocassions by the some editors here, to its perceived parallels to Scientology, an unfair position that creates and establishes bias.(olive (talk) 06:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC))

Statement by BigweeBoy

I am not a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. I am a neutral, independent editor who endeavors to followed Wiki guidelines and to be civil to other editors, while focusing on the content of the articles. --BwB (talk) 12:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Timidguy

My Internet service provider (Lisco) uses DHCP, such that I am assigned various IPs. I noticed last August that it seems to assign a different IP number every day, which I don't think is typical for DHCP, though I don't know much about this. I asked technical support about it, knowing it could cause a problem in Misplaced Pages down the road. They confirmed that it was happening, said that it was unusual, and said they didn't know why it so frequently assigned a different IP. Since Fairfield is a small town, it's quite likely that an IP assigned to me today would at some point be assigned to another Lisco customer editing here. I've never edited TM-related articles from another account and no one other than me has ever edited using the TimidGuy account. Quite a few of the accounts listed above have never done any TM-related editing. Since these accounts aren't implicated in any way, I think it's unfair to these editors to make public the city in which they live. By the way, Lisco's DHCP server seems to only assign a different IP after a period of hours of inactivity. You won't, therefore, find instances of an IP editing from one account shortly thereafter editing from another account, as a sock puppet would do. The meat puppet question is a separate issue, and it will be good for Arbcom to look at the evidence.

I welcome arbitration. Will has raised many points I'd like to contest, but I'll mention just one: the science. It's true that many studies have been done by MUM researchers, but it's also true that there are many by unaffiliated researchers. One such study, for example, was a 2006 randomized controlled trial involving over 100 subjects that was published in Archives of Internal Medicine, a journal published by the American Medical Association. The study was conducted at Cedar Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. The first four authors of the study have no affiliation with TM. Authors 5-7 do, but their role was limited to making comments on a draft of the study. This study was deleted from the TM article. because per WP:MEDRS it's considered a primary source. MEDRS says that secondary sources should be used, such as research reviews, meta-analyses, and medical textbooks. I can understand the deletion of the primary source, but I don't understand the deletion in subsequent days of these secondary sources. And even as they were deleting these secondary sources, editors opposed to TM were adding science material sourced to a blog to a newspaper (in violation of MEDRS), and to a website by magician James Randi in which he refers to it as crackpot science. The latter was added to the lead. TimidGuy (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Kala Bethere

I'm one of the newer editors here. Early on it was obvious there were COI / POV issues. The group of editors from MUM / Vedic City / Fairfield, IA were all not only heavily pushing a TM Org POV, but they were posting large amounts of TM Org-based or TM Org sponsored meditation research, mostly Primary sources. Thus a large part of fixing up these entries was compiling lists of the questionable sources and removing these non-compliant sources, dozens of them.

Any edits seemed short-lived however, as the POV editors would slowly change them back to what they wanted. Until this situation is rectified, it will be virutally impossible to attain NPOV on these various entries.--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Luke Warmawater 101

I see no other solution that going through with arbitration, I am really itching to say a few things about what has been going on, but I will wait for the case to begin. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Tuckerj1976

To be honest, I would normally not get involved in this sort of thing but an invite has been sent to me and I am deeply concerned about what has/is happening with this article. I will not repeat what has already been said above by Willbeback, etc but simply support it. However, it is obvious from the recent investigation that many editors on this page appear to be part of/work for an orgainisation that has been named both a "cult" and religion. It is an a multi-billion dollar organization with a clearly defined psychological, social, economic and political goals (it funds its own political party) while manufacturing its own currency and founding its own universities, schools, TV broadcasting company, publishing company, etc. Till recently the articles were little more then an extended advertising pieces making the most amazing pseudo-scientific claims appear valid (such as practicing the techniques this organization sells will allow a person to fly, walk through walls, become immortal, cure all manner of illnesses,live longer and be able to to stop all crime simply with the power of their mind!!).

If WIKI is to be considered a real source of reliable information then this sort of manipulation simply must stop. Tuckerj1976 (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

PS. I am unsure if it is the correct etiquette (and if not please delete this) but in response to Timidguys's comments regarding research material being removed or only, what he considers "negative", research material being added, there are two reasons for this:

1 Much, if not nearly all of the "positive" (should that term even be used in scientific research?)is funded by the TM movement, conducted by TM movement researchers or considered of low research quality by independent researchers. The general scientific or medical community does not share it's viewpoints. (For an example much of it has/is conducted by David Orme-Johnson whose latest paper supports a theory that "proves" that users of TM can stop wars with the power of their minds (or something similar) ]

2 Many editors claim research is "positive" about TM even when it clearly is not.

I believe further reasons why this needs to be reviewed here. I would be happy to be "banned" from editing this article if the review here meant that the "pro" TM POV was removed and the balance that should exist in a wiki article was in place Tuckerj1976 (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Ruinia

I don't really have anything particularly useful to say, but I got an arbitration notice so I feel I ought to say something. I practice TM/Sidhis, live in Fairfield, and attended MSAE and MUM. I've felt uncomfortable for a while about the way pro-TM people seem to treat Misplaced Pages, and I'm glad this is happening. From what I know of people in Fairfield, a stern talking-to to make clear the nature of Misplaced Pages's policies and to make clear that this is Serious Business is likely to be better in the long run than the banhammer; most likely the offending editors are clueless rather than malicious, but are also likely to take offense easily if banned. I'm not familiar with the history of this dispute and what has already been tried, but I would have started with restricting the users from editing particular pages, and maybe semi-protecting the pages in question.

I hope this works out. If there is to be unbiased information on the TM movement anywhere, it's likely to be Misplaced Pages. Ruinia (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Atama

My involvement in this matter has been somewhat limited, in the past my main contribution has been to comment on the potential conflicts of interest that arise from TM editors who contribute to TM articles at the conflict of interest noticeboard. My opinion was much like Durova's above; having a particular religion or belief system does not and should not ever constitute a conflict of interest, and I've championed that viewpoint frequently at that noticeboard. But I also share concerns that there may be some sort of collusion/meatpuppetry. I don't know what can be done, I believe in the Scientology case it was possible to identify IPs that were assigned to Scientology, in this case we're dealing with IPs for a town. Can we put sanctions on a town? That's for better people than me to decide, but I worry about the collateral damage from such a move, and innocent editors getting caught up in it. But clearly, based on how often these articles appear on noticeboards and the drama surrounding them, something should be done. -- Atama頭 20:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by ChemistryProf

I feel an open-minded arbitration process could be helpful in this situation. It is obvious that two sides have formed on several articles having to do with this meditation technique. As an occasional editor on WP, I have been struck by something that must be obvious to most editors on topics that generate controversy. When a disagreement arises between any two editors, there is often a tendency for their different positions to be taken up by others so that pretty soon polarized “sides” of editors have formed. There could be a number of reasons for this to happen, but the most obvious is that one or both these sides feel they have access to information or to a point of view that the other does not, and each side feels its POV to be the correct one. In most cases, it seems that one side represents individuals whose main field of study is close to the topic of the article and would tend to qualify them as “experts” in the field. In such cases, it is hardly surprising that those editors will tend to fall into one group and those who have had less experience in the field will tend to fall into the other group. It is understandable also that each group would tend to see in the other’s edits a concerted effort to express a particular POV, and each of these more or less opposite perceptions may be correct, based on each editor’s individual experiences. This kind of situation must come up often on WP, and there must be some process that can help to break these deadlocks. I support this request for arbitration and hope arbitration will be that deadlock-breaking process. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Awaiting further comments, but a read over the SPI page puts me in a rather accepting state of mind. Steve Smith (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Accept. Steve Smith (talk) 13:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - awaiting some additional statements, but leaning to accept. Risker (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Accept. Risker (talk) 15:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Accept and the parties would be advised to look at the Scientology case for the type of findings and remedies I would expect to see out of this case. SirFozzie (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: Still waiting to hear from "the other side" but leaning towards accept.  Roger Davies 21:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Accept — Rlevse • Talk • 11:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Accept, as others have mentioned, appears similar to the Scientology issues at face value. Shell 04:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• Accept. Kirill  04:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Proofreader77 blocks

Initiated by Hell In A Bucket (talk) at 02:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Proofreader77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tanthalas39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gwen Gale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Diff. 1]
• Diff. 2]
• Diff 3]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Link 1]
• Link 2]

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

I first came across Proofreader77 in December on Jimbos talkpage while arguing against admin abuse and the corrupt nature of arbcom's process. He was experiencing some ownership issues there and IMO parading a large donation on Jimbos page. He was blocked for the first time on a two year account. He had two following blocks for minor disruption that boiled down to being iritating. He contested each block vigorously and has been threatening to file a Arbcom case for admin malpractice. This has resulted in two ANI discussion on an indef block with no consensus. Today his 2 day block was abruptly changed by Gwen Gale for no explained reason other then a vague disruption reply. The resulting discussion today boiled down to personal irritation with the threat to come here and actually resulted in malpractice by an admin. Either way we need this case to be resolved to end the threats of review by Arbcom or finally nail down a consensus on a editor with a 38% article mainspace edit rate. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Addendum, The actions of tonites block extention was out of process and the blocking admin refused to provide resons or raqtionale for extended block other then vague disruption comment. Suggest temporary removal of mop until she is willing to discuss blocking rationale to community who entrusted her with the tools to begin with. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

(Preliminary) statement by Proofreader77

Unblocked (initial comments)

1. My apologies to the Arbitration Committee that this version of an RfAR regarding "Proofreader77 blocks" has consumed some of your time. (I see at ANI the idea for this came from one of my edit summaries on my talk page ... via Pcap ... to Hell In A Bucket ... to here.)
2. The RfAR I was planning (but waiting for the BLP/MZ issues to clear your plate) was to cover all three of my blocks — but there are now some complications due to a twice-modified fourth (A/B/C) which is a somewhat different matter.
3. A recent "Notification" on my talk page by Tan has also complicated the issue. (Tan would not have been a named party in my RfAR, but this notice changes that — if possible, I would like to see if there is a way to remove Tan from the matter — just to save him time and energy.)
4. An email discussion of an issue (alluded to by Casliber) is also a complicating factor, which would be fine to discuss in a public forum as far as I am concerned.

Requesting slight delay

I would like to ask a clerk a question or two as I process how to proceed.

Meanwhile

Having read the responses here so far, I would like to give anyone who is interested, my perspective on recent events, as well as a broader perspective as to the "motives" of Proofreader77.

-- (signing all of the above) Proofreader77 00:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

-- (table/list data) Proofreader77 06:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

(Block #4a) for posting as subtopic at AN after improper warning above

-- Proofreader77 06:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Bigtimepeace

There's no need for an ArbCom case here, unless we want to have one about Proofreader77, their behavioral problems, and whatever they want to complain about (and I don't think we want to have that). Proofreader was blocked (uncontroversially) by Future Perfect at Sunrise for 48 hours. After some talk page comments Gwen Gale then extended that block to indefinite. It got taken to ANI to review where a number of editors supported the indefinite block (including me) and an equal number opposed it. Tanthalas39 then cited a lack of consensus explanation/rationale on the part of Gwen Gale for the original extension to indef and reduced it back to 48 hours. It's all still being discussed here though it's winding down. Gwen Gale could have provided a better rationale for extending the block but it was not abuse of tools, and Tan39 could have probably let discussion continue rather than hastily reversing the block but it was likewise not abuse since consensus seemed to be lacking. Neither deserve to go to ArbCom. Proofreader77 is still a problematic editor and we'll see what happens when the block expires, but probably the community can handle this. ArbCom should decline this request swiftly. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"Nightscream, I'm finding that your comment above: