Revision as of 23:45, 5 July 2017

• WP:ARC

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.

Legacypac

Initiated by — Godsy_CONT) at 23:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Godsy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Legacypac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Special:Diff/788348872

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive917#MfD end run GAME
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive919#Godsy Disruption & GAMING the System
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Godsy back to Wikihounding - how to stop it?
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposing IBAN between Godsy and Legacypac

Statement by Godsy

@Newyorkbrad: The interaction ban doesn't remedy the situation. I would still like the committee to hear this matter before it gets more out of hand than it already has as I believe it is necessary. — Godsy_CONT) 17:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: After thinking about this all day: The community does not agree in regard to what the interaction ban entails which is exemplified by the comments from Softlavender and Yintan as opposed to my comments and the reply of Xaosflux to Softlavender. Primefac mentions the vague "broadly construed". WP:IBAN states parties are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other. This would not prevent me from editing any page Legacypac has edited or logged an action on (such a restriction would be draconian as it would require me to check both the edit history and page logs before editing any page). Some users seem to believe that is part of the interaction ban. Such disagreements lead to the larger question: does unambiguously improving pages another has edited or logged on action on constitute harrasment. I believe that policy is clear: "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." and mentions "with good cause" and "overriding reason" WP:HOUND; However, there is an endemic problem on Misplaced Pages of giving 'harassment' a much broader and inaccurate meaning which encompasses, in some cases, merely editing the same page as another user." and "Neither is tracking a user's contributions for policy violations; the contribution logs exist for editorial and behavioral oversight. Editors do not own their edits, or any other article content, and any other editor has a right to track their editing patterns, and, if necessary, to revert their edits. Unwarranted resistance to such efforts may be a sign of ownership behavior and lead to sanctions.. I also intend to show my actions and behavior were especially appropriate due to demonstrable prior inappropriate behavior and actions on Legacypac's part.
(TL;DR) There are three main questions I believe the committee needs to come to a decision on as the community has been unable to: 1) If there are any restrictions beyond the text WP:IBAN in regard to the interaction ban between Legacypac and Godsy, what are they? 2) Does unambiguously improving pages (i.e. articles or drafts) another has edited or logged on action on constitute harrasment? (regarding Godsy's actions and behaviour) 3) Did the prior behavior and actions by Legacypac make scrutiny of their page moves especially warranted? 0) Of course, the committee may add or remove restrictions on either user as they see fit based on the evidence presented here. This will probably lead to a rehash (as others have put it) of some things by all those who choose to comment, however, I don't think the committee would be able to come a reasoned decision without that. — Godsy_CONT) 04:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

If this case is accepted, I ask that one of the clerks add my evidence to my section of the evidence portion of this case. It's ~100 words over the limit so I'd ask that the committee grant me 100 extra words. However it doesn't seem that the case will be accepted. Either way, I'd like to thank the committee for their time. This ordeal has been weighing much too heavily on my mind as of late, so I will be logging out after this post, and will not be around for the foreseeable future. — Godsy_CONT) 02:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Legacypac

@User:Newyorkbrad Circumvention. Legacypac (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@User:Callanecc & others: careful enforcement of IBAN should be enough. Legacypac (talk) 08:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Primefac

It seems like this is just rehashing the IBAN discussion that's currently ongoing (which looks likely to pass), in which case I don't think any further action would be necessary. I think both users have been blocked enough for their spats (i.e. we don't need to retroactively punish anyone), and the IBAN will fix the issue going forward. Primefac (talk) 23:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Two questions for Godsy: first, is this specifically about the back-and-forth between the two of you? If not, what are you actually asking ArbCom to look into? It seems to me like an IBAN will solve all of the problems you've mentioned, which is why I proposed one. Primefac (talk) 23:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• @Softlavender: - Godsy hasn't actually edited an article since 27 June, which was before the IBAN went into effect, so I'm not really sure how they can be "gaming" anything when they haven't actually done anything. Primefac (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
• @Softlavender:, you're right, I misread your statement as "they have" rather than "they are planning". Still not sure how a "broadly construed" IBAN can further be increased, but if there are any doubts that one (or both) of the parties involved are trying to game the system, then it should be brought to WP:AN for further discussion. Primefac (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Cryptic

I'd like to say I have some small hope that the interaction ban will succeed, but I really don't. Both parties push at boundaries like they're sore teeth, neither has been willing to admit they've been in the wrong in any matter of substance, and both have enough champions/apologists/enablers (take your pick) that I expect any attempt to enforce the ban will cause more disruption than it resolves. If that last happens, this matter will be back here in a few weeks at most, and it'll be much messier when it is. —Cryptic 00:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Godsy links to a statement of mine in the current IBAN discussion where I say I've only seen Legacypac engage in one specific sort of disruption. The context was a request by another user (current iteration - second bullet point here) that they be both be specifically banned from that. I'll be presenting evidence against both parties if this is accepted. —Cryptic 01:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Some typical edits Godsy considers exempt as unambiguous improvements: . He specifically labels the latter two as such here. —Cryptic 18:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Davey2010

Give the IBAN a chance, if it goes wrong then come back - Seems pointless doing this whilst we're in the middle of an IBAN discussion..... –Davey2010 01:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

When I looked quickly a few minutes ago, the IBAN discussion on AN/I had a long list of "supports" and only two "opposes". I assume that admins are waiting for 5 days to go by before closing the discussion and instituting the IBAN. Given that, I would ask ArbCom to hold this case request in abeyance until we find out if the community-based sanction works or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

While ArbCom can of course, take this case if it feels that the behavior of one or both of the editors involved is potentially egregious enough that an Arbitration case is warranted despite the now-instituted IBAN, I would suggest that, instead, the Committee should simply put the case on hold for some set period of time, and then reopen it if necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

George Ho My "partial removal"? I don't understand what you are referring to. The diff connected to that statement shows an edit by SmokeyJoe. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Xaosflux

For your information: Following a community discussion at WP:ANI, a 2-way interaction ban between Legacypac and Godsy is now in place. Regards, — xaosflux 04:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Clarification has been provided that Arbitration is "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution" and "an appropriate forum", such that it does not apply to this existing case filing. — xaosflux 04:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: The standard except also allows for if you think your editing is excepted from the ban ... engage in dispute resolution of which arbitration is in scope. I let each party know that this already in flight case filing was an exception - leaving it up to the arbitration committee if they want to consider it or not now. — xaosflux 11:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Legacypac accepted the IBAN. If disruptive editing has occurred since the IBAN, additional review is certainly available and additional sanctions including blocking are always an option. While that was closed somewhat rapidly, it was well commented on with a clear consensus for implementing. Prohibiting any editing of an article that has been edited or had an action logged by the other is rather extreme measure (as it would require them to review the history and logs of every single page before any edit). — xaosflux 19:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Callanecc: regarding a possible future remedy against touching any page that the other has touched - that is hard to monitor and comply with, if it ends up needed to go that way perhaps (1) limiting it to problematic namespaces (e.g. Article, Draft) and "recently edited" (e.g in last 30 days) would be sufficient. — xaosflux 15:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Softlavender

This is an obvious and frankly ridiculous end-run by Godsy. He has been the aggressor all along in the Godsy vs. Legacypac saga (I'm not condoning Legacypac's actions, just reporting my observation of the endless threads of the vendetta which filled up ANI from mid-March 2016 through mid-May 2016, some of which Godsy has cherrypicked to link here). Godsy lost his RfC because of this vendetta () and has already been blocked once because of it. If it would be worth the community's time, I would encourage the Committee to accept this case, because Godsy would come out the loser and would be hit with sanctions far worse than an IBan. But in point of obvious fact, it is not worth the community's time for ArbCom to waste its time and patience on this case. An IBan has been soundly approved by the community as an obvious solution to this continued disruption and harassment. In my mind Godsy should receive a WP:BOOMERANG block for filing this end-run RFAR. Softlavender (talk) 04:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• Note to ArbCom and also to Xaosflux: It's clear from his new statement just now that Godsy is already planning to game the IBan; for instance he is already claiming the right to edit drafts that Legacypac moves, and this is the behavior that actually prompted the IBan, so now the whole thing is for naught. Godsy drove Legacypac off of Misplaced Pages for an entire year ; his constant harassment of Legacypac on ANI was from mid-March to mid-May 2016, and Legacypac left Misplaced Pages for a year following that: . Upon returning this May, Legacypac just wants to improve the encyclopedia in peace, but Godsy started hounding him relentlessly right away, and obviously intends to continue to do so. I therefore think it highly important to impose specific additional restrictions on the standard IBan (as was originally proposed), because the standard IBan will not prevent the hounding and harassment that lead us to this situation. I think the ANI was therefore closed either too early or without considering how easy it will be for Godsy to game the IBan and how determined he is to game it. Softlavender (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Godsy:: WP:HARASS. The fact that you continue to deny what you are doing, even though you have been IBanned and previously blocked because of it, is problematical in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hasteur: Can you clarify what you mean by "I feel that a limited duration ban would be best to prevent disruption of the encyclopedia as a whole."? By "ban", are you talking about the already enacted IBan? Or are you talking about rescinding Godsy's permission/ability to edit? I ask because "bans" are by definition of indefinite length rather than of "limited duration" (except possibly in the rarest of cases, of which I've never actually seen an example). Did you mean "block"? I'm also asking because the terms ban and IBan are easy for readers to confuse. Softlavender (talk) 05:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by SmokeyJoe

Is this a joke?

I struggle to understand why. Both users have been contributing well. One is processing a lot of drafts, mostly well. The other likes to see things done properly. I think the IBAN will work, if carefully enforced. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by BU Rob13

Note that neither Godsy nor Legacypac can comment on this further due to an interaction ban that has just been applied via Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposing_IBAN_between_Godsy_and_Legacypac. As the community has just attempted a solution to this issue, the case should be declined. ~ Rob₁₃ 04:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Does the exception actually apply? The IBan exceptions state that the individuals may engage "in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself" (emphasis mine). This is not about the ban itself, so I would think it is not covered by the exception. Am I reading wrong? ~ Rob₁₃ 04:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Yintan

It is very difficult not to see this as an attempt to keep annoying Legacypac. When it became clear that the latest discussion on AN/I would very likely result in sanctions, Godsy quickly came here. "I put this together hastily", says his opening statement and that alone speaks volumes. I don't see the need for this case. Arbitration "is a last resort, only to be employed when all else has failed or there is very good cause to believe they will not help." That's not the case here. All else hasn't failed. The community voted with an overwhelming majority (35/2) in favour of an IBAN. There's also no reason for Godsy to believe the IBAN will not help because Legacypac already said weeks ago they'd happily accept an IBAN and has repeated that a few times since. Finally, what is this case about? Is Godsy looking for sanctions against Legacypac? Is he fighting the IBAN? Is there a valid point at all? Yintan  10:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Striking my previous statement. Godsy's latest comment to Newyorkbrad (17:48, 1 July 2017) made me change my opinion. I am now convinced that if ArbCom does not hear this case, Godsy will game the system and wiki-lawyer until the end of time. Either that or this is a 'suicide by cop' exercise. " I've always been one to respect community consensus, however;..." Say what? Reminds me of the old "I'm not a racist, but..." excuse. So yes, ArbCom, please accept Godsy's (pretty vague) request and close this chapter once and for all. Enough is enough. Yintan  20:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Godsy: Don't even try to use my statements here as an excuse for your endless lawyering. "The community does not agree in regard to what the interaction ban entails which is exemplified by the comments from Softlavender and Yintan"? Nonsense. My point here is that Legacypac accepts the IBAN in the "spirit of the law", using common sense, while you continue to try and wriggle out of it by scrutinizing "the letter of the law". It's a sad sight. Yintan  09:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Newimpartial

I do not know whether ArbCom will want to consider this situation under present circumstances, partly because it is not entirely clear what questions this filing asks to be resolved. My own interpretation, which I arrive at quite reluctantly, is that this is Godsy's response to the community IBAN that was pending at the time of filing, and that they in effect intend to undercut the legitimacy of the IBAN through this process, while etablishing a pretext for continuing their previous pattern of behaviour in defiance of the substance of the community's decision (a perception based primarily on this and this ).

The IBAN discussion achieved wide participation from editors and admins who had more sympathy with Godsy or with Legacypac based on their differing perceptions of the previous disputes in which these two editors were involved, but there was not one editor in the discussion who agreed with Godsy that an IBAN represented a disproportionate or inappropriate imposition on Godsy's behaviour. That the response to this overwhelming consensus is to appeal to ArbCom for a rehash of the many disputes leading up to this point seems to me to be a really massive (and tragic, from my perspective) case of WP:IDHT on the part of Godsy.

The community has an interest in Godsy and Legacypac editing productively in their areas of interest. The IBAN discussion carved out specific exceptions from the usual terms so that Godsy would be able to continue their work in MfD without undue encumberance, but in a way that minimized future conflict. That an editor with whose principles I generally agree would be avowedly unwilling to accept WP:CONSENSUS and compromise, because of an apparent conviction of their own rectitude, just leaves me sad at the waste of energies and ultimately good intentions that have gone into this dispute. Newimpartial (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Godsy: With respect to questions 1, 2 and 3:

1) The pretty much unambiguous conclusion of the community discussion, I believe, is that neither Legacypac nor Godsy should be altering each other's contributions to pages or getting in each other's way - this intent extends beyond general IBAN provisions even though the final language of the IBAN was standard with a carve-out for XfD;

2) The IBAN discussion did not make a community decision on Godsy's behaviour in the past, as that was not necessary in order for the community to reach consensus. If either party violated the intent of 1) in the future, that would violate the IBAN whether or not it would constitute harassment in any other context, in terms of WP policy;

3) The IBAN discussion did not make a community decision on Legacypac's treatment of page moves, because (1) a previous ANI had, in boomerang fashion, discussed and placed restrictions on Legacypac's page moves, which seemed to be working, and (2) the issue brought to ANI in this instance was purely a toxic interaction between the two editors, and did not concern any substantive issues.

Note to Arbcom: The issue Godsy really seems to be raising here is whether they can use the "unambigious improvements" argument to justify edits that would otherwise be violations of the IBAN. I would suggest that in this context, following the community consensus to do so would be a WP:GAME and a violation of the IBAN. ArbCom could make a decision on this now in principle, or later after another ANI, but is likely to be required to do so eventually. Newimpartial (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Premeditated Chaos

There is absolutely no way to take this except as a last-ditch attempt to drive Legacypac off Misplaced Pages, based on Legacypac's statement from the last ANI thread that he would rather stop editing than get involved in a drawn-out ArbCom case. The community implemented a solution that was found to be satisfactory to almost everyone involved, including parties that generally support one side over the other, and even including Legacypac who admitted wrongdoing and apologized in his support comment. The only real opposition was from Godsy, who continued his pattern of insisting he is technically right therefore he must be allowed to carry on, even when the community is telling him that he is causing problems and asking him to stop. And here he is again, in this "hastily" put together ArbCom case, studiously pointing out the sawdust in Legacypac's eye while ignoring the log firmly jammed in his own. This request should be declined, and Godsy ought to be sanctioned for attempting an end-run around community consensus. Accept the IBAN, Godsy. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: With all due respect George perhaps you should take a step back from this. You are making all sorts of unsubstantiated claims all over the map. You've had to redact nearly half your original statement and even still the total of what you've written is nearly double that of anyone else, even Godsy's initial filing. You have valid concerns about encouraging the community to make better use of AfC, and the methods we as a community use to determine notability, but ArbCom in general is really not the place for those conversations. (And even if it were, this case is still not the place for that discussion). I think you should consider hatting at least part of your statement, perhaps in favor of a much smaller summary, given how scattered and expansive it is. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Mendaliv

I respectfully recommend the Committee reject this case request at this time on the grounds that insufficient time has passed since the imposition of community remedial action. As the request is structured, the Committee should only be considering a case about Godsy and LegacyPac, and maybe some other individuals connected to the underlying dispute, rather than seeking to resolve the underlying dispute itself. But, as is noted, a mutual interaction ban was imposed upon Godsy and LegacyPac less than 24 hours ago. Additionally, LegacyPac has been subjected to a move ban prohibiting him from mainspacing draft articles. This dispute is simply not ripe for arbitration as there are community mechanisms that have not been determined to have failed. Furthermore, there is an ongoing RfC connected to the underlying dispute which ongoing arbitration may disrupt.

The underlying dispute, by the way, is how the community should handle stale drafts that are not tagged for AfC and are therefore not eligible for WP:G13. It is my view that this underlying dispute is both subject to the Committee's well-established doctrine of abstaining from reviewing issues where insufficient community-level action has taken place, and is falling outside the scope of arbitration as requiring policymaking rather than policy interpretation and application.

In short, I urge the Committee to reject this case. If the IBAN and topic ban fail, then we can address the Godsy-LegacyPac conduct issue. With respect to the stale draft issue, more time and RfCs are needed to focus the issues before arbitration could ever be appropriate. Thank you for your consideration. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 00:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by George Ho

Here's my simpler, smaller summary then. However, per Premeditated Chaos, maybe I should give topic-ban on Legacypac and two-way IBAN chances to work. Therefore, here's my newer statement. To be honest, I barely know why both parties are fighting each other. When I interacted with Godsy, he and I kinda... got along. With Legacypac, at first it was icky, but then he and I mutually understand how wild my earlier accusations were in the original statement. From what I partially understand, their dispute is related to AFC process, which has been problematic. You're right, PMC; the ArbCom is not the right place to handle mere content disputes. However, I'm concerned about the request made. I wonder why Godsy is not accepting the IBAN conditions and why one or two involved parties are still involved in whatever the community is able to handle, i.e. notability issues and AFC process. But then, I'm told to stay most out of this, so I guess I should. Still, if Godsy can't accept the IBAN conditions and withdraw the request, and/or Legacypac can't accept the topic-ban conditions, yet the full case is decline, then I would request a motion, including at least one remedy for community encouragement regarding notability and/or AFC process. I'm worried about how long the dispute can go on. Sounds good, PMC? --George Ho (talk) 08:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC); redacted suggestion, 09:09, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, I hope both parties can trust the community to handle those areas that the parties have been involved in. George Ho (talk) 09:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

My bad. I didn't read BMK's partial removal. Therefore, I recovered only the simplified statement instead but left the original statement out. --George Ho (talk) 05:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC); partially struck, 23:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDay

Likely best to give the move-ban & the 2-way iban a chance to work. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Floquenbeam

Quoting Yintan: "I've always been one to respect community consensus, however;..." Say what? Reminds me of the old "I'm not a racist, but..." excuse.

Really? This is OK? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Hasteur

In the recently enacted interaction ban I suggested that we do only the interaction ban, because I wanted to see if Godsy could move beyond the behavior that was causing drama on wikipedia and extend them the WP:ROPE. This case (and it's implied attempt to pre-empt the community imposed two way ineraction ban) suggest that the case should be accepted and held in abayance until Godsy comes back to explain themselves. Barring an extraordinary explanation, I feel that a limited duration ban would be best to prevent disruption of the encyclopedia as a whole. Hasteur (talk) 03:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: (of 05:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)) I am referring to a Site ban. I choose the terminology "limited duration" to indicate my thoughts against a indefinite duration. And as to the hair splitting, I note A ban is a formal prohibition from editing some or all Misplaced Pages pages, or a formal prohibition from making certain types of edits on Misplaced Pages pages. Bans can be imposed for a specified duration or an indefinite duration... Bans are different from blocks... Blocks are used chiefly to deal with immediate problems such as vandalism or edit warring. A ban, on the other hand, does not technically prevent editing; however, blocks may be used to enforce bans. (from Misplaced Pages:Banning policy) Hasteur (talk) 13:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by GoldenRing

I agree with pretty much everyone else here that the IBAN should be given a chance to work. And some advice to Godsy: Don't modify Legacypac's edits. Unambiguous improvement or not, and whatever the policy you can dig up to wikilawyer around it, the community has agreed to a broadly construed IBAN between you. Don't modify Legacypac's edits. There's obviously a grey line here: If Legacypac added three words to an article three years ago and it's since been changed to be almost unrecognisable, then go ahead and edit it. If Legacypac contributed three-quarters of an article yesterday, leave it alone. Somewhere in the middle is the line and in the end it's up to admin discretion exactly where it is, so my advice is the same as the advice given to anyone with a broadly-construed ban: If in doubt, don't do it. Go find something else to do. GoldenRing (talk) 12:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

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

Clerk notes

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

• Recuse as I was involved in drafting the community IBAN. GoldenRing (talk) 12:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Legacypac: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/7/0>-Legacypac-2017-07-01T13:47:00.000Z">

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• Godsy, please let us know how you believe the community-imposed interaction ban affects this proposed case and whether we should accept it now. Legacypac, please let us have your views on that as well. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)"> ">
  • Decline at this time. The interaction ban adopted at ANI enjoyed an unusually strong consensus of support, and it makes sense to see whether it will help resolve the problems here before moving to an arbitration case. I hope the wikibreak that Godsy just stated he is taking will help him regain perspective on the fact that it's a big wiki and that when he returns, there is plenty of valuable work to be done outside the arena that has caused controversy here. I thank Legacypac for accepting the iban and urge him more generally to avoid the sorts of behavior that have been criticized in the past. If problems re-emerge in the future the request can be re-filed, but I sincerely hope this won't be necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
• Firstly, I don't currently see a need for an arbitration case to examine stale drafts (the trigger/underlying issue) as the community is still well able to handle that. While I am generally hesitant to take on a case where there has been (very) recent community attempts to solve the dispute, the comments from the parties (mainly Godsy's reply to NYB) indicate that the community IBAN might be unlikely to solve this issue. My big considerations at the moment is whether to take it now and try and prevent another trip to ANI or step back and give the IBAN/page move ban a chance to work (and if it ends up back at ANI, another chance for the community to change the restriction). If as case were to be accepted, I'd be tempted to consider a motion which prevents both from editing a page which the other has already edited (with exemptions for XFD and admin noticeboard pages); however, I suspect that'll just get complicated. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline primarily because I want to give the community sanctions time to work, but also because Godsy will be away. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
• I'm very close to Callanecc's position on this case. Generally speaking, I'd prefer to be reactive after it's been demonstrated that the community IBAN has been unsuccessful -- and then for us to examine the contributing factors. Being pre-emptive would perhaps save us all a bit more time, but I'm not sure if that would give the case outcome/motion/remedies any weight because they'd be to some degree speculative. Mkdw 05:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

On the other hand, though, by the time we get to making a decision, it'll probably be clear what action we need to take. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Decline given the filer "will not be around for the foreseeable future", I cannot rationalize accepting the case to potentially address now an even less pressing issue. Mkdw 03:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Me three. I've been waffling since I saw this yesterday. On the one hand, yes, the community just implemented an attempt to solve the problem, which this request is arguably an attempt to preempt. On the other hand, I suspect Cryptic is right to hold little hope of success. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline, albeit somewhat reluctantly. There is often justifiable skepticism about wikibreaks in close proximity to dispute resolution (I forget now who called it "the ANI flu"), but this seems very much like a situation that would be well served by taking some time away to regain perspective. Godsy, I really do think you need to take the feedback you're getting from many sources here: there are lots and lots of articles to "unambiguously improve" on Misplaced Pages that have nothing to do with Legacypac, and those other articles are where you should be investing your content efforts when you return. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
    • @Hasteur: Thought about that, but IIRC past attempts to "accept and suspend" didn't work out well. I think it's reasonable to expect that a new request would likely be accepted if there is any further issue here. This has had more than enough enormous ANI threads. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
• Yeah, Callanecc says it well, but I do not think we need to be at arbitration yet, and just put me down as a decline for now. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh, GoldenRing says it well too: "Don't modify Legacypac's edits." Drmies (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
• Decline per Opabinia. Doug Weller talk 12:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
• Decline per Opabinia. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)