Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Noloop and Slrubenstein		6 August 2010	{{{votes}}}
Blablaaa		31 July 2010	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	7 June 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads	none	none	4 June 2024
Amendment request: India-Pakistan	none	(orig. case)	7 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions	none	none	10 June 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

Noloop and Slrubenstein

Initiated by Noloop (talk) at 18:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1]
• Diff. 2

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• [2] and [3] (subtopic of the previous)
• Talk pages, as referenced below.

Statement by Noloop

I'm sick and tired of this. These are comments directed at me, by an admin. Another admin, Andred c, was previously involved. Andrew has since apologized, so I didn't include him in the arbitration case. However, there seems to be a culture of abuse among admins. From Slrubenstein, directed at me:

• "Calling a bigot a bigot is not antagonisic, it is honest....Your bigotry blinds to to any realistic knowledge of the current state of NT scholarship. ... All you are doing is making a mistake that only a bigot is capable of making: " [4]
• "I think we can now say he is not only a bigot, but a fanatical bigot. This is not name-calling."[5].
• “I cannot believe you tolerate bigots at Wikipedia....Sorry, bigots are a threat to the integrity of WP as a whole. I won't stand for them.” [6]
• “Noloop is a POV-pushing troll.” [7]
• “Bigotry, like racism, describes a particular kind of personal attack. Why is labeling someone's edit " a form of bigotry" a personal attack,...” [8]
• “That just proves that you are ignorant, bigoted, or for some other reason a POV pusher....Your ignorance and bigotry shows clear...” [9]
• See also a proposal at ANI: “Noloop should be topic-banned, or perhaps banned entirely," [10], without a single diff or quote of support.

The last time I came here with this topic, my concern was about 70% content (especially, fringe theory designation) and 30% conduct. This is pure conduct, and Slrubenstein has stated an intent to continue calling me an ignorant bigot and so on.

Yes, we had a lengthy ANI, he was warned to stop attacking people, and now he's resumed attacking. If it's not desired that I continue to object (or "shop") , then the attacks shouldn't continue to be made. What am I supposed to do? Eat it? Noloop (talk) 01:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"There should be a way of resolving this short of arbitration." Such as ???? Noloop (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Since I requested arbitration, he has added " Instead, we are subjct to more of your bigoted POV-pushing." to the resume.[11] There is no interest in dispute resolution here. I am wondering why I should continue to rein in whatever impatience or reaction I feel, when this admin doesn't care about civility and no part of the admin community cares about it either. He was warned by an admin on ANI (Fences&Windows) and promptly called me an ignorant bigot; he was warned below and promptly called me a bigoted POV-pusher. RFCU is meaningless here. My patience is finsihed. Noloop (talk) 03:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Slrubenstein

All (all) of Noloop's cntributions to articles on Jesus-related articles has been to insult books and articles that suggest there was likely a real man called Jesus. Noloop assumes that this is a Christian view and insists that it be identified as a Christian view.

He has shown no signs at all of having read the books in question.

In the big AN/I I explained how academia is organized and why so many people with Doctorates in Theology, or who trained or teached at Divinity Schools or seminaries, are in fact historians and indeed, modern critical historians, of the same ilk as the guys who study the US Civil War or the British colonization of India or Roman history. I wrote at length because the matter is complex and someone not familiar with the history of the modern university and how it functions today could easily misunderstand things. I would be happy to reproduce that explanation here but it was two or three long paragraphs.

In fact, most of these scholars are well-respected historians because they use modern methods. They certain reach conclusions that contradict Christian dogma and heresy. But for me, the bottom line is that these scholars were trained in good universities in the method of modern history, and they have written worlds that are considered solid critical history by experts on 1st century Roman-Occupied Judea. I have asked Noloop to suggest other historians who are equally respected for their expertise; indeed I asked him three times and each time he ignored me.

All he does is try to discredit good historians. He does this NOT because he has any knowledge of their arguments or their scholarship, but just because they are Christian.

In the United States, it is a violation of civil rights to discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, creed, color or national origin. To do so is to be a bigot, and this is just what Noloop does.

At Wikipedia, we do not ask an editor what his or her religion is. Instead, we judge the merit of the edits and their NPOV compliance based on the content and wording. We should do just the same with secondary sources. That Nolpop insists on deviating from this policy and wishes to discriminate against people just because of their creed is in my view shameful.

I have provided no edit diferences because none are needed. Go to User:Noloop, hit user contributions, and look at any of his edits to talk pages to Jesus-related articles.

We had a lengthy AN/I about this, now Noloop is shopping. I'd rather he actually edited articles, using reliable sources.Slrubenstein | Talk 20:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Vecrumba

I took a look out of curiosity and found this, for example,at Historicity of Jesus...

As a diehard atheist I find some of the comments pretty bigoted. There is very little legitimacy behind the assertion that Christian scholars are considered non-authoritative on this. I've always argued that a cross section of sources should be used with preference - but not because the Christian ones are flawed or undermined by their religion. It should be very easy to do such sourcing. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 08:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

...with reference to Noloop's position, one among numerous similar comments using the "b" word with regard to same. Targeting only Slrubenstein here appears to be personal. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/2/0/1)

• There should be a way of resolving this short of arbitration. Noloop, please don't come running to ArbCom over matters like this. Slrubenstein, please don't call people bigots (you are quite capable of phrasing what you are saying in a less confrontational manner). Carcharoth (talk) 00:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC) "they have written worlds" is an interesting typo, though...
• Decline as premature; two brief discussions at AN/I don't really fulfill the requirements of prior dispute resolution. Please try something like a user conduct RFC and only come to us if that doesn't resolve your dispute. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Decline per Kirill. Steve Smith (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Blablaaa

Initiated by Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} at 22:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• EyeSerene (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Nick-D (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Ranger Steve (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• EnigmaMcmxc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Chaosdruid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Caden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Blablaaa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Climie.ca (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• EyeSerene
• Nick-D
• Ranger Steve
• EnigmaMcmxc
• Chaosdruid
• Caden
• Blablaaa
• Climie.ca

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Discussion at Military history WikiProject
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Blablaaa

Statement by Kirill Lokshin

Blablaaa, an editor working primarily on articles related to World War II, has, since February, been engaged in a lengthy series of disputes on these articles, primarily related to disagreements over how force strengths and casualties should be presented.

In the course of these various debates, Blablaaa has repeatedly engaged in personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith directed against anyone who disagrees with him—and even against editors who merely happen to comment within the same discussion—and has consistently treated Wikipedia as a battleground. He has engaged in tendentious editing on a significant number of articles, and his disruptive conduct has spread to several different project-space fora.

In response, a number of editors, including myself, filed a request for comment regarding Blablaa. Unfortunately, while most comments at the RFC agreed that Blablaaa's conduct was inappropriate and hindered any real attempts to resolve the underlying dispute, Blablaaa has not moderated his behavior. If anything, the RFC has prompted him to launch attacks and accusations with greater fervor, and he shows no sign of being able or willing to work constructively with the other editors in the debate.

I ask the Committee to take up this matter and to consider how Blablaaa may be prevented from causing further disruption. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

In response to Jehochman: you're perfectly free to block him, of course, but please keep in mind that he has already been indefinitely blocked once. I have no real confidence that a discretionary block will stick at this point; hence the arbitration request, which can at least produce a binding resolution, if not necessarily a very quick one. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Blablaaa

First of all iam not activ anymore. In short, i have so much trouble simply because i mainly raised concerns about biased editing. Its pretty clear that such a controverisal topic brings much discussions. Many of my concerns were simply put away with calling me a progerman editor with agenda. Unsubstantiated accusation that i do bias editing were never prooven with diffs.

mfg Blablaaa (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Iam sorry iam very short of time at the moment so only a quick overview. Many of my problems evolved with User:EnigmaMcmxc . This user has 5 featured articles marked at top right of his userpage. Lets take a look. If we assume that the infobox is one of the major elements which forms the opinion of the reader , we should look at them. 4 out of 5 "Results are incorrcet" . Operation Perch was a huge operation failure of the british. Enigma made "[[12]]" inconclusive out of this without citiation. I changed this now. Operation Epsom is seen by the most historians as a british operational failure, no mention of this in the box. Operation Charnwood had according to the Aniboard [[13]] ( the link is also good for seeing OR by users to defend their outcome and unsubstantiated accusation against me) a outcome which misused sources . Enigma was advised to change it, but he refused and put again a "wrong" outcome in the box[[14]] . Operation Brevity , here my knowledge is limited so iam not 100% sure but this battle was also a simple failure at the operational level. The brtish army failed to achieve what they planed but the box gives "inconclusive" without citiation, same like perch. Enigma and other editors will dispute this now but thats it, 4 out of 5 featured articles have incorrect/flawed outcomes all of this mistakes favor british. This is only the result section of the box. Its everywhere i will present more if needed and i have time. I hope showing that even the outcomes are wrong, is generic.

Regarding the behaviour of editors and a less subtle case of WP:OR/WP:SYN/WP:OWN can you find at the talk of Battle of Jutland, plese visit this link [[15]] if you are short of time please skip to subsection "sources" . Several editors are disputing sources which are contraticting the choosen outcome this goes so far that they explain why they think this battle was inconclusive and this seems to be enough to keep the status quo maintained. 2 other editors give neutral input and suggest to write something clear and unambiguous in the box but this is also not accepted. I want to highlight the post of the MILHIST coordinator parsecboy at "02:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)" and my response. This is a pretty obvious selective quoting and a cheattry. When you try to change the outcome, there was a remark in the code saying: "dont change the outcome, first discussion!", this means you should go to the discussion then they explain you why they think this was no german tactical victory. ( at the talk a user claims i did editwar and caden is my sockpuppet. i deny this. i did 1! and was the first who added sources to the outcome)

I hope, the fact that i present not so much stuff does not imply that this is all. Its only the biggining.

You can also read the talk of the RFC, i refute many accusations as wrong. Blablaaa (talk) 08:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding my conduct. People are correct, my tone etc is hard to handle. Thats why i quit anyways. with regards Blablaaa (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

As User:Blablaaa is currently indef blocked, and as such unable to comment here, an Arbitrator has requested that a clerk draw the attention of all parties concerned to the discussion on the user's talkpage. In summary, User:Blablaaa claims that the issue is not one of content, but of systematic bias. In addition, the user indicates that attempts to resolve this via WP:MILHIST noticeboards have been unsuccessful. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

I have no prior involvement with Blablaaa, WP:MILHIST or (as far as I know) any of the concerned articles. But I was just now reading Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Blablaaa and came to the conclusion that the material gathered and opinions voiced there are sufficient to block Blablaaa indefinitely for persistent disruption and an inability to work productively with others, even considering that a previous indefinite block was (for reasons that are not very clear) lifted in April 2010.

Before imposing the block, though, I noticed this request for arbitration. Its acceptance and the imposition of a topic ban from World War II articles would probably solve the problem, but an administrator's indefinite block is likely to have about the same effect (Blablaaa seems not to have ever edited anything but WWII articles) and take less time for all involved.  Sandstein  10:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Nick-D

I was involved with Blablaaa as primarily in my role as an administrator and agree completely with Kirill's statement (I was the admin who instituted the indef block that was later overturned, along with four previous blocks of 31 hours to one month duration which were upheld by other admins on appeal). This has been a long-running problem which a number of very good and patient editors have been unable to solve due to Blablaaa's intransigence.

Given that Blablaaa used the RFC/U as yet another platform to argue over article content and make abusive comments towards other editors I think that ArbCom intervention is needed to resolve this situation (though I do agree with Sandstein that an indef block would be justified; Blablaaa has not changed his behavior in response to the multiple blocks he received from several admins as an IP editor or the blocks I implemented in the period after he registered an account). I note that Blablaaa's break from editing will only last until he has gathered material to present to a 'committee' (by which I presume he meant ArbCom), so this is going to end up here one way or another, and taking action now will head off further disruption. As part of this case, I'd suggest that ArbCom also consider the role played by Caden (talk · contribs), who has supported Blablaaa's disruptive behavior on a number of occasions, and has also repeatedly made highly uncivil and baseless accusations against various editors during these discussions. Nick-D (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

As a quick reply to Deskana, I did not implement Blablaaa's first five blocks - he had been repeatedly blocked as an IP editor for the same reasons I later blocked him. This was noted in the WP:AN thread which lead to the indef block being overturned. As I noted at the WP:AN I accept that I should have asked for a second opinion before the indef block though (or, better still, one or two blocks earlier). Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by MBK004

I urge the Committee to accept this case not only to examine the behavior of Blablaa, but also as suggested by Nick-D, the behavior of Caden during this incident as well. This dispute is a complicated one which does not lend itself towards having the ability for the community to successfully resolve it due to the overturned indefinite block of Blablaa as well as the continued disruption by Bla after that block and during the recent RFC. Most of the administrators who work in the MILHIST project have become involved to the point that they cannot sanction Bla anymore and the MILHIST coordinators also have had to suffer blatant personal attacks by both Bla and Caden when we have tried to diffuse and/or solve this problem without having to resort to such means of dispute resolution such as RFC and Arbitration.

Also, while it does appear that Bla intends to take a break from editing, Nick-D points out that he has stated his intent to return and I suspect that return will be with the same behavior of constant personal attacks against editors who disagree and he will continue to make allegations of a vast MILHIST cabal that seeks to suppress German military exploits during the Second World War. Simply put, Blablaa is the editor who I would not hesitate to name in response to the question "who is the most disruptive editor in the MILHIST spectrum currently?" because of his constant attacks against editors which stifle productive collaborative editing in articles and cause said editors to completely disengage and cease working on articles (on extremely important historical topics) which they intended to improve through constructive collaborative editing.

The RFC has quite a large amount of evidence, but I will note that the editors who drafted it have chosen not to present everything in the interests of not turning the RFC into a wall of evidence via diffs. They only chose certain recent examples of Bla's disruptive behavior. A more thorough in-depth investigation of his behavior will show even more instances of disruption which deserve to be entered into evidence so the Committee can accurately judge the widespread amount of disruption and hopefully enact sanctions which are designed to end the disruption. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by EyeSerene

Should an alternative solution (such as Sandstein's suggestion) not emerge, I too respectfully ask that the committee consider taking on this case. I fully support Kirill's statement, but with the minor addendum that Blablaaa started editing Wikipedia as an anon in late 2009, four(ish) months before creating his account in February 2010. His IP addresses also attracted a number of blocks. I mention this not to recall earlier misdeeds - many editors have a rocky start - but to note that this is a longer-term problem than Kirill's text implies. We are unable to handle this at Milhist for the reasons given by MBK (although given the conspiracy theories that have been touted, this is probably for the best anyway), and the unblock discussion at ANI mentioned by Nick shows the potential difficulty of using that forum for anything but the most clear-cut issues.

Regarding Blablaaa's recent declaration that he's leaving, obviously it would be a waste of the committee's time to hear a full case for an editor who won't be here. However, I'm not convinced he won't be back once the fuss has died down. He's made the same statement a few times now during the course of the RfC and his editing has been sporadic before. Finally, while poorly-judged, unhelpful, uncollegiate, and in places bizarre, I think the merits of Caden's contributions to the RfC were self-evident and the sort of thing that could be addressed by an uninvolved admin if necessary. On that basis I have no view either way on expanding the case to consider these. EyeSerene^talk 12:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Jehochman: I have the same reservations as Kirill re discretionary sanctions. If Nick's indefblock of Blablaaa had stuck back in April we wouldn't be here now. I have complete confidence in your ability to judge whether or not a block is in order, but based on that unblock I have rather less confidence in ANI's suitability to judge any unblock request further down the line. I think the advantage of going via ArbCom is the removal of any grey areas that might permit a similar outcome in future. I for one have certainly got no appetite for going through all this again :) EyeSerene^talk 16:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

If what Kirill says is true, why not just ask an uninvolved administrator to place an indefinite block, or ask the community to place a topic ban? Why tie up the committee's insufficient resources with a case that has a foregone conclusion? Where are the complicating factors that prevent this from being resolved directly? It is unseemly when arbitrators use their position on the committee to ramrod opponents. (Whether or not this is the intention; this is the appearance.) A "defendant" cannot get a fair shake here when they are prosecuted by an arbitrator. The mailing list is just too cozy. Jehochman ^Talk 14:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Can anybody give me a valid reason not to block User:Blablaaa as a disruptived editor right now (as Sandstein suggests above)? No colorable defense has been given. The editor's response at RFC is a collection of off-topic rambles. Caden's disruptiveness ought to be handled separately. Jehochman ^Talk 14:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked the account. This is run of the mill disruptive editing that should be manageable by any administrator. ArbCom has the following options:

1. Any arbitrator or clerk may unblock the account to participate in a full case.
2. ArbCom may reject the request as moot.

The editor claims to be retiring, so I do not understand why they would appeal the block or why you would invest resources in hearing a case. Jehochman ^Talk 17:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Carcharoth, I am sure you are aware that beneath all the pomp and circumstance, arbitration is just a negotiation. I asked if blocking Blablaa would be acceptable. Kirill agreed, just above, and so did EyeSerene, the two certifiers of the RFC. Blablaa stated that they were retiring. After I placed the block Blablaa confirmed their acceptance by placing a retired tag on their pages. There has been no drama whatsoever. After the RFC one of the certifiers should have posted to WP:AN asking for an uninvolved administrator to review the matter. I've now done that, belatedly, and taken the necessary action. ArbCom is the last step in dispute resolution. We should not fast track cases from RFC to arbitration, except in emergencies or when the community is incapable of action (e.g. desysopping, confidential evidence). (This is especially true when the filing party is a sitting arbitrator.) When Kirill agreed to my placing a block, I assumed he would subsequently withdraw this request. What else needs to be dealt with here that cannot be handled by the community? Jehochman ^Talk 13:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Deskana, immediately before reading your comment below I posted to User talk:Blablaaa suggesting unblock conditions very similar to what you've recommended. The solution here is quite obvious. I too was concerned that the block log was full of blocks by a single administrator. However, the RFC was pretty clear that the user was repeatedly causing trouble. Jehochman ^Talk 13:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Blablaaa seems to want a full investigation into the malicious activities of the WP:MILHIST "cabal" and their nefarious POV pushing which often results in the wrong side being declared victors in a conflict.[16] Regrettably, no diffs are presented to evidence the widespread conspiracy to deceive Wikipedia's readership. Jehochman ^Talk 13:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Deskana

My first interaction with Blablaaa was when he came into #wikipedia-en-help asking for advice. He had been indefinitely blocked from editing by Nick-D. Chzz, another person in the help channel, created a thread on AN about the block. The AN thread summarises the situation far better than I could, so I would suggest reading it (or at least skimming it) before continuing to read this statement.

I was especially concerned that the blocks were done by a WP:MILHIST member, Nick-D, when the articles in question were ones regarding World War 2. It's a pretty standard philosophy here that blocks for disruptive editing should be done by uninvolved administrators (blatant vandalism excepted, of course). I don't think any MILHIST member is really "uninvolved" when it comes to articles on World War 2. Additionally, as you can see from Blablaaa's block log, Blablaaa's first five blocks were all done by Nick-D, notwithstanding a block settings change for unblock abuse which was done by Blueboy96. LessHeard vanU said in the thread on AN that he is "always wary of one admin being the only or major applier of sanctions with one editor without apparent recourse to other opinions or consensus", and I agree with that sentiment. If the block is appropriate, then it can be done by an uninvolved administrator. This not only has the effect of reassuring the user that they have been treated fairly and impartially, but it also gives that assurance to uninvolved users reviewing the evidence as well.

I recognise that Blablaaa has issues with user conduct as has been pointed out in the RFC. I don't know much about that side of the case, but I find edits like this to be characteristic of people that cannot edit here constructively.

Also, please note that there appears to be an impersonator at work here. Blablaaa0 and Blablaaa1 do not appear to be operated by Blablaaa himself, as both accounts geolocate to Poland whereas Blablaaa geolocates to Germany. Future Perfect at Sunrise believe that Blablaaa1 (and therefore Blablaaa0) are sockpuppets of User:Wikinger. User:Blablaaa2 was undoubtedly operated by Blablaaa, and was rightly blocked as a block evading sockpuppet, but considering that his intention was simply to participate in the discussion of his block, I'm willing to write that off as a rookie mistake rather than an attempt to be disruptive. I have so far seen no evidence that Blablaaa has abused multiple accounts.

Note: Although I have said I find Nick-D's fifth block to be inappropriate, I am not accusing him of abusing his administrator tools. I also have no doubt in my mind that his actions were taken with the intent of improving Wikipedia. I want to make this perfectly clear.

• Important note: Blablaaa has not retired. See this. The retired tag was actually added by Blablaaa0, who we have established is an impersonator. As such, I assume all the arbitrators who have moved to decline because the editor has retired will reconsider.

--Deskana (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by PBS

For the record it appears that Blablaaa has recently been the victim of an impersonator see here -- PBS (talk) 02:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• Recused -MBK₀₀₄ 00:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/4/3/0)

• Recused, obviously. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
• Accept. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  • On hold until we see whether Blablaaa files an unblock request and, if so, what ensues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
• Accept - KnightLago (talk) 01:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline - Given recent developments. KnightLago (talk) 01:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
• Recuse.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
• Accept, with the note that I will be inactive for the opening of the case, but intend on becoming active during the case. SirFozzie (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Collapsing earlier comments

Would like to hear a few more statements before deciding whether to accept or not. I note that the request for comments has technically not closed yet - how much time is normally given after or during an RfC for the editor concerned to modify their behaviour? I've also read the AN thread where the indefinite block of Blablaaa was discussed, and the difference in opinions between that thread and the RfC is noticeable, so while I was inclined to agree with Sandstein's comment above, I'm no longer so sure. Possibly a case is needed here. Will wait for more input. Carcharoth (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC) I've left a note at the RfC talk page. If any uninvolved editor reading this is willing to close that RfC, that may help make things clearer (there are several different ways that RfC could be closed, all of which would impact on this request for arbitration). Carcharoth (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing (of which I was previously unaware) seems to suggest that the RFC should be left open until it is clear whether or not a case is accepted. I do think that going straight from an RfC to a request for arbitration puts too much pressure on the editor concerned. If an editor continues being disruptive while an RfC is in progress, an uninvolved administrator should be sought to assess the matter first, as further escalation may not be needed. A short-term or long-term block should be applied if an uninvolved administrator thinks this is necessary to prevent disruption, and if disruption resumes after the block expires, then arbitration can be sought. An indefinite block would probably not be appropriate (though it would be if a community ban proposal gained proper consensus). If uninvolved administrators think the situation too complex to assess, then arbitration immediately may be needed. Carcharoth (talk) 00:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Accept for several reasons: (1) I think more than just Blablaaa's actions here need scrutiny (and that can proceed regardless of whether Blablaaa appeals or unretires or whatever); (2) I can understand administrators feeling that action was needed here, but at the time Jehochman blocked, the case had reached net four to accept, so for better or worse it should have been allowed to proceed at that point without the drama of a block; (3) If administrators want to save the time of the arbitration committee, it would be more useful if they paid attention to user conduct RFCs, rather than this page, and if those at user RfCs announced an intention to escalate to arbitration (an announcement of which I don't think happened here), then administrators can take action (say in a 24-hour window) before then if needed. To be clear, I would include Jehochman's actions here in the scope of any case, not with regards to any sanctions (the actions were taken in good faith) but to clarify what would have been best done here. Having said that, if the current accepts turn to reject following these actions, it may be that a case is not needed after all. If Blablaaa is reading this, I would encourage them to make clear whether they want a case opened and whether they would participate in a case if it opened. Carcharoth (talk) 08:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Given developments, I now think the request is moot (not needed) and have moved to decline. I still disagree with the timing of Jehochman's block, as such a block would have been better placed before this request for arbitration was made. I also disagree with the revoking of e-mail and talk page access that took place after suspicions were raised of socking (it should have been clear from the contributions that the most recently created account, User:Blablaaa0, was an impersonator). Thanks to Deskana for making clearer what happened there. The question is what to do now? My view is that the community should be able to handle this adequately now that more eyes have been drawn to the issues here (both with the user and with the concerns raised about content), especially now that the RfC exists as a documentation of the problems (but it would be better in future if there was a way to alert more people to such problems without taking the final step of filing a request for arbitration). Seeing as he is retired, the next step needs to be taken by Blablaaa. He would need to unretire before doing anything else, and then needs to go through the standard processes for asking for his block to be lifted (e.g. talk to the administrator who blocked him, file an unblock request, e-mail the unblock-l mailing list). The note left on his talk page by Jehochman does an excellent job of laying out what would be needed for an unblock request to succeed. But ArbCom don't need to be involved in that unless as a final resort after other options have failed. Accordingly, as I said above, decline and let the blocking administrator and the community deal with this. Carcharoth (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Noting that the retirement/unretirement issue is not clear and not helped by Blablaaa seemingly being unable to handle this by himself. Even if you discount the edits made by the impersonator. Blablaaa said here (08:14, 2 August 2010): Reflecting my time here i guess this is not the correct place for me so i will cease editing anyways. He was blocked at 17:45. The impersonator added the retired tag at 18:09, then Blablaaa made a series of edits undoing and restoring those edits, with this edit at 19:17 leaving the tags in place. Talk page access was revoked at 19:44. When talk page access was restored at 14:03 on 3 August, Blablaaa resumed editing his talk page within minutes (by 14:20), did not remove the retired tag, and the next day made this edit. Deskana should not have had to remove the tags for him (1), 2). It is unfortunate that certain issues (the impersonator, and language difficulties) have complicated matters, but my opinion remains the same: this does not need arbitration, let the blocking administrator and the community deal with this. Carcharoth (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Noting here that Blablaaa has made the following edit: [17]. It would be best if a clerk copied that over to Blablaaa's statement. My decline still stands, as my view is that this is a content dispute that the community of World War II military history editors can deal with (as Kirill Lokshin said, Blablaaa's conduct "hindered any real attempts to resolve the underlying dispute"). The conduct issues with Blablaaa can continue to be dealt with short of arbitration. It does not require Blablaaa to dispute the content (others will do that if needed), and before being able to address issues of content Blablaaa needs to understand why he was blocked, and learn how to work productively within the constraints of en-Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes. Carcharoth (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Recuse - I had commented on this editor and an unblock request fairly recently.[18] Risker (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
• Accept. User claims to have quit. In the event that Blablaa does not return, I believe this case should be held open, suspended in anticipation of his return. Cool Hand Luke 14:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
• Decline. since he's indef'd but would readily accept if he's unblocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Decline as moot. Steve Smith (talk) 00:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)