Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	10 Oct 2024	24 Oct 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Historical elections	13 Sep 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:EEML|Request for clarification: Wikipedia:EEML]]	none	none	28 October 2011
Request for clarification: Δ	Motion	none	26 October 2011
Request for clarification: Arbcom-unblocked editors	none	none	8 October 2011

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:EEML

Initiated by _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} at 02:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by Piotrus

I am seeking clarification of Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted ("The editors sanctioned by name in this decision are prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia (talk · contribs) on any page of Wikipedia, except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution.").

Let me state, clearly, that I have no desire to interact with Russavia, and that to my knowledge, he has not commented on me. This is, in fact, not about Russavia at all, but about the interpretation of the interaction ban (if I was to put it simply, how close can I get to a discussion in which Russavia is involved?).

Here's the short sequence of events that lead to me posting this clarification requests:

• Biophys posts an AE request on Russavia; I have no interest in it, have not read it then or even now;
• VM comments in that thread; I have no interest in it but as he is a fellow editor I respect for his essays and thoughts on wikipedia, I read his post there. Of further note for my eventual involvement is the part where VM notes that he found an article edited by Russavia by following edits of other editors;
• discussion grows and brings an increasingly large peanut gallery; I still have no interest in joining it, nor do I read most other comments, beyond admin's;
• FSP makes a comment on the futility of interaction bans in general, suggesting that admins should not enforce them. That makes me concerned, as I credit them with lessening the amount of hostility directed at me since they were put in place. Next, FSP comments that VM "went there [to the article edited by Russavia] after him [Russavia]". At that point I decide to post a comment, stating that as a party to the bans, I've found them helpful, if in need of some clarification; I also point out to FSP that VM has already explained how he became involved in this issue. I also noted that if any admin considers my comment in this thread to be a violation of an i-ban, to let me know that and I'll remove it. Please note that I have not commented on Russavia, only on the i-bans in general, and on VM comment in particular;
• almost at the same time I posted my comment, SarekOfVulcan blocks both Russavia and VM for a week. I expressed my disagreement with his action on his talk page in User_talk:SarekOfVulcan#Unfair_treatment, pointing out to my comment and suggestion for i-ban clarification, and suggesting reducing blocks, in particular for VM who I believe has been involved in much lesser violation of the ban. I also note on SoV's talk page (User_talk:SarekOfVulcan#AE_thread), again, that if any admin believes my involvement there is in violation of the i-ban, to let me know and I'll remove my posts. (Having been blocked once by a trigger happy admin who misunderstood a topic ban, and unblocked through AE appeal, I prefer to be very careful with regards to such restrictions, and ask for clarifications, rather than an unblock);
• approaching the end of this story, an admin (FSP) did post to my talk page, suggesting that my involvement in that thread was a violation of an i-ban (I also note that he has not responded to either of my two comments directed at him w/ regards to his posts in that case). In any case, I have self-reverted my three relevant posts (one to AE and two to SoV page), in a show of good faith (when in doubt, self-revert and ask for a review).

So now I am asking for a review and clarification. I do not believe I have breached the i-ban: I am not concerned with Russavia, I am not commenting on him; at AE I was simply commenting on i-bans in general (an issue of interest to me since I am under one), and later, on SoV's page, commenting on a block of VM (with whom I have no i-ban, of course). VM's ban was related to Russavia, but that is of no concern to me, I am concerned that an editor (VM) was treated unfairly, and I believe I have the right to express my opinion on this (he was not treated unfairly by Russavia, so I am not commenting on any action of his). After all, we have freedom of speech on Wikipedia, and I believe we are allowed to comment on anything that is not explicitly prohibited (I am explicitly prohibited from commenting on Russavia, but not on VM's block, whatever its circumstances are). To put this in a wider perspective, I believe that if editors A and B are under i-ban, and editor A becomes involved in something - like designing a policy, or is part of an arbitration, or an enforcement that results in a policy change, or block or such, editor B has the right to participate in the discussion (policy discussion, etc.) and/or comment on the outcome (a policy change, or a block of editor C, with whom B have no i-ban), as long as he does not comment on editor A or interact with him directly. Or am I wrong?

I'd appreciate Committee's thoughts, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 02:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

@SirFozzie and Colchicum: I am puzzled what kind of clear topic ban would be an improvement here. Who would you topic ban and from what? Now, I am not following the edits of most i-banned editors, so for all I know some of them may have main space topics they clash on. But I am also afraid this requests for clarifications is being hijacked to discuss other issues than I asked for. In the example given above, which did not involve me editing any mainspace article, how on earth would any t-ban help? I'd kindly request that those who want to discuss changing the nature of i-bans in general make their requests somewhere else, and clearly indicate which editors' i-bans need revision. This clarification request, with regards to me, seeks to answer a simple question I posed above (was my commenting on i-bans and VM block a violation of interaction ban with R. or not?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Biophys

I think that interaction bans are important and usually work, unless some people do not follow their editing restrictions (not sure why FPS was so skeptical [1]). Please note that I do not have interaction ban with Russavia, or at least this is my understanding. It was clear that Russavia did not obey his interaction bans almost a month ago, but that only involved him reverting my edits in the area where he is a good contributor. Therefore, I simply left him the article in question [2] and did not report anything at the moment. However, he later started doing the same with other contributors and in other areas. I asked him to stop, but he refused, which forced me to bring this matter for administrative review (please see the link). Of course I could ignore Russavia and others, but that would only make their conflicts worse. There was no one else to do it, because administrators apparently decided to ignore Russavia, exactly as FPS suggested (diff above). That brought me a lot of trouble. I tried to explain [3].

So, with regard to question by Piotrus, I believe he did not violate the letter and even the spirit of his restriction, because the instruction tells exactly this: "Although the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other", and that is what he did. By the same token, two mutually i-banned editors can easily edit the same article, as long as they do not conflict. Actually, they are only required to conduct the ordinary non-controversial editing. Editor A makes an addition to article X. Then B comes to add or modify, but not revert something. Two i-banned editors can easily collaborate in the same article without even talking (if they really want collaboration!). But if one of them jumps to revert a legitimate edit of another, this is a reason for immediate sanction. And it does not matter who of them edited this article first, who knows this subject better, or who contributed most to this article. Really, I do not see anything complicated in i-bans.

As about question by SirFozzie, I think we should not introduce t-bans only because some editors do not obey their i-bans. Violations happen all the time. That's why we have AE. Instead, the existing i-bans must be strictly enforced, as clearly explained in the instructions. In fact, I asked already at AE for i-enforcement, and thanks to AE administrators, it has been properly enforced so far. If the problems continue, then topic bans are in order, but that should be decided at AE using the existing discretionary sanctions. On the other hand, if Arbcom wants to intervene here (which I am not sure), then the proposal to submit an amendment with t-bans may have some merit. Biophys (talk) 04:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Main question to be clarified here is as follows: should the mutually banned editors A and B be allowed editing the same page as long as they do not interact with one another, or they should not? If they are not allowed to edit the same page, then version by NW would be a good approximation. Otherwise, I agree with improvement by Collect, except that his last phrase ("No editor under any interaction ban...") seems redundant. Biophys (talk) 19:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Colchicum

Enough is enough. I am about to request an amendment which would replace i-bans with topic bans. FPS now thinks (somewhat inconsistently, to the point that it is beginning to look like he is taking sides here, but whatever) that i-bans are not enforceable. Very well, topic bans would be. Colchicum (talk) 11:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by NuclearWarfare

This is how I envision interaction bans to work:

Imagine there are two editors, editor A and editor B. They have been mutually interaction banned from each other. If A edits Foo, a page B has not edited before, then B is expected to make no more than insignificant changes to Foo. If B wishes to make substantial changes to Foo, they should first clear their decision with an administrator. They should also not revert A's edits or engage in talk page discussion. At the first hint of conflict, B is expected to leave.

Now we have editor C. Editor C has been interaction banned from editor A, but A has not been interaction banned from C. Editor C is expected to follow all of the same rules as B above. In addition, if C is editing Bar, a page A has not edited before, and A comes along and makes substantial changes to Bar, C should cease editing Bar. If they feel that A's edits were made for the purpose of harassment, they should informally speak with an administrator and ask them to speak with A. Modifications to the ban can be made, as appropriate, by that administrator.

That's not an ideal, in my opinion, but is it at least an adequate understanding of how things should work in cases where the two editors' edits overlap? NW (Talk) 21:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Collect

Interpreted strictly, interaction bans appear to be a far greater problem than they are a solution. By the time one gets to "6 degrees of Interaction Bans", one could conceivably be unable to post on any noticeboard or talk page at all.

Therefore, why not reduce what it means to what we actually wish to prevent:

No person restricted from 'interacting' with a specific other editor shall make any post directly to any such editor, or referring to any such editor by name except where required by Wikipedia procedures. No person under such a ban shall make any edits clearly affecting specific edits made by the other editor, whether on articles or on any other Wikipedia page, including, but not limited to, redacting or refactoring of any such edits. No editor under any interaction ban shall post to 'any' other editor requesting that the second editor undertake any action which the first person is barred from doing.

Thus reducing the absurd situations the committee has seen in the past regarding the multiple-ban-combinations which do, indeed, occur. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Nug (aka Martin Tammsalu)

Since the previous AE cases, and a subsequent amendment request and some emails, I had hoped that Russavia and I had come to some kind of understanding to focus on content. However in this latest AE case (which I have not involved myself in) brought against Russavia, his very first response was to attempt to implicate me as possible "collateral damage" by pointing to an edit I made[4], which unfortunately was a breach of the spirit of the understanding I thought we had. I have since removed that edit[5]. In that light I should note that Russavia appears to be continuing the same behaviour as before, following edits of his perceived opponents in articles for which he has not any real interest and making contentious edits like placing tags. In the Occupation of the Baltic states he tags my edit[6] as dubious[7], how am I suppose to respond? In Courland Pocket, an article Russiavia has never edited before[8] he removes a reference[9]. I also note that Russavia continues to breach his iBan by continuing to comment upon Volunteer Marek[10] despite for being currently blocked for breaching his iBan. Just recently he unilaterally moved an article of interest to me[11], but I cannot respond due to this iBan. I don't go tagging, moving and AfDing aviation articles he has worked on, so I don't know why he feels he must persist with this. Clearly this iBan is not working. Can the Committee please clarify and/or ammend this into something workable for all. --Nug (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Greyhood

This post by Russavia outlines two problems:

• Interaction bans, if in place, should be mutual. If user A is placed on interaction ban with user B, than user B should be placed on interaction ban with user A as well. Otherwise this does not work. It allows one editor, for example, to comment the other's actions, prompting some kind of response, or even to post on the talk page of the other, which collides an interaction ban with a need of a common courtesy of an answer.
• Off-wiki activities of the editors with known identity, when they comment on the editors with whom they have interaction bans, at least when such comments are obviously provocative, should be considered breaching the interaction ban. GreyHood ^Talk 21:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Generally, interaction bans mean that one should take every opportunity to NOT seek out areas where you would likely interact with the other side. This area is contentious enough that it could already be considered a topic ban as there's not many areas that one or the other is not involved in, and once one side of the interaction ban is involved in a topic/discussion, the other is defacto not to get involved. Would it best to formalize this and remove all chance of these interactions by placing topic bans? I'm waiting for more statements, however, before proposing anything and am just musing out loud here. SirFozzie (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
• I agree that some clarification is needed here. I have not personally interpreted an interaction ban between A and B as prohibiting A and B from editing the same article that is within their common area of interest (unless the decision expressly provides for that), though I would interpret it as meaning that they should refrain from edit-warring with each other. So we may want to do some clarifying here. I would also like to suggest (as a general matter, not a finding in a particular instance) that where it appears a user may have made an edit that violated a sanction, but he or she apparently acted in the good-faith, reasonable belief that the sanction did not apply to that edit, then a warning rather than a block will usually be the more proportionate response (at least the first time it happens). Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
• Recused on main EEML case,  Roger Davies ^talk 06:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Request for clarification: Δ

Initiated by Uʔ (talk) at 17:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• ʔ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Δ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notification
• Thumperward (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) notification

Statement by ʔ (formerly Have mörser, will travel)

There has been a proposal (at WP:VPR#Δ proposed task #1) to relax the community restrictions on Δ as to allow him to remove deleted images from articles. One administrator, Chris Cunningham, has expressed the following concern:

Waaaaay too close to the original nexus of all Beta-drama. The community simply does not trust Beta to remove links to images. Allowing him to do so en masse is simply asking for trouble. The sky will almost certainly not fall down if this has to be left to the rest of us. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I've discovered that Δ is subject to a separate ArbCom-imposed ban on "making any edit enforcing the non-free content criteria, broadly construed" (imposed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2#Modified by motion). What does ArbCom think about this community-proposed task—removal of deleted images? Does it fall too close to the NFCC-enforcement ban, or not? 17:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Additional comment. I agree with Risker and SirFozzie on the issue that the current community sanction is drama prone because of the varying interpretations of "pattern" in the community. Just search for this key word in the ANI and VPR threads, and you'll see what I mean. I was reluctant to open a full case just because of that though. There are also some editors who think the community sanction is completely unnecessary now, not just ambiguous. It's true that programming skills can progress quite a lot in three years. [By the way, I asked for my account to be renamed away from "ʔ".] Uʔ (talk) 07:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

See also: The 9+ proposals to amend or clarify the community restriction in addition to the 20 task requests which follow the requirements of the current restriction, as Hammersoft correctly points out below. Uʔ (talk) 11:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Masem

If the image has long-since been deleted, and presumably not be Delta's hand, I would think that removing the dead image call from a file is not an NFC case since we would do the same for free images that happen to later be deleted. That is, the take would not be specific to handling NFC, but any media content. --MASEM (t) 17:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

To the ArbCom members (Based on comments below): The current situation is as follows:

• Delta's been running his manual script-enabled tool, under the community throttle, to make various wikignoming/cleanup tasks on pages (8000 as he's claimed). They range from redirection fixes, whitespace cleanup, reference cleaning, etc.
  • During this period, there were some of Delta's semi-automatic edits that likely were not well defined within MOS (reference restructuring), or, while not breaking anything visually, had a secondary side effect (linking to a bad version of a page (404) at Wayback when adding archive links. When pointed out, Delta (appeared to) drop them. (I didn't do more than spot check, but they were no longer problems after notification).
• As noted, about two weeks ago, Delta is suddenly blocked as this was seen by one admin as a pattern of edits. The block presumed that Delta would not communicate with the blocker and raised several questions on that , but it highlighted to the community that Delta has been doing these 8000 edits that some have taken to be a "pattern of edits".
• ANI blows up. (As someone has jokingly said, there's a law, if Delta has been blocked for X, then the accompanying ANI thread must last for 10X).
  • As noted in the Arb comments: the bulk of the ANI thread is over what the phrase "pattern of edits" is to be taken as, as well as what timeframe or other limits there are on the "25 edits" could mean.
• Hammersoft, knowing that Delta is not the best communicator to the masses, offers to bring Delta's current script tasks to VPP per the community restriction to gain consensus irregardless of the resolution of the ANI thread (as this process would appear to satisfy the first community restriction about getting permission). Delta provides on his talk page the lists of changes that his semi-automated tool makes that he has to verify before submitting as an edit.
  • One of these tasks involved the removal of long-deleted image files (non-free or not), hence the question raised here about Delta's NFCC handling.
• The enumeration of the tasks has not gone well, with some outright blanket opposes, and about half the tasks that involve any type of subjective handling typically being opposed, leaving the list of tasks those that could be handled by a bot but that Delta is willing to do. Some have accused Hammersoft of being pointy in this effort, despite the fact that some were asking for exactly this.

I would say that it would be helpful of ArbCom, ignoring the drama of the whole issue, to provide guidance if what Delta's 8000 edits should have been taken as a pattern of edits (hence requiring the VPP part), and whether the VPP thing going on now is an appropriate part of the process set by the community edits and whether the types of actions being sought are within the bounds of the community edits. (In addition to the whole NFC issue). --MASEM (t) 13:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

To SirFozzie: {{BCD}} gives Δ for this specific purpose. --MASEM (t) 19:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Hammersoft

I agree with Masem for the most part. I could see someone making a case out of this by saying "Well, you deleted a link to a deleted image which the deletion log shows was deleted for failing NFCC policy". But, this seems a stretch to me. Further, it isn't NFCC enforcement, even if the image was a non-free image and deleted for NFCC reasons. The NFCC enforcement already happened in that case. And a bit of nitpick; The proposals made are not requests to relax his restrictions. They're being made in accordance with restrictions. He is not currently forbidden from deleting links to deleted images. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Wikidemon

Whether removing links to deleted images is related to NFCC enforcement, broadly construed, depends on how broad is broad. There is a nexus here of the sort that has concerned the community. First, Delta's long interest in non-free images has been a flash point for concerns about incivility, subterfuge, unauthorized use of tools, failure to respond or communicate with the community, errors, and disregard of consensus process. Widening the scope to all images doesn't remove the fact that it affects non-free images, because one subsumes the other. Second, although I have no specific information I would guess that many to most images that are deleted despite being used in articles have been deleted on NFCC grounds, so this is NFCC cleanup. If they were deleted for being redundant, or some other technical reason, then the right action would be to find the surviving image and link to that, not remove the link. Which gets to the third point, although Beta was particularly strident about NFCC policy, his use of automated tools in all areas has been a problem. We can't assume that any particular automated task is harmless or approved. For instance, a different editor might instead leave a hidden comment or make a log entry so that other editors would improve the article with a replacement image instead of deleting the link. If there is a potentially undesirable result from these link removals, it is the same as when targeted more narrowly to nonfree images: loss of encyclopedic content, and lots of manual work by others to fill the holes, if an automated process is done blindly without careful input, planning, or execution. I have no opinion on what the outcome should be, just saying that if you cast the net broadly there is some connection here. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Caution regarding present motion. What mandate does Arbcom have to consider overturning for a second time the decision of the community in how to deal with Beta? It seems that Arbcom is disrespecting and thereby hampering, the ability of the community to resolve long-term concerns involving prominent editors. A consensus arose, incrementally over the span of years, that Beta exhausted too many last chances, and is simply unlikely to edit in certain subject areas or using certain tools without creating another mess if given yet another chance. Simply taking up the motion gives Beta another chance, because if the sanctions are re-examined in a new light, then unless there is some kind of meltdown or misbehavior during the case it's inevitable that ArbCom will put its own stamp on something then see, over the course of months and years, whether that works. That means two more angst-filled years of AN/I cases, Arbcom motions, unauthorized bots, personal attacks and accusations between editors calling each other enablers or stalkers, etc. If ArbCom wishes to jump in, the measure should be how can it more strongly ensure stability in the project, not whether it should undo existing efforts to keep things stable. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by CBM

I made the following comment on the village pump:

The arbcom motion only covers non-free image enforcement "broadly construed". But it is in Beta's interest to avoid image-related work entirely, I believe.

I do think that if he removes links to images that were deleted for NFCC reasons, that would be NFCC work broadly construed. But the overall goal of maintenance work is that it should go on behind the scenes, so to speak, so that nobody bothers to comment on it. Δ has proven, numerous times, to be unable to meet this goal. Previous efforts to help Δ by giving him a loose editing restriction have only given him enough room to cause trouble for himself. This includes the community editing restriction he is currently under, which I helped draft in 2008 [12]. We should begin to think about more tightly restricting him from maintenance work, since he has not proven able to self-modulate his work in this area. His 2,000 unapproved edits in the last two months, with identical edit summary "cleanup", are a typical example of this. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Examples

Two arbitrators asked whether the edits were going smoothly. One problem with the edits is that they all have exactly the same edit summary, so it is hard to find examples of any particular type. But here are links to discussions on his talk page in the last 2 months.

• Relocating references (violates WP:CITEVAR) [13]. This appears to be a similar complaint: [14]
• Adding "release date" to book references [15]
• Cleanup script issues [16] [17]
• This edit [18] removed the word "is" from the lede, making it ungrammatical. It is hard to tell that, however, because there is so much noise in the diff. This particular edit was pointed out by Lexin [19].
• This diff by Fram [20] reports other errors in the "cleanup" edits

If more links are desired, it would be possible for someone to make a list of them, but I think this conveys the general point that that the tasks Δ was doing were a combination of discouraged edits (changing reference formats), non-improvements (adding release dates for books), trivialities (changing Image: to File:), and occasional errors. Making this sort of change en masse would lead to complaints if any editor did it, and indeed the links above show different people noticing different problems and pointing them out on Δ's talk page.

One germane task I am aware of in the edits is the removal of links to deleted images. This is a classic example of a large-scale task for which Δ needed to get approval before commencing (and it runs into his restriction on NFCC work). Had he not obfuscated his edit summaries, this would have been noticed sooner as well. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Tristessa de St Ange

As the administrator who blocked Δ and hence started this most recent chapter of the perennial brouhaha, I'd like to say that I would recommend he stay away from image-related tasks altogether based on history, though I can't see any reason why he shouldn't be allowed to perform removals of images that 1) are already fully deleted; 2) aren't in the process of community discussion; and 3) have nothing to do with the former points of contentious editing, e.g. are not related to NFCC or similar issues. --Tristessa (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Δ

The reason that Hammersoft is making this request is that at the time I was blocked. There was a discussion less than 30 days ago where my edits where deemed acceptable, yet Tristessa de St Ange out of the blue (over three weeks afterwords) blocks me for the exact same edits that I was making 30 days ago and according to AN where acceptable. I really wish arbcom would grow a spine and put a stop the this harassment in general, but I know they dont have the balls to make a stand and actually support those of us who actually care about the pedia. Instead they choose to play politics and popularity games like this is High School. I have been doing missing/deleted cleanup for years without any issues, hell I have made over 8,000 edits of general cleanup, earning several thank you's and a barnstar or two. However the Hell Hounds choose to talk and harass every edit that I make. I know for a fact that if I had a different username other than what I have I know people would be heaping praise and thank you's without any issue. However because I am Betacommand it doesnt matter what the hell I do, everything is wrong, and I must be banned. Hell I know I could retire this username and quietly return, amass 20,000 or so edits, run for RFA and pass with flying colors if I could forget my past. However because there where issues years ago people feel that I shouldnt be allowed to edit. CBM is a classic example of that, it doesnt matter how productive I am, I get bitched at. Removing deleted/missing images is not NFCC enforcement. Its just going back and cleaning up after lazy admins who delete files without first orphaning (which is the recommended practice). I have pushed a feature for tracking these pages into mediawiki because I know so few people who do this kind of work, and that maintaining a personal list is difficult. Category:Pages with missing files is my brain child and I know few people who bother with this cleanup and instead leave articles with upwards of 20 deleted/missing files on a regular basis. I dont know about you but I find that extremely ugly and gives us a bad perspective when readers come across an article with those broken links. But I know my comments here will be ignored just like they are every time I come to this committee. The odds are that this committee will not have a backbone and sanction me further, instead of realizing that I have been the victim of stalking and harassment for years and actually do something to ensure that those users who improve the pedia are protected, instead of pandering to those who haunt the drama boards and do very little to improve the peda. Just let me know how badly I am going to be ArbFucked™ this time. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Response to arbs

Other than a very few minor errors it has been very productive and frictionless. I experimented with google books, which didnt work out. But other than that its been very quiet and Ive even earned a barnstar for my gnoming/cleanup. If anyone other than myself where making these edits there would be zero drama. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Sven Manguard

It's well known that I fall on Delta's side in most cases. Yes, he's occasionally overly abrasive and under-communicative, but at the same time, yes, he most certainly has been terribly harassed, by multiple users, over a long period of time.

I am urging the Committee to open up a new case, which would completely overrule the current ArbCom case sanctions, the community restrictions, and the ArbCom motion filed earlier this year by Roger Davies, and if ArbCom decides it necessary, impose new restrictions in their collective stead. At issue, Delta is entangled in a web of sanctions that are in not only in conflict with one another, but are so awfully written that just about anything he does can be pointed to as being in violation of the sanctions, whether or not that was the intention of the authors or not.

I also urge the committee, when handling the case, to look at all parties as components of this ongoing dispute, and come in with no prejudgements. I believe you will find that Delta was targeted by somewhere around three specific users, who either initiated each AN/I thread, or rushed there to increase the drama level. This is not to say Delta is without guilt, that is untrue, however it is to say that incidents involving Delta cannot be taken out of context from the users who are frequently in conflict with him at AN/I.

Finally, and this will be an odd request, I'm sure, I am urging the committee to initiate this after the upcoming election. I do not think that he can receive a fair shake under the current composition of ArbCom. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Response to Thryduulf

It seems like what you're proposing is that ArbCom:

a) take a look at everything that's happened surrounding Delta; and

b) reapply all of the sanctions already applied to Delta

I don't think that they can actually do both, or at least, if they do a good job with 'a', then 'b' won't go down the way you are saying.

Mind you, ArbCom has the technical ability to just unify the sanctions and dismiss the affair, but I'd be disappointed if that's all they were able to do; at the very least some of the current sanctions are obsolete or unwarranted, some of them need tightening or clarification, and a few people need interaction bans from Delta, because a whole lot of drama is stirred up by less than a half dozen users bringing Delta to the boards so often that it's becoming a cry wolf affair. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Second response to Thryduulf

Oh. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Reply to the motion and direct comment to the Arbs

A applaud your opening a case on the matter, however I still worry that at least one Arb in particular (who I will choose not to name because it is his responsibility to decide whether or not to recuse) has become too involved and has formed too strong of a negative opinion of Delta, for it to be fair for him to actively participate in the case. Yes, I realize that since this is not Delta's first time being brought before the committee, there is a great deal of prejudicial antagonism floating about, however most of the Arbs have remained publicly neutral, or at least moderate, on Delta issues, while one or two have not.

Secondly, (if you're still listening), I ask you to amend the motion to include a line that explicitly allows Delta to continue to make maintenance edits manually, and in numbers above 25 a day, while this is pending. I fully expect that people will immediately rush to claim wrongdoing the moment he hits 25 edits of any one type, or will rush to say he's gaming the system if he stops below 25 each day, even if he's doing his edits manually. Yes, we can't really prove that he's doing it manually, however we can look at his edit rate for a good indication of, at the very least, whether he's working slow enough to conceivably be working manually and reviewing his edits.

Finally, the motion would nullify the approval of several proposed tasks that have received support, in some cases overwhelming support, at the recent request for authorization thread started by Hammersoft on Delta's behalf. I believe this is your intention, however I wanted to make sure you all knew that some of the tasks were, in fact, supported by the community. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment towards Delta

Dude, don't blow this chance by flaunting the restrictions imposed by the motion.

Yes, the community has wronged you; yes, ArbCom has wronged you; but this is perhaps the best chance you have for achieving some semblance of normalcy again. If you ignore this whole thing and start making automated edits while the motion is active, not only are you handing a good reason to ban you to the small group of people on the committee that have been seeking it for a while, but you'll lose any semblance of community support you have.

I've had your back, quite vocally, and probably more often than would be good for my reputation, because I genuinely believe that you've been wronged in this affair. To me, it's obvious that you're not innocent, but it's just as obvious that neither are a whole lot of the people that consistently rally against you. I'm telling you now though, that if you blow this — if you make the choice to ignore this chance — I will be right with the people calling for you to be banned, just like that. I will know that I tried my very hardest to help you and that you spurned it.

Don't betray the people that are still fighting for you; let this play out. Please. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment towards John Vandenberg

You were not the admin that I had in mind when I said that there was an Arb on the committee that really ought to recuse himself from this case. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Response to Crossmr

There's more than enough evidence in that particular RfC alone to play accusation ping pong for days on end. You accuse me of bad faith and uncivil insults, but consider myself very much justified in making the identical claim against you. I, however, carefully avoided naming names in this initial stage of what is increasingly looking like a full blown ArbCom case. Had I done so initially, yours would be the very first name on my list of antagonists in this sad affair.

I also disagree with your characterization of Delta being used as a figurehead, however your comment does give me insight into why you and others responded in that thread in the way that you all did. I was defending a person, you were going after a perceived institution. That we were all operating from fundamentally different perceptions of the situation goes a great deal towards explaining how communication between the sides was so damned hard. Sven Manguard Wha? 10:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Second response to Crossmr

I believe that I was justified in the conclusion you quoted. Yes, Delta is a problem user, but no more so than a dozen other problem users that often get brought to AN/I. The difference between him and these other users is twofold. First, by being sanctioned by ArbCom, he instantly became a free target; whereas going after other users without sanctions has a political cost built in, going after Delta does not. Secondly, he is one of the only users to actively patrol what is an immesnely misunderstood and unpopular area, the NFCC. One thing spending time at FfD has shown me is that people don't like having images that they've uploaded get deleted. Even if the deletion is 100% correct the uploader often is bitter, and occasionally goes after the person who listed their upload for deletion. Combine the fact that Delta is doing NFCC patrolling in high volume with the fact that he really dosen't have a tremendous amount of tact, and what you have is a large group of people who are angry with him, revenge-filled even. It's a formula that sets Delta up to fail every time, even in instances where he hasn't done wrong. Once his name hits AN/I, a whole lot of people come out of the woodworks for the wrong reasons. Yes, I acknowledge that in this Delta appears to be the architect of his own demise, but at the same time, he's not being treated fairly by a very, very long shot. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

For the sake of the community's time and the satisfaction of all parties, I think that a case re-examining:

• all of Delta's contributions
• the various restrictions placed on him (including the discussions relating to their interpretation by all parties)
• the behaviour of those regularly interacting with him with regards to reporting/enforcement of restrictions, etc, and anyone alleged to be (trying to) goad him into breaching restrictions, etc.
• the behaviour of those regularly speaking/acting for him, on his behalf or advancing what could be described as "pro-Delta" arguments/positions (whether Delta has asked them to or not)

This would be with a view to determining whether any restrictions are currently warranted, and if so what they are, and looking to word them to be as unambiguous as possible.

To put an end to any wikilawyering or uncertainty about intent, relevance, appliccablity, etc, about restrictions, I would encourage the committee upon opening the case to enact a motion superceding all existing restrictions on Delta (wherever, whyever and whenever imposed) and replacing them with a very simple set of restrictions that are not subject to interpretation. I would suggest something like:

• Delta may not make more than N edits in any X-minute period, by any method, for any reason.
• Delta may not make any automated or script-assisted edits, by any method, for any reason.
• Delta may not make any edits, by any method, for any reason, with the sole effect of changing styles, layouts or presentations, whether these are in accordance with the manual of style or not.
• Delta may not make any edits, by any method, for any reason, that result in no changes to the display of the page, whether these are in accordance with the manual of style or not.
• Delta may propose edits of this nature on relevant article or project talk pages. They may not be implemented by any party to this case, nor without consensus to do so. Any proposal affecting more than N pages must be linked to from [an appropriate case page].
• Delta may propose automated tasks at [appropriate page], these must reference specific pages that will be effected. These tasks may not be carried out without consensus, nor may they be carried out by any party to this case. All such proposals must be linked from [an approrpiate case page].
• No party to this case may propose any tasks/edits on behalf of another party to the case.
• Delta may not make any edits, by any means, for whatever reason, enforcing the non-free content criteria - i.e. he may not:
  • Delete any image marked for NFCC
  • Delete any image for violating the NFCC
  • Nominate any image for violating the NFCC
  • Discuss the nomination of any potentially unfree image (with the sole exception of images he uploaded)
  • Discuss at deletion review any image deleted for being unfree
  • Inform any user that an image they uploaded is or might be unfree
  • Remove any image from any page for being unfree, potentially unfree, or for violating the NFCC
  • Initiate or contribute to a discussion about whether one or more images on a page (individually or collectively) violate the NFCC.
• Delta may privately inform a nominated member(s) of the arbitration committee or any other user nominated by the arbitration committee of any image or series of images he feels is unfree or which violates the NFCC (individually or collectively). The informed user may or may not take action (e.g. deletion or nomination of the image) at their discretion. The intent of this being private is to prevent any drama associated with the nomination being linked to Delta. If more than one user is nominated they should communicate to prevent gaming the system or playing one off against the other.
• Delta may remove redlinks in the article or portal namespaces to images deleted for being unfree or violating the NFCC provided all of the following are true:
  • The image was deleted at least 1 week ago
  • The image was not nominated or deleted by him or any other party to this case
  • There is no ongoing discussion about the image on the talk page, at deletion review, the deleting admin's talk page, the uploader's talk page, or any other page linked from these places.
• Delta may note on the article/portal and/or project talk page, or an appropriate case talk page, the existence of a redlink that these restrictions do not allow him to remove. This may optionally be by means of an edit request.
• Each violation of these restrictions will result in a 1-week block of the infringer. Such blocks will be regarded as arbitration enforcement blocks.
• No party to this case may block or unblock another party to the case for any reason.
• No party to this case may revert another party to this case for any reason. Clear vandalism may be reported at WP:AIV or another suitable

These are deliberately very stringent restrictions, but they are only proposed to be for the duration of the case. I anticipate that the committee will find that if any restrictions are required on a longer-term basis that they are not this strict, but they are designed to be black and white - either a restriction is violated or it is not (this is why they are so long). Although they are framed above with reference to Delta (or all parties), some or all may be applicable to other parties too. I do not claim these are perfect, nor do I expect the committee to adopt them verbatim, I provide them and my reasoning to express my view. If desired by the committee, I would agree to be a party and/or edit under some or all of these restrictions.

There is the potential for editors to try to prolong the duration of the case to extend the duration of these stringent restrictions, but I would hope the committee would see this as sanctionable disruption.

In response to the comments above calling for any case to be delayed until after an election, I strongly disagree. I do this solely because I think that this would prolong the status quo which neither the 'pro' nor 'anti' Delta sides of the dispute are happy with. Thryduulf (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Sven Manguard

Yes and no:

a) Yes, in my opinion everything and everyone involved here needs to be looked at.

b) No. I think they should:

1. Throw out the current restrictions
2. Place Delta and other relevant editors under simple but hard, strict temporary restrictions for the duration of the case
3. Examine all the evidence, then either
   • Remove all restrictions;
   • Make the temporary restrictions permanent; or
   • Replace the temporary restrictions with more focused, probably lesser, restrictions with no loopholes that are much better worded than those existing currently.

I personally think that some restrictions on Delta are currently required, and hopefully ones that are less strict than the temporary ones I propose will be necessary. However, until the ongoing drama stops and the evidence can be presented and examined, it is not going to be possible to determine what restrictions (if any) are actually warranted. Unfortunately for Delta, I can only see the drama escalating while he edits in a manner that some, in good faith, see as contrary to his restrictions (regardless of whether they are or not). That some users in good standing acting in good faith believe that Delta's actions are contrary to the restrictions, and other users in good standing acting in good faith believe they are not is more than enough evidence (for me at least) that the restrictions are not fit for purpose (given that their aim is to prevent exactly the kind of situation we are in now), and so retaining/reinstating them would be the worst outcome. Thryduulf (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment to SirFozzie/other arbs re existing approved tasks

Given that it has sometimes been very contentious whether there is consensus for some bot/script/whatever tasks and that at least some of the reason why there is almost certain to be a forthcoming arbitration case is problems about interpretation of restrictions on Delta, I think it very important that all motions be very clear about what is an is not permitted. As such, if the restriction on (semi)-automated edits is not to be total, could I very strongly ask the committee to explicitly list (or explicitly link to an existing list elsewhere) all the tasks that they consider to have community approval. Without this I sadly forsee more drama. Thryduulf (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Crossmr

As I'm often labelled one of his most vocal critics, I guess I should say something. As it was mentioned, Arbcom should look at all his contribs. But they should actually look at everything. His entire wiki-career. This is a user that the community has fought over endlessly. I would recommend Arbcom look at Delta's behaviour over the years and see what's changed, what's remained the same, and look at the communities reaction to it at various times. I know last time around in June/July of this year, I was getting some serious flashbacks to certain behaviour issues that were one of the main problems 3 or 4 years ago. That was telling me then, that despite everything, all the bans, blocks, endless discussion, nothing was really changing on a fundamental level.

Sven is also right that the behaviour of those surrounding this should probably also be examined. Delta doesn't exist in a bubble, and frankly one of the problems in dealing with Delta has been the other users, especially those trying to use him as a figurehead rather than address him as the user he is. Last time around one of the most common arguments from those supporting him was that any attack on Delta was an attack on NFCC, so that meant a blanket support of anything he did. 2-3 years ago an administrator had threatened to go through and block all those who had been support Delta when it was once again shown to be waste of the community's time. Unfortunately he never followed through on that. A few months ago I brought a topic to AN/I regarding Delta's edit warring on NFCC and the first 4-5 (I'd have to check) opposes all came with a heaping side of bad faith and uncivil insults, including from Sven himself.

@Masem: in fact no one asked for what Hammersoft did. People asked Delta to submit a specific task for approval. Hammersoft instead submitted 20 tasks, of an indefinite and open nature individually. 8 of those tasks were added after it was clear that out of the first 12 that had been proposed only 1, which was a bot-like task already covered by a fairly quick bot, had remotely gained any traction. That's why his behaviour was viewed as pointy.--Crossmr (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

@alexandria has the bot been functioning without issue? if so, I wouldn't have a problem with it continuing in it's current scope as is. I'm not an arb member, but as I often disagree with what and how delta does things that should count for something.--Crossmr (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

@Sven you're free to pick apart my contributions if you like. There is a great difference between someone willing to carry the debate and those who cannot do so without resorting to personal attacks, insults and insinuations. There was a time when anyone who raised the slightest objection to anything Delta was doing was met with nothing but those things. As far as communication problems, go back and read the debates. Notice how frequently those supporting Delta were bringing up NFCC and framing their response in the context that Delta somehow represented NFCC. Some of them even flat out said "This is an attack on NFCC". Very few, if any, who were speaking against Delta were speaking against NFCC, it was those defending him that were trying to muddy the issue by creating strawmen based on NFCC. That was why that discussion never got anywhere. If you took out all the people supporting him who couldn't do so without coloring their support as such, he had almost no supporters left. That includes you, did you not write in your opposition to the suggestion to topic ban him from NFCC This is a clear case of people not liking the message, so going after the messanger.? and yet, arbcom stepped in and did just that. Do we continue to have the same drama over NFCC issues? Was the problem really the message or the messenger? Quickly eye-balling that discussion of the first 15 or so opposes I read, almost every single one tried to attack the call to topic ban Delta from NFCC as an attack on NFCC policy. No, you were right. It's entirely appropriate for arbcom to be giving this a thorough look.--Crossmr (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Question by Alexandria

As the case appears to be opening shortly and the user formerly known as Betacommand appears to be restricted as follows: "While this case is open, Δ is directed to cease all large scale editing tasks of 25 edits or more, be they fully or semi-automated. All edits must be fully scrutinized for technical issues before submission." Would this include his bot which does a lot of functions on the WP:SPI page that make our lives as SPI clerks a lot easier. Alexandria (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Awaiting further statements, including input from Δ. Apropos of nothing, I have serious doubts as to whether "ʔ" is a useful username from the point of view of helping editors communicate with one another. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Δ, your comments are obnoxious. I am thick-skinned enough not to hold this against you in addressing this request, but it is time you realized that there is no virtue to obnoxiousness. As for the substance of the request, I would appreciate some input regarding whether Δ's recent edits are useful or not—or put differently, if they would be controversial or problematic in any way if anyone other than Δ were making the edits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• Why is Hammersoft proposing all these proposals on behalf of Δ rather than Δ propose them himself? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Aha, my reply would pretty much echo Brad's - are the edits in and of themselves been going harmoniously or has there been friction? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• Personally, I think a clarification will do no good here, we may need a full case to look at the situation, ditch the current sanction (as seen, it has enough holes to drive a Mack Truck through, causing aggravation on both sides), and come up with a fresh idea (whether that is to restrict Beta fully from this kind of thing, or to come up with a tightly worded restriction). SirFozzie (talk) 03:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • @Sven: I don't think the situation is settled enough that putting it into a holding pattern and then dropping it in the laps of the Committee and its new members in January is a particularly welcome (or indeed plausible) idea. If we do take this as a full case, I think anyone who is unable to judge this fairly will recuse. SirFozzie (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
    • @WikiDemon: To answer your questions: What mandate does the Committee have in this case? Well, being the last step of Dispute Resolution on Wikipedia does help. And with no offense intended towards the people who voted on the restrictions in the past (both community and Committee), the situation here is about as UNstable as possible, (the fact that I looked at the existing wording and found it had holes you could drive a mack truck through, depending on your interpretation. So, we're going to look at it, tighten and clarify as needed, loosen and remove as not needed. SirFozzie (talk) 19:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
• A few points. First, Tristessa, could you please log your block here? Secondly, I am inclined to agree with SirFozzie; the case, and the sanctions involved, date back over three years, and even the provisional suspension of the community ban dates back over two years. Throughout the intervening two years, there have been recurrent issues from all sides. I think this is going to take more than a mere clarification to resolve. Risker (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Block noted as requested. --Tristessa (talk) 10:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Motion

The Arbitration Committee declines to issue a clarification of Δ's current restrictions, and instead will direct the clerks to open a full case, tentatively entitled Review of Δ sanctions. While this case is open, Δ is directed to cease all large scale editing tasks of 25 edits or more, be they fully or semi-automated. All edits must be fully scrutinized for technical issues before submission.

For this motion, there are 15 non-recused arbitrators, so 8 is a majority.

Support

1. I wish there was an easier way to accurately refer to Beta (that is still accurate). It is a pain to have to use the special symbol Δ all the time. We need a blank slate to review these issues, and I think until we can do a formal review, it would be easiest for Δ to cease these tasks rather then risk ongoing sturm und drang. Needless to say, we would look at all parties involved, and not just the current patchwork hodge podge of restrictions on Δ. SirFozzie (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
2. I'm really not happy at the prospect of an arbitration case over this matter, but the fact is that Δ is currently under a complicated mishmash of variously interpreted community sanctions, and is the focus of much dispute around many the edits he does (which are also just as varied and impossible to qualify as a whole). It is not entirely clear either how much of those disputes can be attributed to Δ himself. Untangling this to try to solve the problem will indeed require more than a simple clarification or motion work. — Coren ^(talk) 18:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
3. I agree with this approach - the issues here are too complex for a clarification, and are worthy of a full case. PhilKnight (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
4. Not unpredictable, and part of the reason I advocated dealing with this particular problem last go 'round. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
5. Worth a full review. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk)
6. There have been so many actions and changes in the period between the original case, the community ban, and the present matter that it is time to review what makes sense and does not make sense, and to give some more solid guidance to all involved in this situation. I would suggest that the task related discussion currently occurring at the Village pump be included as "evidence" (perhaps putting it on a subpage of the VP and providing a link would be sufficient) to help sort out the current community perceptions. Risker (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
7. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 17:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
8. Conditional support, the condition being that one or preferably two arbitrators step forward to be hands-on drafters here, as the case pages are likely to require some supervision and the case will require careful, detailed review and analysis of the evidence and history. Given that I drafted the decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2, whose principles were well-received but whose remedies patently did not solve the underlying problem, I'd prefer for other arbitrators to do the main drafting this time around. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
9. Existing sanctions are useless for anything but drama - there has to be a better way. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
10. I am happy to be a drafter for this case. I would prefer to be a secondary drafter, but am happy to be the lead drafter. I've had a fairly 'involved' relationship with Delta, but it hasn't been onesided; e.g. unblocking him when the technicalities were being used against him[21] and also asking him to stop recently (User_talk:Δ/20110701#please_stop). If Delta wants me to recuse, I will. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

    Thanks Sven; I wasnt sure, and I can appreciate that Beta/Delta may be concerned about whether I am biased or not. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

11. Yes, it makes sense to review this. As NFCC features heavily, and is the most controversial aspect, hat would be helpful would be an analysis of some of this editor's edits. Some numbers would be more useful than allegation/counter-allegation, so say the 250+ link removals on 30 June 2011. Such an analysis could be broken down into percentage of files that were false positives (ie there was already a rationale); percentage of files that were deleted as actual vios; percentage of files that were only deleted because they'd been orphaned but had a rationale; percentage of edits reverted etc.  Roger Davies ^talk 01:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

1. Before I actually support this, I think we need to be answering AlexandriaB's question re: the SPI bot that she has pointed out above. The Cavalry (Message me) 15:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

1. I would personally state that the direction above would only apply to new tasks, existing bots and such that have already been approved and are in use currently should not be affected. SirFozzie (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Arbcom-unblocked editors

Initiated by T. Canens (talk) at 08:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• MuZemike‎ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (previously involved in dealing with TLAM)
• EdJohnston‎ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (as above)
• Sandstein‎ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (as above)
• HelloAnnyong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (as above)
• Hersfold‎ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (as above)

Statement by Timotheus Canens

Under what circumstances may an individual administrator block an editor previously unblocked by arbcom?

In particular, if an account X is first blocked as a sockpuppet, then unblocked by arbcom, and then new evidence of sockpuppetry is alleged, what action, if any, should be taken by an individual administrator? Can the admin take action on the request alone, or must the matter be referred to the committee? If individual admin block is permitted, how is the admin supposed to weigh the evidence? What weight should be accorded to the previous unblock by the committee? Is there any way for the admin to ascertain the evidence considered by the committee in reaching the decision to unblock? If not (because committee deliberations are private) how is the admin supposed to reach an informed decision?

See this comment of mine at an AE thread for the case that motivated this request, although this request is not limited to the particular editor. T. Canens (talk) 08:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Russavia

As I said at the AE, and I will say again here. Let's "try again"[22][23], because as it stands now, we are dealing with an obvious sockpuppet, and the inability for anyone to give a straight answer is allowing this sockpuppet to "take the piss" out of the community?[24][25]

What we have a case of here is the Arbcom overstepping its bounds by totally disregarding behavioural evidence, and the knowledge of editors and admins who have dealt with these sockpuppets in the past. There is not a single admin out there who has dealt with Marknutley sockpuppets that does not believe that TLAM is not a sock of Nutley. This is based on behavioural evidence and obvious editing traits. I provided one such trait to the Committee, and it stuck out like dogs balls when I saw it, and the more one delves into the evidence, the more and more WP:DUCK evolves that it is quite obvious this is a sockpuppet. And I am told by the Committee "we are not convinced".

As I said in the AE, we have the opportunity to right a major wrong here...and it is a wrong, given that this sockpuppets disruptive behaviour has somewhat led to a long-term editor in good-standing being topic banned for 6 months, whilst the obvious sockpuppet gets a 3 month topic ban...go figure. So without blame and without shame, the following needs to be very clearly answered for the community.

Who made the decision to unleash this sockpuppet on the community? Those Arbs who reached this decision need to explain to the Community a few things, such as: Upon what basis was this decision reached? Why was this done in secret, and why was the community not involved in this process? Given that it is the community that has dealt with this disruptive user in the past, and there is not a single admin who has even so much as considered unblocking this sockpuppet. Did those who looked at this appeal totally disregard behavioural evidence, and concentrated only on technical evidence? Such as IP addresses? One can easily change their IP and ISP, but behaviour is much harder to change.

Is the Committee willing to turn this issue back over to the community to deal with? And without further involvement from the committee? The fact that there are many admins who are of the opinion that this is a sockpuppet, and yet none will do anything about it, for fear of the Committee, is quite daunting. No-one should be fearful of the Committee, it is the Committee that should be fearful of us. There has to come a time when someone will stand up, say straight that the Committee has ballsed up, ballsed up in good faith, but ballsed up all the same, and correct the mistake that has been made. This is even moreso needed as the Committee itself doesn't seem to know what to do, so it will likely be up to an admin out there with some spine to make a relatively easy decision of right over wrong. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 17:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick note. I have 2 laptops and 2 desktop PCs. I have Bigpond broadband, Optus mobile broadband and 3 mobile broadband, in addition to Optus internet on my mobile. I also have Windows XP, Windows Vista and Windows 7. I also use a combination of Firefox and Chrome - and versions can differ according to which system I am using at the time. If I wanted to, I could easily sockpuppet and not be caught on technical evidence. But my behavioural traits and editing preferences would soon give me away. Would anyone like to challenge me to this? I'll be more than happy to give it a go in order to prove a point to whoever unblocked this sockpuppet. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 05:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

In actual fact, there is no need to challenge me to do anything, one can merely CU me, and they will see that I already currently edit from a range of PCs, and a range of ISPs, and with different browsers. So I will withdraw the WP:BEANS comment, and let other comments stand on their merits. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 05:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a great saying...If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit. I see a lot of attempts at the latter from Arbs below, but baffled I am not. Questions have been asked of the committee, and they need to be answered.

When I corresponded with the Committee I was told that further evidence of sockpuppeting can be taken back to, and dealt with by, the community. However, the Committee would appreciate a heads-up. I see the heads-up only a courtesy, nothing more.

But now we have Arbs saying that the community needs to defer back to the Committee on sockpuppeting. So what is it to be guys? Dazzle me, but don't make me put in a WP:RM to have this moved to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Bafflication. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 11:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Biophys

I think such cases are easy to handle. If there is any new evidence of sockpuppetry, anyone can submit an SPI case (based only on this new evidence), and checkuser can make a judgement, after consultations with Arbcom members if appropriate. Let's not renegotiate decisions by Arbcom, whatever they might be. Remember, that was a general policy question by TC, not a quest to sanction an editor. Biophys (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Vecrumba

Per Biophys. Neither is there need for invective or disparaging remarks. Over time, I have had occasion to communicate with both editors regarding the case precipitating this clarification request and personally have no indication to believe they are the same person. Is there some reason for rushing to obvious guilt? As for the interaction by other editors here with both, clearly, I am at the low end of resorting to threats of enforcement, requests for enforcement, etc. while other editors on both sides of the aisle are less inclined to deal with what they consider POV pushing by debate only. To observe that on any day any editor may raise the hackles of multiples of others would be a statement of the obvious.PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• The conversation here is degenerating. If there is no incontrovertible evidence of MN/TLAM sockpuppetry we are done. Anything else is speculation which pretty much looks to be along party lines (regardless that it may also all be in good faith, certainly mine is, based on my interactions) and therefore irrelevant. The ravenous appetite exhibited here to convict editors based on allegations of "smells like, at least to me" evidence is appalling and revolting. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement The Last Angry Man

Why was I not informed of this? Of course if at first you don`t succeed let`s try again Of course I already pointed out how I am taking the piss Quick now, lets block all these sockpuppets. Regarding Mathsci`s other behavioral evidence mentioned on the AE page, "@" being used in response to other editors. Steven Zhang also uses it. As does Transporter Man, and Paul Siebert has also used it. The usage of @ in responding to other editors is not quite so rare as Mathsci believes but is no doubt being hailed as the second coming in the "evidence" currently being e-mailed all over by Russavia. The Last Angry Man (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• "One can easily change their IP and ISP" Yes one can, but of course it would be rather strange to have two IP`s two providers and two computers at the same time? [26] Nutley blocked four days after I began to edit. First checkuser in the words of T. Canens is an an experienced SPI clerk found no connection, the second SPI was a farce with the checkuser basing likely on the fact that Nutley used chrome as do I. He got it wrong as have those here. I fully realize what I write here will not natter a damn to those wishing to see me gone, but at least the truth will have been told. The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Observation by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

I took only a very quick look at TLAM's edits, but it was enough to convince me that if this is not Marknutley then TLAM should be sanctioned for impersonating another editor (thinking WP:POINT here). He has Marknutley's verbal and stylistic idiosyncrasies locked solid. I have no idea what the arbs may know (or think they know) that would argue against re-blocking, but I hope they are keeping in mind that it is trivially easy to sockpuppet so as to avoid providing technical evidence. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by NuclearWarfare

Regardless of the meta-issues, I'm hoping that we can have ArbCom comment on this specific case. So far, we have had one checkuser (Hersfold), three administrators/SPI clerks (HelloAnnyong, T. Canens, myself), and one ex-admin (and likely more, haven't really gone looking) call this an obvious DUCK case that needs no further investigation. That's a bit too many experienced editors to simply dismiss I think. NW (Talk) 04:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Tammsalu -> Nug

This issue arose after User:Igny attempted to have TLAM indefinitely topic banned on WP:AE ostensibly for incivility[27]. When it seemed apparent that Igny himself was going to be hit by WP:BOOMERANG due to his own battleground behaviour, accusations of socking was then levelled at TLAM. Now it appears that particular people, who as the Committee will recall from a prior amendment request claimed wanted to focus on content rather than editors, are pushing hard to have TLAM site banned. I have to wonder why Igny and his friends are pushing so hard for this banning, while appears that TLAM may have a low tolerance for certain Russian nationalist POVs, I don't understand why some would take that so personally. I see no new evidence of disruption by TLAM warranting a ban, in fact he was about to participate in content mediation[28], which I think we can all agree is more desirable than attempting to get editors banned in order to win content disputes. Now I do not know the full circumstances behind TLAM's unblock by the sub-Committee, but I do know that Mark Nutley was a real identity who )was smeared during a proxy farm investigation where his identity was odiously linked with certain external sites. Now I see no evidence that TLAM is Mark Nutley, but those that claim there is a link may well be WP:OUTING him for all we may know. Given that ArbCom have permitted former socks to return after a period of time, given that no evidence has been presented linking TLAM with Mark Nutley and given there is no new evidence presented suggesting TLAM has been disruptive, I do not see any need for the Committee entertain the need to reblock TLAM. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 08:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• To those claiming TLAM is Mark Nutley based upon nothing more that shared topics, I would point out that Mark was extensively involved in climate change topics while TLAM is not. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

On the recent comments

In regard to the recent comments from Paul Siebert and others, what's the point? Attempting to ban a content opponent on some wiki-lawyered technicality, I thought the EEML only practiced this kind of thing? Looking at TLAM contributions since he was unblocked, I see no ongoing disruption, in fact he recently was awarded a barnstar[29] and has been productively expanding this encyclopaedia since this clarification request[30]. I see no point in continuing on whipping this dead horse, so perhaps this should now be archived now. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by the Four Deuces

I was involved in all the SPIs relating to mark nutley. In each case, mark nutley, Tentontunic and TLAM were blocked only on their second SPI. mark nutley made great attempts to disguise his identity, for example by using open proxies. In fairness, no one claimed that the people using these open proxies throughout the internet were mark nutley, instead examples were provided in order to demonstate that the IPs were open proxies. Both mark nutley and TLAM are from Wiltshire, and mark nutley edited from a range of locations across the south of England. Given all this, it would be hard to disprove that these accounts were related. TFD (talk) 13:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

@Collect - that is my point: "it would be hard to disprove that these accounts were related". TFD (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

@Sander Saeda - your reference to people who opposed mark nutley's edits as "pro-communist" is a personal attack that you should withdraw. TFD (talk) 05:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Collect

SPI does not require "proof of innocence" and actions undertaken by ArbCom regarding an SPI result can only be undone by ArbCom. The reasonable presumption is that the committee, in fact, have information which can not be just divulged in open posts - that is why they do not give such information out. There is, however, a history at SPI of various editors making iterated claims there in the hope that eventually an admin will say "well - maybe" and perform the block. Using a "well the accusation was made several times therefore it must be true" fails any course in logic ever given <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

@TFD - the "south of England" covers a lot of people. @PS - that one has numerous content disputes with people does not mean they are socks. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Paul Siebert

Frankly speaking, since a probability to find more than one anti-Communist person in vicinities of Wiltshire is definitely far from zero, I initially didn't believe TLAM is a sock of MarkNutley/Tentontunic. However, some recent events forced me to change my opinion: the more TLAM is editing, the more his behaviour is resembling that of Tentontunic.

1. MarkNutley accuses me in formal violation of 1RR on Mass killings under Communist regimes [31]. This accusation was purely formal (there was one intervening, but totally unrelated edit made by a third user), and although that eventually lead to my only block, the blocking admin (EdJohnson) conceded later that this 1RR violation fell into the "gray zone".
2. Tentontunic accuses me in formal violation of 1RR on the Communist terrorism article and requested to self-revert [32], although this violation was also purely technical.
3. TLAM accuses me in 1RR violation on the same article [33]. Again, the accusation was based on the totally artificial ground (my second edit was not a revert, the only intervening edit between my edits was made by the AnomieBOT, and the users Anonimu and Noetica edited other sections of the article [34])

Both articles are the areas of MN/Tentontunic and TLAM's interests, and in all three cases I see quite similar tactics. I face such tactic very infrequently when I deal with other users.
Another example is a story with anti-colonial and anti-authoritarian insurgencies in Indochina.

1. I had serious dispute with Tentontunic over the labelling of these movements (e.g. Viet cong[35]) as terrorists in the Communist terrorism article. My arguments were based on the fact that, although some sources, mostly British and American official sources did describe them as terrorists, much more sources describe them otherwise, and the mother WP articles do not use the terms "terrorism" as a primary term for their description.
2. The same dispute has started recently with TLAM ([36], see the bottom of the section), so I see the same arguments and have to re-iterate the arguments I already used in the dispute with Tentontunic).

The more I am interacting with TLAM, the more I am having a deja vu feeling. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
PS It is probably necessary to mention that most users who left the comments in support of TLAM were defending Tentontunic against false accusations in being a sock.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
PPS I have to agree with Russavia that the usage of different computers is hardly an evidence of anything. I myself use different computers when I edit from home (Windows XP and Linux Fedora), and different browsers; sometimes I use a VPN connection through my university server; I use my university computers in different parts of the campus, each of which has different browsers and different Windows or Linux based operation systems. I also know that I am not the sole person who edit Wikipedia from the computers of my university campus. In this situation, the hardware based evidences would have a little weight.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

On the last Russavia's post

Although the post is somewhat emotional, I see some rational points there. The ArbCom made some decision based on some evidences that were not available for wider WP community. In that situation, it is hard to speak about any new evidences, because we simply do not know what the old evidences were. In my opinion, the ArbCom should clearly explain what kind of evodences have been taken into account by them, and which of them appeared to be decisive. We do not need to know any details, but we have a right to know if that was the CU data, which appeared to be more convincing than the behavioural evidences, or that was some private information that convincingly demonstrated that TLAM was not a sockpuppet.
In other words, we have a right to know if TLAM is a suspected sockpuppet, which has been unblocked simply because the evidences of sockpuppetry appeared to be insufficient, or that the ArbCom had been provided with some convincing private evidences that TLAM and Mark Nutley are different persons despite the obvious similarities in their editorial styles.
I believe, a direct answer on that question violates noone's privacy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

@Nug

Obviously, the attempt to present the issue as someone's attempt to ban TLAM for ideological reasons is not acceptable. Moreover, it is based on absolutely faulty logics. Martin argues that TLAM and Mark Nutley are two different persons, and that even if that is not the case (i.e. if TLAM is a MN's sock), we do not need to block him, because he behaves well. However, these are two quite separate arguments. If TLAM and Mark Nutley are two different persons and ArbCom has unequivocal evidences of that, we have a right to know about that (I mean we have to be aware of the very fact of the existence of those evidences). However, if no such evidences exists, and TLAM is a well behaving MN's suspected sock, I am not sure that any references to his good behaviour can work: in this case MN is supposed to ask for unblock on behalf of himself.
In addition, I would like to point Martin's attention at the fact that the reference to "some wiki-lawyered technicality" is insulting and offensive, and, therefore, should be immediately retracted (with apologies). The reference to EEML is also redundant, especially taking into account someone's own history. I strongly suggest Martin to use less inflammatory terminology.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement Sander Säde

I haven't had all that much interaction with Mark Nutley or TLAM, but I've presumed them to be the same person. I figured the ArbCom subcommittee decided to give MN one more chance, esp. after the nasty slights and witch-hunt by pro-communist editors, which most definitely could cause real-life issues to someone using his real name on Wikipedia. I don't think administrators or non-involved arbitrators should do or decide anything hasty here. --Sander Säde 20:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Hersfold

I'm not totally sure of the background behind this other than I've blocked this guy in the past (and tbh have little interest looking into the backstory), but my opinion on ArbCom involvement in blocks has always been that ArbCom (read: Ban Appeals Subcommittee) is the court of last appeal on Wikipedia - if they review your block and refuse to unblock you, you're out of options and effectively banned for life (that is, until the next ArbCom elections). If they accept your appeal, however, you are free to go and there is no-one (save Jimbo acting as Founder) with the authority to override their ruling in that particular case. To do so would in effect be double jeopardy - the former blockee has been "acquitted" (or at least released from jail as time served) and can't be tried again for the same case. Should other facts arise, however, and it turns out that the blockee is violating policy again, then they can be blocked as appropriate for those violations. Should that happen, I would also assume that ArbCom would be less forgiving when the appeals came up to them again. A successful ArbCom appeal should not be interpreted as a blanket pardon for all crimes past, present, and future - if you cross the line again, you can expect to be blocked again with little chance of appeal. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Steven Zhang

Personally I would appreciate some clarification on the reason for the unblock in the first place. As I've filed an amendment request to TLAM's topic ban, one thing I am not clear on, is that has there been more alleged sockpuppetry by TLAM since his block was lifted by ArbCom (i.e. a new user) or whether it's more evidence that TLAM is the sockmaster that was originally suspected. If the latter, I assume that this should be sent to arbcom-l as opposed to on-wiki again. I would like to know some details on the reasons the block was lifted, whether they received an agreement that TLAM wouldn't sock anymore, or whether it was that ArbCom found TLAM innocent of said socking. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Prioryman

I've interacted with TLAM on Talk:Edward Davenport (fraudster) and thought there was something familiar-looking about his comments. Looking at his contributions, as someone who had extensive interactions with Mark Nutley before his ban, I'm in no doubt whatsoever that the two are the same individual - his language and editing style are very distinctive. WP:DUCK applies in spades. Prioryman (talk) 07:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I dont think there is an easy answer for this one. The successful ban appeals are sometimes announced with wording that gives an administrator a clear picture, and other times they are not. Also, the situation after the unblock may be different than at the time of the unblock. For example, the arbitration committee may have been monitoring the unblocked user, and may have received new information after the unblock. The simplest solution is for an admin to notify arbcom (via arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org) of an ongoing discussion if they feel that the user should be reblocked, and arbitrators should comment onwiki if they believe the reblock would be inappropriate. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Some people have asked for specifics regarding our decision on TLAM. The committee did not unban Marknutley. Prior to the unban of TLAM, several arbitrators reviewed the evidence that TLAM was Marknutley, and didn't find it conclusive. That, combined with the appeal from TLAM, resulted in the committee unblocking an account who they believe is a new user. In this specific case, the community should not read our unban decision as vacating the admin decision of the original block. There was a good component of "show good faith" in our unban. We rarely unban accounts which have been linked to banned users via sockpuppet investigations. ArbCom has been sent more evidence than was publicly provided, however it is broadly similar, and within the committee there isn't a consensus to overturn the unban. However we keep hearing about more evidence that isn't being shown to us. We've said that if there is better evidence, we're happy to be overruled in this instance. Whoever has the 'complete' evidence should make a decision, or send it to us and accept our decision. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• In general, I agree with John's comment, that is under those circumstances, it would be prudent to inform ArbCom of an ongoing discussion about a possible re-block. I also agree that arbitrators who took the decision to unblock should, after being notified about the discussion, comment onwiki. This particular unblock was handled by the Ban Appeal Subcommittee, so I think somebody from the subcommittee should comment in regard to the ongoing discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• I suppose, as a rough rule of thumb, it would be unwise to reblock for "more of the same" (for example, more socking) without first contacting ArbCom. This is simply because there may be some pertinant backstory or material that only came to light off-wiki. But this is unlikely to be necessary if the second block is for different activity (for example, incivility or personal attacks when the first block was for socking).  Roger Davies ^talk 04:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm of two minds here. Personally, I have argued in the past that behavioral quirks (the DUCK test) need to be just as prominent as Checkuser info. However, considering the multiple reports from checkusers that these are different people, I'm hesitant to reblock here. However, I said a while back that the Buck Stops Here at ArbCom.. so on the balance of behavior versus IP, I'd have to weakly support a reblock. SirFozzie (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• On the general question, I agree with those commenting above that these situations need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Onthe specific case, in the first instance I will defer to my colleagues who dealt with this at the BASC level to comment. I would also point out that unblocks by the Committee or BASC of those who have been blocked for sockpuppetry, on grounds of mistaken identity or insufficient evidence, while sometimes controversial, are relatively rare. We look at appeals on this basis with a view toward providing the independent review that blocked users are entitled to, and once in awhile we find an obvious mistake, and other times we find the evidence equivocal; but everyone should understand that the Committee winds up agreeing with the checkusers and administrators who implement these blocks significantly more often than not. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that such situations need to be addressed case-by-case. As SirFozzie has pointed out here, the checkuser evidence is pretty strongly that these are two separate people. This reminds me of a previous situation where there were calls to name a user as the sock of a banned user, and Arbcom could not agree to that particular sanction because it was contradicted by private but fairly definitive evidence. What we could do was point to the fact that the behaviour may be sanctionable for other reasons, which were within the scope of the community to apply. In this case, there are other sanctions available that could be applied by arbitration enforcement administrators, completely separate to the question of sockpuppetry. The editing area in question is covered under discretionary sanctions. Many of the behaviours that would raise sockpuppetry red flags are also the kinds of behaviours for which sanctions would be appropriate irrespective of the socking issue. I support the principle of administrators using the range of tools available in the toolbox; a topic ban or other limitations may be issued, as could a block for different reasons. Risker (talk) 03:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm going to opine here that an appeal that was received and granted by ArbCom should be brought to ArbCom if new material information has been found that indicates that the appeal should not have been granted. Unrelated misbehavior or new incidents do not need this, however. — Coren ^(talk) 17:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
• Along with Coren, I think that unless specific mention of extenuating circumstances is given via unblock notice or notification, there's no reason for an admin to wait on reblocking for egregious behavior or sockpuppetry (not that it's not helpful to also notify ArbCom.) Information related to a reason the original unblock should not have been lifted should go to ArbCom first, and the admin should hold on a reblock. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
• Indeed, the others have said most of what I would on the subject--I'd just like to reinforce that yes, if an ArbCom-unblocked editor gets him/herself reblocked for other behavior, we should be notified. If nothing else, ArbCom needs the feedback for process improvement purposes: something went wrong with the original unblock. Either that was a failure to inform the community of administrators of the nature of the unblock, or we failed to accurately judge the editor's likelihood to engage in appropriate conduct upon his/her return. Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

---