Requests for arbitration

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
INeverCry		25 July 2013	{{{votes}}}
Delicious carbuncle		18 July 2013	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Shortcuts

Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority).

Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests.

Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace.

To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

File an arbitration request

This page is for statements, not discussion.

If you must reply to another user's statement, do so in your own section (more information).
Your section must not contain more than 500 words (Word Count Tool; internal gadget). This includes your replies to other users. To request an extension, either make the request in your statement section or email the clerks email list.
Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, eg off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
Declined case requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

INeverCry

Initiated by —Kww(talk) at 00:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Kww (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
Prodego (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:INeverCry&oldid=565683566#Eric_Corbett . Not much more can be done for a wheel-warring admin except to ask them to stop, and INeverCry has refused to undo his unblock.—Kww(talk) 00:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kww

Unambiguous case of wheel-warring: INeverCry unblocked Eric Corbett today without discussion, despite the previous consensus at WP:AN to leave the block in place. I commented on the case at WP:AN#Eric Corbett unblocked, and Prodego restored the block, using the logic that consensus had already supported the block. INeverCry then immediately undid the block again. INeverCry has undeniably and unambiguously wheel-warred, which is supposed to be grounds for an immediate desysop. Prodego arguably has as well, although I would oppose anything more than a caution. I think the consensus to leave the block in place was sufficient to justify Prodego's actions.—Kww(talk) 00:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to withdrawing this case at this point, but someone will have to explain whatever procedure is required to do so.—Kww(talk) 04:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Prodego

I'll be happy to answer any questions (and may expand this later), but I believe my actions are explained pretty clearly in my previous posts. Prodego ^talk 00:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by INeverCry

I'm requesting that this case be closed with the result of a desysop for me, whether as a sanction or voluntary, whichever Arbcom members think best. I don't plan on asking for the bit back, but if it's considered to be needed, another RFA could be set as a condition to any return for me to adminship. I would like to return to being a regular editor with the user rights I had before my adminship. I've made this decision partly because of this current situation, but also because I'm very busy elsewhere, and this would cut down on my load. In this current case I did what I felt was right, and so I couldn't re-block Eric because that would've been the wrong thing in my view. The community will of course make the needed decisions in Eric's case. I've made my views on it clear at AN and on Eric's talk. I don't intend to make any more statements or comments regarding this case. I hope I won't have to take the time to make a steward request on Meta for the bit removal. Let me know. Thanks for your time. INeverCry 01:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@NuclearWarfare: I've made my statement above after the statements of the other 2 involved parties. I've never made a statement or even a comment in an RFAR before, so I hope that wasn't the wrong place. INeverCry 02:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker: I thought of going there first, but I have no experience with how these things work here. I've had literally no experience with Arbcom or desysopping. I've posted on WP:BN. INeverCry 02:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Arb's section. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Salvidrim!

No. To whatever shit you're trying to stir, Kww. Let it rest, let Eric work or not as he sees fit for now and stop complaining. Propose an indef or walk away and go do something that actually improves the encyclodia. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 00:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that the initial block was "backed by AN consensus" is delusional. It was evidently contested by numerous editors and only stood because Eric himself did not oppose. INeverCry unblocked a bit early with a perfectly good reasoning. (struck) ~~instead of asking him or Eric about it, you immediately ~~phoned the mob~~ posted on AN~~. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉

I empathically agree with @A Quest For Knowledge: and @Hahc21:; I'm not saying there was no wheel-warring. I'm saying this is a complete waste of time that could be spent doing something contstructive. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 00:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to see @SilkTork: recusing also, because of a previous bias in favor of INeverCry's adminship. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 01:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Hahc21

Desysopping INeverCry won't do any good to the project. I am definitely against it, although I recognize that he indeed wheel warred. The problem here is Eric Corbett and the community, not INeverCry, and punishing a good admin for a single action is not something productive to the project. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@INeverCry: New statements are usually put at the end, but it's okay where you left it. I think that everyone will find it with ease. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by A Quest for Knowledge

Can we please not go here? Seriously, everyone just chill out. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mark Arsten

I think this is a pretty clear case of wheel warring on INeverCry's part. He clearly reverted another admin's reversion and thus made this an issue for Arbcom to get involved with. I'm a bit confused though about whether Prodego was the second actor (and thus not wheel warring) or the third actor (and thus wheel warring as well). It would be helpful to get the committee's input on this. I've never fully agreed with the idea that wheel warring should result in an immediate desysop, so I think a warning might be sufficient on first offense. (Perhaps that's just because I would hate to lost the tools over one action though.) I'm not well acquainted enough with the parties' records to say whether reverting admin actions has been an issue before, though, so that's another aspect I think the committee should examine. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Anthonyhcole

I don't know about the wheel-warring. My concern is for INC's apparent disregard for community consensus. Last January we had an admin who unilaterally overturned community consensus at an AFD, and the community's response was unequivocal regarding the appropriateness of that.[1] --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A sincere acknowledgment from INC that unilaterally overturning community consensus is inappropriate, and a reminder from the committee about WP:WHEEL should do the trick, imo. :) But short of the former, I hope you'll impose the minimum restrictions necessary to prevent a repeat. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Beyond My Ken

I don't believe I commented in the community discussion concerning EC's block, so I an not involved in that sense. (In the larger sense, I would wager that everyone in the Wikipedia community who participates on the noticeboards has at one time or another commented on that editor's behavior and the subsequent blocking and unblocking it regularly provokes.) The immediate situation seems quite clear: whether or not there was a community consensus to keep EC blocked is perhaps a matter of personal interpretation, but it cannot be denied that the block was controversial and that the discussion was contentious. For INC to unilaterally unblock EC without the benefit of further community discussion, or even any kind of explanation other than "it's best for the community" (mere boilerplate) is extremely concerning to me, since it points to a lack of good judgment on INC's part. To follow that up with a wheel-warring revert of Prodego's re-block, which was intended only to allow community discussion, is more than concerning, it's an indication that INC takes neither the judgment of the community nor his own responsibilities seriously. I urge the committee to take this case, and suggest that desysoping is the appropriate result. I say this never having had any dispute or interaction with INC that I can recall, and not having previously formed an opinion about his adminship. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

Give INC a pat on the back and a slap on the wrist if that so pleases you, but anything worse than that is idiocy. Don't reblock Eric either, because that would also just be more idiocy. He gets testy with people, but it only gets serious when people act like utter douchenozzles to him in response and don't leave it alone. That is what happened with the recent block and I see no benefit to the project in overriding INC's action, but plenty of benefit in allowing Eric to edit.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tom, Dick, and Harry PumpkinSky

@All, especially NW, this Tom, Dick, and Harry will say whatever he wants and give you the whole $1, not just 2 cents. Eric is unlikely to change, the community is not going to change, and since AC turned down a case in June that multiple abuses, it is unlikely to take this one where there was only one abuse. So everyone stop wasting everyone else's time and just drop the RFAR and pretending anything will get better with wiki. It only gets worse and worse every month. @NW it's mighty pompous and arrogant of you to say you don't want to hear the community. I guess you've forgotten what wiki is all about. PumpkinSky talk 01:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Reaper Eternal

What wheel warring? I see a block, a wait until the situation had cooled off, and an acceptable unblock. Wheel warring would be to reinstate the block. Personally, I was considering unblocking Eric Corbett myself, only I didn't know whether he wanted someone to do so given his request for an indefinite block, or whether that was just one of the many rash comments made in the furor a couple weeks ago. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, I missed the wheel-warring repeat block and repeat unblock by Prodego and INeverCry. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Amadscientist

I only note that KWW has not really attempted any other Dispute resolution and just starting a thread on the editor's talk page is not a step in DR. I also note that an actual thread was begun at AN and a consensus is forming there over this issue. I really do not understand this filing. It seems punitive in nature.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After reading Risker's comment about "suicide by Arbcom". I had to go back and find the remark he was speaking of. Wow, they are correct. I have no choice but support Kww's view on this with that clarification. Why would you unblock in an obvious wheel war and then fall on your sword here if you yourself actually believe what you did was justified?--Amadscientist (talk) 02:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Roger Davies and also wonder if the filing might be best withdrawn.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hasteur

I profess involvement in attempting to diffuse drama regarding certain 2nd level associated editors to this Request (requesting that the editors refrain from using specific language, closing down the thread that would not die that resulted in yet annother notch in the editor's belt of many blockings). Since the community at large, and the subset thereof of Admins, can't keep from rubbernecking every single time the editor is called out on a specific point of wiki-etiquette I strongly believe it is time to issue a bench ruling regarding the editor. How many man months have the collective community spent sorting through the activities of the editor, the activities of those opposed to the editor, the activities of those opposed to the opposition, the continual arguments regarding the net value of the editor's contributions to the project, and the negative publicity attracted from meta-community sites who revel in the drama that appears to be spontaneously generated by close proximity to the user. Hasteur (talk) 03:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kiefer.Wolfowitz

The failure to have consensus to over-ride a block (which had an excessive length) does not constitute consensus to maintain the block's 30 days.

Prodego wheel-warred and should have his bit removed.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Recuse As INeverCry's RfA co-nominator, mostly. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

INeverCry: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/4/0/1>

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

Awaiting statement from INeverCry (just them really, this does not seem like a situation that would be helped by every Tom, Dick and Harry giving their $0.02). NW (Talk) 00:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You made your written response in the appropriate place, INeverCry; however, I think you made your "statement" before Kww brought it to this page. I spent a good chunk of the last 48 hours, along with other editors, developers, and WMF staff, to persuade the senior WMF staff responsible for VisualEditor to respect community consensus and permit editors to opt out of VisualEditor. That consensus is important, even if the VP Engineering and the VE product manager are right that it might make it harder to improve VE. I don't find it any more acceptable when administrator uses his tools to impose his own point of view in order to override community consensus. Feel free to disagree with the community, as much as you want; raise the issue again if you feel the consensus is wrong, because consensus can (and sometimes does) change. Your response above indicates that you were already to the point that you wanted to, or knew you needed to, step away from tools. It is very disappointing that you didn't just go to the bureaucrat noticeboard about five hours ago to ask for a desysop upfront, but instead decided to go for "suicide by Arbcom". There is nothing stopping you from asking for a desysop right now. Is there a reason why we have to have this discussion? Risker (talk) 02:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Decline. Risker (talk) 03:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. INever has apparently asked for the removal of his bits. My suggestion to everyone involved is to stop dwelling on trying to right past wrongs and get back to doing something productive. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline & moot. The editor has requested the removal of their bit; and has, at least for the time being, retired from editing. As restoration of the bit would require an RFA, there is nothing left to be done here. Perhaps the filer would consider withdrawing the case request? Roger Davies ^talk 04:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline with INeverCry resigning the sysop toolkit, there is no need to proceed with a case. AN appears to be rapidly coming to a consensus, and the filing party has indicated withdrawal of this filing. Tons of drama, and almost all of it could have been avoided by two admins using their words rather than their buttons in rapid-fire. Courcelles 08:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline The above arbs put it better than I could. Worm^TT(talk) 08:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delicious carbuncle

Initiated by — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} at 02:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

DC

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by PinkAmpersand

A year ago, ArbCom resolved:

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Jayen466: LiquidWater's comments played no role in my starting this case request; I was unaware of them until you brought them up below. — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 11:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: Please either take me to SPI or retract your unfounded allegations. They constitute personal attacks, and I would ask the case clerks to remove them if you are not willing to present evidence. (Here is the essay I wrote when DC and others made the same claims months ago.) — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 11:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Salvidrim!

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

@AGK:: You have voted to accept the case but you are currently not an active ArbCom member. Please clarify the situation (probably by updating the active list, I assume). :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 15:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

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

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

@DC, I didn't say you gave out his middle name, but that you gave out his middle initial, and I said that was a trifle. Oh, and stop with the whole "I report, you decide" excuse as it is pretty obvious to everyone what you set out to say with that blog post.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Anthonyhcole

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

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

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

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

#LiquidWater, it's free speech, a free and fearless press, it's uncomfortable but necessary. And I think DC has tried the quiet email to ArbCom approach, and found it wanting. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Herostratus

Accept the case.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Mathsci

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

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

Contrary to what Delicious carbuncle is suggesting, there were two WO links in Andy Dingley's original post on WP:AN. The edit was eventually oversighted. Arbitrators are perfectly aware of what was in the original diff (they form part of the oversight team). Mathsci (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Apteva

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

Statement by Andy Dingley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Marek – the goal here is not "to make the case go away" it is to remedy a problem that damages the encyclopedia project. That problem is the use of WO as a rules-free back-channel for disgruntled editors and ex-editors to attack WP editors in a way that would be clearly forbidden, should it happen here at WP.

There is already a ruling against DC from last year, specifically about using WO as an outing platform and generally as applying this to editors broadly, not merely one involved editor. All that's needed here today is an AE action, based on that past ruling.

WO is a cesspit of disgruntled self-appointed vigilantes. They are unfussy as to their targets, they care nothing for the (broadly) rigorous care that attends any sort of disciplinary exercise here at WP (If we do ban an editor for their behaviour, we have to at least be careful we get the right person, with the right evidence). WO's behaviour has a "chilling effect" on work here at WP. Although there's little we can do about childish sockpuppeteers like Vigilant (really, "Andy Dingleberry (talk · contribs)", is that the best you've got?), DC, and a few others, want to share both the privilege of editing here and WO's freedom to fling monkey-poop. I do not see that as acceptable behaviour for on-WP editors.

LiquidWater is not the problem here, and I'm disgusted at the "If one was a sock, then the other is probably a sock too" attitude directed towards PinkAmpersand. Might I remind you that the root of WP collegial policy is that "anyone can edit" – all editors are entitled to the protect of civility, unless there's specific evidence against them that they have to be disenfranchised as such. Yes, even the white supremacists. Yes, this behaviour often involves WP in backtracking, where we respect an editor's actions right up to the point where we stop, then maybe have to reverse some of them afterwards. This doesn't make us look stupid, it makes us look fair. The reason we do this is to stay as far as possible away from the WO model of "Do we like this person? Do we hate this person?" where a hugely subjective "us or them" choice biases responses to an editor. Here at WP, editors are equal and we focus objectively on their edits, not whether we like them personally. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LiquidWater

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Kiefer.Wolfowitz

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

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

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

Statement by Hillbillyholiday81

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

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

Statement by ErrantX

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

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

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

Statement by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

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

Statement by Collect

Iterating my prior post at AE:

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

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

Statement by Jehochman

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

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

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

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

Kirill, your statement is illogical. Of course you will find out who the principals are and scrutinize all their involvement. If the accusations of racism and paedolhelia are true, you must do something. If they are false you may need to sanction the accuser for harassing another editor about their activities on Wikipedia. Where the harassment happens is not material. Jehochman ^Talk 11:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators not willing to take this case: do you see any other way for the dispute to be resolved? Clearly this is something that cannot be handled on wiki. If you are saying you just don't think there is anything possible you could do, I think you should re-examine the matter. If there are paedophiles running around here, they should be banned. If somebody is making false accusations, they should be banned if they won't agree to stop. I really don't understand your position. Jehochman ^Talk 01:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Resolute

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

Statement by MONGO

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

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

If members of the committee are "irk"ed by having to oversight personally revealing information then hand over your oversight tools to someone who isn't.--MONGO 22:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mark Arsten

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

Comment by Mangoe

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

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

Comment by Tarc

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

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

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

@AGK, re ''Latin phrases are obstructive to good communication", I find that to be rather condescending and anti-intellectual. There are still those of us around here who benefited from a classical education and do not mind seeing us rise above the common speech once in awhile. If there are people that don't know what these things mean, either Google or Siri is but a reach away.

~~@Salvio, may we know the identity of LiquidWater's sockmaster, and will their commentary here be stricken Tarc (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)~~ This has been addressed now.[reply]

Comment by John Lilburne

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

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

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

ArbCom do not respond to emails concerning editors. Now this may be part and parcel of their fight with the WMF over who has responsibility for child protection: amateurs or professional staff. Evidence is that ArbComm are overworked, not trained up for the job, and are being shat upon by WMF. John lilburne (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Carrite

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

@SilkTork. You had better get one or two "allegedlies" in your comments there — I don't think there is the slightest evidence that this matter involves a pedophile, for example, only a clumsy (and very possibly defamatory) intimation. Carrite (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nyttend

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

Statement by Alanscottwalker

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

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

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

Comment by Intothatdarkness

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

@agk: I would second Salvadrim's comment above. Shouldn't you be listed as active in order to vote to accept or decline? Intothat darkness 22:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Delicious carbuncle

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

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

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

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

Statement by Peter Cohen

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

@LiquidWster You refer to the Fae case where DC was reprimanded by Arbcom and Michael Suarez was banned. You have not mentioned that following the case, the Daily Telegraph ran an article about Fae which was then picked up by assorted other news outlets. Have you asked the subjects of DC's various blogs whether they appreciate the blogs being taken to Arbcom? If you want to help them, then, as I said above, you have to address the content of the blogs and look for flaws that show that the subjects of them have been unfairly represented. If you find such flaws and convince DC or Wikipediocracy that you have done so, then I am sure that the exonerated victims of the blogs will be grateful to you. If you take the position that you don't like the fact that the blogs exist even if they are true, then don't expect most non-Wikipedians to agree with you. Various people are going on about chilling effects, but if the only people who are being chilled by DC are neo-Nazis and paedophiles, then Joe Public will support DC, and his critics here may find local journalists on their front doorsteps asking why they defend such people's rights to contribute to an encyclopedia that passes iself off as unbiased.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gamaliel

A lot on the statements here seem to be framed in terms of rights or rules. Does Arbcom have jurisdiction over off-wiki actions? Did DC break any rules on Wikipedia itself? But Wikipedia isn't a legal system and Arbcom isn't a court. It is a project, and what should be paramount should be the success of the project, not the rights of individual editors or legalistic considerations of Arbcom's scope. In that vein, Arbcom should consider what it means for the project for editors to work with editors who publish lengthy examinations of the personal lives of other editors. What kind of chilling effect will this have on editors? Will they avoid certain articles or support certain edits in fear of becoming the subject of the next expose? I'm sure current members of Arbcom are familiar with an individual I'd rather not name, who openly blackmailed Wikipedia editors into performing certain editorial or even administrative actions out of fear of being exposed on his website, which included photos, personal information, and in at least one case, information about an editor's children. This may be an extreme case, but remember that he was quite successful in his blackmail. If memory serves, one administrator lost his position as a result of giving in to his blackmail, and I was one of a number of editors who stopped editing the article in question after a series of escalating threats which demanded I do exactly that. While this individual was quite open about what he was doing, other cases may be more subtle, and threats need not be directly made for a chilling effect to exist. This is not in any way conducive to collaborative editing or the creation of an encyclopedia, and Arbcom should establish that it can and will act to protect those things. Gamaliel (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion from SB_Johnny

I think the most sensible and productive thing for the committee to do in this case is to craft and pass a motion to make clear that the committee will not serve as a team of referees for the endless game of capture the flag played by certain Wikipedians and certain Wikipediocrats. I assume you folks can manage a better way to phrase it, of course. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 22:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jayen466

User blocked; please bring this up at SPI in the future. NW (Talk) 23:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following off-wiki discussion of LiquidWater's comments above, I should like to direct readers' attention to the following:

[2] (PaoloNapolitano (talk · contribs) was indefinitely blocked on 5 March 2012, for abusing multiple accounts)
[3] (the first edit by LiquidWater (talk · contribs) was on 7 April 2012)
[4] (IntersectContribs for PaoloNapolitano and LiquidWater)
[5] (post by PaoloNapolitano to German Wikipedia helpdesk, in broken German, 2 February 2012)
[6] (posts by Zaminamina to German Wikipedia helpdesk, in the same broken German, from April 2012 to December 2012)
[7] (Zaminamina (talk · contribs) = LiquidWater (talk · contribs); the account was renamed on 19 March 2013)
[8] (IntersectContribs for LiquidWater (talk · contribs) and JustEase (talk · contribs), a known PaoloNapolitano sock)
[9] (IntersecContribs for LiquidWater (talk · contribs) and MikeNicho231 (talk · contribs), a known PaoloNapolitano sock)
[10] (IntersectContribs for LiquidWater (talk · contribs) and Wiki-Taka (talk · contribs), a known PaoloNapolitano sock)
[11] (IntersectContribs for LiquidWater (talk · contribs) and YumYamNam (talk · contribs), a known PaoloNapolitano sock)
[12] (Commons uploads by PaoloNapolitano, February 2012 to March 2012, photographs taken with a Canon EOS 550D)
[13] (Commons uploads by Zaminamina, July 2012 to February 2013, photographs taken with a Canon EOS 550D)

I advised Newyorkbrad of part of the above about an hour ago. If LiquidWater (talk · contribs) = indef-blocked serial sockpuppeteer PaoloNapolitano (talk · contribs), then readers here should bear in mind that PaoloNapolitano (talk · contribs) has pursued conflict with Delicious carbuncle under several account names in the past. Andreas JN466 22:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the most recent PaoloNapolitano sock, Wiki-Taka (talk · contribs), was indefinitely blocked on 5 April 2012. The LiquidWater (talk · contribs) account was created on 6 April 2012. Andreas JN466 22:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that LiquidWater (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked by Salvio giuliano, based on checkuser evidence. Andreas JN466 23:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, NuclearWarfare, that SPI would usually be the more appropriate place to post this kind of evidence. However, in this instance, I wanted people who had read this page, including the editor's copious comments above, to understand how this case request got here, and who agitated for it. Andreas JN466 00:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Volunteer Marek

You're one step away from resolving this without having to bother with a full blown case. LiquidWater has already been busted (by Wikipediocracy). (Redacted) At that point the whole case collapses and you spare yourself the embarrassment that might come later.

And hell, given how evil those Wikipediocracy folks over there are I expect they probably already KNOW that stuff. They're just waiting for you to accept this case, make a lot of really stupid decisions, and then... they get to write up another blog post letting everyone know how dumb of a shit most of you are (except Kirill, who's amazingly prescient here - and also, no offense, outdated) Maybe I'm wrong, but do you Wikipediacareerclimbingmonkeys really wanna take a chance? It's a "chilling effect"! Yes it it. And it should be. Some things should be "chilled". In fact there are many things not chilled enough.

More seriously, the fact that this is what "the encyclopedia" has evolved into is a very very sorry state of affairs.

Monkeyballs! Volunteer Marek 03:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Casliber

I have been busy but finally now looked at the page in question. This needs to be investigated and I see a case (probably with WMF involvement) as the only way of proceeding. My first impression is that the page is predominantly based on observations of pages. This needs to be investigated whether the page is factual (i.e. whether the links support the facts to the extent the page purports they say) and whether the editor in question has violated the Child protection policy. Note bolded bit - "Editors who attempt to use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships on- or off-wiki (e.g. by expressing the view that inappropriate relationships are not harmful to children) " The editor that is the subject needs to be exonerated or sanctioned, but not left in limbo. That isn't fair to them nor to advocates on all sides of this equation. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

I'd like to remind everyone that a personal attack is a personal attack, if you're going to make an accusation then it must be supported by evidence. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely hilarious, because no evidence has been presented for the "accusation" at the very core of this whole fucking case (DC's alleged off-site actions), my dear. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 18:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, this section is only for clerks, Salvidrim. Second, Callan was referring to Volunteer Marek's unfounded and ridiculous accusations that PinkAmpersand was a sockpuppet of someone else. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 23:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delicious carbuncle: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <5/3/0/1>

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

The arbitration committee is an on-wiki body, which has the ability to make decisions on on-wiki behaviour. If off-wiki behaviour aggravates the situation, the committee will take that into account - but if we're only talking about off-wiki behaviour, then any sanction imposed by the committee will not stop the person carrying on. With that in mind, I've got a few questions for anyone who believes this case should be opened. Has Delicious carbuncle done anything sanctionable on-wiki? If yes, please detail it. If no, how do you believe that any sanctions the arbitration committee can impose will actually improve the situation? Worm^TT(talk) 09:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Salvio (and Andy), if Delicious carbuncle was acting in this manner to control content on Wikipedia, to get an upper hand in a dispute or to exacerbate grudges, I could see your point. In those cases, we'd have something definite to look at. That's not what's happening though, the users (to the best of my knowledge) have had little or no interaction with Delicious carbuncle before. There is certainly a chilling effect, there are editors who do not feel free to make comments lest they be targetted by this off-wiki site, but the chilling effect is related to the site as a whole. That is an issue, but again, not one that the arbitration committee can handle. Worm^TT(talk) 10:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been really struggling with whether or not to accept this case, but when it comes down to it, it's something that only the committee can handle. It might be that we decide nothing needs to be done, but without looking at the full evidence, we can't really make that decision. Accept Worm^TT(talk) 14:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree in part with you, WTT. Wikipedia works by consensus, which means that, for it to function properly, all editors must feel able to freely express their opinions; if someone's actions have a chilling effect and lead to users being afraid of making comments lest they be targeted off wiki, then that's a serious problem and though the conduct in question took place on a different site, we need to be able to do something: in these cases, while the activity may occur off wiki, its consequences are perceived on wiki. Of course, to be actionable, such actions must be so egregious that they make it impossible for others to interact with the person in question (i.e. criticism would never be enough and neither would be mere insults).
Not to mention that there is no policy preventing a person with weird or even disgusting ideas from editing Wikipedia, provided they don't violate the site's policies (which means that we shouldn't care if a racist edits Wikipedia, provided he doesn't make racist edits – with paedophiles, of course, it's different, because they are dangerous even if they don't make any edits at all, since they might use Wikipedia to get in contact with children). Policies were never meant to protect only the good ones.
Then again, in this case there was no outing: Kintetsbuffalo disclosed his identity sua sponte on wiki and, as I keep repeating, no policy can demand that people play dumb. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thoughts, Pink Ampersand has no legitimatio ad causam here.
  Perhaps the parties aren't trying to go through traditional dispute resolution because they weighed the balance and don't want to participate in the case and spread around their personal information even more than it already has been. You're most right. Who cares what the subject of the exposé thinks: we should force our opinion on him, because, basically, we know better. Decline. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I want it noted here on the public record that we now have another arbitrator who uses more Latin legalisms than I do. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's only because I ignore their English counterparts: I graduated by correspondence... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - On a serious note, and like the majority of the community, I think these Latin phrases are obstructive to good communication. AGK [•] 22:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Awaiting the likely flood of statements on this, but some thoughts:
- ArbCom has been contacted many times by people who disclosed their real life indentities on Wikipedia at one time or another but want "outing" material oversighted or revdel'd. This always irks me, because Arbcom and the functionaries do not exist to construct a barn door after the horse has bolted, nor to clean up or hide users' mistakes. In this case the user in question posted more than enough information to identify themselves, so the issue isn't outing and doesn't violate the letter of DC's restriction.
- With that said, there is another aspect to consider, whether the material is intended to harass and users contributing to said harassment. DC certainly wants actions to be taken against the editors he posts articles about, even if he himself is not actively pursuing them on-wiki. I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that this violates the spirit of his restriction, if not the absolute letter, which is a failure of ArbCom's own finding.
- As stated several times, including in the case we just accepted, the end results of the BADSITES mess of seems-like-forever-ago is that we don't sanction Wikipedia users for off-wiki activity without evidence of a problem with their direct activity on-wiki. It means, taking a recent example, that ones' comments on off-wiki forums are irrelevant if their behavior onwiki is not an issue; this is a compromise that cuts both ways and I see as deeply problematic in several ways, but I also don't see as a problem with a solution just hanging on the low branches for us. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 11:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Decline. No significant evidence has been brought forward of DC being disruptive on-wiki, so I don't see how we can appraise only off-wiki actions here. As to NYB's comments below, I don't think there's clear agreement on points 2-4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's right to say we could never sanction an editor for his or her conduct off-wiki. See, for example, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch; see also here. We have repeatedly stated, however, that we would do so only in extreme circumstances and I think this is common ground among most or all of the arbitrators. Thus, the issues raised by this request are (1) whether Delicious Carbuncle's off-wiki post(s) are unacceptable; (2) whether they are so unacceptable that they could warrant sanction even if the issue were entirely off-wiki; (3) alternatively, whether they are related to any problematic conduct on-wiki; and (4) whether any or all of these issues should be discussed on-wiki or elsewhere. Awaiting further input on these issues, which should focus on substance rather than rhetoric or name-calling. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have repeatedly postponed consideration of such related issues as "linking to outing", and DC's conduct has already been the subject of arbitration proceedings. Nevertheless, these issues are still having a deeply disruptive effect on the community, and the previous arbitration decision appears to have been ineffective. I am therefore inclined to accept this request, but will await Delicious carbuncle's input. AGK [•] 21:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: User talk:Delicious carbuncle#Notification. Delicious carbuncle appears not to be planning to make a statement. Query whether we should proceed on that basis, or whether we should formally request his input. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you – I did not realise his absence from this page was deliberate. I formally request a statement from DC, because I think his response to the prospect of this case and his rebuttal to the filing party's statement would be illuminating; however, I do not think we will be unable to proceed (one way or the other) without his input. AGK [•] 03:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Accept to examine Delicious carbuncle's conduct. AGK [•] 07:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. There are serious issues here that need looking at, and some of the material may be private, or at least best considered in camera, so ArbCom is best placed to look into that. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. I see no evidence of any actual dispute—or, indeed, any substantive interaction—between PinkAmpersand and Delicious carbuncle; consequently, there is nothing here for us to resolve. We should be very hesitant to accept a case brought by someone with no apparent relation to the claimed dispute; the fact that none of the presumed parties appear to desire dispute resolution is a strong indication that the matter is being adequately handled without our involvement. Kirill ^[talk] 13:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Arbitration Committee isn't not an adversarial court, and we do not have standing rules. Perhaps the parties aren't trying to go through traditional dispute resolution because they weighed the balance and don't want to participate in the case and spread around their personal information even more than it already has been. As you are no doubt aware from the volume of emails we have received about this Kirill, not everyone is happy with DC and others' posts. Accept per SilkTork. NW (Talk) 13:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - While we cannot force anyone to pursue arbitration, neither can we allow one side of a dispute to shield their conduct from scrutiny by having uninvolved intermediaries pursue it for them. If we accept a case constructed so that the parties include Delicious carbuncle but not any of the people he is alleged to have harassed, then it seems we've already prejudged the outcome. Kirill ^[talk] 14:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a two way street. A Wikipedia user has made serious allegations against another Wikipedia user, and this has spilled over onto Wikipedia. We need to look into the allegations to see if it was appropriate for them to be made; and if so, decide what we do about it, and if not, what we do about it. Given the nature of the allegations, much of this should be handled in camera. I also note that a number of people are uncomfortable about the manner in which this matter was raised, and there is some uncertainty about what policies, if any, have been breached. But, given the nature of the allegations, I don't think it's appropriate for people to be asking in public: "Who is this person who is a racist and a paedophile?" That sort of stuff should be done in private, and that is what ArbCom is for. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like AGK, I'd like to see how Delicious carbuncle responds t the clerk's post on his talk page before voting. Courcelles 15:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accept particularly per the points made by Resolute and Casliber. Courcelles 00:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]