Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Workshop: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:51, 20 August 2011

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Scope...really?

See also Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs#Scope. Will Beback talk 21:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the scope of this case is

1. to examine partisan feuding/point-of-view pushing in BLPs

2. to examine what practical steps can be taken to reduce polarised edit-warring and partisan feuding in BLPs

3. to examine the implications of search engine optimisation for Wikipedia

4. and to examine the relevant conduct guidelines.

Really? You're not going to sanction anyone for partisan feuding and POV pushing in BLPs? I mean, it's not as though the guidelines for such articles don't already exist. And it's not as though Arbcom has never dealt with BLP problems before. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] And those are just what I found from 2006 and 2007 when I was an active clerk. I'm sure there are more.

Now, I realize that I have not been active in some time and that many things may have changed, so I don't want to be putting my foot in my mouth here out of ignorance. But I recall a whole alphabet soup of policies dealing with partisan feuding/point-of-view pushing in BLPs. And without intending to sound like a Javert, let me suggest that the practical step to take to "reduce polarised edit-warring and partisan feuding in BLPs" is to enforce the policies. So really, this case seems to me to be very simple.

4. (they already exist)

3. (irrelevant, except to the extent that it reinforces the need for #4)

2. blocks, bans, probation and desysopping, liberally applied, until people get the message.

You need to modify the first clause of your statement of scope.

“

The purpose of this case is to examine partisan feuding/point-of-view pushing in BLPs and to hand out sanctions where appropriate

”

Otherwise this exercise is likely to be a profound waste of time. Thatcher 19:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The likelihood of sanctions is implicit, I think. If there is evidence of substantive, actionable violations of policy, then appropriate sanctions will obviously be considered. I don't think it's necessary to specify this explicitly when outlining the scope of the case; it should be sufficient, for example, to define a case as concerning "the conduct of editor X", and unnecessary to expand it to "the conduct of editor X, who will be banned if the allegations turn out to be correct".

(If your comment is about the poor choice of using the word "purpose" in what should be a description of the scope, incidentally, then I completely agree with you. The "purpose" of an arbitration case is always the same: to resolve the dispute at hand [by any means necessary]. It's merely the nature of the dispute that we're trying to describe here.) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which BLPs are supposed to have been manipulated, and which previous dispute resolution efforts led to this case? How did the ArbCom decide on the current list of parties? Will Beback talk 23:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of BLPs listed in various statements made as part of the original case request; it is my understanding that manipulation by various parties to the case is alleged to have taken place on some or all of these articles. Whether these allegations have any substance to them will, of course, be one of the questions to be examined in the course of the proceeding.

The relevant past dispute resolution is the same as for the Cirt and Jayen466 case, as this proceeding arises from the same underlying nexus of disputes, and was split from that one for organizational purposes.

The list of parties is derived entirely from the list present in the original case request. As far as I know, there has been no determination made, at this stage, as to whether each of the listed editors should or will remain a party as the case proceeds; I expect that we will do so in the coming days, based both on requests by listed individuals to be removed (or by non-listed individuals to be added) as well as the nature of the evidence presented. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kiril, I definitely got the impression that this was a general fact-finding investigation, from the inclusion of clauses #2, #3 and #4. If you want to investigate and possibly discipline particular editors, name those editors and ask for evidence for and against them. (If there are many, possibly restructure the evidence page, but I digress.) The existence of policies is not debatable and the implications of SEO are irrelevant (is POV-pushing in a BLP acceptable so long as Google doesn't notice it? I thought not.) I don't understand the emphasis on "examining" new ways of clarifying the policies and new ways of ensuring they are followed. Thatcher 23:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following on Will's apparent concern, you may need to do something different here, similar to an indictment phase and a trial phase. Take preliminary evidence and do an expedited review before determining which cases will proceed to a full hearing. Thatcher 23:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'm certainly open to something along those lines, although I'm not sure what the best way of organizing it would be. How would we limit the amount of "preliminary" evidence submitted, to avoid essentially rolling all of the cases back into this one regardless? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kiril, the only BLP mentioned in the original case request that I can find that is unrelated to Cirt and Jayen466 is Bernard Lewinsky, about which there has been little dispute. Which BLPs do you think have these purported disputes that we're here to resolve? Will Beback talk 23:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, maybe there's some confusion here. It's my understanding that BLPs "related" to Cirt and Jayen466 will remain a valid topic in this case; it's only the conduct of those two editors in particular which is being considered elsewhere, and edits to those articles (or in relation to them) by any other editor will be examined here. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - What disputes have been described that are independent of the activities of those two editors? Most of those biographies are related to Scientology. If those are what the ArbCom wants to look at maybe this should be retitled as "ArbSci 2" or something like that. Also, the list of parties should be narrowed down to those who actually have had a significant involvement in the BLPs in question. Will Beback talk 00:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't necessarily disagree with you; but the only way we really have of determining which of the parties have had significant involvement in the disputes in question is to open up the floor to evidence regarding their involvement (or lack thereof). It's not a though we have a prosecutor who's going to assemble a coherent case prior to it coming before us.
      If anything, I'd tend to lean towards Thatcher's suggestion of a two-stage process, with the the first stage serving as a preliminary hearing to determine the parties to the second stage; but even that's probably not an ideal solution. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - So the ArbCom opened a case in which it doesn't know which disputes and which editors are included? It's just a free-for-all potentially involving virtually every active editor, including all sitting Arbs. Like Thatcher says, this case seems to be proceeding without a clear reason or dispute to settle. This is unprecedented. Will Beback talk 00:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with a couple of premises.

1. Omnibus cases are almost universally disastrous wastes of time that solve nothing.
2. Any problem with a politicized BLP that reaches Arbcom is going to involve one or more admins. Either an admin who is ineffective at keeping the problem editor(s) under control, or an admin who is directly responsible for keeping the article in a politicized and coatracked state, or an admin who always sides with the editors who are keeping the article in a coatracked state.

As such, any omnibus case you open is going to attract a lot of people who are after some admin's scalp (not all of them unjustified), and a lot of worried admins who will throw anything they can at the case page to defend themselves (not always justified). (I can't speak to the general principle that admins are a major problem with respect to coatracked BLPs, but anecdotally I do remember at least one incident involving an admin who was protecting an editor who was determined to keep a bio in an aggressively politicized state.) You will likely end up having to sort through allegations involving a dozen or more editors, many of whom will be, shall we say, highly invested in Wikipedia.

There are at least two things you could do--look at the problem generally, or sanction specific editors. I'm not sure this case, as currently constituted, is likely to do either of them well.

1. If you want to explore the general concept that some BLPs are kept in an inappropriately politicized state, sometimes with the assistance of certain admins, then I suggest the following: Hold the case as a general fact-finding case, in which no sanctions will be handed down. Ask participants to post a maximum of 5 articles to the evidence page, with analysis showing how and why the article is coatracked. You'll get a sampling of the most contentious cases, at least a couple dozen if not more, depending on how many editors post evidence. You'll get a good overview of the scope of the problem, but probably not in depth enough to levy sanctions. However, this would give you a platform to restate the obvious principles of editing BLPs, and give you the chance to draw some lines (this is acceptable but that is not). You could also then, if you choose, open individual cases that will examine certain editors in depth.
2. If you want to hold a typical case in which bad behavior is alleged, reviewed, and sanctioned, then you have missed a critical step. Every prosecution begins with a review of the evidence to see whether it is sufficient to bring to trial. In court this might be a Grand Jury or a preliminary hearing, on Wikipedia it is the listing of a request at RFAR. Arbcom reviews the allegations and decides whether or not to take the dispute to a full hearing. Here you have skipped that step. Two remedies spring immediately to mind; there may be others.

2.1. Close this case. Announce that you have taken notice of the community's concern that certain BLPs are being coatracked, and invite requests for Arbitration on the main page that are restricted to individual editors or topic areas. Review each request in the normal way.
2.2. Keep this case but create some kind of screening procedure. Possibly involving transcluded subpages like the Arbcom election page format or the old RFCU format. Each subpage will relate to a narrowly defined dispute. Allow limited submission of evidence and argument such as the main RFAR page. Eventually, vote on whether the particular dispute will be accepted into the main case. Disputes that are not accepted to be dismissed without prejudice. Disputes that are accepted will be taken to the main evidence and workshop pages. But you're still going to end up with a very diverse set of allegations and parties.

Just a thought. Thatcher 01:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Will Beback talk 01:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Thatcher for suggesting a few ways forward. Option 1 is my preference. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to propose it as a motion? Will Beback talk 22:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this option makes sense. Whether or not it passes does anyone know how best to present a deleted article in evidence? Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 02:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed it as a motion Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Workshop#Motion: scope of case. I hope the ArbCom will respond promptly. Will Beback talk 02:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like John Vandenberg, I think option 1 is much closer to what we're looking at. Jclemens (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have a process like that already. It's called WP:BLPN. Go post concerns there and let the community deal with them. If something can't be resolved satisfactorily, request arbitration based upon a specific dispute with a compact set of named parties. As Thatcher said, it's a really bad idea to skip steps. Go back to square one and do it the right way: prior dispute resolution, a specific, active dispute, and clearly delineated list of parties. Jehochman ^Talk 20:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the answer myself, but I suppose a relevant question would be to what extent has BLPN already failed to resolve issues here. I also think that the Committee ought to be careful about balancing the views in this discussion section against the many views already given by other editors in the request for arbitration (lest the decision making be buffeted by whatever concerns are expressed the most recently). --Tryptofish (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLPN is a location, not a process. It works quite well sometimes, not so well other times. Is it capable of discerning and dealing with SEO-like activities and evaluating good faith? I've never seen it take on such a case, but I don't watch it faithfully. Jclemens (talk) 03:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which specific outstanding issues has BLPN failed to resolve that the ArbCom could resolve without engaging in policy writing? SEO issues are not covered in existing policies, except implicitly concerning promotion and soapboxing. If those policies are inadequate the ArbCom isn't the place to get them fixed. If they are being violated then that is a concern, then we should have definite examples. Will Beback talk 06:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's so special about SEO? If there's a page with somebody's name as the title in Wikipedia, that page will rank well. Has the committee suddenly discovered that Wikipedia has excellent search optimization? This is nothing new. We just need to apply existing policies correctly. WP:BLPN is a very good process, not just a place. The process is you report concerns about WP:BLP, and experienced editors help resolve the problem. If there is WP:BLP violating content, it has to be removed, whether or not somebody has introduced lots of links to the page. The excessive linking and use of menus would be considered an aggravating factor when we consider how to sanction the editor causing the problem. Such actions might confirm the deliberateness of a smear campaign. I don't see the value of the arbitration committee stepping in. Everything is already quite clear. Jehochman ^Talk 15:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about Jehochman's comments

Jehochman, in a series of questions posed to Cla68, asked the following: "Are you aware that Cirt has been the subject of an off-wiki harassment campaign organized by WikipediaReview contributors, and that there is a subforum on WikipediaReview dedicated to smearing Cirt?". Leaving the usual questions of off-wiki "evidence" aside for the moment, I have concerns about the allegations made in this question. While it is true that there is a sub-forum of the Wikipedia Review "Editors" forum for discussing Cirt (actually a sub-forum of the sub-forum "Notable Editors"), I believe the moderators of that site routinely create sub-forums based on the number of threads dealing with a single editor. To state that this is "dedicated to smearing Cirt" is a rather strong allegation and I request that Jehochman replace the word "smearing" with the more neutral word "discussing".

The other allegation "that Cirt has been the subject of an off-wiki harassment campaign organized by WikipediaReview contributors", should not be allowed to remain. I suspect that what Jehochman is trying to say is individual contributors on a public forum have on occasion made unfavourable remarks about Cirt or Cirt's editing, but Jehochman's choice of wording makes it read as though Wikipedia Review contributors have organized an internet harassment campaign against Cirt. I am unaware of any such campaign. Although Cirt's real-life identity has been the subject of speculation on Wikipedia Review, I recall that disclosure of their real-life identity was generally agreed to be undesirable. It is difficult to imagine how one could organize an internet campaign to harass someone who exists only on Wikipedia. Can someone please redact the first part of Jehochman's question and refactor the second? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think these concerns need to be put on the table, and I welcome DC's input regarding the nuances. The subforum on Wikipedia Review is not objective. It is overwhelmingly negative and contains a lot of unsubstantiated allegations of the type that would not be allowed on Wikipedia. I think "smear" is a fair summary of the conversations over there about Cirt. Editors are welcome to review the forum and draw their own conclusions about the tone of discussion there.

My own opinion is that Cirt's editing has had problems, which Cirt has just admitted. On the other hand, Cirt has been the victim of a smear, or harassment, campaign involving editors and banned editors posting comments on Wikipedia Review. This should be taken into account. Whether intentional or not, the effect of that forum is harassment. I suspect the ferocity of criticism against Cirt and the apprehension of many editors to get involved in this mudslingfest have been influenced by the forum.

Wikipedia should not rush to judgement based upon the popular impression created by a sensationalistic website (Wikipedia Review). Jehochman ^Talk 16:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, one can hardly expect that the contributors to a public forum discussing an individual will be "ojective". I suspect their comments will be very much "subjective" and reflect individual views of about the subject at hand. In a forum dealing with participants on a particular website (in this case Wikipedia), I would expect that many of the comments would be critical. What you stated was that the sub-forum was "dedicated to smearing Cirt", which says, in so many words, that its sole purpose is to "smear" someone. The description of the "Editors" forum on Wikipedia Review is "This forum is for discussing specific Wikipedia editors, editing patterns, and general efforts by those editors to influence or direct content in ways that might not be in keeping with Wikipedia policy.". While you may feel that Cirt is being smeared in that forum, the stated purpose is "discussion" and your question will mislead Wikipedia editors who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia Review except through comments such as yours. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People should look at Wikipedia Review's Cirt forum and decide what they think about it. I think it's a smear campaign, but you are welcome to disagree. Jehochman ^Talk 16:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, is it your view that all discussions on that website about Wikipedia editors can be characterized as "smear campaigns" or that this particular one is different from the rest? It doesn't appear to me like Cirt's getting any special treatment on Wikipedia Review, which is why I'm asking.Griswaldo (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman I'm also curious what you think the motive is for smearing Cirt at Wikipedia Review. A smear campaign, is something that is done with the intent of maligning someone's reputation, and there is always a motive, usually a political one, though I'm open to the idea that it could be done simply for shits and giggles by people of low moral fiber and too much time on their hands. Is that what you think is happening, or do you know something else about the motives of the people at that website? What is the purpose of smearing Cirt there? Indeed, given how poorly Wikipedia Review seems to go over here on Wikipedia, I wonder how productive it is to ever try to smear someone over there. It seems like one's reputation on Wikipedia is not damaged, but instead is fortified by being criticized at Wikipedia Review. An enemy of my enemy ... and all that kind of stuff. I'm curious to know your thoughts on all this. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the motivation. Is it to relieve boredom? A desire to feel superior by putting somebody else down? Who knows except those who posted the content. I do not like when a group entertains itself by harassing somebody they perceive to be vulnerable. Jehochman ^Talk 17:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, you are welcome to your opinion, but by stating it as fact you are making unsupported allegations. Although I have long asked that people not attempt to connect my Wikipedia account with any off-wiki accounts, Prioryman has attempted to single me out in connection with Wikipedia Review. Given that, I take your comments here quite seriously. I ask that you make the changes I have suggested above. Otherwise, I will ask the clerk to remove it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The notable editor forums have the effect of smearing and harassing the named editors, not just Cirt. I am not going to post links here or quote the harassment. I've provide specific enough information for the Committee to look at the forums and evaluate what I've asserted. Jehochman ^Talk 17:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked the clerks to deal with it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reflection I changed my question in hopes of getting an actual answer, instead of a string of objections to the form of the question. Hopefully that also resolves your concerns. Let me know. I appreciate your thoughts. Jehochman ^Talk 19:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jehochman, that addresses all the concerns I had. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prioryman's questions

DC, through the RfC/U I repeatedly raised the issue of your harassment of Cirt. In particular I quoted the following comment that you posted at the start of your monthly harassment thread on WR: "I am intending to do a monthly thread here about Cirt's Scientology edits, because I would like to help them kick their nasty habit. Cirt, I don't say this in a mean way, but when you edit articles related to Scientology, it makes your fingers and breath smell like Scientology. And no one wants to kiss someone whose breath smells like Scientology." Would you care to explain what you meant by that? Prioryman (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you choose, you can answer formally at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Workshop#Question to Delicious Carbuncle from Prioryman. If you prefer to answer here I'll copy your answer over there so it can be part of the case record. Prioryman (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem very interested in that particular paragraph. I think it is self-explanatory, but if you can be more specific about what part you are having trouble understanding, I will try to help you. If I choose to answer on the Workshop page, I will. Do not copy any of my statements made on this talk page to that page as they are not in answer to your question there. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prioryman, did you want an answer to your question or not? If you do, you will have to be more specific about what it is you are asking. Given your lack of response here, I am wondering if you really do want an answer or if you were really just posing the question in an attempt to show me in a poor light... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meta comment: ArbCom, are you happy now that you opened this can of worms? Inviting people to revisit grievances via an omnibus anybody v. anybody case is not too smart. Jehochman ^Talk 19:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Jehochman here, and as I already stated the issues concerning Prioryman didn't belong here to begin with. Now that he's "defending himself" he's having to do so by adding all kinds of other issues that are also irrelevant to BLP editing. This is where the hot potato landed I guess.Griswaldo (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP is serious stuff. If there have been problems at Santorum (neologism) or other pages, by all means invite the community to submit proper requests for arbitration based on concrete incidents and compact lists of parties. Your very best move is to dismiss this case and ask interested parties to refile and recycle and their relevant evidence. Jehochman ^Talk 11:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um -- my evidence is specifically directed at the case as stated. Dismissing this case would be a de facto claim that there is no general problem regarding BLPs. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. Dismissing the case would be an admission that the Committee screwed up. Looking at the evidence page I see a lot of disparate issues getting superficial treatment, nevermind all the irrelevant complaints, such as "Prioryman lied". Lying sucks, but that's not what this case is about. It would be more valuable to home in on a few solid examples of BLP violations that were unable to be solved by the community at lower levels of dispute resolution. Jehochman ^Talk 11:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which means my evidence is meaningless then. Sorry, I disagree with your assertions. And note that there will be a great many BLP-related cases in future if it is not dealt with strongly now. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreeing is good. Where would we be if everybody had the same opinion? Jehochman ^Talk 14:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must confess I still don't know what this case is supposed to be about or what it is supposed to produce. I've submitted evidence about DC's conduct as advised by Hersfold, but other than tackling misconduct by other editors linked specifically to the Cirt-Jayen imbroglio what is this case supposed to do? Per Collect's comments, how exactly are BLP cases to be "dealt with strongly" if nobody seems to know which BLP cases are in the frame or what issues are being arbitrated? This really needs clarification. Prioryman (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way Prioryman, would you like the unanswered questions posed to you to go on the workshop page as well. I consider them as irrelevant to this case as your questions are of Delicious Carbuncle. But what say you? Will you answer them if they are asked in the manner you are asking?Griswaldo (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 93: / Line 93: @@
 :If you choose, you can answer formally at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Workshop#Question to Delicious Carbuncle from Prioryman]]. If you prefer to answer here I'll copy your answer over there so it can be part of the case record. [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 19:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 ::You seem very interested in that particular paragraph. I think it is self-explanatory, but if you can be more specific about what part you are having trouble understanding, I will try to help you. If I choose to answer on the Workshop page, I will. Do not copy any of my statements made on this talk page to that page as they are not in answer to your question there. Thanks. [[User:Delicious carbuncle|Delicious carbuncle]] ([[User talk:Delicious carbuncle|talk]]) 20:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
+:::Prioryman, did you want an answer to your question or not? If you do, you will have to be more specific about what it is you are asking. Given your lack of response here, I am wondering if you really do want an answer or if you were really just posing the question in an attempt to show me in a poor light... [[User:Delicious carbuncle|Delicious carbuncle]] ([[User talk:Delicious carbuncle|talk]]) 20:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 ::Meta comment: ArbCom, are you happy now that you opened this can of worms? Inviting people to revisit grievances via an omnibus anybody v. anybody case is not too smart. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 19:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)