Shortcuts WP:ARC WP:A/R/C 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 to case requests. 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, e.g. 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.

Initiated by Dilettante at 19:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Dilettante (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Lightburst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Just Step Sideways (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Silver seren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TarnishedPath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Carrite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Yngvadottir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification Lightburst
• diff of notification Just Step Sideways
• diff of notification Homeostasis07
• diff of notification AndyTheGrump
• diff of notification Silver Seren
• diff of notification TarnishedPath

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1161#AndyTheGrump's (ATG) hostility, editing to favor deletion and canvassing
• Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 199#Future RFC on BLPs at DYK (plus, to an extent, the following three threads)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1165#user:TarnishedPath
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1169#Disruptive edits by user:Lightburst
• Talk:Mamie Lake (Wisconsin)#Merge Proposal
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Lightburst making poorly disguised personal attacks and hosting WP:POLEMIC content in his userpage
• User talk:Levivich#ANI
• User talk:Lightburst#Re:ANI
• User talk:Lightburst/Archive 1-31-25#false accusations

This case is the result of periodic argument between 'pro-' and 'anti-WPO' factions, particularly in relation to Lightburst's edits that have escalated to the point that the very mention of WPO can derail a discussion. Though the closer of the most recent ANI recommended against an arbcom case yet, the only sanction with consensus was a WP:VEXBYSTERANG and does not address the root problem, or, if such exists, the root users at fault. ANI is not meant to handle cases of alleged off-wiki misconduct, nor has it dealt with on-wiki PAs against Wikipediocrats e.g. [1]

Most of my evidence is off-wiki or relies on a combination of on- and off-wiki posts so I'll email that later today. Additionally, I have evidence against someone— who is not listed as a party due to filing limits and lack of on-wiki evidence—which I believe should warrant an indef, if not a ban.

Daniel To be clear, I think your close was fine and accurately assessed consensus. Sincerely, Dilettante 21:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AndytheGrump. Sorry about that! I probably leaned too much into drafting several emails to arbcom with more context and failed to make this case request clear—at least in part because it's common for arbcom to alter or expand the scope.

WPO is not the crux of the public discussion (private, I have no idea, not knowing who will submit evidence and what specific links there'll be). The focus is that several users of the pro- and anti- faction have repeatedly argued in uncivil manner. Some of this happened on-wiki, some off-wiki, but ANI has yet to solve the issue.

I will state my request is related to a few key topics that cannot currently be resolved without a shitstorm of an RFC:

• To what extent, if any, should posts on WPO be considered canvassing? (in relation to the Bent's Camp discussion, Daniel's recent close, and other discussions) What about if they use language that is blatantly biased when compared to the neutral Template:Please see?
• To what extent, if any, is positively interacting (via publicly connected accounts) with Wikipedia-related posts that would be revdelled or oversighted if on-wiki, acceptable?

I am almost certain these won't be fully clarified by arbcom if this is accepted, but it would hopefully clear the air and allow for non-toxic discourse at a later date. Sincerely, Dilettante 23:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swatjester The focus is that several users of the pro- and anti- faction have repeatedly argued in uncivil manner. I don't expect arbcom to do anything about the existence of WPO nor to ban people from publicly using both websites (and I wouldn't want that obviously!). Sincerely, Dilettante 23:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TarnishedPath. The main part of the public case request is certainly whether editors in the 'anti' faction, in particular Lightburst, have behaved appropriately. However, in the 'pro' faction AndyTheGrump's conduct was previously less than stellar (you'll notice I opposed sanctions) and I will do some digging to see if such conduct has continued in discussions that have been mentioned on WPO. Sincerely, Dilettante 15:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump, I'm not going to lie and pretend I haven't been keeping track of the off-wiki thread. If you'd like to request that the list be extended, request it. I'm certainly not opposed to a change in scope though I obviously can't speak for arbcom. Sincerely, Dilettante 15:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TarnishedPath, I included you because one of the key discussions around this case has your name in it and, to a lesser extent, since Lightburst included you in his dicklist. I don't believe that you deserve any sanction or warning, but I do think you became a target of LB's ire and thus wrapped up in this affair. Sincerely, Dilettante 02:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take this as you will. Sincerely, Dilettante 03:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LB is indeff'd and probably will be CBANned. However, there are open issues relating to indivuals' conduct off-wiki that require private evidence (some of which I've submitted; note, in particular, the last paragraph of my first email). In other words +1 to Vanamonde93's suggestion. Sincerely, Dilettante 22:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge my recent behavior has been disruptive: I have been frustrated. This summer I emailed Arbcom with complaints involving JSS/WPO. Instead of help, (Arb) Moneytrees, synthesized and actioned longstanding WPO accusations about me: MT timed the release of their explosive conclusions for when I was at ANI about WPO and JSS; admitting they sat on a report for a month and released it during my ANI about WPO; I protested, and MT wrote a long list of grievances about me. MT said this when JSS lost his arb position for betraying trust [ link:

"I hold Beeblebrox (JSS) in very high regard" and "thought that made me too biased to actually vote on the matter". MT

And when MT recused here JSS messaged MT.

ATG began recent drama, announcing on WPO that Lightburst’s articles are “crap”. He alerted the WPO of his AfDs and they had an a paralell AfD discussion on WPO. JSS commented in discussion on WPO link, I suspect by the time I'm done writing this comment LB will be complaining about this thread at the AFD. JSS Timeline: I took WPO members to ANI and MT derailed discussion with accusations about me. JSS then immediately proposed sanctions for me.

JSS assists WPO with disruption on WP. Others were concerned in 2021. In 2024 JSS made an involved ANI close that protected WPO’s ATG. On 7-13-2024, JSS posted a personal attack about @Dronebogus: on WPO link

I just nominated a bunch of the worst of his recent garbage for deletion… Commons doesn't need to host your homemade wanking materials. JSS

Note: JSS addressed the WP editor via WPO? canvassed, and on WPO accused DB of uploading a fap stash (JSS words). So he could masturbate?

July 2024 someone questioned WPO about referring to me as “Imbecile and Idioit”. ATG responded link, Yeah, Wikipedia policy doesn't apply here… ATG WPO coordinates on-wiki attacks, members engage in PAs and they enjoy frustrating and doxing WP editors. Tarnished path (TP) has also been disruptive. Following me, constantly trying to sanction me, trolling, even here! Might be time for an Iban.

Arbcom may not be the right venue - arbs are involved (JSS – former, MT-present). MT HAS recused, but MT should be added as a party. Arbs who are WPO participants should recuse, i.e. Guerillero is a member/actioned a WPO accusation.

1. JSS should be desysopped for damaging the project, canvassing, and PAs (like masturbation). He was not trusted to be an ARB and based on his off-wiki behavior and should not be trusted to be an administrator.
2. ATG could be sanctioned for damaging the project, ongoing disruption, canvassing, and PAs.
3. MT should be a party to this case for their unsubstantiated attacks on me and curious timing of accusations.
4. The arbitration committee could consider sanctioning me for my behavior.
5. Tarnished path could face sanctions or Iban for trolling me on-wiki and they refer to me on WPO link pure idiocy. Lightburst (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here we are at last. The idea of a case has been being increasingly discussed at the various extremely long threads where this issue has been festering. That last one is on me, but in my mind I was just reporting trolling and expected a quick block for such, but instead... well.. you can see what happened instead.

It is not entirely clear to me what the scope of such a case would be, but I do think the list of prior discussions above shows we have a fairly intractible problem here, and review of those discussions will certainly show some users making utterly bizzare claims and accusations, and if we look at the closing admin of the most recent ANI's talk page, you will also see a user calling for comments from anyone perveived to be "from WPO" to be discounted entirely[2].To his credit, Daniel immidiately replied that he did not do so and stated I did not disregard contributions from those who are either confirmed or alleged to have WPO accounts, no. They are editors in good standing and offered a reasonable argument that had consensus support. The statement "once you put aside votes from WPO" is divisive and the view to disregard their contributions to the debate, again, did not have support to do so. This is the mentality we are looking at here, that commenting at WPO makes you less of a Wikipedian, that anyone who has commented there is equally guilty for any other action that has ever happened there, that being the subject of commentary of any kind there excuses terrible behavior here, that users need to "pick a side," and so on.

Probably the primary issue for the committee will be the contention that being discussed, attacked, outed, etc over there (I'm not looking to sugar coat anything, all that stuff does happen) has some sort of mitigating effect that excuses on-wiki conduct such as trolling, casting unfounded aspersions, misrepresenting what was said overe there to discount someone's comments here, etc. The committee has in the past held that this is not the case,(can provide pointers where to find this in email archives if desired) that we can feel some degree of sympathy for someone in that situation but that does not excuse their own poor behavior. Or, as my mom taught me when I was a small child: two wrongs don't make a right.

Another possible aspect is the on-wiki evidence-free demonization of users who dare to contribute to both sites, and the desired chilling effect from doing so. The way we have always done things is basically summed up by "provide some evidence or STFU" or I guess just WP:ASPERSIONS and vague accusations, which needs to stop. If someone is that terrible, evidence can be emailed to the commitee. If they just made a coment elsewhere that someone doesn't like, too bad.

I'm probably going to need a word extension if this moves forward.

Well, let's make that I formally request a word extension please as just adding this is putting me slightly over the line.

Thanks. For the moment I would note that Levivich was added as a party, which I think anyone even slighty familiar with the recent fracas would agree is proper, and they chose to revert that addition.

So, thinking more about the possible scope, as it now seems this may actually go forward, I'd say aside from some obvious behavioral issues that the community hasn't been able to manage, there are also policy interpretation issues. While the committee cannot and should not dictate policy, there are certain narrow areas where the committee must by needs lead the way regarding how a policy is interpreted and used on the ground, in this case the oversight policy and the outing policy, both of which have been relevant in some of these incidents.

It's been pointed out (on WPO, the horror) that there is a rather old previous case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites

One of the findings reads "...it is difficult to sort out sites engaged in criticism of Wikipedia and its editors and administrators from sites engaged in harassment. Likewise, when information is provided about the alleged wrong-doings of Wikipedia users, it can be difficult to differentiate legitimate complaints from bogus ones calculated to cast a user in a false light.'" You might want to recycle that one if this moves forward. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we've finally heard from LB, offering one sentence admitting he was disruptive, and several paragraphs about how other users made him do it. I particualy like that he is bringing in a comment I made on WPO about an issue on Commons, which reduces it's relvance to EN.WP to zero, and that somehow my talk page message to Money is some sort of smoking gun and not just a friendly remark to a colleague. This is the sort of demonization without evidence that has been going on for some time now. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do feel it needs said that on this one point I do agree with LB: Guerillero should probably recuse here, not because he makes a post on WPO once in a while but because there is a somewhat prejudicial tone to some remarks he has made, including here on this case request. It's always best to avoid even the appearance of bias. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 08:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really have to take issue with Joe's contention below that the "crap articles" thread is a problem. I have found it to be the most useful thing on WPO. The project has been improved probably a few hundred times as a direct result of postings there, sometimes through deletion but at least as often through content being edited to make it less crappy. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 16:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FeydHuxtable's claim that WPO "brigaded" the ANI thread on LB is laughably false. Quite a number of the near-unanimous comments in support of it are from people who have been very outspoken in their criticism of WPO. This is a good thing as it makes it clear that particpants with highly variable perspectives were able to look at this objectively and come to a common conclusion, but sadly this sort of overblown hyperbole about battles and heroes is what we have seen for years, decades even, from hardcore ARS memebers, and Mr. Huxtable is certainly one of the people who have repeatedley encouraged this bettleground mentality under a thin veneer of politeness and concern for others. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even though Lightburst has been blocked, I still believe there is a case meriting ArbCom attention here. As Hydrangeans pointed out below, Off-Wiki Attacks and the Movement Charter provide a solid foundation for ArbCom to examine and punish users for off-site activity.

I have no idea about the background that lead to this comment – perhaps current ArbCom members are aware of that circumstance, and can provide insight to the rest of the community – but that comment literally sent a chill down my spine, to the point where I don't feel comfortable communicating even in private with ArbCom. As has been noted here in several statements and the recusals, innumerous arbitrators, administrators, and CheckUsers are members of Wikipediocracy. I've searched Wikipedia extensively. From what I can see, there does not appear to be any specific policy or guideline barring users in these trusted positions from sharing sensitive information on a website like WPO. This is a huge concern for me going forward.

At a minimum, this case should set out a clear policy specifically banning—with extreme prejudice—the sharing of sensitive information sent to ArbCom and/or obtained by CU data on any external website, and the complete removal of any permissions (access to ARB/CU data; continued role as admin and/or bureaucrat) of any user found to have abused their position by posting sensitive information elsewhere. I really can't imagine this proposal being controversial at all. In fact, the entire community would undoubtedly feel safer as a result. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how anyone could be expected to meaningfully respond to such a vague request. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen some of the statements posted here subsequent to the above, I would perhaps suggest that if anything useful is to come from this ill-defined case request, it should consist of a reminder to all concerned that claims of alleged misconduct are required to be backed up by evidence when requested, that article talk pages, AfD discussions etc are not appropriate forums for such matters, and that making repeated nebulous and unverifiable allegations, whether naming a particular Wikipedia contributor or not, is disruptive regardless of where it takes place. Needless to say, this sort of behaviour is not unique to matters concerning Wikipediocracy, but is instead a common occurrence in disputes on Wikipedia, and on WP:AN and WP:ANI in particular. I suspect that a great many WP:ANI threads would be substantially shorter if this basic principle was enforced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dilettante, as I said on WPO, If I saw any realistic prospect of this case going anywhere I'd request that the list of parties be extended. As it stands though, I can see no merit in doing so, since nothing remotely approaching any evidence-based specific allegation against me has been provided. And that, in my opinion, is the core issue here. An evidence-based case concerning specific allegations certainly merits evidence in response, but failing anything specific to respond to, adding to the list of parties achieves little beyond extending the scope for more vague back-and-forth allegations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Lightburst's comments above, I would like to draw attention to a recently-posted ArbCom 'principle' posted in regard to the Yasuke case, concerning 'Participation on arbitration pages', and in particular to the following: Accusations of misbehavior must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. I'll not go into further detail as to why I find Lightburst's post problematic for now, but I trust that ArbCom will apply similar principles here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Responding again to questions regarding the focus of this case, should it proceed further, I've already made my position clear above - the community needs to deal with the disruption caused by 'repeated nebulous and unverifiable allegations, whether naming a particular Wikipedia contributor or not' that has blighted notice boards, talk pages etc. In as much as this broader problem has involved Wikipediocracy, the community has now dealt with the two major recent offenders in this regard, and it might now be best to draw a line under the matter, with no further action beyond a reminder that Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting conspiracy theories concerning the imaginary 'hive mind' of a minor external website, and that collective guilt isn't a thing in Wikipedia policy.

Beyond that, I obviously can't comment on any evidence submitted privately, since I've not seen it. As far as I can tell, nobody participating here has publicly laid out any substantive evidence of specific misbehaviour by me that falls within the remit of ArbCom. And I'm not going to engage in speculation about what the legitimate 'scope' might be for a case built around hypothetical evidence concerning me personally. I don't have the necessary information to answer meaningfully.

Finally, I hope that ArbCom will see fit to make it clear to those who wish otherwise that they have no intention of trying to police the internet: even the parts of it that carry content critical of Wikipedia, and of the way it functions. Even if said criticism is disrespectful, or even utter crap (Wikipediocracy may host that on occasion). Any project with the online presence that Wikipedia has merits close scrutiny, and it isn't remotely appropriate for Wikipedia to try to limit its scope. Not while Wikipedia aspires to openness and to the dissemination of knowledge. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what to assert or address here for this filing. On the general topic in question, I guess all I have to say is that all of Arbcom, past and present members, should be more than aware of the long history of Wikipediocracy users being involved in harassment of dozens of Wikipedia editors, driving many of them off the project. This has included rampant doxxing and even incidents of editors' employers being contacted in order to cause them some harm because of them editing Wikipedia. This is all well known history spanning years and such incidents continue to happen over and over. Deflections of "off-wiki activities are unenforceable for known on-wiki current editors" hold less and less water as each new incident is added to the pile, particularly when those WPO users (the non-banned ones at least) involved in the derogatory commentary and harassment are simultaneously commenting and acting in the related on-wiki discussions. Silverseren^C 22:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this case is to go ahead its focal point should be how the community has not been able to deal with the behaviour of Lightburst and those who have derailed discussions by making personal attacks and cast aspersion mostly based on bullshit guilt by association arguments. See Moneytrees damning report which was excused by members of this community in the broader thread. TarnishedPath^talk 22:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dilettante: The focus is that several users of the pro- and anti- faction have repeatedly argued in uncivil manner. If there is a pro faction can you please identify it because I don't see one. I've seen a bunch of editors excusing LB's behaviour with bullshit guilt by association arguments regarding WPO. TarnishedPath^talk 09:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dilettante you write "TarnishedPath. The main part of the public case request is certainly whether editors in the 'anti' faction, in particular Lightburst, have behaved appropriately. Can you advise on what basis you've added me as a proposed party, is it merely because you are implying that I am part of the pro-WPO faction that you've referred to? If so where is your evidence for such a ill-founded accusation? TarnishedPath^talk 00:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell, @Levivich removed themselves as a proposed party at Special:Diff/1252678823 after I added them given their continous stating of mistruths and making allegatoins lacking in evidencde in multiple topic threads. Can you advised if this is permited for someone to remove themselves as a proposed party and if so I will do likewise. TarnishedPath^talk 00:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich, Dilettante added me to the party list without any sufficent explanation or evidence demonstrating sufficent disruption on my part. How is that any different to my adding of you? You're not proposing that the first mover should have an advantage in defining who's behaviours are examined and who's aren't I hope? TarnishedPath^talk 03:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich it is clear from the links above that you have repeatedly engaged in personnal attacks and casting aspersions and have done so evidence free. Multiple other editors here agree that you should be a party to the case and I don't see any argument for why I would be. TarnishedPath^talk 03:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero, apologies if removing or adding parties is outside procedures. I was unable to find anything during my brief reading and it strikes me that not allowing the addition of proposed parties gives the filer a first mover advantage which I'm sure wouldn't be intended. If this case is to go ahead I'd heavily suggest Levivich be a party because his conduct is central to multiple discussions of Lightburst's conduct being derailed. TarnishedPath^talk 09:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given Lightburst has now been WP:CBAN I don't see any reason for a case to go ahead as the community has finally dealt with the issue. This case should be declined. TarnishedPath^talk 12:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This filing is an overreaction, and the issue does not rise to the level of requiring ArbCom to get involved (unless some private evidence of harassment emerges, that ArbCom would need to deal with in private). ArbCom should decline it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC) No longer sure about that, so never mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, thanks to Dilettante for not including me in the list of parties — my only involvement has been to close the latest ANI mega-thread per the consensus of the proposals, so I agree with not being included (and am, quite frankly, glad) even though some people in their shoes may have done so.

Dropping by here given both Dilettante and JSS have referenced my actions or words. At this stage I don't have anything to add to my words at the ANI close (including relevant subsections) and subsequent user talk page discussion. I do agree with Dilettante that the current mood of this dispute on-wiki indeed "[has] escalated to the point that the very mention of WPO can derail a discussion". Which makes me especially despondent as there are good-faith experienced editors that I hold immense respect for on both sides who have been caugh up in this.

Finally, just acknowledging that I will make myself as available as possible to answer any questions from members of the Committee should they have any, although I hope my tangental involvement means this won't be necessary; plus I am travelling overseas as of this morning so if I am slightly delayed in doing so, my apologies in advance.

Thanks,
Daniel (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This filing does not make a whole lot of sense to me as something that would be best handled by ArbCom, but if this is simply going to become the general location for everyone to say their thing about WPO, I guess I will do so:

I do not think people should be blocked here merely for posting there, as most people there act normal.

I also do not think we should go trying to sniff around on some other site dusting for fingerprints investigating which editor goes to which pseudonym.

I do think that if you post over there, openly identifying yourself with the same name as you use over here, and you say extremely rude things about other editors, or try to whip up support for your own crusades onwiki, people over here should be able to take you to task for it. I don't think this is "collective guilt" or "BADSITES".

Also, this is obviously not an issue for the committee, but I think that the people who run the site should consider telling the dox guys to cut it out, as what they do is not only cruel and harassing, but also pointless and stupid. jp×g🗯️ 20:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the posts on WPO: when I say "dox" I mean, mostly, the thing where some guy posts a list of your family members and photos of you from Facebook, or joins the Discord to scroll through hundreds of posts and do a strings-on-corkboard of where your family vacation is, not the expansive WP:OUTING thing which includes "Wikipedia user Conezone863 wrote a spam article about Zombocom and Twitter user Conezone863 claims to be the CEO of Zombocom". jp×g🗯️ 02:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: This filing does not make a whole lot of sense to me as something that would be best handled by ArbCom, I don't know how to say that more directly. jp×g🗯️ 01:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrite: Did you miss the beginning of the sentence, to wit: "this is obviously not an issue for the committee, but"?

It's really unthoughtful and hurtful that a case proposal like this can be made by the filer without making me a party. I mean, with [tens of thousands] of posts [n.b. 13,000+] made to WPO over more than a decade, one would think that some sort of lame accusation could be cobbled together charging me with crimes against the state. What makes Andy the Grump and Beebs so special? And my connection between my WP nym and my WPO nym has been clearly made multiple times on-wiki, unlike other similarly-named accounts here and there. If we're gonna redo the WP:BADSITES case, let's at least be thorough with the axe-griding in this proposal for a pointless Arbcom timesink. --Tim Davenport /// Carrite (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC) /// Randy from Boise on WPO.[reply]

@JPxG - The "Dox Guys" are not Wikipedians and thus would be unaffected by sanctions here; nor is the WPO policy towards doxxing what you probably think it is. Carrite (talk) 22:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@dilettante - Per: To what extent, if any, should posts on WPO be considered canvassing? (in relation to the Bent's Camp discussion, Daniel's recent close, and other discussions) — The canvassing argument would be interesting to make. Bent's Camp is a perfect illustration that "There is no cabal" as it was Andy and me doing battle over the fate of that article, which I improved significantly during the AfD debate. But please hold an RFC on that issue, if it's huge for you, it is not a matter for Arbcom. (Bent's Camp was an honest deletionist/inclusionist difference of opinion.) Carrite (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoe - Per: It's tempting to say that if you don't like being criticized there, don't do things that invite criticism... - It is safe to say this is exactly the perspective of an overwhelming majority of WPO participants. Carrite (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added myself to this case in the expectation that this is going to meander into the question of so-called "canvassing" and don't feel it is appropriate that Andy and Beebs be singled out. If this is a case instead about disruptive threads at ANI, Levivich should be in and I probably should be out, but YMMV. Carrite (talk) 03:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@S Marshall - Maybe there's only a couple dozen active people at WPO, but there are only slightly more than 200 de facto active administrators on Wikipedia, so everything is a matter of proportion. Indeed, if we're such a small circle of banned miscreants, why are so many people wetting their pants about "canvassing" and "brigading"?

While I know that I appreciate a case being started on the intersection of Wikipedia and Wikipediocracy and WPO has certainly been at the center of some lively discussions on noticeboards, I think Dilettante's filing has failed to identify what the "problem" is that the arbitration committee is being addressed to resolve. Being controversial doesn't, in itself, require intervention, especially from ARBCOM and since this request was just posted, maybe the answer to my question will be become clearer over the next day or two. But just being a hot button issue is not sufficient for the committee to take on a case, there must be some misconduct going on or some intractable dispute and I don't see that existing in this case request. For the record, I think the subject is suitable for consideration but I don't think this case request defines what the committee is being asked to adjudicate or why certain editors have been included as parties simply because they participated in some of these discussions. That is, I'm not sure what misconduct on THIS PROJECT is being highlighted of being of concern. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Soni's point, I don't remember this from my days as an Arbitration clerk but can an editor just remove themselves as an involved party from a case filed by another editor? I thought this was a request that could be posed but editors can't just delete their name. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear what this case request is about. Is it about the existence of WPO? Discussion of WPO on-wiki? Allegations of off-wiki misbehavior? Daniel's close? I cannot tell from the filing what the scope of this case is intended to be.

Disregard; in the time between starting this, getting distracted, and coming back to it, the request was clarified to be more specific. I don't think this is the right venue to answer the question of whether WPO posts should be considered canvassing -- in fact, I don't think that question is really relevant to WPO directly at all. There is, probably, value in a generalized discussion at WP:CANVAS about whether the terms and definitions of that page (in particular, the WP:STEALTH part) apply to an off-wiki discussion about on-wiki discussion in circumstances where it is unclear or questionable that the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is present; or how to construe that in the context of a forum where users will have differing, often contradictory opinions and intentions. But I don't see why that should be done here as opposed to fixing the guideline that's too ambiguous.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This case request seems pointless to me, because no issues are mentioned other than WP vs WPO, which ArbCom has no jurisdiction in and no desire to patrol. If there are issues that can only be raised privately to ArbCom, there is no reason for a case (it should be an internal-only affair), and the community cannot comment.

If the case is against (alleged) long-term disruption or disruptiveness by Lightburst, and/or their excess mention of WPO on WP, then the case should be against Lightburst exclusively, not on a mysterious cabal of people who either post on WPO or post on WP about WPO.

I suggest that the committee decline this case. I also suggest that the filer is apparently too much of a newbie (on-wiki for barely two years) to know how ArbCom and ArbCom cases work. Softlavender (talk) 01:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the above: The only clearly stated item/question in the filer's case request is not something ArbCom does or handles. Namely: "To what extent, if any, should posts on WPO be considered canvassing?" ArbCom does not set policy or adjudicate canvassing. Off-wiki WP:CANVASSING is by definition off-wiki WP:CANVASSING.

Therefore, I still recommend declining this public case request. Any serious infractions that can only be handled via private communication should be handled via private communication. Softlavender (talk) 03:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the latest allegations by Lightburst, whether or not they hold up, I now change my recommendation to accept. The fact that a sitting (and a past) arb are involved, I'm not sure how objective ArbCom can be, even with the recusal, but I hope they will hold themselves to the highest standard. Softlavender (talk) 03:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I too am confused about what this is supposed to specifically address. ArbCom can’t wave a magic wand and fix everything wrong here (and there is a LOT wrong here). When people (including myself) complain about WPO, it’s usually about how the numerous threads dedicated to mocking and insulting specific editors could be viewed as outing, off-wiki harassment and canvassing/encouragement for on-wiki attacks. That much seems cut and dry. Why are we beating around the bush here? (Sorry for all the mixed metaphors) Dronebogus (talk) 07:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FeydHuxtable: FWIW I detest WPO and I still easily would’ve voted to Cban Lightburst. I despise any kind of organized harassment against anyone but LB’s behavior (hardline inclusionist canvassing tactics, sock puppetry, chronic incivility, the “Richards” list, comments bordering on transphobic and antisemitic) is patently unacceptable. They really should have been blocked a long time ago for both their and our benefit. Dronebogus (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This ought to go nowhere except perhaps as a great WP:BOOMERANG. Homeostasis07 makes a false claim about doxxing, and once again it is Airing of Grievances Against WPO time. People are going to make WP-critical sites and forums; people on those forums aren't going to feel themselves bound by on-WP rules there, and WP participants are going to show up at those sites both to engage the criticism and to have discussions which aren't really possible on WP. It's tempting to say that if you don't like being criticized there, don't do things that invite criticism, but at any rate it seems to me that almost all disruption centered around WPO is caused on this end by people making a fuss about it. This case submission seems to be a poorly focused example of the latter. Mangoe (talk) 12:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The whole line about how the "crap articles" thread is canvassing is an example of how people have unrealistic expectations about WP criticism. First, by my quick survey most articles listed there don't get attempts to delete them; most just stay "crap". But also, it's completely unsurprising that a critical site is going to have a thread on such articles. So what are its members supposed to do when they look at one of these articles and see that it is indeed worthy of deletion? Are they supposed to virtuously sit on their hands? I personally feel no such obligation, and have acted on information I found on the site many times. If you are serious about improving WP, having someone to point out specific issues with it is useful. And maybe I've missed it, but this appears to another Airing of Grievances matter unrelated to the conflicts brought up by Dilletante. Mangoe (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are two ways for arbcom to take this case.

The narrow way is just to consider whether there should be an interaction ban between [certain WPO parties] and [Lightburst]. Meh to that.

The broad way is to scrutinize the status quo regarding WPO, the information that arises there, WP:HARASS, WP:CANVAS, and WP:COI.

Here is the status quo, as I see it:

• Legitimate issues are occasionally raised on WPO which should be addressed on-wiki (and by "should be addressed on-wiki" I mean it should result in action on-wiki, but also that it should just be brought up and discussed on-wiki instead of on WPO). When that happens the community -- and arbcom, via the Nihonjoe case -- has shown that it is willing to put on blinders to the provenance of actionable information and all the harassment, doxing, and insults that takes place around it. It becomes acceptable for people to be canvassed via WPO, show up on-wiki, and !vote together when they are fundamentally correct about the content (the sickly state of WP:BRINE).
• When provenance and canvassing do arise, proof would require linking to harmful threads (and it's not practical to email arbcom to respond to a brief ANI thread), and at some point someone -- often the same few people -- simply denies anything bad happened at all, scolds those who suggest otherwise, and redirects people to focus on what they can see on-wiki. In practice, this means that in a large thread about WPO and Lightburst, the only sanction to come out of it was a topic ban... for someone criticizing WPO. Many of the supports for that tban came from WPO members [without COI disclosures], and no mention of that in the closing statement. Not saying a tban was/wasn't justified -- just that, because there's a legitimate complaint about aspersions, nobody cares that WPO regulars turned out to silence a critic.

I'd lean towards suggesting arbcom decline this broad scope, however, in large part because I fear we will get a long, ugly case that ends up doing more harm than good. I think arbcom is typically reluctant to extend its jurisdiction off-wiki except in truly extreme cases. As long as the target "deserves it" (i.e. is wrong in some capacity) and as long as the most extreme stuff comes from those who are already banned or aren't known Wikipedians, it would be too easy for arbcom to unofficially bless harassing/insulting/canvassing off-wiki and/or cheering on already-banned or unidentified users who do that and worse, cracking jokes with them, proxying for them, and/or taking action on-wiki based on what they turn up. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW strongly opposed to a scope of "on-wiki feuding", which sets up an asymmetric scope whereby the worst actions of one group are mostly hidden because they take place off-wiki and the worst actions of the other crowd (largely taken in response to what happens off-wiki) are subject to scrutiny. You're setting up a case which, per what I wrote above, will likely just give the arbcom seal of approval to off-wiki coordination/harassment. Arbs, you are the only ones here who can deal with off-wiki stuff. If you're going to have a broad scope but put on blinders to the full picture, you're demonstrating that arbcom cannot handle off-wiki issues and as such providing evidence to those who see a need for T&S/UCoC involvement in enwiki affairs (which isn't something I want, either). Go narrower or go broader. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites The "universal" in the UCoC is pan-Wikimedia, not pan-Internet. The worst ArbCom can do is ban someone from the English Wikipedia. We can show someone the door if we know that they're the same person on enwiki and WPO and their conduct in there is incompatible with remaining a member of this community, but a ban from enwiki will have absolutely no effect whatsoever on what they can do on Wikipediocracy. And we have no levers available against people who are not members of our community. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting you have any power over off-wiki sites. You suggested a scope of "on-wiki feuding". That doesn't sound, to me, like you intend to consider things like if we know that they're the same person on enwiki and WPO and their conduct in there is incompatible with remaining a member of this community; it sounds like limiting the scope to what's "on-wiki". I'm glad to hear I misunderstood, but I'd encourage you to reword the scope to make that clear. Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note on "freedom of association" and questions as to why anyone would bring up the actions of other people on WPO in this case (after all, I don't think anyone has accused the parties named here of engaging in things like doxing). There is a difference between freedom of association, and actively producing potential targets/passively encouraging people who you know engage in that kind of behavior. Nobody's scrutinizing your barbers or college drinking buddies. They're scrutinizing the people you go to when you want to give a Wikipedian the business but not be held responsible for it, knowing full well what can happen to Wikipedians who "deserve it" there. If you go to WPO and say "get a load of this Wikipedian [with a COI/writing low-quality articles/causing drama/defending the WMF]" or add evidence/crack jokes in such a thread, knowing what might happen as a result, it's not just about who you're associating with but what you're actively doing.
Though FWIW this makes for an even worse case with Lightburst banned. It would be so much simpler if WPO users could just go after someone who could resist making things worse for themselves... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 11:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think I need to request an extension. If I remove this line, I think my part of this section fits in 1000 words. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 11:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The filing editor sort of stated in passing why ArbCom should open a case and conduct a quasi-judicial evidentiary hearing. The record of previous WP:ANI cases is the reason. The reason is not the Wikipediocracy (WPO) web site, but repeated incivility on the Wikipedia web site, that repeatedly flares up at WP:ANI. ArbCom has been established to deal with conduct disputes that the community is unable to resolve. The community has been unable to resolve the recurrent outbreaks of incivility, for at least two reasons. The first is that attitudes toward WPO divide the community, with some editors thinking, reasonably, that the site is too often toxic and harmful, and other editors thinking, reasonably, that Wikipedia editors should have freedom of association, and should be allowed to speak for Wikipedia even at a bad site. This means that the community is divided. The second reason is that identifying fault requires a careful review, and identifying the remedies for the incivility even more require deliberation. Something needs to be done. Should it be topic-bans from discussion of WPO? Should it be interaction bans, which are sometimes gamed but sometimes necessary? Are one or two of the editors net negatives to the community, who should be site-banned? The community has tried and failed to resolve the antagonism, and the ArbCom has a responsibility.

I will also say something that I said prior to the Historical Elections case that was ignored. If ArbCom acts largely on the basis of private evidence, they should make as much of an effort as possible to make as much of the evidence public as possible. Transparency improves trust. In this WPO case, much of the evidence consists of on-wiki exchanges that keep recurring, and may continue.

I don't know whether ArbCom should or may involve itself with what goes on off-wiki on WPO, but ArbCom should deal with the ugly on-wiki exchanges. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added Comments

I have read the WP:ANI dated 17 October 2024 concerning the posting by Lightburst of personal attacks against seven other editors. The response by the community itself illustrates that the community is failing to deal with disruption. The posting of those comments was beyond the pale and required some sanction. The only sanction taken by the community was against another editor. This further shows that the on-wiki personal attacks are a situation that the community is not dealing with, and a quasi-judicial review by ArbCom is required. One of the reasons why the community did not take action against Lightburst is that several editors thought that ArbCom should take the case. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to HJ Mitchell

The incidents listed by Dilettante, and especially the misuse of the user page by Lightburst, are long-term feuding, and community processes have not dealt with them.

I think there is merit to a case, public, private or otherwise as the current status quo of "every time someone who posts to WPO or is the subject of an WPO post is brought to ANI, it turns into a referendum on WPO that derails the issue at hand" is not sustainable. The recent Lightburst threads are just the latest, and there has been no real resolution to the underlying issue because of the lack of evidence. Star Mississippi 18:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero I think Homeostasis07, Silver seren's conduct needs to be a part of it as well. The Camp/Lake drama is a Lightburst article, but while that ended up at ANI it might have had resolution if not for the endless derails into WPO Bad! Disclosure, I was the one who proposed the topic ban on Homeostasis after the latest Star Mississippi 16:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites while I largely agree with you that they should take the case, and said as much in the AN close review, I disagree with this assessment: the only sanction to come out of it was a topic ban... for someone criticizing WPO. The topic ban was because Homeostasis absolutely refused to back up their allegations for much of the discussion and then when they did, it was shown to be without merit. As proposer I have no isse with Homeostatis contributing here or other channels to help ArbComm form consensus, but "WPO bad but I won't / can't say why" all over at least two threads is why they were sanctioned, not because they criticized WPO. Star Mississippi 18:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Moneytrees just in case it needs saying, I am fine with your explanation. The timing wasn't ideal, but it was what it was given the factors you described. What I know of you as an editor and with any hats, you're always acting in good faith.

(In general) I do think a case is needed. Lb is the latest lighting rod, but is not the sole problem related to all the threads since July AfD. Star Mississippi 01:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the analysis of Star Missisippi so I won't repeat that. I would also suggest for Arbs who have said they think there are more cases ArbCom could handle that this feels like a good example of one that isn't as serious as a PIA but which the community has, for the reasons articulated by Star, been unable to handle and for which a binding decision may help the community avoid future conflict. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised so many Arbs seem to have thought the only scope was about whether or not to ban Lightburst and so with that done there is nothing for ArbCom to do. As noted above I think the underlying idea of Star Missippi's that the current status quo of 'every time someone who posts to WPO or is the subject of an WPO post is brought to ANI, it turns into a referendum on WPO that derails the issue at hand' is not sustainable as a scope still feels appropriate for ArbCom to handle, though perhaps this can be done by motion rather than case (though for me the advantage of a case would be some well thought out principles about this would which could break us of the unhelpful BADSITES binary we still seem to be stuck in). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a party, not involved, didn't review recent thread. In the past, though, WPO has been a lightning rod so I think that if possible, ArbCom trying to fix that would be good. The pattern I've seen is offwiki harassment, joe jobs, trolling, doxxing, etc., on WPO, then, when confronted by onwiki discussion or forwards to ArbCom there are then boomerangs that end up turning around the person being harassed into the aggressor. This has a chilling effect on addressing the offwiki harassment. Not speaking about myself but I know of 2 users that were persistently harassed offwiki via WPO and really don't have a recourse, and it's resulting in them being unhappy and/or fearful, and creates a chilling effect on their participation on Wikipedia. I will not give further details, but I'm sure anyone can find many examples of similar situations. Therefore I feel a modern 'BADSITE' policy would be helpful for their sake. Andre🚐 23:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend a larger scope to this case than just Lightburst. While Lightburst remains the central lightning rod for many WPO related drama, he is far from the only problematic editor in that regard. There are incidents of clear WP:CANVASS, as well as many more cases of incivility excarbated by having a parallel discussion on WPO for some of these editors.

Additionally, I am concerned at User:Levivich and User:TarnishedPath both seemingly removing themselves [3] [4] as party to this case. I was not aware that parties can just unilaterally "just say no" to being part of an Arbcom case this way. I believe there is enough cause to consider both of them parties to this. Soni (talk) 02:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Soni: and @arbs/clerks: I removed myself from the party list because I was not listed as a party in the original filing. Tarnish Path added me to the party list without any explanation (or evidence); I don't believe editors are allowed to do this, especially because it made it seem like I was listed as a party by Dilettante in the original filing when that was not the case. So I reverted it. I thought that would waste less time than pointing it out to a clerk and asking a clerk to revert it, but if that's how arbs/clerks would prefer I handle it, then that's what I'll do in the future. On whether I should be a party: I don't see any diffs of disruption by me that would justify my being a party to this case, but if anyone wants me to explain or comment on any of my edits, I'm happy to do so. Levivich (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TarnishedPath: Yes, I think the filer of a request for arbitration should get to decide which parties should be listed on the party list in their request. I do not think editors should add names to the filer's party list, or remove names from the filer's party list. I think which parties make it into the actual case is up to the arbs. If anyone else besides the filer or arbs thinks somebody should or should not be a party, I think they should write that in their own section (with diffs or links; private evidence by email). I think this is all standard arbitration procedure. Levivich (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Harry: I think arbcom should review evidence of on- and off-wiki harassment and canvassing involving WPO, and prevent it from happening again (or at least reduce its effects on-wiki) by sanctioning users who have engaged in this behavior, and perhaps clarify policies like who can link to what when.

Example: look at what some of the people on the parties list are saying on WPO about me and other editors participating here, right now, during this case request. Consider what the courts did when Trump took to social media during his court case and talked about people involved in the court case while the case was ongoing (gag order to prevent witness intimidation), and maybe do something similar here. Levivich (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RECUSAL, I'd like to refer my request for Guerillero's recusal to the committee for a ruling. I believe 99 posts (11/yr for 9 years) at WPO is "significant personal involvement" with WPO. Same request for any other arb who has similar involvement with WPO (if any). Thanks, Levivich (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@S Marshall: Wikipediocracy can be quite safely ignored - AFAIK, they don't post your picture and make fun of it, they don't post your personal information, or your family's names and photographs, they don't interfere with your editing, they haven't spent years mocking you, they've never proposed sanctions against you and then voted for those sanctions. If they did any of that, you might not find them so easy to ignore. Levivich (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a request about WPO, or is this a request concerning Lightburst's latest outburst? The recent questions regarding TarnishedPath's status as a party have led me to asking this. Certainly they were involved in the Lightburst situation regarding Bent's Camp Resort, but I'm not sure that a postcount of 13 on WPO (as they admit themselves) warrants them being named as a party to a case about WPO, especially if only Lightburst made any complaints about those 13 posts.

Regardless, ArbCom should accept as I opine that Lightburst's "dick list" and other recent transgressions would have gotten even an established editor quickly indeff'd at ANI had it not been for the anti-WPO faction coming to his defense. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, support for a community ban of Lightburst has picked up traction at a new ANI thread after Lightburst commented on some of the Administrator election pages, and an October 2023 AE warning re: transphobic comments has come to light. Should this CBan proposal fail, I'm sure these will come up again as evidence if Lightburst's conduct is central to this case's scope. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added myself as a party to this ill-defined case proposal since I engaged on the topic of Wikipediocracy at User talk:Levivich#ANI (and probably a time or two elsewhere, including AN/I itself), and made it clear at least in the exchange with Levivich that I am (as of this year) a member at Wikipediocracy (under the same name as here on-wiki; and I've been a reader and made use of the site as a source of information for years; I've been thanked over there a number of times for improving articles). If the committee accepts a case with participation at Wikipediocracy or the accusation of canvassing at Wikipediocracy forming part of its scope, clerks, please do the needful and move this up.

However, I do not think the committee should accept this case request. It isn't apparent to me how the issues that have been raised go beyond our existing civility policy, namely, the prohibition on casting aspersions without evidence. ArbCom recently simplified the process for submitting private information; this should have sufficed to clarify that there is no exception for the policy against aspersions for activity off-wiki on sites that contain material of which one may disapprove. Even when that material is avowedly critical of the current state of Wikipedia. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The recently added statement by Lightburst construes robust criticism of their article writing and responses to on-wiki criticism as personal attacks, alleging coordination in such attacks at WPO on the basis of Andy pointing out the self-evident fact that off-wiki fora are not subject to WP's rules against using terms like "idiot". This is weak sauce to support wideranging accusations of harassment (and the WPO link is deprecated, is it not?). Criticism of someone's work is entirely legitimate even on-wiki; this is not a blogging platform, but a collaboration. Even "rude words" are not verboten here, and examination of that link will show at least one user bringing specific evidence to justify the use of "idiot" and "imbecile".

Further, Lightburst claims that WPO members enjoy frustrating and doxing WP editors. This and a fuller statement by Homeostasis07: "Users who feel free to dox, threaten, harass and be uncivil [at WPO] while pretending to be choir singers on-site" (at AN/I; user is named as a party) are unsupported broad-brush attacks. (Similarly Lightburst's reference to "off-wiki trolls" to Licks-rocks.) Levivich presented criticism of Lightburst's editing as illegitimate because it was offsite, or because the same users were more polite on-wiki (also at AN/I; user is not currently named as a party). In the same post, Levivich called for editors active at WPO to "own up", and our exchange at his user page shows him tarring WPO participants by association (reference is to Vigilant).

WP's policy against outing protects editors' right to have lives else-net (and off-line), and from coincidences of user names and from joe-jobbing. For example, Liz should not be subject to speculation about whether she is WPO user Liz99, who asked the question Andy responded to. WP's civility policy protects editors against unsupported allegations such as Homeostasis07's allegations of "doxing" (outing) and extreme us-against-them positions such as Lightburst and Levivich have taken. I seek to add myself as a party to represent editors' right to free association and to not have their motives uncivilly impugned, and also in solidarity with Carrite, who made the most strenuous and useful efforts to save Lightburst's article, having been alerted to its state by WPO—which seriously undermines the arguments against WPO participation. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to note that Lightburst, a prinicpal and vital party here, has not edited since 3 minutes after he added his "gallery of rogues" on 17 October. While I agree that this is an issue that perhaps only ArbCom can address, Lightburst's inactivity needs to be factored into the arbitrators' decision on whether to proceed with an opened case. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 Could you elaborate on how you know that? Thanks. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have struck this as ArbCom appears to be aware of private evidence of Lightburst knowing. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Joe Roe. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Loki. Even just a motion to allow links to editors who have linked their WP account would be good. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In response to a comment above, the committee should know that despite Lighburst's recent inactivity onwiki, he is aware of recent events and has made efforts to remain up-to-date. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not publicly Aaron Liu, but I am now reminded that at least certain members of the committee are aware. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what purpose this serves in the aftermath of the block of Lightburst, as the whole maelstrom centred around him. If no new focus can be identified, the case should be declined. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Homeostasis07, in your "extensive searches of Wikipedia" for the responsibilities of administrators and CheckUsers, it may have been useful for you to check the pages on the responsibilities of administrators or CheckUsers. They can be found by going to Wikipedia:Administrators or Wikipedia:CheckUser and scrolling down. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe ARBCOM should accept a case. The off-wiki behavior of en.wiki editors is firmly within ARBCOM's purview if and when it intersects with policies on civility, harassment and canvassing (and other things, but those have been alleged to be relevant), and only ARBCOM can make a definitive determination if that has happened here. Furthermore, I think it's not reasonable to expect my colleagues on-wiki to treat public comments I make off-wiki as Vanamonde93 as utterly divorced from my on-wiki presence. No reasonable workplace would tolerate their employees attacking each other in a public forum - we shouldn't either. Conversely, off-wiki attacks can't be used to justify wildly inappropriate behavior on-wiki either - any number of use have faced and witnessed harassment and haven't lost our equilibrium as a result.

ARBCOM should accept a narrow case, focused on Lightburst and those editors interacting with them, specifically to examine whether a) the off-wiki conduct of any of that group requires on-wiki sanctions to allow us to resume normal business, and b) the on-wiki conduct of any of that group merits sanction in light of what occurred off-wiki. I suggest that at least an IBAN or two are in order. I also want to remind everyone that while being "merely" rude about a colleague off-wiki may not in isolation be sanctionable, subsequently lying about doing so on-wiki is a clear-cut violation of CIVIL, as is casting aspersions about the off-wiki behavior of other editors.

I want to note that I don't think the behaviors themselves are things the community is incapable of handling: the conduct issues appear to be straightforward (I have skimmed some of the WPO material). But as long as WPO hosts content that is doxxing and/or harassing editors (content unrelated to this matter) we don't want to link it on-wiki, and so it becomes an ARBCOM problem. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I urge ARBCOM not to decline a case simply because LB is [likely to be] CBANNED. The conceptual issues are not going to be resolved by the ANI thread. If LB was harassed off-wiki, that is still something you need to deal with; if he was not, and all this drama was manufactured by him with no cause, there is value in documenting that. I might suggest a truncated evidence/workshop, or even handling by motion, but I do think you need to provide some resolution by publicly assessing the private evidence. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has gone on long enough. Ban Lightburst. Acalamari 03:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I privately submitted evidence that shouldn't be publicly linked on Wikipedia. I encourage accepting this request. While the new ANI thread about may result in a community action pertaining specifically to Lightburst, the scope of the allegations and evidence indicates that while Lightburst was a kind of lightning rod for some events, the matters of interest to the case are not solely limited to one user.

Off-wiki behavior can and should be a factor in on-wiki sanctions because Wikipedia's policy on off-wiki attacks states that personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt about the good faith of an editor's on-wiki actions. Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it and that Such attacks can be regarded as aggravating factors by administrators and are admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process. Arbitration is part of the dispute resolution process, and while the Committee cannot do something like block a user on a different website, the Committee can sanction a user on Wikipedia with off-wiki behavior as a factor in the reason for that sanction. The Movement Charter obliges us to ensure a safe environment that prioritizes the well-being, security, and privacy of its participants. When Wikipedians are obfuscatory or deceptive about the nature of their off-wiki behavior toward fellow Wikipedians (such as about making personal attacks or canvassing), that is not a safe environment, and that is not well-being. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TarnishedPath: For clarity, as of the time of writing Lightburst has not yet been community-banned but rather has been indefinitely banned as a normal administrative action. A community ban does seem immensely probable. However, multiple statements have shown grounds for a case with a scope bigger than just Lightburst, so a case can still plausibly go through. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 15:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: I would like ArbCom to assess the evidence of off-wiki behavior—like harassment, canvassing, personal attacks—that community venues like ANI are not able to assess and address. There is a case for on-wiki sanctions to reduce how such off-wiki behavior affects Wikipedia itself. Lightburst may be blocked, but there is so much else going on that the community is not able to look at or address. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I echo Levivich's referral that ArbCom rule on the request that Guerillero recuse. In addition to Levivich's formal request, more than one statement in this case request—and from editors who appear to have different views on the case—have also suggested recusal. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an 'anti-WPO' editor. I find some of the people and the discussions there a bit sad, but I think it serves a useful purpose and I lurk there occasionally. Discord is way more concerning, in my opinion.

But the "crap articles" thread has been pretty blatantly used to proxy and/or canvas support at AfD for some time now, and that needs to stop. I sent evidence of this privately to ArbCom in July but have not yet received a proper response. This is frustrating because in theory uninvolved admins could deal with this kind of thing, but we can't due to a very strict interpretation of WP:OUTING that ArbCom has been reluctant to challenge. So if a case is what's needed to deal with this, then the committee should accept this case.

If it does, I'd appreciate clear instructions on what kind of evidence should be submitted on-wiki and what needs to be sent privately. Can we link WP to WPO usernames, name specific threads – that kind of thing. – Joe (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a new ANI thread, Lightburst will be sitebanned soon, so, if the scope of the case should be "Lightburst issue", it would appear that the dispute surrounding his conduct is not, after all, a dispute the community has been unable to resolve.—13:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Seen several question what useful outcome could emerge from a Case, some noting even ARBs can't control offsite forums. What Arbs could do is issue Reminders to Admins not to engage in behaviour that empowers such external sites in their attacks against good editors. For example, a reminder to comply with WP:CBAN policy - discussions must be kept open for at least 24 hours before any sanction is implemented.

This morning, Lightburst was indeffed only 6 hours after an ANI thread was started. The admin who made the block normally strikes me as one of our wisest contributors, and given the distressing nature of very recent comments highlighted by Leaky, there may have been an WP:IAR case for the early sanction. But what the good admin may not have considered is that WP:BADSITE accounts can conspire in their hidden chats, create an attack thread on ANI, bridgade it only a few hours after the thread is opened, create a false impression of "strong consensus" for a permaban, and have an admin make that a fait accompli by indeffing before the non forum members of the community have had a chance to weight in. (They've been doing this at least every now again for at least 15 years, when they were able to take down former ARS leader Benji.) There have even been fairly recent cases of admins not just issuing fait accompli sanctions, but even closing CBAN discussions of well established editors without waiting 24 hours.

Another useful outcome would be a Reminder not to penalise those few editors heroic enough to speak out against cases where external sites are coordinating attacks against editers here. It's despicable to paint a target for possible real world attacks against a fine Inclusionist like Lightburst. Folk like Herostratus with the courage to speak out in defence of Editors being targeted may seem to some admins as the source of disruption as they'll often be on the wrong side of one v Many situation. Hence a reminder may be useful; such bravery is to commended, not sanctioned.

That said, it's also a fact that several of our best editors like to hang out on sites like Wikipediocracy. Bad things can happen on such sites, but that's equally true here, where a bad edit left unchallenged can wreck lives. To avoid risk of guilt by association etc, maybe Arbs could hold the case mostly in private? FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, not meaning to suggest Lightburst is being brigaded - I don't know how many supporting the perma are WPO accounts. Just suggesting that admins issuing sanctions based on "strong consensus" only a few hours after an ANI is posted, makes us more vulnerable to brigading in the general case, increasing the power of external sites to interfere in our affairs. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dronebogus - thanks for clarifying, I already thought Beebs was right about the LB thread. My view is WPO may be a valuable balance - but equally we ought not to assist it in becoming too powerful. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I have officialy imposed Lightburst's CBAN. RoySmith (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was initially going to suggest the committee open a case with a scope akin to a hybrid of the WPTC canvassing case and the SmallCat dispute, where dispute resolution involving feuds between long-term editors was derailed and exacerbated by allegations of a group of editors working together to canvass votes and attack others. Conduct of the parties, the subsequent offsite allegations, and how the dispute resolution process was impeded, would be reviewed. Now that Lb is blocked and looking to be heading towards a community ban, I'm not so sure... but what I do know is that a situation like this will happen again. Wpo is like the tabloid of Wikipedia; lots of dubious allegations, journalistic standards being violated, and long term enemies being smeared, but also some real dirt digging being done. People don't like to talk about it, but it's been a major political organ of the site for a long time and used to short cut certain processes, and quite a bit of what Vanamonde and Rhododendrites says is true. What's to prevent another situation-- over what I saw as a simple but long running pattern of attacks and disruptive behavior from a long-term editor-- being derailed and delayed over Wpo related nonsense? I seriously do think, if Wpo wasn't so annoying-- if they couldn't stop putting their foot in their damn mouth-- then this would've been over in July. (never mind that editors have told me publicly and in private that they only voted oppose in the CBAN discussion because they didn't like Wpo's harassment). So yes, I think there is still a real argument for opening a case.

To address Lb's statement though: I should not be a party to the case, I believe. I have not posted on Wpo in months (since GeneralNotability was outed), have not contributed significantly there within the last year and have never posted about anything involving him. Lb is assuming my leanings and thought processes; in the email thread regarding JSS/WPO he refers to, I actually thought a case regarding the dispute to be opened. As I told Star Mississippi, the timing off the ANI thread with my SPI block was a (very frustrating) coincidence; and as I said there, I really did not care what happened to the involved WPO affiliates. Me being a party to this case would be a relitigation of what happened over the summer with Ombuds committee. As Lb has disclosed on wiki, he requested the Ombud committee to look into my SPI block of his sock. They questioned me, and then in August explicitly cleared me of any wrongdoing; Arbcom has access to my correspondence with them. I will say, I regret not being as thorough as I could have been with my ANI comment on Lb, and that I should've taken more time to understand the situation and add more nuance to the conversation... my point was holding the truth above all, and using the specific things I know to try and make WP a better place. I could've done a better job of that. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi there was no doubt here, I was just referring to it so I didn’t need to restate myself 👍 Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 01:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree that off-wiki conduct of users should reflect in terms of on-wiki actions and should be strictly reserved for strongly divisive things, not patent misconduct or aggressions. I think that the community ban is the correct outcome of a community process (no comment as to the decision itself) and there isn't much more to do here. Personally speaking, I think JSS/MT didn't get much wrong and any bias being reflected is merely a supposition than truth, it is quite possible to hold someone in high regard and also hold them accountable for their actions. --qedk (t 愛 c) 10:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else, *gestures above* demonstrates support for the filer's thesis that WPO is a drama trigger. Not sure what outcomes could realistically be expected if a case is opened here. Admins encouraged to hat WPO subthreads at ANI? Editors reminded to submit evidence of offwiki malfeasance via private email? WPO admins encouraged to delete posts doxxing Wikipedia editors? RD7 expanded to include WPO drama?

At this point, I estimate whether a case should be accepted turns on the private evidence Eek mentions in their statement below. There were onwiki consequences for Beebs due to offwiki behaviour, all be it probably only due to his Arb fez, so there is precedent for that. On the other hand HJP closed with no admonishment to Grabowski and Klein that outing VM was unnecessary and potentially endangering (even though one of them had an account here at User:Chapmansh), so there's not precedent for that.

@Carrite: what is the WPO policy towards doxxing? I was able to find language in the 2014 TOS like All Users agree... not to post any material... invasive of a person's privacy, but the 2019 (current) TOS doesn't seem to mention anything like that.

I suggest you decline this. The community's dealt with Lightburst. The committee can't affect Wikipediocracy and shouldn't try.

Wikipediocracy wishes it was a forum for criticism of Wikipedia, but in fact it's a forum for criticism of Wikipedians. Because you can say anything you like about Wikipedia on Wikipedia, but if you want to talk about editors, then you have to do boring things like notify them and present checkable evidence and not swear at them and so on. So people who don't like those tedious constraints go to Wikipediocracy to talk about Wikipedians. They stay on Wikipedia to talk about Wikipedia.

Oh, and they've got that self-congratulatory blog, which was last updated in the late Jurassic.

My advice would be to stop rewarding Wikipediocracy's attention-seeking behaviour with attention. There's only a couple of dozen of them and their only influence is because disillusioned Wikipedians go there for mutual support and group therapy, some of whom haven't been banned.

Fact is, Wikipediocracy can be quite safely ignored, and that's what we ought to be doing.—S Marshall T/C 22:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Levivich, I posted my name, photo, date of birth and location. Years ago, on my userpage. Because I've edited biographies, which means I posted other people's information on Wikipedia, I've always taken the ethical stance that my own information should be public as well. Transparency rather effectively draws Vigilant's sting, and besides, I honestly doubt if WPO find me interesting enough to mock.—S Marshall T/C 05:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed this on the way to the other case on this page at the moment. Isn't there, in reality, a rather straightforward question for Arbcom here: is WPO an intractable problem of WP:MEAT/WP:CANVASS which the community can't/won't solve? If the answer is yes, take the case. If no, including because all is well in the universe because LB is CBANed, then don't. Anything else isn't worth it. DeCausa (talk) 23:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I feel like the issues with Lightburst specifically are nearly irrelevant here. I think ArbCom should take the case because it is literally impossible for the community to resolve this alone, because it so heavily relies on off-wiki evidence. Even permission to link directly to WPO instead of referring to them in ways that can easily be looked up would need to be granted by ArbCom.

I also endorse Levivich's request that Guerillero recuse, due to relatively frequent participation over there. Loki (talk) 00:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• @JPxG: your statement does not address whether there is a case to be heard involving this list of parties or similar or whether there is anything ArbCom can do about the dispute between them. Could you kindly refactor or remove? This isn't the place for general discussion about Wikipediocracy. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• (not a clerk but noting word extension) @Just Step Sideways: Extension granted up to 1000 words. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Recuse (I have a history with Lightburst). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that the normal limit of 500 words is meant to keep things focused and concise and to avoid back-and-forth arguing between participants. AndyTheGrump, extension granted to post up to 700 words, provided that any comments you add are about why a case should or shouldn't be accepted, what its scope should be, or who the parties should be. Rhododendrites, you also have permission to post up to 700 words (but you are already at 886 words, not including signatures or (obviously) HJM's comment, so please choose how to get the length of your statement to 700 words). SilverLocust 💬 05:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• ArbCom can't stop editors being rude about each other on another website. Nor can we realistically prevent mention of that website on Wikipedia. But we can deal with long-term feuding between editors if community processes have been unable to do so. Statements (and please keep them concise) should focus on that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept a case predominantly focused on the on-wiki feuding because that's something we can do something about. We can look at some of the on-wiki stuff but my impression is that WPO contributors who disclose that they are enwiki editors in good standing are not the ones responsible for the worst conduct that happens there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Following the community ban of Lightburst, I'm less sure that there's concrete action we could take, and less sure that the community can't handle these sorts of disputes. I would welcome (brief) comments on what the community would like ArbCom to do if we take a case at this point. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm inclined to accept, but I'll wait to hear some more thoughts. We had already received multiple private requests related to WPO in the shadow of the Lightburst issue. We were in the process of considering whether to take them on. With a now front facing case, I think we have a much clearer way to take this. At the end of the day, we don't control WPO. But clearly there is a simmering pot of issues related to WPO which is on-wiki. ANI can't really handle the mix of on and off wiki evidence, which was evinced by the multiple derailed threads about Lightburst. I am most torn about scope; I'm not sure whether it's best to focus on Lightburst, or to have a beefier case which tries to tackle WP/WPO feuds writ large. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Accept I'm not sure that the ban of Lightburst fully solves the issue. While Lightburst's editing is obviously problematic, Lightburst was raising genuine issues about the conduct of other people re:WPO, which still bears examining. Lightburst and others have made the prima facie case that how we deal with WPO isn't working. But I do agree that a narrow case scope is less useful with Lightburst banned. Given how many private submissions we've received about WPO, and that it has been a recurring issue, I think we need to open a broad scope case. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with and feel the same as Eek. Z1720 (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept. I'm not sure about the exact scope, but I think there is a case here. Will post more thoughts after reading responses and further statements from editors. Z1720 (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline with Lightburst's recent CBAN, I'm not sure there's more to be done here without opening up a wider case. Z1720 (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• A few thoughts in no particular order with no organization:
  1. "Vigilant enjoys doxing people he disagrees with" isn't something arbcom can fix; vigilant isn't getting unblocked anytime soon. While I would like him to stop, we have no other levers.
  2. I reject the argument that the issues WPO finds are some sort of "fruit of the poisoned tree". We can have a discussion about their signal to noise ratio, but I personally find it to be decent enough to read regularly. Just this month I blocked a problematic sock due to their work.
  3. I have an account and sometimes post. From 2016 until last year, there was a move on WPO to do less personal attacks and more research (i.e. be more respectable). They banned a number of users who are SanFranBanned in this era. After JSS's suspension, the pendulum has swung back towards older behavior. Maybe it is to punish us for punishing their favorite arb. Maybe it is because they came to the conclusion that being the better indexed memory of ANI wasn't worth the work. Who knows. I post less because of the face-heel turn.
  4. People adding and removing parties to this case outside of procedures is cringe.
  5. A case should probably be narrow and just focus on Lightburst.
  6. I'm not interested in BADSITES try number 4.
• --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 07:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline With Lighburst banned, I just don't see what there is for us to do here --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Recused. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept - The issue between Lightburst and others is something the community has not been able to address, in part because some of the issues involve off-wiki evidence but also because the AN/I discussions seem to broaden or shift focus on what the issues are through the course of the discussions, making the issue hard to follow or resolve. A structured ArbCom case can hopefully address both of those issues. - Aoidh (talk) 01:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I will endeavour to come to a decision on this in the next few days as there is an impressive body of text here; I was away this last week and am still catching up on things. Primefac (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept, there appears to be sufficient grist for us to grind. Cabayi (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Mztourist (talk) at 07:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Mztourist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Marine 69-71 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification Marine 69-71

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• User talk:Marine 69-71#22 October 2024, Super Intergalactic Justice League
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Marine 69-71 intractable breaches of policy WP:NOTWEBHOST

Marine 69-71 has: (1). ignored consensus by recreating deleted content: [5] after it was deleted in this deletion discussion closed on 7 October 2023: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Marine 69-71/sandbox, he then recreated it in his Talk Page on 7 October 2023: [6] and then agreed to delete it following discussion on 24 October 2023: User talk:Marine 69-71/Archive 52#Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:Marine 69-71/Archive 49, note that the content is potentially WP:COPYVIO; (2) misused Admin tools for his own convenience: [7], [8] and [9]; (3) generally ignored basic WP rules: [10], [11], [12]; and (4) ignored the policy of WP:NOTWEBHOST by maintaining pages such as User:Marine 69-71/Autographs and User:Marine_69-71/Workshop#The Marine and the Girl Next Door. Given this behaviour Marine 69-71 is unfit to be an Admin.

Response to statement by Ritchie333

Not sure why you felt the need to throw that in, so I will respond. In each case I was trying to follow BRD and was then "both-sidesed" by the admin. Mztourist (talk) 11:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ritchie333 if you have comments to make about this arbitration you should make them here, not on my Talk Page: [13] Mztourist (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response to #Statement by Hammersoft

I became aware of Marine 69-71 several years ago. Many of the pages I saw that he had created were poorly referenced and some failed WP:N, other users clearly agree with my assessment as he has a 5.5% deletion rate. The example you gave was a clear case of canvassing and you have not shown that it was a wrongful accusation. Mztourist (talk) 07:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammersoft he left messages on the pages of two of his friends/supporters clearly referring to the AfD notice and they promptly (8 minutes and 4 hrs later) turned up at the AFD to support him, clear case of surreptitious canvassing. Mztourist (talk) 03:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response to statement by Marine 69-71

Marine 69-71's statement "I created my workshops which are not open to the public, with the intention of writing and working on my articles. I have also written personal things which are not open to the public, but that serve me as an inspiration and motivation to write." demonstrates a lack of understanding of WP:UP. If he truly wants things to be "not open to the public" he should keep them on his own computer and not his userpage and subpages. Mztourist (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. I am proud and honored to be part of this project. I have been here for many years and have written over 800 articles and have donated hundreds photos. Thanks to Wikipedia my work here has been honored by the government and I have been featured in a PBS Documentary.

I created my workshops which are not open to the public, with the intention of writing and working on my articles. I have also written personal things which are not open to the public, but that serve me as an inspiration and motivation to write.

I truly believe that I am not bothering anyone nor that have I broken any rules since these items have been there for many years. Thank you all for permitting me to express myself. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find this rather concerning given the reason given for blocking the editor "This user has been interfering in an article which I am working on". TarnishedPath^talk 07:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Richie333, I wasn't speaking to any issue to do with the current MFD. What struck me immediately was that in the case of the block that Marine 69-71 was involved. Should they have not been requesting another administrator to look at the behaviour of the IP? TarnishedPath^talk 10:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TarnishedPath: The page that Marine69-71 blocked the IP for a week from in June 2023 was User:Marine 69-71/sandbox (now deleted). In that context, "an article which I am working on" doesn't really imply ownership, and we generally allow editors more latitude for what they can do in their own user space. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dennis Brown - this looks like a storm in a teacup. If people can bring forward actual evidence of Marine actively preventing people improving Wikipedia, we can look at that and take action appropriately. And if he's repeatedly restoring something against consensus, he needs to be told, in no uncertain terms, to stop it.

I can also see that Mztourist has a problem with admins. For full disclosure, I blocked them for edit warring in 2021. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CaptainEek: Jumping to the conclusion that this automatically means desysopping seems presumptuous. If it is part of a pattern of abuse, then I get it, but if it is a one off problem, bit stripping seems excessive. Maybe there is more to the case, I don't know, but if this is the only issue, and there is no singular victim (no one was blocked out of process, etc) then I would think this is the kind of thing that draws a strong admonishment, assuming Marine 69-71 is cooperative and has enough clue to see the problem. What he did was stupid, and he needs to understand and acknowledge that, this is true. The way you are presenting it, however, bit stripping has already been decided regardless of what evidence is presented. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marine 69-71, I don't think your above statement is sufficient as it doesn't address the issue at hand. I sincerely hope you read through the comments here, and take the time to grasp what the actual problem is, then address that in a clear fashion. What you did is an abuse of the tools. Although there is arguably no singular "victim", it was still going outside of process to solely benefit yourself, which (if nothing else) reflects negatively on your status as admin. It makes it look like you think you are above others, which you are not. Short version: using the tools to unilaterally undelete something for your own use that the community has decided should be deleted is not allowed, and shows disrespect to the community as a whole.

I think Risker outlined the issue most clearly below, although others have said similar. I wasn't aware that the Recall procedure had just passed (I'm not as involved in meta issues right now, by choice), but that seems to be the next logical step. I don't know what the outcome should be, but this is the type of situation that the new Recall procedure seems to be designed for. Because of that, Arbcom should not accept the case as the community has options that have not been explored yet. Even if there isn't enough support to force them back to RFA, the process itself should be sufficient to air grievances and determine if Tony has enough clue to maintain the trust of the community. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptic perhaps I should have said "used the tools to bypass community consensus" so the mechanics are slightly different, but the outcome is the same. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have become aware of Marine 69-71's lack of familiarity with practices and principles relevant to being an administrator after reading this 2022 talk page conversation between him and Fram, which includes the statement The article "List of abandoned properties in Hayden, Arizona" should not be in "Speedy Deletion" because the content in the Hayden, Arizona article was originally written by me. (For context, see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of abandoned properties in Hayden, Arizona.) Since then, from time to time, I would look at what Marine 69-71 has been up to admin-wise and I have never seen any reason for him to remain an administrator. Combined with the latest misuse of tools, I think the ideal thing to do would be to desysop Marine 69-71, and it shouldn't be seen as a big deal.—15:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Isaacl: Wikipedia:Administrator recall is a process in which the community decides whether an admin should keep the bit. If there's no admin conduct dispute, that generally means that the admin has resigned. If the admin is not resigning, and some editors want them to, a dispute along some axis within the community exists. Through admin recall, editors attempt to resolve it, coming to a decision. Editors could not do this before (not counting WP:BANDESYSOP), but with the new policy, they can. The decision can be to recall or to keep the status quo. If the outcome is the status quo, and the same dispute is still active (as is to be expected, but recall advocates might've lost steam and have given up), it will be the case that the community has been unable to resolve the admin conduct dispute. ArbCom can then act as a final binding decision-maker. So I believe that admin recall is a required step now before a case can be opened. It is only at that final step that opening a case to review evidence in a structured manner and then determining what remedies might be imposed etc.—the ArbCom way of doing things—is the right thing to happen, because such an approach, i.e., "breaking the back" of the dispute by overriding the community's customary way of decision-making, has justification only then. So I tend toward believing that it is one of the steps that has to be taken before a case can be opened.—22:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Based on the ANI thread as well as evidence raised here, it sounds like there are:

• some legitimate concerns about WP:ADMINACCT and familiarity with WP:PAGs, both of which it is unclear (to me) whether these are a trend or a slipup;
• some concerns about usage of userspace on which reasonable people can (and do) disagree on the impact;
• allegations that all of this could have been resolved by putting down the stick;

  or perhaps worded another way, that this is only a problem because people looked for it to be a problem. Again, reasonable people can (and do) disagree here.

I think the committee is taking the right tack by waiting for Tony's response; I think if that's not forthcoming this could be resolved on the first of these bullet points only. I do not believe the other bullet points rise to the level of meriting the committee's attention, let alone an actual case. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this at AN yesterday and dug into the subject's admin logs. What I found there was .... not great. It appears they stopped doing real admin work quite some time ago and now only use the tools for their own convenience, violating WP:INVOLVED once or twice along the way. And their personal memories not related to Wikipedia clearly seem like something that should be on social media or a personal website, it is pretty clearly a case of WP:NOTWEBHOST. That being said I'm not at all sure this amounts to the sort of ongoing intractible issue with an admin that would merit a full case. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit of an odd coincidence that this came up at the exact same moment that the recall procedure was finally adopted. This may be the a suitable test case for that. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is mildly alarming for an experinced admin to apparentrly belive they are able to create pages on this project which are not open to the public. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And also is posting notices like this in their collection of personal user pages that have no relation to this project:

This isn't a case of someone losing touch with current norms, as I don't believe there was ever a time when this sort of thing was normal. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be best to try to get by with just a warning if @Marine 69-71: shows an understanding of what he did wrong and makes a credible commitment to not create further problems in the future. The dearth of constructive use of the tools is not in and of itself a reason to desysop, though I would encourage him to increase his activity constructively, especially in admin related areas. A lack of recent experience can be overcome through cautious watching and learning and participation with an openness to constructive criticism. ---- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to invite him to take part in this case request, but I did not see an e-mail link. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either here or at a recall petition, a response is required. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst Black Kite's link to the past is interesting, we need more recent and more continuous indications of unsuitability to remove the tools. I look forward to Marine's response. I still have hope that an admonishment and a promise to do better would suffice. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend declining. I don't see evidence of tool misuse that would require action by arbcom. The new recall petition process (Wikipedia:Administrator recall) looks like the way to go, if any going is required. At the same time, I urge @Marine 69-71: to slowly and carefully increase his admin activity. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He needs to increase his tool use in a manner beneficial to Wikipedia. He needs to heed the advice I gave on his talk. He needs to meaningfully address the concerns of the community. Here or at admin recall. I cannot oppose ArbCom taking this without meaningful responses. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoidh sums up quite nicely the reason for my regretful striking of my recommendation to decline the case. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is here less because of the specific policy violations (which are real but maybe not desysoppable, at least if Marine 69-71 responds) and more because of a generalized loss of confidence in his ability to use the tools effectively. Historically ArbCom has had to deal with those cases because no one else can, but Wikipedia:Administrator recall is as of a few hours ago policy (see this closure), and that's a process perfectly suited for testing whether an admin has "lost the trust or confidence of the community". Food for thought. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marine69-71 has not done anything useful with the toolset for many years; it appears they only use it when it is useful to their own editing, and the recent shenangians are not the first time they have abused the tools. I was astonished they didn't lose them after this nonsense. Given that, a simple desysop by motion would be the simplest path forward here. This doesn't need a full case. Black Kite (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the now policy Wikipedia:Administrator recall, this should be handled there rather than here at ArbCom, who have a history of rashly desysopping. It's obvious there's already intent here to desysop. Further, given that Mztourist's prior interactions with Marine 69-71, including submitting 11 of their articles for deletion, voting delete on almost everything else, wrongfully accusing them of canvassing [14], and here complaining about a vandal in their own userspace being blocked, the upgrading of this to ArbCom seems problematic at best. A boomerang might be in order. Black Kite, bringing up something from more than 13 years ago is hardly helpful except to highlight that if a case is opened it will be a no holds barred, wide open scope free for all against Marine 69-71. There's no hope for Marine 69-71 here; it will be impossible for him to defend himself. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mztourist: Your "evidence" that Marine 69-71 canvassed was neutrally asking two people to come to his talk page [15][16]. He wasn't asking people to participate in an AfD and vote a particular way, or any other consensus building mechanism. He was asking for people to come to his talk page. If you believe they were hand picked as a surreptitious way (never mind WP:AGF) to get them to vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jorge Otero Barreto, it's still not canvassing. Again, he neutrally asked them to join the conversation on his talk page, and even if asked them to join the conversation on the AfD, he neutrally asked them to. This simply isn't canvassing. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be declined. The general rule has always been that ArbCom is the court of last resort on matters the community is unable to deal with. That has always been effectively, "All matters dealing with admins because the community does not have the power to sanction admins". But that's not true any more. It ceased to be true last year when WP:CBAN was changed to include removal of the sysop bit, and it became drastically less true earier today with the enacting of WP:RECALL, as several people have mentioned above. There's still a place for ArbCom to be involved in desysoppings. There could be situations which can't be handled in public due to off-wiki evidence. There could be situations where emergency action is necessary, such as an admin going rogue or a compromised account. None of those seem to apply here. RoySmith (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A general comment regarding the administrator recall process: it was enacted as another process for removing administrative privileges. As currently formulated, it's not a substitute for the arbitration committee opening a case to review evidence in a structured manner and then determining the best course of action, including what remedies might be imposed on any editors (including admins) involved. (During the discussions this year, there has been no discussion of the recall process replacing the arbitration procedures for removal of [advanced] permissions.) Therefore I disagree with considering it to be one of the steps that has to be taken before a case can be opened. Other remedies than removing administrative privileges may be appropriate, and they should be considered without requiring that the community has gone through the recall process.

Regarding this specific case: it may be a situation where the primary consideration is determining the community's level of trust in the admin, and the recall process would allow for greater community input. I'm a bit wary of having the arbitration committee essentially start a recall petition, but I imagine in future, as the recall process becomes more widely known, the community will readily initiate them on their own. isaacl (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My impression from User talk:Marine 69-71/Archive 52 § Template:Puerto Rican Nationalist Party, which actually concerned two templates ({{First Corsican families in Puerto Rico}} was deleted while the discussion was ongoing) was that Tony's a longtime contributor whose heart is in the right place, but who is not up to speed on current best practices in administration, and hasn't shown much interest in catching up. I don't really have a strong opinion on whether he should currently be an admin, but I would encourage him to think about whether he wants to be an admin. Having handed in my tools myself, I can say that it's kind of a relief that now, if I make a mistake, it's just a regular mistake, not a WP:ADMINACCT/WP:ADMINCOND issue that can be brought to AN/ANI/ArbCom. I don't have to carefully word every statement to avoid some pearl-clutching astonishment that an admin would be so dismissive or rude or whatever. And people seem to listen to me more in content disputes. Tony seems to enjoy being a content editor. He may find that it is in fact easier to be one while not being an admin. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 23:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not terribly concerned by WEBHOST issues in and of themselves, and I'm not thrilled at the amount of community time spent on this. I'm more concerned by these edits, which, taken with the userspace edits, suggests that Marine 69-71 may not be entirely up to speed on our norms around self-promotion and COI editing. That said, this is an editor of 20 years tenure, who has contributed a considerable volume of content to Wikipedia: they're also not terribly active, and events here may have moved a lot faster than they expect. I think they ought to be respectfully given the opportunity to course correct before sanctions are put on the table. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Vanamonde93's statement above, I will point out that any potential conflict of interest between Marine 69-71 and the Tony Santiago article is disclosed on the talk page of the article - in a big box at the top of the page that doesn't get archived. I reviewed all of the edits; the vast majority of them are routine article maintenance (adding categories reflected in the text, fixing external links in references, correcting a content error that does not in any way reflect on the article subject), and a couple of minor content additions. One addition was challenged for COI on the date it was added and was not reinstated, the other was removed as "irrelevant".

And in response to CaptainEek below, the administrator recall policy is pretty much intended to replace Level II desysops, and put them in the hands of the community. Arbcom is justifiably known for desysopping all but a very few cases specific to admin conduct that it accepts. Arbcom is perfectly free now to refer any Level II desysop matters directly to the community process, and not waste its time handling these cases. If the community doesn't take that opportunity, or decides not to remove someone's toolkit after following the admin recall process, that's on the community. Arbcom is still needed for Level I desysops, obviously.

What I'm seeing here is mostly a "maybe this admin is out of touch with process" request here. It is an ideal case to refer back to the community. Arbcom should do so.

I said at the AN/I thread, and will say here also:

I think that recreating and fully protecting the page is clearly unwarranted, and a straightforward misuse of the tools; I don't know what specific response is warranted in this case, but it is not good to have done that.

If this is an isolated hiccup, I would prefer that he put forth some effort to keep up with modern norms. If this is part of a recurring pattern and not a weird isolated hiccup, I would recommend he resign the bit, or prepare for the next one (or perhaps this one) to go to arbitration and end with a desysop.

When people linked to previous instances of Tony taking administrative actions that were not in line with modern norms, in each instance thwt I saw, what happened was that he was quite decent and polite when someone brought it up, and encouraged them to reverse it if they thought it was a bad move. It did not really seem like the kind of rogue legacy admin situation that required a desysop. The stuff he did was not high-impact, or egregiously poor judgment, and it doesn't seem to me like anything bad happened as a result of it.

Someone said the filer has been following Tony around to give him a hard time -- not in a position to aggressively fact-check this at the moment -- but very lame if true. jp×g🗯️ 02:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JPxG says just above that "Someone said the filer has been following Tony around to give him a hard time -- not in a position to aggressively fact-check this at the moment -- but very lame if true." That may be the lamest statement I've seen on this page. "Someone said", really? Dig it out. "Not in a position to aggressively fact-check"? Wait until you are. How is it acceptable to attack a non-admin for a rumor which the admin speaker can't even remember where they read? Bishonen | tålk 09:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

A quibble with Dennis Brown's greenly-emphasized statement: Marine 69-71 hasn't - to my knowledge - technically undeleted anything. He created the copy at User talk:Marine 69-71/archive 52 sial about half a day after Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Marine 69-71/sandbox began (actioning the G4 tag placed on it afterwards was how I first became involved), added it onto the already-existing User talk:Marine 69-71/Archive 49 about 2 hours after the mfd concluded, and then recreated it in part at User:Marine 69-71/Workshop3 about a year later (~2 weeks ago). Maybe he used viewdeleted, maybe he pasted in an offline copy, there's no way to know; but for someone with viewdeleted who reposts deleted content, the only reasonable way to deal with it is to assume he used that tool to do so. —Cryptic 09:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Limited level of erroneousness that doesn't rise to the level of a desysop, largely in agreement with what Cabayi has said below. --qedk (t 愛 c) 10:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the Webhost issue is, I am of the opinion that the community is either more forgiving, or not in actual consensus on editor's own 'biographical' material (except in what the community considers very offensive, or very disruptive, which must be deleted). Witness, among other things, the extensive use of userboxes. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a case of systematically ignoring WP:INVOLVED. TarnishedPath has already highlighted that his one block since 2010 was involved. If you look at his protections, other than those of his sandbox/"workshops", they're almost all of articles and templates he's created (and mainly authored) with a couple of exceptions (in last 10 years I only found Joachim Phoenix and 65th Infantry Regiment (United States) he's protected but didn't create. But he's a frequent editor of both and top editor of the latter.) Almost every time he's protecting something he's written. In 2023, Tamzin queried with him (and mentioned involved) the excessive admin-only edit protection in response to a single IP edit to a template he created and authored (Template:Puerto Rican Nationalist Party).[17] Sometimes it's more blatant than just general WP:OWN. The source he referred to in this 2017 protection summary he had added earlier that day[18] after another user had identified the original source Marine 69-71 had added failed verification. He doesn't protect (or block) often so the instances are few and far between. But if it's problematic every time he does do it why leave the tools with him?

@Deepfriedokra: in this amendment to your above comment you strike the suggestion that this should be declined but retain the advice that he should slowly and carefully increase his admin activity. But, as I said above, as far as I can see, all his admin activity, when excluding minor actions for "his own convenience", has systematically contravened WP:INVOLVED - happy to be corrected if I've got that wrong. But if I haven't, why would we want him to increase his admin activity? Have I got it wrong? DeCausa (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hate to see a desysop, but Marine 69-71, you have misused tools, and that does need to stop. It might be easier to just voluntarily set down the mop you aren't really using and accept the project's thanks for your service.

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

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

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• I have no desire to wade into the WEBHOST issues; the ANI revealed that reasonable minds may differ on whether the pages were policy compliant, or whether anyone should care. But the apparent misuse of the tools to protect said content is a clear cut ArbCom issue. I want to give Marine 69-71 a chance to explain himself. I also want to make it clear to him that we might resolve this by motion or WP:LEVELII procedures, so we might not open a full case unless requested by Marine 69-71. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ " class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">07:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dennis Brown Sorry, should've been more clear. When I meant motion, I meant that we could just vote on our sanction sans case, which might result in no action, admonishment, or desysopping (or even some other outcome). I don't think that desysopping is a foregone conclusion, but I wanted to make it clear to Marine that it could be on the table, so as to provide adequate notice. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The passing of the admin recall process is long awaited, but not a substitute for ArbCom. I analogize it to the process of many American states, which have both a popular recall mechanism (which we have just passed) and an impeachment process (ArbCom) for elected officials. Both mechanisms have their place.

  If anything, the passage of the recall process raises my bar for taking action. I think the history of "rash desysoppings" stemmed from the fact that ArbCom was really the only way to deal with problem admins, and we had limited remedies. Given that there is now an alternative, I think I will lean towards letting marginal cases go to admin recall. But I also want to see how admin recall works before I defer to it. It will be interesting to see what sorts of admin behavior triggers recall petitions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to hear from Marine 69-71. There is some misconduct here but it's fairly low impact. Sometimes that's indicative of a bigger problem but sometimes all it takes is to back down and recognise that you're not going to win this fight. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I will wait to hear from Marine 69-71 before making any substantive comments. Primefac (talk) 14:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with HJ. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 15:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you Marine 69-71 for responding and taking the possibility of desysopping for unresponseness off the table.
  Before your use of the admin tools to protect your own page in June 2023 your last use of the admin tools (that I see at a quick search) was 6 years ago in Sept 2018 on an article in which you were WP:INVOLVED as its author. Do you still need the tools other than for your own convenience?
  I'm not seeing sufficient reason for ArbCom to take the tools from you. On the other hand I don't see sufficient need for you to retain them.
  If you choose to continue with the tools and to use them for the good of the community, I'd advise reading TonyBallioni's essay WP:/64, also to remember that there are, in general, no pages "which are not open to the public". Cabayi (talk) 09:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• A motion might be better than a full case, but their response does not address the valid issues raised. One of the diffs in Mztourist's initial comment is the WP:INVOLVED full protection of Template:Puerto Rican Nationalist Party, another is for blocking an IP editor with no warning or discussion for making three consecutive and innocuous edits to Marine_69-71's sandbox. Their response does not address any of this, but is instead focused on their sandboxes and how harmless they consider them, concerning. I truly believe that I am not bothering anyone nor that have I broken any rules since these items have been there for many years. This isn't an issue of an administrator having a few sandboxes that aren't relevant to Wikipedia. I'm not as concerned about content in a sandbox, but when an administrator uses their tools to their own benefit, that's an issue. While the page protection and block are from last year, they are also the most recent usage of a block or page protection from User:Marine_69-71. - Aoidh (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]