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

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Wikipedia, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
- Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

This page is for statements, not discussion.
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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=806083124"

Hidden categories:

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 <noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}}
 {{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=45%</noinclude>}}
-== Zoyetu and August 2017 BLP Topic Ban ==
-'''Initiated by ''' [[User:Zoyetu|Zoyetu]] ([[User talk:Zoyetu|talk]]) '''at''' 17:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
-=== Involved parties ===
-<!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator -->
-*{{userlinks|Zoyetu}}, ''filing party''
-*{{userlinks|Softlavender}}
-*{{admin|SuperMarioMan}}
-;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
-<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
-*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Softlavender&diff=805642292&oldid=805240235 Softlavender]
-*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SuperMarioMan&action=view&diff=802946998 SuperMarioMan]
-;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
-* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive964#User:Zoyetu and WP:BLP]]
-* Link 2
-=== Statement by Zoyetu ===
-In August 2017 I was topic banned from Biography of Living Persons (BLPs). Whilst I intend to appeal this decision, I also wish to have the administrators' actions examined as I feel that there were some mistakes and oversights which resulted in me being unfairly treated. Although I admit that some of my earlier edits, particularly those I made shortly after registering were unconstructive, since then I have attempted to move forward in a positive way and learn from my mistakes. Just to add that I suffer from a condition that results in me facing social-interaction difficulties and communication challenges. I therefore would like the following issues to be reviewed:
-* Following a February 2016 edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chuckle_Brothers&diff=cur&oldid=707384790 <nowiki>[1]</nowiki>], I received a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zoyetu&oldid=707428523#February_2016 final warning] from SuperMarioMan for ‘inserting poorly sourced content’. Despite this, on the 10 July 2017 I again included the same information onto the page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chuckle_Brothers&diff=cur&oldid=789949704 <nowiki>[2]</nowiki>], referencing another source and yet this was deemed acceptable. It is possible that SuperMarioMan mistook the previous reference as being from the tabloid newspaper the [[Daily Star (United Kingdom)|Daily Star]], as opposed to the local Sheffield [[Sheffield Star|newspaper]]. I also feel that the user perhaps acted overzealously regarding the removal of my edit. Therefore, I might suggest that the warning issued at that time is perhaps invalid for these reasons.
-* Prior to a controversial [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Levy_(presenter)&diff=cur&oldid=795315671 edit] I had made in August, I attempted on two separate occasions to receive advice about whether it would be appropriate to post the material, and on both occasions the editors expressed uncertainty on what I should do. [[User talk:Keith D/Archive 60#Referencing a now deleted .22Tweet.22|[1]]][[User talk:28bytes/Archive 48#Referencing a now deleted .22Tweet.22|[2]]] As I did not receive a concrete response on the matter, I decided to go-ahead and post the paragraph. I now question whether the advice I received was acceptable, considering subsequent events and my resulting ban. Had I of received appropriate advice, this could have prevented me from being topic banned. It would have been helpful to have known who to ask in these circumstances.
-* After said controversial edit was removed by editor Softlavender, the user stated that the ‘entire section’ that I had added (which also erroneously included other information that I did not write) was, in their words, ‘nothing but a cooked-up WP:BLP-violation’.[[Talk:Peter Levy (presenter)#Softlavender|[1]]] I note that it was only after I had attempted to contact Softlavender, two days later that they apparently took issue with my conduct, and I wonder whether the individual would have taken action against me if I had not contacted her.
-* In the Administrators’ Noticeboard [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive964#User:Zoyetu_and_WP:BLP|topic]], SuperMarioMan referenced a number of my earlier edits as reasons as to why I should be banned. He highlighted an edit that I had made to the Chuckle Brothers page in late-2015 about an image that had ‘gone viral’ online.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chuckle_Brothers&diff=691596485&oldid=691575584 <nowiki>[1]</nowiki>] This referenced the news website Yahoo, which I understood at the time to be a valid source. The duo has also made no attempt to shy away from discussing the event. Similarly an accompanying edit was also undone that sourced the Mail Online; however, I understand that it was only until February 2017 when Wikipedia banned the Daily Mail as a referable source. The edit in question was made in October 2015, yet SuperMarioMan seemed to hold this edit against me when it was made at a different time under different rules.
-* Edits I had made to several articles referencing the BBC Genome were reverted by SuperMarioMan [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Graham_Hill&diff=prev&oldid=789960110 <nowiki>[1]</nowiki>][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Damon_Hill&diff=prev&oldid=789945815 <nowiki>[2]</nowiki>][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chuckle_Brothers&type=revision&diff=802944750&oldid=797591070 <nowiki>[3]</nowiki>], which he described as a ‘user-edited website’ and ‘unreliable for encyclopaedic purposes’. This however is incorrect. All user-edits on the Genome are checked by a BBC staff member and one of their contacts, Andy Mabbett, has now undone the removals by SuperMarioMan after I had contacted him about this matter. Mr Mabbett has posted more information about this on my [[User talk:Zoyetu#BBC Genome|Talk Page]].
-* SuperMarioMan also undid an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_people_with_locked-in_syndrome&diff=cur&oldid=794370588 edit] I had made to a page listing [[List of people with locked-in syndrome|notable individuals with the condition ‘Locked-in Syndrome’]], specifically the point regarding Erik Ramsey. Ramsey passed away in June and therefore I amended the article to state this. His obituary had been posted to several websites, including the Gwinnett Daily Post newspaper which is a valid source. However, as the user did not feel that the source used (Legacy.com) was a valid one, the article has now been reverted to suggest that Ramsey is still alive, most likely causing distress for his family and friends.
-* Following an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alf_Clausen&diff=cur&oldid=798075769 edit] I had made to the Alf Clausen page, Softlavender suggested that I had incorrectly cited my claims, despite being wrong themselves and later being corrected on the point. This, however, proves that the user was attempting to find fault in just about everything that I was doing to ensure that I would be blocked from the website.
-* Softlavender accused me of creating a ‘trumped-up’ edit and suggested that I had no intention of abiding by Wikipedia’s policies. She also stated that I ‘knew exactly what I was doing’, whatever this meant and naturally I strongly refuted these allegations. Despite issuing a profuse apology, stating that it was not my intention to cause any upset or offence, Softlavender described these as ‘blythe’ [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive964#Proposal 2: Topic ban from BLPs|[1]]] and it seems that this all fell on deaf ears. As such, in my opinion Softlavender and SuperMarioMan demonstrated a clear agenda against me and were not willing to consider what I had to say.
-Whilst I appreciate I am still free to contribute to Wikipedia in terms of non-BLP articles, I feel as though the two editors involved were not dealing with my case on an impartial basis. Naturally this incident has affected my use of the website and ideally I would like to be able to contribute to all pages, as I feel that in the right circumstances I can prove to provide valuable information.
-::{{ping|DeltaQuad}} Thank you for your assistance. Please could you clarify the term 'diffs', do you mean URLs in the text itself? I would have done, but I was unable to as I would have exceeded the word limit. [[User:Zoyetu|Zoyetu]] ([[User talk:Zoyetu|talk]]) 18:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
-'''Just to add that I have now updated the case to contain links to diffs and other relevant webpages. [[User:Zoyetu|Zoyetu]] ([[User talk:Zoyetu|talk]]) 11:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)'''
-=== Statement by Softlavender ===
-I urge that the committee decline this request. This was a community-based sanction that was supported and imposed by the community at ANI: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=799078980#User:Zoyetu_and_WP:BLP], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zoyetu&diff=799079850&oldid=797572685]. Moreover, since the topic ban was enacted, Zoyetu has broken the sanction (and been blocked for that) at least once: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zoyetu&oldid=799144993#September_2017], and also edited an earlier archived version of the ANI thread 4 weeks after the fact: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive963&diff=prev&oldid=803301095], and has also continued his habit of frequently adding negative or damning material to Wikipedia: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Port_of_Hull&type=revision&diff=801471146&oldid=798983565], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hull_Fair&type=revision&diff=805292405&oldid=803909636], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wyke_College&diff=next&oldid=805440095], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wyke_College&diff=next&oldid=805453897]. I'm afraid that if the user continues down this path of disruption, accusation, and negativity, he is going to be declared [[WP:NOTHERE]], [[WP:CIR]], or net negative, and receive an even harsher sanction. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 02:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
-NOTE: SuperMarioMan has declined to participate in this RFAR: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASuperMarioMan&type=revision&diff=805658587&oldid=805642367]. -- [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 03:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
-{{Re|Euryalus}} In terms of "{{xt|it's also arguable that the whole issue could have done with more discussion before the ANI thread was raised}}": Between October 2015 and March 2016 Zoyetu had been warned four times on his talkpage, including '''two final warnings''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zoyetu&diff=next&oldid=688062311], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zoyetu&diff=next&oldid=688064156], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zoyetu&diff=next&oldid=688081262], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zoyetu&diff=next&oldid=692183914], and was aware that breaching BLP policies again would result in a block and/or topic ban. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 03:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
-@Opabinia regalis: Five editors participated in the ANI thread: two administrators (SuperMarioMan, NinjaRobotPirate), one highly experienced editor in good standing, and two uninvolved, experienced editors in good standing. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 11:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
-=== Statement by SuperMarioMan ===
-I have little to add to [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive964#User:Zoyetu and WP:BLP|what I wrote at WP:ANI in August]].
-Simply put, this isn't arbitration material, because this isn't an intractable dispute that the Wikipedia community at large has been unable to resolve. To date, and excepting this case request, there has been only one centralised discussion concerning Zoyetu (namely the ANI discussion, started by me, which led to their current topic ban from BLPs).
-Zoyetu implies misuse of administrator privileges yet also refers to perceived failings on the part of other, unnamed users, despite listing only myself and one other (non-administrator) user as involved parties. Their topic ban, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zoyetu&oldid=799144993#September_2017 subsequent block for violating it], were imposed by other administrators. At no time have I acted administratively with regard to Zoyetu, for having previously reverted them in content disputes at [[Chuckle Brothers]] I would have been in breach of [[WP:INVOLVED]].
-As for Zoyetu's allegation that I have a "clear agenda" against them, I am not the only user to have found their editing a cause for concern: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zoyetu&oldid=692183914 this revision of their talk page] shows earlier BLP-related warnings from a different user. I will also add that before Softlavender pinged me in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_Levy_(presenter)&diff=797498147&oldid=797496588 this comment] to alert me to Zoyetu's actions at [[Peter Levy (presenter)]] – which Zoyetu barely mentions above, despite it being the immediate cause of the ANI discussion – they were off my radar.
-I consider the reasons for Zoyetu's topic ban to be transparent and compelling and see no need to repeat the arguments here. My [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive964#User:Zoyetu and WP:BLP|opening post at the ANI discussion]] contains diffs spanning almost two years which show repeated attempts to add inappropriate material to BLPs.
-I do not believe that a case would be a constructive use of the Committee's time and therefore recommend that this request be declined. '''[[User:SuperMarioMan|<font color="#FF0001">Super</font>]][[User talk:SuperMarioMan|<font color="#FF3F00">Mario</font>]][[Special:Contributions/SuperMarioMan|<font color="#FF7F00">Man</font>]]'''–<small>'''''[[User talk:SuperMarioMan|Talk]]'''''</small> 18:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
-=== Statement by Mendaliv ===
-I would advise the Committee to decline this case on prudential grounds and for failing to exhaust lesser remedies. It does not seem to me that the matters Zoyetu brings up were adequately hashed out in other dispute resolution forums prior to this filing, even though they were generally mentioned in the ANI thread that led to the topic ban. If Zoyetu can show that SuperMarioMan and Softlavender have some kind of vendetta against him, then ANI or AN would be the first place to seek relief, not here.
-Alternatively, I would argue that Zoyetu's complaint has no merit. The claim that his BLP topic ban was the result of a sort of "administrative malpractice" by two editors Zoyetu asked for advice on the generic situation of using a deleted tweet as an article reference is definitely meritless. Both generally stated that it was a bad idea, and advised discussing the specifics with others. The other issues—that Softlavender might have only given Zoyetu attention because Zoyetu brought the matter up with Softlavender, that SuperMarioMan did not come out of the woodwork to revert Zoyetu's readdition of content over a year after SuperMarioMan had originally removed it, and Softlavender's imputation of knowledge of Wikipedia policy to Zoyetu because of Zoyetu's prior disputes involving those policies—seem fairly routine to me, and not really indicative of any sort of vendetta. Even this last issue, which evidences annoyance on Softlavender's part, is not grounds for arbitration.
-While none of the other parties have filed statements, and I presume Zoyetu will come back with more details, there's really not much that could be added to rescue this filing. The ANI thread ([[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive964#User:Zoyetu and WP:BLP]]) is pretty short and gives everything necessary to evaluate this request. There's really nothing else to do here.
-As such, I respectfully advise the Committee to '''decline''' this case.
-:@DGG: At the time I made this statement, Zoyetu's complaint did not attack the topic ban itself, but focused entirely on the conduct of Softlavender and SuperMarioMan. Solely on topic ban, there don't appear to be any lesser remedies for Zoyetu to exhaust. But I would point out a couple issues: First, I see no plausible claim of an unfair result from the topic ban discussion itself; the complaint merely makes out a defense of prior BLP issues that could've been made before: This is not "round two". Second, the matters in the complaint are almost solely accusations of misconduct, but a review of the topic ban discussion shows the only ones mentioned were locked-in syndrome and Chuckle Brothers, and by the complaint's words Zoyetu was in the wrong on those. I admit the turnout for the discussion was low, but it was open for a full week on our highest visibility noticeboard (the initial [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=798891502 archival] was on 4 September). Even if this isn't enough time or visibility, though, the remedy is not to overturn the topic ban, but to relist.
-=== Statement by power~enwiki ===
-I agree with Opabinia regalis that the ANI process is best described as depressing.  I would support a ruling clearly specifying the required quorum for community bans.
-On the merits, I belatedly endorse the ANI result.  Zoyetu's editing process often involves adding a grab-bag of negative newspaper coverage into an article, rather than focusing on information about the subject that is encyclopedically relevant.  His inclusion of trivial information regarding a tweet Peter Levy made about [[Jimmy Savile]] has already been discussed; his recent edits at [[Wyke College]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wyke_College&diff=prev&oldid=805443829] and his statement here give me no confidence that he accepts or even understands the concerns. [[User:power~enwiki|power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|<span style="color:#FA0;font-family:courier">π</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/Power~enwiki|<span style="font-family:courier">ν</span>]]) 16:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
-=== Statement by {Non-party} ===
-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.
-<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->
-=== Clerk notes ===
-:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
-*
-=== Zoyetu and August 2017 BLP Topic Ban: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/8/1> ===
-{{anchor|1=Zoyetu and August 2017 BLP Topic Ban: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)</small>
-*{{ping|Zoyetu}} I have just notified the parties that are involved, which you failed to do. All parties need to be notified. I also suggest you add diffs in with your statement. Without them, the arbitration committee can not see the nature of the problem at hand. Any extension would have to wait till at least some of the evidence is substantiated. -- [[User talk:DeltaQuad|<span style="color:white;background-color:#8A2DB8"><b>Amanda</b></span>]] <small>[[User:DeltaQuad|(aka DQ)]]</small> 18:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
-:*'''Decline''' While I echo the general idea of Opabinia's post. While the ban received a whopping 4 supports, I also see the lack of opposition as the community in general not having issue with it. ANI is one of the most frequented areas, and if editors viewed something wrong with the position, they would have voiced it, passing the visibility need for this type of ban. This case request seems to consist of [[WP:NOTTHEM|talking about other editors behavior]] and rehashing specific pieces of evidence the community would have used to make their determination, and reads more like a venting point. I'm not willing to open a case to review the community's interpretation of evidence. That's not ArbCom's role. For Zoyetu, if he wishes to appeal this ban at AN/ANI, I would recommend a full detail reading of [[WP:GTAB]]. -- [[User talk:DeltaQuad|<span style="color:white;background-color:#8A2DB8"><b>Amanda</b></span>]] <small>[[User:DeltaQuad|(aka DQ)]]</small> 09:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
-*Awaiting any further statements. That being said, on first review I perceive no evidence of misconduct by editors other than Zoyetu. This is informal advice to Zoyetu rather than a vote right now, but one path forward might be to accept the topic-ban for now (even if you disagree with it) and spend a few months doing quality editing of other types of articles before asking that the restriction be lifted or narrowed. For future reference, appropriate places to seek input on the quality of BLP edits or of sources more generally include [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard]] (WP:BLP/N) and [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard]] (WP:RS/N), and information on how to create diffs can be found at [[HELP:DIFF]] or [[Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide]]. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 01:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
-**'''Decline'''. As I have stated in the past, the process on AN/ANI is not infallible and in principle, sanctions imposed there are appealable to ArbCom. However, as I've also stated in the past, they carry a presumption of reasonableness and an editor would need to show that something went seriously wrong on the noticeboard discussion before we should intervene. (In other words, I generally agree with [[User:DGG]]'s comment below.) That standard is not met here and so I vote to decline. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 15:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
-*{{ping|Zoyetu}} You should be able to include diffs without increasing your word count too much. When you do a diff like [http://www.google.com] it takes up one "word". If you do them in-text like "So and so did [http://www.google.com this thing] and therefore they've violated policy" it shouldn't increase your word count at all. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]] <small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 01:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
-:*'''Decline''' largely per Newyorkbrad, though I'd echo Opabinia's comment about the discussion being pretty lackluster. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]] <small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 15:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''', absent any startling and as-yet unpresented diffs. The request seeks a review of admin actions, but a) {{u|Softlavender}} is not an admin, and b) {{u|SuperMarioMan}} used no admin tools in this dispute and simply issued a warning for perceived BLP violations. The only obvious admin actions were by {{u|Alex Shih}} in closing the ANI thread and issuing the topic ban, and {{u|GeneralizationsAreBad}} in blocking for a breach of the ban. It's arguable that the ANI thread was light on for participation; it's also arguable that the whole issue could have done with more discussion before the ANI thread was raised. But these are matters for a topic ban review at AN, not an Arbcom case. Short version - nothing yet presented suggests an abuse of admin tools or [[WP:ADMINACCT]], and the topic ban itself should be appealed elsewhere when the first six months expires. Otherwise, agree with the advice provided by Newyorkbrad above - there's plenty of other areas to edit in, so all the best with finding a non-BLP topic to work on for now.-- [[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]] ([[User talk:Euryalus|talk]]) 03:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
-:*{{yo|Softlavender}} Yep, but they strike me as being unfamiliar with the rules, and warnings might be too blunt a stick when something gentler could have been used. However, please don't take that as a criticism - BLP enforcement is both critical and difficult, and there's an obvious limit to how much we want people to "learn by doing" in posting inappropriate materials and forcing others to intervene. Either way, it's something for a topic ban review by the community before/instead of anything Arbcom might do. -- [[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]] ([[User talk:Euryalus|talk]]) 04:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''' per Euryalus.--[[User:kelapstick|kelapstick]]<sup>([[User talk:Kelapstick#top|bainuu]]) </sup> 03:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
-*'''Decline'''. On the one hand, as a procedural matter, it is depressing to call that ANI thread a "community" anything, with support from a whopping ''two'' editors other than the proposer, who then had to dig the thread out of the archives to get somebody to "close" it. Not everything at ANI actually needs a purple box around it, and that thread more than anything provides evidence that nobody particularly cared, not that "the community" made a decision. Stepping off my soapbox about the usual quality of input at ANI, this is still the wrong venue for this complaint, there's nothing here indicating that arbcom input is specifically needed, and the simplest path forward is for Zoyetu to develop their editing skills on other topics for a while. [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 06:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''' - nothing for us to do here. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 15:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
-*'''comment''' It was argued by some of the people above that this is premature for arbcom. I don't see that: since the topic ban was closed as not appealable until 6 months has been issued, there is no other practical avenue to get the topic ban removed.  '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 08:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''' per NYB. <b>[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]</b> ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 08:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)