Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology

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

Case clerks: Amortias (Talk) & Miniapolis (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Courcelles (Talk) & Keilana (Talk) & Opabinia regalis (Talk)

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

Preliminary statements

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Statement by Mendaliv

This is a case of friendly disruption.

Wikicology has been engaged in disruption, whether deliberate or negligent, for at least two years. However, because much of the misconduct has been difficult to see, and because Wikicology has been gifted with the ability to apologize well, the problem has not been resolved satisfactorily.

Wikicology has created pages on himself over fourteen times; is an admitted sockpuppeteer (M1, M2); has added a great deal of content on BLPs, biomedical articles and articles of social importance with citations to non-existent references and references which do not support the claim (M3, M4); has engaged in puffery regarding his own qualifications and credentials in his own userspace, and failed to timely correct others' false statements/impressions about him that were based on that puffery (e.g., the nom for his own RfA: M5); has apparently hosted editing events, but appears to have allowed overstatement of the levels of participation (e.g., many of these listed accounts don't exist: M6). This is all illustrated by the past and ongoing ANI threads and Jayen466's statement, and will be proven by the materials to be submitted during the evidentiary portion of this case (the links attached to this statement are not intended as the sole evidence).

This matter falls within WP:ARBPOL#Scope as the community has been unable to resolve it, and moreover involves matters of such serious import that it is unlikely that any resolution at ANI will be satisfactory. While some conduct claimed here takes place on other WMF sites, there is no credible argument that said conduct's connection to enwiki is insufficient to confer jurisdiction.

ArbCom should look past Wikicology's outward friendliness and move towards resolving the disruption by accepting this case. A botched resolution at ANI will wreak a great deal of damage, and the seriousness of the accusations demand a fair and impartial hearing for Wikicology. Even the discussants at ANI who support summary action by and large prefer arbitration because of how serious this has become. The community is not comfortable with resolving this matter itself.

Thank you for your time and trouble in considering this request, and thanks to Jayen466 for bringing this matter here.

ADDENDUM

In light of the confidential information at OTRS, these have become matters that cannot be evaluated at ANI. Specifically, there needs to be answers on whether Wikicology's failure to correct the Community's detrimental reliance (e.g., in his RfA) is a culpable omission, and more generally whether the Community has an interest in editors who claim positions of authority in public.

In response to the arbs wishing to wait for ANI to close, I would respectfully argue that the discussion there is moribund. A large number of participants are asking for arbitration, and many !votes on various sanctions involve substantial departures from the actual sanction requested. The discussion is not ordered or progressing, but is in fact devolving at a breakneck pace.

Please, accept this case to review these critical issues.

Statement by Coffee Crumbs

I urge the committee to accept this case. This situation is such a craggy mess that there needs to be a systematic investigation of the circumstances in order to untangle all the various threads. Given how many parallel issues appear to be involved here, ANI has struggled to cohesively deal with this situation. In this matter, ArbCom, as imperfect as it is, ought to step in and take its role as the "decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve."

@TheWolfChild: While I wouldn't be against mentorship in principle, given the length of the behavior and how broad the issues are, I don't think mentorship is appropriate without these issues being fully investigated. The user's long-term history of pleading ignorance every time they ignore policy, including while *requesting adminship* make me less sympathetic.

Statement by BethNaught

This matter involves so many threads that ANI will never give it a proper investigation. It needs to structured investigation provided by a case. As an example of the problems with article creation and sourcing, Wikicology created Nitrogen dioxide poisoning. Recently redirected after User:Peter Damian/investigation showed very close paraphrasing from certain sources which were in fact about other types of poisoning, and other sources did not actually support the content. Other editors at the ANI, including Fram, have stated that this is a recurrent problem with Wikicology's articles. In an example of his credential puffery, here he admits describing a picture of him as being in his university office despite him not actually having a university office; and he thinks this is inconsequential. It is clear to me that Wikicology's ability to apologise means that the good faith of certain ANI contributors will prevent the full, dispassionate investigation into these serious issues which is needed.

Statement by Peter Damian

I ask the committee to accept the case. It is complex, and the ANI discussion is split, and unstructured. The committee needs to decide on whether there is underlying issue, and propose appropriate remedies. As Mendaliv suggests above, a botched resolution at ANI as the potential to cause great damage to the project, both internally and externally.

Statement by MPS1992

The ANI discussion is now irretrievably muddied by those who are determined to allow Wikicology to continue editing for as long as possible. Thus the acceptance of this case is inevitable, which was always the case anyway.

Given the actions taken to close down the ANI proposal for an indefinite block, actions taken in large part by those who have supported Wikicology's continued editing, I would suggest the arbitration committee should consider beginning with a motion to remove Wikicology's remaining user rights. This could be done swiftly. MPS1992 (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Xeno: Is that an objection to any removal of rollback or account creator facilities? If so, it contradicts your earlier statement. Please could you clarify. MPS1992 (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Xeno: This seems to have developed into an unnecessary argument; perhaps I misunderstand your tone. My understanding of the granting of user rights is that they are granted where they are both useful and appropriate. Given the restrictions Wikicology is currently under, I cannot see how the accountcreator or rollback rights could be useful to him. (It also renders the question moot, but perhaps you find it interesting.) My understanding of the removal of user rights is that such removal is preventative, for example an admitted sockpuppeteer would normally have their account creator rights removed. This point regarding Wikicology has been made by several other people commenting here or in the ANI, so it would not be outside the scope of the committee's deliberations. As for rollback, absent specific instances of him having misused rollback, I would point out that rollback is for reverting vandalism, and extensive discussion does not indicate that Wikicology can be trusted to know what is vandalism and what is not. Without such knowledge, the right is not appropriate for him, and its removal is preventative, for his own protection as much as that of anyone else. MPS1992 (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Xeno: yes, a committee motion was my suggestion. Thank you for your input anyway. MPS1992 (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker

There are two resolutions the ANI is currently considering. If the block does not occur, it will be because not only has the user apologized but they have agreed to a mentorship that has been offered by and agreed to by Cullen, and they have agreed to not create any more articles and only work on clean-up of past editing. And if they fail, they have agreed to a site ban. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Chesnaught: The NLT - threat was redacted during the discussion of it, as were the self-claims on the user page - those are just not the acts of someone who does not respond to the community. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Have to agree with Jehochman, preserving the subject's dignity (and English Wikipedia's) - it is unfortunately already said in the ANI discussion that he should be blocked or banned because he is a "Nigerian . . .". That just cannot and should not be allowed to pass. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

An important, perhaps essential component of this case deals with the editor's real-life credentials and identity. Community discussion is particularly unsuited for assessing the veracity of the editor's claims and handling essentially private information. Given the Committee's resolute unwillingness to afford public discussion over identity issues in the Scalhotrod case (even though the relevant evidence there dealt primarily, probably entirely, with publicly posted information (by the editor at issue), it would seem clear that the committee has already established that matters like this should be resolved by ArbComm, not by community discussion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

1. There is no suggestion that this is a conflict that the community can't handle.
2. ArbCom is welcome to take on a separate inquisitorial role, if time lies heavy on their hands. But that is neither what ArbCom was designed and appointed for, nor what they traditionally do.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC).

Statement by Thewolfchild

I don't see a need for Arbcom here. It's not as if the arbitrators are going to clean this mess up, and there is one hell of a mess here. 550 articles and counting. I think Wikicology should be made to clean it up himself. He can do so under the mentorship of Cullen328 and with the assistance of Irondome and any others willing to pitch in. In the meantime, Wikicology is not to create any more articles and not make changes to any articles, other than the ones he created and is fixing. Should he fail in this in any way, then ban him. Simple.

As for his credentials, he has advised (here) that he has forwarded them to OTRS. They can vet them and report back. Let the WMF determine his future with them and WMF-Nigeria. - ^theWOLFchild 16:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I have made a new proposal at the ANI in line with my comments here. The hope being that we can finally come to some consensus on something and finally close that thread and move forward. - ^theWOLFchild 16:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I think people need to stop throwing around phrases like "false credentials". We should wait to hear back from OTRS on this. If there was indeed been some deception here, then all the more reason to ban. But, if his credentials are in fact what he said they were, some people will need to start striking comments and posting apologies. - ^theWOLFchild 17:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

According to OTRS, it appears the credentials were legitimate. Looks like some people need to start back-peddling. There are multiple, baseless accusations that need to be retracted and some apologies issued. If indeed ArbCom gets involved, then this certainly needs to be addressed. The lynch mob mentality here is appalling. This is the telephone-game gone bad. And on another note, there are several people calling for a site ban, but I don't see any of them putting forward any suggestions on how to clean up all the articles. (and I certainly don't see any of them volunteering to do it themselves... ) - ^theWOLFchild 23:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Time for ArbCom to step in

I have to agree with the majority here. The ANI is clearly going no where, and to leave it open any longer is only a waste of time and resources. It's in a downward spiral as is and will only get nastier. As I said there however, I hope that ArbCom takes notice of the offer put forward by Cullen and Irondome to help clean the mess up. - ^theWOLFchild 16:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Irondome

I completely agree with Thewolfchild here. However I would urge the Committee to take on the more complex aspects of this case in tandem with community support for Wikcology as I have outlined in my proposals at the ANI. I confirm that I am ready to assist with mentoring. Wc has also notified me in the same manner as Twc regarding credentials, and I believe that to be a very positive step. I have begun dialogue with Wikicology regarding his ideas for priority areas to be addressed in cleaning this up, and on terms for mentoring. Wc has provided a complete list of articles he has worked on in addition, which is a great help in navigating this clean up. A note on cultural differences. I would also ask the committee to bear in mind that many of the behaviours we are seeing are possibly due to the environment in which Wc operates. A culture where status "gets things done" and you are not listened to if you do not make perhaps (to an Anglo-American) mindset exaggerated efforts to gain status, and therefore executive authority. I know this is a sensitive area, but it would account for many of Wc's perceived behavioural patterns. We should examine this aspect of the case with empathy and insight. I see nothing that cannot be fixed with guidance. I note that this aspect has been completely neglected by the current ANI discussion, with the exception of a rather foul personal attack. I note a recently contributing user is advocating punitive measures (i.e. stripping of tools) and is claiming the ANI had a consensus for a ban. This is incorrect. Consensus was clear on one thing. That Arbcom should now step in and that the ANI be abandoned. Also the new user is claiming that the WP:BOLD non admin closure by Mike1901 was part of an effort by "those in large part who wish to keep Wikicology editing". I find this claim disturbing. It is the first breach of WP:AGF in a confused but largely amicable discussion. Consensus clearly was leaning towards a close and ArbCom input. Please take the case and can someone close the current ANI which this user reopened without discussion. Irondome (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• (in response to Jehochman) That is not strictly accurate Jm. There are some in the community who are prepared to positively handle elements of this. The bottom line is that if Wc stays or goes, there will still be a mess to clean up. Whatever the outcome, I will help in the cleanup. Apart from perhaps three of us, I am not seeing much constructive comment or offers of assistance from what is fast turning into a lynch - mob frankly. Irondome (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Chesnaught555

I ask that the Arbitration Committee accept this case. Olatunde Isaac's actions have merited sanctions up to and including a site ban. His disingenuous use of false credentials and sockpuppetry are highly concerning, and I would personally question his competence when it comes to editing the English Wikipedia. He recently made a legal threat which is usually grounds for an indefinite block until the threat is redacted - why was he not blocked for this? Consensus at AN/I determined that Isaac was making a clear legal threat. I simply think we cannot accept apologies from somebody who keeps making the same mistakes - no matter how sincere they are. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 16:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Carrite

Since this matter is still under consideration at AN/I, where a solution might be crafted, it is not ready for ArbCom at this time. If anything less than a site ban comes out of that discussion, however, this case needs to be heard. There will be extensive article cleanup required, in all likelihood, starting with a full scale investigation of contributions. The 14 efforts at creating a COI autobiography and socking and false identity claims are the portion of the iceberg we can see. Carrite (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Cullen328

I will express no opinion at this time as to whether or not ArbCom should accept this case, and in no way do I want to minimize the seriousness of the issues around Wikicology's editing. I simply want to reiterate my willingness to mentor Wikicology, with assistance from Irondome, and I would hope, a third experienced editor. I see this as a one year project to review all the articles this editor has created, for the purpose of getting him to improve his articles on notable topics and deleting the articles on non-notable topics. I believe this is the most beneficial outcome for the encyclopedia but recognize that many editors I respect are in complete disagreement. I have no interest in debating with anyone about this, although I am always willing to respond to questions. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by EvergreenFir

To Doug and other committee members suggesting they wait until the ANI is closed, it seems unlikely that any productive close will occur any time soon. The only thing that seems to have a chance of passing is a topic ban. I'd urge the arb com to close the ANI discussion themselves and open this case. There seems to be little reason to wait for nothing to come out of the ANI. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: Fair enough. Just been watching ANI recently and that thread. I think your use of "frustration" is exactly right. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Mz7

I've been watching the proceedings with interest but have not commented until now. The main issue with the ANI thread is that there is a very, very wide breadth of issues, and for community members just now coming in, it can be tedious to ascertain exactly what they are and if they are substantiated. There's so much being said that a lot of us are inclined to just force Wikicology out and be done with it, while others are looking for more open-minded solutions. If no consensus results at ANI, I see arbitration as the logical next step. Essentially, this is such a large dispute that the structured, formal process of arbitration is necessary to "break the back" of it, and accepting the case does not mean that solutions like mentorship will be automatically disregarded. Mz7 (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

Please close the ANI discussion and hear the case. There are issues related to editor's real life identity and sock puppetry. The remedy needs to be thorough and final. ArbCom is the most appropriate way to deal with this while preserving the subject's dignity. Jehochman ^Talk 21:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The OTRS thing being handled in the open like this is not best practice. I urge ArbCom to take the case and review the confidential info, to separate the valid complaints from the invalid, and to determine the best way out of this mess. ANI is not competent to handle these matters. It is not necessary to wait for the community to attempt to handle a matter that it clearly isn't prepared to handle. Jehochman ^Talk 22:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to take this case. It is important to preserve the user's dignity, to make sure that the response to any problem is sufficient, but not excessive. Jehochman ^Talk 14:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Cirt

I agree here with Jehochman. Unfortunately, the issues appear to be much too complex for ANI to handle on its own. — Cirt (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Amatulic (uninvolved)

Wikicology has submitted VRTS ticket # 2016040310006004 in which he provides scanned copies of the following documents:

• Interim Bachelor of Science degree certificate (explaining that it is "interim" because it can take 3-5 years to retrieve the original from Nigerian universities)
• NYSC certificate, which is awarded to university and polytechnic graduates
• Current employment appointment letter
• Employment identity card
• Postgraduate application form

I confess I have not been following this or the ANI thread, I came across it due to a mention on a user talk page that happens to be on my watch list, but to the extent that this information is relevant, well, there it is. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

(in response to Jehochman)The information I provided from the OTRS case was stripped of personal information. Wikicology requested that the verification of information provided be published in the various threads, but I do not see the need to do this at ANI. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward

Given past sock puppeting and the current ongoing process, it seems prudent that Wikicology user rights be suspended until either or both bodies reach a decision. Currently having both an ArbCom and ANI request open has paralyzed any action. I cannot see that using any of the following rights would be beneficial to the community while this is going on. (account creator, autopatrolled, pending changes reviewer, rollbacker)

--DHeyward (talk) 09:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Xeno

I concur with DHeyward that autopatrolled and pending changes reviewer are not userrights the user should be holding given the present concerns and have removed them. I'm less convinced that rollback and account creator need to be removed absent evidence of misuse, but would not object if someone feels they need to be relinquished as well. –xeno^talk 09:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• MPS1992: could you point to any misuse of the rollback or account creator facilities or otherwise explain why they cannot continue to be held by the editor? Removing them would seem punitive otherwise. –xeno^talk 23:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

  MPS1992 I wouldn't quite call it an objection, per se - more of a matter-of-fact statement that it doesn't really match up with how userrights are granted and revoked. And you haven't answered the question. –xeno^talk 20:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

  MPS1992 All actions taken with account creator are logged, it would be a poor choice of tool for sockpuppetry; and as far as I know, those are historical transgressions. Wikicology seems to have used it only once, properly, for an outreach program they were overseeing. I don't share your concern or assumptions regarding the rollback tool either. Will leave it to others or the committee to decide. –xeno^talk 22:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc

I strongly encourage the committee to take this case. I hold a very dim opinion of the arbitration system at Wikipedia generally, but if anything should be discussed in an arbcomm case it is a matter such as this which involves further issues related to WMF funding, what WP:EXPERT means at Wikipedia in light of WP:Honesty, and how the massive amount of damage that may have been done to articles should be fixed (the work done to fix previous problems similar to this one have still not finished, years later). jps (talk) 12:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by QEDK

This is a very complex case and it'd be preferable if the ArbCom were to accept this. It's veered out of control already. Going through the user's edits, I can only draw the conclusion that they are in the wrong and mostly commit a lot of mistakes. I say we do give him some more rope (as I believe he has a good nature), with withdrawal of their rights and an indefinite restriction from all their areas of COI. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 13:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Davey2010

As I said on the ANI thread way too much damage has been done by this editor and as the ANI case is way too complex to handle I think the case here should be accepted and the ANI thread closed. –Davey2010^Talk 15:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Mike1901

Overwhelming consensus at WP:ANI to close the case there, allowing the arbitrators to start an investigation here should they wish to do so. Posting this as an uninvolved editor who has closed the ANI discussion. Mike1901 (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by GeneralizationsAreBad

The ANI is a twisted tangle of many different and tangentially-related issues, all of which comprise a vast body of evidence which is difficult for anyone to fully grasp (me included!). As Softlavender pointed out, the issues include source falsification, questions of misrepresentation, accusations of incompetence, sockpuppetry, self-promotion, copyvios, legal threats, etc. Probably any one of these individually would be potential grounds for sanctions, but the sheer number and breadth of issues raised is startling. Even now, more discussion over potentially game-changing evidence (OTRS) is taking place on this very page, and it seems like there is no abatement of all this. In short, I urge the arbitrators to accept the case to break the back of this dispute and settle the very serious allegations in a structured, comprehensive and definitive way. I say this as an uninvolved editor whose jaw dropped at the sight of the gigantic ANI thread. GAB^Hello! 21:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I must add my voice to those encouraging the committee to take this case. The AN/I thread is so long, so convoluted and complex, that I doubt anyone who hasn't been involved in the situation from an earlier time would be able to unravel it; I certainly couldn't. It seems to me that complicated and long-running conflicts such as this is one of the things we have ArbCom for. I strongly urge the committee to accept the case. BMK (talk) 01:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

To those waiting for a conclusion to the AN/I thread: experience would say that it's extremely unlikely for there to be an admin closure with action taken. It much more likely that the thread will simply continue to grow, with nothing decided. Although I understand the impulse to wait, and ordinarily would agree, I think in this case (about which I have no opinion one way or the other as to what the result should be), ArbCom should recognize that it's really beyond the ability of the community to reach a decision. I urge those Arbitrators who have tentatively taken that stance to reconsider. BMK (talk) 01:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by SlimVirgin

I've closed the AN/I thread as no consensus for a community ban at this time. It's clear from other threads on AN/I and from the discussion here that editors would prefer to see a more structured discussion. I suppose I do wonder whether an ArbCom case is the best thing, given that a community ban would arguably be kinder, but Wikicology might welcome the opportunity to explain himself to the committee. I've advised him in the meantime not to edit pages unrelated to resolving this dispute or to cleaning up affected articles, until the committee reaches a decision or says otherwise. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Pldx1

Wikicology doesn't introduce himself as the Ambassador of the Arbitration Commitee, nor as one of the most prolific redactor of the Arbitration Commitee's resolutions. But he introduces himself as the Ambassador of the Wikipedia community, and as a superstar among the people who are writting articles, here at English Wikipedia. A direct decision from this community would have been --and remains-- the best answer to the various already proven misbehaviors. But it seems that a vocal minority prefers to let maturate the situation before the surgical act. Not sure that this will be beneficial to the involved person. Pldx1 (talk) 11:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Versace1608

I have been following this discussion since it started at ANI. Wikicology's offenses have overshadowed the productive things he's done to improve this encyclopedia. If he gets a community ban or indefinite block, he should take it for what it is and understand that he brought it upon himself. Having said that, I believe he deserves one more chance to right his wrongs and improve the accuracy of the articles he created. I believe he should refrain from editing medical related articles and focused on correcting the mistakes he's made. I also believe he should be stripped from any and all user rights he's garnered. Majority of the articles he created average between 1,000 to 3,000 length (in bytes). This means that the erroneous info he created can be corrected within a month, depending on how many editors dedicate their time to fixing these issues. Versace1608 (Talk) 23:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Softlavender

I urge ArbCom to accept this case, because it involves repeated abuse of Wikipedia and WMF on many levels and over many venues. It bears similarities in my mind to Essjay, Wifione, and Neelix. The case gets more and more worrisome the more I look into it (some but definitely not all of my conclusions are iterated in the ANI thread, but even there I only summarized a few, and there are deeper and deeper levels of problems to be noted and explored; I've been off-wiki for several days and I'm having some computer problems). I will however save my actual investigation and statements of evidence for the case itself. Softlavender (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Staberinde

Due to ANI's failure to resolve the issue, Arbcom needs to step in. There are some serious accusations about fake references, which are probably the most damaging form of Wikipedia vandalism.--Staberinde (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon

It now appears that the ArbCom is about to accept the Wikicology case, so I will not comment on whether the ArbCom should accept the case, which, in my opinion, it should, other than to concur. However, I will comment on matters that should be addressed.

The first is the matter of sockpuppetry. I have only been following this case since it was filed here and at ANI, but it appears that the sockpuppetry has been going on since at least 2013. Wikipedia has long taken a less-than-consistent attitude toward sockpuppetry in one respect. Sockpuppets are almost always indeffed, but sometimes the sockmaster is allowed to edit under a single account, and sometimes the sockmaster is banned or indeffed. ArbCom should, first, restate the policy that the abuse of multiple accounts (clearly defined in policy) is and always has been forbidden, second, if appropriate, clarify when sockpuppetry requires the ban of the sockmaster as opposed to a single-account mandate, and, third, determine what precise remedy is needed in this particular case. I ask the ArbCom to clarify, by a statement of principle, whether sockpuppeteers should be banned or restricted.

The second is that, if I understand, the subject has repeatedly created peacock autobiographies after being warned not to create autobiographies. I would urge that the subject be given an absolute topic-ban from COI editing, that applies not only to articles in article space, but to drafts, and to talk page edit requests. I realize that some editors may think that this is draconian, but I think that draconian measures may be needed for editors who simply won’t learn. If the subject is banned, the topic-ban should apply after the site-ban is lifted. Any sanctions can be lifted gradually, but we need to start with draconian restrictions on an editor who doesn’t listen. The fact that he apologizes well and continues to disrupt should not be extenuating, at least not much.

The third is that the subject editor is said to have created a very large number of problematic articles, and needs to retain some degree of editing privilege in order to clean up those problematic articles. This would be a very unfortunate precedent, and would encourage other enthusiastic seriously disruptive editors to engage in further disruption in order to retain the privilege of cleaning it up. I oppose any such concept. Depending on how bad the articles are, either a bot can be written to tag them for speedy deletion, or a bot can be written to nominate them for deletion, or a bot can be written to tag them, or they can be left to the community of editors, who may tag them for cleanup, tag them for speedy, nominate them for deletion, or edit them. I strongly disagree with the idea that having caused previous damage is a reason to permit an editor to edit to clean it up. I don’t assume good faith to the extent that I will trust editors who continued to disrupt Wikipedia after warnings. The ArbCom may need to make that statement as a principle, since it has been argued before and will be argued again.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Announcements 4/12/16

Hi everyone. A couple updates from the drafting arbitrators:

1. The deadlines currently all fall on Fridays; the drafters have decided to push them back to the following Mondays so people have the weekend to wrap up. The updated deadlines are:
   • Evidence closes 25 April
   • Workshop closes 2 May
   • Proposed decision due 9 May
2. Due to the nature of the case, the drafters have authorized a general extension of the word limit to 1000 words for all participants. Anyone who wishes to present more evidence may apply on the /Evidence talk page as usual.
3. As a result of community comments and a clerks-l discussion, the preliminary statements are being removed from evidence and are being archived at the main case talk page.

Thanks everyone! This will also be cross-posted to the evidence talk page. For the drafters, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)