Requests for amendment

Initiated by Georgewilliamherbert (talk) at 05:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

Speed of light arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Motion 4 - Brews ohare advocacy restrictions
2. Motion 5 - Restriction expiration

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Count Iblis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• David Tombe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Likebox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Count Iblis
• David Tombe
• Likebox
• Hell in a Bucket

Amendment 1

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Motions Motion 4
• Proposed: Motion 4 ("Count Iblis, David Tombe, Likebox, and Hell in a Bucket are indefinitely restricted from advocacy for or commenting on Brews ohare, broadly construed. Should any of these editors violate this restriction, they may be blocked for up to 24 hours by any uninvolved administrator. After three blocks, the maximum block length shall rise to one week.") is reinstated, to run concurrently with and expiring simultaneously with Motion 6's 12-month topic ban on Brews Ohare.

Statement by Georgewilliamherbert

As evidenced by discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light immediately following the Committee's reimposition of Brews' topic ban, for a 12 month new duration, the additional parties who were previously (now expired by motion) enjoined from advocacy on Brews' account have resumed disruptive advocacy on the exact same terms and approach as before. Requests to stop have been rejected, and as discretionary sanctions are not in place on the article admins evidently can't reimpose them on individual authority at this time.

I believe that reimposing them is appropriate under the circumstances. This case has been decided, no matter what the party and supporters feel. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replying writ large to several parties, Carcharoth, and other commenters...

Focusing more narrowly would certainly potentially be appropriate.

Regarding asking / suggesting / prodding people to change directions into things they can be productive in, that was done by several in the thread which started this, including myself. It went so stunningly well that I ended up doing this amendment... The discussion included outright refusal by some of the people previously enjoined to admit that the prior advocacy ban had been in effect, and that such behavior by them was obviously not just OK but righteous and necessary.

Perhaps with the amendment proposed the message is getting across that more productive pursuits would be preferable for everyone. I certainly don't see this as a good solution. But it looked for a couple of days like the bad old days of incessant advocacy were back, and if that was going to happen, there's no reason not to haul out the big gun again and point it.

If not firing it is ok now, then let's not fire it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To explicitly say something I should have been more explicit about last night - David Tombe's behavior now does not seem to be problematic, and I am happy to drop him off the proposed restrictions list. I cut and pasted the proposal from the prior amendment, when I should have been more selective. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Hell in a Bucket -

The four of you were previously indefinitely enjoined from advocacy of this nature. There was obviously at that time a problem severe enough that you convinced Arbcom that there needed to be a specific restriction on the four of you continuing that advocacy.

That has since been amended to expire, but you seem to be missing the message. The message is, Arbcom and the community do have the right to act if disruptive behavior persists; that Arbcom and the community previously found this behavior by the then-four of you to be sufficiently disruptive to intervene; and that you and Count Iblis were at it again.

Persistent misbehavior after prior sanctions has a lower threshold and a stronger response, in general on Wikipedia. Someone who's been blocked for edit warring or disruption may find 3RR now effectively a 2RR restriction on them and then 1RR, and a first block of 24 hrs goes to 48 then a week then a month.

In the context of you and Count Iblis going back to the same behavior you previously were enjoined from doing, and are now defending again, perhaps I was somewhat premature in this amendment. But if you feel entitled to keep it up much longer then you're wrong.

The restriction I'm proposing has already been found necessary and applied to you. Reimposing it for repeat offenses is not a big deal.

If the repeat offenses have stopped and it's not worth any more preventive measures then great. If you can live by Carcharoth's comments below, great.

If you feel that it's simply a gross imposition on your WikiRights - again, it's been imposed against you before.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

• What? One is not allowed to express dissent with the disgraceful measures against Brews? Or what? This is just going to lead to more and more contributors being banned. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Likebox is permabanned of his own choice, David Tombe has done nothing in the recent cases involving Brews and Hell in a Bucket just commented on the outcome. Count Iblis's AN/I thread on this was perhaps ill advised but that's already over with. So I really don't think this is at all necessary now.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 08:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The claim that I have been advised to fight ArbCom “tooth and nail”, and that the named editors should therefore be subjected to sanction is wrong. First, no diffs support the claim. Second, suppression of comment on the basis that it is disruptive advocacy is disingenuous. It is really an example of killing the messenger. Third, I don't have to take any advice offered, even were it offered. Fourth, the only disruption that could result from my taking bad advice (were it offered) is that I would become sanctioned. On that basis, bring action against Stifle for his advice, and AGK for his poor advocacy, which led to very clear harm. ArbCom has demonstrated again and again that they will sanction me under virtually any possible pretext, so claiming some concern for my welfare is, well, worth a rueful smile. Brews ohare (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Carcharoth has taken this venue as an opportunity to make various suggestions as to how Brews_ohare could attempt to “redeem” himself, penance for his sins that “might” be looked upon with favor, but no guarantees. This advice belongs on my Talk page, not here. Suggesting that there is a lot of WP that is open to me lying outside of my areas of expertise hardly mitigates castration, if that is what is intended. As for redemption: ArbCom has been extremely selective in evaluating my activities, ignoring myriads of helpful contributions I have made to instead value complaints in a few instances by a few editors with a history of altercation, and blow them up into a huge topic ban. ArbCom's one-sided view of matters and overreaction to complaints appears to be an idée fixe, unlikely to change. Brews ohare (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This motion is unfortunately partly my fault, since I made the snarky comment[1] (a countersnark to Count Iblis's snarky comment[2]) that triggered the exchange leading to GWH's request. Count Iblis et al had been pretty well behaved in the amendment discussion earlier, as far as I noticed (I admittedly wasn't paying close attention) so I want to clarify that my suggestion for the involved parties to stay away from each other wasn't especially directed at the "advocates". Rather, I commented because in these past couple of actions, Brews's opponents, while technically "right", seemed way too eager to rush to AE when Brews messed up, rather than (say) first leaving Brews a talk message asking him to undo the problematic edit. Or better yet, try to disengage from Brews completely and let other users deal with it if problems occur. When we restrict an editor, the idea is not that we actually want to ban them and pounce on every possible slip. We're instead trying to channel their editing energy away from past problem areas, in the hope of getting good editing from them in other areas.

Regarding the current motion, given my role in it I can't bring myself to suggest anything other than that Arbcom let the thing slide this time, and just advise the targets to put a sock in it in rather strong terms. I supported the original restriction[3][4] and I think it was the right thing at the time and that it helped, and that the rationale I gave back then still seems ok to me in retrospect. Arbcom should indeed be open to reinstating it if it again becomes necessary. But as before, a restriction like that is a fairly drastic step, to be reserved for really persistent disruption or bad influence. 67.119.3.248 (talk) 04:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hell in a bucket--there are areas where Brews is a real expert, and we want his contributions in those areas. There are other areas where he only thinks he is an expert, and that has caused a lot of trouble. 67.119.3.248 (talk) 06:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Count Iblis

There never has been much of an advocacy for Brews from my side. I did utter my strong disagreements with the topic ban when it was imposed in late 2009. But in later discussions I tried to propose pragmatic solutions. It isn't much different now. JohnBlackburne is perhaps right when he says that I perhaps shouldn't have started that AN/I thread. A constructive discussion with Jehochman, Brews and me followed here, it would have been better had that discussion started straightaway, of course.

Note that this time, I haven't even said that I disagree with the topic ban. Sure, I do disagree, but before I wrote this sentence right now, I hadn't even said it here on Wikipedia explicitely. While you can read my long discussions with Brews on my talk page and guess this, a completely neutral Wikipedian who hadn't heard of Count Iblis before, couldn't have concluded this. I do after all suggest that Brews make the contributions he likes to make here, on Wikiversity or Wikibooks instead. I already explained my arguments in detail on my talk page, so there is no need to explain everything here. It suffices to say that Brews, Likebox and me share the same view about educational articles that the wider Wikipedia community does not agree with. Count Iblis (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very long reply to Georgewilliamherbert which is necessary in order to take away suggestions of past misconduct on my part.

Georgewilliamherbert: "The message is, Arbcom and the community do have the right to act if disruptive behavior persists"

I agree 100%

Georgewilliamherbert: "that Arbcom and the community previously found this behavior by the then-four of you to be sufficiently disruptive to intervene"

Wrong, certainly as far as my behavior goes. It is true that a motion was passed, but without any valid grounds as far I was concerned. The motion could not be contested and I chose not to object to it, as I explained in detail on my talk page. The fact that you now intent to use the past motion as an argument without presenting any facts, shows that behaving in a reasonable way in that case (i.e. agreeing to disagree and moving on), may be problematic in the future as it can be seen as admitting guilt. Some Admin may dig up old dirt and use it against you in an unreasonable way. I find this very problematic.

Georgewilliamherbert: "and that you and Count Iblis were at it again."

This partially builds on the previous mistaken assumption and is thus wrong. What I do find troubling, though, is that you seem to see in something that I wrote on that Notification page that is problematic. But I don't have a clue what that could be. I.m.o., if someone makes a statement that is seen to be problematic, one should notify the editor on his/her talk page and ask for clarification and then settle the matter there. Adminstrative intervention should follow if it is clear that there is disruption and that this is going to continue without intervention.

I think I have made it clear already 3 or 4 times what my opinion of Brews is right now. Note that Jehochman supported my advice to Brews to make his physics contributions to Wikibooks and Wikiversity. So, I'm not sure how I'm advocating for Brews in a problematic way, let alone in a disruptive way.

If I do my best to WP:AGF and think hard at what is going on here, I can only come to this conclusion. You as an experienced Wikipedian and an Admin know that mere advocacy shouldn't get you in trouble. You may have seen cases of problematic advocacy and even in these cases people typically are not sanctioned (I've seen quite a few of such cases). Then you see that there was a motion passed against us, so you draw the conclusion that we must have done something enormously outrageous for this to have happened. So, in your eyes, we are extremely dangerous persons. The slightest hint of advocacy on our part must thus be fought with all possible means.

Then, how can we prevent this from happening? Clearly, not by staying silent. While we should agree to not do anything that others object to on rational grounds, what we should not do is let mistaken perceptions of past bad behavior pass unchallenged. This is a public Wiki-board read by many people, so your suggestions of misconduct on my part may be picked up by others, leading to further trouble in the future. Therefore, this very long reply belongs here. Count Iblis (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

I would again ask for proof in the forms of diffs that Iblis or myself have engaged in disruptive or otherwise broke policy. I've asked several times but no one seems willing or able to do so. I see this motion as a retailatory response for disagreeing appropriately and not being willing to be lead around blindly. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@67.119.3.248, my question to you is what are we advocating? I've not been involved in Brews dispute until somone, I believe Sandstein had made a overstep on the Arbcom enforcement and he asked for clarification. After that it degenerated into accusations of bad advocacy. No one is telling Brews to do anything. My only concern was overstepping admin authority and the fact that while there is a vocal group of people that defend some of the things that happen for Brews there is a whole different group that howls for his head. I'm getting sick of it frankly on both sides. I was happy to see that some of those editors did come here and say this was a poorly thought motion. I do agree in principal that there should be someone who can govern these disputes that will be able to fairly look at both sides without making a full trial of it every time we go through stuff like this. Sometimes I think that wikipedia scorns experts, it's a love hate relationship though. We need experts to help with their expertise but the encyclopedia is also open to everyone so it doesn't always mix, inferiority complexes maybe? I'm not directing that at anyone just a general observation of possible issues here.

Reply to Georgewilliamherbert What message are you trying to send? To not disagree or that you will silence people? I take offense to your threats of a block and refusal to back up any of your claims that this was nec. Have you considered that while you may have been trying to help things there was no need to threaten or posture? All this does is make things worse, Iblis has been civil during this entire thing, I have not but I have made a hard effort to moderate my tone to focus on the issues I perceive, but comments like "there's no reason not to haul out the big gun again and point it" is not helpful in the slightest because it's clearly meant and insinuated as a means of intimidation imho. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General Comment, It's not entirely helpful to say that the first was entirely not needed but it didn't go the entire way that was needed to fully resolve the problem. For my part I made several references that were not always civil. However the opposite side has a sense of right and sense of duty that does not help tone down the fire. I'm sorry but I really think is a problem here is the perception that everything we do and have done have always been wrong however I'm more concerned with this incident and show whether or not wrongs perceived or not can be brought to the light of day within this conversation and incidents scope. The finger pointing back and forth is really getting old and is entirely not working for either side. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Headbomb

I don't see why this is needed. The advocacy ban was needed a few months ago because of the constant appeal, re-appeal, wikilawyering, etc... Tombe hasn't said thing about a thing here, Likebox is indef banned, Ohare kept to the enforcement request and participate in the "discuss the motion" after the closure as asked some people some clarification (which is again fine and normal), and I don't see what Iblis did that kept pouring oil on the fire. Threads like this however, does pour oil on the fire. There was an AE, and some people were unhappy with the result, and discussed and protested, as is usual. IMO, there's no sign that the advocacy problem is resurfacing, so there is no need to "nip it in the bud" or whatever. In other words, what JohnBlackburne said. Close this thread and let's be done with it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Dr.K.

I am disappointed with GWH whom I consider a thoughtful and capable admin. But in this case HiaB and Count Iblis have done nothing to merit such a drastic proposal, in fact they have been constructive in their comments and overall approach. The worst mistake in bringing this proposal here however is the case of David Tombe. As Headbomb and John Blackburne already mentioned, David Tombe has done absolutely nothing to merit this. He has fastidiously stayed away from Brews as if Brews did not exist. David Tombe complied with the advocacy sanctions and continued complying even after they were lifted. He has conformed in every possible way to these sanctions and then some. He actually fell silent. By going after him what message do we send to those who reform? That we'll get them anyway? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by David Tombe

I would agree with what Count Iblis says above. There was no behaviour in the first place that remotely warranted the original advocacy ban. It seemed rather like an attempt to give a free run to those who wanted to advocate adversely against Brews ohare by silencing those who had been speaking out in his defence. On my own part, I was very little involved in the period leading up to the original advocacy motion back in March 2010, and I was quite surprised that my name had even appeared on the original advocacy motion. I seem to recall that when I saw my name on the original motion back in March, that I said that I would support the motion if Brews's opponents were also named. But my perfectly reasonable compromise was completely brushed aside.

I think it's important, in order to prevent any distortion of history in the minds of readers, to remind readers that the original advocacy restriction was unprecendented and without any justification whatsoever, and in fact it was a matter of great shame for ARBCOM which I'm sure that they would all like to quickly forget about. It's time for everybody to move on from this unfortunate episode. David Tombe (talk) 10:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I've collapsed the above as I don't wish to be patronising to Brews. Both the above and the comments at the noticeboard talk page were a genuine attempt to advise him on his options here. Clearly the time is not right for this, but I hope he may consider it at some point in the future. Getting back to the topic here, my view is that nothing needs doing here, though GWH filing this can be seen as more of a warning than anything else. Not intimidation, though I can understand how it can be seen that way. Administrators need to be able to warn without being accused of intimidation, though equally they should be sensitive to being seen as acting in an intimidating manner. Carcharoth (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree in general with Carcharoth, don't think it's necessary at this time to reimpose the advocacy restriction. SirFozzie (talk) 01:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by Beeblebrox (talk) at 19:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

ChildofMidnight arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

ChildofMidnight banned

1) ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for one year.

Passed 10 to 0, 03:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• [5] (diff of notification of this thread on Username2's talk page)

Amendment 1

Due to continued sockpuppetry and repeated resetting of the one year ban, ChildofMidnight is now indefinitely banned from editing Wikipedia.

Statement by Beeblebrox

Due to multiple incidents of sockpuppetry it seems clear that merely re-setting CoM's ban each time is not an effective remedy. I therefore suggest that the ban be extended to an indefinite full site ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to NW: I suppose it could, but I thought it best if there was no disconnect between the block and the ban. Otherwise when the current year of banning was over it might be expected that the block would simply be lifted. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Replies to several of the below remarks: There was quite a stack of behavioral evidence presented at the SPI case. No, there is not a "smoking gun" a single piece of evidence that trumps any argument to the contrary, but I firmly believe the various pieces of evidence taken as a whole add up to another CoM sock. I don't appreciate the accusations of vindictiveness or doing something just because I don't like somebody, and I'll thank you to either quantify such statements with evidence of your own or stop making them. In actuality I kind of liked CoM and I thought it was a shame he ended up banned, but he brought it upon himself because he didn't know when to quit. And since he apparently still hasn't figured out when to quit I don't see any logic in assuming resetting the ban timer yet again will suffice to get the message across. Sometimes even a user with as many great content contributions as CoM simply can't function within the minimum standards of civility required by this project and we have no choice but show them the door. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth: He was in fact given a chance to comment at the SPI, he was unblocked for part of the period that it was opened and made numerous edits to articles but ignored the SPI until after I blocked him as a sock. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"accusations of vindictiveness" In my case, I'd see the actions here as far less suspicious if it hadn't been for the CU. Why call for a CU if you're going to block anyway, no matter what the CU reports? If the DUCK evidence was overwhelming, there's no need for a CU (AIUI (admittedly poorly), CU is discouraged in such cases on privacy grounds). If the CU will have no influence on the outcome, then again, why have a CU? This looks too much like a CU that wasn't for investigative purposes, but for extra justification to a pre-judged decision. That's not a behaviour that I believe to be how we're supposed to work. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd clarified this sufficiently, but I guess not. I requested the CU (not Beeblebrox) on the basis of enough evidence to persuade a respected checkuser to do it. For various reasons the checkuser took fully five days to conclude, in which time I collated rather more evidence - ultimately enough that I wouldn't have asked for CU in the first place if I'd had it all originally. Rd232 ^talk 09:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I opened this request today because the situation came to a head today, but this will likely be my last opportunity to comment on the matter until at least next Tuesday. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK everyone, I am literally on my way out the door for the next four days, but if you would all have a look at my last posting to FSN talk page [6] you will find he has accidently given us the smoking gun we were looking for. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looks like there has been an awful lot of discussion while I was gone, and CoM's "ban timer" has been reset once again, but no decision on my proposal. I'd like to clarify that I am seeking a modification because the one-year ban is not being respected and is therefore an ineffective remedy. An indefinite ban does not really solve that problem, but it would streamline things when these socks are detected in that they are generally disruptive users anyway so we wouldn't need to worry so much about whether they really are CoM or not as there would not be a clock to reset every time. In short, it would enable us to take a WP:RBI approach, reducing the drama level. Of course if the arbs are unconvinced despite the cumulative merit of all the various pieces of evidence then we are back to square one. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker's latest remarks: It was never my intention for this to be about determining if FSN was really CoM or not. As far as I am concerned that was determined before I ever came here. My intent was actually to reduce the level of drama around this by simply banning CoM outright so that it didn't really matter next time he socked as the ban timer would no longer be in play. Clearly, this conversation has not gone as I had intended but I must say I am somewhat surprised at the attitude coming from the arbs, which basically seems to be that we ignore the behavioral evidence but don't overturn the block of FSN or the reset of the ban on CoM, and basically ignore the idea of extending the ban to indefinite, which would be a fairly normal and appropriate response to socking by a banned user. This ambiguity leaves everyone involved wondering what is supposed to happen now. If CoM was socking again, which I am obviously convinced of, he should at the very least be blocked indefinitely, as we would do to any other serial sockpuppeteer. If he wasn't, which seems unlikely, then the ban timer needs to be set back to where it was before this latest incident, and I suppose my block of FSN needs to be reconsidered as well. I never intended this to be a rerun of the SPI case, but it has turned into that instead of a discussion amending CoM's ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NuclearWarfare

Could this not be accomplished just as easily with an indef block? NW (Talk) 19:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by Andy Dingley

This appears to have arisen in response to sock allegations for Freakshownerd (talk · contribs), as described at SPI/ChildofMidnight

Behavioural similarities were sufficient to justify use of CU, which didn't report any visible connection between the two accounts. Despite this, the instigating admin Beeblebrox has proceeded to indef block the alleged sock and is now seeking an indef ban extension for CoM. At least two editors have expressed concern over this action, in the absence of strong evidence to support the sock allegation. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[The following was intended for the SPI page, but I note an extremely rapid close and archiving of that page]

By "FSN has given up challenging", don't you mean "FSN has now been silenced by an indef block"?

It's all too easy to use phrases like "kangaroo court", but how about some evidence to back up these actions? As pointed out just above, WP:AGF still applies, particularly if contrary evidence isn't forthcoming. This is how we're supposed to work. Neither of these accounts are even vandals - "blocks are protective, not punitive", etc., etc. If either of these editors is secretly conspiring to undermine the foundations of the wikistate, then I'm sure their future actions will make that evident and we can get round to tarring and feathering them tomorrow, when it's obvious. In the meantime, a coincidental interest in obscure chocolate is no evidence for an indef ban! Andy Dingley (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Heimstern"FSN most likely is a sock of CoM" I agree. But "most likely is" just isn't good enough when we're throwing around indef bans - particularly an indef ban of someone who, if we're wrong, wasn't even involved! Letting FSN run for longer isn't harmful - they're not one of our real annoyances of vandals and trolls. If they really are block-worthy / ban-worthy / CoM socking, then this will surely become very clear with time and we can act on them then, when it's unambiguous. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rd232

The behavioural evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ChildofMidnight/Archive#Evidence_submitted_by_Rd232 proves beyond reasonable doubt that user:Freakshownerd is (a) a sock and (b) specifically, another sock of User:ChildofMidnight. Beyond that, a number of users commented on how familiar FSN's responses to a recent block were (reminiscent of CoM). FSN barely denied the socking allegation and made no serious attempt to critique the evidence, and appears to have given up. It appears likely that having had two socks discovered, CoM saw little mileage in challenging this instance, and is instead heading for further socking. Rd232 ^talk 23:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: FSN has user talk access as well as email possibilities to challenge the evidence. So there is no question of him being "silenced". In addition, if you're going to pursue the same "ignore and downplay the evidence" tactic as FSN, you're just going to make me wonder who the hell you are (I don't know you from Adam, or why you'd defend FSN when he won't do so himself). Rd232 ^talk 23:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're accusing me of being a sock, please come out and say so. You might note that I've also been critical of how RAN has been treated lately, so I'm clearly a sock! I very much do not appreciate your insinuation that anyone who does not support your actions is a useful idiot and dupe of Eastasia. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of RAN, it appears clear that FSN shares CoM's interest in drama. As the most exciting show on channel-wiki this season, RAN is a magnet to anyone so inclined. In other news, WMC sometimes talks about the weather. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I was accusing somebody of something, they would know it. "wonder" was a precisely chosen word not implying any knowledge; and it would cover friendship or shared views as easily as socking, if I was inclined to pursue the thought, which I'm decidedly not. Rd232 ^talk 00:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent: well I'm disappointed you would say that. Would you address point 5 of my evidence, which I think is the single most damning point? (And incidentally, it is silly to say the negative CU was grounds for the block; it was held to be overridden by the strength of the behavioural evidence.) Rd232 ^talk 23:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't find an 8-day old account jumping to RAN's defence on his user talk page and at ANI, with no apparent reason [not having previously visited either], at all strange - especially given the type of CoM-reminiscent remarks? You don't find it too coincidental that after CoM's sock creates a Pasco County nature reserve, FSN does so some time later? There are 3000+ counties in the US - what are the odds not only on creating a nature reserve article (let's say that's high, for a prolific user, though I dare say many prolific users haven't) but on the exact same county? At 3000:1 I find it highly unlikely that this is co-incidence. Rd232 ^talk 00:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hugely suspicious, but suspicion alone doesn't justify an indef ban. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any one of the points listed in my SPI evidence looks suspicious. Added up, they are conclusive. You cannot treat each one in isolation as "not conclusive"; the evidence is additive and taken as a whole, conclusive. Rd232 ^talk 01:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And we've barely even mentioned the "voice" evidence (cf CoM RFCU). Tarc indicated he might be willing to do a sort of linguistic comparison if necessary; I guess it's necessary. (Though for those most familiar with CoM, it doesn't seem to be.) Rd232 ^talk 01:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent: I find it odd that you mention the number of wikistalk overlapping pages when the SPI evidence does not. The SPI evidence is qualitative, not quantitative. Rd232 ^talk 09:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent:

• fine, then forget the wikistalk part of point 5; it was a lazy way of showing that CoM was aware of RAN's existence, and had some interest overlaps. I should have just relied on CoM's well-known tendency to stick his nose in absolutely everywhere at ANI without obvious need to do so, with the same chorus of "abusive admins". FSN did just that within a few days of account creation, jumping in unprompted to support RAN [7] and Giacomo [8] 2 days later, neither of whom the account had any prior connection with I can see. And the similarity of tone and content (check the diffs) speaks for itself, for those familiar with CoM.
• on the milagros thing - "pretty clearly just ran a search and created links" - hardly, not least since he added a link to just one article. Looking at the contribs, FSN had no obvious reason to be searching "milagros" at the time, and it's hardly a typical topic for him. I find it far more likely that he went to Todos (which is a typical topic, just a very obscure page), saw something that needed wikilinking, [9] searched for the appropriate wikilink, and found the need for a hatnote. What particularly clinches this sequence over yours (I hadn't wanted to point out this detail, it's more help for future socking!) is that Todos Santos had its first edit since January (when it was last edited by CoM) on 13 June (3 days before the FSN edit), when an anon removed the wikilink to milagros [10]. In consequence, the page would have appeared on CoM's watchlist as a recently edited page, which I have no doubt CoM was continuing to log in to check. Rd232 ^talk 15:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• any particular reason you ignored the Pasco County evidence? Rd232 ^talk 15:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent: I'm increasingly astounded at this attitude coming from a fellow admin. Not only have you ignored my expansion on the Todos Santos Chocolates point, but you misread the Pasco County evidence completely. I made no claim that the users were in Pasco County (I said "connection to / interest in", which I guess was a clumsy way of putting it) rather I pointed out that the previous sock (Electroshoxcure) create a Pasco County nature reserve as one of his 7 article creations, and the very first nature reserve article FSN creates is in Pasco County. This is roughly a 3000:1 coincidence even if you assume that all users create nature reserve articles! (Which is clearly untrue, but the probability attached to that is much harder to say anything about.) Basically, Electroshoxcure started the job of expanding coverage of Pasco County nature reserve articles and some weeks later FSN continued it. The likelihood of the Pasco connection being mere coincidence ("I'm gonna create a nature reserve article, don't care where, how about ... there") is further decreased by the creation of several local school article redirects and a geo stub. (Also probability of coincidence can be contextualised by noting that no Pasco nature reserve articles were created between 2006 and 2010, when Electroshoxcure and FSN, plus what is now declared to be a friend of FSN's, contribute.) Rd232 ^talk 16:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re CoM socking: unless I'm way off base, CoM has given up on the idea of rescuing the FSN account, and is enjoying some disruptive socking. [ Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of ChildofMidnight. I find this particularly nice (though downplaying contributions here from Bigtimepeace seems a mite unfair). Rd232 ^talk 01:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Heimstern: It seems likely to me that FSN has already socked disruptively. User:Overturn_and_censure_Tarc (29 July) and User:Overturn_deletion_to_censure_Tarc! (29 Aug) are both SPAs for challenging an FSN DRV and attacking Tarc using (in the first instance) language directed by Tarc at FSN at that DRV. [11] FSN listed the same page at DRV twice - with the SPA appearing soon after in each case. Rd232 ^talk 12:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker: unless someone wants to argue that these abusive socks mentioned just above (plus this one who notably did this) are not in fact FSN (one preceding any blocking of FSN), then there is clear evidence that FSN was heading down a ban path anyway. Rd232 ^talk 17:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iridescent

This absolutely reeks of an "I don't like you" block, and this request to extend CoM's ban on this weak foundation just looks like petty vindictiveness. I have looked over all the evidence here, and I see no smoking gun at all. Yes, they edited in similar areas, but "food" and "US politics" are hardly obscure fields, and the Wikistalk tool is generally virtually meaningless when one of the editors has a high edit count, as CoM did (I believe I have 20,000 pages in common with J.delanoy). I see no pattern of problematic edits from the Freakshownerd account—those blocks were all dubious and quickly overturned. While it may be CoM sneaking under the wire, he's not causing any problems if it is, and there's at least a reasonable chance that this is a legitimate new user being hounded off on "edits in a similar way" grounds. Filing a request for checkuser and using the fact that it came back negative as grounds for a block, which certainly appears to be what's happened here, is ABF in the extreme. – iridescent 23:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Rd232: I really don't see anything there to link CoM and FSN. I've had numerous issues with User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) myself in the past (albeit none recently) and am certainly not going to jump to his defense; however, from my previous interactions with him, I know that he does have something of a "fan club" of talkpage watchers (126 of them), and don't find it at all unusual that two different users will jump in to argue his case. I think there's good evidence that FSN isn't a new user, but very little to suggest either that he's COM or that he's anything other than a former user making a clean start or an IP creating an account for the first time. Yes, he may be COM, but it's equally possible that he's not. As I've previously stated, MZMcBride's tool is not a useful tool for sockpuppet investigations (8 pages in common between Freakshownerd and ChildofMidnight; 31 pages in common between Freakshownerd and myself; 647 pages in common between you and me). If he is COM, then leave him until he's either actually caused a problem, or has done something to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they're the same person. If he isn't, then you've just hounded off a legitimate user, and are now lobbying to extend COM's block for something he didn't do.

@Rd232: re "I find it odd that you mention the number of wikistalk overlapping pages when the SPI evidence does not"—the first sentence of point 5 in your evidence—which is supposed to be the clincher, according to your statement above—is "CoM has a high wikistalk overlap (showing strong onwiki relationship) with User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )". The overlap between them is 102 articles, which for two users with high edit counts is utterly unconvincing. Comparing CoM with two random users having a similar number of total edits to Richard's (according to WP:WBE), shows CoM as having about the same overlap with Magioladitis and three times as much overlap with Can't sleep, clown will eat me. To put that in perspective, my overlap with CoM is 359 pages.

Regarding "There is a very notable wikistalk overlap between Freakshownerd and CoM at a very hard to reach page, outside the main political-interest arena they share: Todos Santos Chocolates was created by CoM", if you look at FSN's editing history for that day, shortly before his sole edit to that page, adding a link to Milagro (votive), he'd made this edit, so had pretty clearly just ran a search and created links. Honestly, this is all utterly unconvincing; you've decided that the accounts are linked, and are grabbing at any piece of 'evidence', however tenuous, to back it up. It's certainly possible that these accounts are socks, but if this is all you have, there's not even a balance of probabilities, let alone beyond reasonable doubt. – iridescent 12:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Rd232: Re "any particular reason you ignored the Pasco County evidence?"—yes, because it's ridiculous. Not only is St Petersburg a major metropolitan area (and home, incidentally, to two of our most prolific long-term sockmasters, neither of which is CoM), the idea that "created articles on a place" indicates a connection with the place is ludicrous. In the last couple of months, I've created eight articles on rural Buckinghamshire, but I don't live anywhere near the place, while I've a grand total of zero articles about either the place I do live or the place I'm originally from. "Both accounts worked on Florida-related articles" is right up there with "speaks German in a similar way". – iridescent 15:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tarc

Well, coming back from a weekend bender, I find it a bit bewildering to see this degree of skepticism over the FSN-CoM connections. Read the comment left at User talk:ChildofMidnight#Sockpuppetry case by him; one giant thumbing of the nose at all of us, masquerading as golly-gee-whiz "It's not really me!" innocence. Seriously.

Don't know if I have the time to tonight, but many, many diffs can easily be dug the archives for this page, Arb enforcement, and AN/I of CoM savaging every admin who dares to lift a finger to sanction or block him, or voice support of other admins doing same. Many bad editors do this of course, but there are peculiarities in the tone and the delivery of these tirades, how the circle ever-widens to include more and more people that are "against him". Anyone with a even a passing familiarity with CoM's brand of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT-flavored aggression, especially when dealing with unblock requests, should be painfully obvious in FSN's talk page when he's dealing with same. Tarc (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Heimstern

I'm afraid I must agree with Tarc. It's not really the common editing areas that constitute a smoking gun here, though they are useful as circumstantial evidence to abet the case. It's the discussion comments taking admins to task that really suggest that this is none other than ChildofMidnight. These diffs fit his style like hand in glove. His response on CoM's talk after the accusation was made, in which he addresses (and congratulates!) ChildofMidnight, an editor who was banned before the FSN account was created, rather than addressing the evidence or his accusers, isn't really the sort of behaviour I'd expect from an innocent party, either. Thus, contra Risker and Shell, I must conclude that FSN most likely is a sock of CoM. And do note that I'm not the type to go out trying to get CoM elimated: after his confirmed socking incident in May, I chose not to reset his block (someone else did) and tried to convince him not to sock again. I'm afraid my attempt failed. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I must echo Bigtimepeace here and ask why the general lack of useful responses on the part of the arbs. The evidence he has presented is compelling, and yet we still have a rather incomprehensible skepticism on the part of some arbs and even less comprehensible apathy from others. The implication seems to be "so it looks like probably he socked. Meh. Let's not worry about it." Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vaguely Involved, but Mostly Just Entertained, PhGustaf

We're not talking about capital punishment here; the criterion is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" but "by a preponderance of the evidence", and I think Judge Wapner would find against CoM, in whatever guise, in a New York minute. All the same, I see no difference in utility between an updated 1-year block and an indef. PhGustaf (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from Bigtimepeace

I'm not very active right now but Tarc directed me to this situation, I guess because I know as much as anyone about ChildofMidnight's "style" through frequent interaction and even more so through looking at many, many diffs when preparing his user conduct RfC. Given some of the evidence already presented and looking at a few things myself, I would bet a significant amount of money that Freakshownerd is ChildofMidnight. Of course I could be wrong, but I would be pretty astonished if these were different people. The IP information is different--which could have multiple explanations--but all of the "duck" type evidence looks and sounds like C of M. Let me just mention two specific things in some detail.

• One example of language similarity, already mentioned above. This is really a textbook ChildofMidnight type statement, and no other editor comes to mind who writes quite like this. First, it uses the "shame on so and so" phrasing (as in [12] and [13]) which was a common tactic of C of M. Also the reference to "abuse" was incredibly common for C of M and not, I think, so much for the rest of us (e.g. [14] and [15], but there are dozens of similar examples). The comment demonstrates an affinity for the uncommon term "grotesque," which seems to be seldom used the way C of M uses it, i.e describing the behavior of other editors as "grotesque" (see here--two instances, and it also includes the regularly used C of M term "outrageous"--plus [16] [17] [18]). C of M had a very unique "voice" when he was angry and the traits included listing out names of "offenders" and using a canned set of terms to indicate outrage and injustice (abuse, vile, outrageous, grotesque, harassment, sick, bullying, etc.). I'm quite certain that if I had read the linked comment from Freakshownerd cold without having any idea who wrote it and with the user info removed, I would have quickly said, "that's ChildofMidnight." I know this is impressionistic "evidence," but I am pretty familiar with how this editor writes, and I just don't have the time or inclination to do a full blown linguistic analysis.

• One other point I stumbled across because I remembered an earlier reference to it. Freakshownerd made a small edit to Jonnycake, an article which is neither particularly heavily edited nor viewed. A lot of work was done on this article by User:Drmies, a Wiki friend of C of M's (I should point out that I've never seen anything problematic from Drmies, seems to be an excellent editor). Drmies actually told C of M about this work, saying "Come on over for some Jonnycakes tomorrow. With Tedder's help I'm trying to turn it into a GA." This was one of the few messages posted on C of M's talk page after the ArbCom case concluded to which he responded, so he was one of the few Wikipedians (and possibly one of the few humans) who had Johnnycakes on the mind at some point in the last few months. It's telling, to me at least, that one of C of M's closest Wiki friends would improve an obscure food article, tell C of M about it while the latter was banned, and that a few months later a fairly new account who sounds and edits like C of M would show up to edit there.

Along with the other common interests between the two accounts (and, yes, a strong interest in quirky food topics and hot button American political issues, from the perspective of a conservative, is not a common profile among prolific content contributors), the overall stylistic similarity points strongly to ChildofMidnight and no one else I can think of (this is clearly a returning editor, I assume we can all agree on that). It's surprising to me that Shell could suggest that it's "rather unlikely that this user is CoM." At the very least, it's pretty likely—there are just too many similarities here.

That said I have no brilliant suggestions about what to do, assuming I'm correct. While I found C of M's editing pattern atrocious, I argued pretty strongly against blocking him for a year, preferring a lesser remedy. In part this was because I thought it was worth trying but also because I thought there was a good chance C of M would sock and would be harder to keep track of once he did. That's happened at least once and quite likely twice now. Banning indefinitely and/or resetting the block again won't do much to change that. Assuming Freakshownerd is C of M, he's willing to have a lot of us waste time by failing to 'fess up, so I don't think the future looks very encouraging. Maybe we should just leave things as they are unless the committee or a discussion on a noticeboard determines that Freakshownerd should not have been blocked as a sock. I think the block was warranted, though probably the SPI case should have stayed open longer. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of other things which to me almost add up to "case closed." First, Freakshownerd shows the same tendency to run over to Jimbo that ChildofMidnight did (I could find evidence of this tendency by C of M, but he did it over and over again which is I think is well known). Freakshownerd also recently engaged in heated argument on Jimbo's page (also like C of M). As you can see from FSN's 18:55 August 9th comment there the issue that was brought up was climate change, not really related to the topic, when FSN says "Has Arbcom acted yet to rein in the POV pushing fanatics of the Climate Cabal, who have clear COIs and hold Wikipedia's NPOV policy in disdain and want only their personal views represented?" That is again textbook C of M speak for his problems with the climate articles and with certain editors there (some context for that is here from the Arb case, but I'm sure that phrasing sounds familiar to everyone on the committee).

And one other specific point I noticed, again after a very cursory inspection of some edits. ChildofMidnight would sometimes create what I could only describe as "oddly general" or maybe "vaguely unencyclopedic" articles—the kind of thing that both seemed like a topic but not exactly, and which could not be expanded much. Examples would include Immediacy (philosophy), Religious values, and User:ChildofMidnight/vegetarian diet (the last was redirected to vegetarianism apparently). Upon registering FSN promptly created similar articles (now redirects) with Common language and Right (ethics). They also edited the articles Conscience, Moral compass, and Ethics. If you look at C of M's last 50 edits you'll notice a string of edits (actually the last article edits excepting one to Häagen-Dazs) to the Morality article. So C of M finished with some edits about morality, and within a day or two of creating an account FSN is editing the article on conscience and creating one on "right" in the ethical sense. To say that this is mere coincidence beggars belief.

Overall this passes the duck test, if we still use the duck test. C of M and Freakshownerd share all of the following attributes: pretty heavy editing; interest in contemporary political controversies in the U.S. from a conservative perspective (this Barack Obama talk page diff is also highly reminiscent of C of M); interest in more obscure food-related topics; a tendency to make general edits related to morality or ethics; a tendency to create what could be described as "very general" articles; a tendency to create a lot of articles period; an interest in nature preserves in one particular part of Florida (iridescent is completely wrong about this point in my view—it's a significant piece of data taken along with everything else); edit made on Todos Santos Chocolates; intense anger over the global warming articles; a tendency to "appeal to Jimbo" and to argue at length with others on Jimbo's talk page (really, most people don't do that); a tendency to get angry with people who disagree with them and not listen to what they have to say very well (see User_talk:Freakshownerd#Civility_reminder for an FSN example); a tendency to lash out in a personal fashion when they do get angry and, more importantly, a tendency to use certain words and phrasings that are quite unique when they do so. Add to that that "Jonnycakes" bit mentioned above, and the simple fact that the FSN account was created two weeks after C of M's previous sock was blocked and I think we can be about 98% sure what is going on here.

And it does matter whether this is a C of M sock or not, because given the Checkuser data he's either moved or is spoofing an IP or something (or whatever the hell it's called). I'm open to contrary evidence to that which has already been provided, but I think further digging would only strengthen the case, because I've seen nothing to suggest that these are not the same two editors, and numerous items which indicate they are. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Carcharoth: sorry for crossing WP:BEANS, which I certainly thought about, but I'm not sure what else you would have had me to do (and bringing up WP:BEANS in the specific way you do is actually a good example of WP:BEANS on two fronts, ironically, as you actually made direct allusions to possible behavior). The socking was pretty obvious, I think, and a good amount of evidence had already been provided, but you and several other Arbs were not really buying it, frankly because I don't think you are as familiar with C of M as the people who worked on the SPI case. I considered e-mailing some of what I found to the committee, but I don't think that's fair because folks should not be "convicted" behind closed doors without understanding the evidence against them, even if that does reveal "investigative methods" and the like. You said you agreed with Risker when she found "the circumstantial evidence borderline at best," but when more was provided it was suddenly too much. Hard to know what you were looking for, and since the committee seemed on the verge of calling to undo the block of what seemed to me to be an obviously abusive sockpuppet I laid out a more detailed case. Had the Arb comments roughly followed Rlevse's initial response I would not mentioned any specific details.

As to your suggestions for how to proceed, they don't really make sense to me, though it may just be the wording. You say it's better "to wait for more evidence and to act on sanctionable conduct by the account independent of socking accusations." Well, Freakshownerd is blocked indefinitely, are you saying they should be unblocked, and then wait and see what happens, or just that that is what should have happened? Surely you noticed that the FSN account already was behaving in a not-so-great, sanctionable manner (e.g. this blog log, not to mention a slew of personal attacks). Also you make reference to ChildofMidnight appealing an indefinite block, but that editor is not blocked indefinitely, the block was merely reset. I think we should just leave things as they are now, but maybe you don't disagree.

It seems to me it was a mistake to bring this to the committee to consider an indefinite block/ban, because what was basically dealt with suddenly became un-dealt with. Color me confused by the reluctance to say, "this is clearly a sock of C of M" and by the suggestion that we shouldn't even worry about the socking per say but just the behavior of the new account. ChildofMidnight was enormously disruptive and has already socked before. We have a pretty strong interest in sussing out any C of M socks before they spend weeks disrupting multiple parts of the project the way C of M did. To respond, "well, I don't know if it's a sock or not, but let's just wait and see if something bad happens" seems foolish to me—the disruption already occurred, the socking evidence is quite strong, and here we are wasting time talking about it. Part of why I didn't care for the ban remedy for ChildofMidnight is that I felt it would likely encourage sockpuppetry, which it indeed has, as opposed to a restriction that would make it easier to see what C of M was doing on the account we knew while severely constraining his ability to edit. We ended up with problematic socking (which no doubt will continue—ChildofMidnight cannot quit editing apparently), and now the committee seems almost blase about it. In a way I'm sorry I even bothered to weigh in here, but y'all can deal with this going forward. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by / question from Bongomatic

The arbitrators who have opined so far certainly do not indicate that there is a consensus to indef or reset the clock. However, SchuminWeb did just thatunilaterally (as far as I know) reset the clock. On what authority does an individual admin have to—contrary to CU results and consensus, and in the absence of AC conclusions—undertake such an action? ^Bongo_matic 04:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth—thanks for pointing out the ambiguity. Hope the above will assure others don't get the wrong impression. ^Bongo_matic 02:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fences and windows

The connection between CoM and Freakshownerd is blindingly obvious, especially after all the behavioural evidence has been laid out on a plate. I wonder at the analytical abilities of the arbitrators who aren't seeing it. Fences&Windows 00:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, please give the arbitrators who commented earlier on time to review the evidence added after they made their comments. I was convinced by the later evidence, perhaps they will be too. Carcharoth (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FanOfBackyard

What if...FSO is an impostor? Someone who is playing games with the Amateur Detective Squad. It is not very difficult to mimic COM's behavior. As I see it, the more eccentric the editor, the easier it is to impersonate. Guaranteed: FSO is A) a sock or B) an impostor trolling COM's foes. Leave the FSO account blocked and end it. Worst that can happen is that COM was socking and got away with a some edits, no harm done. On the other hand, punish COM for something he might not have done...and you have a serious injustice. An expert on the whole affair is Baseball Bugs, unfortunately his knowledge of COM and impostors is sidelined by a topic ban. Oh, and the "Beans" thing, bad move. If COM was socking, he is now taking notes. Think about it, I have to go now. FanOfBackyard (talk) 02:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LadyofShalott

I'm not sure if this is the best way to raise this, but... FSN has a question regarding these proceedings and his/her block. As I think it is probably best addressed by the Arbitrators, I said I would point people to the question: User talk:Freakshownerd#Question regarding Arbcom and block. LadyofShalott 22:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Note that the ban was reset in May, when the last sock was identified. NW (Talk) 00:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Support indef. Feel free to indef COM as far as I'm concerned. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I am quite unimpressed that Freakshownerd (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a sock of ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs). The checkuser evidence contradicts such a finding, and I find the circumstantial evidence borderline at best, to the point that I would say if you don't have grounds to block Freakshownerd independent of the alleged sockpuppetry, then you don't have grounds to block him. I don't mind the idea of resetting CoM's block to a year from the last confirmed sock, which I believe is Electroshoxcure, but I'm not convinced Freakshownerd is a CoM sock so I cannot support a change to indefinite ban based on what is presented here. Risker (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to return to this: Checkuser data cannot prove that two accounts are *not* operated by the same person, but can raise a level of doubt that is sometimes almost impossible to overcome, and this is one of those situations. There is no checkuser similarity between Freakshownerd and CoM, and very significant differences are present. As to the issue of "behavioural evidence", simply put I can build an equally strong case for at least four other accounts being CoM socks (they aren't), and for this account to be a sock of at least two other indefinitely blocked accounts (it isn't).

  It is time to get back to what this project is about. Editing should be done with the sole intent of creating and improving content, not to provoke other editors or to try and draw out "socks". The enormous amount of time and energy that's been devoted to trying to link Freakshownerd and CoM indicates to me that once again we are seeing far too much attention paid to "social" issues that do not have a genuine effect on the growth and improvement of the project. Consider this a wake-up call, folks; this sort of administrative behaviour in the past led to at least as much disruption to the project as did the socking it was supposed to be addressing. If an account is consistently behaving outside of the behavioural rules of this project, it should be addressed in the usual manner; if it is not, then spending days and weeks to build a "case" against it can be every bit as harmful as anything that account is doing. Risker (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Risker, though I would actually like to hear from Freakshownerd (who should have been given a chance to comment at the SPI page as well). But that is not really a matter for this page. I suggest resetting the ban for CoM from the last confirmed sock, and continuing discussion elsewhere as to whether Freakshownerd is actually a sock of CoM. Carcharoth (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updating here to say that Bigtimepeace's evidence is more convincing, but it should be pointed out that going into such detail allows: (a) others to imitate CoM if they wanted to do so; (b) allows CoM to avoid such behaviourisms in future. This is why going into such detail is not best practice (per WP:BEANS), but too late for that now. It is better, if there is no abuse from the suspected socking account, to wait for more evidence and to act on sanctionable conduct by the account independent of socking accusations (as Coren has also said below). Regarding the indefinite block placed, CoM may appeal that to the arbitration committee. Indeed, Freakshownerd is also welcome to appeal any block to the arbitration committee. In such cases, being honest about what has happened will help. Carcharoth (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further update, in response to Bigtimepeace: I was indeed talking about what should (maybe) have happened (i.e. block for the poor behaviour without even needing to bring up a sock case - sometimes people focus too much on difficult-to-prove socking and not on pulling up accounts on other conduct issues), but what is done is done. The danger of convicting on too-thin behavioural evidence is very real. In general, people do hold different standards for what passes a behavioural (or "duck") test, and it would be better if the generalities of such criteria were standardised. It does no good for such matters to become arcane arts with only a few experienced people willing to dig deep in difficult cases, and neither does it do any good if standards drop and anyone can be accused (and convicted) of WP:DUCK-like behaviour on a whim (none of this is directed at you, Bigtimepeace, but is a more general comment). How to balance proper discussion of WP:DUCK cases with WP:BEANS, I'm not sure. It is normally done off-wiki in complex cases, but, as Bigtimepeace says, there are good reasons for transparency as well. About the CoM block, I assumed from what Bongomatic said ("SchuminWeb did just that") that it had been set to indefinite. But I should have checked, and I see I was wrong and Bongomatic's statement could be interpreted in either of two ways and I interpreted it the wrong way. I've struck what I said, but as I said, any blocked accounts are always free to appeal to ArbCom. Carcharoth (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Reviewing evidence; awaiting any potential response to the request I just made on Freakshownerd's talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that I need to return to this and review the new evidence; I've been focusing on the Climate change case with my arb time this week, but will carve out time to look at this shortly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• As a procedural matter, the Committee does not normally issue indefinite bans under such circumstances. If a banned user violates their ban, the normal course of action is simply to reset their ban; there is no need to have us modify the original remedy. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 19:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• From my review, it appears rather unlikely that this user is CoM. Waiting to see if there's a response to Brad's comments though. Shell ^babelfish 20:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I admit I'm not convinced either way. Some of the behavioral evidence is convincing (Bigtimepeace's in particular makes me pause), but some of it is a little off and not that convincing. Given that the technical side of things gives us no help, would it not be simpler to handle the Freakshownerd account on its own merit and simply not bother trying to link it to CoM? If he's socking, it will become obvious in time; either way there is no need for a specific account to be tied to him now. — Coren ^(talk) 02:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Martin (talk) at 20:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

Eastern European mailing list arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 7

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Martintg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• N/A

Amendment 1

• [19]
• This is a request to amend EEML Remedy 7 to end the topic ban that applies to Martintg and allow him to edit articles related to Eastern Europe.

Statement by Martintg

The locus of the WP:EEML case relates to off-wiki co-ordination and canvassing, which was done via a mail list. In the nearly nine months since I've taken stock, while taking a break to pursue some postgrad study. During that time I've reflected on what went wrong. I joined the maillist primarily as a convenient way to socially network with a bunch of people I've come to know through contributing to Wikipedia. Unfortunately this convenience led members of the list, myself included, into behaviour that crossed the line. This was due to a kind of mob mentality and a sense of hubris that developed along with it. This I regret. Prior to joining that list I was an editor in good standing, a clear block log, no ANI reports, no 3RR reports, no RFC/Us, no ArbCom cases about me, nothing.

In support I would like the committee to consider:

1. my previously un-problematic record (clean block log prior to joining the EEML and this affirmation of my previously good standing), indicating there is no issue of recidivism
2. my previous relaxation [20] had caused no problem
3. no violations of any WP:EEML sanctions since the case closed
4. your support for the relaxation of the topic ban for other editors
5. my expression of regret at the trouble caused by EEML membership and undertaking to put all that behind me

Since December I have created some articles on German politicians and political organisations and had sourced a small number of Estonian biographies without any issues (many were not notable so I hadn't bothered with those) after I requested and was granted a relaxation to my topic ban[21].

In regard to my plans in the area, I would like to continue to expand the range of arts and literature topics for Wikiproject Estonia. Previously I had filled in many significant gaps such as Culture of Estonia, along with a lot of related articles on literary figures (for example August Sang, Villem Grünthal-Ridala, Johannes Aavik), movements (e.g. Arbujad, Young Estonia and Siuru) and institutions like Art Museum of Estonia and Estonian Literary Museum. (A more comprehensive list is on my user page). There is still a lot to do, as you can see by the red links in Template:Culture_of_Estonia. Despite my continuing studies I expect to devote a little more of my time than in the past few months, as I do enjoy contributing my free time to Wikipedia.

Having ended such off-wiki co-ordination, and given an undertaking not to engage in such behaviour going forward, the conditions that led to the problematical behaviour no longer exists. There will be no off-wiki coordination, no canvassing, no usage of hidden communication to create the appearance of a consensus. I have learnt my lesson, will ensure this will be avoided in the future.

On a final note, I could have just as easily waited out the remainder of my topic ban and quietly slipped back into editing the area without subjecting myself to this, without having to acknowledge the issues that led to topic ban or make an undertaking in regard to the future. The fact I am requesting an early relaxation and thus am prepared to acknowledge these issues and make the undertaking should be viewed as a positive development by the committee and be applauded, not ignored or viewed sceptically (which would be wholly unjustified given my previous good standing and good behaviour since).

Response to Motions

After nearly eight weeks of waiting, I am appreciative that the Committee is finally acting on this and has proposed a couple of motions. But I have to question whether Brad's proposed motion isn't a pandora's box of gaming potential (as it was originally pointed out when he first proposed it in the EEML case). Not gaming by me, but by my opponents who would seek to exploit the ambiguity present to game and shop for admin action.

This isn't an idle concern, recently Biophys was topic banned from editing articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics [22], yet when he edited Pyotr Chaadayev, an 18th Century figure of Imperial Russia (thus clearly not a former Soviet republic and outside the scope of his ban), that didn't stop his opponents from claiming otherwise [23][24], with one going as far as suggesting that Biophys broke his topic ban because the source of the quote he inserted into Pyotr Chaadayev was from a book written by an author who also wrote about the Soviet Union![25][26], while admins like Jechochman ominously choose to take the negative view[27], despite Shell clarifying the scope of the topic ban [28]

So I'm not confident that creating an article as innocuous as Visual arts in Estonia will not attract the attention of my opponents who would attempt to wiki-lawyer a case that I had violated this new amended topic ban and shop for admin action, given that the Soviet period had a significant impact on visual arts in Estonia. I don't think it would be fair on me to provide such a vague amendment that has the potential to be gamed and invite such a circus to decend upon me.

Therefore, given that I've already served almost 8 month of my topic ban, I ask that the committee take into consideration my former good standing, post ban good behaviour and assurances going forward (which seemed sufficient here so why aren't mine?) and support the first motion to lift my ban entirely so that I can have clear air to make a positive contribution without the threat of vexatious litigation. --Martin (talk) 06:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Igny

I can not recommend the lift of the ban for Martin based on his recent WP activity. In the recent 100 edits he just wasted everyone's time when participating in Russavia-Biophys EEML-related ArbCom case, and after some break just when EEML case was due for review and just when others filed for an amendment Martin rushed with several BLP fixes for EE related persons as if it was simply done to satisfy the previous amendment and justify a new one. (Igny (talk) 04:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Update: I understand I could be too harsh in my statement and quite possibly our personal clashes in the past contributed to this. But in any case a "site-wide self-imposed ban" is not the right way to deal with topic bans. Topic bans were placed in part to reduce battleground mentality in controversial areas and productive work elsewhere was needed to demonstrate how an editor in question copes with withdrawal from the battleground. Just going into self-imposed exile for the length of the topic ban (regardless of the real life constraints) does poor job answering the question whether editor's problematic behavior occurs again when he returns to the EE disputes. I still think that Martin's lift of the ban is premature at the moment. Also tu quoque was not the right counter-argument to my point above.(Igny (talk) 13:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Re NYB and SirFozzie, I understand that you are willing to put your trust in that Martintg will not return to the "previous behavior". Could you clarify by showing examples of particular behavior that might warrant reinstatement of the ban? (Igny (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by Biophys

I support lifting the ban for Martin because he was productive and created sixty six new pages. Whatever problems he might have in the past, six months was a long time, and Martin was never a major "violator" anywhere. So I wonder what was the reason for the statements against him? Most probably, this is happening because he commented in a number of cases, including my case (which he was allowed to do). He should not be commenting on any cases according to the anonymous e-mailer to Petri. No so. In fact, the comments by Marting on-wiki were very much legitimate, much better than the cowardly letter by the anonymous emailer to Petri. Biophys (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Four Deuces

I object to lifting this remedy. Considerable time was spent on the EEML case and its members, rather than accepting the facts presented, wasted months of time of arbitrators and witnesses and were very offensive to them. Martintg's defence is basically that he fell into the wrong crowd and he is sorry. However, Martintg does not mention any actions he took that he regrets, any articles that he and his colleagues edited and now wish to repair or any editor he offended he now wishes to apologize to. This group shared a minority political point of view and damaged the neutrality of numerous articles and continued to collaborate off-wiki even after the case was presented against them. They do not accept that Wikipedia articles should be neutral and tied up the time of numerous editors. While it may be that they will no longer coordinate their efforts, their approach as individuals is damaging to neutrality. It is irritating that as I and other editors were arguing with Martintg and his colleagues and they were presenting arguments against us that off-wiki there were agreeing that our arguments made sense and trying to develop a new approach. Surely editors like this drive away most of the editors we want to attract, people who have the ability to write articles and those who remain are tied up in silly disputes. Dispute resolution, reporting editors for 3RR, writing Wikiquette and ANI reports are extemely time-consuming and allowing editors like Martintg will only discourage capable editors who are discouraged by the processes to counter editors like Martintg. TFD (talk) 04:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Petri Krohn

I loathe getting in any way involved in the Wikipedia arbitration process and have thus far been able to avoid any involvement – so much so, that I have not even written a word to my defense in the now infamous WP:DIGWUREN case. However, someone, who wishes to remain anonymous, contacted me, and – knowing the strong feelings I have privately expressed about the issue at hand – implied that I am a pussy if I do not express my strongest objection to this motion. He also sent me evidence (see appendix) he had prepared in response to Martin's latest comments.

Martin's actions on the Internet, on and off Wikipedia, show that his only interest on the web is promoting a fringe nationalistic agenda, or in Wikipedia terms, he is a single purpose account. Since our paths first crossed sometime in early 2007 the underlying dispute has taken the form of a global ideological war over the legacy of the 20th century. I believe in some ways the early editing disputes and the formulation of opposing positions on Wikipedia talk pages have later influenced the positions some of the main players in this battle have taken. I may be as much involved in this ideological battle as Marting is. However I have not used Wikipedia article space as a platform to promote my fringe ideas. I will rather let the Historical Truth Commission and the Simon Wiesenthal Center speak for me.

From this POVish point of expertise I can testify that Marting is the chief battle axe of the opposing side. He is not the benign Wikignome he now pretends to be. Anything he touches will turn into distortion of facts or into a political battlefield. His presence on Wikipedia, in the contested subjects, is venom to the key principle of neutral point-of-view. So far he has shown no interest in editing outside his chosen battlefield, for example in his field of professional expertise.

For several years now Martin has been waging a politically motivated attack campaign against me, that is my Wikipedia account and the real life me. This has extended to multiple forums on the Internet outside Wikipedia. In the evidence sent to me were new instances of this campaign, unknown to me previously. If this proposed motion were to pass, I feel that I will finally have to start an arbitration case against Marting on this issue.

I have no objections to Martin using his freedom of speech to promote his ideas on the Internet. However, I cannot see why – having broken the key principles of Wikipedia – he should again be given a license to distort Wikipedia to fit his political agenda. -- Petri Krohn (talk)

Amendment – I find this latest edit by Martintg a clear indication that he is NOT ready to enter into editing EE topics. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vecrumba

To TheFourDeuces' gross misrepresentations, suppositions, and personal attacks, I invite him to provide evidence where anything I (or other EEML members) have represented on Wikipedia is other than a fair and accurate representation of reputable sources—and representing majority scholarly opinion on the Baltics and Eastern Europe. I regret that more than half a year has passed since imposition of the topic ban and TFD is not alone in continuing to demonstrate offensive bad faith in re-litigating EEML with unfounded charges.

I believe Martintg is ready to return to productive editing. If his behavior is less than exemplary, ArbCom will be watching. Perhaps a review at three months to "re-up" the lifting of his topic ban for the rest of the original term if impartial, uninvolved editors have a genuine concern. Martintg has nothing to fear from objective scrutiny. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 23:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Jehochman: Please desist from further discussion of private correspondence. Any discussion of you emanated from your acting as a proxy filing an arbitration request as a direct result of Offliner's lobbying you. I regret needing to remind you that you were the origin and only reason for your own mention. This is the second instance of your discussing private correspondence and professing to be a victim of EEML editors. At least I now know (your feeling you were victimized when you, in fact, victimized Baltic and EE editors) where your outrageous accusation came from that I likened Giano to Nazi Germany at the EEML proceedings. Please consider taking your own advice and stepping away for a spot of tea. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 01:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Artem Karimov

I will keep it short. Pro-nationalist editors involved in disrupting Wikipedia should be topic-banned for quite some time. I doubt that lifting Marting's ban would be a net positive for the project. Artem Karimov (talk | edits) 12:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

I oppose any loosening of sanctions on Martintg, unless there is a specific restriction against pursuing past disputes stemming from the EEML Case. Per my explanation here, Martintg has recently been violating or testing the limits of his existing topic ban. My name featured prominently in the mailing list archives as somebody to be neutralized. It is not at all appropriate for Martintg to be carrying on, today, a vendetta against me. Jehochman ^Talk 01:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC) and 12:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Recused on EEML. Shell ^babelfish 19:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Recused  Roger Davies ^talk 12:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose — Rlevse • Talk • 02:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

will think on this more. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply unconvinced. Would reconsider around Oct. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As with some of the other editors who were sanctioned in this decision, I would be agreeable to at least some curtailment or narrowing of the remedy—partly based on the feeling that the breadth of the remedy may have been wider than necessary to begin with, and in any event due to the lapse of time. Of course, if the remedy is lifted or narrowed, there would be a strong expectation that the problematic behaviors addressed in the original decision must not recur. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My view remains as stated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Looking at this, I'd be willing to let this go, with the caveat that there's not much wiggle room here, and that a return to previous behaviors will mean it's near-immediate reinstatement. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I would consider a lifting or narrowing of the restrictions now, or in the future between now and October but, will not be initiating that myself. I think more arbitrators need to comment first. Carcharoth (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC) Update: Will post a motion this week. Carcharoth (talk) 05:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting that I've read Martintg's response and the postings at the user talk pages of Newyorkbrad and Rlevse, and my votes remain as posted below. I would ask that the editors that oppose this amendment think twice before trying to dispute editing that Martintg does following the passing of the alternative amendment. It will only serve to promote more ill-feeling. At some point, you need to learn how to work together, even if that seems impossible right now. And if you can't work together, learn to avoid each other. Carcharoth (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I think we had good success in the past with a more gradual return to the topic area, and I would support a more limited relaxation at this time. I am not, however, very favorable to removing it entirely at this time. — Coren ^(talk) 00:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motion (Martintg topic ban)

Remedy 7 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list ("Martintg topic banned") is lifted.

There being 8 active Arbitrators, not counting 1 who is recused, the majority is 5.

Support

1. Carcharoth (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. In favor of alternative motion below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Prefer the alternative. Risker (talk) 05:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per above. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 19:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Too much too fast. Support alternative below. — Coren ^(talk) 15:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mailer Diablo 12:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Recuse

1. Shell ^babelfish 20:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative motion

Remedy 7 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list "Martintg topic banned") is replaced with the following:

Martintg (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about these topics, until December 22, 2010 (one year from the closing of the original case).

Enacted - Dougweller (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. I think this modification would allow Martintg to edit all the articles he's mentioned in his request, without getting involved in the nationalist dispute articles that have previously been troublesome for these editors. The existing broader topic-ban expires in December, and I've left that timing unchanged. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Some additional discussion is on my talkpage here. My apologies for the cross-posting, but I'd responded to both Martintg and Jehochman there before seeing that they'd posted here as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. Good alternative. Carcharoth (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Risker (talk) 05:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 19:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. This, I can support. — Coren ^(talk) 15:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. SirFozzie (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Mailer Diablo 12:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. KnightLago (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Recuse

1. Shell ^babelfish 20:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---