Active:

1. Blnguyen
2. FayssalF
3. FloNight
4. FT2
5. Jdforrester
6. Kirill Lokshin
7. Newyorkbrad
8. Paul August
9. Sam Blacketer
10. Thebainer
11. UninvitedCompany

Recused:

1. Jpgordon

Away/inactive:

1. Charles Matthews
2. Deskana
3. Matthew Brown (Morven)

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

It would greatly help the situation if the following was determined in this ArbCom case:

A) Whether the following accounts, who are mentioned in the workshop and evidence, are sockpuppets or ideological meat-puppets of the banned user: User:BryanFromPalatine

• User:Neutral Good
• User:Samurai Commuter
• User:Shibumi2
• User:PennState21
• User:Harry Lives!

I have seen enough from a couple accounts (the first two mentioned on the list) in editing style, articles of interest, targets, etcetera to satisfy me that this is so per WP:DUCK, but since this case is in front of ArbCom, I will not take action, and leave it to ArbCom's discretion.

B, Part 1) Whether the conduct of at least two of the above named accounts (Neutral Good and Samurai Commuter), on the article Free Republic should be considered as evidence in this case, or if this would be better considered as a ArbCom Enforcement request with regards to the past Free Republic case.

B, Part 2) Whether the conduct of User:Eschoir, who had a finding of fact in the same Free Republic ArbCom case that he was previously involved in serious external conflict with Free Republic. on the article Free Republic should be considered in this case, or if that would best be handled by a ArbCom Enforcement request.

Thank you for your consideration. SirFozzie ( talk) 15:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Most of these users have been checked repeatedly by several checkusers, see for example Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/GooseCreek. If there was strong technical confirmation, I'm sure they would have been blocked already. This does not mean they could not be socks, as there are ways around technical detection. Regarding Eschoir, WP:AE would not be appropriate unless there is an enforceable remedy in place. Otherwise, Arbcom will have to revisit the issue, here or separately. Thatcher 17:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Hi Thatcher, the technical information is only part of the CU request. It's been demonstrated before that BFP could fool IP tests. Lawrence § t/ e 17:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Until VoiceofAll add that time travel-enabled web cam feature we've been asking for, IP evidence is all you'll get from checkuser, I'm afraid. Changing IPs on the same ISP is usually detectable but more complicated tricks are not. I would suggest asking Alison or FT2 for a follow-up. Thatcher 17:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Oh, I didn't know that. I thought RFCU decisions were also based on behavior and additional factors (like how we discovered all these users geolocate to within 5-15 miles of BryanFromPalatine, share similar interests/voice), and not just the technical IP information. Lawrence § t/ e 17:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• If the geolocation is solid that could be the basis for a technical finding. In general, though, checkusers will often steer away from making decisions based on behavior alone. Behavioral investigations (such as WP:SSP) and technical investigations complement each other, and it can be seen as a conflict of interest to have one person working both sides of the street. Personally, when I see two editors in the same city but lacking any other telltale technical clues, I will often leave it at "possible" and let another admin compare quacks. Thatcher 17:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Is this ever going to be over? Or is Lawrence Cohen going to keep asking for Checkusers until the sun burns out? Neutral Good ( talk) 18:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply

If and when someone like Lar with Checkuser tells me I was wrong (so far the only ones that have said I am are the people I listed, and their supporters in this RFAR) I will apologize to all the signed in editors in good standing (e.g. not blocked indef) that I was wrong about. Before you reply, note that Alison never said I nor Jehochman were wrong, before you pull out the "Declined" icon again. Lawrence § t/ e 06:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

In regards to your concerns here about a probation, is your feeling that there isn't enough evidence yet presented by the community of the need for probation? Lawrence § t/ e 14:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

No, my question (and I was just asking it, not answering it) is whether some editors should be sanctioned for their behavior on the article to date, directly within the decision, as opposed to being sanctioned only in the future if they misbehave again. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Is there any internal action happening on my motion for Checkuser review? Or should I go open up something at RFCU before the saved information expires? Lawrence § t/ e 14:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

If editing behavior is poor, that will trigger sanctions, no matter who the editor is. If the behavior is acceptable, that is even better. Jehochman ^Talk 16:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Er, yes, but I'm specifically wanting to know if I should throw this to general RFCU before the magic "time limits" for CU start to expire, or if this has already been covered by the AC and the appropriate checks have been ran if they're going to be. Lawrence § t/ e 16:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry, who and what do you want checked? Thatcher 16:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

See the section I posted above and the Evidence section regarding probable User:BryanFromPalatine socks... SirFozzie ( talk) 16:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Thatcher, the motion I requested was here, posted on 16 January 2008. Evidence begins here. Lawrence § t/ e 16:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Lar had asked I present him formalized evidence. See here. Lawrence § t/ e 06:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Remedy #2 is too broad because (1) it doesn't specify what kind of conduct can lead to the editing restriction and (2) it doesn't describe what relation there needs to be in order to invoke the restriction. In other words, if I correct a spelling mistake on waterboarding, can any administrator who doesn't like me come along and declare that I am under editing restrictions? As remedy #2 is currently worded, the answer would be yes. -- B ( talk) 03:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

It would have to be a pretty remarkable spelling error, if correcting it was "uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith". --Akhilleus ( talk) 03:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Read the decision again - you're reading it incorrectly. "Any editor working on waterboarding or any closely related page may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator." Period. "Working" could mean monitoring for vandalism, correcting spelling mistakes, anything. You don't even have to do anything to warrant a restriction - it's purely at the discretion of the uninvolved administrator. "The restriction shall specify" - what follows is the editing restriction that the administrator is imposing, NOT the conduct that led to the restriction being imposed - "that, should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, ... ." So an uninvolved admin can impose the restriction for anyone who edits the article, for any reason or for no reason. -- B ( talk) 03:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Ok, I see your point. The wording should be changed, although I doubt that uninvolved admins would impose restrictions without strong reasons. --Akhilleus ( talk) 03:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

No, I'm less worried about admins imposing the restriction for no reason, but more worried about this being used to impose editing restrictions on users who have little to do with waterboarding as an end run around the dispute resolution process. In other words, "John" occasionally gets annoyed and loses his cool when dealing with POV pushing on articles related to the Middle East. One day, he reverts vandalism on a waterboarding-related article. An admin can now use this ruling as an excuse to impose an editing restriction on John, when in reality, his behavioral concerns have nothing whatsoever to do with waterboarding. -- B ( talk) 03:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I request that Arbitration Committee consider and take action on WP:COI concerns regarding Eschoir. Previous Arbitration finding was that he was "previously involved in serious external conflict with Free Republic." All of his edits seek to remove evidence that people who do not agree with Free Republic are vandalizing and disrupting their forum, or seek to introduce more and more criticism of Free Republic into article. This violates NPOV. There is more criticism in Free Republic article than in Stormfront article. Eschoir has also been violating WP:TE, WP:NPA and WP:DE on the Talk page.

I also request that Arbitration Committee consider and take action on WP:COI and harassment concerns regarding Lawrence Cohen. Lawrence Cohen had never previously edited the Free Republic article but suddenly joined in the edit war in support of Eschoir because he followed me from the Waterboarding article. This is harassment. He also has a WP:COI problem because he described Free Republic as a forum for "extremists like Stormfront."

Arbitrators are asked to please review evidence I am placing on Evidence page, [1] and ban both Eschoir and Lawrence Cohen from Free Republic article and all related pages due to their WP:COI and conduct. Shibumi2 ( talk) 19:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I would encourage arbs to review this, keeping in mind the host of evidence provided, and Shibumi2's historical advocacy of positions held by banned editor BryanFromPalatine, an extremist banned troll. Lawrence § t/ e 20:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hear that sound? It's me banging my head against a wall :P. ArbCom appears at the moment to not going to be taking any actions with regards with this situation (with one side having probable Conflict of Interest, and the other side being, in all likelihood sock or meatpuppets of a banned user). They may considering it not part of their remit, as a reason, but obviously the situation cannot stand. SirFozzie ( talk) 20:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

If anything, I suppose I wouldn't blame them for not getting involved. Each week and month this drags on further I regret more and more that I did RC the day I found the waterboarding page, and my bone-headed mistake to stick around and get involved. People are now calling for me on the Workshop in Shibumi2's section to be banned from Wikipedia for 30 days for trying to drive that article to resolution and for trying to keep BFP's edits off WP. Lawrence § t/ e 21:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

WP:SSP is thataway. If somebody presents a report citing the evidence in this arbitration, I see no reason why an uninvolved administrator cannot make a finding of sockpuppetry if one is warranted. Jehochman ^Talk 21:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Lawrence has made a report to User:Lar, let's see where that goes. I've protected Free Republic for 5 days after yet another edit war. SirFozzie ( talk) 21:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

See Wikipedia:General sanctions. That article has additional measures available for dealing with edit warriors. Please use them if appropriate. Jehochman ^Talk 21:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately, the way I read the sanction that was passed, that is under ArbCom's remit, not uninvolved editors. (IE, ArbCom has to review the article and then sanction edit warriors.) SirFozzie ( talk) 21:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Make a motion at WP:RFAR. If they hear about it frequently enough, they may modify the sanction so that any uninvolved administrator can do what is necessary. Jehochman ^Talk 21:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply