Motions

Shortcuts WP:ARM WP:ARBM This page can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions. Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARCA for potential alternatives. Make a motion (Arbitrators only) You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment.

Paradise Chronicle was blocked by TonyBallioni in December 2019 for abuse of multiple accounts. Based, in part, on two emails where Paradise Chronicle deceived the committee, we overturned that block believing there to be insufficient evidence to uphold it. Then, in July 2021 (approximately 18 months later), Paradise Chronicle emailed the committee regarding the block, confirming the sockpuppetry, and apologising. The committee did not take any action at that time.
Since being unblocked by the committee, Paradise Chronicle has been warned in an Arbcom case and has been blocked for edit warring - his behaviour has not been exemplary. Within the last week, he has been badgering TonyBallioni by email and on his talk page, suggesting that there was some failing on Tony's part.

Motion: Paradise Chronicle Banned

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 2 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted - KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

1. At this point, given the refusal to "drop the stick", the ongoing badgering of TonyBallioni, and the history of Paradise Chronicle's deception on Wikipedia, I am raising a public motion to place an Arbcom block on Paradise Chronicle. I do welcome comments from the community and indeed, Paradise Chronicle. Worm^TT(talk) 14:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. Deception is corrosive to processes which rely on good faith actors. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. I was leaning towards accepting before the below feedback was received, so my thanks to the community for the feedback and justification of my initial thoughts. Primefac (talk) 08:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
4. To reveal some behind the scenes pieces, when a private block was first proposed I was pretty firmly against it despite my genuine disgust at what had occurred. It felt like penalizing someone for an Arb mistake and for volunteering an admission of wrong doing. Any arb could have, but didn't or at least didn't express that they had, done basic due diligence when PC "came clean" in 2021. The justifications for blocking now also felt better as an admin action - or even better an admin action plus community ban - rather than Arb action. But here we are and I'm supporting it because I'm not going to let my perfect stand in the way of the good. I think there's just overwhelming evidence that PC doesn't get why so many people are so upset. And when the cause of that upset is a willful breach of trust by someone whose focus of work is in a contentious topic area that suggests to me that there is ongoing project risk by allowing that person to continue to edit. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
5. Comments to follow. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Broadly per GN and CaptainEek. What I'd want to see as a minimum prerequisite before any unban is a genuine understanding of why PC's behavior here was bad. PC still seems to think what they did was fine and justifiable. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

6. The previous ArbCom erred in accepting the unblock, and per my colleagues above we have not seen "go forth and sin no more" behavior following that mistake. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
7. We erred in not reblocking when the deception came to light. We could have let that lie, but PC has continued to misbehave in other ways. His badgering of Tony, general failure to drop the stick, and inability to see what he did wrong, combine to make this ban necessary. Given the procedural history, ArbCom is the right group to make this block; it would be unfair to thrust this upon the community. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
8. I've asked myself why I would not support a site ban, and came up empty.
   talk) 16:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]
9. Per Eek and GN — Wug·a·po·des 23:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
10. Nicely put by Eek. Cabayi (talk) 11:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Upon further thought, I'm abstaining due to some recent interaction with this user (see User_talk:Moneytrees/Archive_28#ConvoWizard_talk_page_study and This AN post Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. I am unwilling to use the arbie stick but there's not a lot to support retaining them here. Izno (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussions

• Interested observers should read the discussion on Tony's talkpage, where numerous Arbs have already commented. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 14:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Noting that I intend to support this motion but will need to write a few sentences on it before I formally vote. I also recommend copyediting the motion text — I prefer a ban, i.e. Paradise Chronicle (talk · contribs) is indefinitely site-banned., but could do with something like Paradise Chronicle (talk · contribs) is indefinitely blocked by the Arbitration Committee. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Done Worm^TT(talk) 14:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Recent precedent is that public motions are bans and private ones are blocks so I would support changing to ban. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to hear community feedback. I'm of the firm belief that the 2021 Arbitration Committee made a mistake (and as a member of that Committee, that mistake is partly on my shoulders) but strictly undoing that now is punatitive not preventative. So the question, for me, is whether previous deception + 2021 warning about conduct in the Kurds topic area + more recent conduct is sufficient for a ban/block. I am still considering whether TonyBallioni's layout of actionable conduct is more a justification for individual admin or ArbCom. So if there is other feedback about PC's conduct (good or concerning) I wish to hear this before casting my vote. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I am also on the fence, not about whether a block is warranted, but about whether ArbCom is needed to place it. The existence of this discusion is not an injunction gainst a single admin doing so, even without seeing the private evidence that the committee has. On the other hand, I agree that we dropped the ball here, so there is also a feeling of obligation to correct that error rather than simply pass the situaion back to the community.

  talk) 16:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Hi all, most of you know me and that I am rather friendly and collaborative when approached. I for now requested the deletion of the diff archive motivated by the comment from Floq I remember for their humorous edits at RfAs. And I apologize to the participants in the discussions for having caused concern in the last few hours. I have not used the appropriate wording for my aims which initially were meant in good faith, which I hope can also be confirmed in my email to TB in March 2022, which I have also shared with the ArbCom. This edit is not meant to offend anyone and I'll be back for a bit more later. I'll try to keep it short.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I want to keep myself short again. A site ban is at stake, and as far as I know the site banned don't have user page anymore. I invested quite some time in the project, had successes and failures of which I'd like to remember me and others as well. So I recreate it here, where I believe it is not getting deleted. On the site ban I have a little objection, I don't understand why I'll get site-banned since in commons I upload files frequently and was granted autopatrolled without me having requested it. Thats not a preventive block in my opinion. Again, this objection is not meant to offend anyone, you can just ignore it if you don't agree with it or see it as a misunderstanding. Else, a bit also motivated by the demand for dropping the stick, I'll take a wiki-break, but will still observe the development of the discussion and probably follow suit to some of the suggestions made. I want to be remembered as a collaborative editor and hope it works. Have a nice day.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't appropriate to dump your userpage here. I have removed that content from this page. --Hammersoft (talk) 10:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with the removal by Hammersoft. The version is still accessible over the history, which at sitebanned users its sometimes not.

It's the first time I read of this

Standard Offer, would have been good to know about this at the time of my initial block or also my coming clear. That I violated the sock puppetry rules is clear also to me and my coming clear on my deception was intended to have a clean account. I have also seen Barkeep49s concern that a re-block is more punitive than preventive and I agree to that. On other sanctions discussed, I believe a discussion with diffs and links is needed and that it is a real discussion in which I am requested to reply, not one I am suggested to drop the stick after having made one reply which was the case at the discussion at TBs talk page and also one of the motivations of the motion. To find a solution and end to the discussion and release you to more pressing admin/arb issues, I suggest you find a reasonable block to which I can appeal to. Communication was not the best at both ends and we both assumed good faith at the time of my coming clear. Since the standard offer for regular violations is 6 months, I suggest it be below.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry for the a bit belated response to the text of the motion. I was sincerely more worried about the site ban and just wanted to drop the stick. But there are a few points I believe merit a clarification also in order to be treated with as much as transparency as possible.

To respond on the interaction between me and TB per email, that was not last week, but in March 2022. I shared it with the Arbcom last week (with TB in the CC) to make our interaction more transparent to the ArbCom. That I violated the sock puppetry rules I knew and did not, and do not contest.

On the block for edit warring

That one was only short and the blocking admin unblocked me after a bit more than an hour because they had doubts as well. In my opinion, I have reverted to the same version they had asked me to before they blocked me.

Here the communication between me and El C at the time.

diff where El C explains to which version I should have reverted.

diff of the version they asked me to revert, and

diff of the version I had self-reverted. Just click on previous edit, and you'll see it is the one.

But I have no remorse about the block, it was a partial block and circumstances were confusing.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have a bit researched what a site ban actually means and it appears it doesn't affect the sister projects and I can still edit at commons. Therefore I am a bit relieved. I suggest to put an English before Wikipedia at

WP:SBAN.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• As a well-known long-standing fanboy of TonyB's (hence probable partisanship), I've been watching his page, and the sheer number of not only arbs but admins generally commenting there—all in the negative—is eyebrow-raising. I think you only see a collective noun of admins like that at ARCA these days; not even ANI. So when after multiple walls of text from PC, and multiple critiques by return, their comment that they still find TB's block a bit offensive has to be one of the most tone-deaf and blind assessments ever. WP:MGTADOT applies in spades. We may not particularly like blocking for CIR, but when such a dearth of self-realisation is combined with underhand chicanery, long stories, and general horse beatings, I think the ratio, in terms of volunteer-to-time-productivity, is pretty clear. SN54129 14:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• A bit from me first for the community (arbs already have seen it): my essay like post here covers my overall views. Next for the arbs: if you haven't, I encourage you to look through the 'diff archive' PC has created. A lot of those diffs reflect more poorly on them than the people they're talking about and contribute towards the
  tendentious nature here.

  Last as comment on AC vs the community: I think this could have been handled individually by an admin if needed, but since Worm has already proposed it here in public and there is the opportunity for community input, I wouldn't punt it back at this time. Don't plan on making more comments unless an arb specifically requests it. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• IMHO, this is in that gray area where it isn't clear what to do. If it was 1 week ago, I'd obviously reblock. If it was 10 years ago, I'd obviously say it's water under the bridge. But 2 years ago (or 3.5, depending on if we start counting from the lie, or from the time ArbCom became aware of the lie), it's a harder call. I'd be tempted to not reblock, but make it clear that we are utterly sick of their behavior, and the next time there is any further disruption, it will result in a quick indef block and de facto siteban. But I wouldn't think a reblock now was out of left field. Oh, and I'd suggest deleting their page with all the diffs. They can keep that crap offline. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the age and private communications involved that the regular admin corps doesn't have access to, I can't say whether previous Committees erred in either the unblock or failure to reblock. I think everybody (except PC) acknowledges that TonyBalloni acted reasonably with the original block. Based solely on the current situation, I do question if there's really enough there there for Arbcom to enact a siteban by motion. Arbcom has enacted plenty of "At wit's end"/"Enough is enough" sanctions, but based on the publicly available evidence I really don't see us being at that point where it wouldn't be overly punitive. I do believe that if PC doesn't drop the stick immediately and leave it dropped, any admin would be justified in issuing an indefinite block as
  WP:NOTHERE. No admin would be likely to undo it, making that a de facto siteban. I'd be fine doing it myself if needed. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I was going to comment at Tony's talkpage as I've been watching the thread for a few days. Like the Wordsmith, I didn't follow, know or understand the original block. That being said I've watched the back and forth interactions, and each reply from PC sidesteps the points that Tony makes, making this a case of

  WP:IDHT. The only reason I haven't made the block personally is I haven't had the time to independently review the situation, but even from the talkpage, it's almost at the point of that not even being required to block. The discussion is nothing but a time-sink because of the IDHT. I would have been more blunt in my comments on the talkpage if this were my block to point out the double standard. -- Amanda (she/her) 07:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• My feedback is that the drip-drip-drip at User talk:TonyBallioni#My block some years ago shows that Paradise Chronicle should be removed from Wikipedia. Talented yet corrosive contributors are destructive. Johnuniq (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• From this interaction of mine on ANEW with PC a couple of months ago I see that many of the issues they have were not confined to that one area. To learn, especially after all his comments over there when I brought up their block history, that now the block was correct and that he lied to the committee ... well, for me there is no argument against a ban; in fact this seems to have been a lot longer in the coming than I thought then. I guess I might not need to choose my time and place after all. Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• On [[1]] they removed sourced content also on infoboxes they use "nationality" field as ethnicity field and adding "Kurdish" [[2]] despite MOS states it should be not used as ethnicity.
  WP:INFOBOXNTLY as an experienced user they should know this. They did this on other pages also. He is several times blocked for socking for edit wars (mostly Kurdish related) and is warned by Arbitration but it did not help as you can see my diffs above. Shadow4dark (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  At their talkpage they still does not know why they getting a ban [[3]] Shadow4dark (talk) 12:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have also watched the discussion unfolding on TB's talk page. I wasn't going to take any action or comment because the arbs seemed to have the situation in hand, but since Barkeep49 and Beeblebrox have said they would like input from the community, I'll say this. The original unblock was under false pretenses, and eighteen months of maintaining those pretenses is eighteen months of lying. Lying is obviously corrosive, and it is explicitly prohibited by
  standard offer. So, PC got a very considerable break in not being reblocked, and should have considered themselves very fortunate and endeavored to be a model citizen thereafter. Instead, in that time, they have received arbcom warnings, edit warring blocks, and now they are either sealioning/trolling on TB's talk page. Enough already. Siteban. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• To the point: All this legalistic stuff is totally unnecessary. The person lied to get unblocked, and now admits to the deception, therefore there's no need for miles of "due process" red tape or disquisitions from the Committee - just issue a site ban, already, and the thing is done. Get on with it, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "In matters of grave importance, style, not sincerity, is the vital thing"  :) SN54129 11:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This sort of machination against ArbCom, followed by continued and ongoing disruption two years later, is exactly the sort of situation in which ArbCom would be within its right to enact a site ban, and it should do so. This might have perhaps been a complete non-factor if Paradise Chronicle had chosen to
  drop the stick, but they have failed to do so. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I believe a site ban is necessary, not only because of PC's disruption but to avoid the impression that if you lie to ArbCom and cop to it later, you can get away with it. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• A minor point: As the motion is for a site-ban, not an ArbCom block, then should it not be titled "Paradise Chronicle Banned", not "Blocked"? Tol (talk | contribs) @ 05:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Good spot @Tol Missed that. Worm^TT(talk) 11:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]