A Nobody has persisted in making copying edits that introduce attribution dependencies and interfere with the deletion process. Considering that AN continued with the similar merging during active AfDs until both the WT:AFD discussion and his RfC, Arbitration appears to be the only remaining venue.
22 February 2010: I approach AN about a few questionable edits during February (permanent link). AN does not respond, eventually removing the section via a botched move archive (history, diff).
If this case's scope is confined to the copying issue, I would be satisfied by a motion that restricts A Nobody from any copying. While I have only tried to resolve the copying issue, I agree that it is merely one of a number of problematic behaviors and that a full case may be appropriate. Flatscan (talk) 05:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Preliminary decisions
Clerk notes
This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/2/1/1)
Waiting for a comment from A Nobody (which it seems may be some time in coming), but I do have a question. To Flatscan, nothing in the cases you mention in your statement was deleted, and it appears as though A Nobody was diligent about linking to the source page titles in his edits, as is required when doing "smerges". So what exactly is the problem? I do see the lack of communication as an issue; while we cannot confirm medical issues and must respect user's privacy in this regard, the timing of those instances is admittedly odd. Hersfold(t/a/c)16:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decline for now, to be looked at again if A Nobody returns. Several of the statements made here are concerning, but it is entirely impractical to attempt to hold an arbitration case with a main party unable and unwilling to participate. Should A Nobody return, I would also like this looked at again, and unless the situation changes considerably I'd likely move to accept the case. Hersfold(t/a/c)17:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As A Nobody has left Wikipedia, my initial inclination would be to decline this with the understanding that if he returns to Wikipedia, in this guise or another, we can look at opening a case then. Iridescent's comments give me some pause, though; while I don't think ArbCom's competent to rule on the requirements of CC-BY-SA, if the merging-during-AFDs thing is an issue likely to remain live even after A Nobody's departure there might be something for us to do here. Would welcome further statements speaking to this issue. Steve Smith (talk) 04:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decline with caveats While I would generally be suspicious of any user who has the history of disappearing whenever something involving advanced stages of dispute resolution is proposed against them doing so, I have to take the statement of A Nobody on his talk page of medical issues, etcetera at face value. However, I do not want this to be seen as carte blanche.. if and when he returns, I would like to see this resume if there is a problem, and I'd ask the committee to take this prior history into their decision to accept or decline any case (and not claim that the evidence is too old or what have you). SirFozzie (talk) 04:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Accept and adjourn I too am willing to take A Nobody's statement at face value, there are nevertheless underlying concerns. Best is to accept this case but adjourn it sine die pending this editor's return, if ever, to editing. Roger Daviestalk10:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse, as I see this as part and parcel of the long-running conduct issues surrounding fiction articles and stubs and other related matters, a topic and conduct area that I am more likely to present evidence about than be able to properly arbitrate, though, as presented, this case could (and should) cleave narrowly to specific conduct issues with individuals, and any case should avoid getting dragged into wider issues of article content. Carcharoth (talk) 02:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Motion
This case is accepted, but will not be opened unless and until A Nobody (talk·contribs) returns to Wikipedia. If A Nobody does so under any account or I.P., he/she is required to notify the Committee.
With the caveat that if A Nobody returns but states unambiguously that he will not repeat the disputed behavior, and adheres to such promise, a case might not then be necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC) Noting that this motion supersedes the accept/decline voting in the section above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has happened after a case was opened, and I think it's a good precedent to guarantee against avoiding the issue by a well-timed disappearance. Cool HandLuke15:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Motion 2
User:A Nobody is banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. This ban will be lifted and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Nobody opened at such time as A Nobody agrees to participate in that case.
Support: Cool Hand Luke, Coren, KnightLago, Mailer diablo, Rlevse, Shell Kinney, SirFozzie, Steve Smith
Oppose: None
Not voting: Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad, Risker, Roger Davies
All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.
Principles
Findings of fact
Remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Enforcement
Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions
Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.
