Initiated bytheleekycauldron (talk • she/her)at15:22, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Theleekycauldron (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA),filing party
• Pbsouthwood (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA)
• Moneytrees (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA)
• Dennis Brown (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA)
• Sennecaster (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA)
• Yngvadottir (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• GreenLipstickLesbian (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• Dclemens1971 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Pbsouthwood notification
• Moneytrees notification
• Dennis Brown notification
• Sennecaster notification
• Yngvadottir notification
• GreenLipstickLesbian notification
• Dclemens1971 notification

Confirmation that other steps indispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive354#CCI opened, autopatrolled revoked for admin
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Peter Southwood and close paraphrasing, again

   Theleekycauldron's statement contains477 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Two years ago,Pbsouthwood's autopatrolled rights were revoked by Moneytrees forpersistent copyright violations in technical articles. He had received multiple warnings prior (123), and editors at the first AN threadnoted his poor response to the people trying to help him improve his work – he essentially dismissed the concerns and told the copyright team to fix his work themselves (45). The thread was never closed, but I would say the rough consensus was that Pbsouthwood should be given a chance to improve before a block was imposed, and that the AP revocation and the opening ofa CCI were enough for the time being.

Fast forward to last month, and it is apparent that no improvements were made. Dclemens1971 stoppeda DYK nomination of an article written by Pbsouthwood because he spotted extensive close paraphrasing in the article; Pbsouthwood was again dismissive of the criticism, telling Dclemens to fix it himself if he wanted, and the nomination stalled. Ibrought the issue to AN, which Pbsouthwood (to take the AGF explanation) failed to notice, continuing to edit untilforced to the table with a block. Editors foundstill more instances of close paraphrasing in Pbsouthwood's recent work at AN, as well as text–source integrity issues, that most agreed were substantial; still,as Dennis Brown said, the community was not able to decide on a satisfactory remedy for the issues presented.

Further community discussion, whether at AN or recall, is not going to fix this; the community has trouble dealing with issues involving admins that largely do not implicate tool use directly. Recall has so far been limited to more straightforward cases that don't need ArbCom's capacity to process a complex fact pattern, and even if Pbsouthwood were recalled, that wouldn't be enough on its own solve the copyvio problem – ArbCom is better-suited to come up with a well-tailored solution. I also want to stress that Pbsouthwood has given no indication that they intend to significantly change their writing habits or demeanor to meet community standards, not two years ago and not now. This will come back if it is not addressed, and so I urge the Committee to do so.theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)15:22, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbs who are hoping for Pbsouthwood to promise to do better, or to say anything at all, should note that it's been three days since this case request was filed and Pbsouthwood hasn't edited since December 9, despite having been a quite prolific editor before that (last 50 edits span 2 days).WP:ADMINACCT:Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions, especially ... during Arbitration Committee proceedings. Particularly inappropriate in light of the gross breaches of COI that other users have credibly alleged here. The Committee may want to plan for Pbsouthwood ditching these proceedings, or only showing up after a week or two.theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)16:09, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all. I'm neutral towards this going to a case, but I can present evidence if it does. I'll try to work on the CCI in the meantime. For some potentially useful precedent, there's the 2010 case of adminCraigy144, who was blocked indefinitely for copyright violations anddesysoped by motion by Arbcom after becoming non-communicative. The copying was much more blatant and wholesale with Craigy, though, and would be unlikely to go for as long as it did now and days.Moneytrees🏝️(Talk)18:44, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Y Extension granted to617 words.

   Dennis Brown's statement contains617 words and complies with the 617-word limit.

Unusual situation. I think all parties are acting in good faith, but there is a problem here that the community can not fix, demonstrated by two years with no hope of a solution. The last WP:AN highlights this well, and after a few days of review, and many hours of trying to craft a solution, I abandoned the idea of a solution as there isn't a way to read consensus. This all falls within the grey area of plagiarism and good people can disagree which side of the line this falls on. So it isn't a content issue, but a behavioral issue, as there is a long pattern of this style of editing from the editor. One of the reasons that the community can't solve this is the complexity of copyright\plagiarism issues in general, which is also why CCI stayed backlogged for years. It is near impossible to get a sufficient group of people to closely examine these kinds of cases in detail and find consensus. When cases are clear cut, copy/paste infringement, solo admins handle it, so community discussion aren't needed, thus WP:ANI cases are somewhat rare. For me, sanctions are not the goal here (ie: deadminship, as admin status isn't relevant to the core issue), only solutions moving forward. Some kind of clarity. I don't think that Arb can fix all the problems with enforcement, but maybe resolve this one case and the community can use that to create or modify policy in the future. We need intervention, and maybe some fresh ideas, from outside the standard community process. Yes, we are asking a lot, but this is exactly the type of case that Arb was created for. So I would ask Arb accepts this case, which may take an extended period to resolve.

Disclosure: I did procedurally block Pbsouthwood for failing to respond per WP:ADMINACCT, but accept his claim that he just did not check his notifications while continuing to edit, even after multiple notifications. This was a major mistake on his part, but I feel that it is resolved and doesn't require further review, nor make me WP:involved.Dennis Brown -2¢22:51, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• CaptainEek, the discussion is civil, but the lack of drama indicates that all parties are acting in good faith and shouldn't be used as a reason to deny Arb review. If someone is violating policy, whether they are being civil and doing it in good faith isn't a defense, it is a mitigating factor. The issue is theinability to reach a consensus due to the reasons I outlined in my non-close at WP:AN. If it is violating policy, it is nuanced enough that a solo admin can't unilaterally use the tools under current policy. If Arb refused to hear the case, you have two possible outcomes: 1. It continues in spite of reasonable concerns that it has been violating policy over the last two plus years, or 2. An admin might have toWP:IAR, which is likely to be heavy handed. Individual admin are generally barred from issuing either nuanced (convoluted) sanctions or heavy sanctions (indef block) in seemingly borderline cases, without clear community consensus. Civility will be replaced with drama, as there is no consensus or policy that authorizes such a solution. People could start a punitive RECALL, but that doesn't address the actual problem and only feeds the drama. This is why Arb needs to get involved, as it is well established that the community is unable to resolve this issue, which has legal ramification since it concerns copyright law. The scope is purely behavioral: does the activity violate policy or not?Dennis Brown -2¢01:33, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ArbCom Clerks: please extend my limit to cover the above statement.Dennis Brown -2¢07:33, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Close paraphrasing is not the primary issue here; it's ADMINACCT. Underneath all of the arguing over close paraphrasing, there are real issues with how Pbsouthwood responds to feedback. GreenLipstickLesbian has raised COI issues, Theleekycauldron has raised issues with poor responses to feedback on Pbsouthwood's edits, especially from non-admins, both AN discussions carried dismissal of issues, and the community has been unable to address those.Template:Did you know nominations/Buddy breathing,WP:Copyright problems/2023 May 30, COI issues raised on his talk page (User talk:Pbsouthwood#Diving related articles), and the response to the block by Dennis Brown to get him to participate in the noticeboard discussion after actively editing multiple articles, have similar tone to each other and all contain what I believe is a failure of ADMINACCT. If I had done it myself, people would be gifting me a RECALL for Christmas.BOZ has my utmost respect for how he has handled his own CCI. I wish Pbsouthwood had a similar response.

These issues go deeper than what the community has been able to produce out oftwo AN discussions, and so far my read of the 'room' so to speak is that any sanction we, the community, lays out will either be ineffective or too heavy-handed. Please accept this case.Sennecaster (Chat)02:00, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Pbsouthwood CCI is incredibly difficult - many of the books cited are hard to access and viewing them to either verify content or check for close paraphrasing would require purchasing them from Southwood or organizations he is affiliated with.[1][2] It is troubling that the close paraphrasing has continued past 2023, implying that Pbsouthwood has been unable or unwilling to come up with an effective way to stop it from re-occurring. And the community, as McClenon points out, hasn't seemed to be able to stop it.

Given that issues of source-text integrity and general PAG adherence have already been brought up, I feel is is fair to ask how an apparent COI may have exacerbated these issues, or, at least, the perception of them. Arbcom could be a calmer venue to discuss that in, given the community does not necessarily appreciate admins citing self-published SNS posts[3] to add[4] mainspace content, possibly viewed as self-aggrandizing, or add content about non-notable organizationsthey founded cited only to said organization's webpage.[5][6]

As established, Pbsouthwood cites and has closely paraphrased fromDAN SA web publications.[7] Hediscloses a connection to DAN SA on his userpage, describing it as akin to a client on friendly terms with a few staff. Now, DAN SA has explicitly told people to viewWikimediaWikitravelcontent written by Pbsouthwood[8] and published a poorly-disclosed advertisement of Peter Southwood's book[9] with seemingly misleading information in the author field.[10]

It is important to note thatDAN SA is a financial competitor ofPADI[11] - and a few months after they published that advertisement, Pbsouthwood published[12]Death of Linnea Mills, with viewer-facing, Wikivoice statements such as "Allegations of attempted cover-up by PADI" and "Failure of PADI to release Mills' dive computer to the investigators", and implying a living person lied to a coroner during an investigation into the death of a young woman[13], sourced to Youtube video[14] where a pair of podcasters interview the deceased woman's family and attorney. This is a clearWP:BLPSPS issue, but was it one influenced by the apparent conflict of interest? Have his COI disclosures been in line with community expectations? Are these questions that you, as an arbitrator, feel the community can handle, especially taking into account Southwood'sstatus as an admin?

GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸03:39, 12 December 2025 (UTC) (Corrected Wikimedia to Wikitravel at 22:09, 14 December 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Contact Legal iff you'revery confident they won't do anything, incl. aboutpast issuesbecause they reserve the right to terminate his account. They also won't weigh in on plagiarism, a local guideline.GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸20:19, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My involvement in theBuddy breathing nom was in considering the hook(s) for promotion to the homepage. In doing the required checks, I came across copy (diff) that was not identical to the source material but had a similar ring, and I began looking at it more closely. I am convinced that several passages crossed the line of inappropriateWP:CLOP, and for that reason Iasked Pbsouthwood to rewrite these sections to avoid a pull later on should the hook have been promoted and/or queued. It's still a bit of a grey area, however, so I didn't take a more extensive look beyond that article. I was unaware that Pbsouthwood was an administrator or that there was an open CCI. Given the surrounding context and the fact that there is not a robust consensus that Pbsouthwood's paraphrasing crosses the line of copyvio or whether his behaviour warrants desysop, I believe the case would benefit from Arbcom's review.Dclemens1971 (talk)18:43, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a bit more nuance than leeky's summary provides but am confident the Arbs will get that when they read the conversation. The piece I'm wondering about - and was wondering about at AN - is what outcome people are looking for here. The obvious answer is for PBS to take on board the feedback and substantively change his process for writing articles in response to the criticisms. Short of that happening what outcome are people seeking? I feel like the lack of proposals there is, more than anything, why we're here. If something had been put forward there it seems to me like maybe this gets resolved by the community. I'm not suggesting a decline now that we're here - we are here because the community at least didn't and perhaps couldn't come up with an answer - but am am noting the ways that removing sysop (the obvious answer) don't actually do anything to substantively address what the community couldn't solve even if ArbCom decides it's still appropriate. Best,Barkeep49 (talk)16:23, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't get as much attention at AN as the close paraphrasing, but I think PBS method of writing the article and then finding sources is at least as troubling and certainly responsible for some of the issues identified in that thread. I would urge the Arbs not to lose sight of that. Best,Barkeep49 (talk)04:26, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ArbCom Clerks:WP:CLOP is one of my areas of expertise, so I undertook a closer examination of the example given above in the Buddy Breathing DYK. It's looking like it'll end up at about 8-900 words, so before posting it, I request an extension to 1000 words.RoySmith(talk)17:16, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PerDaniel's note below, leaving out the technical analysis, yes, the example inBuddy breathing clearly qualifies asWP:CLOP. If this was a new author, it would be excusable, as long as they accepted it as a learning experience and undertook to improve their writing skills. But based on what I can see, this has been a long-festering problem; one of the examples cited goes back to 2016, and Pbsouthwood just keeps digging in his heels insisting he's right and everybody else is wrong. This needs to be addressed.

It is unclear to me that this is something that needs to be addressed by arbcom. I don't see why the community can't address this on their own. Perhaps something akin to aWP:0RR restriction: anybody may remove text written by Pbsouthwood if they believe it violatesWP:CLOP and Pbsouthwood may not revert that. Or perhaps there are other creative ways to get through theWP:IDHT wall Pbsouthwood has erected, up to and including a CBAN if no better way can be found.

I also don't see why a desysop would be an appropriate fix; copyright violations are not an admin action. And even if it was something that deserved a desysop, I don't see why the community couldn't address this atWP:RECALL. I disagree in principle that recall should be "limited to more straightforward cases". There is still a place for arbcom in desysop proceedings, but I think that's mostly in cases which hinge on private evidence, CU data, off-wiki activity, or other special situations where the community is unable, by policy, to see all the applicable evidence.

Be that as it may, my main point here is to validate the CLOP issue and to add my voice to the chorus which is already forming that enough is enough and this needs to come to a resolution regardless of the forum.

More apropos to the desysop question, looking at their logs[15], virtually the only thing they ever use the admin tools for is maintaining pages they have written or at least are in their very narrow range of topic interests (i.e. diving). This is troubling, as the tools are entrusted to people so they can provide services to the project as a whole, not make it easier to work on their own stuff.RoySmith(talk)14:34, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This strikes me as closer toEYR (admin caught socking),KP (admin intimidating users they were in conversation with) orMLD2 (admin disregarding sanctions). It's a field where there'sample precedent, including relatively recent precedent, for ArbCom to step in despite tool use not beingdirectly implicated. And I foresee that if this case is accepted, the result is going to be much closer to EYR than the other two, especially given the COPYVIO concerns. —Jéské Courianov^_^v^{threadscritiques}16:42, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sceptical we'll see any sort of response from Pbsouthwood; they seem to have gone on a sabbatical on December 8 and haven't edited since. However, I will call attention tothis responce on his user talk, which seems to quite blatantly fly in the face ofaccounting for his actions. —Jéské Courianov^_^v^{threadscritiques}17:15, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Committee should not take this request as it is currently framed unless and until evidence is provided of Pbsouthwood abusing their administrative toolset. Issues of copyright and close paraphrasing are issues of editor conduct, not administrative rights, and easily within the community's powers to resolve without the Committee getting involved. And as the filer themselves notes, removing Pbsouthwood's admin rights would not address the copyright issue.Occasional mistakes are compatible with administrator status, and I am uncomfortable with the growing trend of threatening to remove an advanced user's permissions as a punishment for entirely unrelated conduct.

As several of the admins commenting in the AN thread have already observed: we regularly block editors who do not sufficiently understand and repeatedly violate copyright. There is so far no reason to believe that is not the remedy here, and there has been very little discussion of any appropriate lesser remedy other than dumping it on Arbcom, evidentlyonly because Pbsouthwood is an administrator. Arbitration is meant to be alast resort for conduct issues that the communitycannot solve, not an alternative to community processes for stuff that's hard. If Pbsouthwood is continuing to violate copyright and is dismissive of the community's justifiable concerns, the solution is to block them from editing. Being an administrator is entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand.Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits)16:43, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   ChildrenWillListen's statement contains331 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I still think a recall would be a quick drama-free solution to this problem, while acting as a wake-up call to Pbsouthwood, who would think twice before engaging in furtherWP:CLOP violations.ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)16:45, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek: I agree, but most recall petitions succeed in under a day while ArbCom proceedings take months, bringing undue stress to the parties involved.

@Thryduulf: A valid case can be made for Pbsouthwood violatingWP:ADMINACCT, since they have replied a total of three times (and that only after a block!) in an AN thread discussing their actions. They also have an openWP:CCI against them, and while @Carrite is right that this process is extremely time consuming, and editors shouldn't be obligated to work through all that, they should've at least had a visible reaction and took some time to reflect. Even if they don't use their tools, administrators are supposed to be role models all editors strive to be, and thus should quickly respond if their behavior is called into question.

As for theWP:SUPERMARIO effect, that's exactly why the community can't handle this on their own. The community is extremely reluctant to sanction a current admin, especially if it involves blocks of some sort. Thus, any remedy should involve sanctions to prevent the underlying behavior problems (in this case,WP:CLOP violations) from occurring again, as well as reevaluating the editor's sysop status if needed.ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)03:36, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenLipstickLesbian: To my knowledge, the WMF has never banned someone over copyright violations, and they probably wouldn't even think of doing that to an admin after the wholeWP:FRAMBAN affair.ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)20:22, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Would you consider a block from mainspace as @ScottishFinnishRadish suggested? (to avoidWP:SUPERMARIO?) Perhaps something likeWikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive_14#Jytdog should be considered to ensure they don't evade scrutiny.ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)13:59, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done at the same time as the request; a block has the same effect as avoiding scrutiny while sanctioned and block evasion are prohibited.~ ToBeFree (talk)14:11, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think Pbsouthwood being an admin is a red herring here. The actions they are accused of are unrelated to being an admin and removing his admin bit will do nothing to resolve the actual issues (see alsoWP:SUPERMARIO) if they are desysopped it needs to be done in conjunction with, and at the same time as, remedies address the copyright issues meaning RECALL is very much the wrong process for this situation.

I am reminded ofWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) which has similar hallmarks to this one. In that case RAN was (after clarification) indefinitely prohibited from:

• Creating any articles or draft articles in any namespace.
• Moving any page into the article namespace from any other namespace.

I don't know if those remedies would work here, but unless they've been suggested and rejected previously (I haven't looked) it seems worthwhile considering them.Thryduulf (talk)17:01, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek: My understanding is the primary reason this is here is that they have, to date, refused to cooperate with CCI and do not agree they need to improve wrt close paraphrasing. If this is correct then any remedies along the lines you suggest would need to be accompanied by some sort of "or else".

@ToBeFree: the final couple of sentences of the motion,If tools are resigned or removed, in the circumstances described above, Pbsouthwood may regain the administrative tools at any time only via a successful request for adminship or administrator election. The block can then be appealed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. read as though the block from article space cannot be appealed until after a successful RFA/AELECT, however it is unlikely that they would successfully regain their adminship from the community unless the article space issues were resolved first. I highly doubt that you intended to create a catch-22, so I suggest rephrasing to make it clear that the route of appeal for the article space block is independent of admin status. My first idea for that is to split it into bullet points, perhaps:

If the case is not unsuspended within three months, or Pbsouthwood resigns the administrative tools:

• They may regain the administrative tools only via a successful request for adminship or administrator election.
• They may appeal the block from article space at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

Thryduulf (talk)14:19, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had removed the word "then" since and hope it's (already) okay now.~ ToBeFree (talk)14:36, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That does work.Thryduulf (talk)16:08, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I said it in the Norton case and I will say it again here: the CCI system of putting an editor's entire edit history under review, edit-by-edit-by-edit-by-edit-by-edit-by-edit-by-edit-by-edit-by-edit-by-edit-by-edit-by-edit-by-edit-by-edit DOES NOT SCALE for an editor with 165,000 edits. Yep, they opened him for a case, just like Norton; and yep, the CCI people are pulling out their hair trying to cut down the tallest tree in the forest with a herring; and yep, here we are because of festering frustration about a corrective system that DOES NOT WORK for an editor with a long editing history and because some people are pissed off at his (rational) unwillingness to help use small fish to cut large trees. Decline this case, there isn't one. If he needs to lose tools, Admin recall is THATTAWAY-->. If there is a problem with content, address it on a case-by-case basis. If he is outright copy-pasting sources at this late date, AN/I is <--THATTAWAY. This is not an Arbcom matter, nor was it for Norton, a productive content writer who was destroyed on CCI's Frustration Pyre fornothing. Fix the broken CCI system if you wanna do something useful. It's not Mr. Southwood's fault that the copyright investigation system is malformed and overloaded.Carrite (talk)19:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the ArbCom should accept this case depends on how ArbCom and the community interpret the ArbCom's mandate to resolve disputes that the community cannot resolve. It is my opinion that ArbCom should accept this case, because I respectfully disagree with the editors who say that the community can resolve the dispute. A different English Wikipedia community, with a different mix of editors and with the current guidelines and procedures, might be able to craft an appropriate remedy for an admin with a long history of negligence about copyright. This English Wikipedia community, with the editors that it has and with the current guidelines and procedures, has concluded that this community cannot resolve this dispute.

Maybe the community should be able to resolve this case, but that is a contrary-to-fact assumption.

Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, even if almost no one else on theInternet does. The English Wikipedia community does not know how to deal with an administrator who does not take copyright seriously. We elected the ArbCom to deal with difficult cases, and this is a difficult case. We don't know how to deal with this problem as a community, and are asking ArbCom to deal with this case because it is difficult.Robert McClenon (talk)01:12, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a case; the committee should desysop by motion and return to the community for further discussion. There is no community outcome under which Pbsouthwood retaining the tools will be in the encyclopedia's best interest.

An admin who handles copyright so poorly that the community does not trust that admin to maintain autopatrolled in their capacity as an editor is untenable. I do not understand why, with the case framed as it was,Pbsouthwood was not desysop'ed for cause previously. I'm reminded of the case ofBOZ who voluntarily handed in his bit when confronted byFram that his editing had involved far too muchclose paraphrasing. In that case, the CCI and a quiet word were enough, and this was ~20 months earlier than the first concerns noted in this case request.

If we as a community think it is acceptable for us to have admins who are so deficient at minding copyright when contributing as editors that a CCI is in order, I suggest we need to involve the Foundation's legal guidance on that.Jclemens (talk)08:23, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BOZ I hope it came across that I admired (and still do) your principled stand in the face of unfortunate mistakes. Your reaction should be a model for every admin, including the one being discussed here.Jclemens (talk)19:17, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that that this case request should be accepted on its merits. While a desysop by motion or community is tempting because of the brevity involved, I find a number of troubling issues make a full case desirable, in order to be scrupulously fair and hopefully set a precedent. Administrators, of course, are among our most trusted editors. Has this issue dragged on because of an excess of leeway based on that implied trust? The reported non-response to repeated requests for corrective acknowledgement is of particular interest. Copyright protections are a core WP value, needless to say, and I submit that ArbCom should clarify the matter in a deliberate manner. Thanks,Jusdafax (talk)10:31, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since people disagree where "the line" is, and it's subjective, one thing Arbcom could do, with or without opening a case, is ask WMF Legal to weigh in on the legality of the examples of Pbsouthwood's alleged close paraphrasing, and of the examples in theWP:PLAGIARISM guideline, and theWP:CLOP essay as a whole. Multiple admins here and at AN have made legal claims (about copyright law), let's vet those claims and confirm our policies/guidelines are calibrated correctly.Levivich (talk)14:48, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the COI/BLP/NPOV issues have ever been raised before, and I think if they were raised at ANI right now (not AN), they'd be resolved a lot faster than at arbcom, and would make the much less important CLOP questions moot.Levivich (talk)16:49, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: For what it's worth, I spent... I think about two years going through my CCI case page and editing anything I could find that read too close to the source, and hopefully got it all. That said, if anyone finds anything more there, let me know and I will gladly rewrite further.BOZ (talk)08:29, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since I haven't seen it linked yet, just dropping this WMF Legal write-up on close paraphrasing from back in 2012:meta:Wikilegal/Close Paraphrasing. May not be too helpful here, though.

I agree with those that have expressed that close paraphrasing is a complicated behavioral issue to deal with. It seems like conversations about it tend to include a lot of black-and-white statements about distinctions between ideas and expressions that seem pretty gray. Additional guidance from the foundation would be useful -- not on these or any other real examples, but perhaps on some invented/hypothetical examples that present a range of cases to go by. No opinion on a case, except to say that if it's accepted there may be some opportunities here for outside the box thinking in terms of tools to help resolve such disputes moving forward. —Rhododendrites^talk \\21:45, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that if GreenLipstickLesbian's evidence above is remotely accurate, the correct thing to do would have been to seek a broad topic-ban from DAN and PADI, and perhaps just from recreational diving as a whole. But that's not, normally, something that would require rushing to ArbCom; even if there are other issues getting that absolute minimum restriction out of the way first seems like it should have been the first step. Has anyone just... pushed for that on ANI, and started an RFC to that end? If someone has both a COI and close-paraphrasing issues in a particular topic area,and neutrality issues in that topic area that seem in line with their COI, and they've constantly failed to adequately adhere to proper conduct or to communicate properly with warnings, the correct thing to do is just to topic-ban them from that topic area immediately, surely? --Aquillion (talk)04:13, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that I haveWP:IAR deletedDeath of Linnea Mills following the AN discussion here -Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Could_someone_please_BLPDELETE_Death_of_Linnea_Mills?. It seems to me as someone previously completely uninvolved - as it did to the OP of the discussion - that this is a hit piece on the PADI organisation but the real problem is that it contains negative statements and claims about living people that are sourced tovery flaky sources such as non-RS YouTube discussion pieces. I am seriously concerned that an administrator would believe this to be acceptable, even if they didn't allegedly have a COI.Black Kite (talk)10:25, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having read through thisrelatively briefly but, I hope, thoroughly enough, my conclusion is that, were it simply up to me, PBS would be blocked and we'd call it a day. But since we're here, I believe Arbcom should accept this case, with possible remedies including: a topic-ban from recreational diving, broadly construed; a requirement for any new article creations to go through theWP:AFC process; and a desysop. While it is true the admin tools have not been misused, adminship carries with it an expectation of a higher standard of conduct from those who carry the mop, and an editor who cannot be trusted with copyvio/WP:CLOP, which PBS clearly cannot be at this time, falls short of that by a significant margin. -The Bushranger_{One ping only}01:08, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• RecuseSennecaster (Chat)16:04, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• @RoySmith: What you're describing seems more suited to the /Evidence phase of the case, should a case be opened. I think a technical analysis of the situation would be perfectly suited to that stage, but less so to this preliminary stage. What would be preferred at this stage is a top-line executive summary of the evidence you intend to present, plus your perpective and brief rationale on whether the Committee should accept or decline this case request. This should be easily achievable in <500 words, even allowing space for replies. Thanks,Daniel (talk)17:17, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• @Dennis Brown: Your statement exceeds the 500 word limit for statements. Please trim your statement or request an extension by using {{@ArbComClerks}} or emailing clerks-l.EggRoll97^(talk)05:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dennis Brown: You have been granted an extension to 617 words to cover the current content in your section.EggRoll97^(talk)22:40, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• Recused, of course.theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)15:27, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Recuse. I have reviewed various good and featured articles nominated by Pbsouthwood, which have involved conversations back and forth. I think its better when arbs can evaluate behaviour without having previous extensive interactions.Z1720 (talk)16:29, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• So I read through the AN thread and I'm unsure why we've ended up here. The discussion seemed civil and productive (and not yet finished), and Pb's conduct appeared problematic but borderline. Many of the alleged paraphrases were fine imo. The standout issue seem to be that Pb matches paragraph structure of sources, exemplified by his list that echoes the source list very closely. Pb needs to improve his paraphrasing, but I'm not seeing it as a code red issue. If we were to open a case, my proposed remedy would be something like "PB is required to spend five hours working with members of CCI to learn how to improve his paraphrasing." So my bottom line is: we can take this if folks really want, but I'm not seeing how that's more useful than Pb promising to do better and take some instruction.CaptainEek^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓19:53, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also,User:ChildrenWillListen, I simply can't agree that RECALL is drama free. It's maybe one of the most drama filled places on Wiki. Any attempt to remove admin permissions is drama filled. I also reject that we or the community have to jump to taking away adminship as the first and only remedy for issues with admins.CaptainEek^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓19:59, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not something I say very often in ArbCom contexts, but I agree largely with Carrite—at least some of the heat being produced here is frustration at the scale of the task. More is being produced by legitimate disagreement about where the line is on acceptably close paraphrasing, and it's understandable that somebody would not want to go back through tens of thousands of their edits and fix something if they think others are being overly cautious. However, there are community norms around close paraphrasing and expectations around editors' responses to concerns about their edits. Those could be issues for ArbCom but I'm not sure this issue is ripe for that yet. If Peter engages constructively with the concerns, perhaps through education and compromise, he can be helped to see where the line is between verifiability and plagiarism; alternatively, if he was to agree to stop adding to the workload (regardless of whether he agrees that it is a necessary one)—for example by agreeing not to publish any more articles in mainspace until they have been checked for potential copyright problems—the pressure for enforcement action will likely ease. I would appreciate hearing from Peter but I don't think we need a lot of preliminary statements here. For any editors who feel strongly that ArbCom should take this case, I would appreciate (concise) thoughts on what ArbCom could take that addresses the problem and could not be achieved through community processes.HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?21:17, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. The hesitation above seems to be influenced by thoughts about what a good final result would look like, which I'd like to see determined by a case instead.~ ToBeFree (talk)09:14, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I do not immediately see a "quick-fix" motion since, as Eek indicates, this is not strictly an admin/tools-related issue, but I do potentially see merit in a case based on long-running issues the community does not appear to be able to solve. I would like to wait for PBS to reply before making any definite choice to accept or decline.Primefac (talk)23:54, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's largely where I'm at as well. I'd like to give Pbsouthwood a reason chance to comment first. -Aoidh (talk)03:49, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I've been holding off to see if there would be any response and I'm willing to extend a bit more time before concluding that they're intentionally laying low. If they don't return, a suspended case with a mainspace block and desysop after 3-6 months seems like a reasonable solution. That gives them an opportunity to return and deal with this or it removes the chance for further problematic COI, CLOP, copyvio, and BLP editing and addresses the community trust issue raised by avoiding accountability.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)22:21, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

1. ~ ToBeFree (talk)14:03, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)14:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I'd rather see this include a mainspace block to address the other editing issues that were raised.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)14:24, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia arbitration
• Wikipedia requests

• Noindexed pages
• Wikipedia semi-protected project pages
• Wikipedia move-protected project pages