Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Pbsouthwood

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case opened on 22:22, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched

To request an amendment or clarification of an arbitration decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
To report a violation of an arbitration decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.
To request the assistance of an arbitration clerk, see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks.

Main case page (talk) — Preliminary statements — Evidence (talk) — Workshop (talk) — Proposed decision (talk)

Case clerk: EggRoll97 (talk)

Case suspended on 22:22, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Case closed on 00:03, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., Wshp., PD.

This case is closed. No edits should be made to this page except by clerks or arbitrators.

Any violations of the remedies passed in the case should be raised at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.
Specific requests for amendment or clarification about the decision should be raised at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
General questions can be raised at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee.
Actions taken to enforce remedies authorised in the case (if applicable) are to be logged at the centralised arbitration enforcement log.

Case information

Involved parties

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)

Prior dispute resolution

Preliminary statements

Preliminary statements given in the case request stage may be found at /Preliminary statements.

Preliminary decision

Clerk notes

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

Recuse Sennecaster (Chat) 16:04, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
@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)
@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)
@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)
@Theleekycauldron: extension granted to 600 words. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Pbsouthwood: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <1/0/2>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

Recused, of course. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:27, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
- 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)
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)

Pbsouthwood: Motion to suspend

Given Pbsouthwood (talk · contribs)'s absence from editing, the case is accepted and suspended for a period of three months, Pbsouthwood is temporarily blocked from the Article namespace, and is temporarily desysopped.

Should Pbsouthwood return to the English Wikipedia during this time and request that this case be resumed, the Arbitration Committee shall unsuspend the case by motion and it will proceed through the normal arbitration process. Such a request may be made by email to arbcom-enwikimedia.org or at the clerks' noticeboard. Pbsouthwood will remain temporarily blocked and desysopped for the duration of the case.

If such a request is not made within three months of this motion, this case shall be automatically closed, and Pbsouthwood shall remain blocked from the Article namespace and desysopped. Pbsouthwood may regain the administrative tools only via a successful request for adminship or administrator election. The block can be appealed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 2 recused. With no arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	6
1–2	5
3–4	4

Enacted – EggRoll97 ^(talk) 22:56, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Support:

~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Katie^talk 17:46, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Daniel (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Cabayi (talk) 10:08, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Aoidh (talk) 11:27, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Elli (talk | contribs) 17:48, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
I'm hesitant to block from the mainspace but I'd rather that than a full block. At any rate, this seems unfortunately necessary. Southwood has--like many in this situation before him--ceased editing in the face of a case. Should he wish to timely return, I would like to fully investigate the matter, and I hypothesize that we will find his close paraphrasing is not as egregious as alleged (though I fear the COI may be its own issue). But absent his return, this motion leaves us in an acceptable enough place. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:39, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Primefac (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
I think the admin status is a red herring but the lack of communication is an abdication of accountability requirements so I support the desysop. I would be happy to see the mainspace block lifted if Peter returns and engages with the concerns about his writing—either to discuss whether the concerns are valid or to fix the existing articles. To be clear, that is the preferable outcome and I hope Peter returns, but returning without addressing the concerns is not an option. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:40, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

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)

Per leek, @ToBeFree and KrakatoaKatie: any objection to with any other tense changes that need tense changing? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

No objection. Katie^talk 19:27, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
I'm sure my grammar is bad, but updated. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:37, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

I had originally typed that, then thought letting everyone formally accept and support the motion would be the more proper way of doing it. All good. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Assuming they don't return in time for the case, but eventually want to be unblocked, would this block be appealable to an individual admin, only the community, or only ArbCom? This should be clarified. Personally, I support allowing an individual admin appeal. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:44, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

In the motion it says the block can be appealed at WP:ARCA. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh, missed that somehow. Thanks. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:48, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Final decision

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Unless otherwise specified by the Arbitration Committee, should any user violate a restriction imposed directly by the Committee, that user may be blocked as an arbitration enforcement action. Such blocks must be logged in the arbitration enforcement log.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 26 April 2026, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

More information 0) Appeals and modifications ...

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

All active arbitration enforcement actions may be appealed. Only active restrictions may be appealed, and all labelled enforcement actions (including ones alleged to be against policy) must be successfully appealed under the applicable arbitration enforcement appeals procedure before they can be modified.

Unless otherwise specified by the Arbitration Committee, the following procedure governs arbitration enforcement appeals. An editor may:

ask the administrator who first issued the enforcement action (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); or
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the Committee, once the Committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction, who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever other period the Committee may specify.

Changing or revoking an enforcement action

An administrator may only modify or revoke an enforcement action if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[1] or is no longer an administrator;^[2] or
The restriction was issued more than a year ago.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the enforcement action:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, or
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes an enforcement action out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review

On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify an arbitration enforcement action on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn an arbitration enforcement action only if:

the action was inconsistent with applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

References

[1]
The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
[2]
This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals provision adopted 26 April 2026, this provision did not require a vote.

Enforcement log

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.