Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Arbitration​Committee

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	Motion	(orig. case)	4 June 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024
Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction	none	none	29 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

Lavvu

Initiated by Dinkytown (talk) at 06:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Dinkytown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) initiating party
• Labongo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Request for Comment (History) RFChist
• Request for Comment (Science) RFCsci
• Failed discussion
• Requests for Comment at Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
• Failed Formal Mediation
• Note: This debate has been going on continuously since October 14, 2007

Statement by Dinkytown

Issues

• Traditional lavvu v. bell tent (a.k.a. single-pole "lavvu")

The issue is what should be inserted in the Lavvu page:

Dinkytown's position: the definition of the lavvu structure as defined by historical and academic sources, or;

Labongo position: the inclusion of a single-pole "lavvu" which has no historical reference as a lavvu, but has a long history as a Bell tent, which has only recently been promoted by a few tent manufacturers with the name of "lavvu" placed on it.

• Reliable sources v. Commercial websites and blogs

Labongo has been inserting commercial links to website that have a significant conflict of interest with the Lavvu page, which is in conflict to Wikipedia Policy.

Can prove without any doubt that these commercial websites for this product are completely unreliable and can not be trusted as a reliable source.

• Inclusion of a Comparative Product Table - a precedent for Wikipedia

Can provide evidence that Labongo has been trying to insert a table that would compare tent manufacturers' products with each other, which is outside the scoop of the article, and also in conflict with Wikipedia Policy.

• Comments from other contributors

Can provide commentary from other contributors during the discussion period that conflict with Labongo's position.

Labongo's Behavior

• Labongo's position has never been clear

Can provide documentation that Labongo's position is not only ambiguous, but also contradicting himself.

• Erroneously placed NPOV and citation tags

Placed NPOV and Citation tags because it did not include POV from commercial advertisers

• Inserted Spam into the page through the above mentioned table

Can provide evidence that Labongo frequently mentioned a specific manufacture’s name and website, contrary to Wikipedia Policy.

• POV pushing and trolling

Can provide evidence that Labongo maintained a certain POV and refused to moderate or deviated from it which can be interpreted has Trolling, contrary to Wikipedia Policy.

• Removed academic sources that he didn't like

Can provide evidence that Labongo removed sources that he admitted that he didn’t like without discussing it first on ‘discussion’ page.

• Labongo was provided numerous 'offers' and concessions, but was not willing to compromise

Can provide evidence that numerous offers were provided to Labongo by several people and concessions made by me, but all were rejected by Labongo.

• Labongo made assumptions of my position that I did not state, nor believed in

Can provide evidence that Labongo tried to discredit myself by claiming that I had 'assumptions', for which I never claimed.

• Provided no reliable sources for his claims but has accused others of not having a NPOV

Labongo has never submitted any reliable sources to the article, and yet accused others of not having a NPOV, contrary to Wikipedia Policy.

Asking for Relief

I ask for the Arbitration Committee to take this case as I seek relief in this matter. Thank you. Dinkytown (talk) 06:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/1/0/0)

• Reject, content dispute. Kirill 15:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Reject, content. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Giano II

Initiated by John254 at 04:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• David Gerard (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Irpen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ryulong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Betacommand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Geogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• AzaToth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Doc glasgow (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Thebainer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova#Giano and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova#Giano_reminded.

Statement by John254

Giano II claims that Tony Sidaway made a personal attack on an administrator in the #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel. Instead of making a complaint via the dispute resolution process, Giano II choose to air his grievance via WP:POINTed disruption on Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) [13], followed by massive edit warring [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. This type of disruption by Giano II needs to be stopped. However, a review of Giano II's block history suggests that any block placed against Giano II's account by an ordinary administrator would almost certainly be reversed. The Arbitration Committee is best situated to resolve this situation without starting a wheel war. John254 04:35, 26 December 2007

Update: After I filed this case, Giano II was blocked for 72 hours due to his edit warring on Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins. I would therefore request that voting on whether to accept this case be delayed until Giano II has a opportunity to respond to the filing. John254 04:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Third-party note from User:Jouster: Giano has since been once again unblocked. John, feel free to remove this note. Jouster  (whisper) 08:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by OUTSIDE PARTY Ryulong

I wouldn't consider myself an involved party, as I made a minimal number of edits to the page, and then attempted to end the dispute. As another side note, this paragraph was authored the last time Giano did this in June.

In recent activities on Wikipedia, Giano has been querulous when it comes to certain aspects of the project. Most recently, Giano took it upon himself to add aspects that he felt were not touched upon to Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). This resulted in an all out edit war that involved several administrators who primarily use the channel, as well as the administrator User:Geogre and user User:Irpen who have been staunch supporters of Giano's actions in past issues of disruption brought about by Giano's commentary outside of article and article talk spaces (the original discussion had taken place at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive260#Seems IRC Admins still rule Wikipedia after all). Giano is a great article author (so I have been told), but when it comes to discourse in the project spaces (Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk), particularly the administrators' noticeboards, Giano is unable to discuss items civilly or act in a calm and collected manner, particularly when it involves IRC. Other users such as Geogre and Irpen have also voiced an opposition to the use of IRC for administrators to discuss things off-site.

In his long career on Wikipedia, he has been incivil in discourse with administrators, which initially lead to the first arbitration case, surrounding his discourse on Carnildo's most recent request for adminship. It may be necessary to restrict Giano as had been done to Everyking in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please exclude this statement. As the author says, it was written in June, and it pertains to June. It is inflammatory, accusatory, and flatly wrong. Geogre (talk) 05:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I like how you edited my statement without consulting me. I had added to this since I had originally wrote it, and it most certainly does not just pertain to the old tedentious editing in June. Giano should have never made such a fuss and edit warred either in this month or six months ago in June when I was initially planning on bringing his editing issues. If I am not to be included in this case as a party (as it appears you wish), then I most certainly want my opinion in this matter to be known. His actions just as yours have been concerning this have been equally as reprehensible. Your ideas about how administrators should or should not communicate off of the website should not preclude the fact that Giano is acting rudely, as have you concerning the page as this falsely leading edit summary shows.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Sean William

I've been watching the situation deteriorate at Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins over the past two days, and it's not pretty. Respected editors and administrators (on both sides of the dispute) are pushing their own point of view and revert warring. This sort of behavior is absolutely unacceptable, and should be looked at carefully. Sean William @ 05:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, I object to the name of this case in it's current form. Giano was certainly not the only participant in this matter. Sean William @ 05:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Geogre

The supposed basis of this is that Giano II did not ... umm.... Apparently, he was supposed to use Wikipedia to redress a grievance of IRC behavior, even though David Gerard and James Forester have said repeatedly that IRC is not Wikipedia. I believe that David Gerard even said that ArbCom had absolutely nothing to say about how things went there and that it was merely courtesy if JamesF decided to listen to anything it said. Therefore, "dispute resolution" is not via Wikipedia. Therefore, Giano II's actions in that regard can be sheared away instantly.

This complaint wouldn't pass muster at AN/I, and yet ArbCom is supposed to fall for it?

Ryulong's statement, above, seems to be entirely about some history that has him unhappy. His personal attack on me is something I will ignore. After all, he has me reduced to cheerleader and co-conspirator in disruption. As for this page that is supposed to be evidence of an edit war that needs resolution, the matter is simple, and it will explain quite clearly why we're here. After the rank, self-congratulatory state of the page got edited, an edit war broke out months ago. In light of the most recent instance, when Tony Sidaway called administrator Bishonen a "bitch" and an "arsehole" in en.admins, the smugness of the page was given spectacular lie. When people warred with Giano, when they said, "Oh, no, it has never happened," he sent them proof. He didn't post it publicly. It was all within the rules. He was allowing these people to lose their ignorance and come to their senses. After all, Tony Sidaway suffered only half an hour away from the en.admins IRC channel for his behavior (after he said that Bishonen was lying about what he'd said) and was still getting offered ops there.

Now, the "edit warring" that is supposed to have occurred is not something Giano II is particularly involved in. user:David Gerard is, on the other hand, heavily involved in it, as he has issued page protection to prevent edits (not vandalism), done so without request, and has refused to discuss the edits in any form on the article's talk page. Additionally, others have been reverting and rolling back (!) content edits by other users. In other words, I see WP:OWN violated in spectacular fashion by David Gerard and edit warring by those subscribing to his version of the page. They have not prevailed nor achieved silence, and so now we have vexatious and punitive arbitration attempts here and now (to which I was told I was an involved party). For my part, the illicit and childish attempts at preventing all edits to the page by David Gerard are the best argument I have heard for the page needing to be deleted (preferable) or entirely rewritten.

If anyone looks bad here, it's not Giano II.

The blocks have been overturned, incidentally, so let us make that part of the record. If only I were unscrupulous, I could manage to speak of all the people on the "other side" that I have blocked for edit warring (as it takes two sides to fight, and there is no right version), but, unfortunately, I am an experienced administrator who knows better than to block people for disagreeing with me. I believe Giano received well over 200 votes for ArbCom, and I think my own total was quite high, as well. Nevertheless, I'm sure that none of us should be allowed to edit a page that is written and wholly owned by David Gerard. If we do, we must come here. (Oh, and did the plaintiff here follow normal dispute resolution? Or is that only for the other guy?) Geogre (talk) 05:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by SirFozzie

One of the rationales given by the blocking admin was that the user was causing drama. If this case is accepted, I think if the ArbCom takes this case (which I don't think is a good idea, see below) the ArbCom could and SHOULD indicate whether blocking only one side of an edit war is designed to reduce drama.. or if it will cause the same thing that the admin involved claimed to be wanting to stop. Also, the creator of this case seems to be firing off ArbCom cases left and right, trying to get ArbCom to remove who he views as controversial admins. In neither case, really, has he tried to work the issue out. (there was no RfC on ZScout's action, yet he brought a case and asked for ZScout to be de-sysoped), and now this case. I would ask that ArbCom reject this out of hand as no TRUE dispute resolution attempted. 05:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

(reply to Phil Sandifer statement below)

There is a rather broad consensus on the ANI thread that there should be no block amongst several admins. Asking for Sean William to be de-sysopped and/or lose unblocking privileges due to acting with that consensus against your action is petty and beneath you, Phil. I invite you to remove that statement, and sleep it over. SirFozzie (talk) 06:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

(further edit) I would hope any ArbCom members who have a stake in the channel would recuse themselves, as the conflict of interest is visible to all. SirFozzie (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Phil Sandifer

I blocked for 72 hours for six reverts in 24 hours and the involved deliberate violation of the 3RR. This block seemed utterly straightforward to me - Giano's edits were clearly intended to be disruptive, and he deliberately and knowingly violated the 3RR in making them. He has remained utterly unrepentant, noting that he would rather be banned than stop.

This block was overturned by Sean Williams. I am forced to conclude that John is right - the community is unwilling to apply even the most straightforward policy to Giano, and this matter needs to be elevated beyond the community immediately.

I further suggest adding Sean Williams as a party and looking at either desysopping him or curtailing his right to make unblocks - to unblock a clear cut 3RR violation in the way that he did is flagrantly and wholly unacceptable, particularly as he was previously involved in the discussion on the talk page. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Picaroon

Drama bomb though this may seem, acceptance is probably necessary. The disruption stemming from recent revert-warring on Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins is an unusually divisive dispute, involves more than a half dozen users (mostly admins), has resulted in several blocks (me included, though that was overturned pretty quickly), and shows no sign of dissipating (talk page discussing has gotten the issue nowhere).

The recent locus of the dispute has been the IRC channel page, though this actually largely goes back to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war before it. In other words, this astonishing immaturity is nearing its second birthday. How about the committee try, forcefully, to end the conflict before it blows out some more candles? (And I don't mean slapping Giano with an unenforcable "reminder" and pretending that will do something. Again. Because that clearly does not work.)

Geogre says "Additionally, others have been reverting and rolling back (!) content edits by other users." Why the third person? [25]

He also says "If anyone looks bad here, it's not Giano II." On the contrary, I think Giano looks like a persistent edit-warrior. That's still considered bad, is it not?

To all arbitrators considering voting reject: no, please don't. Individual admins blocking Giano never works. Nothing is ever decided on AN/I. Even Jimbo making a few pronouncements does nothing. This is what the committee is here for, to arbitrate major disputes that can't be solved elsewhere. So, please accept. Picaroon (t) 06:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Bishonen

Perhaps it's time to be a little more concrete and specific about what John calls Giano's "grievance". Tony Sidaway attacked me in the en-admins channel last week, calling me a "bastard bitch from hell" and an "arsehole". I will share the logs for this incident with any admin on request. (I've just noticed that Geogre mentions Tony's insults above, but I think I should post them here anyway, under my own hand. They're not very visible in the midst of Geogre's long statement.) Bishonen | talk 10:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC).

Statement by Coredesat

After being called a fool (as part of various sarcastic remarks) by Giano on Monday night, I strongly believe Giano's behavior is/has become absolutely unacceptable. We should not be tolerating this level of incivility against other editors from anyone, regardless of background - there should be no exceptions to policy. I have seen too many valid blocks for edit warring get undone early by those editors on his "good side", and I have seen too many editors (including myself) get hounded nearly to the point of leaving the project by Giano and the various users he communicates with on a regular basis. Giano does not understand WP:CIV or WP:POINT, or that WP:3RR absolutely do apply to him; his conduct is unacceptable, and I believe this case should be accepted.

For the record, I did extend a one-hour block for edit warring on WP:WEA to 24 hours; this was quickly overturned with my consent within a few minutes. --Coredesat 11:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Risker

The root cause of all of the behaviour leading to the filing of this request for arbitration is inappropriate remarks (as noted by Bishonen above) made on the #-admins IRC channel - a locus outside of Wikipedia that this committee has previously stated is outside of their scope. However, many members of this committee are channel operators for this IRC channel, and as such they have individual responsibilities in enforcing appropriate behaviour on the channel. There is already existing conflict within Arbcom with respect to addressing behaviour of editors and administrators on IRC. The chance of a successful result from hearing this matter depends on the Arbcom's ability to address the key issues at the heart of the editorial and administrative behaviour. Therefore, the committee should only accept this case if it believes that it has the authority to address behaviour in the #-admins IRC channel. I note the following:

• The editor bringing forward this request for arbitration has no on-wiki involvement in the situation, has had no on-wiki communication with any of the participants relating to this issue prior to filing the request for arbitration, and has made no effort to resolve the situation.
• At the time this case was filed, the edit warring had ceased. All parties had apparently taken heed of the warnings being made and had withdrawn. That is a first step in appropriate dispute resolution. Filing this case is an attempt to short-circuit the normal course of dispute resolution.
• Any members of the Arbitration Committee who are chanops have a clear and obvious conflict of interest and should recuse in order for any case to appear fair. Failure to do so runs the serious risk the community losing confidence in the independence and disinterest of the Arbitration Committee. Many other members of the committee participate in the channel, and those members should also seriously consider recusing if they are frequently online in the channel or were logged in at the time of the remarks.
• Should the case be accepted, the arbitrators hearing the case are urged to set up a separate mailing list including only themselves to discuss the case. Aside from the recused current arbitrators, several former arbitrators are either named in this case or have conflict of interest because of their involvement with IRC.
• As this case specifically deals with remarks made on #-admins IRC, the logs for the period involved should be accepted as evidence and made available to all editors whose behaviour is being reviewed, at a minimum; a good argument can be made that they should be submitted as evidence for the entire community to review. The logs revealed should include a listing of all editors who were in the channel at the time of the remarks, the remarks themselves, and any reaction or actions taken by those involved. Risker (talk) 11:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by LessHeard vanU

There is much more to be considered than the violations of various policy by one individual. Issues pertaining to why one person only seems to be breaking the letter of the law when the spirit of the law is being ignored by other parties needs to be addressed. The apparent use of separate accounts to pursue the aims of one side of a dispute, knowing that the other disputants would likely violate policy to counter those edits, needs review. The use of the sysop bit to disallow editing of content by non admins, and the same tools to edit the protected content needs investigation. The relationship between Wikipedians using off wiki communications and the resultant actions on wiki needs to be addressed, and how the communities policies (or lack of) toward semi official venues for discussion may influence how and for what purposes they are used. Further to Risker's point above, the presence of many sysops, arbs and 'crats on a medium not regulated by wiki policies and the consequences relating to determining matters arising from conduct on those communication channels needs urgent examination. In short, ArbCom needs to accept this request and to broaden the investigation to address the history of the events leading to the request being filed and to discuss the consequences of any decision in regards the use of extra wiki forms of communication and its relationship with the community. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Carcharoth

Just a brief appeal here: can we please have full disclosure from the individual arbitrators over their use of and involvement in the Wikipedia IRC channels. I believe this ranges from "not using them" to "owning them". This is a wide spectrum, and it would be best to be clear on the differing levels of involvement. Carcharoth (talk) 11:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

A further point. We have User:Geogre/IRC considered and User:Kylu/IRC (possibly others as well). Why can't the IRC chanops and channel owners write their own essays, and let the wider Wikipedia community, guided by the non-involved arbitration committee members, write Wikipedia:IRC channels and Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins and other subpages. Wikipedia:IRC channels/Personal views regarding IRC will be known to many here, and could be a starting point. The incoming Arbs could add their say to that document. Carcharoth (talk) 13:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking away from the wider issue of IRC problems, and at the narrow focus on the behaviour of the edit warring at that page, I have to say I agree fully with Moreschi's statement. Hopefully the ArbCom can swiftly re-affirm the principles involving IRC and pledge to clamp down on future misbehaviour in the channel in question, and can issue fair and even justice all round with stern warnings. I see no reason for any bannings here. If anything, that would arise from a separate arbitration case where three or four inveterate drama-mongers are identified and arbitrated for that behaviour, quite simply as a warning to others, and politely asked to relinquish their current accounts and start over with new ones (that would retain the good administrative and content contributions). In other words, add "start over with new account" to the list of penalties ArbCom can impose, as something between a reminder/short ban, and a long ban (giving the offenders the option to take the ban instead, if they want to rehabilitate their original account). Carcharoth (talk) 13:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I've created and started to populate Category:User essays on IRC, and linked it from Wikipedia:IRC channels. See also my comment here. Hopefully this will aid the process whereby the community discusses and agrees on what Wikipedia:IRC channels should say. Small steps rather than radical change might be best here. Carcharoth (talk) 14:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by violet/riga

Giano is not the only one to have a history of "drama". If this arbitration is accepted it needs to look at the actions of more than just the one person. violet/riga (t) 12:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Moreschi

Number of problems here.

• Giano has behaved very badly. Two 3RR vios/too many reverts were always going to stoke up the drama levels. Why the blocks of Coresdat and Phil Sandifer were overturned, I really don't know, and that's coming from an admin who's unblocked Giano before.
• As noted by Dmcdevit on ANI, the page (WP:WEA) was protected. This seems to have been the cue for everyone with admin buttons to keep right on using them. The whole point of a page protected due to disputes is that you don't edit it just because you can. The protection is supposed to start discussion, not more reverts. Copy-pasting from Dmcdevit's statement on ANI, the most sensible comment surrounding this ridiculous cretinous mess that anyone's made so far:

“ That might have worked, in a universe where the page hadn't already been protected several times and yet administrators continued the edit war despite the protection. I already count about eight unambiguous instances of abusive administrator action not even counting the edit warring and rampant misuse of rollback. David Gerard, Geogre, and Wknight94 all made reverts while the page was protected. David Gerard and Geogre both used protection powers during the edit war they were involved in. Doc glasgow and Sean William both reversed another admin's block without allowing enough time (10 minutes and one hour, respectively) for consensus or input on the matter. Coredesat and David Fuchs both blocked a user that they also reverted in that edit war. All for this inconsequential project-space page about an IRC channel. It's ridiculous. Dmcdevit·t 08:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC) ”

Award for best comment, however, goes to Somey from Wikipedia Review: "This is what these people do for Christmas? Jeez, I thought my life was pathetic!"

*Don't slag off your fellow admins in the channel, save that for the trolls. Tony Sidaway should have been kicked out for a month or something.Actually, scrap that, apologies: seems like someone may have been faking logs. All very Alistair MacLean, but this is largely irrelevant.

• Final comment: that log is a disgrace and a couple people should lose their adminship for this/have it suspended. This is all so petty. To see what are supposed to be Wikipedia's finest engaged in the kind of meaningless playground hanky-panky that is usually reserved for our nationalist trolls - bloody hell. Some Christmas present to Wikipedia, guys. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 12:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by AzaToth

My revert was mostly based on that I though it was wrong to remove a statement made by Jimbo in an ongoing dispute, though due to a crappy computer I was using at that moment, the edit summary was lost and something fishy happened (don't trust tabletop computers with vista on them).

After that Giano entered my talk page and threatened with a possible removal of my access to the channel, and that I could get blocked if I didn't cease immediately, so I made a joke about the real cabal channel, but it seems that some took that wrongly.

In my eye, Giano is trolling, and he has some sort of carte blanche to do so, some said he got some sort of immunity since the last arbcom, but I wasn't around at that time, so I can't really say. And about the channel, I think, and probably most there, that only admins (and above) should house there, but because of a technicality, it's difficult to remove non-admins, as the thing that easiest could be pointed to an admin account (the cloak) is only used for the invite, and not for the access list (please tell me if I'm wrong), and the channel is important, as it's a way to reduce risk of making wrong actions, as you can consult there in realtime, in a way you can't do onwiki, but off course, all actions must hold onwiki, but I don't think consultancy is required to be made onwiki _→AzaToth 14:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

I wish again to apologise fully and without reservation to all parties who believe that I have ever called any of them a bad name. In particular, for my badly handled response to Bishonen's attack on me on IRC the other day. We need to put these by now very ancient grievances behind us and move on. It is now nearly 2008, not 2006. And yes, please be aware that there are faked logs around (I've had one quoted to me for verification). --Tony Sidaway 14:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Mr Which

If accepted (wrongly so, in my opinion), this case needs to be renamed. There is no logical reason to name it "Giano II", as the questionable behavior at that page came from many directions, and not just from Giano and those who supported his views. I also concur with Risker in his belief that any arbitrator who has a vested interest in the IRC channels needs to recuse. As for "faked logs", would those be any that show certain users in a negative light? And how exactly are these logs determined to be "fake"? That this case was proposed by a user who has never (on-Wiki, anyways) had dealings with the case or those involved in the case is troubling as well. It's hard to believe that John just happened to come out of left field somewhere and was so disturbed by the dispute at that page that he had to file an RFAR case titled "Giano II." Call me cynical, but it's just very hard to believe. Mr Which??? 16:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Doc

Merry Christmas. I really want nothing to do with this.--Doc^g 17:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Lar

• Regarding comments made on IRC - I have a copy of the log from 30 September 2006 that is (a small) part of the underlying dispute. The copy that Bishonen sent me matches my own copy, word for word, as near as I can tell. I can share that log with ArbCom if it is material or to corroborate versions sent by others. It is my view that Tony did then say what he is alleged to have said, although it was said obliquely, and knowing Tony, probably without real intent to give grevious offence. (that does not necessarily excuse it...) I have an incomplete log from 12-21 but it has gaps because I dropped. I can share that log with ArbCom if it is material. Others may be a better source except for corroboration. To my great regret I was pretty deep in several other conversations in other channels at the time of the events unfolding, as I wish now I had spoke up then before matters went as far as they did. But this seems more of a personal disagreement and all parties would be well served to meatball:ForgiveAndForget instead of bringing it up again. I think actually both Tony and Bishonen have so offered, although perhaps not at the same time and not directly to each other. It's been said that apologies are not always offered in precisely the form that one might wish to receive them... It may be best to accept what is offered and move on. That in no way condones bad behaviour, and sanctions may well be warranted, but moving on still is good advice.
• Regarding the scope of this case: As do many, I think it's badly misnamed, it should not be about Giano. As I said on the ANI thread, there are more editors misbehaving in this matter than just one. As to what the correct name is, the mind boggles, there are so many choices...
• Regarding Giano's latest block by Phil: I called for it to be reversed initially, with a proviso that Giano undertake not to edit war any more. It was subsequently overturned by Sean William. My read of the AN/I thread was that there was not general consensus in support of Phil's block at the time it was overturned.
• Regarding extending the block to others now: Blocks are preventative, not punitive and I think matters would not be well served if several long term editors were now blocked for their role in this matter. The time to have done that was at the time it occured, not later. I do agree with Dmcdevit on AN/I when he said "The proper way to resolve an underreaction is not to lessen the reaction." but this is stale now. Nothing would be served by blocking others now.
• Regarding who should be on #wikipedia-en-admins... I have proposed elsewhere, and I will repeat it here: "I'm ready to support no non en:wp admins having access, even if that means we lose some good counsel, because it just does seem like a good idea to me that things change that way." It has been unclear to me how exactly such a change would be effected. However, based on Jimbo's latest statement perhaps the authority to effect such changes is now being asserted. If so, I urge ArbCom to do what it can to effect this change, regardless of whether it is formally within their remit or not.

++Lar: t/c 17:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Marskell

As this is headed toward acceptance, I strongly urge a rename. If weeks are wasted stating the obvious—that Giano was disruptive—nothing will have been accomplished. The role of IRC and, to the extent possible, other off-site fora used for decision-making must be addressed. Unfortunately, the Durova decision failed to properly tackle it. Marskell (talk) 17:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by David Gerard

The WP:WEA] page was set up after the Giano/IRC-related arbcom case of late last year. The page is an odd one as "policy" pages go; I wrote it after the complaints of it being an undocumented private channel (complaints notably coming from ... Giano, Geogre and Irpen, the edit warriors this time around who say they now want the page removed!). Unlike the typical Wikipedia: policy page which describes a policy determined on the wiki whose power flows directly from the community, this describes a policy determined by the group contact (James Forrester), his designated agents for the purpose (me), Jimbo and the Arbitration Committee themselves (there being considerable discussion of the channel and how to keep it working on the AC list in late 2006 and early 2007). As such, there is such a thing as right and wrong edits to make to it - statements of reality that are not as determined by that small group.

That's why I locked it and edited it locked - it's not a general wiki policy page in the usual sense, but is present in Wikipedia: space as useful information. If the arbcom considers that unacceptable, then I ask them to keep in mind the circumstances of the page's creation, the origins of its contents and their own involvement therein.

Giano, Geogre and Irpen have recently tag-team trolled the page, trying to turn it into an attack page, showing the civility of junkyard dogs. I've hardly seen such behaviour since the heyday of Mr-Natural-Health.

In last year's case, the ArbCom singularly failed to deal with Giano's odious interactions with others in project space (as I documented in a statement on the return of that case to RFAr a month or two afterwards when his behaviour continued). Then the arbcom singularly failed to deal with his odious interactions with others in project space a few weeks ago. Then he's kept going, trolling furiously and disrupting purely to make a point (as the arbcom has sanctioned editors for in past cases). Please,if he's such a great article writer,confine him to article space. His behaviour in Wikipedia: space does not help the projectin any regardwhatsoever.

Diffs to follow - David Gerard (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Four votes to accept and open, noted. Case to open tomorrow (Thursday) absent a change in circumstances. Per past precedent, any arbitrator active as of the date this case (or any other pending case) is opened may remain active on the case through its conclusion if he or she chooses to do so, even if his or her term has otherwise expired. Newly elected arbitrators may also become active on any pending cases as of the date their terms begin, should they choose to do so. Addendum: Per several comments above, the case should be opened under a name other than "Giano II", although I am not sure exactly what. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

• Accept. Such behavior from users and admins who should know better is unacceptable. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Note: I support renaming this case if accepted; it does not appear to be purely about Giano. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. Good grief. Mackensen (talk) 15:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Accept, regrettably. Kirill 15:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• A fitting welcome for the new arbs. Accept. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Requests for clarification

Place requests for clarification on matters related to past Arbitration cases in this section. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at Arbitration enforcement. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the Talk page. Place new requests at the top.

Request for increased enforcement Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris

A previous request by Thatcher131 was declined declined in April however the the pattern of disruption has continued, has been experienced by non-affiliated editors, and evidence of the disruption being due to the same editor using a succession of different accounts has been built up. Yes, the article has improved substantially due the input of editors with no association with the article subject, however the disruption is something the article, and other editors, could well do without. Relevant sockpuppet reports are [26] [27] [28].

The pattern of disruption usually involves editing with contempt for consensus, edit waring, taunting other editors based on their affiliation, incivility and ranting against the article subject. Strong enforcement of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:CONS would effectively screen out the disruption.

I have tried using normal dispute resolution methods but this is getting tiring for me, other editors who have dropped by to help and also the admins that have to deal with the constant requests for help. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for Clarification for User:Fyslee

Transferred to Arbitration enforcement. Thatcher 01:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for Clarification for User:Ferrylodge

Transferred to Arbitration enforcement. Thatcher 22:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for Clarification for User:John Gohde

Transferred to Arbitration enforcement. Thatcher 22:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for Clarification of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles

The remedy states that To address the extensive edit-warring that has taken place on articles relating to The Troubles, as well as the Ulster banner and British baronets, any user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator. This may include any user who was a party to this case, or any other user after a warning has been given. The administrator shall notify the user on his or her talkpage and make an entry on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Log of blocks, bans, and probations. The terms of probation, if imposed on any editor, are set forth in the enforcement ruling below. During the case itself, a discussion arose on the Proposed Decision page, that no arbitrator took part in, but consensus of the discussion was that the definition of "uninvolved" was for not being involved in "edit-warring or disruptive editing", since there was no finding in the ArbCom case that ANY administrator had been non-neutral.

Previously, myself and Tyrenius (who were both parties to the ArbCom) have used this remedy to try to keep folks calm, with no peep of protest. Now, three weeks after User:Aatomic1 was placed on a one-month probation by administrator User:Alison, User:Aatomic1 has attempted to remove himself from the terms of probation, because Alison was one of the parties who provided evidence and discussion for the case. This came after Aatomic1 attempted to incite an admin who WAS in an edit war with User:Domer48 to place "That troll" (ie Domer) on its terms. Could the ArbCom please clarify this remedy, as to whom may place it, and if my definition is correct? SirFozzie (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The probation should remain in place. For purposes of this case, Alison was not an involved admin and she remains uninvolved as far as I can tell. Meaning that she has not been involved in edits disputes with the user or about these articles. We need admin to become "involved" as Alison did. Meaning that they learn about conflicts, bring them to ArbCom for rulings, and apply sanctions as needed when cases close. I think that is what Alison did and so the probation should remain. FloNight (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

On this basis, then, I will withdraw from the voluntary recusal I placed myself under, after a probation violation warning was issued to one party and a raft of protesters argued that as a named party I was an "involved" admin. Rockpocket 00:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

"Involved" for the purposes of enforcement could mean that if you edit war with another user on articles A and B, you should not impose a sanction on article C, even if you haven't edited that article. However, learning about a dispute and trying to help settle it, and taking action when needed, is not really involvement. Thatcher131 01:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

That was my understanding too, however our-soon-to-be-newest Arb appeared to have a different opinion. [29] Note that "heavily involved in the earlier disputes" equates to being one of the admins who attempted to deal with earlier disputes. Rockpocket 01:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It's always a judgment call, and a balancing: We don't want editors to believe they are being treated unfairly, but neither do we want to multiply the opportunities for forum shopping. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, is to be assumed that all "uninvolved admin" rulings (e.g. Digwuren) should be interpreted in this way? Will ^(talk) 01:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

As a clerk I always find that "uninvolved" in this case means that you have a neutral opinion on the subject. (Like, I would not touch anything related to Chinese politics with a 10' pole.) You cannot pass judgment on anyone without learning why, and if we become "involved", we'd never get anything done. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 02:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Will, if you apply a remedy and the target thinks you are too involved, he can appeal to WP:AE, WP:ANI, or email the Arbcom. Remedies applied by one admin can be lifted by another for good cause like any other admin action, although as with reversing any other action, discussion and consultation beforehand is a good thing. If you do end up dropping the hammer on someone you shouldn't, someone will let you know one way or the other. Thatcher131 02:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course. And I don't mean to give the impression that any admin should reserve an absolute right to be the one to take action (sometimes its better to step back to avoid even the appearance of a COI). My concern is simply that this does leave open an avenue in which editors who are under ArbCom remedies could take out of the equation the very admins that are most familiar with their MO in an effort to further a disruptive agenda. It is a balance, but as we saw from the reversing of Ty's block, the community has in place mechanisms that provides it without asking those with previous experience to recuse themselves on principle. This is especially important in complex and long running cases, where entirely "uninvolved" admins would not have a clue what was going on.

On a personal note, I felt particularly aggrieved by this suggestion, because I was the one who volunteered to provide the evidence about a particular editor in this case, and as a result I was the one targeted (by an entire lobby) as the person with the vendetta. I could easily have stood back and let someone else provide the evidence, but didn't consider it an issue at the time. As it stood, I was not planning to provide any more evidence to future cases, lest the same accusations be leveled against me. I'd feel much more confidence in contributing to the arbitration process if I felt that my evidence as an admin who tried to enforce our policies was not codified as being an involved in the problem. Rockpocket 03:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Would a neutral observer think, by your actions or the way you presented evidence, that you had taken sides? Or are you presenting yourself as a neutral party trying to resolve ongoing conflicts? If so, you probably should not take enforcement action. If not, then there should not be a problem. Complaints from the people you have sanctioned is routine. Try the Armenia-Azerbaijani dispute. I respond to a large majority of the reports and I'm pretty sure neither side has much liked my responses. Thatcher131 03:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am aware no neutral observer has ever suggested any of the admins involved have taken sides, though plenty have said that its best of avoid it looking that way. Well, when the lobbies (on both sides) are doing their damnedest to make it look that way, then we have a problem. So what happens is one editor complains loudly when an admin takes action, within (literally) minutes the other members of the lobby pile on with the same complaint. The neutral observer sees a number of editors in agreement and suggests you should probably not make the enforcement action if only to avoid the perception of bias. QED, the lobby has got exactly what they want. So the "involved" admins probably do inflame the situation, but thats because its in the interests of those people who are under remedy to cause the inflammation. I see this as a real and ongoing problem. The obvious answer is to have other admins take over, but quite frankly, requests for outside eyes in this sort of lengthy, simmering and bitter dispute come to nothing, no-one wants to touch it - and you can hardly blame them. Rockpocket 05:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• This isn't intended to be obtuse or confusing. If you are part of the problem, you should not be the one to impose the remedy. I think this is clear from the current Matthew Hoffman case where Adam is under review for blocking editors whose edits he opposed for content reasons, even though he did not edit the exact article in dispute but did edit other articles in the broad topic. However, if you step into a situation to try and resolve it peacefully, and maintain your objectivity, and find that one party or both needs to be sanctioned, you probably can do it. Editors should not feel that they are being taken advantage of by their opponents who happen to have a sysop bit, but at the same time, disruptive editors should not be able to game the system and forum shop by claiming that every admin who tries to resolve a situation in a neutral way is now too tainted by involvement to make a fair judgement call on sanctions. Thatcher131 03:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we need administrator to become knowledgeable about the situation in order to make clueful decisions. There should be no problem with monitoring a situation over time to make sure is properly resolved. Keeping articles on a watchlist and stepping in to calm down edit wars is a good use of admin time. FloNight (talk) 03:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for review of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election

While merging the list at Wikipedia:Article probation into Wikipedia:General sanctions, I noticed that this 2006 case needs a review. The article probation remedy stated:

Articles which are the locus of dispute, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election/Proposed decision#Locus of dispute, are placed on probation. Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, incivilty, and original research. The Arbitration Committee reserves the right to appoint one or more mentors at any time, and will review the situation in one year.

The one year review was due in July 2007, but apparently has not been done yet. After looking at the edit histories of these articles, I recommend that article probation be lifted for some, but not all of the articles. In particular, I noticed recent editing disputes at 2004 United States presidential election controversy, vote suppression, and several of the articles still have neutrality disputed tags. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I expect that we will conduct a review of all the currently active general sanctions in January, once the new arbitrators are on board. Kirill 15:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested motions to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren

I request that the Committee consider the following motions. It is not clear where request for motions in a prior cases ought be placed, so could the clerks move this to the right spot if this is not it. Thanks. Martintg (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Clerk note: I have moved these requests to the "requests for clarifications" section as probably the best place for them. I agree with Marting that it is not clear from the instructions where a request for relief from a prior decision should be posted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Suspension of bans for both User:Digwuren and User:Petri Krohn

It is now obvious, after an initial bit of confusion and subsequent clarification, that the remedy 11 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#General_restriction will be most effective in combating incivility, which was the core issue of this case. No one was calling for year long bans for either party in the original case, in fact most involved and uninvolved were explicitly against any ban, as Alex Bakharev succinctly argued here and seconded by many others including Geogre and Biophys in Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Proposed_decision#Remedies_are_too_harsh. Note too that Digwuren did make a reflective and conciliatory statement aplogising to those he had wronged and forgiving those who had wronged him Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Proposed_decision#Statement_by_Digwuren. Compare this to the recently banned Anonimu, where there was a clear concensus for a ban and he was defiant and un-remorseful to the end.

While a year is a long time, and shortening it may be useful, I'd like to see those users expressing remorse, telling us what they have learned and promising not to continue behavior that led to their ban before any shortening or suspension of a ban is considered.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no point in banning these editors, especially Petri, who unlike Digwuren, even sincerely apologized long before the case and was still punished for his actions taken prior to the apology, unlike Digwuren who continued to create "occupation" badwagons, revert war and bait contributors even while his arbitration was ongoing. Still, as far as Digwuren is concerned, I neither proposed nor supported a year-long ban. I have a very thick skin towards incivility and this aspect of his conduct did not bother me much. But if he is unblocked, he must be on the short leash regarding the number of reverts and coatracking.

Overall, I think that case needs a new hearing in light of how editors see it now in the retrospect and by the hopefully wisened up ArbCom as well. Also, there were several new developments, chiefly, editors using the "editing restrictions" to blockshop and vigorously "investigate" each other. This whole matter needs a fresh look, perhaps by a renewed Arbcom after the election which is almost over.

I would object to selective reversals of the original decision. The case was handled badly in a hands-off-by-ArbCom-type way during the entire precedings. Selective return of Digwuren and doing nothing else would just make matters worse. Rehashing that decision overall may be a good thing and hearing all parties in an orderly way by the arbitrators who actually listned and engage would be a good thing though. --Irpen 19:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think most of the involved parties had findings of fact regarding revert warring. The differentiating aspect for Digwuren and Petri Krohn was using Wikipedia as a battleground. Note that the root cause of this battle was the Bronze soldier controversy, which has now largely resolved itself, the threat for further battling has significantly diminished. Also given that bans are in principle intended to stop further damage to Wikipedia, rather for retribution and punishment for its own sake, and they have already served some months of this ban, I see no reason to continue this ban, particularly since there seems a concensus against a ban in the first place, the parties have shown remorse as I have linked above and the Bronze soldier issues have dissipated. I am not asking for selective reversals, just a suspension. Martintg (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Strike User:Erik Jesse, User:3 Löwi and User:Klamber from the Involved parties list

These people were offline long before the case even started, never participated in the case, and continue to be offline to this day. No or little evidence was presented against them and no finding of fact either. In fact they had absolutely no involvement in the issues of this case and were only mentioned because they were included in an earlier checkuser case. Note however it is a finding of fact that Petri Krohn used Wikipedia as a battleground, and the checkuser case against these and other Estonian users was a part of that warfare. We don't want to perpetuate this wrong against these three editors.

Therefore I ask ArbCom to amend the case such that their names are struck from the list of involved parties and thus the notices removed from their talk pages. In fact I made a similar motion to this effect Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Workshop#Motion_to_strike_3_L.C3.B6wi_and_Klamber_from_the_list_of_parties during the case and it was seconded by the clerk Cbrown1023 at the time. I know it is a minor issue, but it is an important gesture that ArbCom ought to do to further heal the hurts and encourage them to return, particularly User:3 Löwi who has been an editor of good standing since 2005.

Expand definition of "uninvolved admin" in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#General_restriction

The principle of involved admins not being permitted to issue blocks is founded on the issue of conflict of interest and that trust should be maintained in the impartiality of the blocking admin. Generally "involved" means personal involvement in the immediate issue or article. However, given that the span of this general restriction covers all of Eastern Europe, and the principle that trust should be maintained in the blocking admin's impartiality, and that political issues (the role of the Soviet Union and communism) is the basis for much of the conflict on Eastern Europe; the definition of "involved" should be expanded for this remedy to include admins with overt and obvious political view points or past significant involvment in content disputes within Eastern Europe

The recent episode concerning blocks issued by El_C illustrates this problem. An admin with a "vanity page" consisting of figures associated with communist oppression and terrorism wades into a dispute involving Eastern Europe, not only is this highly provocative, but alarm bells start ringing as to the impartiality of this admin. Note that this is same admin saw no problem with the behaviour of the recently banned Anonimu, uncivilly branding those who brought the complaint as "ethno-nationalist editors". This fact of questionable impartiality and lack of trust only served to inflame the situation resulting a commited and significant editor and wikiproject coordinator Sander Säde to leave the project.

While one must endeavour to assume good faith, never the less, there would be an issue of trust in the judgement of an admin if, to illustrate with an example, they had a vanity page consisting of images of Osama bin Ladin and Hezbollah on their user page wading in and handing out blocks in a dispute regarding Israeli related topic. Common sense dictates that controversial admins of questionable partiality should not be involved enforcing this remedy.

Good point, but it all boils down to the issue of anonymity. El C at least declares some of his POV on his user page. I, for example, declare quite a few more things. Would you prefer to trust a user who declares nothing? How can we be sure if such declarations are truthful, and not ironic or simply deceptive? Looking back at the Essjay controversy I still think all admins should be required to reveal their identity, education, and POVs... but I am well aware this will not fly. I think "uninvolved admin" should be one that is accepted by the parties; but of course that creates a possibility for the parties to evade judgment by refusing to accept any admin as uninvolved. Perhaps to avoid that but deal with the problem you outlined, we should have a procedure parties can lodge complains about admin's involvement, where this could be reviewed by other admins and if involvement is determined (something like CoI), the admin's action is reverted and warning issued? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)