Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

The last step of dispute resolution is a request for arbitration. Please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee.

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
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads	none	none	4 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions	none	none	10 June 2024
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland	Motion	(orig. case)	21 June 2024
Clarification request: Noleander	none	(orig. case)	3 July 2024
Amendment request: Durova	Motion	(orig. case)	4 July 2024
Amendment request: Suspension of Beeblebrox	none	none	10 July 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person you lodge a complaint against.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arb Com member votes to accept/reject/recuse/other.

This is not a page for discussion, and arbitrators may summarily remove discussion without comment.

• Arbitration policy
• Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
• Developer help needed
• Arbitration template
• Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents

Current requests

Template

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless

Statement by party 1

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Statement by party 2

Please limit your statement to 500 words

NoPuzzleStranger

Involved parties

• NoPuzzleStranger
• Michael Snow

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

I attempted to deal with the matter by contacting the user personally, see User talk:NoPuzzleStranger#Identity. I have not used other steps because they are not particularly applicable given the nature of the situation. Effectively, this is a request to reopen a previous arbitration case, and as such I believe that arbitration is the only feasible venue.

Statement by party 1

I assert that NoPuzzleStranger is the same person as Wik, and is currently banned from editing Wikipedia.

Over a year ago, Wik performed widespread vandalism using a script. At the time, the Wikipedia community generally considered that these actions warranted an indefinite ban (or hard-ban) of Wik, and Jimbo Wales indirectly indicated that he agreed with this. Jimbo confirmed this directly in a subsequent arbitration case against Gzornenplatz earlier this year.

Gzornenplatz was determined to be the same person as Wik, by a combination of technical evidence and similarity in editing patterns. Due to the privacy issues, I am not familiar with the technical evidence and due to the passage of time, I doubt that technical information will shed much light on the identity of NoPuzzleStranger, but I will ask about the possibility nevertheless. However, the similarity of the editing pattern remains and has convinced a number of people that NoPuzzleStranger is the same person. The pattern has included conducting stale revert wars, particularly over disputed German/Polish/Czech spellings, a strong emphasis on including diacritics, grudges against some of Gzornenplatz's opponents (notably Cantus), and even the resumption of revert wars previously conducted by both Gzornenplatz and Wik over the Sealand article against Gene Poole and Centauri — who are themselves believed to be the same person.

NoPuzzleStranger denied that he was the same person as Wik/Gzornenplatz when challenged (Gzornenplatz gave a similar denial to Jimbo). However, it has been pointed out by khaosworks that NoPuzzleStranger is an anagram of User:Gzornenplatz (note that user is part of the anagram). Given this deliberate signal, the fact that NoPuzzleStranger began editing in February shortly after Gzornenplatz was blocked, plus the strong similarity in editing habits, I think it is clear that these denials are not to be believed.

I am therefore announcing my intention to block NoPuzzleStranger indefinitely as a reincarnation of Wik/Gzornenplatz, but I have not imposed the block yet. Instead I am asking the Arbitration Committee to consider whether it sees any reason to forbid me from carrying out this intention. --Michael Snow 19:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Theresa's comment: I agree in theory, but took this approach partly because of the controversy that ensued when Gzornenplatz was blocked. That's why I'm running it through here first. The issue doesn't have to be accepted as a full-blown case; I'm simply saying what I will do unless I hear objections from the arbitrators. --Michael Snow 20:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, Essjay has now imposed the block, which has yet to encounter any objections. If nothing further comes up, feel free to clear out this request. --Michael Snow 16:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

This guy came out of nowhere to "strongly oppose" my adminship nomination. Since then, he has stalked my every edit, made a series of personal attacks against me, reverted redirects, formatted nanostubs tagged for deletion and has generally raked me over the coals. It was I who figured out the original anagram last night; Khaosworks, to his infinite credit, added the extra letters to create "User Gzornenplatz" out of "NoPuzzleStranger." I had merely plugged in "Gzornenplatz," ignoring the leftover letters. His behavior toward me was identical to that he displayed toward me during last year's "B-Movie Bandit" controversy. - Lucky 6.9 19:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Well aren't you smart. I said before I sympathize with Gzornenplatz and tend to some of the things he tended to. There's no rule I know of that prohibits usernames which are anagrams of the names of banned users. After all, there's also a user Ril, which is an anagram of Lir. So what? NoPuzzleStranger 20:21, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

• You do not need to come to us IMO. Wik is a banned user, enforce the ban as long as you are sure that this is Wik. This really is nothing to do with us. I suggest you run it by WP:AN but you don't need to run it by us. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 19:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• I concur with Theresa. →Raul654 21:15, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Concur, shoot first, paperwork later ➥the Epopt 22:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Perma-banned users are, indeed, shootable on sight. James F. (talk) 07:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

User:CJK, User:Stevertigo

No other dispute resolution tried. WP:RFM is too slow and too non-binding to be effectual. I know because Im on it. St|eve 18:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 1

User CJK requested WP:3RR for my undoing of his reversions of my edits. My edits were contstructive, and CJK's were simply reversals, claiming "POV." Of each specific edit he made, which I contested, I made a point by point justification for my changes. CJK continued to claim on WP:RFP#Request to protect: Vietnam War and WP:3RR that I, not he, had violated the rule. Consequently I was blocked, while CJK was not. After page protection was finally implemented, I restored my changed which had been reverted by an anon with only 10 edits. I felt that leaving the page in an older state (by the act of an anon who had not participated in discussion) would be a device for regressing the article to a POV version, and reverting his changes was not improper —even if it violated an absolutist interpretation of WP:PP policy. For this Thrydulf (following strictine policy) reinstituted the block. User:TJive is involved in the editing/discussion as well, but has been largely constructive, and certainly capable of discussing the material —which CJK has repeated shown himself not to be (though he's perhaps closer to TJive's political views). Sinreg, -St|eve 18:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

Let's put this in perspective. On August 5 Stevertigo made large changes to the introduction paragraph in Vietnam War. I thought the changes were POV, as it implies "American Imperialism" was in the works. It is fine if he believes that, but I thought it was outrageously inaccurate so I changed a few words to make it more NPOV (note I did not immediately rv his contribution, just changed some wording). Steverigo reverted and brought the situation to the discussion page. I reverted and responded. Then, without even notifying me, he requested protection of the page on the grounds of "disagreement" (as if there wouldn't be a disagreement with his loaded claims). The dispute had barely gotten off the ground, and already he wanted his version protected. So I asked that the page not be protected because the dispute might be easily solved by other means. Back at the talk page I tried to hold a rational discussion with Stevertigo along with User:Trey Stone and User:TJive. For Stevertigo to apply the label "not constructive" is incredible considering I responded rationally to all of his points. That he favors TJive's responses more than mine is not my problem. Meanwhile, the page is blindly protected to the original version, but Stevertigo goes and protects to HIS VERSION, which is an obvious act of bad faith. I reported him to 3RR for his gross violations (even if you factor out my reverts which went over three and which I was subsequently blocked for). Then the "wheel war" began, and so on. Shortly after this arbitration was started (and I was not informed of it) I began a new series of talks, but I don't think Stevertigo really proved his point. I look forward to rational debate, but launching this arbitration without other steps in the resolution process because "its too slow" doesn't really cut it considering the dispute is not even a week old.

That said, I am not sure what this arbitration is going to accomplish. Is it to clear Stevertigo of adminstrative wrong doing? Is it to determine the substance of the Vietnam War? Is it to punish me for my "weasel wording"? Or it is a combination of these? I look forward to these answers. CJK 16:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 3

I am inlcuding myself in this as party 3, because my actions have come in for criticism in the section above, and I would like to present my side of the story. I feel that making myself a participant in this case (should it be accepted) is the fairest way to do this.

Prior to yesterday I had not edited the Vietnam war article. I was doing page protection work at WP:RFPP, where this article was listed.

Acting as I normally do in these circumstances, I looked at the history of the article and the talk page. The article history showed that there was a revert war ongoing, and the talk page did not reveal any active discussion on the matter.

This being the case I protected the article blindly, edited it to add the {{protected}} template, listed it at Wikipedia:Protected page and made a note of my protection in repsonse to the request at WP:RFPP. I did not check to see whether any editor had broken the 3RR or not.

I expected this to be the end of the matter until a request for unprotection arrived. I know very little about the Vietnam war, and it isn't a topic that I am very interested in and so I don't plan to follow the debate on talk closely and was not planning on acting as an informal mediator.

I then investigated other requests for protection, protecting Bogdanov Affair and Lifestyle anarchism in the same manner.

After this I checked my watchlist and was suprised to see an edit to the Vietnam war article. I investigated this and found that user:Stevertigo had reverted to their preferred version. While the version Stevertigo prefers appears much more informative, it is my feeling that because they are a party involved in the edit war this was a gross breach of the Wikipedia:Protection policy. They should have made a request on the talk page or of another administrator if they wanted the verison that was protected changed.

As a direct result of this I left a message about it at WP:AN and on Stevertigo's talk page about this, stating I was blocking them for 48 hours for this. By the time I had done this, they had been blocked for 24 hours for the 3RR violation, and then unblocked themselves with the comment "haven't saved edit yet". I felt that the blocks for breaking protection policy and the 3RR should run consecutively, and so I blocked for 60 hours.

I replied to Stevertigo on their talk page after they left a message there, and then went out for the night. When I logged on this morning, I had a message on my talk page that informed me of this RfAr and an RfC about Stevertigo's abuses of admin powers. Thryduulf 07:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (0/4/1/0)

• Recuse Fred Bauder 21:03, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Reject for lack of attempts at the earlier stages of dispute resolution. Further, Stevertigo's blasé discarding of it is worrying. James F. (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Reject ➥the Epopt 22:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Reject. No other attempts at dispute resolution. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Reject for reasons stated above. →Raul654 22:43, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Ed Poor

Involved Parties

Party 1 (Initiators)

• Rob Church
• Nicholas Turnbull
• Phroziac
• The Uninvited Co., Inc.

Party 2

• Ed Poor

Third Parties

• Kim Bruning (Involved admin)
• Benjamin Gatti (Affected Third Party having a vested interest in the outcome)
• Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs)
• Xiong (affected -- as are we all)

Confirmation of Parties' Awareness

• Rob Church 01:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• NicholasTurnbull 01:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Phroziac (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Benjamin Gatti 18:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Ed Poor has been made aware: [2]
• Tony Sidaway became aware sometime in the 1950s; he is sitting up in bed listening to Radio 4.

Previous Dispute Resolution

Although several attempts have been made to resolve this issue ([3], [4], [5], [6]), none of them have been particularly successful. Ed Poor's deletion of the RfC page against him goes towards proving that he does not wish for any discussion in the matter.

• I agree that I cut off discussion, and that I was wrong to do so. I have undeleted / unarchived Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deletion of VFD. Uncle Ed 15:47, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Nicholas Turnbull, Rob Church, Phroziac, and UninvitedCompany

Ed Poor is a very experienced Wikipedian, who has made an exceptional contribution to the project over the long period of time that he has been a Wikipedia contributor, and was consequently made an administrator (and indeed a "bureaucrat") by the community. He has been active in Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, as well as in article editing.

Recently, he took the controversial action of speedy deleting Wikipedia:Votes for deletion without consultation to the community or prior warning - that is, using the "delete" administrative function, not tagging it with {{delete}} for another administrator to delete the page. It is our opinion that, in his attempt to delete VfD, he nonetheless had a genuine belief that his actions were for the benefit of the community - however, it is not this particular action that we take issue with, as Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is an important part of our community, and such actions may be overlooked if they occur in isolation.

This page was restored by another administrator; however, the original action understandably caused consternation amongst some members of the community, and an RfC was drawn up by a number of Wikipedians to resolve the dispute. Sadly, pursuant to this event, Ed Poor has ignored the standard consensus on Wikipedia operations, and has not paid attention to feedback from the Wikipedia community as a whole about his conduct. He deleted the RfC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deletion of VFD (archived version here) [7], on the purported grounds that it violated RfC policy; the double standard that he created by ignoring rules on one hand and enforcing the letter of them on the other is not acceptable. Another administrator restored this page; Ed deleted it for a second time. He unblocked himself ([8]) after he was blocked by a fellow administrator to provide breathing space for the dispute to settle. Ed Poor appears to have counted on his seniority and popularity to avoid discipline ([9], [10]), and thus seems to consider himself above the Wikipedia community in matters of action and procedure.

It is our opinion that Ed Poor has ignored the standard consensus on Wikipedia operations, and has not paid attention to feedback from the Wikipedia community as a whole about his conduct; he has consequently abused his administrator rights. This sets a poor precedent for the rest of the community, and threatens the entire spirit of collaboration and co-operation that Wikipedia is built on, and re-enforces the divide between administrators and users - creating an unpleasant double standard that must be avoided.

This statement is endorsed by the following:

• Rob Church 01:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• NicholasTurnbull 01:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Phroziac (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Uncle Ed 15:49, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators please note: We have made a request to Ed Poor on his talk page [11] for an online chat meeting to discuss our collective differences with a view to withdrawing this RfArb, depending upon agreement between the parties. --NicholasTurnbull 00:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

This request has been accepted and an IRC-based mediation conference has been arranged for 5:30PM EST (11:30PM BST (GMT+1)) on 5th August 2005. Parties in attendance will be:

• Rob Church
• Nicholas Turnbull
• Phroziac
• The Uninvited Co.
• Ed Poor

Rob Church 07:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

It was decided at the conference that negotiations would continue. We will advise the ArbCom when an attempt at mediation has been completed, and whether or not further action is needed. We also agree to post the logs of these meetings. Rob Church 13:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

While the RFC page whose deletion was a primary reason for this request has now been restored and discussions there are continuing, no agreement has been made during the two IRC conferences that have been held. No further conferences are scheduled at this time. In the absence of any interest in scheduling further meetings, I believe that this mediation effort has run its course. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I would like to point out that this is the opinion of User:UninvitedCompany, and not representative of the opinion held by the meeting as a whole or by other party members. --NicholasTurnbull 19:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

My views with regard to this are here. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators please note: Following the successes of the IRC mediation conferences, and a number of discusions with Ed Poor, Rob Church, Phroziac and Nicholas Turnbull have agreed to withdraw their statements from this request for arbitration. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NicholasTurnbull/Mediation_IRC#Motion_to_withdraw_Request_for_Arbitration_against_Ed_Poor for full details. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 16:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Further statement by UninvitedCompany

Ed Poor is a long-time colleague of mine here at Wikipedia and I am saddened both by the overall course of events and by the fact that I feel compelled to participate in this unfortunate case. I believe that this case has importance to the community far beyond Ed's own actions. It is a core principle of Wikipedia that the community is the ultimate authority. I find that Kim and Ed's actions in trying to suppress discussion by deleting the RFC are an effort to whitewash this whole event and the community's reaction to it. It is an attempt to undermine the community, and a clear effort to pull rank and give the community a PowerAnswer rather than to seek reconciliation through discussion, compromise, and consensus. It is, in a very real way, the antithesis of wiki.

While I am hardly one of the first Wikipedians, I have been told that I have somehow become part of the fabric of the place; I am sometimes called an old-timer. I am participating in this case to make a clear statement that even though I may be an old-timer, and part of the same "cabal" as Ed and the other senior admins and bureaucrats, that in actual fact There Is No Cabal -- nor should there be. I'm not going to stand by and let this case be characterized as an old hands vs. new hands matter. It's not. This case is about the fact that everyone around here still must answer to the community, no matter how much they've contributed, no matter how long they've been here, no matter what level of access they have earned, and no matter who their friends are.

Finally, I point out that troublesome behavior from Ed is not new. The matter of William Connolley's near-promotion to adminship and Ed's temporary de-sysopping of several admins earlier this year are similar examples. There are others. The Wikipedia community has forgiven (and indeed forgotten) a great deal already, and I believe that a response of "aw, shucks, I'm sorry and I promise not to do it again" falls well short of the mark.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Kim Bruning

The RfC in question was indeed not brought compliant to policy, Ed Poor's premature deletion of the page was actually due to an incorrect time conversion between EST and UTC. (That, and he should have let a neutral party do it, of course :-) ) This was corrected. After being quite thoroughly notified, the bringers of the RfC continued to fail to certify it, and the RfC was deleted at the due time.

I'd love to see IAR tested sometime, but I don't think this will be the case to do it :-) Kim Bruning 02:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Notes:

1. Though the RFC has been terminated, several users have moved it out of RFC space to circumvent RFC policy: [12]. Up to arbcom to decide if that is a valid application of WP:IAR
2. Ed Poor created Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion very early on to allow people to comment on his actions.
3. I was the blocking administrator, and actually talked with Ed on the phone! I won't be pleased if anyone holds it against him that he unblocked himself after that!

Statement by Ed Poor

Please limit your statement to 500 words.

Okay, I don't care whether this request is "proper" or not. People want a reckoning, and that they shall have.

I was wrong to delete vfd. As a professional database programmer, I should have realized that it would place a great strain on the database, due to its lengthy history being moved into the "deleted page" table. In other words, I should have anticipated the 5-minute read-only block I effectively put on this wiki. So I plead guilty to negligence.

Secondly, I was wrong to assume that my intuitive sense of consensus - (which was actually lacking rather than present) combined with a light-hearted attitude of Ignore All Rules and Be Bold - would be sufficient justification for blasting away at a problematic page (and system). I should have brought up the matter for discussion by creating a poll (as Angela correctly pointed out) or gone through similar channels. Wikipedia has become too big for anyone, however "beloved" (as I immodestly regard myself) or dedicated, to make such a major change as I tried to do.

I promise not to do this again - or anything like it. Specifically, I will not delete an important page or one with a lengthy edit history again unless there is clear community consensus for this. If I cannot determine consensus on my own, I will ask another admin for help. Someone like Uninvited Company would be my first choice.

If my promise is not enough, well you can always put me on "no delete" parole or even de-sysop me. I don't care: if becoming an Admin is not supposed to be a big deal, than un-becoming a one should be no big deal either. Uncle Ed 12:42, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

About the RFC

I mistook the "end date" of the RFC by 4 hours. I thought it was 1:08 P.M. my time, but it was actually 5:08 P.M. my time. I am 4 hours behind Greenwich UTC. I figured that, with only one person certifying, that the RFC could be deleted exactly at the 48-hour mark but I made two errors: (1) I miscomputed the expiration time - which, by the way, I had calculated myself, since the RFC opener had neglected to put it in. (2) I missed the unwritten rule that one does not delete an RFC concerning oneself.

I guess this is why Kim Bruning kept blocking my account and telling me not to shoot myself in the foot (or the leg) - apparently she was planning to delete the RFC herself at the appointed (and correctly calculated) hour. I had no idea of this.

As for unblocking myself, what can I say? Kim blocked me to further some plan of hers which she declined to share with me. I'm not going to arbitration with her on this, as she has already apologized to me. I figured that if an Admin (a) blocked me with no justification and (b) apologized for this, there was no need to embarass her by demanding she unblock me when (as an admin in good standing) I could simply remove the block myself. (She asked me on the phone, "Do you want me to unblock you?" I said that it didn't matter and kind of thought it comical, getting an expensive international phone call from an admin wanting to know if she should unblock me! :-) Uncle Ed 02:08, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

The point that you continue to miss, Ed, is that the RFC shouldn't have been deleted in the first place. Not at the end of howevermany hours, not by you, and not by anyone else. There was ongoing discussion, and whether or not the RFC rules against unsupported listings were complied with or not (and I believe they were, for reasons I am happy to elaborate upon if requested), there was no reason to delete an RFC that was serving as the focus of community discussion. The Vfu Discussion shows that the community was overwhelmingly opposed to deletion, with no actual votes supporting the deletion of the RFC (though Kim voted neutral and there was one vote that, though an "undelete," appeared to be made in sarcastic jest). It is your ongoing, unrepentant insistence that deleting a community discussion about a mistake you made is OK (or, equivalently, would have been OK after four more hours), that led me to support this case in the first place. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

It took me a while to see your point, but I now agree. The request for comment was intended to generate comments and was successfully doing so.

"...the double standard that he created by ignoring rules on one hand and enforcing the letter of them on the other is not acceptable." Wow, I had no idea. I'm glad I re-read this RFA carefully, because I completely missed that point the first few times. Maybe I should step down (or be removed) from adminship until I learn to stop doing this AntiPattern. Uncle Ed 15:19, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Kim Bruning's a guy. It's amusing that you did not notice that, after talking to him on the phone though. :D --Phroziac (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that I should not have deleted the RFC. I am sorry that I deleted it, and sorry that I let Kim "close" it. I see now that the RFC page was serving a higher purpose that I should not have interfered with; or ignored; or allowed to be curtailed. Therefore I have put it back, even if this is 'too little, too late' (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deletion of VFD). Uncle Ed 15:53, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Third Party Benjamin Gatti

Sanctioning Ed Poor in this case could have a chilling effect on contributers being bold in addressing problems. The Arbitration commitee should investigate the alledged harm present in the current deletion process and upon a finding of real harm, ought to propose a remedy therefore and thank Uncle Ed for raising the alarm. The technical issues related to deleting a page are matters beyond the jurisdiction of the arbcomm and ought to be rectified rather than blamed on the user. Wikipedia:Wikiblower protection has been proposed and should be adopted as the accepted conclusions of the committee. The Policy is fair to all users and turns on the facts rather than on the personalities involved. Ed Poor should not be sanctioned whether he agrees to it or not because of the effect on the community at large - Killing the messenger is never the solution. Benjamin Gatti 19:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Here here. --67.182.157.6 23:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Curious 3rd Party (~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ))

I think Ed Poor was deliberately demonstrating that the current system allows total abuse a.k.a. a cabal, in deleting VFD and then deleting any attempts to question this. Warnings from history are very important. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 21:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Statement by 3rd party: Nickptar

I don't see the need to prosecute Ed for this single act. While it was very poorly thought out, Ed has admitted it, has promised not to do it again, and has shown no pattern of disruption. I do think he should voluntarily give up adminship until this cools down, then renominate himself. If he did choose to do so, I would fully support his readminning. ~~ N (t/c) 21:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

Oh for heaven's sake, who brought this poxy, pointless, idiotic case? Grow up! --Tony Sidaway^Talk 08:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Statement by 212.101.64.4

You really are a bunch of hopeless wankers. You've got a shoddy, badly written, vandalised, POV, etc., Encyclopaedia and you waste your time shouting about pointless crap like this. shitheads. ~~~~

Some comments on this statement have been moved to the appropriate place

Statement by Xiong

I don't doubt that there is an involved legal term, in bad Latin, that covers this case exactly. The facts of the matter are unimportant; the ostensible subject of this RfArb is petty, a constellation of secondary actions. The real subject is Ed's primary action: deleting VfD. That was a noble and bold act and has garnered much praise -- perhaps the largest number of barnstars awarded for any single click of the mouse. Ed has annoyed many, but these strong expressions of support -- as well as the following explosion of public debate on this contentious issue -- make it impossible to attack him directly.

Regardless of the technical merits of this case, any decision made here will be taken as condemnation or endorsement of Ed's primary action. I suggest that it is both wrong and unwise for ArbCom to commit to either. — Xiong熊talk* 20:10, 2005 August 7 (UTC)

Statement by a 4th party (Lubaf)

I'm not at all interested in this case (thus my 4th party status), but I'd suggest holding this case until Stevertigo's behavior on Vietnam war (see above) is resolved, as it's a much clearer case, and therefore, should give better contrast as to whether Ed's actions were innappropriate or not. Thanks,
Luc "Somethingorother" French 12:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Response by Stevertigo

I dont think its in the interest of fairness to pick and choose the order of cases to suit one particular view. Ed's action of deletion was done in the spirit of inclusionism (ironically) - to counter what was a greater percieved danger to wikipedia through deletionism. Certainly the act itself was somewhat unilateral, but then, much of Wikipedia's early success to date had been on rather unilteralist action, by editors well known for their dedication to Wikipedias core principle of NPOV.

As any beaurocracy grows, so to do contradictions develop between concepts of propriety and concepts of principle. War criminals can be found "innocent," while someone who steals pennies from a federally protected bank has "violated the law," and gets a life sentence. In this case, the act of unilaterally deleting a process page can be said to be inexcusable, yet, judging by the overwhelmingly positive responses of people on the mailing list, can also be said to have been in the spirit of consensus. Does foundational principle yield to mere matters of process? IAC, I am not alone in the perception that some beaurocratic shakeup and reform may be necessary, and that beaurocracy itself has made such BOLD changes unwieldy. In a sense this is a good thing, as it established continuity. But VFD in particular, in spite of the fact that its a necessary function, has had a long history of being misused and abused --providing only black and white solutions for greyscale issues and problems. Is the Arbcom interested only in enforcing existing rules, or making recommendations regarding changes of process? -St|eve 20:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Statement by 3rd Party Observer

To quote from Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Deletion_of_VFD :

If anyone is due an apology, it is I. Uncle Ed 10:47, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

If no action is taken, it will pave the way for further abuses of admin privileges. I would recommend de-sysopping, in line with User:Tim Starling and a majority of the community. Erwin Walsh 11:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' Opinions on Hearing this Matter (3/3/0/2)

• Accept Fred Bauder 19:02, August 4, 2005 (UTC) Vote to accept affirmed Fred Bauder 21:22, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Reject Not sure yet - Ed not only says above "I was wrong," but explains how he was wrong. I'm not sure what penalty would make the encyclopedia better David Gerard 21:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

  Changed to 'not sure yet' after discussion with some of those bringing the RFAr. I think Kim's explanation helps explain the issues at hand (the RFC and the self-unblock), but I'd like to hear Ed's own words on the subjects. I'll consider further before a firm 'accept' or 'reject' - David Gerard 22:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Ed doesn't seem to have commented on the real issue here (as set out above). That is, the deletion of an RfC about himself and the unblocking of himself - I'd like to hear more on these before voting -- sannse (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

  Accept. Given Ed's response on my talk page [13], there seems a lack of agreement over these actions that I think needs looking at -- sannse (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Waiting for further input from the parties as to how discussions are progressing, but, I must say, I fail to see how this really helps build the encyclopædia. James F. (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

  Reject. I feel that the discussions have been and are being fruitful. James F. (talk) 07:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Accept, to consider the larger issues surrounding Ed's misuse of his admin/bureacrat/developer privileges. I didn't want to accept this, but it was his veto comment that decided it for me. →Raul654 17:46, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm going to stay my above comment (e.g, for the time being it counts as an abstain). Ed tells us that he's nearing a breakthrough in his discussions with the people who brought this case, and in the light of that, I think we should wait before we consider this
    • After private discussion with both Ed and UC, I've decided to reject this without prejudice (the rest of the complainants having dropped the request). There is merit to this complaint and I was prepared to hear it out. However, Ed has promised to cease the offending behavior, and I trust him to abide by his word. If he does continue the misbehavior, I'll be willing to entertain this request again. →Raul654 21:14, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. Ed's recent uses of his admin/bureaucrat privileges are of concern. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Hmm. I'm really not sure. I'm going to abstain for now. Abuse of admin powers is a serious thing, but I'm going to take Ed's promise as the end of the matter. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Reject: punishing Ed will not make Wikipedia a better place ➥the Epopt 22:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Keetoowah

Involved parties

• User:TheoClarke (initiator)
• User:Keetoowah

Keetoowah is aggressively incivil towards other users including, but not limited to, the making of personal attacks.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Notification at User talk:Keetoowah of this entry.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Keetoowah raised 15 February 2005 asserted that Keetoowah "makes violent personal attacks on other users." It received four direct endorsements in addition to the two editors certifying the dispute. Four other editors endorsed a harsher summary describing Keetoowah as "an obnoxious user". Keetoowah's response opened "Forget it. This is a Star Chamber. I'm not even going to participate. Waste of time." TheoClarke did not participate in this RFC.

Statement by party 1

TheoClarke believed Keetoowah to be pushing a POV at Ward Churchill and challenged this at Talk:Ward Churchill. Keetoowah responded with aggressive incivility. TheoClarke suggested that this was inappropriate. Keetoowah responded with more aggressive incivility including a suggestion that any UK national is unqualified to contribute to the Ward Churchill article. Keetoowah has displayed similar behaviour patterns towards other editors and shows no sign of ameliorating such behaviour. Given that these diffs may not be in full context, I feel that the best evidence would be a reading of Talk:Ward Churchill and its archives.

Addendum at 23:31, August 12, 2005 (UTC): Contrary to Raul654's perception that this is "a one time incident", it is part of a pattern of increasing aggression against more than six editors since Keetoowah's sixth edit in which he makes an argumentative response to a covert attack on Condoleezza Rice. Since this mild incivility, Keetoowah became increasingly aggressive at Talk:Condoleezza Rice and has also attacked Slimvirgin, Cberlet, Viajero, Fred Bauder, and zen master at Talk:Ward Churchill. The details of all these attacks were omitted from the first draft of this statement for brevity. For the avoidance of doubt: The February RFC was about incidents before those that prompted this RFA.

Statement by party 2

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Statement by User:Project2501a (interested third party)

You might also want to check out Talk: Condoleezza Rice concerning User:Keetoowah's behaviour. Project2501a 02:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Statement by User:Kelly Martin (vaguely interested third party)

User:Keetoowah is an abrasive editor who is very obviously pushing a point of view and whose conduct frequently steps well over the accepted boundaries of civility. However, I haven't seen him actually edit war; in my experience he respects consensus when actually editing articles, responding instead to edits he disapproves of by unleashing increasingly nasty comments on talk pages. While I don't encourage such an abrasive discussion style, it sure beats the hell out of edit warring. Any remedy for his conduct should respect the fact that his conduct with respect to articles (as opposed to talk pages) does not appear to need correction. I feel that the inclusion of his point of view benefits Wikipedia, and would be disappointed to see him leave.

I believe the histories of Ward Churchill and Talk:Ward Churchill adequately demonstrate this editing pattern. I am less familiar with his history on other articles, but I think this one is especially informative because he has such a strong point of view on Churchill and yet manages to avoid letting it totally get out of hand in the article. Kelly Martin 21:23, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by User:Viajero (interested third party)

As was documented in the RfC in February and can be amply seen on the Talk page archives of Ward Churchill, Keetoowah has a habit of lashing out at other editors with whom he disagrees with exceptional anger and hostility. His lack of collegial spirit and the disrespect he shows towards others is incompatible with the nature of this collaborative undertaking. In particular, he urgently needs to take a timeout from the Ward Churchill article. -- Viajero | Talk 21:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (2/2/1/0)

• Recuse Fred Bauder 11:35, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. James F. (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Reject. It looks like a one time incident. →Raul654 17:45, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Reject ➥the Epopt 21:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Requests for Clarification

If you need to clarify the precise meaning of a previous decision of the Arbitration Committee, your request should go here.

Everyking

I need to know about when my most recent Arb sentence expires, the one that regulates my expression of views. Everyking 04:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Archive

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests (unofficial)