Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Rama	Motions	29 April 2019	5/3/0
SashiRolls		30 April 2019	0/0/0

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland	Motion	(orig. case)	21 June 2024
Amendment request: Extended confirmed restriction	none	none	25 July 2024
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	none	none	26 July 2024

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Historical elections	21 July 2024

Rama

Initiated by Iffy★Chat -- at 09:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Iffy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Rama (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Special:Diff/894676015
• Special:Diff/894676085

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Draft talk:Clarice Phelps
• User_talk:TonyBallioni#Clarice_Phelps_(again)
• User talk:Rama#Phelps
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Restoration_of_Clarice_Phelps

Statement by Iffy

I'm going to keep this short, the article Clarice Phelps has been deleted twice (AFD 1 (Endorsed at DRV), AFD 2), and subsequently salted by TonyBallioni to prevent recreation. Today, admin Rama re-created the article without attempting to discuss the matter with the protecting admin, or at WP:DRV in violaiton of the salting, wheel warring and/or admin accountability policies. This case is being filed to consider whether Rama should be desysopped for wheel warringusing their admin tools against a clear community consensus, Arbcom is the only place that can resolve this dispute.

@Fæ: If Rama had not doubled down on their re-creation when challenged, I would not have filed this case request per WP:AGF (but someone else may have done so).

I don't have an opinion on whether the scope should only be about Rama's conduct, or if the scope should be extended to other conduct issues surrounding the Clarice Phelps article, I named the case Clarice Phelps to allow ArbCom to make that decision if they choose to accept.

The matter of whether the article should be deleted or kept is a content dispute and thus not in Arbcom's remit, any conduct issues surrounding the editing of the article may be in scope though.

@Hodgdon's secret garden: I didn't add DGG or Amakuru as a party to this case as accepting an WP:AFC draft to an unsalted title is not an admin action (anyone at WP:WPAFC/P has this ability), and (speculation ahead) Amakuru deleted that page before DGG had a chance to revert his acceptance. Amakuru's deletion was within policy as WP:G4 exists to enforce the consensus of WP:XFD discussions.

Statement by Rama

I discovered the matter today in a press article. I then had a look at the Wikipedia biography, which I found to be far past the stub stage, and to contain almost 30 references. This made me think that the deletion process was mistaken, and, considering the potential for embarrassing press coverage, I decided to restore the article. This is an exceptional measure — I have never before seen an article with such solid references be questioned in such a manner. The nature and intensity of the reactions to the restoration have also surprised me. Rama (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
[Statement made in response to question by BU Rob13; moved here per guidelines for ArbCom pages]

• My understanding is that there exists a culture of ostensibly apolitical adherence to select rules — including when the outcome contradicts official policies of the Wikimedia Foundation such as the promotion of diversity. What can be done about it is such a difficult question that the Wikimedia Foundation has several Strategic Working Groups interested in the issue, notably Diversity [1] and Community Health [2]. Rama (talk) 07:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
• It is widely acknowledged that Wikipedia has diversity problems: that amounts to saying that the usual processes sometimes bring about undesirable results — I do not think that this is controversial. Of course one cannot solve the whole issue with executive decisions such as the one I took in restoring the article, this can only be exceptional. Rama (talk) 08:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by TonyBallioni

As I have pointed out all tonight: no one here is looking at the impacts this dispute has the potential to have on a real human being who is in the early stages of her career and who it is likely is now most known for the Wikipedia controversy rather than anything else. An ArbCom case over this will only further that problem. A real human being has unfortunately become a political point on Wikipedia, and that is to our shame.

This was not wheel warring: it was an admin taking a particularly dumb step of recreating a salted article because of an op-ed written by someone who is apparently connected to our education program. Cool. DGG also accepted it as a draft yesterday trying to find a compromise, and I wouldn’t consider that to be wheel warring, and in that regard I wouldn’t consider this wheel warring either as it wasn’t the second reversal.

Fram has solved the content issue: it’s in draft now. It can be taken to DRV at this point and the last two AfDs and the call for salting in the second one reviewed by the community. What is not needed is an ArbCom case to document for the next month this political fight over one person who in every likelihood doesn’t want this mess. If Rama were to restore the article against Fram’s draftification that would likely require ArbCom intervention, but we haven’t gotten to that stage yet. I would urge the committee to decline this or if it feels action is warranted, deal with it by motion, but a case would do more harm than good here. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Wnt, for what it’s worth, I actually agree with you. I think the concerns people have here is that there was an apparent taking sides in a content dispute and what looks like using the tools to override three discussions and without talking to the protecting admin (me). Part of the reason I’m slightly less up in arms about this than others is that my response would have been Any admin can reverse the salting if they want, but it may be better to discuss at DRV as this is controversial. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I just want to state that I fully endorse Newyorkbrad's statement, who makes it better than I could. The community can deal with this issue. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Re: Amakuru, I was more referencing the fact that the central content dispute underway seems to be in draft space/headed to DRV and Rama hasn't overruled yet another admin and restored it again. The community has the power to deal with that dispute, and the case for a desysop on something where there appears to be little risk of wheel-warring now that the status quo has been reestablish is low. I agree that there was an issue here with regards to conduct, but I am less concerned about it since they haven't tried to force their will again on this. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement from SN 54129

Suggest this is resolved by motion; the facts are clear enough, and the only theoretically debatable issue, ironically, is the content itself, and the community has shown three times how it is dealing with it. Thus the only matter that requires Arbcom examination is Rama's conduct. A motion would also avoid relitigating the previous deletion discussions. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 09:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Re. Fae: Arbcom is not a hammer to smash community discussion; and neither is an administrator... ——SerialNumber54129 10:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Fae: There had already been myriad discussion for them to have tajen part in had they so chosen; to join a discussion that only starts as a result of one's own unilateral action is not in accordance with community expectations.

@GBfan: Personally, I think ADMINCOND and AD'ACCT are the relevant policies: Mara's conduct, in unilaterlaly overruling community decisions—WP:SUPERVOTE-writ large, as it were—was clearly conduct unbecoming. The'r subsequent actions, while appearing to be engaged in discussion, also doubled down on their position. And per ACCT, a breach of basic policies is reason enough for the case. ——SerialNumber54129 10:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement from Nosebagbear

As SN 54129 says - it's a simple issue for the article/draft/salting - the greater consideration is needed is Rama's actions. The whole discussion is cited as evidence, so I just want to highlight one line by Rama: "My undeletion of Clarice Phelps's biography is an emergency measure to answer criticism in the press and show Wikipedia to be responsive, responsible, and capable of correcting mistakes quickly."'.

This isn't even a justifiable claim of IAR - AfD had a chance to use that argument and chose not to do so. Admins can't make their own IAR calls that override community decisions made shortly beforehand. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I want to clarify that @Amorymeltzer: et al are correct - I don't think this is a case of wheel-warring. It is a case of overriding community consensus and other actions. Assuming no change of mind by the admin in question, I still think it warrants ARBCOM consideration. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by GeneralizationsAreBad

I had no involvement in the prior history, but just wanted to point out that there may be further off-wiki ramifications here. Regardless, Arbcom action is clearly warranted. GAB^gab 10:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Fae

This is a hasty request created literally 2 hours after the undeletion action by a requester that has done nothing to engage participants apart from issuing notices. At the time of this request being created, I do not see how the requestor could know what additional material was going to be added by WiR participants or others (therefore the issue would be moot), nor had the procedural based discussion at ANI precisely focused on this undeletion been completed, in fact the undeleting admin was actively responding to questions there, and had the opportunity to take further action after discussion.

Launching hasty Arbcom requests, is not the way to engage good faith contributors for a consensus on how to proceed. Arbcom is not a hammer to smash community discussion. --Fæ (talk) 10:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Iffy: Rather than "double down", Rama is responding with a reasonable amount of detail for their reasoning behind undeletion. This Arbcom request was published exactly 4 minutes after their second statement on ANI, so I find it doubtful you took that into account. I do not read those statements as defensive, and given even 24 hours for discussion, we may have seen a good faith consensus. This Arbcom request disrupts collegiate discussion and is exactly the "doubling down" that you readily see in others. --Fæ (talk) 10:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

With regard to locus, it may be worth Arbcom taking into account User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Clarice_E._Phelps, a discussion on an Arbcom member's page that was opened a few hours in advance of undeletion and may have swayed views about whether the article should be openly revisited on Wikipedia. --Fæ (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Rama's actions may actually be in compliance with G4, the procedural discussion at ANI had a chance of resolving that before an Arbcom request. Per G4, it is not wheelwarring if the revised article is going to be reasonably different ("excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version"). In this case the prospective difference between meeting one of Wikipedia's definitions of notability for people or not. The conclusion at ANI may have been that Rama made a mistake based on inflated expectations, that's fair enough, misjudging how to meet G4 is not a crime, though Rama would have been better advised to discuss the undeletion with the salting party, as was already part of the ANI discussion. This Arbcom case puts a premature halt to good faith discussion and makes it virtually impossible for Rama to back down and put things right for themselves. I do not see Rama as being the one breaking community discussion, seeing as how engaging in community discussion, answering others questions in good faith, was exactly what they were doing. --Fæ (talk) 10:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Fully endorse the point made by TonyBallioni, that this is an Inside baseball discussion and should be handled that way. Every reasonable step should be taken to reduce the unintentional internet footprint this discussion may have for the BLP subject's name as it has no relevance to their public profile or career. --Fæ (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush

Motion should suffice. It is straightforward wheelwarring. - Sitush (talk) 10:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC) Or at least abuse of tools (seems to be some debate about the wheelwarring claim but it's potato/po-tah-to in this situation. - Sitush (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Rama: your comment referring to enabling the far Right is ridiculous. - Sitush (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Wnt: I can see no request from an editor for Rama to restore, serious or otherwise. - Sitush (talk) 13:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: my revert was while the article was not draftified and when I was myself reverted I left it alone, merely explaining things in the ANI thread - see here.- Sitush (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Mr rnddude

You know, I have no issue with keeping the article. It's a, as yet, "meh" article with, I guess, adequate referencing. The article is for the community to handle. I take issue solely with Rama and the way they are handling this dispute. The fact is the article was twice speedy deleted and even salted. Rama joined like a bull in a china shop and decided "no, we're doing this my way". Their defence is that this is an emergency measure because doing otherwise would show that "Wikipedia is not for Social Justice" attitude, which would be irresponsible and deeply suspicious. Aside from Wikipedia not being here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, the general disregard for community processes is fundamentally incompatible with adminship. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Levivich - There's a Draft:Clarice Phelps. It might be an idea to move your findings across to the draft so that the information can be consolidated. Concerted efforts in one place ought work better than individual efforts spread out. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Lectonar

To be resolved by motion; straight-out wheel-warring. Lectonar (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by GB fan

I don't believe this actually is a wheel war. That says that once an Admin action is reversed the reinstatement of that or a similar admin action is wheel warring. In this case the article was deleted and protected from recreation. Those two admin actions were reverted. Now if anyone reinstates those actions (deletes the article and create protection) it is a wheel war. We haven't gotten to the third stage yet that makes one.

Statement by Fram

I moved the page to draft space. Keeping it in the mainspace lets one admin (whose admin rights doesn't make them a superior judge of content matters) overrule community decisions, no matter if these were right or wrong. Deleting it would get me too close to wheelwarring as well probably. In draft space, it can be developed and can then be brought to WP:DRV for a standard review if necessary. And it allows non-admins to see what the fuss is about, which a deletion wouldn't do. The recreation of the article was not an emergency, despite the claims by Rama to the contrary, and should lead to a desysop (for wheel-warring or for serious abuse of the admin rights by editing through salting to overturn a community content decision); but the article is not a BLP violation which needs complete deletion asap, and draftifying it works just as well for now (I have no opinion on later redeletion or a post-DRV move to mainspace). Fram (talk) 10:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Davey2010

I'm sure we all on occasions have disagreed with the consensus at one place or another however that's just how this place works .... In terms of AFD if you don't agree with that consensus then you have DRV - If consensus goes against you there then you simply give up and move on,
I personally would say this is wheel warring as an admins action has clearly been reversed,
Anyway the only sensible option here is a desysop with the option of retrying through RFA,

Also worth noting Rama was given the mop back in 2005 where things were a lot different. –Davey2010^Talk 10:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Pawnkingthree Thanks, Not the first time I've got Wheelwar wrong and certainly won't be the last!. –Davey2010^Talk 13:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Amorymeltzer

I have no comment on what ArbCom should or shouldn't do, but unless I am missing some other action, this is, by definition, not wheel warring. A wheel war, as Arbitrators surely know, is when sysops reverse an already-reversed sysop action; had TonyBallioni taken umbrage and reverted Rama's undeletion, that would have been a wheel war. This was a sysop taking unilateral action to reverse an apparent community consensus: that may warrant action here (in particular to avoid an actual wheel war) or it may not, but this is not a wheel war. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Amakuru

I'll comment more on this in due course when time allows, as I did play a minor role in the saga myself last night with a db-repost deletion of the article when it had been recreated at the slightly different title of Clarice E. Phelps. I will say now though, regarding Fae's comment above, "[this arbcom case] makes it virtually impossible for Rama to back down and put things right for themselves" - I doubt that's the case. Even though the decision to re-delete the article has been taken out of their hands, I reckon that if Rama were to back down now and apologise for their actions in overriding community consensus and several other admins, then things may not need to be escalated any further and this case can be closed down. The arbs haven't even begun to look at this yet. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

There's some disagreement on whether this constitutes wheel warring or not, so it may be worth explicitly stating the order of events (and correct me if I've missed anything):

• 31 August: Page created by Jesswade88.
• 11 Feburary: Deleted by Tony Ballioni following first deletion discussion. Deletion discussion was endorsed on 18 Feb.
• 3 April: Created again by Jesswade88.
• 4 April: Deleted again by Tony Ballioni following second deletion discussion.
• 26 April: Draft:Clarice E. Phelps was created by Hodgdon's secret garden.
• 27 April: Draft moved to mainspace Clarice E. Phelps by admin DGG.
• 27 April: I deleted the Clarice E. Phelps article as it had been tagged as {{db-repost}} by Tataral and the conditions for that seemed to be met.
• 29 April: Rama undeleted the original article at Clarice Phelps.
• 29 April: Fram moved the article to Draft:Clarice Phelps without leaving a redirect, after the opening of this case request.

Quite who is reverting whom in all that is hard to say but I don't think the question of whether this is textbook WP:WHEEL or not should really affect whether the case should be heard or not.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: @Newyorkbrad: I totally sympathise with the spirit of your comments - people do need to calm down here, certainly. Personally I am not baying for blood and am undecided if a desysopping, admonishment, or a simple WP:TROUT is appropriate. Or maybe even no action at all. But it's clear that Rama's actions and their refusal (thus far) to admit that they made a mistake, and the widespread discontent with that admin action evident on this page, have created a situation that cannot be dealt with by any other mechanism. "The community can deal with this issue" is expressly not the case, because the community has no power to examine administrator conduct, that is the domain of ArbCom. On the substance of the issue itself there seem to be two points being made by Rama and others in defence of the action, namely (1) the situation was an emergency one requiring unilateral WP:IAR action, and there was no time for community consensus to be established before restoring the article to redress that emergency, and (2) that off-wiki articles and "perception of Wikipedia in the press" issues override AFD decisions in scenarios like this. I disagree on both points. There was no emergency, because there were multiple discussions ongoing in different venues since Saturday, and no consensus had been formed that the recent coverage in the press warranted a change of approach. And on the latter point, I know of no policy saying that off-wiki op-eds should influence our processes. For all these reasons I think ArbCom need to look at this. I'm not pre-judging what ArbCom might decide, but this surely sits squarely within their domain of operation. To be clear, if Rama admits they were wrong and promises not to unilaterally override community consensus in this fashion in future, then the case can be closed swiftly as far as I am concerned. But that doesn't seem to have happened. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: fair enough, that makes sense. Thanks for the response.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Med

I think this arbcom request should be speedily dismissed. First and foremost, Iffy has made no attempt to engage in any discussion with Rama. The right procedure would have been first to contact Rama and discuss with him if/how the circumstances have changed (and they very obviously have, necessitating rapid action) since the previous vote. If I were a suspicious person, I would say that this procedure looks awfully like someone jumping the gun at the first opportunity in an attempt to instrumentalize the arbcom and silence a voice perceived as dissenting. So until Iffy's attitude becomes respectful and genuinely open to discussion, any arbcom request against Rama is completely unwarranted and abusive. Med (talk) 11:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by SoWhy

One might dispute whether this is wheel-warring or just wheel-warring adjacent but the facts are that an admin implemented community consensus and another admin reverted consensus because they believe they know better. Call it what you want but I think we can all agree to call it unacceptable. Whether the subject in question is notable or not is irrelevant though. It's clear that this was deliberate and not just a simple misunderstanding but rather Rama using their admin tools to fix a perceived "embarasment for Wikipedia". All admins are permitted to consider the outcome of a community discussion "unjust" but it does not mean they are allowed to ignore them. So as many have said above, a motion to desysop Rama for obvious abuse of tools seems to be necessary here.

And with all due respect to Med just above, there is nothing Iffy could have done more. Rama was aware of the problem because Sitush challenged their action. They defended it without going into details why they had to override clear community consensus. Regards SoWhy 11:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Wnt: I don't think anyone here is arguing that SALTing is some kind of irreversible decision. The problem was not that Rama edited through protection but that they did so without consulting the previous admin (WP:RAAA) and without any pressing need to do so before consulting said admin. And when they did, they restored an article without making any changes to it, merely asserting that "Notability is ridiculously obvious". The problematic violation of community consensus that ArbCom needs to review was restoring an article twice deleted because they thought the consensus was wrong. Regards SoWhy 12:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@ArbCom: I would also strongly urge this case request to be renamed to "Rama" or something along the lines. As Tony rightly points out, the article that caused the behavior is only tangentially relevant to this case request and her name should not be associated with the actions of a lone admin, not the least because BLP requires us to think about the real-life impact it might have if this takes longer and is covered in news outlets. Regards SoWhy 12:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: While I am not completely against considering "how it will look if we do this or that", the focus should imho always be on what will happen if we let outside considerations dictate our internal processes. After all, administrators have to make 1001 unpopular decisions before breakfast and if they had to consider their actions from a PR standpoint as well, I don't think many would still be willing to do it. Wikipedia is a truly one of a kind project with people from all around the world participating. That requires that some rules are followed by all, especially those tasked by WP:ADMIN to lead by example. If we start to consider whether an action was made with the "subjective intent of benefitting the project", the whole system will sooner or later come crashing down. Yes, Rama acted because they felt Wikipedia were better off with this article than without it. But they also clearly and explicitly ignored consensus to the contrary without any need to do so. Declining to review this obvious abuse - compounded by later refusal to acknowledge that such behavior was problematic - because it might be received incorrectly by off-wiki media sends the wrong message. Whether at the end of such a review Rama is desysopped or merely admonished is for the Committee to decide. Regards SoWhy 14:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Rob asked Rama if they understand why people are upset of them using tools to interfere in a content dispute. Rama replied (ignoring the large "Kindly read before editing this page" edit notice telling them to keep in their own section (which is also troubling for an admin)) talking about a "culture of ostensibly apolitical adherence to select rules" and "official policies of the Wikimedia Foundation such as the promotion of diversity" without addressing the question asked. With all due respect to SilkTork and Premeditated Chaos, do you really think there is nothing to investigate when an admin is not even able to reflect on their own actions in the face of criticism? Regards SoWhy 08:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Winged Blades of Godric

The arbs are yet to start voting and I strongly concur with Amakuru. A case over here will be an invitation to an even bigger mess in light of the recent rise in long-inactive accounts, popping out of nowhere and casting random aspersions at those involved with the deletion.

But, shall Rama not apologise for a blatant misuse of tools (and then standing by his misuse), I believe that a desysop is in short order. ∯WBG^converse 11:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The political overtones evident in Rama's handling of the issue is also deeply concerning. ∯WBG^converse 13:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I note that Rama has been active over Wikimedia-sites since the initiation of the case (from adding material at Phelps' page to accusing others of being in a right-wing conspiracy to uploading photos over Commons and deleting her other photos) but is yet to respond over here. ∯WBG^converse 17:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Carrite

Unilateral restoration of a deleted and salted article in this manner is a blatent example of tool abuse. Pull tools of Rama by motion, invite a new RFA, move along to more important matters. Carrite (talk) 11:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

First of all, this isn't wheel-warring, as it isn't a reversal of an already-reversed admin action. But it's fairly flagrant tool misuse. Not only has Rama unilaterally - without any discussion with the deleting admin or anyone else - restored an article that's been deleted through AfD (and DRV), but it was also salted, so they've edited through protection as well. And when asked in two venues to reverse their action, they've refused. This can be dealt with via motion. Black Kite (talk) 11:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• I'd just point out that Rama has been editing since this case was launched, but has not answered here; they have added material to the Phelps Draft article, and to say this on the Draft talkpage, to another editor who thinks the article should not be kept. Is this really what we expect from an admnistrator? (Not to mention that it probably makes Rama WP:INVOLVED as well as everything else). Black Kite (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Nick

Desysop Rama by motion. Nick (talk) 12:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Wnt

GB Fan is right: this is not a wheel war, because it one admin undoing the first admin's action. Undoing the "salting" of the article is also not a violation of community consensus, because there was no community consensus to salt. Yes, there were three in the second AfD who said to salt, but another said not to, and some of the other comments that didn't lean either way could be inferred to be against salting (if someone says 'delete because there is no substantial change', that would seem to suggest a changed article would be acceptable). Not being able to view the text, I don't know if there was an attempt to substantially change its content from the AfD'd version or not - if there was, it may not be a violation of community consensus, otherwise it might be.

My main concern is that I don't want a minority of participants in an unannounced poll (it's not "Articles for Salting") plus one admin's more or less arbitrary action to become an irrevocable ban on covering a topic area. Nor should it be necessary to have a special RfC to undo a restriction when there was no special RfC to enact it. Wikipedia's primary purpose is supposed to be about sharing information, not concealing it. So admins should have and retain broad powers to un-salt articles based on any serious request from an editor. Wnt (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The responses by SoWhy and TonyBalloni are pretty persuasive. So long as this is phrased as a matter of ignoring the consensus on the AfD and/or not giving notification per WP:RAAA, rather than saying that an admin can't de-salt an article without 'wheel warring', my concern is satisfied. I do mean giving notification rather than getting consent -- if one admin salts and another disagrees after a discussion, then the second should be free to cancel the first and leave it unsalted, at least unless some larger consensus is brought in. Wnt (talk) 02:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich

Less than 12 hours ago I created User:Levivich/Clarice Phelps (which is different from the draft that was undeleted) and asked Tony if it was enough to unsalt. He said no, which I expected, and my intent was (and still is) to appeal that to DRV to seek recreation to be allowed.

The second AfD–the one that resulted in the salting–was only open for 8 hours, and several people (I was one of them) were against salting. I don't see how anyone can claim that this was salted as a result of "consensus" in such circumstances. Also, when DGG approved Clarice E. Phelps through AfC, Amakuru deleted and salted it. How is that not wheel warring, but undeleting what Tony deleted/salted is wheel warring? (I don't think it's wheel warring in either case.) Leviv ich 13:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: Yes, and normally I'd do what you're suggesting, but there are already editors removing sourced content from the draftspace draft, including wholesale removing the new sources calling it "myth" (Sitush, here). #1 I don't want to touch that draft with a ten foot pole in the middle of an arbcom case request, #2 I don't want to edit war and there is going to be zero chance of coming to consensus on that talk page of that draft (note that editors like Winged Blades of Godric are already editing on that draft with edit summaries like "learn how to write better", so that will give you an indication of how well a talk page discussion would go), and #3 I don't want to take a "mangled" draft to DRV. As I understand it, the procedure (or one procedure) for seeking restoration of a salted article is to create a draft in userspace that you think is sufficiently different from the prior version, and take it to DRV requesting "allow recreation" (if the salting admin won't agree to unsalt). That's my intent. I'd like to have a (calm) discussion about the new sources and whether they sufficiently establish notability (I think they do). Of course, anyone else is welcome to take any part of my userspace content and incorporate it into the draftspace content if they want to. I just don't think that's going to a useful expenditure of time, given that editors are deleting sourced content already. Leviv ich 13:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker

Yes. Open a case, and Rama's actions seem wrong to me on multiple levels, but the committee is going to have to deal with admin actions and WP:IAR and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, now. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

For the record I don't think I have participated in any discussion concerning the article, and I have not commented in any discussion concerning Rama, before this. (I am certain this can be handled without deciding the article's fate). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Pawnkingthree

Desysop by motion. It is simply unacceptable for an administrator to edit through protection to restore an article that has been deleted twice by community discussion, without even notifying the deleting admin, or reversing their action when challenged. If the case is accepted it should focus only on Rama's admin actions, not on whether Clarice Phelps deserves a Wikipedia article, as this is out of Arbcom's scope. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Reversing an admin action is not wheel-warring. Wheel-warring is re-instating an admin action that had been reversed.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:24, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Newyorkbrad

Contrary to the majority opinion so far, I think this should be declined at this time. First, I have always disfavored desysopping for a single administrator action taken with the subjective intent of benefitting the project, except perhaps in truly extraordinary circumstances. Rama has been an administrator since 2005 and I do not recall encountering him before on the noticeboards or the arbitration pages. While high-profile, especially in the short-term, this appears to be an isolated incident.

Second, without getting into the merits of the underlying notability/deletion dispute, it is undeniable that rightly or wrongly, for better or worse, this situation has received and will continue to receive significant publicity off-wiki. While Wikipedia's decision-making should not be dependent on off-wiki descriptions or discussions of our policies and actions, neither should we be entirely tone-deaf to them. Those of us who are familiar with our processes and procedures can evaluate this matter based on notability and deletion and administrator-accountability policies, but others off-wiki lack that background. Inevitably, a desysopping here would be described off-wiki as "next, English Wikipedia's highest authority removed an administrator as punishment for seeking to rescue this article." There can be little doubt that such an addition to the narrative would, unhelpfully, further compound the notoriety that this matter has already incurred. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Ad Orientem

I recommend this case be declined. There is no need for Arbcom to become involved here. The article is now in draft space and a discussion (yet another) regarding its suitability can now take place. Further, as pointed out by others, this was not wheel-warring. All of which said, Rama's actions were clearly a serious lapse in judgement. A strongly worded variant of "Don't do that again..." coupled with a large serving of Trout should suffice. The bottom line from my perspective is that while this was a bad judgement call, it was not a malicious misuse of the tools. Unless there is evidence of a serious pattern of poor judgement, opening a case to deal with this would be a serious overreaction and an unnecessary time sink. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Cryptic

Even if this wasn't wheel-warring, use of one's extra buttons to gain advantage in a content dispute, against pre-existing consensus, is surely as bright a line. —Cryptic 15:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Hodgdon's secret garden

Point of order. Inasmuch as after the 2nd deletion at the Clarice Phelps article space another draft at Clarice E. Phelps[3] was accepted by the admin user:DGG, an action that was summarily reverted by [edited: user:Amakuru ], Why is user:DGG [/User:Amakuru ] not also a party here? Must one initiate/ cajole heaven forbid that a parallel one be opened?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

So @Iffy: if I follow u correctly - Admin A reads consensus to salt Clarice E. Phelps née Salone with diacritic therefore it's entirely proper for any editor including Admin B to accept a draft at Clarice E. Phelps née Salone, in that it's without one? How so (w/o failing the if-it-hops-like-a-bunny-has-ears-like-a-bunny-and-hides-eggs-at-Eastertime-it's-a-bunny test)?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Natureium

Whether or not this is technically wheel-warring, using sysop tools to say "Screw all of you and the multiple discussions that have taken place, I'm going to do what I want." is a big problem. He has made this whole mess worse. Not to mention the fact that we have Wikipedia editors using the press to write opinion articles to try to create notability for someone whose article has been deleted. This is a real person's name that they are using for political reasons, and it should be clear that this is morally unacceptable. Natureium (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon

I think that many of the statements being made are not really about whether ArbCom should take this case, but are efforts to decide whether User:Rama engaged in wheel-warring. ArbCom should decide whether there has been wheel-warring. Those who say that this is a clear case of wheel-warring that should be decided by motion are making a good-faith mistake, and those who say that this case should be declined are making a good-faith mistake. This case is not open-and-shut, and that is precisely why ArbCom should accept it and consider it deliberately. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Jayron32

Let's not pillory a good admin for a debatable position. Rama has been an admin with a spotless record for 14 years, and acted in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Process wonks and overly officious editors are now clamoring for his head over a minor dispute. I urge the committee to either a) outright decline this case or b) if they accept it for the purpose of making a motion, to at worst admonish or censure Rama without otherwise removing his tools. There's nothing to see here; it isn't even wheel-warring by definition, and it isn't the sort of thing we should be taking people's heads off of for. I'm not even sure I disagree or agree with either the deletion or the restoration. I was not involved in either debate, nor with the follow on discussions after Rama restored the article, but for real, this is not worth all this drama. --Jayron32 16:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by DGG

I accepted from what I thought an acceptable brief version, hoping that people would think it a compromise. When another admin deleted it I considered that I might ask him to revert himself and bring another AfD, or that I could go to DelRev. Even if I had reverted it myself I don't think it would have been wheel warring, though it's not something I would have ever considered. From subsequent comments made to me, I realized that my compromise probably did not have the clear consensus I thought it did, so I decided to let the matter rest. I don't think Rama's action was judicious in the circumstances, but I don't see how it was wheel warring. Nor would the reversal of his action be wheel-warring. A subsequent insertion by him would have been. As for acting against consensus, it's not acting against consensus to make another try, especially as the consensus on this was not very clear, and still is not very clear. It can, of course, sometimes not be a good idea. What will establish consensus on this will be an eventual well attended DelRev. It occurs to me that nobody has asked the subject if she wants an article. It's part of BLP policy that when notability is uncertain, we take a living subject's opinion about this into account. DGG ( talk ) 18:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by El_C

I agree with Black Kite that this isn't wheel warring (not administrative reverts of reverts). I have no strong opinion about whether the Committee should accept this case. But in case it does, I'd like to skip to the end and say that this warrants an admonishment rather than desysoping. El_C 21:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Barkeep49

There is a reason that DGG was not brought to ArbCom when he attempted to make an article on this topic - he did not use his sysop toolset in these actions and responded appropriately when concerns were expressed. That was WP:BOLD editing. Rama chose a different path by explaining process in their response to concern (which was admittedly accompanied by a threat). This would make sense if they had chosen to follow process themselves when attempting to improve encyclopedic content. They did not. While consensus can change, the fact that the most recent AfD - a log of which they had in front of them at multiple points in this process - was less than a month old clearly suggests this is a complex controversial subject and thus according to the guideline itself BOLD editing is/was not the right path. No part of the response to their decision, including the possibility of an arbitration case arising should have been a surprise. Sysops should be using the toolset to protect consensus based decisions and not themselves attempting to RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Rama: Clerk notes

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

• Note that I have renamed this case request to avoid it being named after a living person who is not involved in the dispute. GoldenRing (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Rama: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <5/3/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• I'm leaning towards acceptance here, but would like to hear from Rama about their view before we go further. Noting that we would need to be careful with the scope which should go no further than the admin action, not whether the article should have been deleted in the first place. Worm^TT(talk) 12:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Accept on the admin actions only. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Accept because there is a plausible case for misuse of admin tools and we need to take that seriously. At this point it looks like this is an isolated incident, so if we can reach a quick resolution by motion, I wouldn't be opposed. – Joe (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Accept Based upon statements above and Rama's statement at ANI, we should evaluate only whether or not the administrative tools were used to implement a personal editorial position against community consensus and in contravention to WP:TOOLMISUSE. Mkdw ^talk 17:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@SilkTork: Misuse of the tools is not always caused by malicious intent. Sometimes it can be accidental or negligent. Administrative conduct should be evaluated when reasonable concerns are brought forward, even in isolation and without seeming malicious intent. Moving to a case is not a forgone conclusion of anything and could result in no action or warnings. It simply means the arbitration process is enacted to further evaluate the situation. Nonetheless, accountability fundamentally requires a check and balance process with the potential for repercussions. Administrators should not be using the tools because they have no fear of accountability; it is a permanent requirement. I agree that not all actions result desysop, but that is something worth a review. Mkdw ^talk 18:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• Decline. I think it's OK for people to disagree with each other, including admins, regarding content. I'm not seeing this as seriously malicious, and I understand the rationale given. If wheelwarring was involved, if there was a history of controversial actions by this admin, if the action was detrimental to the project or clearly something harmful or outrageous, then yes, let's look into it. But I'm seeing this as "...an explanation that shows the matter has been considered, and why a (rare) exception is genuinely considered reasonable." I don't think it was wise to do it without consultation, and if this admin ever did anything like this again, I would support opening a case, but at the moment I accept that this was done with the project in mind. We recently had an admin reverse an AE action, which is a bright line for desysopping, and that admin was (rightly) not brought to Arbitration. Sometimes, we need to allow an admin to do something they feel is in the best interest of the project and IAR without fearing that ArbCom will take away their tools. SilkTork (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

While my preference is still for this to be a decline, I'm not averse to dealing with this by motion as I understand the thinking of those who feel that Rama should have communicated first. From earlier comments Rama has made I'm assuming they felt an undelete discussion would be wrapped up in wiki-bureaucracy, and likely be drawn out, taking up time and energy, while meanwhile the media were starting to take up this incident with echoes of Donna Strickland, so there was a sense of urgency, and IAR was created for situations like this; but they are not making that clear. Instead they are taking up a battleground mentality, as if they wish to martyr themselves on the cause of diversity against the biased hordes of Wikipedia. I think it's important to have an admin diversity champion on Wikipedia, but not one who is going to be disruptive. As such I urge User:Rama to reflect more carefully on BU Rob13's question, and to give a more considered response which indicates that while they are standing up for diversity, that they also understand the community's concern, and moving forward they will ensure they are championing diversity in a measured and productive manner. In short, I think we'd like you to reassure us that you are going to be a diversity champion, not a diversity terrorist. SilkTork (talk) 09:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• Accept for the admin issue only. Overturning the consensus of not one but two AFDs is suboptimal. I'd love to hear how this is acceptable under ADMINACCT. Katie^talk 18:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Accept on the basis of Rama's response to the issue as raised on their talk page and at ANI. The statements suggest that Rama believes they have the authority as an administrator to unilaterally override community consensus at AfD. That, if nothing else, warrants attention. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Rama: I think it would be extremely helpful if you could explain your understanding of what's happened here. In particular, do you understand why people are upset? What would you take away from this experience to prevent a similar issue in the future? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
• Decline, per SilkTork and also TonyBallioni. Rama's action was not so egregious as to require immediate action, and there is no indication that it is part of a pattern of misuse of the tools. Escalating this single action to a full case is unnecessary, and I agree with Tony that it would be a disservice to the BLP subject. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
• Decline. On one level, yes, this is a straightforward case and Rama shouldn't have used admin tools, but on another level that's a bit like saying protesters shouldn't have blocked traffic or yelled rude things at politicians. It's missing the point of the action. I think - I hope! - we all have some boundaries like this, where we'd be willing to stick our necks out if we genuinely believed that not doing so would bring the project into disrepute. We even have a rule about not always following rules, which is surprisingly under-cited on this page. I agree with the above in thinking single instances of apparent admin misbehavior should not generally be met with dramatic sanctions unless they are truly egregious - malicious or destructive, rather than simply ill-advised. In fact, I'd go one further and say that a single instance of apparent misbehavior by a long-standing and otherwise reliable admin is a potential signal of broader and more serious underlying issues. Yes, sometimes an admin deciding to override their colleagues is arrogance or self-servingness - but sometimes it's also a sign of genuine problems, and I hope we don't let the internal minutia of who broke which WP:ALLCAPS distract from serious community efforts to work through those problems. To inject a dose of reality into this all-too-Wikipedian conversation: I'm a woman in science. I've been the only woman in R&D since I started my current job (but hey, we grew by 100% this month!). I haven't faced half the barriers Ms. Phelps has, and I haven't been on a team that discovered an element, either. I actually thought that the original AfD close was very reasonable. But I also see how non-Wikipedians have been reacting to this controversy and wow, we are not coming off well. That's not going to be improved by spending weeks flinging WP:OMGWTFBBQ at each other. (FWIW, since I just saw this in preview: I don't think the WMF is a relevant factor here. In fact, I'm rather more worried about the idea that someone might have in their head that we should be taking content direction from their "official policy" than I ever would be about community content disputes, which at least have public, transparent feedback mechanisms when someone gets a bad idea in their head.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Motion to open: Rama

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

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

Proposed:

Having considered the arbitration case request, the committee:

1. Opens a case to examine the administrator actions of Rama (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Accepting the case is a means to review whether Rama reversed a decision of the Wikipedia community without following the established processes. Under current policy, the committee is the only formal vehicle for reviewing administrator conduct. The committee's opening of this case does not constitute its involvement in the article that forms the setting, nor is it a comment on whether this article should be deleted or kept on Wikipedia.
2. Suspends this case for 1 week, to permit the Wikipedia community time to complete its ordinary editorial processes about this article subject. This period of suspension may be extended by further motion.
3. Instructs Rama not to undertake any logged administrator action – including (un)deleting, (un)blocking, and (un)protecting – until the case pages are marked as unsuspended after 1 week by an arbitrator or an arbitration clerk. Should Rama breach this instruction, the committee may remove their permissions by summary motion.

The case will be named Rama and should have its case pages closed to all non-clerical edits during the period of suspension. At the lifting of suspension, the case will proceed in the ordinary manner with further guidance from a drafting arbitrator to follow.

Support

1. Proposed. In this request, we have (A) a content dispute that would be overshadowed if an ArbCom case were opened and (B) a case of clear administrator misconduct that we are obliged to hear out. The dilemma is obvious.  To deal with one issue, we must open a case.  To deal with the other, we should stay away. Dealing with the first issue in normal fashion (as a community) then handling the second issue afterwards (via the committee) seems to prevent either issue from being handled inappropriately. AGK ■ 19:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
2. I second this. The focus for any case, if accepted, is admin actions, not the article itself. The content dispute can be mitigated by the community, then the admin issues can be handled by the committee. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
3. Katie^talk 19:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I don't see the need for this. There's no ongoing process that would be overshadowed by ArbCom, as far as I'm aware. Everyone agrees that we have no say on the content dispute. If anything, we should be moving to resolve this case faster than the normal proceedings. – Joe (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
2. Agree with Joe, and I'll propose an alternate motion in a moment that makes the obvious clear. We don't do content, and this is to resolve issues related to the administrative action only. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
3. I see the point AGK is making, but as we're to open this case (and I accept the reasons why we should look into the action), I feel we should get on with it rather than drag this affair out. While there may be some overlap in information between the content dispute and the admin action neither is reliant on the other because the focus of each is different. Rama's rationale, for example, is useful information in both cases, but for different reasons - in the content situation, it's an argument for why the content could be undeleted; in the admin action, it's an explanation for that action. If the community decide to undelete the article, that should have little bearing for us regarding if Rama's action was acceptable or not as the community have long upheld that the end does not justify the means. SilkTork (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Abstain

Alternative motion: Rama

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

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

After considering the current case request, the Arbitration Committee resolves that:

1. A case will be opened to examine the administrative actions of Rama (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). The scope of the case shall be initially restricted to the actions of Rama in restoring the Clarice Phelps article and related community discussions. Requests to expand this scope may be made either by email to arbcom-enwikimedia.org or directly to the drafting arbitrators once announced. Generally, requests to expand this scope will be considered as they relate to any potential pattern of unilaterally overriding community consensus, but are unlikely to be considered for actions entirely unrelated to the initial scope of this case or a related pattern of administrative actions.
2. The Arbitration Committee does not have jurisdiction over content or conventional deletion processes. The Arbitration Committee notes that the typical venue to overturn or review the consensus at an Articles for deletion discussion is Deletion review.
3. Current arbitration proceedings should be taken to have no effect on any community discussion regarding content, including, but not limited to, whether the Clarice Phelps should be restored or recreated. The community is encouraged to continue any necessary content discussions without regard to this arbitration proceeding. In particular, this arbitration proceeding does not prevent any administrator from taking action to implement the consensus of any content-related discussion that is tangentially related to this dispute.

Support

1. Alternative motion. This is intended to set out a narrow scope to prevent this from turning into a "dig up every minor mistake over the past decade" slug-fest. We should stay on-topic with the issue that was brought to us. Further, this motion makes abundantly clear that we don't do content and are not pre-empting any community discussions that may emerge from this. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. At least for me, whether a misuse of admin tools was a one-off occurrence or part of a pattern is a major consideration in deciding on remedies. Restricting the scope in this way would seriously impair our ability to make a balanced assessment. I also don't see why we need to restate principles that are already a core part of WP:ARBPOL and which everyone who has commented has agreed with. – Joe (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Abstain

SashiRolls

Initiated by Kolya Butternut (talk) at 07:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Kolya Butternut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• SashiRolls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [4]
• [5]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Snooganssnoogans:_copyright_violations_and_civility_violations
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive217#SashiRolls

Statement by Kolya Butternut

My dispute with SashiRolls occurred in the above AN/I discussion for Snooganssnoogans. As it did not occur in an actual article, if my understanding is correct WP:AE is not the appropriate venue. SashiRolls has demonstrated a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality: as in the previous arbitration request concerning SashiRolls above, he is continuing same exact behavior as in previous blocks: Pattern of engaging in personal attacks, WP:Casting aspersions, ad hominem. As can be seen in their unblock request from December, this pattern has been ongoing for years.

My short experience with SashiRolls can be understood by reading the short thread in the above AN/I discussion for Snooganssnoogans where I react to SashiRolls' false accusation that Snooganssnoogans was stalking him. The thread can be found by searching for the text "6) Another example of !stalking that maybe Mr/s Butternut will explain." and reading all of my links and diffs there.

Another example of SashiRolls falsely accusing Snooganssnoogans of stalking can be found at the above AN/I discussion beginning at the line "5) Snoogans, you seem to want to give me the reputation of a stalker".

In summary, SashiRolls made false accusations that Snooganssnoogans was stalking him, and accused me of being a sock and a liar [6] after I researched some of his accusations against Snooganssnoogans which seemed suspicious to me. After researching the sock who SashiRolls insinuated that I was, (Cirt), I learned of SashiRolls' past history/behavior and I feel the way he treated me in our short interaction shows he has not changed. I know that my behavior in my four months of active editing has had problems, but I feel like someone has to take action, and I hope this won't boomerang on me because I have only just learned about WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:NOTHERE. I intend to improve moving forward by avoiding wikidrama.

Statement by {Non-party}

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

SashiRolls: Clerk notes

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

SashiRolls: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)