Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Arbitration​Committee

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

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

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

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

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

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions		10 May 2024	0/4/0
Very brief and neutral name describing the topic of the dispute		15 May 2024	0/0/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

Defender 911

Initiated by Blueboy96 at 23:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Blueboy96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiating party)
• Defender 911 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (subject of case)
• Krimpet (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (blocking admin)
• WJBScribe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Krimpet: [1] WJBscribe: [2] Defender 911: [3]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Not applicable in this case, ArbCom has original jurisdiction regarding unbanning users.

Statement by Blueboy96

This past August, Defender 911 (talk · contribs) made several attempts to get in touch with H (talk · contribs), who was forced to leave the project due to serious on- and off-wiki harassment. He asked other users to act as intermediaries to establish contact with H.

H apparently expressed a desire not to establish contact, after which WJBScribe asked him to stop pursuing the matter. He continued to ask several others to help him establish contact, after which WJBScribe let it be known he'd be blocked if he continued. On the morning of August 11, Krimpet blocked Defender 911 indefinitely. This action received wide support both on- and off-wiki by other administrators, and he is therefore considered banned by the community.

However, as the result of a discussion about him on WP:AN#User:Defender 911, Defender publicly apologized for his actions and asked to be unblocked.

Now I'm not even going to try to defend his behavior. Violations of the right to vanish are a very serious matter, and Defender's actions bordered on harassment and trolling. However, he has apparently realized that he made a very serious blunder here. Not only that, but apparently he made no posts that required oversighting (I could be wrong on this). Therefore, I ask on Defender's behalf that he be allowed to return, albeit under some form of probation. From my research, users have been allowed back after engaging in more egregious misconduct than this, and without an apology coming from the guilty party either. It is obvious from the AN discussion that there are several admins who would be quick to indef him without further warning if he slipped up again. Given that he has apologized, I would think some good faith is in order.

Addendum I should note that if he did slip up again, I would strongly support an indefinite ban on this user--do not pass Go, do not collect $200. I only took this step because it seemed to me that Defender is getting treated more harshly than other users who have engaged in far more disruptive behavior and were allowed another chance. Blueboy96 13:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Daniel

The discussion on the administrators noticeboard clearly shows a consensus of administrators endorsing the indefinite block, hence making it an indefinite ban. The administrators endorsing the block from this discussion include myself, B, East718, Ricky81682, TenOfAllTrades, SirFozzie, JzG, Sean William, Bearian, Riana (emerita) and Raymond arritt, while not a single administrator advocates for unbanning this user. The administrators endorsing the block when it occured included Krimpet, SirFozzie, Alison and ElinorD. That's fifteen administrators endorsing the block, both now and back when it was placed, and none endorsing unblocking.

This user harassed and attempted to violate a users right to vanish, and continued despite countless warnings. This user threatened other users claiming they were obstructing his right to pursue those who forced H off the website, while frequently splurting disruptive attempted-legalspeak which caused animosity and turbulance. This user has no history of constructive contributions to the encyclopedia, a history of inappropriate use of userspace (as determined by frequent MfD's), and a tendancy to jump up and down and start yelling when he doesn't get exactly what he wants. The indefinite block after countless warnings and countless episodes was justified, as seen by the unanimous consensus of administrators commenting at the noticeboard thread over the past few days. Daniel 00:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Nick

I believe this diff is the only involvement I have in this case. I would be reasonably happy, if there's support from the Committee and those involved with the ban, to see the ban on Defender 911 lifted, provided he remains on probation and probably only on the understanding that his ban will be reinstated should he repeat the behaviour which led to his ban in the first place. I only spent a few minutes trying to stop Defender 911 from pursuing his interest in User:H, but I know a number of other administrators spent a considerable amount of time trying to deal with the situation and were unable to reign Defender 911 in. I'd therefore urge the committee to accept the case to determine whether the return of Defender 911 is in the best interests of the project, to determine the necessary parole framework for any return, and perhaps to clarify what is and isn't acceptable behaviour relating to contacting users who have left Wikipedia, especially users who have left the project due to harassment by a third party. I wasn't aware of the WP:AN discussion until I was edit conflicted by Daniel's statement above. I've looked at the AN discussion and I have to say, in the absence of any support from any fellow administrator in supporting any sort of unblock, I cannot, in good conscience support any unblock which would fly in the face of the consensus and therefore the defacto community ban. Nick (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Dtobias

I agree that what this user did was extremely silly, especially his antics in circulating a legalistic "contract" formalizing his agreement not to continue talking about contacting User:H followed by his pestering others to "sign" it or else; the proper way to stop talking about something is to stop talking about it, not to wikilawyer about the concept! He also bit me on my talk page shortly before being blocked. Nevertheless, I'm coming in on the side of unblocking him, on the grounds that I don't like the direction the WikiCulture has taken in recent times towards being a Judge Dredd-ish atmosphere of immediate WikiExecution for stepping on the wrong people's toes. I say give him another chance (and I support re-banning him if he goes right back to more behavior of the sort that got him banned in the first place). *Dan T.* (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:Maser Fletcher

The behavior dispayed by Defender was quite disruptive and warranted an indefblock/ban from the project. However, four months have passed, and now he would like his ban appealed. My recommendation is that, just as Blueboy recommended, we wait until April, and then give him a good faith unblock. At this time, there are no administrators willing to overturn the block.

So long as he respects H's right to vanish, does not harass other users, and starts to edit the encyclopedia, I think we should give him one last chance. He has already agreed to these conditions, and I have a strong feeling he will try his hardest to abide by them when the time comes. Maser ^(Talk!) 06:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I am now of the opinion that we have to wait at least eight months before allowing this user back on the project, given the diff's provided by User:Daniel. Maser ^(Talk!) 06:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by blocking admin Krimpet

I blocked Defender 911 for his large-scale forum shopping and disruption in an effort to contact a user who left the project; a block that was widely endorsed. If any administrator thinks it's in the best interests of the project to give him a second chance, they are free to unblock (hence lifting the community ban); however no administrators have come forward to do so after a lengthy AN discussion, suggesting that community consensus is against lifting it. --krimpet✽ 08:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by lucasbfr

I wrote "mostly" since I deleted some pages on his userspace after his block/ban. I went through his contribs after being made aware of his requests and after Blueboy96 asked me if it would be appropriate for him to request arbitration. I don't think Defender 911 "got" Wikipedia, as shown in the tremendous amount of time he spent building a paramilitary-like vandal fighting organization, with him as its head. When he learned H had left, he really went berserk, and started his campaign, which only made things worse for H, who left a bit more than a month ago and definitely didn't want that kind of attention. This whole story leaves me a sour taste in my mouth because, contrary to most users, Defender did not mean ill when he started to disrupt the project, and was not as disruptive as some other clueless banned users (User:Tweety21 comes instantly to mind). But on the other hand his immaturity sometimes made things worse when he was editing, and I wouldn't feel comfortable with him editing (a bit like an elephant singing very loudly in a porcelain store, if you see what I mean). Personally I don't support nor oppose the ban. I wouldn't have done it, but I see the other people's point here. I hope the arbcom will consider the request, in the light of the recent community ban process discussion, do give Blueboy96 and Defender 911 a definitive answer (things went irrational each time User:H was mentioned, for a while). -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Kendrick7

This editor had been with the project six months, and this was his first block. Although his barnstar page is deleted, he had received three WP:Barnstars in the 72 hours prior to the block.

I wish ArbCom to give this review, because the August "ban" was handled improperly in a way that clouded the community discussion about the indef block which didn't actually begin until four months after the fact. User:Defender 911 was indef blocked at around 9:00 11 August, and this became a ban approximately two hours later.[4] There was no community notification during this time. This looks more like a back-alley mugging than a proper application of WP:BAN.

When the block was finally brought to the attention of the community last week, it was treated as if he was already banned; so many admins simply didn't want to overturn "consensus," yet no consensus was ever previously created on the matter. So those opinions not to overturn a non-existent consensus are now being used to justify a new consensus post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Confusion was also sown when an admin asked for diffs, and was informed by User:Daniel that diffs which would most clearly support the ban had been WP:OVERsighted.[5] This turned out to be false, but again swung the opinion of the community in favor of maintaining the supposed "community ban."

Obviously this editor touched a third rail when he inquired after User:H, and while I can't see why a few message on User_Talk: space could possible cause the project wide disruption he is accused of, the important thing is that he's come back and promised to stop his misguided zealotry.

I've asked repeatedly for diffs during the discussion at WP:AN#User:Defender_911 which support the repeated disparagements that would otherwise justify maintaining the block indefinitely, such as a pattern of previous trolling, etc., but no one has provided any. So I'm mystified, and more than a little disappointed, that no admin is willing to WP:Assume good faith here and lift this user's first block.

Comment by Newyorkbrad

The outcome of this request is fairly clear, but I've posted a comment at User talk:Defender 911 that I hope he will read. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by B

The baggage now associated with this account is probably going to be insurmountable at any point in time. I would advise that if this user wishes to edit constructively on some other project or on this one at some point in the future after maturing as a wiki-citizen, he/she do so from a new, unrelated name. --B (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

With respect to Carcharoth's question, keep in mind this user is probably just an immature kid. That's a situation that will eventually be remedied, whereas other situations where someone is banned because they came here with an agenda are different. --B (talk) 01:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Carcharoth

Following on from B's comment above, would the arbitration committee be able to comment on the viability of the user of the Defender 911 account making a fresh start under a new account? Does it depend on the circumstances of the ban? How long is too soon for a banned user to consider make a fresh start under a new account? 1 year, 2 years, 5 years, 10 years? If they are found out, but have been editing productively, is an enforcement of the ban necessary? Would a review with a view to reversing the ban based on the good behaviour be more acceptable? Do banned editors need to ask permission first? How does this differ for community-banned editors and Arbitration Committee-banned editors? OK. That's too many questions to expect anyone to answer, but some things to maybe consider. Carcharoth (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Secondary statement by Daniel

For those claiming he has "changed", I present Exhibit A and Exhibit B from the last twenty-four hours. It's blatantly obvious this user hasn't "changed" at all. Daniel 02:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Secondary statement by Kendrick7

Yes, Daniel, the community has now completely pissed off and alienated this contributor by failing to assume even a modicum of good faith. Go team! Never mind that you don't provide any diffs to show he was like that before the block, go ahead and use that as evidence that he hasn't "changed." That you are willing to twist his justifiable frustration into evidence that you've been right all along says far more about your apparent vendetta here than it does about Defender 911. -- Kendrick7^talk 14:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/0/0)

• Decline. From the AN discussion it seems apparent that no administrator is willing to unblock Defender 911, which is the definition of a ban. Defender 911's contributions to the project prior to his ban were minimal, and in most editors' eyes overshadowed by his other activities, not just in relation to User:H but also various forms of empire-building and his interactions in userspace. Mackensen (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. Agree with Mackensen. I think the decision to indef block was sound and seems to be well supported by the Community. I think it is highly unlikely that we would overturn the block if we heard the case so it is not the best use of our time. FloNight (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Reject Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Decline. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. Kirill 20:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Zscout370

Initiated by John254 at 00:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Zscout370 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[6]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

As Zscout370 has been subject to emergency desysopping twice -- see [7] and [8] -- this case appears to qualify for acceptance as a "[review] of emergency actions to remove administrator privileges". Additionally, Zscout370's unblocking of Miltopia after the latter was banned by Jimbo Wales has been discussed extensively at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/My block of Miltopia. A previous request for arbitration that I filed regarding Zscout370's unblocking of Miltopia was summarily removed by John Reaves before any arbitrators had reviewed the case; I ask that this disposition not be repeated.

Statement by John254

On 23:58, 26 October 2007, Zscout370 unblocked Miltopia after the latter was banned by Jimbo Wales. Unblocking a user authoritatively banned by Jimbo Wales on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation has previously been considered grounds for the removal of administrative privileges -- see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war#Karmafist.27s_wheel_warring_with_Jimbo and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war#Karmafist. Consequently, Jimbo Wales desysopped Zscout370, but subsequently restored his administrative privileges. On 06:21, 14 December 2007, Zscout370 undeleted an article which had previously deleted by Dmcdevit citing WP:BLP concerns. Though I cannot view the deleted article, it appears that the article was comprised primarily of inadequately referenced negative information concerning a living person, and was thus correctly speedily deleted pursuant to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material and CSD G10. The restoration of this article thus constituted a substantive WP:BLP violation, effectuated through the use of administrative tools. Moreover, pursuant to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Disputed_deletions and the decision of the Arbitration Committee in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff, the unilateral reversal of a good-faith deletion of a biography of a living person which was deleted with a reference to the biographies of living persons policy was improper. As a result of this undeletion, Zscout370 was subject to emergency desysopping again on 14:11, 14 December 2007 at the request of several arbitrators, though his administrative privileges were restored on 20:57, 14 December 2007. This case is necessary to clarify Zscout370's status as an administrator, rather than having further emergency desysoppings. Additionally, the permissible form of a request for desysopping by the Arbitration Committee should be articulated, namely, whether a request for this action by several arbitrators, but not a majority of the full Committee, is acceptable. (It is conceded that a steward may perform an emergency desysopping without any approval from the Arbitration Committee when the steward, in his/her personal judgment, deems this action to be necessary. The question here, however, concerns under what circumstances a steward should revoke a user's administrative privileges solely on the grounds of a request by the Arbitration Committee.) John254 00:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Response to statement by Ryan Postlethwaite: I'm not claiming that Zscout370 should be desysopped, but merely that a situation in which an administrator has been subject to emergency desysopping twice, and once at the request of several unnamed arbitrators, at least deserves review by the full Committee. If the second desysopping shouldn't have occurred, a finding regarding the acceptable form of a request for desysopping by the Committee should prevent similar situations in the future. John254 01:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note, Cary Bass has informed the Stewards that any future requests for desysopping must be requested in writing at the m:RFP page and that the administrator to be desysopped must be informed that they will be desysopped, unless that is impossible. Nick (talk) 13:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

I really don't see the committee's need to look at this. It's clear the second desysopping was a mistake, and many would argue the first one was. The committee do not need to look into one undeletion - although people see it as poor practice, it's not at the stage yet where the ArbCom need to look further into it. I would argue there's been greater malpractive in this incident from members of the committee and others that played a role in the desysopping. Zscout, apart from these two incidents, has been an excellent administrator - if there was any concern whatsoever, we would have had an RfC - this hasn't even been thought about yet. I urge the commitee to reject this request. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Response to John - we really don't need any more drama - the second deysopping was a good faith mistake by a number of parties, who used the information they had available to come to a conclusion that is understandable. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Orderinchaos

Would agree that this seems unnecessary. One matter which may need clarification however is that according to this diff[9], three members of the Arbitration Committee plus a person who was not a member of the Arbitration Committee at the time (although this seemed to be a matter of good faith confusion for the steward concerned) asked for Zscout to be desysopped in a move which was so quickly afterwards overturned. Apart from this, the matter appears to have been resolved and any further action will most probably not help the situation. Orderinchaos 01:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher131

I was preparing to file a case but decided to wait for a while, then this request showed up. My draft statement is at User:Thatcher131/Sandbox2. I think there would be some benefit to having this discussion out in the open and following the normal process rather than acting on an emergency and possibly hasty basis. I think there are three questions for Arbcom if it wants to tackle them:

1. What are the standards and consequences for reversing an administrative action without discussion? (Jimbo thinks even one reversal is bad; community opinion is divided.)
2. Are the rules for deletions that cite the BLP policy different than the rules for general deletions and how will they be enforced? (See Wikipedia:BLP#BLP_deletion_standards and the cautions issued to two other admins here.)
3. Shall Zscout370 be desysopped and on what grounds (violating the BLP policy, the wheel-warring policy, or both)?

Alternatively, if Zscout370 has, in public or private communication with the Committee, demonstrated satisfactory awareness of need for sensitivity and caution surrounding BLP deletions, the Committee may not feel there is any issue to Arbitrate here.

Statement by Krimpet

Unnecessary. This second desysopping was a misunderstanding, perhaps largely driven by reminiscence of the first desysopping. It's been agreed this was a mistake, and all parties have moved on. I concur that nothing good will come of an arbitration request. --krimpet✽ 03:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Zscout370

Getting to what Thatcher said, I been in contact with Jimbo and OTRS-L about the restoration and the consequences about my actions with the article. So they are fully aware of what I have done and they fully told me what I done was stupid and reprehensible. I fully accept that and apologize now in public. As for Soby's issue, I just told him that the mistake was OK, but I just requested that I was informed that I was desysoped when it occurred. By the time I sent that message, I was promoted back to sysop by Soby. As for ArbCom wishing to look at this again or not, that is up to them, but I personally feel that everything is settled. I am trying to get in touch with Dmcdevit to just make sure we both are on the same page. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by SirFozzie

If the Arbitration Committe does not reject this summarily, to go along with issuing an apology to ZScout (if a bad block requires an apology and action, I certainly hope a "misunderstanding" that led to an admin being de-sysoped would require the same)... I would hope that any Arbitrator who took the hasty, ill-informed decision to de-admin ZScout without discussion with the admin in question would recuse themselves from any decision to accept the case, and surely any proposed discussion or decision. SirFozzie (talk) 05:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

Without going into the matter of who, why and when, it seems to me that Wikipedia is faced with an otherwise highly regarded administrator whose actions have been grossly inappropriate on two occasions. I suggest that in such cases a remedy is more appropriate than waiting for a series of further temporary desysoppings. Only the Committee can impose such a remedy. --Tony Sidaway 16:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Amarkov

He was desysopped temporarily. Then the issue was resolved, and he was given adminship back. This ideally should not be a huge deal, and certainly doesn't need Arbcom to do something else. -Amarkov moo! 16:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by SlimVirgin

I would like to see this case accepted so the committee can make a ruling on what constitutes wheel warring. Zscout undid another admin's actions without discussion in two of the situations most admins feel reverts are particularly inappropriate -- first, he undid a block by Jimbo, and secondly, he undeleted a deleted BLP, in violation of the BLP policy. Zscout clearly feels his actions don't constitute wheel warring, yet if everyone behaved like this, there would be a great deal of bad feeling and chaos. I therefore ask the committee to examine whether that type of undiscussed admin revert is ever acceptable. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have just had another experience of an admin undoing a deletion of mine on BLP grounds (an edit summary, not an article), without contacting me first. All the wheel warring achieves is to draw even more attention to the issue, when the aim of the deletion was to draw less attention to it. I therefore again ask the ArbCom please to take this case to examine this problem. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by SSBohio

I'm rather of two minds on accepting this case:

• My first thought is that the involved parties in this matter are (at least) ZScout, Jimbo, and Dmcdevit, and that the scope extends beyond the desysopping to the underlying issues, including the Miltopia ban and the Carolyn Doran page deletion. It's difficult to meaningfully discuss the effect without discussing the causes. For these reasons, I believe ArbCom should accept and consider this matter in its entirety.
• However, my first thought led quickly to my second thought. Since the purpose of the ArbCom action would be to review (in part) an action taken by Jimbo Wales ex officio. For lack of a better analogy, I assert that Wales has sovereign immunity and his actions would be beyond even the review of ArbCom. Without reviewing the initial events, it's hard to see where this would be a productive exercise, so, on that basis, I would favor ArbCom's rejecting the case. Assertion withdrawn based on clerk's note by Newyorkbrad.

There is, however, an issue I see with BLP as implemented. It's one area of the project where an admin can take an action without being required to disclose the issues that required the action to be taken. Once deleted, the revisions are beyond the review of even experienced editors, and our only choice is whether to accept the admin's "trust me" or not. I believe that trust requires verification, and secret processes break verification and hence degrade trust. --SSBohio 00:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply to SSBohio by Daniel

In response to the last part about no discussion with deletions:

Administrators generally, except in the most egregious cases, will respond to an email from an established user and explain, using discretion with regards to the details provided, the reason for the deletion. The principle at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova#Responsibility is applicable here. To suggest that they are not up for review or discussion seems incorrect — for deletions can go to deletion review if you are dissatisfied with the deleting administrators' response, and even OTRS actions (which don't, and often can't, be explained due to confidentiality of communication) can be reviewed through a request to any other OTRS respondent or by instigating a discussion on the OTRS mailing list (which can be done, also, via request through another respondent).

The key about biographies of living persons deletions, per the Badlydrawnjeff case, is they cannot be restored without a consensus to do so. Daniel 00:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Daniel by SSBohio

The only significalt BLP controversy I've been involved in has not gone that way. Instead, the revisions were deleted, then undeleted, then deleted again by the same admin, then almost undeleted. Months of discussion have yet to establish the fact(s) by which the deletion is justified. The specifics aren't relevant here, but I'm willing to discuss them.

In such a case, the deleting administrator holds all the cards; if he decides not to disclose the facts, than an editor would literally be going into DRV blind. The effect of the policy, as implemented, is to make such deletions immune to review by non-administrators. The paramount importance of applying content policies with extreme care in BLP situations cannot justify taking action without a willingness to discuss that action. In addition to responsibility, transparency is vital to maintain faith in the process. Situations like mine and like this one erode that faith. --SSBohio 16:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by GRBerry

In my mind, the issue best presented by this case is when can a subset of arbitrators act on behalf of the committee - but since the ArbComm controls the arbitration policy, they can discuss and decide upon that without needing a case, and it would be better for the new ArbComm to do so if that is the only issue to be addressed. So my primary recommendation is to reject the case and clarify that policy without holding a case.

If a case is held, the party list is obviously incomplete. If a case is held at all, Dmcdevit and the two to three arbitrators who encouraged Dmcdevit to think the ArbComm was acting are obviously parties as their actions are under review. If the steward has a disclosed account here, they should also be a party.

Reviewing the timeline in Thatcher's draft outline, this is a terrible case for discussing wheel warring, as if there was a wheel war the only admins that even arguably wheel warred are Drini and Jossi - so if wheel warring is an issue Drini and Jossi must be parties to the case. This also isn't a great case for BLP issues, but to the extent BLP is an issue in a case Dmcdevit, Drini, Jossi and Penwhale are needed as parties. GRBerry 17:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Responding to SSBohio on a matter of procedure only, early this year User:Jimbo Wales accepted that the Arbitration Committee would have jurisdiction to review and, if it decided to do so, overturn any admin/bureaucrat/steward decisions made by him, and that ArbCom's decision in such matters would be final. Without belaboring the analogy, this has generally been viewed as a waiver of anything analogous to "sovereign immunity" that Jimbo might previously have possessed. (Not commenting one way or the other on whether the case should be accepted.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/3/0/0)

• Decline. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Suggestion -- since this is clearly not a pressing matter, but is a matter that has some interesting issues, perhaps we might shelf this until the influx of new blood joins ArbCom in the next few days. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Decline. The confusion here was very regrettable, and we must endeavor to deal with such situations in a more clearly organized manner in the future; but there is little benefit to holding an extended proceeding at this point. Kirill 19:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Decline. As Kirill. Mackensen (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Accept to clarify our stance on how emergency desysoppings are handled and to document the matter in an organized way. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. There are issues which might profitably be examined here. Paul August ☎ 19:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Requests for clarification

Place requests for clarification on matters related to the Arbitration process in this section. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Place new requests at the top.

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

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

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

User:Rosencomet

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Rosencomet and Starwood related articles. Rosencomet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing to promote his interests in the encyclopaedia, and to aggressively resist attempts to remove or tone down said promotion. Do we need a new case, or can we look at a topic ban? Guy (Help!) 10:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Premature. Thatcher131 17:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Advised to try a user conduct RFC and approach the committee in January if necessary. Thatcher131 04:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine, although the fact that he was previously brought before ArbCom and sanctioned for precisely the same behaviour and has refused to address the issue thus far does not augur well for success. Guy (Help!) 18:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The prior case resulted in a non-binding, non-enforceable caution. Do what you will. Thatcher131 18:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I recused on the case because I reverted some of Rosencomet's edits so I'll recuse again. Not sure that a conduct RFC is needed since the last RRArb gave Rosencomet feedback similar to a RFC. If one is done, I don't think the Community needs to wait for a long period of time before a case is started if the behavior continues. FloNight (talk) 00:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for review of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election

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

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

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

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

Requested motions to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ferrylodge#Ferrylodge restricted

A user has suggested that editing on presidential candidate Mitt Romney would violate this edit restriction because Romney's an anti-abortion flip-flopper. User specifically opposes Ferrylodge's participation in a debate about including reference to Romney's polygamist ancestors (because, it's argued, polygamy relates to reproduction).[10] Is Ferrylodge in fact restricted from these topics? Is he close to the line? Cool Hand Luke 02:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not banned from articles about abortion. The ArbCom decision stated: "Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing." First of all, no admin has remotely suggested that I have edited the Mitt Romney article inappropriately. That article has never been reverted by me once, and no admin (involved or uninvolved) has suggested otherwise, much less banned me from the article. Also, of course, the Mitt Romney article is not related to pregnancy or abortion. One could argue that every article is in some sense a result of pregnancy, but such arguments would be absurd. If I were editing an article on polygamy, could an uninvolved admin ban me from that article for editing inappropriately? I think not, but let's plunge off that bridge when we come to it.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The restriction is meant to be imposed on a case-by-case basis by an admin. Ferrylodge is not under any general ban. Kirill 02:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is my two cents on FL's progress since the ArbCom ruling. During the ArbCom case, it was discussed and proposed that FL, in addition to being banned from abortion/pregnancy articles, also be banned from political articles. The committee in the long run did not add this to their remedies, and based on FL's edits since coming back to WP, I'm not sure that was the right decision. On December 1st, after a bit of incivility ("but Turtlescrubber thinks that false info in Wikipedia artoices is fine?" [11]), FL (and another editor) were warned by The Evil Spartan, being told to "cease-fire"[12]. Because of the content dispute, the article has since been protected, however FL has harassed contacted the admin who protected the article multiple times here, even after a RfC and two separate edit requests failed to accomplish FL's edits. While not clear cut abuse, I believe this added together is disruptive. And to give FL credit, there are other editors on the other side fighting for their POVs (you can't have a content dispute with just one side. there are always two sides). But I am extremely disappointed that after the close of the ArbCom case, FL has not taken the opportunity to prove to the community that he can be productive and increase the encyclopedic value of non-controversial articles, but instead has picked up arguing over petty matters at days length on highly contentious articles. I would suggest to FL to please stop editing presidential candidates articles for the time being, and do some neutral contribution to gain the trust of the community. Getting into such a large (yet in the long run insignificant) content dispute so soon after the ArbCom case just doesn't look good.-Andrew c ^[talk] 03:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c, you are hardly a disinterested party here. For example, you accused me during the ArbCom proceedings of "aching for a fight," among many other things.[13] I politely decline your suggestion that I stop editing certain types of articles. Any objective person would see clearly that my edits to presidential candidate articles are very helpful, such as these edits today to the John McCain article. And there was no ArbCom vote about restricting me from political articles, contrary to what Andrew c suggests. Regarding the Mitt Romney article, there is certainly a dispute there, and I have supported at least one admin in that dispute. That article was certainly not protected due to any revert by me. I have never reverted the Mitt Romney article, not once. I thought that the ArbCom proceedings were over. Alas.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. Re-opening the arbcom remedy is another question that I'm not asking. I just want to know whether there's anyway he's barred from editing Mitt Romney. It says that the subject should be interpreted broadly. I would say he's clearly forbidden from editing on a candidate's abortion stance, but editing on the candidate generally seems too weak a tangent to me. I want to know whether ArbCom could have possibly meant to forbid anything like this. Cool Hand Luke 04:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Read the remedy very carefully. He is not barred even from broad abortion and pregnancy topics, unless an uninvolved admin declares him to be in specific instances, in specific articles. Since no admin, involved or uninvolved, has done so at all, he cannot be argued to be banned from any article or topic at this moment. The mental gymnastics required to interpret the remedy, even in the broadest sense, to apply to presidential candidate articles in general would require facial expressions that I would actually pay to see. - Crockspot (talk) 04:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If FerryLodge were to edit the abortion-related parts of the Romney article in a disruptive fashion, an uninvolved admin could indeed ban him from the article, but he is under no blanket ban. You can ask any uninvolved admin to review FerryLodge's edits or post a request at Arbitration enforcement and if the admin decides a ban is needed, FL will be notified and the ban logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ferrylodge#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Thatcher131 02:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that Ferrylodge has returned to editing abortion-related articles and is pursuing the same very narrow ends which he's pursued for a year. On Roe v. Wade, he reintroduced commentary on a poll,[14] which he has singled out in this manner since January 2007.[15][16][17][18][19] At Talk:Abortion, he continues to advocate the addition of an illustration of a fetus,[20] although adding such an image to the article himself in September lead to an edit war.[21][22] The point is that the ArbCom decision applied specifically to articles related to pregnancy and abortion, and, even in its wake, Ferrylodge has not moved on from pursuing the same narrow, highly specific goals that he pursued earlier on articles like Abortion. I believe this warrants appraisal. -Severa (!!!) 18:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

One quick note on this topic... how is Ferrylodge discussing things on the article talk pages "inappropriate editing" as outlined in the Arbitration Committee remedy? Isn't discussing things on the talk page in a civil manner exactly what we are all supposed to do on heated topics? I haven't followed Ferrylodge much since the case closed, but I am yet to see how he has been inappropriately editing. Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

See this diff. He reinserted commentary on the Harris poll that he added to several other articles a year ago (see the diffs above). Instead of letting old matters drop, and moving on, he's still focused on making the same sorts of edits to abortion-related articles as ever. -Severa (!!!) 18:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Report violations of Arbitration sanctions at Arbitration enforcement. Thatcher131 19:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me to that page. -Severa (!!!) 19:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

More clarification requested

The remedy states, "Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing."

Does the "interpreted broadly" clause (or the remedy in general) include talk pages in areas related to abortion, or simply the articles themselves? Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The remedy would include any page related to abortion, including article talk pages, user talk pages (if an abortion-related discussion is carried on there), templates, policies, wikiprojects, AfDs, you name it. This has been established in past clarifications of other cases. The point of the remedy is to stop Ferrylodge from being disruptive, wherever it occurs. I personally would allow more freedom on talk pages, but there still will be an actionable level of disruption. Thatcher131 20:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)