Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hasteur (talk | contribs) at 19:59, 10 December 2013 (→‎Statement by Hasteur: Re to JodyB's assertion about AfC backlogs). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Kafziel's AfC actions   10 December 2013 {{{votes}}}
Nightscream   9 December 2013 {{{votes}}}
Serbo-Croatian infobox dispute   7 December 2013 {{{votes}}}
Discretionary sanctions   6 December 2013 {{{votes}}}
[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
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

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Kafziel's AfC actions

Initiated by Hasteur (talk) at 16:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Hasteur

Administrator Kafziel has explictly thrown the finger at the community in saying that they consider the practices of the AfC wiki project as being only guidelines and free to be disregarded at any time invoking "Ignore All Rules" as a defense. I consider it only just that after being challanged several times by Arbitrators, editors at large, volunteers at the AfC wikiproject, and other administrators only to get further rejection of advice from other editors as to modifiying their actions that Kafziel constitutes a clear and present danger and disruption to both the AfC project, Wikipedia as a whole, and editors we are attempting to retain by their deliberately hostile actions. As such I request a temporary injunction desysoping Kafziel and prohibiting them from taking any further action with respect to the AfC project. Hasteur (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This ArbCom request is being motivated after the ANI thread was closed as a "witch hunt" when multiple editors expressed significant concern at Kafziel's actions (even if they were expedient) as being out of process without trying to establish a consensus for said process. Hasteur (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I assert that this is not a case of a small project trying to impose it's will on the entire encyclopedia at large, I assert that CONLIMITED is not applicable here. Where else but at the CSD talk page should discussions of implementation of the CSD rules be applied? Where else but from within the guardianship of AfC should changes to AfC best practices be conducted? Having an admin blunder into a sensitive section of wikipedia and start throwing their novel interpretations of policy and guidelines is not helpful at all. A though experiment for those who think this is a tempest in a tea pot: If an admin with no experience in Checkuser/Sock Puppet Investigations started blocking for those reasons and disregarding advice from editors who are involved with the area would you still cite CONLIMITED? Hasteur (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Re to NYB questions)

  1. No, AfC is intended to be a soft-hands landing space for new editors and Unregistered editors. Kafziel's deliberate gaming and abuse of process is at cross roads with AfC's intention.
  2. No, Per WP:DEADLINE eventually the articles will be reviewed, it may take a while, but if we had more volunteers doing quality reviews the backlog would diminish.
  3. Yes, since the issue was called by multiple editors he has not initiated any further deletions, however their assertion that they will continue in the same process indicates that they may start again.
  4. Yes, Wikipedia:Articles for creation does not say project. There is an associated project whose singular goal is to service AfC (Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation) but the rules/procedures/guidelines are ones that have been endorsed by the community and therefore belongs as a process rather than a WikiProject task force.
  5. No, As diff-ed in Fluffernutter's statement, Kafziel's responses (both before and after being confronted) are significantly deficient when compared with the requirements laid upon Administrators. Hasteur (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Re to JodyB of 19:08) The only backlog that is over 1 year in terms of outstanding issues is Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions. How do I know this? Because I'm wrote and operate User:HasteurBot. We authorized G13 back in June/July of this year, but didn't have a good grasp on how to handle the hordes of submissions that had been languishing since 2008. The bot was the result of consensus building and a plan to give all the submitters fair warning that the deletions are coming, but at the same time get the deletions rolling. Since the bot was authorized (Late August) we've already cleaned out ~50k stale drafts. We still have a way to go, but compared to the original backlog we've made significant progress. The other place where you might argue that AfC is backlogged is in the Pending Submissions which is currently at a backlog of "4 weeks pending" or less. While yes, we'd like to get the reviews done quicker, there's only so many hours a volunteer can look at the submissions before their perceptions of what is acceptable become skewed. Hasteur (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wee Curry Monster

As noted at WP:ANI, in a thread closed minutes ago following the usual drama and furore, there was no grounds for action. I would observe if there is any grounds for action, per WP:BOOMERANG it would be looking at the ownership issues of those filing this complaint and that at WP:ANI. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kafziel

My response is "Read the AN/I thread." WP:OWN, WP:BOLD, WP:EDIT, WP:COPYVIO, and, yes, even the dreaded WP:IAR. This is precisely the intended use of IAR: When the little rules created by some subset of editors have created a backlog of 40,000 articles, then ignore those rules in order to improve the encyclopedia. I would be hard-pressed to come up with a more relevant example of proper use.

Hasteur and his AfC friends wanted me convicted and hanged for violating their laws. When they found they had no grounds to do that, they wanted to be allowed to censure me without process. When that didn't work, they demanded that I voluntarily agree to stay out of their kingdom. Having been told they can’t make me do that either, they then demanded that I at least tip my hat in deference to them as I pass by. I will do none of those things, so, having failed at even that, Hasteur has come here to shop it at a new forum all over again. That's his right, but I (and several other regular editors and administrators) have already made my case quite clearly. I am blunt. I am an asshole, even, when it comes to witch hunts at AN/I. But I am editing well within the spirit and the law of Wikipedia, and will continue to do so. I'm not being disruptive;I have improved and moved hundreds of good articles into the namespace, and haven't even had to delete a single one in weeks. It's just that I refuse to kowtow to him and his pals. But I don't need their permission or their blessing. So I'm going to go back to working on the encyclopedia now, because everything worth saying has already been said. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 17:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re:NewYorkBrad - I've been waiting for you to recuse yourself since I have no doubt you've been looking forward to getting to lecture me since last we met a few months ago, but that doesn't seem to be happening. So I'll just say that:

  1. I do not agree to be "collegial" with people who are making outlandish threats on my talk page and elsewhere, or who waste my time with frivolous accusations. I agree only to work to improve the encyclopedia, and help others who are interested in the same. All editors are free to review all of my contribs and logs and restore anything I've deleted incorrectly (or anything else they want to restore) with no argument from me. I never even respond to emails off-project, or discuss anything on IRC, because I believe in being completely transparent in everything I do.
  2. AfC is a process with no set rules; the "rules" of AfC are created by the related wikiproject, and cannot trump Wikipedia policy. They do not own the articles there. If I don’t want to put their little project banner on talk pages, I don’t have to. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.
  3. I do not agree to refrain from deleting spam, copyvios, attack pages, etc. when I find them. No administrator should agree to that.
  4. Finally, I do not agree to give AfC their pound of flesh for allowing me the privilege of helping them with their ridiculous backlog.

It seems we've moved out of the realm of "Kafziel is disrupting Wikipedia and abusing the admin tools" into "Kafziel isn't nice." If that's the case, then I'm guilty as charged. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 18:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved JodyB

I hope the committee will decline this request. The AN/I thread was clear that there was not objective wrongdoing by an administrator. It would have quickly blown over had Kafziel been less confrontational but there is still nothing significant overturned. WikiProjects all have their procedures but the broader community procedures are not subjugated to the Projects. What specifically has he done to warrant losing his adminship? I don’t think you will find anything he has done wrong. Please note the policy at WP:CONLIMITED JodyB talk 17:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no question that Kafziel has been stubborn and brash with his replies. If ARBCOM wants to take this as a review of conduct then fine. But please note that there is still no confirmation of any sysop abuse. Kafziel acts as one trapped in a corner. He is trapped by his own anger but also by the attacks of others. I note that there are backlogs at AFC that are dating back over a year. Something is not working. JodyB talk 19:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Resolute

Of the five examples of Kafziel's deletions brought up in the thread (simply as the five most recent they made at the time), two were valid G11s, one was a G12 (but mistagged A7), one was a valid G13, and the last was tagged A7... but had been abandoned for three months. Four of the five were clearly correct, albeit one deleted for the wrong reason, and the last was incorrect only in terms of being deleted now instead of three months from now. While I agree that Kafziel should avoid deleting AFC pages using the A criteria of CSD, my scan of the ANI thread revealed no examples of actual tool abuse that were brought up. At worst, there was one honest error. This does not merit a desysop, a block or a topic ban. Lacking actual evidence of abuse, I fail to see how this request could be permitted. My impression from the ANI is that this seems like an attempt at driving someone away because he won't kowtow to the AFC wikiproject's desires. Resolute 17:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Beyond My Ken

I'm not involved in any AfC activity; in fact, I'm barely aware of the project's existence. I am, however, broadly sympathetic both to the concept that WikiProject practices are voluntary and not binding on anyone who doesn't choose to follow them, and to the concept that WP:IAR means exactly what it says, and should not be restricted to the "big issues". (Surely it would be called "Ignore Some Rules Sometimes" if that was what was meant.)

Despite these prejudices, which might seem to work in favor of Kafziel, I am still concerned about his behavior, not so much because of what he's done, but because of the attitude he's taken in the discussion related to it, and in other discussions as well. Like Kosher hot dogs, admins need to answer to a higher standard of behavior then do rank and file editors, because they've specifically chosen to take on their roles and have been selected by the community to be entrusted with additional powers. Admins are certainly allowed to be human, and to get pissed off occasionally, but an admin who approaches community criticism of his behavior with the equivalent of a big "FU" may not be ideally suited to the role.

Therefore, I would ask the committee to take on this case for the specific purpose of examining Kafziel's demeanor and behavior as an admin. It is most probably not sufficiently egregious to warrant desysoping, but it's possible that a warning and adminishment might be in order. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fluffernutter

Everyone makes mistakes, and every AfC reviewer does things slightly differently. If this were just a case of doing things differently, an arbcom request would be a gross overreaction for something that could be handled through dispute resolution if it became a problem. However, Kafziel has stated that he will not participate in standard dispute resolution, nor will he change the way he's been doing things (which has involved violations of CSD policy, disregarding consensus, and personally attacking anyone he feels is associated in any way with AfC). As a result, I'm very concerned about the implications of the assertions Kafziel has been making in discussions related to his AfC activity. For instance, even when specifically asked, he will not restore AfCs he deleted because he believes that articles and editors must sink or swim in mainspace rather than using AfC as a drafting space. He doesn't need anyone's permission to do "any other damn thing" he wants, and since dispute resolution processes are "a matter of one editor/group of editors thinking another editor/group of editors should kowtow and beg forgiveness", he has no interest in participating in them. Anyone who asks him to do things differently at AfC is a "tin-pot dictator" who likes to "hold back articles" so they can feel important. He'd love to "have the luxury of being more careful" with determining what to do with AfC articles, but he "outright reject"s the notion that he (or any other editors) has to follow the same reviewing procedures. Consensus is discounted because he suspects it was made by people he doesn't like; "[he's] not saying [he's] right and the community consensus is wrong. [He's] saying [he's] right, and whatever little consensus you all might have dreamed up at AfC is wrong."[3]. He's "not required to collaborate with everyone", and despite strenuous requests from a number of users that he moderate his behavior or discuss changing the current operating consensus, he "will continue doing exactly what [he has] been doing at AfC" as much as he likes.[4]. He will not accept a compromise, and if "you think you’re going to do sanction me, tell me where I can work and what tools I can use to work there, then it’s going to take a damn sight more than an AN/I report. In short, Kafziel does not feel bound by consensus, chooses to believe that IAR allows his own judgment to trump any other policy or consensus, and will not consider changing his behavior (including misusing his admin tools to improperly delete things) unless forced to do so. This is not the behavior (or the attitude) we should se coming from any administrator, let alone one who has appointed themselves to work in a newbie-facing area like AfC. He's not "ignoring" the rules, as he claims; he's purposely flouting them. I would certainly not be comfortable working with such an administrator and having to continually hope that he didn't substitute his own consensus-of-one for any and every policy the rest of us abide by. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved admin Coffee

I'll only state what I stated in my close of the ANI thread: I have seen no evidence put forward that Kafziel has abused his tools yet, nor that he has breached policy in his actions. ArbCom is not the place for talking about the perceived possibility of an admin/editor abusing their tools in the future (somewhat akin to a corrupted crystal ball), but instead is for actual breaches of policy and disputes revolving around this. I would recommend that ArbCom decline the matter at this point, and await actual dispute resolution processes (RFC/U) that could more appropriately handle this matter. That is unless ArbCom thinks they are the only possible way of this situation getting handled, and that situation being that Kafziel has been a bit dickish and certain editors don't appreciate it. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Kafziel's AfC actions: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <2/0/1/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

  • Awaiting statements, including Kafziel's. Having followed the ANI thread, I urge the parties to stick to the issues and avoid name-calling and excessive rhetoric. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC) I would find it helpful if statements would briefly comment on, among other things, the following questions: (1) were Kafziel's actions with respect to pending AfC drafts reasonable and appropriate in light of the reasons AfC exists and the role of AfC in the project? (2) were his actions, even if otherwise problematic, understandable in light of the great backlog of AfC drafts? (3) has he discontinued the most problematic types of actions, specifically, allegedly improper deletions? (4) should AfC be deemed to be an English Wikipedia process (akin to AfD, for example) whose policies and procedures must generally be respected outside an occasional "IAR" situation, or is AfC more akin to a wikiproject whose internal guidelines do not supersede overall policy? and (5) apart from the merits of the concerns raised, has Kafziel addressed those concerns and the editors who have raised them in a fashion appropriate for an administrator, and if not, is he willing to moderate his tone and conduct himself in a more collegial fashion? Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Recuse per Kafziel's suggestion in light of the thread to which he refers. Although it is not clear to me that an isolated discussion from seven months ago raises a doubt as to my impartiality in this case, I will step away and allow the other arbitrators to handle the matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Risker (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept - reviewing the ANI thread and the responses above, it is clear there are issues here that aren't being resolved. Hopefully an arbitration case, if kept to a limited and clear scope, will help sort things out. I will revisit this tomorrow to see if further statements or discussions by arbitrators and others indicate a need to change this view. Carcharoth (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nightscream

Initiated by Beeblebrox (talk) at 23:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
Note this comment from Nightscream which precipitated the closure of the thread: " I'll make it a point from now on not to mix conflict participation with administrative actions. I apologize for failing to do so up until now. Nightscream (talk) 03:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)"
A very long discussion of a block issued by Nightscream in a situation where they were involved. Partial quote (the discussion is very much in TLDR territory):"I not only do not find the opinion that involved admins are preferred not to be the blocking admins in such disputes, but I explicitly stated that I agree with it...Nightscream (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)"
Note this closing comment from Nightscream regarding the involved admin policy: "I will make sure to read over that policy more carefully. Thanks to everyone here, and you especially, xeno. Nightscream (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)"
Thread regarding Nightscream's understanding of the edit warring policy, among other things.
Regarding the recent edit warring and block for same.

Statement by Beeblebrox

While reviewing unblock requests a few days ago I came across a block placed by Nightscream on User:Rtkat3. The block was for their edits to the article Gotham City. They edited the page on 7 November. Nightscream edited the page themselves, and then issued a two week block on 6 December. I should think it would be obvious what is wrong about that as there is little preventative purpose to issuing a block a month after an action, and Nightscream was involved in editing the same article so blocking at all for anything but obvious vandalism is completely inappropriate. When I went to speak to Nightscream about this I found that they were also blocked at that time for edit warring at the article Jessica Nigri. A close look at the page history reveals that the final edit before the block was made after the page had already been protected by another admin and Nightscream edited through protection in order to restore their preferred version. It is true that the protecting admin another admin also reverted, to a pre-edit war version, after the page was protected corrected per Salvidrim but that does not seem particularly relevant. Any responsible admin will never make substantive edits to a fully-protected article, and especially not to one they were already involved with in an editorial capacity.

If these were isolated, one-off incidents that would be one thing, but a search of AN and ANI archives quickly reveals a long-term pattern of ignoring WP:INVOLVED going back at least five years. Additionally, they seem to believe that if they perceive a violation of any Wikipedia policy that their subsequent actions related to that content are not subject to the edit warring policy. This would be bad enough in a "regular" user, it is a dangerous and destructive attitude when coming from an administrator. Above are just a few examples demonstrating this pattern, but this is by no means an exhaustive list.

In short, I do not believe Nightscream should continue to be permitted to serve as an administrator as they do not respect important policies regarding both editorial and administrative actions, they have repeatedly abused thir position of trust in the community, and in recent times have been utterly unrepentant and refused to even acknowledge their errors in judgement. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Salvidrim

I was involved in the latest issue, as mentioned above by Beeblebrox, but had had no previous interaction with Nightscream and as such have little insight to bring forward as to the pattern of editing other than what I can see from the history presented above. See this section on my talk page for more details about my view of what happened in the past few days. I'd also like Beeblebrox to clarify in his above statement that the protecting admin at Jessica Nigri was not the one that reverted to the last pre-war version; if I hadn't stepped in to revert to the last pre-war version in an administrative decision, Nightscream would not have had the opportunity to revert to his preferred version in an editorial decision, and would have stopped just short of violating WP:3RR. That does not excuse edit warring, nor the attitude surrounding the heated denials that edit warring took place, and obviously does nothing to alleviate concerns brought on by the history of such warring and denial cases, but it's important context for the latest issue in my eyes. Since I know my own block of Nightscream will, clearly, be the subject of scrutiny, I thought it better to come out right away and offer some explanation. Make of that what you will. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by BOZ

I have to agree that an admin needs to come to WP:AN or WP:AN/I for help from other admins rather than using admin tools in WP:INVOLVED situations. I don't know if that is what has happened here, but I notice that this latest tussle has been with User:Niemti, whom as I have observed is an experienced edit-warrior himself. He has been blocked three times, once for abusing multiple accounts and unblocked three days later, once (by Beeblebrox) for edit warring, and once for personal attacks or harassment. I recall that there was a fair amount of edit warring on his part at Psylocke for example, and note quite a bit of undos there earlier this year, including edit-warring over an image while a discussion was taking place [5][6][7], and edit-warring over categories [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15], and another edit war with User:Lucia Black and TriiipleThreat over images several weeks ago [16][17][18][19][20]. I'm not excusing anything on Nightscream's part, but if he had to deal with anything like this again from Niemti anywhere else, I can fully understand his frustration. BOZ (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Sjones23

I was unaware of the case until I saw it on my watch list, but I remain uninvolved in this matter and have had no direct confrontation with Nightscream. Nightscream helped edited on Veronica Taylor article by removing unsourced material per WP:BLP/WP:V and protected it for BLP violations. Though the recent edit war on the Jessica Nigri article led to Nightscream (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) being blocked for his actions, my only concern here is that the user has a history of ignoring long-term WP:INVOLVED for five years per Beeblebrox's comments and I think he is being disruptive by abusing administrative tools to further his viewpoint in a content dispute. Abusing administrative tools as an involved administrator can lead to their desysopping for good reason; for example Alkivar (talk · contribs · former admin: blocks · protections · deletions · rights · meta · local rights) was desysopped for abusing his tools back in 2007 per this case. Nightscream, unfortunately, has refused to acknowledge his errors when he makes them. That's what concerns me the most.

So in the end, I think that Nightscream does not have the competence to be an administrator, and I think his attitude is far from being the cool-headed/objective stance that administrators should have when they are in situations of conflict. I urge the committee to ensure that Nightscream does not become a liability to the community. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Nightscream

Hi. I hope I'm placing this in the right spot. If I'm not, please let me know. Although I received Beeblebrox's yesterday, I did not see the case here that had been started begun with respect to me; I must've screwed up the search for it somehow. I'll need some time to compose a proper response, which must be juggled with other things going on in the non-virtual world, so please be patient. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Nightscream: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/4>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

  • Awaiting statement from User:Nightscream, who has edited at least since the notification was placed so is presumably aware of the arbitration request. Carcharoth (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also awaiting a statement from Nightscream. By way of disclosure, I have met him at New York area meet-ups three or four times. We haven't collaborated on anything either on or off wiki, and I don't believe mere acquaintanceship warrants recusal, but I thought I'd mention the fact. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My position on misuse of tools is that once may be a mistake / temporary rush of blood to the head, twice is cause for concern and worth looking into, thrice is a bright line for desysopping. We appear to have two incidents here, so worth looking into - though I'd be interested to see what explanation Nightscream has before formally accepting the case. That there are previous concerns is disturbing, even though these date from four years ago, as they appear to relate to the same concerns being raised now. I suspect that as there were two posts on Nightscream's talkpage that occurred when he was offline, and he removed the second one when he logged back on, so clearing the alert, that he may not be aware of this case request. I'll ping him. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Waiting for Nightscream's comment, but I'm certainly minded to accept this case given the history and the recent situation. WormTT(talk) 10:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Serbo-Croatian infobox dispute

Initiated by Kiril Simeonovski (talk) at 00:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • A request for mediation was rejected after the other parties did not agree to use mediation to solve the dispute.
  • The case was reported on the administrators' noticeboard but there was no response from any of the admins and mostly comments by one of the other involved parties who requested to start a new section for discussion. I accepted his/her request and that was the beginning to reach this case.

Statement by Kiril Simeonovski

After accepting the request from user Taivo on the administrators' noticeboard to start a new section for discussion in order to present my points, I started a new thread and described there all the things relating the infobox with my opinion on why these changes are really necessary (diff 1). The first response by Taivo was an overall comment on my most recent proposal and a new section in which he rephrased my proposal in a different (diff 2). I wasn't content with the response, especially not with the overall comment, but decided not to war about it and thereby left a thankful comment and subsequently one with a mild criticism on the tone (diff 3). A discussion commenced over the change in the infobox and user Kwamikagami proposed a modified solution which appeared to be a good compromise in my opinion (diff 4). Another user edited the article and then joined the discussion with mild support for that change (diff 5 and diff 6). I was carefully following the discussion all the time and left a comment discussing some possible scenarios (diff 7), which was briefly asnwered by Kwamikagami as a cogent argument (diff 8). Since there was agreement on that comment and given the direction of the previous discussion, I decided to be bold and make the change on my own (diff 9). In the meantime, user JorisvS joined the discussion to question the change and we started our brief conversation over the change (diff 10, diff 11, diff 12, diff 13, diff 14, diff 15, diff 16), while he/she also made some reverts on my changes in the main article as well (diff 17, diff 18, diff 19, diff 20). But his/her comments were not supported by any sources and my next comment requested to see some and was followed with a list of sources supporting my point (diff 21, diff 22). JorisvS did not revert my edit again after this comment, but Taivo was the one who did it by waving a non-existing consensus apparently reached before (diff 23, please pay attention on these comments from the previous discussion: diff 24, diff 25, diff 26). His/Her comment on the discussion page did not list any reliable sources to counterbalance the views and contained a disregard on my list, although it included works by prominent linguists and experts on the topic such like Friedman, Brozović and Kordić (diff 27). My next two comments replied to his/her disregard, asked for link to the "non-existing" consensus once again and invited the user to check the latest discussion and the compromise over the change (diff 28, diff 29). Kwamikagami joined the discussion to support disregarding my sources attributing them as "travel guides" and "other idiocies" (diff 30, diff 31). Taivo reported me for violating the 3RR after which I was blocked for two days; he/she also posted a comment detailing his/her views with no explanation why it is better than my points that he/she ignored at the very beginning of the discussion (diff 32). Finally, JorisvS agreed with this comment, albeit not paying attention on my points (diff 33). I have nothing else to conclude than just saying that they will always find a way to turn me down, even if they already lack of sources and arguments, use words of mouth about non-existing consensus, have very low regard to reliable sources by prominent authors and use insinuations to get rid of me at any price.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Party 2}

Statement by {Party 3}

Clerk notes

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

Serbo-Croatian infobox dispute: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/5/0/1>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

  • I'm wondering if we need to look further into Kiril Simeonovski's overall conduct. I followed the links provided by User:No such user during this discussion, and I'm concerned that Kiril brings up trivial issues, and then refuses to let the matter drop in a WP:Tendentious editing manner. In the Serbo-Croatian incident mentioned above, I'm not impressed by Taivo's incivility - though I wonder how much of that has been caused by exasperation at Kiril Simeonovski's behaviour. Waiting further comments. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If nobody, Committee or community, is concerned about Kiril Simeonovski's tendentious editing, then there is nothing really for ArbCom to be looking at. Taivo's incivility is not at the level of an ArbCom case, and the rest of the matter is simply disagreement between Kiril Simeonovski and just about everyone else. I think it appropriate at this point to remind Kiril Simeonovski that Wikipedia works by consensus, and that does mean at times accepting that the decision will sometimes go against you, and you need to walk away from it even if you believe strongly that you are right. More harm is caused on Wikipedia by editors going on destructive campaigns to correct perceived wrongs than those wrongs remaining on Wikipedia. All wrongs get righted eventually - as part of what we are doing we need to accept that Wikipedia is not perfect, and not burn down a city in order to get rid of one flea. Decline. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We often remind editors that the Arbitration Committee primarily resolves issues of user conduct, as opposed to making decisions in content disputes. In one way, the filing party here has been unusually circumspect about that rule, in that I read through the request for arbitration several times and it gave me no insight at all into what the underlying content dispute is actually about. On checking the diffs, of course, the issue becomes clearer. As I read it (and I am sure I am eliding the details), the original dispute concerns whether the Torlakian dialect is properly considered a dialect of the Serbo-Croatian language. It appears from the extensive talkpage discussions, among editors who enjoy significant subject-matter knowledge (that most if not all of the arbitrators will lack), that linguists disagree on this issue. It also appears to me that editors have been able to fairly reflect the differences of scholarly opinion in the article itself, and that the locus of dispute centers on the infobox. As was noted by several editors in our recent Infoboxes case, infoboxes (like categories) can require summarizing information in a word or a phrase, even where disputes over that information could fill the entirety of an article. It is necessary for knowledgeable editors to work these things out; it is also important that editors not focus on the exact phrasing of an infobox entry at the expense of developing the substantive knowledge base of the encyclopedia. Beyond these observations, awaiting further statements to see how, if at all, arbitration might help here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leaning toward declining per the other arbs who have commented, but waiting another day to review any additional statements that might come in in the meantime. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. This is primarily a content dispute, perhaps some evidence of tendentious editing. As a suggestion: just because there is the opportunity to include a parameter in the infobox doesn't mean that parameter has to be included. If the parameter relates to something in the article where there are notable divergent opinions, it's probably just best to not include it in the infobox. Risker (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per the responses given by Newyorkbrad and Risker. Carcharoth (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline as content dispute and per above comments. WormTT(talk) 10:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions

Initiated by Neotarf (talk) at 06:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
Arbitration enforcement action
  • February 2013. Talk page discussions with sanctioning administrator [22]
  • March 2013. A/R/CA. Sanctioning administrator's clarification request to the Committee [23]
  • March 2013. A/R/CA. Notification from ArbCom clerk: “The request is archived; however, an arbitrator is planning on offering an arbitrator motion ‘very shortly’.” [24]
  • May 2013. A/R/CA Arbitrator: “By a happy coincidence, the follow-up to that clarification request was scheduled some time ago to take place this week.” [25]
Article probation action

An email request made to the sanctioning administrator was declined.

Statement by Neotarf

Note: Please correct any procedural errors, or let me know what to do. I would appreciate patience for any delay in responses, due to ongoing internet connectivity issues.

Appeal of two actions

I wish to appeal two discretionary sanctions, one from AE, and one under article probation. As a remedy, I request that the sanctions be vacated/ rescinded and stricken from the notification logs: [26] and [27], similar to this example.

AE action

This involves an Arbitration Enforcement request opened by a user while another request involving a pending sanction against them was still under discussion. After the second AE request, 4 of the 14 editors who participated in the discussion were sanctioned: Neotarf (myself), Noetica, SMcCandlish, and Ohconfucius.

  • Warning template on talk page: [28]
  • The warning accused me of “casting aspersions”, was made without evidence, and without any concerns having previously been brought up on my talk page or in an appropriate forum. No appeal process was specified.
Article probation action

A sanction was logged against me after I reverted apparent vandalism in a good-faith edit. [29] No action was taken with the other editor. I was subsequently templated [30] and my name added to this “log of notifications” page of indeffed and red-linked usernames, which was decidedly unsettling. [31]

  • I have not edited this page in the last year; per WP:POLEMIC I wish my name removed from public view.
Comments by Neotarf

@AGK

1) "material about the ongoing DS review"??? Where?

2) This has already been taken to A/R/CA and was completely ignored. We were promised a decision in March and promised again in May. Nothing. Check the diffs. We have been waiting for 9 months. If you think someone will actually pay attention to it somewhere else, please do move it. But it has already been there and done that. Which is why I put it here, to have more eyes on it, at least initially. This has been festering for a long time. I think it could be quite quickly and easily resolved--for everyone, arbs and editors alike--in a motion. —Neotarf (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@arbs, would you please slow down.

  • Would you mind slowing down the voting until I can catch up to the current round of comments? Some meaningful points are being raised and I would like to respond to them.
  • Judging by the statements that have been made so far, there are huge misunderstandings here about what I have requested. The answers to some of the concerns raised here were in the draft of my original request, but were lost due to the word limit. The alternative seems to be to use the comments for explanations, as needed.
  • My original RFAR draft ran to 866 words, according to the word counter I was using, but has now been pared to 495 words. I'm not sure how diffs are counted, but the current draft should now be well within the 500-word limit.
  • I have noted other recent ArbCom requests approaching a thousand words. I don't know how it would be handled if there was a problem with those RFARs, but I hope that they would be informed and someone would assist them. Please note that I am at a disadvantage here compared to these other users, since due to the above template placed on my talk page some 9 months ago, I am now under the provisions of the discretionary sanctions, and if I exceed a word count, may be summarily blocked and banned with no warning. —Neotarf (talk) 10:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating my request to the arbitrators

I am disappointed to see that several arbs have voted after I specifically asked for more time to respond to the many many issues they raised. I thought it a reasonable request. I have intentionally held off my comments until after the close of the election, since the two arbs running for re-election are closely involved in the DS review.

I now repeat my request for the opportunity to respond to these issues. I plan to comment within 24 hours. I know I am asking for more effort on the part of a committee that is already overstretched, but I believe the matter of discretionary sanctions is important issue that deserves more than a summary dismissal.

Best regards, —Neotarf (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Response by Neotarf

The Issues

The fundamental issues that should be raised regarding discretionary sanctions are:

1) Is it part of a disciplinary process? Is the action--whether it is called a “warning” or an “alert” or a “teddy bear picnic”--a stepping stone to a more radical action, like a block or ban?

2) What does it take away from the editor? A fundamental western principle of fairness is that someone cannot be deprived of life or property without due process. The currency of Wikipedia is reputation. When unsupported accusations are made, especially in an official capacity, or a list being maintained to prepare for negative actions against them, the editor is deprived of the tools they need to edit.

4) Is the action fair? If some editors are subjected to negative actions while others are not, you have to ask how the selection is being made. If sanctions are not being proposed for misconduct, then what is the basis for choosing someone for sanction? If no proof of misconduct is required, how is the sanction process not just one more weapon for one’s adversaries in a content dispute?

5) Is it voluntary? If an area is under special rules, are potential editors informed of that BEFORE they are put on a disciplinary list, and given a choice of whether they want to participate? Or do they get surprised?

6) What kind of editing environment does it subject the editor to? There are 5 different levels of templates for vandals before the toilet gets flushed. Under the new discretionary sanctions proposal, if long-time valued editors step over a line they don’t know about, they can look forward to summary executions.

7) What are the time limits for a DS-related disciplinary action? If someone is topic banned for misconduct, there is usually a time limit in which they can appeal and the ban lifted. But what is the time limit for discretionary sanctions? Indefinite? How soon can it be appealed? If they were placed on a list 5 years ago, can they still be subjected to negative action?

8) What is the scope of discretionary sanctions? Under community-based sanctions, editors only had cause for concern if they edited a particle article. Under the current AE regime, sanctions have been applied to talk pages, AE requests, RFAs, and even page length.

9) Community input. A lot of editors took the time to make thoughtful and sometimes challenging comments about the new DS proposal, and even to call for a more formal community comment. But as far as I can see, those comments have all been archived. The only comments now being incorporated into the proposal are those of the AE admins.

Answers to individuals

Sandstein: I would like to ask you here, in this forum: Please reconsider your actions of nine months ago, in the light of what you know now. Please strike the misconduct language you have applied to us, and strike the four names from the warning section of the case decision. If you feel you can’t do this, on what basis do you feel you can’t do this?

KillerChihuahua: ‘’The list exists so admins can check to make sure people knew about the article probation before they sanction them’’. The list is for blocking people. Per WP: POLEMIC a user is not allowed to keep such a list for possible future actions.

Tony1: So the check is in the mail? Whatever. We have already waited 9 months. I can see things are proceeding with all deliberate speed. The new procedure calls for appeals to be handled under the same procedures they were applied under. So we wait, heaven knows how long, for the new regs, then re-appeal under the old regs? As I said, whatever.

NYB: I have reformulated what I see as the fundamental issues above. But there are more meta issues as well, which were asked of the community on the now-archived page. How are discretionary sanctions working? That has not been answered, and given the divisiveness and controversy that they have engendered so far, I think it should be.

Silktork: I am not aware of any previous case establishing that warnings cannot be appealed. In fact, in the Scientology case I link to above, a warning logged against User:The Devil's Advocate was rescinded or vacated, and the warning stricken from the case log. The main difference between that request and this RFAR, is that that one was filed after a bitter and divisive thread at ANI, and other venues, that went on for several weeks. Abuse of admin powers and Violation of WP:INVOLVED by User:Sandstein. I didn’t bring a case against Sandstein because I don’t think he’s the problem; he’s just following orders.

Risker (&NTB): Where would be the optimal venue for an appeal of community probation, either to have your name removed from an old list or to request the end of the article probation?

Carcharoth: I have given the new proposal, as well as the talk pages, several close readings, and I’m afraid I don’t share your optimism. It is sweeping, not incremental, is not written in neutral language, and is enshrining some recent changes that have already caused controversy and divisiveness.


Request for recusal

I have requested that User:Timotheus Canens recuse himself. —Neotarf (talk) 07:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

Thanks for the notification, Newyorkbrad. I was the administrator who issued the warning of February 2013 that is, if I understand this correctly, one of the two actions Neotarf wishes to appeal.

I recommend that the appeal is declined because warnings or notifications are, in my view, not in any meaningful sense subject to appeal or revocation. Their purpose is not to restrict their recipient in any way, but to inform them about future possible sanctions, as required per WP:AC/DS#Warnings. It is not possible to undo that. It appears that the Arbitration Committee intends to codify this, as per the draft rules at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2013 review#Issuing alerts.

Should the Committee wish to discuss the warning on its merits, I refer to my statements in the original AE thread and in the extensive discussion with the warned users (and with one user in particular) after the warning. On that basis of these considerations, I am of the view that the warning was appropriate, or at any rate within the discretion granted by the Committee to administrators as described at WP:AC/DS. The exceptional aggressiveness with which the discussions about this mere warning were conducted indicates why the Arbitration Committee was probably right to make this topic area subject to discretionary sanctions. I'm glad to see now, however, that the warning did not in fact result in the then-announced retirement of some of the warned editors.

I agree with Neotarf, however, that the Arbitration Committee has been very tardy in resolving the procedural question about the possibility of appealing warnings, as already raised by several previous cases. I recommend that in order to do so the Committee should conclude the process at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2013 review as quickly as possible.  Sandstein  18:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Neotarf's request, I was at the time of the warning of the opinion that you and others conducted a dispute related to the manual of style in an inappropriately personalized and confrontative manner, in contravention of the Arbitration Committee's findings that this should be avoided, and accordingly I warned you not to do so again, also informing you about the discretionary sanctions that apply to this topic area. This appeal does not contain any new arguments or evidence that would lead me to reconsider that assessment. Looking at the original AE thread again, in retrospect your statement does appear comparatively tame and would not ordinarily merit a warning on its own, but in the context of the very complicated and aggressive multiparty feud then apparently surrounding this topic I felt that it was appropriate to nip a possible escalation in the bud by signalling clearly to all participants in this dispute that confrontative and personalizing conduct, such as making accusations of misconduct without evidence, must be avoided. I recommend that you simply take the warning as it was intended, as an attempt to help you and others avoid unneeded trouble, rather than as a slight to your honor, and continue your normal editorial work. By continuing to dispute a mere warning in this venue, you yourself are increasing your public profile in a way that probably does not help you in future disputes.  Sandstein  12:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KillerChihuahua

As requested, here is my comment. There have been no sanctions at all to Neotarf under Article Probation. Neotarf was merely notified the article was under probation.

From the Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation page, section Notifications:

Note: Listing here indicates only that an editor has been notified. Listing here should not be taken to mean that the user's edits were in violation of the article probation.

From the notification itself, which is a substituted template, {{uw-probation}}:

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights movement, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.

As you can see, it is a notification. Not a sanction or even a warning. How can you un-tell someone something? You cannot. As I emailed Neotarf when Neotarf asked me about this via email back in August:

"That's just a notification, they never get undone. Doesn't mean you've done anything wrong at all; just a friendly notice to ensure you are aware the article is under sanctions."

and:

"I've never, ever seen a notification removed, for good reason - it's a notification. If you've been notified, you cannot be un-notified. The list exists so admins can check to make sure people knew about the article probation before they sanction them, and to prevent multiple notifications of individuals, which is annoying for those not doing anything wrong, and can allow those breaching probation to evade sanctions (briefly). Frankly, I wouldn't remove anyone from one of those lists; it indicates no wrongdoing, and does not indicate anything other than that you've been informed."

There is nothing here to appeal, as there were never any sanctions at all.

I personally think that the current ArbCom sanctions method of never notifying, skipping straight to a warning, is inferior to this method, which is used on most (if not all) community sanctioned pages. KillerChihuahua 16:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tony1

I don't disagree that this appeal is poorly timed and inappropriate in view of the impending and long overdue reforme of the DS system. However, I can't let Sandstein get away with statements like: "I'm glad to see now, however, that the warning did not in fact result in the then-announced retirement of some of the warned editors." I'm unsure what legalistic provisos have been inserted into that statement to make it "true", but normal people will read it as declaring that his warnings have resulted in no departures of editors.

That would not be a correct intepretation. Three editors I know – all long-established and valuable to the mission – have downed tools and walked out because of Sandstein's failure to engage with parties, and his tendency to use a hammer to solve issues. A DS is a hammer; that is what it feels like, and he doesn't seem to be capable of empathising on this point. His work at AE is mostly very good – he gets the job done, which assists hard-pressed arbs in the almost impossible workload they face. However, in a minority of cases it is Sandstein who is perceived as acting "with exceptional aggressiveness". He doesn't appear to see this, but many editors find it a major problem in the operations of AE. The result is a bad name for Sandstein himself, for AE, and ultimately for ArbCom – and it undoes a lot of the good that Sandstein is capable of.

I hope the DS reform process communicates very clearly to the community how the meaning of alerts will be entirely different from that of DSs. There's the potential for editors not to see that alerts are informational, and the fact that an alert will bring one closer to being sanctioned is a risk for misinterpretation. Deft PR will be required to gain acceptance of the alert system. I trust that Sandstein's failure to engage – and I must say his bias towards admins on occasion – will no longer be a shadow over the new system.

In the meantime, Neotarf would be well-advised to withdraw this request and wait for the new system to quash the DS at issue (which was unfair, in my view). Tony (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

I have notified KillerChihuahua about this request [32]. --Rschen7754 10:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/8/0/1>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

  • Decline and move to WP:A/R/CA because discretionary sanctions appeals are heard as amendment requests, not case requests. The material about the ongoing DS review does not seem relevant. AGK [•] 12:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • By "material about the ongoing DS review", I meant the diffs you originally included that illustrate how long the review has taken. I see you have now followed up with a statement that confirms your request is basically saying the review needs to hurry up. My point was that RFAR is not the place to demand we conclude the review now. AGK [•] 11:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • I would not vote to decline this request simply because it is filed as a request for a new case rather than a clarification or amendment. At most, if the request is in the wrong section, I would simply ask a Clerk to move the case to the correct section. Frankly, the correct categorization of some requests is not always clear even to us, and we cannot expect ordinary editors to master every nuance of our increasingly (overly) complicated procedures.
    • A fundamental issue raised by this request is whether a "warning" or "notification" given under either ArbCom discretionary sanctions or a community-imposed article probation is (1) simply an formal advisory that there are special rules for the article of which the editor should be aware, or (2) a signal that the editor's participation on that page has actually been problematic. The answer to that question, in turn, may dictate whether the warning is treated as simply a historical fact (which cannot be "undone" or changed on appeal because a person can't be "un-notified" of something), or whether it is an adverse action subject to appeal on AE or to the Committee.
    • In recent months the Committee has been badly divided on these issues, both in the context of concrete requests and in discussion of the discretionary sanctions policy update. While several arbitrators have taken the former position, and it is understandable why they do, several editors who have received such warnings find it difficult to accept that they are "on warning" about the possibility of sanctions for their editing a given article, when in their view they have done nothing wrong in connection with that article, and expect that they would have a venue to challenge such a warning. The counterargument to that position is that we have enough bureaucracy around here already, without also having to process appeals addressing simply whether an editor was properly reminded to behave well on an article and of the possible consequences if he or she doesn't, with no other adverse consequences. This request may provide a further opportunity to flesh out some of these issues.
    • Before proceeding further, the administrators who took the disputed actions should be notified. I believe that would be Sandstein in the case of the DS, and KillerChihuahua in the case of the AP. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. I am in general sympathetic to the situation of users being inappropriately templated, warned and/or listed in a manner which indicates incorrectly they behaved poorly. However, if I recall correctly, it was established in a previous case request that warnings (or alerts as they are proposed to be called) cannot be appealed, which is what prompted the current DS review. If someone wishes to bring a case against an admin for giving inappropriate warnings, then the Committee would generally like to see more than one instance. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Risker (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to point out to my colleagues, this is an article under community article probation, not Arbcom discretionary sanctions. I'm fairly certain we don't have jurisdiction here. Risker (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe the request concerns two separate notifications, one of which (Sandstein's) was based on ArbCom DS, the other of which (KillerChihuahua's) was based on a community probation. In any event, I think we would have "jurisdiction" to vacate a clearly inappropriate administrator decision rendered on the basis of a community sanction, just as we have asserted the authority to vacate (for example) a community-imposed topic ban. The circumstances under which we would exercise that authority are narrow, and I am not saying they are present here, but that is different from saying we don't have the authority at all. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline with no prejudice to re-filing at a later date if a better case can be made (this is not the place for a lengthy back-and-forth). In passing, I don't think the committee is as badly divided on these issues as Newyorkbrad states above (though the views of some non-arbs commenting may give rise to that impression). I do think the discretionary sanctions review is making good progress with this, so I don't think anything further is needed here other than to wait for that review process to conclude. Carcharoth (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. T. Canens (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline with similar thinking to Carcharoth. Courcelles 06:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. WormTT(talk) 10:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=585479964"