Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

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

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	21 Dec 2024	11 Jan 2025

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions	1 December 2024

The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and (exceptionally) to summarily review new evidence and update the findings and decisions of a previous case. Review is likely to be appropriate if later events indicate the original ruling on scope or enforcement was too limited and does not adequately address the situation, or if new evidence suggests the findings of fact were significantly in error.

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. If your case is accepted for arbitration, the arbitrator or clerk will create an evidence page that you can use to provide more detail. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person against whom you lodge a complaint.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arbitrators' votes to accept/reject/recuse/other. Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after four net accept votes are cast; that is, four more accept than reject votes. When a case is opened, a notice that includes a link to a newly created evidence page will be posted to each participant's talk page. See the Requests section of the arbitration policy page for details. "Recuse" means that an Arbitrator has excused themselves from a case because of a possible, or perceived, conflict of interest. Cases which have not met the acceptance criteria after 10 days will be removed from this page.

This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Please do not open cases; only an Arbitrator or Clerk may do so.

See also

• Arbitration policy
• Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How to present a case - Recommended reading: An (unofficial) guide to presenting effective Arbitration cases.
• Arbitration enforcement - Any user can request help here if it involves the violation of an ArbCom decision
• Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
• Arbitration template

Purge the server cache

Current requests

Barrett v. Rosenthal

Initiated by ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) (User:Wizardry Dragon)at 01:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• David D. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Durova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fyslee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ilena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MastCell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ronz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wizardry Dragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Started this RfA)
• Barrett v. Rosenthal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• User:Arthur Rubin [1]
• User:David D. [2]
• User:Durova [3]
• User:Fyslee [4]
• User:Ilena [5]
• User:Jance [6]
• User:JzG [7]
• User:KillerChihuahua [8]
• User:MastCell [9]
• User:Ronz [10]
• User:Wizardry Dragon (Started this RfA)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Several talk pages:
  • User_talk:Ilena
  • User_talk:Fyslee [11]
  • Talk:Barrett_v._Rosenthal
  • Talk:Stephen Barrett
• Instances on AN/I:
  • Incident Archive 165
  • Archive 172
• Rejected mediation case
• Block of Ilena on AN
• User:Ilena's block log

The issues in this case are many, and complex, so I would impose on the Arbitration Committee to give all statements a good read before deciding whether to judge the case. Thank you for your patience and indulgence. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Wizardry Dragon (Peter M Dodge)

I only became involved in this issue after a AN/I post, and therefore have not been involved on the onset, however, I feel that this issue has only worsened to the point where it has been agreed by a small consensus that an Arbitration Committee intervention is required to sort this case out. So without further ado, allow me to summate the situation as best as I can:

1. Ilena was listed at the Administrator's Noticeboard Incidents section for repeatedly posting links to sites that some considered to be attack sites.
2. Several users attempted to step in and fix the situation. Ilena felt attacked by the sudden interest of these users, and refused or reacted in a hostile manner to several of these requests.
3. In the interests of diffusing a situation and attempting to mentor a trouble user who appeared to have good intentions, I intervened on her talk page. I suggested that she stop adding the links to the article, and use the talk page as an outlet to let editors who did not have a conflict of interest regarding the situation to evaluate them. I also suggested that she apologize to some users for her harsh words, and she did so.
4. I worked for some time with her to try to help her make more productive edits to Wikipedia. This went well, in my opinion, as steady improvement both in her contributions and behaviour ensued.
5. This was sabotaged, however, when Fyslee posted a link to a site that attacked Ilena in a personal matter. I removed the link with a strong notice about the Arbitration Committee's views on the matter, such as exemplified in the MONGO case. I elaborated that I was of the opinion that the Committee took a dim view of users posting links sites that attack another Wikipedians.
6. Ilena did not react very appropriately to this link, and although her response was understandable, it was not acceptable and very regrettable. She responded by reciprocating with attacks on Fyslee's character and associations.
7. Via both on-wiki communication and off-wiki email correspondence, I cautioned Ilena against these attacks. Many times I told her "be better than Fyslee, not as bad, or worse." She seemed to tone down, but not stop, her attacks.
8. Fyslee and Ilena, as well as a few others including Ronz, myself, and tangientally involved user Jance discussed Ilena's behaviour on her talk page. Fyslee continued very abrasively worded demands for "proof" of her "charges". Other users, myself included, attempted to diffuse the situation.
9. Ronz attempted to pitch in as a mentor to Ilena. Ilena did not want this. Ronz pressed the matter, and Ilena replied with a very hostile response, comparing Ronz's help to the "help" Nazi's gave the prisoners they put in concentration camps.
10. At this juncture, administrator Durova became involved. Her approach was unduly heavy handed. She put forth several remedies that she suggested, and told Ilena that adminstrative actions would be taken against her if she did not comply. She took no action against the baiting of Fyslee, and in fact seems to have endorsed his behaviour, reading over her talk page.
11. When Durova mentioned blocking Ilena, I thought this was unduly fast, especially in light of Ilena's improvement, and in light of an attempt at mediation which I had started. She did not really respond to this (except to say the dispute resolution does not shield someone from administrative action), and only reasserted her demands. When Ilena did not comply, she was blocked for 24 hours. When Ilena did attempt to comply, her block was extended to 1 week for posting personal information on Fyslee. This seemed hypocritical, since she was asked to provide evidence of her claims of Fyslee's conflict of interest, which in this instance required the release of personal information. On an AN post, Taxman commented that information widely available via by Google is not actionable on the mere fact that it is personally identifiable information.
12. Durova posted on my talk page with what amounted to intimidation and harassment. She told me that if I did not stop questioning her actions, she would block me. Eagle 101 and Sarah both commented that her response was out of line. Sarah went on to say that she found Durova's response 'arrogant".
13. The mediation attempt was closed by demon^ since Fyslee refused to participate.

And here we are, here.

The issues as I see them are thus:

1. Ilena's behaviour is clearly unacceptable, but she has made valuable contributions to the encyclopedia.
2. Fyslee's behaviour has been divisive, unacceptable, and as of now, has not been addressed by an adminsitrator,
3. Durova's actions are biased, heavy-handed, and her approach to me specifically was harassment. She has not maintained the decorum and conduct expected of an administrator.

I also wholeheartedly welcome review of my own actions. This is the first time I have ever tried to "coach" a user extensively, never mind in such a controversial situation, and one only improves through criticism and review. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by peripherally-involved Daniel.Bryant

The above-linked current AN discussion by Wizardry Dragon demonstrates my feelings more adequately than I could do by rephrasing them here - context is a beautiful thing. For ease of identification, I provide the following diffs, which outline my participation in the discussion at WP:AN:

• DB1, 11:35, January 19, 2007
• DB2, 14:02, January 20, 2007
• DB3, 23:23, January 20, 2007
• DB4, 03:11, January 21, 2007

I initially opposed an indefinite block of Ilena, for a variety of reasons - see DB1 for my full opposal. I also respectfully request the Arbitration Committee read Sarah Ewart's initial objecton - 11:03, January 19, 2007 - on the issue, that were posted just before mine (and hence are just above it in the discussion). As such, I acknowledged at the time (and still do acknowledge - see DB2) that both users acted in a way which could only be described as deplorable, however to issue a community-based sanction of any sort on one user would be heavyhanded, unfair and not encompassing the situation fully. I suggested a firm, final warning citing precedents set both by this Committee and those established as a guideline on Wikipedia, namely WP:HA. I hinged a lot of hope on the fact that all parties would agree to formal mediation via the Mediation Committee, however unfortunately one user rejected this proposal.

As such, as I elaborated in DB2, I felt we were out of options short of blocking both users indefinitely, which I personally felt would be overkill given the situation. The only two options I thought were logically possible at 14:00 (UTC) January 20 were to file a RFC or else come here. The latter recieved the most favour amongst those involved, with a well-reasoned statement by Durova - 21:49, January 20, 2007 - highlighting the potential problems of an RFC.

As such, as I stated in DB3, I see no other solution to this mess. Reluctance has pushed this dispute here, and I hope the Committee accept this case to be the final determiner in a problem which has been compounded by numerous decisions by a couple ofthe named parties.

I wish to also acknowledge DB4. One of the parties listed has indicated that they believe this request should be rejected on the grounds that it is provocative. I would like to clarify that this user is the one who decided to stop the Mediation by rejecting it, leaving no alternative. I cite the ever-reliable Newyorkbrad - 03:13, January 21, 2007 - on this point also.

I am normally one to criticise about how this Committee takes on too many cases that could be resolved through the Mediation Committee and/or Requests for Comment, however I have no doubt that this case should be accepted on the grounds that all other means of resolution have been exhausted. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 04:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

By way of a small clarification, my question on ANI as cited was intended as a bona fide question, not rhetorically. My hope is that the user's response could suggest an alternate path to bringing the case here, but we will see. Newyorkbrad 05:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it was. Still, some of the implied statements in the question (at least how I interpret it) are applicable to my thoughts, and hence the justification for its' inclusion in my statement :) Daniel.Bryant 05:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Guy

Like the others here I have been sucked into this rather than being a participant as such. I endorse the statements of Peter and Daniel above. This is a bilateral issue, although Ilena is probably more of a problem than Fyslee, partly because she is not learning, partly because Fyslee is promoting the mainstream, which is less fo a problem than promoting views against the mainstream. It's a complex dispute and undoubtedly user conduct is the heart of it, so I hope the committee will take the case. Guy (Help!) 12:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Renamed. Barrett v. Rosenthal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seems to be the locus of the dispute. Thatcher131 13:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

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

• Accept. Kirill Lokshin 02:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• I'd accept the Fyslee/Ilena, but not the et al. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 08:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Gnetwerker indef block

Initiated by Gnetwerker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 02:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

(Posted from Gnetwerker3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))

Involved parties

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [12] [13]

Confirmation that other steps in the dispute resolution have been tried

• Talk to other parties: I engaged in dialog with Jayjg and SlimVirgin on my talk page, to no effect. I emailed several other admins requesting help, and sent email to the unblock mailing list.
• Disengage for a while: I have left this for several weeks to allow myself to cool down and perhaps to allow Wikipedia admins to reconsider.

Statement by Gnetwerker

I would like to appeal the indefinite block of my account[14]. I propose that the block was non-consensus and out-of-process, was based on secret and/or erroneous "evidence", and that I was unfairly denied an opportunity to appeal the block as set forth in WP:APB and WP:DR. WP:BP states as a key policy that "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. They should not be used as a punitive measure" (emphasis in original). There is no evidence that I have damaged Wikipedia or present any threat of doing so. This block is, in effect, a ban from Wikipedia per WP:BAN, but one instituted not by ARBCOM, and not as a result of a "serious case of user misconduct". Furthermore, this block is definitionally "controversial": blocking policy says: "blocks of logged-in users with a substantial history of valid contributions, regardless of the reason for the block". I have been a Wikipedia user since 2002, and have a long history of valid and uncontroversial edits to Wikipedia.

1. The indef block is personal and punitive, not protective of Wikipedia: The block is the culmination of a long-term campaign of harassment by admin User:SlimVirgin, recently abetted by User:Jayjg. This edit[15], by a user (tuttovenuto (talk · contribs)) that SlimVirgin, through a long, convoluted, incomplete, and incorrect series of connections, believes is me, seems to have kicked off the most recent round of harassment. There is, however, no reasonable claim of ongoing or persistent disruption to Wikipedia. SlimVirgin wraps a complaint in the alleged stalking of another user[16], but concludes with the incivil comment that I "make very few edits to the encyclopedia", and "the signal to noise ratio therefore doesn't work in your favor". The user in question has made no complaint and shows no signs of being harassed (by me or anyone else) for a long, long time. The vendetta is SlimVirgin's, she is not protecting anyone else. Jayjg has made clear statements that I am to be denied the normal Wikipedia process (by saying "don't bother with protestations of innocence"). Jayjg's ultimate, indefinite block seems to be based on my protestations of innocence, rather than any specific Wikipedia process or policy.
2. The block is the culmination of misuses of admin tools: SlimVirgin has abused administrative tools more than once in this campaign, notably her ongoing maintainance of a hidden attack page (she will call it an "evidence" page), which she undeletes, edits, and deletes to shield it from scrutiny. An early version of this page, available from Wikipedia database dumps, contains errors, unbased speculation, and personal attacks. SlimVirgin first began to tar me with a "sockpuppet" label, by such tactics are assigning sockpuppets to me that either have no contributions at all[17] [18] (User:69.29.220.138 and User:GomiBushi), those avowedly by other editors[19] [20] (User:InfoSandwich and User:Ed Banky), and those who simply have made edits on her favored topics[21] (User:172.210.202.216). There is no evidence that any of these accounts are sockpuppets of my account and substantial evidence that they are not. I contend that her accusations were made to create the appearance of a "sockpuppet problem" to harass and ultimately ban me. The root cause of this may be insufficient respect for her absolute administrative authority, associated with a misuse of my account by an unauthorized user, many months ago and not repeated.
3. The block is based on ambiguous, erroneous, and misinterpreted information: SlimVirgin states her case that user Tutovenuto is me here -- SlimVirgin claims to have an off-wiki email from an alleged suspected sockpuppet (blindvenetian (talk · contribs)) that is from an email address with a name similar to another alleged sockpuppet, neither of which bear any relationship to pages I have edited, my writing style, or my IP address. Jayjg claims to have run a checkuser on this editor, but apparently without benefit of WP:RFCU, and without an obvious reason to do so, in apparent violation of checkuser policy. Further, it isn't obvious that the result of that checkuser in any way implicates my account, as indicated by this, which in essence says "checkuser doesn't prove anything but I'm going to call it true anyway".
4. Protection of my user page is a deliberate attempt to prevent me from raising an appeal: SlimVirgin has also used a tactic on me that she frequently uses on others as well: protecting my user talk page to prevent my asking for help or pursuing an appeal per WP:APB (without any indication of abuse of that page), after removing my unblock request from my page. Is it appropriate for an admin to remove an unblock request in a case she is involved in? I would hope not. She has done this with User:Xosa, user:Xlorn, and others.

Above all, this block/ban is the result of two admins acting in their own interest, without review on WP:ANI, without review by ARBCOM, and generally without broader community involvement. It is punitive, rather than protective of Wikipedia, and it is an over-reaction based on largely non-existant or ambiguous evidence. ArbCom history is filled with cases involving users with behavior worse than even the unfounded accusations here, with these users allowed to continue editing Wikipedia. This block, without appropriate review, is an abuse of administrative power and process, and I urge it be reversed. -- Gnetwerker 06:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

(note: I would ask that former arbcom member Jayjg be excluded from off-wiki (e.g. mailing list) discussion of this matter, to preclude continued attempts at behind-the-scenes influence.)

Addendum: I had expected to only list detailed evidence/explanations on a subsequent Evidence page, but ... with regard to the comment (below) requesting "an unambiguous public declaration from the affected user that no edits have been made to Wikipedia by them or at their direction under any user name other than their own:" No edits to Wikipedia have been made with my knowledge or at my direction under any user name other than my own since 25 July 2006. On that date my account was used for two WP:ANI edits without my permission (not logged out). As I have explained to SlimVirgin in the past, prior to that date, I was aware of other users at my office editing using some of the usernames attributed to me, but they did not do so at my request. Subsequent to the mis-use of my account, I have no knowledge of any edits to Wikipedia by those individuals, and they were prevented from editing Wikipedia from our workplace. This may not be "unambiguous", but it is the more thorough explanation of the precipitating incident, referenced above, which brought the wrath of SlimVirgin on me. And if I haven't stated it strongly enough, my claim is that an independent examination of checkuser data will not show any sockpuppet use of my account (except for the account used to file this RFAR). As an aside, I find the unquestioning support for controversial admin actions to be inconsistent with both the letter and the spirit of WP:BAN, WP:APB and other policies. Finally, I respectfully request that voting arbitrators make note of whether they received private communication from SlimVirgin or Jayjg on this matter. Gnetwerker 18:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved user Stephan Schulz

I have no knowledge of the case in question, but I find the request well reasoned and polite, and would expect more than a plain "Reject" from arbitors. Of course the decision is up to ArbCom, but at least a 3-word explanation (as given by Charles for acceptance) would be nice as a measure of obtaining community support.--Stephan Schulz 15:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I am always happy to provide rationale for my votes on acceptance of cases when requested. It seems to me that Jayjg has concluded that this user is engaged in sock puppetry. I have never found any evidence that Jayjg's claims regarding sock puppetry are anything but sound despite reviewing his work in detail on more than one occasion. Accordingly I am uninterested in second-guessing Jayjg's work absent both a) clear and compelling evidence that he has made a mistake and b) an unambiguous public declaration from the affected user that no edits have been made to Wikipedia by them or at their direction under any user name other than their own. I find sock puppetry to be a major nuisance and waste of time for the project, and interpret WP:SOCK broadly. I do not believe that the committee should be reviewing the decisions of admins who are making a good-faith effort to deal with sock puppets. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I trust administrators, particularly SlimVirgin and Jayjg, to appropriately evaluate a simple disruptive sockpuppet matter, confirmed by checkuser. Clear evidence of trolling by the sock. Fred Bauder 18:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats, I appreciate the answers. --Stephan Schulz 18:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved user Justforasecond

I don't know anything of gnetwerker but the appearance, at least, is that he is being abused. We have a process for blocking, one that hasn't been followed. It should be a simple matter to open this case, review the evidence, and rule on it.

I'd request that this case be opened to investigate the gnetwerker block and Jayjg's use of "checkuser" and bans. We have a policy for checkuser and bans, which Jayjg seems to regularly disregard. He seems to run "checkuser" on users he disagrees with on article content, rather than to seek out actual sockpuppet abuse such as voting, creating false consensus, etc.

Justforasecond

Statement by uninvolved party barberio

I feel I must second the statement above, that this is by no means a clear cut case, and should be reviewed. It may well be upheld after the review, but I don't believe it's a good idea to send the message that "An Admin in good standing will never have their actions reviewed", and I think every admin should *expect* review and overturn of some of their decisions at some point. I believe failing to investigate here may well increase the general feeling that Wikipedia is turning into an 'Old boys club' where social standing trumps merit.

The case as presented merits at least an initial round of investigation. --Barberio 17:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by {write party's name here}

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/3/0/0)

• Accept to review this ban, qua community ban. Charles Matthews 19:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Accept, as some arbitrators wish to consider it Fred Bauder 04:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC) Reject Fred Bauder 15:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Reject --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Accept per Charles Matthews and to look into the general issue of abuse/misuse. Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. Dmcdevit·t 09:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. I'm willing to look into this. Paul August ☎ 03:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Requests for clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process. Place new requests at the top.

AMA advocates' status in cases

Surely some here know me for being an AMA advocate that from time to time appears in the halls of ArbCom defending people. This time, I have a doubt. What status have formal or informal advocate during a case? Are we "parties" or just "others"? If we are "parties", then, can we make motions, endorse them, object, request in the workshop or just comment as an uninvolved user? My opinion is that advocates should be considered a party, as we're involved (indirectly, yes) in the case... but, in the other hand, no arbitrator has ever thought on ruling on an advocate... It's quite confusing to me and that's why I request this clarification. Thanks in advance! --Neigel von Teighen 19:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: A rule that a party's advocate in a mediation automatically becomes a party to an ensuing arbitration case might inadvertently discourage editors from taking on the role of advocate. Hopefully, it is a rare situation in which an advocate's own conduct becomes the focus of inquiry by ArbCom, so I don't think formal "party" status is necessary. A sensible rule would be that advocates have the same standing as any other editor to present evidence, make workshop proposals, etc., but that of course when an advocate is commenting in the capacity of advocate, it's good practice to note that fact. When an ArbCom case is filed, providing courtesy notification to anyone who was acting as an advocate is also an appropriate thing to do. Newyorkbrad 19:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment • As an advocate myself, I would say that we are just another editor, and should be treated as such. There should be no preferential or special treatment given, and their status as a party should be judged on the merits, or lack thereof, of their actions, and the length of their involvement. If they are not directly involved in the dispute, other than by acting as an advocate, than I would be compelled to think that they would not be a party. After all, we do not bring the previous mediator on a case into a case simply because they were the mediator in the prior attempt at dispute resolution. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'd suggest doing something like putting the comment in the party section and then signing it, say, "NvT as advocate for RealParty". Unless acting directly as advocate -- i.e., speaking for them -- then you're just another editor with a hopefully useful comment. I think ArbCom can figure out the difference between the real parties and the advocates and is unlikely to include the advocates in any remedies... --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Well, that's what I myself do: add "User: Imaglang (aka Neigel von Teighen) AMA advocate for User" in the party list and then adding a diff to anything that certifies me as advocate. What I expect from ArbCom is a little guideline on what to do, not a policy. Something we can rely on when an advocate (formal or informal) has doubts on what to do. That's it what we need. --Neigel von Teighen 09:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment • I would assume an Advocate is not a party, but an advocate for a party. In a given case were an Advocate represents a party, and performs actions as any other editor, it may raise COI issues. nobs 22:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Neigel asks "can we make motions, endorse them, object, request in the workshop[?]". It seems to me the answer is "yes, of course; anyone can do all that stuff, party to the case or not". As far as I can see, absolutely nothing hinges on whether advocates are considered parties. What am I missing here? PurplePlatypus 05:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Nobs has hit the point that led me to make this request. There can be COI problems like this: User X makes a motion and Advocate endorses it, counting as two "moves" for the same party in a same "turn"... (proposing-endorsing) I don't know if I'm clear enough... It turns me to be rather unfair in some way... although anyone could go and request an advocate too. Simply put, what I request is a little official guideline written by ArbCom so no doubt nor conflict arrive... Maybe am I being too silly? If so, tell me and withdraw this. --Neigel von Teighen 17:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Everyking Appeal request

see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3

I would like to request an appeal of my previous ruling at this time. I have now been under penalties from this ruling for 14 months. I have not been blocked by anyone since the ArbCom issued its two-week block in July, nor has anyone warned me or complained about me since that time (to the best of my recollection). I have carefully avoided conflict for several months and have put the incidents of the past, as well as the overzealousness of tone I sometimes used in those incidents, far behind me, while still remaining as active an editor as before. I don't believe there is any reason to think I would be brought to the ArbCom's attention again if these penalties were lifted, even if the ArbCom still regards the penalties to have been justified when they were initially applied. Everyking 10:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

What in particular do you wish to be able to do? Return to WP:AN? Return to harassing admins? Not have to familiarize yourself with a situation before commenting on it? Return to pestering and being pestered by Phil? Nothing in the remedies applied to your case prevents you from continuing to do what you do well. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for raising that. You probably know that I disagree with the way some of your questions are framed, so it is difficult for me to respond to them individually. Yes, I would like to comment on AN occasionally, but that isn't what's really important. The main thing is that I do not want to be constantly under sanctions, an inch away from a ban; above all else it is a matter of plain self-respect that I don't want to work on this site for hours every day while being subject to a list of onerous restrictions. I feel the penalties are needless and would like to return to having the status of a normal editor. It seems to me that it should be a simple matter for the ArbCom to reimpose the sanctions for the remaining time if it thinks I am doing what it does not want me to do. Everyking 18:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not a simple matter. It is a lot of gut-wrenching work. We don't have time to watch Ashlee Simpson or closely follow whatever you are doing on the noticeboards, so the effect will be that you would be free to do whatever you wanted. We would only get involved after a general outcry regarding your behavior. If you want to try it fine, but understand Everyking 4 is not going to be fun for you or us. Fred Bauder 19:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree with that. You know there are several people who have strong feelings against me and aren't going to hesitate to bring me to your attention if they think I'm causing even the slightest of problems. There would be no need for a new case, anyway; you have already acted with great flexibility in amending rulings, so all that should be required in case of a problem is to reapply the EK3 penalties. Everyking 20:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the restrictions are working fine as is; Wikipedia's interests seem more important than your "self-respect" in this regard. Of the remedies, the bans against using AN/I and harassingcomment on other admins expire in November, and don't really have any bearing on the actual editorial work you're doing; the one regarding Snowspinner and the one requiring you to do what you should have been doing in the first place -- familiarizing yourself with a situation before commenting upon it -- aren't likely to be lifted at all. Your probation on pop music articles seem to me to be the reason you haven't run into any problems in the last few months, and that's a good thing. So i don't see any benefit to Wikipedia to lifting any of these sanctions. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify some things. There were no real problems surrounding pop music articles in the first place when that penalty was added; the issue that led to that remedy was associated with my admonishment of an admin who had in my opinion treated a very young, good faith user much too harshly. That admin and I were simultaneously bickering over a content issue related to pop music (mild arguing, not revert warring, and it fizzled out after a while), and that was taken as a reason to expand the ruling to include the pop music remedy, for reasons that may make sense to the ArbCom, but not to me (even if you think I was wrong to admonish the admin in question, what on earth does that have to do with pop music? This was never explained). Therefore it is inexplicable to me that that very pointless ruling could have prevented any problems; in fact I have gone on editing pop music articles fairly regularly and have encountered the same amount of trouble as beforehand—virtually none. It occurs to me that your attribution of this status quo situation to the ArbCom's penalty belies a poor understanding of the ruling and the issues that led to it, and in that case it is incongruous that an arbitrator would back the ruling barring me from commenting on actions without familiarization (although I did not do that even before the ruling was issued) but would himself comment without familiarization in responding to an appeal request about that very ruling.

It is said that the restrictions are "working"; well, yes, they are in the sense that I have decided to abide by them and none of the alleged previously existing problems now exist. However, might my cooperation be reasonably interpreted as a sign that the restrictions are not necessary? It is also said that Wikipedia's interests are more important than my own; I agree with this wholeheartedly. I question, however, how the ruling can be perceived as being in Wikipedia's interest, particularly at this point in time. From the ArbCom's perspective, would the ruling ever cease to be in Wikipedia's interest? Several months have passed without incident and it is still "not in Wikipedia's interest" for me to have my various freedoms restored. Will a point ever be reached when it will once again be in Wikipedia's interest to let me have those freedoms again? Why not leave the penalties in place eternally? I will continue to edit, which the ArbCom apparently approves of, while remaining under restrictions because the ArbCom feels uncomfortable with everything else I do, indefinitely—the ArbCom have can have it both ways while I continue to work in an environment that rewards my work by letting me continue wearing my stripes and shackles. Might the ArbCom pause to ponder the inevitable frustration on the other side of the situation? Everyking 07:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

We have talked this over at some length considering a number of options. Status quo seems to be the consensus. Fred Bauder 18:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

At what point will the ArbCom be willing to remove or reduce the penalties, then? Everyking 19:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That will happen November, 2007. I would be reluctant to ever take you off probation with respect to pop music articles, but find your input regarding administrative actions valuable, although obviously you need to carefully inform yourself and use more diplomacy than you have in the past. However, I 'm afraid my view is a minority view. Fred Bauder 19:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting—to ever take me off probation on pop music articles? To the best of my recollection, nobody has accused me of causing problems on any pop music articles in almost two years (since EK2, circa April 2005). I have edited those articles peacefully for a vastly longer period of time than it ordinarily takes someone to, for example, qualify as a trustworthy admin candidate. And yet you still perceive some problem that makes me some kind of perpetual threat? Honestly, I find that bizarre. Why, why are the arbitrators still holding such an old dispute against me? Furthermore, how could you apply a permanent remedy—are you going to reopen the case in November to amend it in spite of having no apparent justification for doing so, with no controversy having erupted in ages? Even considering all that the ArbCom has done to me before, that would be a truly remarkable thing. Everyking 05:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

"To the best of my recollection, nobody has accused me of causing problems on any pop music articles in almost two years" - Your memory has failed you Raul654 23:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

In November, 2007, most of the restrictions expire. Fred Bauder 06:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, see, I didn't realize this, but if the ruling is read literally there is actually no limit on that probation and therefore, I suppose, it will expire only upon my death or upon the ArbCom's own decision to lift it. The ArbCom is much more clever than me. There is still so much I don't understand, though. Why does the probation even exist, let alone eternally? At least in the case of the commenting about admins stuff we can agree that a controversy did exist, something was happening—but in the case of the pop music ruling, there was no controversy at that time (and had not been for more than a year previously) and that probation was tacked on for no apparent reason. It is beyond bizarre that I am subject to an eternal penalty for participation in a controversy that did not exist. Guys, at least explain some of this stuff. Everyking 06:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the consensus among the arbitration committee is that while we welcome Everyking's newfound good behavior and do appreciate it, we do not think he's reformed. If we modify the remedies, we think it's quite likely he'll go back to his old behavior, and the risk of this far outweighs any potential benefits to EK of modifying the decision. Raul654 02:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

What, if not a change in behavior, does the ArbCom consider necessary to deem a person "reformed"? Furthermore, I will raise the very simple and logical point I raised earlier: if the ArbCom doesn't like whatever I do after the penalties are lifted, why not just promptly impose them again? The argument that this is difficult for the ArbCom to do doesn't hold water. Hell, you could say in advance that any reimposed penalties would be more severe than the old ones, to serve as additional deterence. Finally, the penalties will expire in November anyway—why is lifting them now worse than lifting them then? Everyking 05:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you are still in very deep denial about your past behavior is troubling, to say the least. Raul654 05:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

So is this a thought crime kind of thing? No matter what I do, what I think will continue to be used against me? I'm not even sure you understand what my position is on the various controversies of the past. I've never seen any indication from the ArbCom that it was even paying attention when I explained my positions repeatedly and at length. Everyking 05:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I was listening, but you wore everyone out. Fred Bauder 06:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

So if I said less, you would have paid more attention? Everyking 06:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I dunno about Fred, but I certainly would have. It's how this medium works -- a lot of us (a majority? who knows) glaze over when confronted with prolixity. A short, pithy argument is vastly more effective than four paragraphs saying the same thing. (I'm sure there are people whose gut reaction is "wow, that's a lot of words, they must have some important content in them", but the only ones I've encountered with that opinion are the ones writing the long screeds.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You want pithy? I thought one was supposed to make a thorough argument with extensive support from logic and evidence. I could've just said: "Hey, I didn't do that stuff", but I don't think that would've accomplished anything more. The point remains, though, that I am skeptical that the ArbCom understands my positions, and if that is the case it is preposterous for Raul to tell me I am in "very deep denial". If the ArbCom's understanding of the past controversies ranges from superficial to nonexistent, and if it has ignored the arguments I've made in my defense, how much sense does it make to claim I am the one in denial here?

We have not ignored your defenses; we have rejected them as being patently untrue. As for your supposed thoughtcrime - if you cannot recognize that your past actions were in the wrong (actions which you, to this very day on this very page, claim were above board) then there is no reason to believe you would not go back to those very same actions if you thought we weren't looking. Hence, our desire to keep the remedies exactly as they are.

Furthermore, as to your self-serving claim that there are no reasons for the new pop-article probation, it came about as a result of your behavior towards Extraordinary Machine. And while I have no doubt that as you read that sentence, you were no doubt thinking of ways to - once again - to deny the reality of your behavior, I will not be giving them any heed. Suffice it to say, I have once already decided to take EM's claims as being true and rejected your explanations thereof. I suspect the other arbitrators feel the same way. Raul654 23:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

All right, well, I will respond regardless, perhaps out of an idealistic belief that that is possible you'll listen even though you say you're plugging your fingers in your ears (of course, you did that at the time all this happened, too, when you were supposed to be weighing the arguments and such), or at least the other arbitrators might. EM and I were arguing about a pop music issue, yes; as you can see, I brought that up earlier in this discussion. However, for any penalty to be applied on the basis of that dispute is absurd—read the talk pages, for instance, or look at the page histories. In the previous dispute, which brought about EK1, the main argument against me was that I revert warred frequently against a large number of people. In this case with EM, there was little reverting from either side (and he was reverting more than me in any case, because he reverted some anons several times); the dispute was concentrated on the talk pages, where he eventually agreed to remove only uncited information. He removed a couple things then and went elsewhere, and the dispute ended. The dispute was very different from the earlier one because: A) I hardly reverted him at all, and B) it was just me and him (and a few anons, who were restoring content against EM's wishes), not me against a large group. This is not the kind of dispute that can be reasonably characterized as a controversy, or as anything particularly serious at all. Certainly the ArbCom would never dream about issuing a ruling for such a small dispute ordinarily, and I find it hard to believe even my worst enemy (if properly informed) could find me at fault for any of my conduct there. In fact, as I also noted earlier, the key issue had nothing to do with pop music: I admonished EM for issuing a warning to a third party that I felt was too harsh. It was apparently just the association of that EK-EM exchange with the simultaneous content dispute that caused the ArbCom to impose the ruling, because it was the same two people involved. You say my arguments were patently untrue; well, show some evidence that anything I've said here is untrue.

My final point concerns this claim: "if you cannot recognize that your past actions were in the wrong (actions which you, to this very day on this very page, claim were above board) then there is no reason to believe you would not go back to those very same actions". Which actions do I defend, Raul? Can you tell me which, and can you tell me what my reasoning is? Can you identify the mistakes I've pointed out and expressed regret over? I don't believe you can, because you have no real understanding of any of this; as far as I can tell, your viewpoint is merely a mixture of the unfiltered claims of my opponents with some assumptions of your own. Furthermore, your statement is simply illogical: there is good reason I would not do the things the ArbCom has penalized me for if the restriction is removed, despite my views (which you do not appear to be at all informed about in any case). The reasons are simply prudence and pragmatism. I maintain both that I was fundamentally right and that I have learned from the mistakes I made during the old conflicts, and the foremost evidence with which I support the latter claim is the absence of anything the ArbCom finds objectionable in almost six months. Everyking 23:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, could the other arbitrators address the "thought crime" issue above? It appears Raul is saying that in order to get the restrictions lifted it's not enough for me to just not do what the ArbCom told me not to do in its ruling; the mere fact that I don't believe what the ArbCom believes about the issues means I have not "reformed". Of course it would be easy for me to simply lie and say a bunch of things the ArbCom would like to hear; I suppose I could've got the restrictions lifted ages ago, maybe even avoided ever having restrictions imposed to begin with, if I had done that. But I will not do that: to change my behavior to be more cautious and pragmatic is something I can do that's completely compatible with my principles, indeed it's positive self-improvement, but lying to suit somebody else's fiction is a completely different thing. Everyking 19:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Fred, it appears from the plain language of the amendment filed in July 2006 that the probation for pop music articles does not have a specified expiry date (in contrast to the administrative restrictions). Would you and the other arbitrators like to clarify this? Thatcher131 14:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That is certainly my intention. Everyking's editwarring over Ashlee Simpson ought to be a once in a life-time experience. Fred Bauder 19:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No clarification is necessary - it is indeed indefinite. Raul654 21:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Should I assume that you agree with Fred's apparent opinion that it should never be lifted under any circumstances whatsoever? And please address the questions I asked you earlier. Everyking 22:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Of all the remedies, I think the pop-article probation is probably the least essential. That said, I will reiterate my previous statement that I do not believe any of the remedies should be lifted (or allowed to expire) until you can demonstrate to my satisfaction that you would not go back to your old behavior. Your recent behavior is encouraging, but insufficient - especially in light of your impenitence. Raul654 23:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Especially—what does that mean? Does that mean that, if more time passed without incident, the ArbCom would eventually relent? Or do you think it should never be lifted as long as I'm committing the thought crime of disagreeing with the ArbCom about what happened in the past? Everyking 00:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It was your repeated "thought crimes" (if you want to call them that) of repeatedly attacking other admins that brought the action on you in the first place. You are now making attacks on the ArbCom. How has your behavior modified since you were originally placed on probation? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No complaints have been made about me and no penalties have been applied. (Your comment belies a misunderstanding of the situation in any case, because the probation was a secondary element and does not apply to commenting about admins.) This is because I have avoided controversy and done nothing to rouse anyone's ire. As you can see, the ArbCom itself acknowledges that much, so it is strange to me that you are disputing it. I do not claim that criticizing admins was being treated as a thought crime; I claim that holding a particular opinion about past events is being treated as one. Are you confusing these on purpose to try to discredit my arguments? Everyking 00:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Everyking, if your edits have truly been constructive, then the remedies of the ArbCom decision should not affect you in any way, except for the article ban, which was placed for good reason. Your contributions are respected, and please understand that these remedies are preventative in nature and not punitive - they are designed to prevent further disruption. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no article ban, so it must not have been "placed for good reason". I've already responded to the "this shouldn't affect you" argument early in this discussion. Please familiarize yourself with the situation before commenting. Everyking 01:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I did. I don't know how you believe that reasoning personally, but I do not find it compelling. With all due respect, your self-esteem is a secondary concern. The integrity of Wikipedia comes first. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Didn't I respond to the exact same thing earlier in this discussion? I specifically addressed the issue about the ruling supposedly being in Wikipedia's interest, and agreed that Wikipedia's interests are more important than my own. You do not seem to have even read the discussion on this page, let alone researched the long history behind it all. Everyking 01:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• As I said, I read it. I just fail to find the arguments compelling. Really - shouldn't you go edit some articles or something? This discussion seems to be doing nothing but wasting time. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 07:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I haven't taken a break from editing to argue with the arbitrators; I can find the time to respond to them, and to you, without cutting back on editing. I also don't agree that this whole discussion was a waste of time, because I gained significant understanding about the ArbCom's views—most importantly that they want me to renounce my opinions in order to have my restrictions lifted. Previously I had believed that simply doing what they said and not getting into any controversies would satisfy them, or at least I had thought there was a pretty good chance that would satisfy them. Everyking 11:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's make this easy.

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

• Reject. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. Raul654 20:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. FloNight 21:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Accept to permit occasional well-considered comments by Everyking on policy questions and administrative actions. Fred Bauder 18:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC) I do not believe that we should revisit prior decisions without clear and compelling reasons.

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)

Archives

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests (extremely sparse, selective, and unofficial)