Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Arbitration​Committee

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

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

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

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

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

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

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

Current requests

JJay

Initiated by Arbustoo at 17:18, 22 May 2007

Involved parties

• JJay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Arbustoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request [1]

• Confirmation that other steps in have been taken: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JJay (This user chose to ignore the RfC.[2][3]) (RfC started by brenneman 7 February 2007, and JJay has yet to comment.)

Statement by Arbustoo

JJay is a non-regular editor who rarely engages in adding substance to any articles. As of late his activities appear to take part in revert wars. This user is abusive and has been WP:STALK (reverts me, reverts me, Leap of Faith (film), [4][5] If you look at the time stamps, he signs on wikipedia reverts/vote against my AFD me then signs off). When I tried to work out matters on his RfC, he ignored it.[6] When I try to engage him on his talk he removes it [7] When I tried to address my concerns he denies it and removes my comments.

Without any progress coming from admin., the RfC, or his talk there has been no remedy. Now JJay incorrectly claimed one edit of me removing his dispution of an entire list and taunted my concerns writing "Interesting litany of accusations. Make them in the proper forum." So here I am, making them in the proper forum.

He uses deceit edit summaries. Such as claims he isarchiving messages, but has no archive. When I asked about this error he removed my question.

Again, this user has not made any productive edits in months, but engages in behavior that is detrimental to the project with other editors [8].

I hope ArbCom is willing to settle this dispute before anymore new editors get turned away because of this. Arbustoo 17:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The WP:3RR is not what this is about, but it does show an error in his reading of policy and an interest in me. This user is disruptively following my edits. Yes, the RfC was four months ago, but my comments are still relevant. Also JJay edits infrequently making people less aware of his activities. Such as when he stepped away for a month during his RfC people are less likely to comment about his behavior because he is gone. When I try to address my concerns on his talk they are reverted immediately so there is no way to settle this. Arbustoo 17:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding his RfC he stopped editting 27 February 2007 and began again in April. Arbustoo 18:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

JJay's response to my ArbCom request. Arbustoo 02:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

Arbustoo is a defender of the wiki against promotion of unaccredited schools, among other things. Sometimes he errs on the side of including questionably cited content, but not very often, and he works hard against some pretty determined POV-pushing. JJay appears to dislike this. I ahve no idea where the disagreement started (probably with the Hammond articles) but it has been going on a long time and could do with being sorted out. That said, I am not convinced this is the right forum. Guy (Help!) 20:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by GRBerry

Arbustoo has perceived Jjay to be stalking him at least as far back as November 2006. See this claim by him. That is a tangential comment to a dispute that Arbustoo was a party to at the time, but does serve as evidence that this is a long running dispute. Whether this is the right forum, I don't know. GRBerry 20:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

A prior ArbComm request initiated by Arbustoo was rejected in Oct. 2006. Looking at JJay's talk page history, this dispute goes back to at least this claim that Jjay acted in bad faith from March 2006. It has been over a year, which might be reason enough to at least look for a mediator for the two of them that they would each be willing to listen to. At least in my digging thus far, Arbustoo appears to be the original source of the personal dispute. GRBerry 02:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/0/1)

• The RfC was four months ago, and the community was split on whether JJay's behavior is problematic. In particular, I'll note the concurrence of opinion between Badlydrawnjeff and JzG (which request is this again?) Is the present 3RR report the proximate cause of this request? You may reply in your statement. Mackensen (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Decline, no indication of anything substantive to arbitrate here. Kirill Lokshin 17:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Decline. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Reject per Mackensen. James F. (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Badlydrawnjeff

Initiated by Doc^g at 16:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Doc glasgow (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Badlydrawnjeff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hipocrite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• MalcolmGin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zsinj‎ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Viridae (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• GRBerry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Informed Jeff [9]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Whilst there is an ongoing RfC initiated by Jeff, it is evident that Jeff regards this as a "a charade" with "zero value," a "song and dance" [10]

Further, I have discussed this with him, and in regard to the specific behaviour of which I am here complaining, and arguing damages the encyclopedia, he was vowed to continue with regardless of the outcome [11] [12]. Since short of a 'meteor for heaven' (his words) he will continue with this disruptive and damaging behaviour, the intervention of the Arbcom is the only possible remedy.

Statement by Doc glasgow

Badlydrawnjeff is known to all. While he is a highly respected and prolific editor, his consistent commitment to legalistic process and his extreme inclusionism are notorious. He routinely contests deletions and argues for restorations on even the most tenuous of process grounds. That's led many people to regard him as a pest - indeed some people to dislike him. Actually, I don't dislike him. Yes, his activities are annoying, but generally they are within the wider scope of wiki-philosophies - and we can disagree in friendship without making it personal.

However, when his activities begin to impinge on the subjects of biographies of living people we cannot agree to differ. When championing in-house processes has the potential of causing harm, or bringing wikipedia into disrepute - we cannot let things go on.

The article which is the subject of the current dispute concerns a young man who was exploited as a minor and ridiculed on the internet. Whilst there is some evidence he tried to make the best of it, we owe a duty not to be party to ridicule and not to demean our encyclopedia over freak shows with Google hits. WP:BLP is not just a policy to be applied - it is a mindset worthy of an encyclopedia.

Perhaps, so far, this looks like a deletion dispute, and not a matter for arbcom. However, the issue is not just 'should we have an article here?' - which is a matter for the deletion process. The issue here is, "should we allow a private individual to be continually used as a football by those fighting in-house process battles?" Not just the article, but the continual debate itself infringes the spirit of BLP. That's why, after the initial AfD, so many separate administrators have wished to shut down the continuous incessant debating. As one admin complained to Jeff: "The repeated fuckwittery is reinforcing the WP:BLP problem by continually reinforcing the link between this poor kid's name and his victimisation."[13]. But Jeff is not dissuaded.

This article has had numerous AfDs, DRVs and comment elsewhere. In addition to his comments, Jeff listed it on DRV three times: [14] [15] [16], filed an arbcom case, then when that was rejected had another go at DRV [17] before opening his sham RfC. This activity is damaging to the encyclopedia. He's been asked to stop. But he's indicated he will launch more attempts regardless of the RfC[18] [19]. I am asking arbcom to call a halt. This is disrupting the encyclopedia to prove a point and is, in itself, flaunting BLP by continually linking this individual with his victimisation on our high-profile website. It is quite clear that no amount of discussion will dissuade him from this behaviour.

Additional Comment by Doc

Keeping some of the arb's statements in view. Perhaps a little more on how the process-wonking at DRV is endangering BLP.

1. Take this [20] and [21], articles on children who are notable only notable for an unfortunate incident at birth. Clearly harmful to the individuals if their name is googled for the rest of their lives, and clearly unacceptable for Wikipedia Both speedily deleted. Both listed on DRV. Where process wonking leads to calls for undeletion. [22] and Jeff supports.
2. Or take [23] which I deleted "per WP:BLP". Here someone decided to contest my deletion (fair do - I get things wrong), but instead of discussing it with me, the user plomped it on DRV, where an admin, again without discussion or asking me what my concerns were, promptly restored its history (with an edit summary questioning my competency) [24] to enable "badlydrawnjeff to answer a question requiring history visibility" [25]. I challenged the admin on this - but he's unrepentant and still believes he has the right to undelete histories of articles, deleted as BLP violations, even without discussion, if he himself judges them not to be violations [26]. Now, I'm not saying BLP deletions cannot be reviewed (I welcome people checking my mistakes) - simply that in the process obsession of the DRV clique, and in its unwillingness to trust deleters at all, it shows absolutely no respect for the biographies of living people. DRV is unfit for purpose - and the behaviour of many of its regulars is downright reckless.

Statement by Tony Sidaway

Needless to say, I don't see any of the claimed expansion to Biographies of living persons going on. The motivation is given here: Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia. The grounds for Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, just as for Neutral point of view and Verifiability of which it is largely an elaboration, are and always have been moral. I've no doubt that the Committee agrees with me on this, but there is some confusion within the community so clarification would be welcome.

Statement by Badlydrawnjeff

I made my original statement here. The points still stand, the diffs are clear there - the deletions are out of process, the wheel-warring was bad, and consensus is not being followed.

I have done nothing wrong here. Arbcom denied the original case as premature, I brought it to RfC as you asked. RfC goes exactly as expected - piling on with dishonesty and incivility abound, even in this very ArbCom request. The RfC was going to have to end up here to at least discuss the wheel-warring, but I even said that the RfC was unnecessary if the issues surrounding the article at hand were dealt with. People instead decided to be nasty about it. See my talk page for the month of May, and see the commentary at the RfC - no editor should have to put up with what I'm putting up with here because I dare to disagree with administrators.

Yes, please, take this case. Let's get some real resolution here as opposed to allowing the usual suspects to shout down those who dare disagree with the power structure. As JzG says, I trust Arbcom as an honest broker, as it generally has been in the past. However, enough is enough.

A quick note, since I just caught it - I do not appreciate the implication that I somehow abandon rules/process when things don't "go my way," or that I've tossed process/policy to the wind in this case. The facts simply do not back up such scurrilous accusations, and I expect to have those false statements struck or addressed in the case if opened. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Hipocrite

There are serious issues in both WP:BLP and WP:DRV that the community has proven concretly unable to address. The comittee should accept this case to solve said problems. Specifically, DRV as another bite at the apple is either ok, or DRV is to consider process errors only, and BLP means "source" or BLP means "be good." Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

The only reason it has taken this long for this to be brought is that Jeff is a really nice guy. Doc states above that the problem is Jeff's devotion to process, but I don't feel that tells the whole story. What Jeff is devoted to, is popular culture. Where process can help him argue for that, he will pursue process to the bitter end, but, as we saw with the RFAR, if he believes process will not deliver the "correct" result, he will ignore all rules with the best of us, and the RfC he raised shows an absolute contempt for process.

It's not about process, I think, it's about the fact that there are some things on Wikipedia that are not as Jeff would like. These include the broadening of WP:CSD to include G11, strengthening of policy on living individuals, tightening and enforcement of fair use policy. All these come from Foundation, reinforcing Wikipedia's role as a responsible, credible provider of a free-content encyclopaedia, emphasis on encyclopaedia. These changes have been embraced by numerous long-standing Wikipedians, many of whom are of course admins by now, and applied. These long-standing admins are also inclined on occasion to go with judgement over process.

Jeff also approaches his desires in the wrong way. Rather than challenging the processes and policies with which he disagrees, he challenges their use, time after time. This can be an effective way of changing process, but when it repeatedly fails to change process, repeatedly trying it becomes disruptive, especially once it has been established beyond any reasonable doubt that Jeff's personal inclusion threshold is well off in the long tail. As Einstein said: the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results. Some of the time Jeff is right but he is wrong so often, so loudly and with such persistence that this possibility is routinely discounted.

So: we have a tension between what Jeff wants and an ethos which seems to others to come right from the top and thus manifests itself in actions by the "admin cabal"; hence the admin cabal becomes the focus of Jeff's discontent. Dissatisfaction with some pretty fundamental parts of the project, including Wikipedia being a cluocracy not a democracy, becomes personalised in a group of individuals. In short: Jeff does not trust our judgement, and we don't trust his. And as FloNight says in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QZ Deletion dispute#Outside view of FloNight, the constant challenging of admin's best-efforts closures of hard cases is actively harmful to the project, weakening our ability to remain an encyclopaedia rather than a Google mirror. I seem to recall Jeff saying he basically gave up on ED because he was unable to remake it as a place to cover memes, something that particularly interests him. Perhaps we have simply hit the same crisis here.

"The Case of the Fat Chinese Kid" exemplifies Jeff's approach overall. He crusades for things he wants. This is not evil, but it is a pestilential nuisance when the right answer is to sit back and mull it over. He tries the same thing over and over, even though it has not worked before. It is obvious that the AfD/DRV process was not well suited to a mature discussion of this case, and that WP:BLP concerns must, in the short term at least, take precedence. Opening yet another DRV was never going to achieve a different result, but was absolutely certain to perpetuate the fire.

I do not think this is going to be fixed by any process other than arbitration. I have tried to steer Jeff into working on the source of the problem (e.g. educating speedy taggers rather than trying to "educate" admins) but he is not interested. I do not believe he trusts the kind of people who are telling him this stuff, quite a lot of people just wish he'd go away, he is probably suspicious of what motivates any kind of steer away from what he's doing. I do believe Jeff may trust ArbCom as an honest broker.

Statement by MalcolmGin

If the Committee takes this case, I will be looking for an answer on whether users who follow process to try to bring meaningful feedback to otherwise unresponsive/uncommunicative admins can be penalized for trying to do so through multiple in-process methods.

Statement by GRBerry

I thought the committee should have accepted the QZ wheel warring case at the time it was first nominated, and resolved under much the same principles as the DB wheel war case. This is one small piece of the QZ case, and should not be accepted separately. There is a long running disagreement about how much process is important versus how much admins should be actively encouraged to ignore all rules, and whether certain admins are acting to override or prevent the formation of consensus when their actions are questioned. This is one root cause. Failure to make best efforts to adhere to WP:CIVIL is another; it has been violated by many, including people not named above. The closest to complete list of parties is probably found by taking everyone named in the bulleted list at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QZ Deletion dispute#Description, and adding as evidence shows is appropriate.

While this is a piece of the QZ wheel warring case, there is a great deal of older history that is also relevant, and should affect the committee's discussion of the parties involved in that history. I think the process/ignore rules division that I outlined above constitutes the ground of most of the relevant older disagreements, and that a lack of civility is a long standing problem on the part of some involved.

Additional Statement by GRBerry

Parts, but not all, of Doc's additional statement are false and evidenced by actually reading the discussions/diffs to which he points. For example, in item 1, the deletions were garden variety A7 deletions, not BLP deletions. Concerns around BLP were raised in the DRV discussion by one of the DRV regulars he wishes to paint as not respecting BLP. In #2, Doc's statement as to the reason for undeletion is false, as has been explained to him in the discussion he links to. It was to check the validity of his action, which is debatable. Part of the reason that we trust administrators to act unilaterally with the tools is that other administrators can use the tools to review their actions. Because false claims about BLP are a persistent part of the problem, the ArbComm will have to examine all evidence with a critical eye, not just accept what is offered, even when offered by administrators that are generally trustworthy.

Statement by User:Mister.Manticore

I urge the Arbitrators to take up this discussion, not on the grounds brought up here, but on the original request made here: [27]

This isn't about badlydrawnjeff, or any one user in particular, it's about a problem of a different nature. Mister.Manticore 16:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by DESiegel

I was named as a party to the earlier, declined RfArb. I'm not sure whether I should be considered a party now, but I was involved in the events that led to this case being filed. (See my statement in the earlier case [28] [29])

AfDs are intended to be, in some sense, final, in that they are an expression of consensus. Specifically, content deleted by AfD is thereafter subject to speedy deletion as a recreation (WP:CSD#G4), and repeatedly posting such content may be grounds for a block or ban. The only recognized way to avoid this is through a discussion at deletion review, unless the admin who closed the AfD can be persuaded to reverse the close or relist the article. While an AfD with a KEEP result is less final -- repeated nominations are common -- a prior AfD normally prevents speedy deletion (See WP:CSD which says "If a page does not uncontestably fall under a criterion, or it has previously survived a deletion discussion (except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements), another process should be used instead.") And generally re-nominations after a short period of time with no significant changes or new arguments are frowned on, and may be speedy closed with a pointer to the previous discussion.

DRVs are normally final in a somewhat similar sense. When a DRV discussion endorses a deletion, there are no further places to appeal, and the matter is generally seen as settled. When a DRV overturns a deletion, the article is undeleted and stands on the same basis as any other article, but rapid re-nominations are usually frowned upon as if the article had been kept by AfD. And when a DRV discussion is closed as "Relist" the article is normally listed for a new AfD discussion, where whatever problems the DRV discussion found to exist should normally be avoided.

To speedy close an AfD opened pursuant to a "relist" outcome of a DRV discussion, on the basis that the prior AfD (overturned by DRV) was sufficient is to ignore the DRV close, to disrespect the editors who participated in the DRV discussion, and in general to fly in the face of consensus. This should not be done. Just as recreating content deleted by an AfD should not be done.

(See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QZ Deletion dispute#Statement by involved User:DESiegel for a longer version of my views on this.)

I urge the ArbCom to accept this case to consider whether, under current policy, it is proper to speedy close an AfD opened pursuant to a relist decision on DRV, and otherwise to prevent such discussion from occurring. Matt Crypto's improper revert of Drini's close should also be considered. However, the ArbCom might wish to defer the matter until more discussion occurs at the RfC, since the arbcom specifically suggested that an RfC be filed. DES ^(talk) 20:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by AnonEMouse

Please reject, temporarily at least, and see if the parties can work something out. Per Tony Sidaway, more or less. Prod them hard to work something out, all are seasoned contributors, none are malicious vandals.

If accepted now, I can't help but be afraid that arbcom will come up with the wrong answer, if for no other reason that so many arbiters have expressed their opinions already. But, say that the arbiters can overcome their own opinions and follow procedures and listen to the community: well, community opinions about the article itself seem in favor of deletion, while process and community opinions about the way it was deleted seem equally critical. The best possible answer seems to be to slap the wrists of the deleting admins, and send the article back for another contentious AfD, which it will again fail, since Newyorkbrad's persuasive argument tugs at many heartstrings. It takes a hardened inclusionist to !vote to publically commemorate a kid being the target of teasing and bullying. So the RFAR will accomplish ... what? At best express the views of the community about BLP and process, which views seem to be being expressed in the RFC now, and without any official sanctions. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Night Gyr

If I'm reading this correctly, this complaint is being brought against Jeff because he wants to see misbehavior fixed. This is coming for all the wrong reasons and I recommend that this RFAr be considered evidence of the incivil hostility and harassment that's been repeatedly directed at Jeff. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Procedural comment by Mackensen

I'm recused from this case and I think my views are sufficiently well-known that I won't both repeating them here. I do suggest, however, that arbitrators adopt a strict view of who is and is not an involved party, and prevent the scope of the case widening beyond the central issues raised. I would suggest that, at this point, involved parties be limited to the bringers of the request and persons who conceivably face sanction. At issue, depending on who you talk to, is the proper role of deletion review, the limits of administrator discretion in closing a deletion debate, the relationship between Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and persons of marginal notability, specifically the subjects/victims of Internet memes, and the point when principled objection becomes disruption. Mackensen (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse my new comment, but this needs to be seen on its own

It appears that it was decided, on IRC no less, that I was too much trouble, and they decided to block me. By the way, no forewarning or notice on my talk page from anyone until AFTER I was unblocked. See the AN/I situation here. This is completely intolerable. Just thought people might like to know what's been going on behind closed doors.

By the way, if this needs to be handled in a separate case, just say the word. Something tells me this isn't going to need an RfC to sort out. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Newyorkbrad

There appears to be a very strong consensus that the block of badlydrawnjeff tonight was unjustified and inappropriate. It should not be used against him in any way. Newyorkbrad 02:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Johnleemk

I lean towards suggesting this case be accepted; arbitration would probably be the best avenue for sorting out that fucked up blocking incident, at the very least. It's also clear to me that this RfC isn't going to go anywhere at this point, and only an Arbcom decision will lay it to rest. I have no comment on the substantive nature (or lack of it) of either arbitration request, but I do think the focus should be (as I stated in my comment on the earlier request) on whether disruptive wheel warring occurred, and whether the BLP policy has been followed correctly. Clarification on these two matters appears necessary now that RfC is reaching an impasse on them. Johnleemk | Talk 03:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by David Gerard

The ArbCom does need to resolve the question of our policies on living biographies versus deletion review. People think that DRV can be used as an end-run around our living bio policies. I understand this is not the case. We are extremely harsh on crappy minor biographies for excellent reason - do you want people to keep thinking they can be voted around? Latest example: the Crystal Gail Mangum deletion review, which is a classic example of "I wanna" voters trying to outvote living bio policy. This followed a go-round on my talk page. For added relevance to this case, note Jeff's claimed ignorance of BLP deletion policy. If you don't address this one, it will come around again and again and again. If you'd prefer this in a separate case, please let me know - David Gerard 08:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Note re IRC-led blocking: This is a particular variety of foolishness that is expressly unwelcome on -admins, per rules on WP:WEA and past problems - it's one thing to come to -admins for sanity checking your urge to block someone, it's quite another not to flag it on ANI afterwards! I'll try to have a word with the guy and see what on Earth he was thinking. My apologies to all, and especially to Jeff - David Gerard 10:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Sam Blanning

If this case is accepted, it would seem an excellent opportunity for Jeff to follow up on his continual threats to have my supposed abusive closures and threats stopped (along with the rest of the deletionist conspiracy presumably, but I seem to be the worst of it). Certainly, I can't see the need for a separate case for this now or at any time in the future. So if he or anyone else wants to add me as a party, I confirm knowledge of the case in advance.

Incidentally, I am not attempting to bate Jeff, as at least one person has suggested in the past (understandably, though nonetheless wrongly). The reason for my increasing irritance over Jeff's threats is that I plan to be out of the country in a month or two for a significant period of time, and would prefer to know for certain a) whether I am going to have to answer an Arbcom case this year and b) if so, when. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Zsinj

To Badlydrawnjeff, members of -admins, fellow administrators, and to the community as a whole:

My actions last night are the result of trying to play the devil's advocate which resulted in an administrative action. For approximately two hours, I asked questions about the issue with the Jeff and in responce I received the impression that Jeff was doing more harm than good. Some voiced frustration about how the situation was becoming lenghty and filled with drama. However, realizing that this all took place in an internet chat room, and a private one no less, that those individuals have nothing to do with the action that only I committed.

I recognize that the decision to block the user was a relatively hasty and uninformed one. Part of the decision was based upon ending the frustration of my peers and trying to get the involved parties to calm down. Through two RFARs and an RFC, I did not see the discussion reaching any compromises and by myself decided to take the action I did. While I did ask for assistance in wording, the block length and reason are my original thinking. 60 hours would have been Friday and I would have hoped people would have been able to think rationally without Jeff breathing down their necks (figuratively) during that time.

In my opinion, last night I made one block that was clearly not in the community's interest. I have seen proposed consequences of my actions range from nothing and a "stern talking to" to desysopping via CSN. While my opinion on the consequences would be clearly biased, I would like to make it known that there are people out there who are asking for blood, while others are being more rational and realizing that I am not the person to go on an inappropriate blocking spree. Up until the block last night, I stuck mainly to CSD backlogs and the occasional blocking fo vandals (which I noticed on *gasp IRC). If my efforts are not welcome by the community, I will acknowledge that. If it can be seen that I cannot improve, I will disagree, but I am at the mercy of the community and the decisions they make. Zsinj^Talk 11:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, and in contributing constructively to this RFAR, I personally believe that when the first AfD closed with result Delete, this was done based upon community consensus. Community consensus overrides policy always because the community is what makes policy. If this whole event forces the community to change policy for BLP, it should be so. The fact that people are fighting over whether or not they are "right according to policy" or not should be where the problem is identified. Zsinj^Talk 11:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: If a fair uninterrupted deletion debate on AfD is allowed, I am sure no one would debate the outcome so long as the full term is run. Dark Shakari's comment below is spot on. I hope the ArbCom takes the case so that this whole catastrophe can be cleaned up so we can all just get on with our lives. Zsinj^Talk 18:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by MONGO

Zsinj comments above should be taken to heart...lesson learned and may all admins see the writing on the wall...never block established editors based on off wiki chat...period. I can't imagine any justification to sanction Zsinj for this one poorly executed admin decision. But did Badlydrawnjeff deserve a block...well I think so. Wikipedia is not a battleground, not a place to demand that we have articles about every single ephemeral subject and not a place to engage in argument just for the sake of arguing. Jeff needs to learn when to quit, that he will "lose" some arguments and that he shouldn't assume that others that disagree with him are the ones who are failing to assume good faith.--MONGO 12:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Sean William

Once again, the Committee will have to keep the scope of this case from getting out of control. If the Committee believes that IRC is relevant to this affair, then several parties (including me) will need to be added, and some logs will need reviewing. However, if this request is only about the QZ deletion debate and not last night's affair, then IRC affairs should be kept completely out of the arbitration. The fundamental question of jurisdiction will eventually have to be addressed, as it was in January. Not my call, obviously. Sean William 12:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Prolog

I think the RfC has already shown that it is false to claim that Jeff is the problem here. The block, "Jeff-opedia" and several incivil comments are all examples of what an editor has to go through when questioning admins' decisions. Although some editors might specifically have a problem with Jeff, the scope of the Zhijun issue is much larger than that. Since the first AFD was brought to DRV, editors that have disputed the BLP problems have been met with hostility and a general "go away, stop it, it's dead, we don't need this" attitude. The BLP issues were disputed not only because the article was well-sourced and the person in question has stated he does not mind the fame, but also because by the third AFD discussion the page had been turned into an article about the meme, and the personal information including the man's name had been removed.

It is easier to blame the inclusionist guy than to accept the fact that there is a whole bunch of established editors who believe this case includes several questionable administrative actions; controversial speedy closures and wheel warring, an admin closing three DRV's on the same subject, potential consensus ignoring, et cetera. Prolog 15:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Deskana

Given the blocking incident involving Jeff based on IRC discussion (detailed above by other people), I implore ArbCom to accept this case and examine the issue in closer detail. Personally, I feel that even if there was no case before that issue, there certainly is now. --Deskana (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Dark Shikari

I've been watching this catastrophe for a number of days. The instant I saw premature closes that were not justified by WP:SNOW, I knew things were going to end up in a total mess. And not surprisingly, they did.

There are two sides in this debate: one side believes the article should be deleted, the other believes it should be kept. Both have many good points, and the best thing to resolve this would be a single, uninterrupted AfD with a closer who is unrelated to the debate. What has happened is that involved users have been closing debates and discussions have been constantly interrupted to push one side's position over another.

Jeff is on the Keep side, but most of his actions as far as I can tell are simply in response to what could be seen as abuse by those on the Delete side. Jeff should not be sanctioned in any way for what he has done, though it might be advisable to caution him for the future. Those who are working on the opposite side, on the other hand, probably shouldn't be sanctioned either--they may have done things wrong, but nothing deserving desysopping or the like. However, what needs to be done is to have a single, uninterrupted, fair deletion debate. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 16:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Drini

Since this seems that's going to be accepted and since the scope seems to be broadening other than jeff's as it was initially, I'd ask the arbiters to also ponder on the issue: "if an AFD was valid, cand DRV overturn it?" and also what's the purpose and extent of DRV. Should the arguments usual on the AFD (like "X has Y google hits", "X should have an encyclopedia article") be valid on DRV (that is, is DRV a second AFD?).

Can Deletion REviews be reviewed to determine its validity? (just like deletion reviews should in theory be only about determining an AFD validity?) or are DRVs final, infallible and ultimate? Is it correct to open multiple DRVs when users disagree with a previous closing? -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 22:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by 75.62.6.237

Like Jeff's RFAR of a few days ago, arbcom should punt this one at least til the RFC or RFC's have run their course. Zsinj's block shouldn't affect this; the block was a dumb error that everyone now agrees was a mistake. Drama about the block beyond advising Zsinj to be more careful next time is unnecessary. This all said, the case is not just about the overweight Chinese guy or about Jeff or about AFD/DRV instruction creep, but also about fundamental sources of dysfunction in Wikipedia that may be insoluable by now, yet have to be examined one way or another. I'm not terribly hopeful about the RFC process vs. the dysfunction, but I don't think too-early arbcom involvement is likely to be of much help. 75.62.6.237 22:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved editor

Sorry to add to this very long list but anyway: I think it's important for arbcom to consider all the repeated early closing going on here, the same SNOW madness that happened in the Brandt wheel war. Several of the involved parties are admins known to be frequent early closers, whose early closes generally generate more hysteria than they prevent. And this isn't just this dispute, it's all the time. If, as Fred said, the idea is to reduce the catfighting/drama, than maybe these habitual drama-causing acts should be examined? GOD FORBID that anyone take the side of "the rules" here (which I'm all for, I've never even read a policy page in full), but it doesn't take rocket science to tell that all this RUSH TO DELETE practice, supposedly aimed at reducing time spent in deliberative process, only makes things worse with controversial subjects. When you have an admin(s) who fail to realize this after many many many times running through the same scenario... Doc G especially - he's been cautioned/admonished/whatever about this deletion stuff already in the Brandt wheel war case. As well as the now repeated use of blocking to make Jeff shut up when he's disagreeing with the wrong admin? How many times has that happened now? And it'll keep happening until someone says "this is not cool" and puts a stop to it.

But mainly what I wanted to say is this: I read Fred Bauder's acceptance, and just want to ask that all other arbitrators avoid pursuing this line of thought. An attitude focused STILL on that "other" website almost a year after the "incidents", in which Jeff has pumped out two featured articles and done more actual encyclopedic work than 99% of WP regulars is an attitude of resentment and of bitterness towards an irrelevant, powerless, non-notable, bandwidth-dead (last I checked) website Jeff doesn't even have any involvement in. In fact, it's this unwillingness to move on from obsessing over that website that makes so many editors resentful and hostile towards Jeff. Any commentary on the workshop or evidence page even acknowledging the existence of that website ought to be summarily removed by clerks or arbitrators. Milto LOL pia 23:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by another uninvolved editor

SimonP says, If there is a problem because a user is insisting on following existing guidelines, it seems to me the first step should be to rework the guidelines.

And that's just it. The administrators who have been shutting down discussions, votes, reviews, appeals, requests, etc, do not have consensus to put their actions into the words of our policies and guidelines. I keep seeing justification for these actions in WP:TLA; and yet no wording in WP:TLA exists. Then, to look on the discussion page of WP:TLA, and the wording that would put those actions into the guideline has been summarily rejected by the community.

So why is Jeff being hounded off of Wikipedia? Is it because the existing guidelines, policies, and processes disagree with him? No, it's because a group of admins are throwing their weight around. Summarily closing off discussions should be rare, and the reasons for doing so should be near unanimous, and obvious. If there are people here who are whining that they hate process for process sake, then they don't need to participate. Surely if consensus and the correct decision (ie, their decision) is so clear then their participation isn't necessary, right?

That isn't to say that ArbCom should take this. Obviously some (*ahem*) members have already made up their mind that Jeff is the problem, and that this won't examine whether there are admins completely over-reaching and harassing Jeff. If that kind of pre-decision is what's been made, then it's a poor idea to urge acceptance. SchmuckyTheCat 02:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Short statement by yet another uninvolved user

Other people have said already most of what I wanted to say. So I'll just urge Arbcom to heavily restrict the scope of this case if accepted, because people will turn it into a free-for all "let's attack everyone I don't like!" thing. -Amarkov moo! 04:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Request by uninvolved kaypoh

Yes, the ArbCom must look at Jeff's behaviour, because it is disruptive. But I think he is acting in good faith, and that he is trying to discuss real problems with Wikipedia. I agree with some of the things he is saying. Yes, some admins are acting improperly. Yes, BLP is being abused to remove information about living persons that is not libel. Please do not brush off his arguments just because of his behaviour. Consider what he is trying to say. --Kaypoh 15:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification by Daniel

Previously titled: Even shorter statement than-the-one-above-by-"yet another uninvolved user" by yet another uninvolved user

I'd ask the Arbitration Committee to immediately clarify the scope of this RfAr upon opening - is the QZ admins being arbitrated? Is this just Jeff and other parties related to the block scuffle? Daniel 07:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Daniel (and all observers) see the talk page. Thatcher131 11:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Good to see I'm still on-the-ball...</sarc> Thanks TT. Daniel 11:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Additional statement by Newyorkbrad recommending declination

For a few days, the fate of "QZ"'s article became the cause celebre du jour on Wikipedia. Tempers rose, shouts of misconduct flew in all directions, the level of process-obsession was exceeded only by the name-calling, the issue was debated in every possible forum on- and off-wiki, and two requests for arbitration were filed.

Just a couple of days later, with this case leaning toward acceptance but not yet accepted, matters already have cooled off significantly. I am sure that many Wikipedians regret various overreactions to events and instances of overheated rhetoric. Meanwhile, the substantive concerns raised by "QZ" and articles like it, which I and many other editors take very seriously as a major set of issues confronting the project, are being addressed on appropriate policy pages and elsewhere.

While I do not approve of some of the user conduct we saw in the past several days, I do not believe any of it rises to the level of requiring an arbitration case. That includes badlydrawnjeff's conduct, about which I have said my piece in the RfC. It also includes the other night's block of badlydrawnjeff, which has been universally condemned. The administrator who imposed the block has been given to understand by all and sundry that he erred; he does not need an arbitration decision to tell him that; but any request for desysopping for a single mistake would be disproportionate and such a remedy to my knowledge unprecedented.

In sum, accepting this request for arbitration would reheat passions that would better be left to cool. And if I am wrong, the committee and the participants will still be here in a week or so, and at least things can then be approached with a little bit more perspective.

Accordingly, I recommend that the case be declined. Newyorkbrad 03:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

A few quick points in response to badlydrawnjeff and Thatcher131 who (both below) have summarized well the arguments for taking the case (and I will be as brief as I can, so please excuse some choppiness). I absolutely agree 100% with Thatcher that there are important issues of principle at play here (see my comments on the current RfC and on Doc glasgow's earlier one). The question presented, as he notes, is not whether we need to make progress in addressing these issues, but whether this case is a good vehicle for doing so. I also happen to agree with Thatcher that the ArbCom decision in the Protecting Children's Privacy case was a helpful one, and that some of the best ArbCom decisions are the ones that end without any bans, desysoppings, or other coercive remedies. On the other hand, some useful principles emerged from the so-called Giano decision too, but one could question whether it was worth the trauma the community suffered in the process of getting there. Next, the fact that the arbitrators in voting to accept the case actively disagree on what they are accepting presents a serious issue before any case, if accepted, could move forward (it's not a just matter of defining the precise borders of a case; some of the acceptances literally say the exact opposite of each other). Finally, I have not seen anything that may or may not have happened on IRC in connection with the block, so am unable to factor that into the equation one way or the other. Newyorkbrad 12:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Additional statement in response to NewyorkBrad

Only because everything seems unorthodox at this point (i.e., clerks can feel free to move this up if need be, but I'd prefer not) - the only reason anything has "cooled off" is because we're all waiting for this. A decline will simply send it back to the masses, and I'll be surprised if a situation doesn't occur when we're back here anyway. The invective and the commentary above indicate the community is incapable of handling this situation on it's own, and the block situation is much more vile than is being admitted (it's really, really times like this when I wish I could just toss the logs up somewhere, but i'm still not convinced that's currently right).

Given the way certain parties have, are, and will continue to act - not allowing discussion, extreme bad faith, incivility, etc. - it's likely going to end up here anyway. Quite simply, when certain users think you should have been blocked months ago when you've done nothing wrong or improper, it does not make for a useful editing situation. Please accept this so parties involved can move on and the situation can be dealt with instead of stall out. On the contrary to Brad's claim, rejecting this request is likely to re-ignite the flames when we undoubtedly attempt to rectify a situation that a not-too-insignificant number of administrators has demonstrated, both publically and what they believed was privately, are incapable of doing properly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher131

With all due respect to Brad, I think Jeff is more correct here regarding the need for someone to do something. Maybe we don't need a case, but someone needs to speak to the expansion of WIkipedia:Biographies of living people. There are some people who believe that BLP is meant only to protect Wikipedia from legal liability, and that as long as an article has a reliable source, it should be kept. There is another faction that believes BLP should be expanded to include moral and ethical concerns. I am in this second group. I believe that Wikipedia should not be a vehicle for the perpetual ridicule of private individuals who are probably more or less decent people who are unfortunate enough to be caught doing something stupid in front of their own or someone else's camera and are made sport of via the internet. The QZ article is just one of many in this class. But it is vital that the community be on the same page, no matter what the specifics are. Maybe jeff is right and certain admins are overzealously applying BLP and abusively stifling debate. Maybe Doc and others are right that Wikipedia should be more humane and ethical, even if that means deleting articles with legitimate sources. Either way, the alleged disruptive behavior here, whether overzealous interpretation of BLP by some admins, or abuse of process by badlydrawnjeff and others in trying to keep such articles, seems likely to continue until this issue is clarified. In fact, there is another such dispute at deletion review right now.

Jimbo could endorse the expansion of BLP beyond mere sourcing and liability issues if he wanted to. The arbitration committee may not feel it has the jurisdiction to set policy, but this is not a matter of naming conventions or other more trivial issues, and as the appointed representatives of Jimbo and final stop in the dispute resolution process, ArbCom probably does have the authority to redefine BLP if it chooses to do so. (The pose that ArbCom has no role is making policy is also somewhat disingenuous. In the Protecting children's privacy case, ArbCom declined to endorse a particular version of a proposed policy, but did endorse principles that have resulted in the de facto adoption of the policy by admins.)

It seems to me unlikely that ArbCom will ban jeff from the deletion review process, or desysop any admins for attempting to expand BLP beyond its previous boundaries, and holding a drawn out case ending up with some "admonishments" might seem like weak tea indeed. However, unless ArbCom or Jimbo wishes to make a pronouncement about this ex cathedra, an arbitration case would be a reasonable venue to review some recent deletions of diputed articles and have the committeee clarify (either by voting on principles or admonishments or both) how far admins may go in defense of BLP, and how far editors may go in support of inclusionism. Without settling this issue, this dispute will arise again.

(I will recuse as clerk if requested, however, we are rapidly running out of clerks and I don't believe my statement is prejudicial to either party.)]

Clerk notes

Recuse from any clerk activity in this case. Newyorkbrad 16:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Mackensen: I doubt we can do much about people commenting on the request. However, if the case is accepted, the clerks will my inclination would be to list as involved parties those editors whose actions are disputed by badlydrawnjeff, such as early closures of AfD and DRV discussions (pending clarification to the contrary, of course). That seems to define the scope of the contested actions. Thatcher131 17:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Clarified my comment above. Thatcher131 19:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Recuse again, as per my earlier recusal. Johnleemk | Talk 03:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm almost positive that I'm as neutral in this case as possible, should a clerk be needed. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 12:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (6/3/1/0)

• Recuse. Mackensen (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. Waiting isn't going to help matters here; it's pretty clear now that nothing short of an arbitration case is going to resolve the dispute. Kirill Lokshin 16:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Decline. What do you need us for? If, indeed, he's announced his contempt for community and consensus and policy as stated above ("meteors" and "heaven"), the community can provide those meteors. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. This is almost the same case we rejected a couple days ago. If there is a problem because a user is insisting on following existing guidelines, it seems to me the first step should be to rework the guidelines. - SimonP 23:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Accept: this is clearly not going to go away, especially after the extremely unwise blocking incident. I am going to insist that the evidence page for this not turn into a free-for-all continuation of the fight over this; irrelevant evidence and commentary will be deleted. I regret that I see no real effort has been made to do other than dump gasoline on the fire here. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Accept to consider only the behavior of BadlydrawnJeff. I think we should establish a policy that Wikipedia is not a drama site (Those that want to consult or contribute to such a site know where to go). I think we could make that policy, but a pronouncement from the Arbitration Committee does not do that. Fred Bauder 13:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Accept primarily to examine how in this case the efforts of admins to apply Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy in Afd and speedy deletes is being altered by users at DRV and other venues for discussion. (For those that may be wondering; I'm not going to recuse based on my Outside View on the RFC. As obviously, I'm not a party to the dispute.) FloNight 13:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. I think the AC can at least clarify what is going on here. Charles Matthews 18:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Decline per Newyorkbrad. Paul August ☎ 04:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Accept for consideration of BadlydrawnJeff's actions (like Fred); the wider policy issue is, well, not an issue. James F. (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Requests for clarification

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

Request for clarification of Tobias Conradi remedy

Is this section of Tobias's talk page within the scope of the prohibition of laundry lists of grievances as it stands now? If so, would it be outside of the scope if it were modified in some way? Sorry for not asking during the run of the case. ++Lar: t/c 13:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification of the role of the Committee in administrator action disputes in Biographies of living persons cases

This may not be the right time, but I wonder if the arbitrators would be willing to make a statement on the procedure to be followed in the case of a disputed Biographies of living persons (BLP) deletion.

Is Deletion review to be used to determine by consensus whether the BLP was correctly invoked, or is the correct process in this case Dispute resolution, culminating in arbitration?

Or are either of these suitable, at the discretion of the disputing party? --Tony Sidaway 15:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Request renewal of revert parole for User:Pigsonthewing

Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) (Andy Mabbet) is subject to indefinite probation as a result of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing. He was also placed on revert parole for one year, which has expired, and was banned for one year, which has also expired. However, he continues to be (or has resumed being) disruptive. Following this report I banned Andy from making userbox-related edits for one month [30]. Today he was reported for making four reversions on Sutton Coldfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Andy persists in calling the edits "POV vandalism" and insists that reverting vandalism does not break 3RR. I and others see this as a content dispute. Since the edits involved infoboxes again, I extended and expanded Andy's ban from infobox-related edits [31]. However, it would probably be better to place Andy back on a one revert per week per article parole. This would allow him to make other infobox-related edits he says need to be made, but would allow admins to rein in his apparently undiminished tendency to edit war rather than seek dispute resolution. Thatcher131 14:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Given that Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing) shows no sign of learning to resolve disputes by other methods than edit-warring and stubborn persistence, I support this. Extend for a year, IMO. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Should there be a vote? Thatcher131 14:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Support this, per many time-consuming "discussions" at talk:Tinsley Viaduct, talk:Tinsley Viaduct/coordinates, talk:Sheffield Town Hall#coordinates, Talk:Sheffield City Hall, Talk:Meersbrook#Coord, Talk:Manchester_Ship_Canal#Table of features and I'm sure many more. Pigsonthewing is almost invariably highly uncooperative when he doesn't get his way (see for example this edit summary with no explanation of why the revert was made - only that I'd not explained why I made mine!) L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 15:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

unwilling to compromise. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 16:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Procedural question: This is a unique case given that the ruling was amended, but it would seem to me that the revert parole should have been frozen when the one year ban was implemented, meaning that the revert parole would continue until December 9, 2007. Perhaps this isn't the case, but in my opinion it should be- a ban shouldn't be meant to supersede previous remedies, it should be an additional, consecutive remedy. Ral315 » 06:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd have thought so. It seems daft to me that a one-year ban and a one-year revert parole should run concurrently - what's the point of that? Perhaps we need to contact the closing admin(s)? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 17:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that when someone is banned, all parole are frozen? - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 18:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification from user:Andries reg. Sathya Sai Baba

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Andries_banned Can Andries still edit the article Jesus, Vishnu, Shirdi Sai Baba, Shiva, and other Hindu saints and deities, even though Sathya Sai Baba claims to be a reincarnation of all of them? These claims are generally not accepted by the followers of Jesus etc. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Andries

Thanks in advance for your answer. Andries 19:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe Andries comparison to Jesus, etc. is grossly misleading. If the reviewer would review my comments on the request for arbitration enforcement, it would be appreciated. Thank you. Vassyana 19:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is it misleading? Sathya Sai Baba claims to be an incarnation of Jesus too, though it will be clear that the relationship is only accepted by followers of Sathya Sai Baba, and not by follower of Jesus. Same for Shiva, Vishnu and Shirdi Sai Baba, Rama, and other deities and Hindu saints. Andries 19:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The relationship between Shirdi Sai Baba and Sathya Sai Baba on which Vassyana's bases his complaint against me was added by user:Kkrystian on 17 May after I edited the article Shirdi Sai Baba for the last time (on 6 May) without citing reputable source. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Kkrystian. Andries 20:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, Andries may edit these to the degree that they are not related to Sathya Sai Baba; in other words, not to edit-war with people over Sathya Sai Baba mentions in those articles. Mention of Sathya Sai Baba in those articles should be minimal if not outright nonexistent in any case; otherwise would violate the prohibition on undue weight contained in NPOV. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that's about right. The topic ban should have minimal impact on say, editing of Shiva. Charles Matthews 18:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Appeal from Koavf

Koavf (talk · contribs · block log) recently contacted me via email, asking for an appeal by the ArbCom of his indefinite block, which was placed in November by Dmcdevit with the log summary of "Extensive block history for perpetually edit warring and disruptive behavior, but behavior is unmodified. Exhaustion of the community's patience." Koavf's reasons for his unblock are copied below:

I personally desire to be unblocked because I enjoyed editing Wikipedia and I was in the middle of several articles that were enjoyable for me to write. As for the community at large, I feel like I have made several thousand useful edits, including writing whole articles that were valuable and may not have been written with the quality or expediency that I brought to them (I am particularly proud of List of African Union member states by political system.) Furthermore, the contributions on Western Sahara-related articles has completely stagnated as I've been gone and there is no indication that this trend will reverse. I feel like I can engage the community as a mature member and that the block I have been given is disproportionate to the amount of quality that I added to the endeavor at large.

He also wrote that "I am seeking to be unblocked by the Arbitration Committee; I have been blocked for several months and was a very active contributor to Wikipedia prior to the block. I have tried several means to get unblocked, and none of them have borne fruit (e.g. the most recent was e-mailing the blocking admin, who has not responded in over a week.)"

Following some discussion on our mailing list, it was suggested that Koavf be unblocked and instead placed on standard revert parole. This seems reasonable; his block log shows multiple prior blocks for 3RR violations, and a revert parole would thus hopefully address that issue while allowing him to continue his ways as a productive editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flcelloguy (talk • contribs)

Motion for Unblock and standard revert parole (4/0/0/1)

Koavf (talk · contribs) is unblocked and placed on standard revert parole. He is hereby limited to a maximum of one content revert per page per day for one year. Each revert must be explicitly marked as such. Any such violations may result in further blocks of up to 24 hours, and multiple violations (i.e. three or more) may result in longer blocks or the resumption of the original indefinite block, depending on the administrator's discretion. Blocks should be mentioned on the requests for Arbitration page.

Clerk note: There are currently 12 active arbitrators, so a majority is 7.

• Support. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support Fred Bauder 04:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Kirill Lokshin 16:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Paul August ☎ 16:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Changed my mind per comments below. While, given what I currently know, I would support the unblock and revert parole, I do not think that this is the best way to go about it. Paul August ☎ 17:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments

(Not sure where you want this.) I don't quite understand this particular motion without a case. I don't feel vehemently about any half-year old ban of mine, but I do disagree that it should be done this way. Mostly, an arbitration case should never take anyone by surprise. The original ban was endorsed by several admins, and no one in the community was willing to unblock after an ANI discussion. If anyone (arbitrators included) think that a revert parole is a better option, it would have been better to 1) discuss with the blocking administrator and then 2) put it to the community on some noticeboard. That's normal admin courtesy. I can't avoid the feeling that, by bypassing the usual options, arbcom has essentially (whether intentionally or not) mixed up their administrator and arbitrator hats. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree this seems like a bad idea, and is without precedent in the 9 months I have been a clerk. Unless FIcelloguy wants to act directly as an admin and unblock Koavf, the Arbcom precedent would be to list the appeal as a routine request. If four or more arbitrators agree to hear the case, a full case with an evidence and workshop page would be opened. Here you are going directly to the final decision without any input from the blocking admin or other editors who discussed the case when it was reported on the noticeboard. Thatcher131 14:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Full link to discussion of indefinite block is here. Thatcher131 14:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason this procedure is being used is that the editor in question is blocked indefinitely, so he has no on-wiki method of requesting a reduction in the sanction against him. Therefore, he properly wrote to the Arbitration Committee, as recommended, and arbitrators apparently concluded that they could reduce the sanction as indicated without needing evidence and a workshop.

I think that procedurally, what is proposed here is the equivalent of setting up an expedited procedure ("summary docket") that the arbitrators would use for matters in which they believe ArbCom action is appropriate but the full panoply of opening a case is not necessary. I suppose last month's fast-tracked confirmation of the Robdurbar desysopping would be a procedural precedent, not that the two cases are otherwise comparable in any way. On the one hand, it would make sense that such an expedited procedure be established for less controversial items (perhaps with a caveat that this procedure could not be used if any arbitrator objected, or if more than one arbitrator objected). The counter-argument is that the experience of real-world legal systems is that such special expedited procedures quickly tend to get overused, including for matters that would benefit from more plenary consideration. Newyorkbrad 14:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

To answer a few of the qualms: I, too, was at first a little hesitant about any such appeals method. But the email from Koavf indicated that he had tried other means of recourse, including emailing the blocking admin (Dmcdevit) previously, with no reply. He attempted an unblock request in January of this year, which was denied; people told him to take his appeals process to the Arbitration Committee because he was blocked indefinitely. Whether or not it's technically a "ban" seemed a bit irrelevant; people pointed him to us, citing the appeals process. It was clear that, with that advice having been given to him, that the Arbitration Committee would be the only ones able to listen to his case and act. With that in mind and the appeals of all bans in our "jurisdiction", I was still a little bit hesitant about how to proceed. After receiving his email, I forwarded (like I would any other email pertaining to ArbCom business) his email to the mailing list and asked for thoughts on how to proceed. It was suggested by another Arbitrator that we take the option of unblocking him, and placing him on standard revert parole - his block log and prior discussions indicated that this was one of the primary reasons that hindered him from being a productive editor. Several Arbitrators agreed with this proposal, at which point I asked for advice on how to proceed - how would we treat this? Another Arbitrator responded that it should be treated like a standard appeals and placed in the "clarification" section. With sufficient time given and no objections heard, I proceeded with placing this request on here.

Regarding the lack of a complete case for this matter: this was something, as I mentioned above, that I asked for feedback on from my fellow Arbitrators, and they all seemed comfortable with this method. I saw little merit in starting a new case; unlike the typical case that we accept, there would be no need for a workshop, proposed decisions, evidence, etc. - the only thing that we were considering is whether or not to unblock this particular editor, and if so, whether or not to place him on standard revert parole. Other editors are, of course, free to comment here, but as no Arbitrator had opposed placing this unblock to a vote, I didn't see a need to vote on whether or not to "accept" a case - an Arbitrator either believes that the editor should be unblocked, or he doesn't. (Of course, they are all free to propose alternate solutions and remedies.) It seemed redundant to vote on "accepting" the case and then voting again on the one proposed action, when, in essence, anyone accepting the case would be supporting the unblock, while those against opening would be against the unblock. Again, no objections were heard at all in the time this was discussed on our mailing list, and we all looked into the circumstances surrounding his unblock carefully.

Those are the reasons why I felt comfortable proceeding with this request, having discussed this and being advised to proceed in this manner by other Arbitrators. It should also be noted that I contacted Dmcdevit as well after I placed this appeal from Koavf on here, notifying him of the appeal. Perhaps I should have contacted all the other editors who discussed the indefinite block in the first place; if so, I apologize. I - and the rest of the committee - of course respect and understand your qualms about this, but I hope I've made clear why I felt comfortable proceeding in the manner I did. (If I didn't address any of your concerns inadvertantly, please let me know and I'll do so.) Additional feedback and comments about the process or case are, as always, welcome. Thanks for your understanding. Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so concerned about the lack of a case, or "jurisdiction" issues—I've always felt that simple cases should be resolved with open motions, not full cases, but the previous ArbCom never warmed to my idea—but that this block was uncontested, and ArbCom's action came out of the blue. If any of the arbitrators, upon receiving Koavf's email, felt that lifting the ban was a good idea, simply saying so as a respected administrator on ANI would have been enough. The problem here is that by using arbitration to make a simple admin decision–especially when, if you had contacted any of us who had discussed it previously, it would be clear that limiting the ban to some kind of probation is not that controversial–ArbCom seems to be limiting admin discretion in favor of sending more cases to arbitraton instead. (I have a laundry list of users community banned by adminstrators and upheld by the community who still want to be unblocked, probably several a week, if ArbCom would like to have at them all. )Dmcdevit·t 05:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this appeal should have been exposed to public. No one from the list of people who participated at the AN/I discussion have been informed of this process. I think people should be informed at least.

Anyway, as i had stated in the AN/I back on November 2006, i have no objection to see Koavf contributing again but it remains conditional (partial ban - see AN/I). I still think the same. In parallel, i don't understand that if they revert more than once a day they'd only be blocked for 24h. Why not longer? Why not putting them on a probation period with stricter conditions instead? Anyway, i assume good faith and would not object if Justin is willing to do as they say. I'd have no problems in seeing them contributing again but totally POV-free the same way they have done at Citizendium. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with FayassalF. I'm surprised that the arbcom is willing to unblock someone banned with a clear community consensus per discussion on the incident noticeboard and without a strong reason to involve itself. (This does not look like a case that would be accepted if it had been brought back in November.) I therefore think this looks like bypassing the community, which should only be done when it is clear the arbcom can do a better job of resolving the dispute than the community can. That said, I would welcome Koavf back if he promises not to edit war anymore, but has he done so? If so, where? Picaroon (Talk) 21:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind the Arbitration Committee taking cases like this, so long as the community is given the opportunity of final appeal (i.e. if ArbCom reverses a ban, the community can restore the ban after another discussion). Ral315 » 02:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Two things here. If the community would have the final word than why do we have to go through here? Also, who would define the conditions? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

To the first point, it wouldn't be a requirement to go through here, merely another way of reversal. Very rarely would there be a case where a ban reversed by ArbCom would be questionable (I'd argue almost never would this happen). Second, the conditions would be defined by the cases where ArbCom chooses to step in, and afterward, in the cases where someone appeals the ban on WP:AN or elsewhere, and the community agrees that the case is worth looking at. Ral315 » 02:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and partially agree. Because i heard about a 24h sanction in case of a 3RR infraction. Isn't this applied to all users? If the unblock would be executed under such conditions than the community would surely disagree. But where, how and when? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I would assume that this wouldn't apply to any short-term blocks - any ArbCom action taken on a community decision would take at least a week, presumably - I'm talking about this covering blocks of, say, 1 month or more. But since this is a rare case currently, I don't think any real rules on it need to be defined. Ral315 » 03:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Is any kind of official motion really required? This is basically a community ban. By my understand, any admin can undo a community ban, since the definition of a community ban is simply a ban that no admin is willing to undo. I would suggest that someone unblock him unilaterally and then if anyone wants him reblocked they can start a full arbcom case. --Tango 10:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that in addition to being Arbcom members, they are still members of the Wikipedia administration community. And as such, any one of them can decide a community ban was inappropriate and overturn it unilaterally. It's patently ludicrous to argue that the Arbcom may not do something in summary motion that they can do as ordinary administrators. It does not really need majority vote either, simply one of the admins saying "I'm dubious over this ban, if people want a ban they should take it to full Arbitration." --Barberio 10:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make and vote on such motions. Other editors may comment on the talk page)

Archives

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