Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Dispute on Portal:Iceland: Removing request for arbitration: declined by the committee
→‎Celestina007: removing request for arbitration: declined by the committee
Tag: Replaced
Line 7: Line 7:
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=43%</noinclude>}}
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=43%</noinclude>}}
<noinclude>__TOC__</noinclude>
<noinclude>__TOC__</noinclude>

== Celestina007 ==
'''Initiated by ''' '''[[User talk:Princess of Ara|<span style="color:#f06292">Princess of Ara</span>]]''' '''at''' 16:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator -->
*{{userlinks|Princess of Ara}}, ''filing party''
*{{userlinks|Celestina007}}

;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Celestina007&diff=prev&oldid=1087462049&diffmode=source]

;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1087420955#Celestina007's_secret_tools ANI - Celestina007's secret tools] (current revision)
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1073&oldid=1073177006#User:Celestina007 ANI - User:Celestina007]

=== Statement by Princess of Ara ===
There is an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1087420955#Celestina007's_secret_tools ongoing discussion at ANI] filed by an IP editor on 8 April 2022. There was a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1073&oldid=1073177006#User:Celestina007 similar thread filed about the same user in 2021]. The current thread is difficult to properly follow and evaluate without a more structured process. There have been diverse opinions including disagreements from established editors on the best course of action but almost everyone who commented on the thread including {{noping|Celestina007}} themself agreed that there are serious issues bordering on persistent intimidation of new editors, possession of a government tool that enables them to perform a CheckUser to investigate Wikipedia volunteers they perceive as UPE, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Praxidicae&oldid=1085331455#Why self-acclaimed] {{tq|most renowned editor dealing with Nigeria related articles in the history of the English Wikipedia}} and BLP violations. Many things have been suggested, ranging from an indefinite block to a topic ban and mentorship, but I believe that Celestina007 who is also a [[Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts#Celestina007|teahouse host]] and [[Special:MentorDashboard|teahouse mentor]] has been under mentorship and guidance for so long by Barkeep49 and MER-C as indicated on their [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Celestina007#My_Forte userpage]. Considering the wide scope of the issues, I believe the issues cannot be effectively resolved at ANI and a more structured and formal investigation by ArbCom is needed to resolve the underlying diverse issues. Thank you.
:'''Withdrawing request''' - The ANI thread has been closed satisfactorily. Kind regards. '''[[User talk:Princess of Ara|<span style="color:#f06292">Princess of Ara</span>]]''' 04:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

=== Statement by Celestina007 ===
=== Statement by Praxidicae ===
*This seems entirely too hasty considering the ANI thread is still going with no formal outcome. [[User:Praxidicae|<span style="color:#E52B50;font-size:11px">PRAXIDICAE💕</span>]] 16:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

=== Statement by Elmidae ===
Way premature; that is not even an acrimonious or intractable ANI thread, just one with multiple opinions, most well-reasoned. "I found it difficult to follow" is not a reason to punt to ARBCOM. Let ANI sort this out, no need for added calorie-free drama. --<span style="font-family:Courier">[[User:Elmidae|Elmidae]]</span> <small>([[User talk:Elmidae|talk]] · [[Special:contributions/Elmidae|contribs]])</small> 16:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

=== Statement by Iridescent ===
Please withdraw this before other people waste their time commenting. Arbcom is a last-resort, not the Wikipedia Police Force. The ANI thread has only been open about three days, there's nothing to suggest it's not going to resolve the problem. (Indeed, there's no indication at present that Celestina007 even intends to return to editing.)

=== Statement by WaltCip ===
Oh, for goodness sakes. Just withdraw this, please. --'''[[User:WaltCip|WaltCip]]'''-''<small>([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])</small>'' 17:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

=== Statement by AndyTheGrump ===
Clearly it is inappropriate to have an ANI thread and an ArbCom case on the same topic, at the same time, and accordingly this should probably be withdrawn for now. I would like to state however that there are concerns regarding what appear to be significant violations of WP:BLP policy which have been touched on in the ANI thread, but not discussed fully, which may ultimately have to be dealt with here if the community is not prepared to address the issue. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 17:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

=== Statement by Beccaynr ===
Access to non-public information appears to potentially be a prerequisite for addressing this dispute, e.g. in the current ANI discussion, {{u|L235|KevinL}} states [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=1086779102&oldid=1086775073], {{tq|this has been on ArbCom's plate for some time as it does encompass some matters not suitable for public discussion, which is squarely within [[WP:A/P|ArbCom's remit]]}}, {{u|Barkeep49}} describes ArbCom communication with Celestina007 and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=1086894651&oldid=1086894573] {{tq|the expectation of ArbCom confidentiality}}, although {{u|Beeblebrox}} states [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=1087001913&oldid=1087000559], {{tq|I'd like to be very clear that the committee does not have any super secret evidence it is sitting on}}. In addition, e.g., {{u|Ritchie333}} states [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=1087097853&oldid=1087097711], {{tq|I closed the previous ANI, and have since spent time talking to Celestina007 both on and off-wiki about conduct}}, and {{u|DGG}} states [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=1087243448&oldid=1087242479], {{tq|I should mention I am also aware of some oversighted material. , and it convinced me she needed assistance}}.
There also appears to be a broader issue that could be addressed by remedial action so the dispute becomes easier for the community to resolve, including as discussed by {{u|Timtrent}}, e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=1086948946&oldid=1086948022] {{tq| As someone who often tries to work out how to process suspected UPE, I find I have no defined route to turn to.}} For these reasons, [[WP:A/G|arbitration]] may be most effective in finding the best way to move users beyond this dispute. [[User:Beccaynr|Beccaynr]] ([[User talk:Beccaynr|talk]]) 18:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

===Statement by Timtrent===

I believe that this is not appropriate to be heard at this time. There is an active ANI discussion. That should reach a conclusion prior to Arbcom agreeing to hear this.

{{U|Beccaynr}} has been kind enough in their statement to quote my very real concern that the route to report UPE fizzles out for those of us who do not have admin tools. I'm not sure that is within the remit of Arbcom, but I feel it worth mentioning again. {{U|Celestina007}} is at ANI and now here because they work diligently in UPE identification in a very difficult geography. Opinions may differ om their method of working and I choose to make no comment on that save only that they appear to be effective. 🇺🇦&nbsp;[[User:Timtrent|<span style="color:#800">Fiddle</span><sup><small>Timtrent</small></sup>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Timtrent|<span style="color:#070">Faddle</span><sup><small>Talk&nbsp;to&nbsp;me</small></sup>]]&nbsp;🇺🇦 18:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

=== Statement by Joe Roe ===
I'm not sure you should be so quick to dismiss this as premature. That ANI thread is one of the quickest and nastiest pile-ons I've seen in a long time and as WTT says it's not the first. It could well be that arbitration is the kinder way to deal with the issues with Celestina's conduct (which certainly are there)—if not as a case then by some "quiet words" and a motion—though I realise that taking something out of ANI's hands like that might be a political can of worms. And since she stopped editing a few days ago, maybe it's too late. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 18:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

:{{ping|Beeblebrox}} Your interactions with Celestina were part of what precipitated the first ANI, you've participated extensively in the WPO thread that has clearly been fanning the flames of the second, and three days ago you removed most of her permissions. I'm really surprised that you chose to offer the first opinion on this request instead of recusing. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 18:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

=== Statement by Clovermoss ===
I've participated in the ANI discussion. The access to non-public information appears to be a misunderstanding about how the Editor Interaction tool works, but I think that it had a threatening impact regardless. I agree with Worm That Turned. The ANI thread should have a chance to see if these issues can be resolved, however that happens, because plenty of people have concerns. There's also the overall theme of accountability. If these issues aren't ultimately resolved, ARBCOM is still here. I do think the BLP aspect that AndyTheGrump has mentioned is important, but again, the ANI thread is still active. This page says that "Arbitration is a last resort" and I don't think we've reached last resort quite yet. There are serious issues that need to be addressed, but I don't think we're quite at that point yet. User rights have been removed and potential sanctions are still being discussed. [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clover</span><span style="color:green">moss</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 18:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

=== Statement by Aquillion ===
This seems clearly premature. The discussion is still in progress and is quite likely handle the situation. Additionally, based on what has come out there, it seems unlikely that this is really something that absolutely requires ArbCom's attention right now - if there was actual abuse of some sort of special tools things would be different, but it seems clearly-established at this point that that's not the case. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 18:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

=== Statement by Kudpung ===
This arbitration request is totally premature while there is a recent ongoing, albeit very long and messy ANI. {{u|Beeblebrox}} has already removed most of {{U|Celestina007}}'s advanced permissions without which she will have little inclination to continue with the otherwise excellent NPP and UPE work she has been doing. She has stopped editing and the ANI has already been more than punishment enough whether or not it concludes with sanctions, and it provides sufficient learning for her if indeed she ever returns. To paraphrase {{u|DGG}}: '' 'and as for anyone who wants to stop [the ANI] discussion because we have not reached a conclusion, they need to rethink what the purpose is of ANI' '' - and of Arbcom. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 19:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

The ANI is still ongoing and probably will be until a significant hiatus of comments ensues, or a closer chooses to put a stop to it. {{u|Robert McClenon}} has accurately identified the problem below: whether the ANI is indeed closable. Any closer will need roughly two hours to read it all and check the cited diffs, and probably not base their peroration alone on the most recent of the many subsections. Among other possible solutions, their decision - still not easy to make - ''could'' legitimately be 'Unclosable, over to Arbcom'. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 03:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

=== Statement by Mhawk10 ===
Given that the ANI thread is less than a week old and the resolution doesn't appear to require the use of off-wiki evidence, I'm skeptical that ArbCom needs to step in at this point. ArbCom would make sense if the ANI were to degenerate into a true "no consensus for any option" position, but I don't think that such an outcome is so certain at this point that ArbCom should preemptively intervene. — [[User:Mhawk10|Ⓜ️hawk10]] ([[User talk:Mhawk10|talk]]) 06:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

===Statement by Robert McClenon on Celestina007===
Several editors have said that this case should be declined as premature or very premature. I partly agree and partly disagree. It is not ''very premature'', I strongly urge ArbCom not to accept or decline this case yet, and to consider two different situations in which ArbCom resolution is necessary. This case at [[WP:ANI]] has become enormous, and does not appear to be on its way to resolution. (I know that some editors that that closure is close at hand. I disagree.)

The first situation in which ArbCom should accept the case is if it proves to be unclosable. The simplest version may be simply that the case continues to grow, mostly with editors repeating themselves, and no one is bold enough to write a closure. On the other hand, an administrator may close the case, but their close may result in protests, and the case may be reopened or reclosed, but to no satisfaction. ArbCom should be ready to accept this case if it "falls through" community procedures, and should neither decline nor accept it now.

The second situation that ArbCom should consider, which may not be different from no close, is to accept the case as a way of relieving the community of the need to close it. If neither a community administrator nor ArbCom wants to decide this case, ArbCom should remember that they agreed to take hard cases.

So ArbCom should not decline this case, but should be ready to take it if, as seems likely, it is an unclosable monster.
[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 19:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
====Afterthoughts (Celestina007)====
The [[WP:ANI]] dispute was closed 60 hours ago, and no one is demanding to reopen it. ArbCom should close this request as taken care of by the community.

WormThatTurned says that this case might have benefited from the structure of an ArbCom proceeding. I agree, not so much about this case as about extended complicated disputes at [[WP:ANI]] that last for a week or longer with multiple subtopics. However, I think that Worm and I are in a minority, and the other arbitrators seem to prefer any community resolution, no matter how chaotic.
[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 16:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

=== Statement by GoodDay ===
Recommend that this Arb request be turned down. Note that the ANI report was begun by an IP, who's made less then 10 edits to Wikipedia since 2015. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

ANI report has been closed & decision given. Reckon, this Arb request should be rejected, more so. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 20:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

===Statement by Beeblebrox===
I spent the last ..... dear lord, nearly two hours, reviewing the ANI thread and will be closing it shortly. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 19:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

=== Statement by Deepfriedokra ===
*Thanks to Beeblebrox for closing the difficult ANI, obviating the need for an ArbCom-a-thon. --<b>[[User:Deepfriedokra|<span style="color:black">Deep</span><span style="color:red">fried</span><span style="color:DarkOrange">okra</span>]] [[User talk:Deepfriedokra|(<span style="color:black">talk</span>)]]</b> 20:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

=== Statement by {Non-party} ===
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->

=== Celestina007: Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*

=== Celestina007: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/6/2> ===
{{anchor|1=Celestina007: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)</small>

<s>*I'd like to see a clear and specific reason why the committee should intercede while there are sanctions being discussed at ANI. If that isn't forthcoming and ''very'' compelling I'd suggest withdrawing the request. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 17:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)</s>
**<s>Joe, I'm always willing to consider the possibility that I should recuse, but I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning here. Specifically that my actions are the cause of the previous ANI, and that I have participated "extensively" in the WPO thread. I gave her some advice, now at [[User talk:Celestina007/Archives/2021/June#painful lessons I've learned the hard way]]. I don't think that advice directly caused the ANI thread, although it is mentioned there. As to my participation on the WPO thread, there is only one comment from me in that thread that directly discusses Celestina, and it is simply a clarification of why I revoked those user rights, which I consider a purely administrative action based on a fairly clear consensus at the current ANI thread that she is not a "highly trusted user" who should have all those various hats. All of my other comments are either about something else or are jokes not about this case at all. Commenting on a thread there does not constitute an endorsement of every other comment in the same thread, or actions that other participants there may have undertaken here. That being said, the mere appearance of impropriety is something to consider in such cases and if this moves forward and it seems others agree with your position I'll reconsider. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 19:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)</s>
*'''Recuse''' I realize this complicates matters but I think we can take it as read that the "per Beeblebrox" comments below are in reference to my initially expressed concerns regarding the ANI thread. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 19:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

*I concur with Beeblebrox. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 17:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
*:'''Decline''' per the close of the ANI discussion, with no prejudice against a new case being brought if there are still unresolved issues that need a case. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 09:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
*I also agree with Beeblebrox. '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 17:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
**'''Decline''', as the ANI thread has now been closed (by Beeblebrox). Best, '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 01:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
*I'm not against a case here, given that this has been raised before already this year. However, I'm also willing to give the community a chance to figure out the issues, as well as being aware that Celestina hasn't actually edited for a few days. I would suggest letting the ANI thread finish and seeing if any sanctions make a difference before bringing it back here without prejudice. [[User:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#000;">''Worm''</b>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>]]) 17:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
*:I think this whole thing might have been better through the structured processes of Arbcom, but what's done is done. At the moment, the ANI is closed, there are some fresh restrictions in place and Celestina is back editing. Let's see how things pan out. '''Decline''' [[User:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#000;">''Worm''</b>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>]]) 09:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
* '''Decline''' without prejudice as premature. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 18:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
* Recuse. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 19:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
*My question is: what would we do that ANI isn't? It looks like ANI is headed for a topic ban and will narrowly avoid a general ban. If I had to read the Arb crystal ball, I'd guess that we'd end up in about the same place. I'm really inclined to let ANI reach an endpoint before we step in. I agree that the ANI thread was Not Ideal, given the panic, and the harshness levelled at Celestina, but ANI seems on the path to redemption, and is now having a more measured discussion. [[User:CaptainEek|<span style="color:#6a1f7f">'''CaptainEek'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<span style="font-size:82%"><span style="color:#a479e5">''Edits Ho Cap'n!''</span></span>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 20:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
* Same questions as Eek, especially now that Beeblebrox has closed the ANI thread. Are there any remaining issues to examine that are not already covered by the close? [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 21:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' The ANI is closed. Let's see how things go with the restriction. --[[User:BDD|BDD]] ([[User talk:BDD|talk]]) 01:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' per BDD. '''[[User talk:Maxim|<span style="font-family:Arial"><span style="color:#FF7133">Maxim</span><sub><small style="color:blue;">(talk)</small></sub></span>]]''' 16:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:29, 19 May 2022

"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC.

Shortcut

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads none none 4 June 2024
Amendment request: India-Pakistan none (orig. case) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions none none 10 June 2024
Motion name Date posted
Block of Rp2006 18 June 2024
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=1088721955"