Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Arbitration​Committee

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

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

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

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

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

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Anachronist		16 June 2024	0/5/0
Rio Grande 223		19 June 2024	0/3/0

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

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

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Block of Rp2006	18 June 2024

Current requests

Zscout370

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

Involved parties

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

As Zscout370 has been subject to emergency desysopping twice -- see [2] and [3] -- this case appears to qualify for acceptance as a "[review] of emergency actions to remove administrator privileges". Additionally, Zscout370's unblocking of Miltopia after the latter was banned by Jimbo Wales has been discussed extensively at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/My block of Miltopia. A previous request for arbitration that I filed regarding Zscout370's unblocking of Miltopia was summarily removed by John Reaves before any arbitrators had reviewed the case; I ask that this disposition not be repeated.

Statement by John254

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

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

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

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

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

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

Statement by Orderinchaos

Would agree that this seems unnecessary. One matter which may need clarification however is that according to this diff[4], three members of the Arbitration Committee plus a person who was not a member of the Arbitration Committee at the time (although this seemed to be a matter of good faith confusion for the steward concerned) asked for Zscout to be desysopped in a move which was so quickly afterwards overturned. Apart from this, the matter appears to have been resolved and any further action will most probably not help the situation. Orderinchaos 01:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher131

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

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

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

Statement by Krimpet

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

Statement by Zscout370

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

Statement by SirFozzie

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

Statement by Tony Sidaway

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

Statement by Amarkov

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

Statement by SlimVirgin

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

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

Statement by SSBohio

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

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

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

Reply to SSBohio by Daniel

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

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

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

Reply to Daniel by SSBohio

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

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

Comment by GRBerry

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

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

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

Clerk notes

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

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

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

---

Requests for clarification

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

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

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

Previously, myself and Tyrenius (who were both parties to the ArbCom) have used this remedy to try to keep folks calm, with no peep of protest. Now, three weeks after User:Aatomic1 was placed on a one-month probation by administrator User:Alison, User:Aatomic1 has attempted to remove himself from the terms of probation, because Alison was one of the parties who provided evidence and discussion for the case. This came after Aatomic1 attempted to incite an admin who WAS in an edit war with User:Domer48 to place "That troll" (ie Domer) on its terms. Could the ArbCom please clarify this remedy, as to whom may place it, and if my definition is correct? SirFozzie (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The probation should remain in place. For purposes of this case, Alison was not an involved admin and she remains uninvolved as far as I can tell. Meaning that she has not been involved in edits disputes with the user or about these articles. We need admin to become "involved" as Alison did. Meaning that they learn about conflicts, bring them to ArbCom for rulings, and apply sanctions as needed when cases close. I think that is what Alison did and so the probation should remain. FloNight (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

On this basis, then, I will withdraw from the voluntary recusal I placed myself under, after a probation violation warning was issued to one party and a raft of protesters argued that as a named party I was an "involved" admin. Rockpocket 00:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

"Involved" for the purposes of enforcement could mean that if you edit war with another user on articles A and B, you should not impose a sanction on article C, even if you haven't edited that article. However, learning about a dispute and trying to help settle it, and taking action when needed, is not really involvement. Thatcher131 01:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

That was my understanding too, however our-soon-to-be-newest Arb appeared to have a different opinion. [5] Note that "heavily involved in the earlier disputes" equates to being one of the admins who attempted to deal with earlier disputes. Rockpocket 01:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It's always a judgment call, and a balancing: We don't want editors to believe they are being treated unfairly, but neither do we want to multiply the opportunities for forum shopping. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, is to be assumed that all "uninvolved admin" rulings (e.g. Digwuren) should be interpreted in this way? Will ^(talk) 01:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

As a clerk I always find that "uninvolved" in this case means that you have a neutral opinion on the subject. (Like, I would not touch anything related to Chinese politics with a 10' pole.) You cannot pass judgment on anyone without learning why, and if we become "involved", we'd never get anything done. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 02:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Will, if you apply a remedy and the target thinks you are too involved, he can appeal to WP:AE, WP:ANI, or email the Arbcom. Remedies applied by one admin can be lifted by another for good cause like any other admin action, although as with reversing any other action, discussion and consultation beforehand is a good thing. If you do end up dropping the hammer on someone you shouldn't, someone will let you know one way or the other. Thatcher131 02:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course. And I don't mean to give the impression that any admin should reserve an absolute right to be the one to take action (sometimes its better to step back to avoid even the appearance of a COI). My concern is simply that this does leave open an avenue in which editors who are under ArbCom remedies could take out of the equation the very admins that are most familiar with their MO in an effort to further a disruptive agenda. It is a balance, but as we saw from the reversing of Ty's block, the community has in place mechanisms that provides it without asking those with previous experience to recuse themselves on principle. This is especially important in complex and long running cases, where entirely "uninvolved" admins would not have a clue what was going on.

On a personal note, I felt particularly aggrieved by this suggestion, because I was the one who volunteered to provide the evidence about a particular editor in this case, and as a result I was the one targeted (by an entire lobby) as the person with the vendetta. I could easily have stood back and let someone else provide the evidence, but didn't consider it an issue at the time. As it stood, I was not planning to provide any more evidence to future cases, lest the same accusations be leveled against me. I'd feel much more confidence in contributing to the arbitration process if I felt that my evidence as an admin who tried to enforce our policies was not codified as being an involved in the problem. Rockpocket 03:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Would a neutral observer think, by your actions or the way you presented evidence, that you had taken sides? Or are you presenting yourself as a neutral party trying to resolve ongoing conflicts? If so, you probably should not take enforcement action. If not, then there should not be a problem. Complaints from the people you have sanctioned is routine. Try the Armenia-Azerbaijani dispute. I respond to a large majority of the reports and I'm pretty sure neither side has much liked my responses. Thatcher131 03:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am aware no neutral observer has ever suggested any of the admins involved have taken sides, though plenty have said that its best of avoid it looking that way. Well, when the lobbies (on both sides) are doing their damnedest to make it look that way, then we have a problem. So what happens is one editor complains loudly when an admin takes action, within (literally) minutes the other members of the lobby pile on with the same complaint. The neutral observer sees a number of editors in agreement and suggests you should probably not make the enforcement action if only to avoid the perception of bias. QED, the lobby has got exactly what they want. So the "involved" admins probably do inflame the situation, but thats because its in the interests of those people who are under remedy to cause the inflammation. I see this as a real and ongoing problem. The obvious answer is to have other admins take over, but quite frankly, requests for outside eyes in this sort of lengthy, simmering and bitter dispute come to nothing, no-one wants to touch it - and you can hardly blame them. Rockpocket 05:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• This isn't intended to be obtuse or confusing. If you are part of the problem, you should not be the one to impose the remedy. I think this is clear from the current Matthew Hoffman case where Adam is under review for blocking editors whose edits he opposed for content reasons, even though he did not edit the exact article in dispute but did edit other articles in the broad topic. However, if you step into a situation to try and resolve it peacefully, and maintain your objectivity, and find that one party or both needs to be sanctioned, you probably can do it. Editors should not feel that they are being taken advantage of by their opponents who happen to have a sysop bit, but at the same time, disruptive editors should not be able to game the system and forum shop by claiming that every admin who tries to resolve a situation in a neutral way is now too tainted by involvement to make a fair judgement call on sanctions. Thatcher131 03:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we need administrator to become knowledgeable about the situation in order to make clueful decisions. There should be no problem with monitoring a situation over time to make sure is properly resolved. Keeping articles on a watchlist and stepping in to calm down edit wars is a good use of admin time. FloNight (talk) 03:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Rosencomet

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for review of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election

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

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

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

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

Requested motions to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motions

Block of Rp2006

The Arbitration Committee assumes the block of Rp2006 (talk · contribs).

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	6
1–2	5
3–4	4

Support:

1. A consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE recently decided to block Rp2006 for violations of their topic ban coming immediately after the expiration of ArbCom's 1 month block of them. This is an indefinite block, with the first year being Arbitration Enforcement. Given the private evidence we have, I think it makes sense for ArbCom to assume responsibility for this block. I also would like to see extra scrutiny applied to any unblock request rather than having it go through the typical process if Rp2006 were to apply after a year when the AE part of the block expires. Seraphimblade, the blocking administrator (acting on the AE consensus), has no objections to us doing this. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
2. my personal preference would be to call this a ban and let them appeal in 12 months, but this works too --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
3. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
4. Given that there is private information that should be considered when addressing any future unblock requests. - Aoidh (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
5. Primefac (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
6. Cabayi (talk) 08:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Community discussion

As a note, if this passes I'll tack it onto the remedies list for SCE in my notes as the previous block against Rp2006 was also under that case and based on what I can grok from the AE thread this block was levied for pretty much the same reasons as the previous. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)