Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

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

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area		6 November 2024	0/3/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	10 Oct 2024	24 Oct 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	17 August 2024
Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy, et al	none	(orig. case)	7 November 2024
Clarification request: Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee	none	none	7 November 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

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

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

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

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

See also

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

Purge the server cache

Current requests

Barrett v. Rosenthal

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

Involved parties

• Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• David D. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Durova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fyslee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ilena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MastCell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ronz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wizardry Dragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Started this RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

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

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

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

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

Statement by Wizardry Dragon (Peter M Dodge)

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

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

And here we are, here.

The issues as I see them are thus:

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

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

Statement by peripherally-involved Daniel.Bryant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Guy

Like the others here I have been sucked into this rather than being a participant as such. I endorse the statements of Peter and Daniel above (except in the case of Durova, an admin I hold in high regard; I think that the sheer number of others dragged in is testimony to the disruption this is causing). This is a bilateral issue, although Ilena is probably more of a problem than Fyslee, partly because she is not learning, partly because Fyslee is promoting the mainstream, which is less fo a problem than promoting views against the mainstream. It's a complex dispute and undoubtedly user conduct is the heart of it, so I hope the committee will take the case.

Barrett v. Rosenthal is an important case, in that it apparently protects those who republish defamation. I'm sure Brad has a view on that and may well be able to moderate that article, if he can find the time.

Ilena's editing also covers articles related to breast implants. Ilena is convinced breast implants cause harm. Medical evidence for this is, however, weak and equivocal, and Wikipedia is in any case not the place to argue the merits of this, only to document the dispute (and we have the same problem in dental amalgam controversy, where an editor insists that we give equal prominence to the facts that amalgam is not conclusively proven to be safe or damaging, notwithstanding the fact that it is used daily by the vast majority of the world's dentists and has been for a century and a half). My principal concern over Ilena, then, is that she gives the appearance of wanting to use Wikipedia for purposes of advocacy. I hope that either I am wrong, or if not that she can be persuaded out of it. As Jance says, the non-mainstream view can, in some cases, turn out to be right, but Wikipedia cannot be part of the process of change. We absolutely cannot Right Great Wrongs, we can only document their righting in the real world. Guy (Help!) 18:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Jance

I have been peripherally involved, because I have edited the article (trying to correct legal misunderstandings of the case). I agree this is a bilateral (!) issue, and partly because one promotes "mainstream" and one does not. I am not sure there is a "mainstream" position on the case and article of Barrett v. Rosenthal, although presumably there is on Barrett. On Barrett v. Rosenthal there were misstatements or misrepresentations of the case, by several parties. I don't know how much of those were honest misunderstanding of how to read a court opinion, and how much was POV pushing. The most egregious editor on this and NCAHF is not listed on this Arb - and that was Curtis Bledsoe who stated on his talk page "People aren't the problem - even when they're excessively abusive and confrontational." He seems to have disappeared, or be editing other articles now. I think Guy hit the nail on the head re understandable (although not always appropriate) bias for 'mainstream'. But I don't feel strongly one way or the other on that, and defer to the *experts* on that, here. My main interest was to help in the articles since they are heavily laden with descriptions of court cases. I have not taken 'sides' in the personal disputes, or the article editing - at least not based one point of view.

• Ilena - I have *known* Ilena outside of Wikipedia,on the internet, because of my own interest in breast implants. I know that she is articulate, and a tireless advocate for women. She also is controversial, and I do not agree with the inflammatory posts on usenet or her website. This is no surprise to her, since I have told her that before. My personal "POV" is that sometimes, non-mainstream views will ultimately be found to be correct (particularly re breast implants). However, histrionics and broad generalizations will not help further serious consideration. If she wants to consider her website as a professional website for a non-profit corporation, then the website should reflect that and be professional in its content. Her website has a wealth of information, but that is overshadowed by the inflammatory posts about personal issues. That seems to spill over here. The most egregious act, in my opinion, was the repeated posting of Fyslee's real name by Ilena. It does not matter if someone goes by a real name outside of Wikipedia, on other internet articles, or even in WIkipedia in rare instances. It should be that person's decision whether or not to use a pseudonym on WIkipedia. To violate that privacy is wrong. I would be livid as well, and I don't blame Fyslee for being furious about it. I think Ilena has stopped, but it took awhile. The next issue is the link.. I am still somewhat mystified as to what links are allowable and what are not. I would think that the posting of a link, even like Ilena's, may be appropriate depending on the article, as is Barrett's link on non-Barrett articles. That aside, I believe Ilena could be a good Wiki contributor, if she is willing to leave the personal disputes out of Wikipedia.

• Fyslee - To my knowledge, Fyslee only posted one 'attack' link, which Peter removed.[12] Fyslee was not insistent about reposting the link. As I said above, I do not blame Fyslee for being angry about the personal information that Ilena posted. However, Fyslee continued to argue with Ilena, and his posts have been condescending, insulting and confrontational. [13][14]. At some point, it would have been better for either Fyslee or Ilena to simply ignore the other. I know how easy it is to get sucked into an argument on Wikipedia, and want to defend yourself. On a recent Afd, I realized that an experienced editor (an admin) was baiting me, and I finally ignored him altogether, which seemed to stop the behavior. Wikipedia is much like *the real world* only without the personal interaction - and that makes it all the easier to say regrettable things, or for another to misinterpret what is said.Jance 18:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Fyslee

I will make a short statement now, and then await Ilena's presentation of her precise charges against me (she is currently blocked -- again), along with the precise documentation and diffs, which she has refused to provide. This is the place for that to be done. Her serious allegations should not be allowed to stand here at Wikipedia without any documentation.

Lest anyone be mislead by the new title of this RfA, this issue is not about the now stable Barrett v. Rosenthal article, but is about user behavior. While it primarily involves Ilena's serious allegations against me, presented without clear evidence, it also involves my own reaction and feeble attempts to defend myself (my evidence was deleted), and the involvement of many other editors who attempted to deal with both of us.

Any discussion about content issues in articles will only become a diversion from the real problems.

The real issues here are:

1. User attitude and behavior. (both of us!)
2. Lack of collaborative spirit.

Content matters can always be worked out through collaborative editing by editors of opposing POV. It just takes a will to do so, and this results in the best quality articles, because all significant POV get presented in an NPOV manner. My attitude on collaboration is elaborated here:

• Collaboration trumps all other policies

Editors who refuse to collaborate need to have their attitude and behavior subjected to an RfC (which has been skipped in this case). Those are the issues here. Wikipedia should not be used to further Ilena's Usenet wars (especially since I have never participated in them), and I need to learn how to meet such attacks in a more constructive manner.

I expect the participants here to hold her (and myself when I begin my rebuttal) to a high standard for presentation of her charges and evidence:

1. Very precise and specific accusations
2. One accusation at a time
3. Worded briefly
4. Precise quotes
5. With precise diffs and links
6. Civil in tone

I hope to come away from this experience an even better Wikipedian. -- Fyslee 19:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

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

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

---

Requests for clarification

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

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions clarification

The final decision notes that "It is the responsibility of the administrators and other responsible parties to close extended policy discussions they are involved in."

1. What is a "responsible party?"
2. What sort of expectation is it to close an "extended policy discussion?" At what point is it "extended," and at what stage is it okay to throw in the towel? At an arbitrary moment or simply when the discussion becomes "disruptive?"

Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

AMA advocates' status in cases

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advocates have no formal status during arbitration (or, stated another way - they are the same as everybody else). In the past, they have shown themselves clearly and conclusively to be impediments to the arbitration process. In cannot think of a single case they have helped in any way. In short, the AMA is useless. Raul654 18:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I really know we're an impediment, but we try to do the best we can, including myself. And have an idea: please send me a feedback on my work on the ongoing Starwood case after its closure and tell me how I did it and what shall I improve or if I was really useless? Honestly, it can be a good start! --Neigel von Teighen 19:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Everyking Appeal request

see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, let's make this easy.

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

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

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)

Archives

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