Template:Active editnotice

WP:RFAR redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:RfA Review (WP:RREV).

Arbitration​Committee

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

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.

Kjaer and Steve Wolfer (Ayn Rand article)

Initiated by Idag (talk) at 19:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Idag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Peter Damian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TallNapoleon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kjaer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snowded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• CABlankenship (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• J Readings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jomasecu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SteveWolfer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Endlessmike 888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ethan a dawe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Modernist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Syntacticus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TheJazzFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Diff. 1
• Diff. 2

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Mediation [2] [3]
• RfC; see Talk:Ayn_Rand#Request_for_Comment
• Proposed second RfC[4][5][6]
• Extensive discussion on Talk:Ayn Rand

Statement by Idag

Users Kjaer and SteveWolfer have made it their mission that the Ayn Rand article must glorify Rand. Any removal of phrasing that praises Rand is viewed with suspicion (regardless of its merits) and the editor who suggests the edit (or any editor who disagrees with them) is vilified as being part of an "anti-Rand faction."[7][8] They have both refused to consider the merits of proposed changes and have instead engaged in numerous ad hominem attacks.[9] SteveWolfer was warned, twice,[10][11] about the AGF policy, and both times he responded by accusing the warning editor of an ulterior motive.[12][13] These editors' entrenchment in their position have led to numerous edit wars to the point that the article needed to be placed on full-protect three times in the past month.[14][15] Idag (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Party 2}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

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

Bishzilla

Involved parties

• Durova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Bishzilla (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  • Bishonen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• FT2 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• FT2:[16]
• Bishzilla[17]
• Bishonen[18]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• None (although previous arbitration cases may apply).

Statement by Durova

There seems to be no precedent for the attempted indefinite block of a sitting arbitrator, so being bold and bringing the matter directly here. Seems to be the best way to minimize drama. Bishonen attempted to apply an indefinite block on FT2 today.[19] If FT2 is to be blocked, banned, cautioned, or anything else it ought to be a deliberative action rather than unilateral or the adrenaline rush of ongoing Wikidrama. Whatever grievance she has she may raise here, and her arguments may stand or fall on their own merits. Likewise, there may be questions to ask about appropriate scope of administrative action and use of alternate joke accounts. Transferring admin ops to a joke account is a serious matter, as is using such ops on that account. Clear lines need to be drawn here. Durova^Charge! 22:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: the basic reason for opening this request was a desire to contain a rapidly expanding dispute by bringing it to an orderly and defined venue. In past observations, delays in bringing such matters to ArbCom's doorstep often result in greater strife and difficulty in resolving the eventual case. Shortly after this request began Jimbo posted a request for calm, and I quite agree with the principle of orderly and calm progression. If it is his wish or the wish of any sitting arbitrator that this request be withdrawn I will gladly do so. That said, I am also working on content and other matters today. So will attempt to check in roughly half-hourly. With respect toward all, Durova^Charge! 23:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Sheffield Steel's comment, one hope in initiating this RFAR is that it would defuse that type of concern. It is pretty well known that I was the editor who brought the RFC on ArbCom live last summer, and have been openly critical of arbitrators singly and collectively. See this for a recent example. If the Committee wishes to close ranks they may sanction both Bishonen and myself; I have no objection to putting that theory to the test. Durova^Charge! 00:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Bishzilla's query (please move to its own section), this user has blurred the lines between joke and serious action regarding use of that account before. For example, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tango#Statement_by_Bishzilla where she initiated an arbitration request in fractured dino-speak. One would hope that a request to desysop a fellow volunteer would be initiated with greater decorum. Part of the initial confusion today appears to have sprung from doubts over whether the indefinite block of FT2 was serious or a joke. Whether one agrees with her or not on the underlying merits of either matter, things would be better if serious action were taken on a serious account. Stating this not to excuse or distract from serious scrutiny of FT2, but in reply to Bishzilla. Durova^Charge! 00:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Tony, as stated above I have an offer to withdraw this arbitration request. Also, I would gladly assist by certifying the basis for a conduct RFC on either FT2 or Bishonen. Durova^Charge! 02:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Bishonen, it's quite simple. At the time when this request was initiated people who were posting to ANI were getting 12-15 edit conflicts. The situation was likely to arrive at RFAR soon enough, so the hope was that by bringing it here it would calm matters down. The situation needed structure. Things did get calmer shortly afterward. Thank you for retiring the Bishzilla account; that's a good step forward. Durova^Charge! 01:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

I suggest the entire matter be sent to Jimbo for sorting. The Committee is not competent to handle this matter, or they would have done so already. Jehochman ^Talk 22:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Elonka

Posting an indef block of an active arbitrator[20] is extraordinarily disruptive. In fact, the whole concept of blocking someone for not saying something, goes against blocking policy. Blocks are usually intended to be preventative, not punitive, and a block of FT2 served no preventative function here. As for the arguments that I'm seeing in other statements suggesting that "the block was okay because it was posted for review at ANI", this seems to be obvious wikilawyering. In reality, ANI review of blocks is for blocks that are grey area, not for blocks which are obviously absurd. If we were to say that Bish's block of FT2 was okay in this instance, would we then extend this to say that any administrator who was upset at case delays, could go and indefinitely block every arbitrator as a way of getting them to hurry up a bit, as long as the administrator posted a request for review of the blocks at ANI? I would hope not. Bish's block was just poor judgment, plain and simple. Bish (and I use the short form since this user tends to engage in admin actions on one account, Bishzilla (talk · contribs) but announce the block[21] and engage in related discussions from other accounts such as Bishonen (talk · contribs)) has also shown poor judgment in many other situations as well. Over the last year, she seems to be spending more time engaging in wiki-dramas than actually working on the encyclopedia. If Bish wishes to resume the excellent article work which she is capable of, she should be encouraged to do so. However, it is clear that she is not able to use administrator tools in a responsible manner, and therefore she should either resign or be forcibly de-sysopped. --Elonka 22:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tiptoety

Response to Jehochman: Jimbo has already stated he does not feel this is the correct time for him to get involved. Tiptoety ^talk 22:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tony Sidaway

I believe the best action here would be to decline, chide Bishonen for grandstanding, and ask Durova to use other methods of dispute resolution first (same goes for Bishonen and others if they have a dispute with another editor--arbitrator or not). Would it be out of order for me to suggest that this case has a distinct smell of wikipolitics? --TS 22:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin has now taken her grievance to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FT2, and Thatcher and one other have joined her on that RFC. Thus the community has an opportunity to resolve the ongoing dispute.

The block performed by Bishonen using her alternate sysop account has been reversed and roundly condemned as inappropriate by many parties. Nothing further could be gained (and possibly much harm could be done) at this point by an arbitration case. --TS 15:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a slight niggle for me, but puzzling nonetheless. Is there a particular reason why the arbitrators refer to "BishZilla" rather than her usual name, "Bishonen"? She is the same person whether using either account, and presumably any motions would apply to the person. --TS 20:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nick

I believe the entire committee would need to recuse from dealing with the case, which makes arbitration impractical in this case, unless something unprecedented was to occur, such as bringing in arbitrators from another project. I'm not doubting the ability of the committee to effectively arbitrate a case such as this, but there's a real risk of further damage to the committee occurring if they are allowed to investigate, prosecute and sentence their own committee members.

I would normally recommend deferring comment purely to the community, and whilst it's preferable in normal circumstances for the community at large to decide the way forward in this case, at the time I write this, I don't honestly believe the community is capable of anything more than mob justice for both parties in the case (please not that I've no opinion on whether they're actually right or not).

Something needs to be done that results in a thoroughly impartial review of the case and evidence, both in respect of Bishzilla and FT2. Nick (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JoshuaZ

There's no obvious action for the ArbCom to look at here. A block was made. The person who made that block immediately reported it to ANI for evaluation. A consensus quickly formed that the block was not helpful and the block was undone. There's no issue there. And if the ArbCom had intended to deal with the allegations regarding FT2 before I presume they would have done so. So there's not much here for the ArbCom to look at. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: There's been some speculation that FT2 was responsible for leaking checkuser data and internal ArbCom deliberations to a banned user. As the individual who was the primary victim of that leak, there is as far as I am aware no evidence that FT2 had anything to do with that leak. We do know based on the details that it almost certainly had to have been an arbitrator, former arbitrator or a developer but there's no reason to think that FT2 had anything to do with that. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ottava Rima

There is already a lot of tension on either side. People have initiated language that would only hinder the neutral analysis of actions in order to determine problems. I do not feel as if arbitration will settle things, nor do I feel that Jimbo's decision will settle things. This is an issue that is more problematic than those like Giano's or Slim Virgin's, but mostly because it involves those previous decisions in some regards. There is a lot of bad blood on either side, and I hope that people entering into it recognize it and try to prevent it from spilling into conflicts. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Lets remember that we should all be here for the same purpose, and that we should not forget that purpose because we feel that someone else has forgotten it first. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tex

Agree completely with JoshuaZ. If all controversial blocks were immediately brought to AN/I, life would be much easier here. As it stands, Bish did what she thought was right to get FT2 to discuss something he has been saying for months that he would discuss. Others didn't seem to think that was the right approach, so the block was undone. The arbs aren't needed in this case and I doubt they could be impartial if they were to take up the case. Tex (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Wow, a lot happens when one is not around, huh? I did want to follow up with a comment to Elonka's comment about Bish saying, "Over the last year, she seems to be spending more time engaging in wiki-dramas than actually working on the encyclopedia. If Bish wishes to resume the excellent article work which she is capable of, she should be encouraged to do so." Have you checked Bish's contribs, Elonka? She seems to be creating a nice little article in userspace at the moment. I don't believe you are one to be making comments about other admin's use of the tools and whether they should keep them, are you?

Finally, the new arbs seem to be following the same path as the old ones. I was really hoping they would usher in a change, but it doesn't look like it. Issuing a motion to de-sysop Bish for one block? That's definately got me rethinking my arbcom votes... Tex (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sticky Parkin

I believe that certain people have been engaged in badgering and bullying of FT2, as can be seen by parts of his talk page, see this top green bit [22] for an example of more personal attacks on FT2 by Bishonen, on FT's own talk page. This block wasn't meant to solve anything (obviously) but was part of a campaign of slow bullying meant to try and drive FT2 from the project, or make him resign etc. This sort of bullying by should not be tolerated from any editor, and action should be taken to stop people who are engaging in it against whoever is their target of the day. I'm not taking any position on the opinions they had about other stuff that might have happened, but bullying shouldn't be tolerated.Sticky Parkin 22:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Secret

• I trust FT2 with BLP and AFDs, but he shouldn't be a ArbCom member period. I have not much opinion over the Giano-FT2 wars, but this really sicked my stomach when I first saw it. Sorry if I have to link Wikipedia Review here, and also sorry to JoshuaZ but this topic, tells us that FT2 is untrustworthy with ArbCom. If you review the post further, he released a very private ArbCom email, in which I was involved to a banned editor. I know it was FT2 because I was the one who went to FT2 first in IRC when I first suspected the sock. This turned me heads, and I lost all confidence in FT2 with this incident. I'm surprised he's still in ArbCom, and I wouldn't be surprised if he's the source of all the emails that was leaked by ArbCom. Editors were desyropped for lesser offenses. Secret ^account 22:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a pretty strong accusation. Can you email ArbCom to explain it further?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seconded. (And anyone reverting Jimbo with a "post only in your own section" notice will be scolded.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • See User talk:Secret for what seems to be Secret's main evidence. The timeline does not appear to support the claim. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry I couldn't reply earlier because I was late to class and needed to leave suddenly, then I went somewhere with some friends. The issue was that I contacted FT2 about the case back in January. It read like it was an email that FT2 was sent in private to the banned user, and it still reads like it. Usually I don't care about wikipolitics like those emails and so forth, but as the case involved myself in a very major and private case, I was extremely ticked off. I was planning to contact Arbcom and FT2 about this matter, but around the same time I was the victim of a smear campaign by trolls in ED, but one of them did something (for reasons I can't explain) and was forced to leave the project for a while.

Evenually I forgot about the issue until yesterday, when of course Bishonen blocked FT2 over a conflict and I was around the project at the time and I got involved into this drama. I was studying FT2 conflict history (most of which I wasn't around at the time) and I finally remembered about the post. I have no idea how to use the mailing list so I thought that FT2 messaged thekohser when in fact it was part of the mailing list email. I also had my suspects becuase FT2 was only mentioned once after, which was a comment that he had a word with me. JoshuaZ mentioned that he was very involved with the post, but I don't understand why that information wasn't leaked. With my lack of understanding of the mailing list and with all the drama involving FT2 and his conflicts so it was easy for anyone to assume him and ignore WP:AGF. I made a strong mistake by posting this here instead of ArbCom instead of making accurasations like this, but I guess I was in a rush and wasn't thinking (late for class). So I apologize to FT2 and the community for that.

I found a few edits, along with a WR comment that caught my eye though and I'm studying this further to see if what I found is accurate enough to put the finger on the editor. I'll email the evidence to ArbCom no later than Monday afternoon, likely by Friday. Note it's going to be very long evidence sheet. I can't work on it today because of school (which I'm late)/work. Secret ^account 14:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Tom harrison

The continued delay resolving this is taking a toll on the community, but I don't see how an arbitration is going to make anything better. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FT2

Initial statement removed until diffs added FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FT2, you are making serious allegations against an admin. Per our usual practices, diffs are need to show that a problem exists before a case is opened. I'm concerned that perception will be that the Committee accepted your word for it because you are an arb instead of needing diffs to support the claims. Does that make sense? If so, please consider refactoring the part of your statement that does not have diffs to support the claims. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for drawing my attention back to this page (and thanks to DuncanHill too [23]).

I've completely redacted this until I do add diffs. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Privatemusings

yebbut did you lie to alex, FT? I think Slim's probably put it best when she sort of highlighted the fact that the longer you avoid the question, the greater the damage to the project. Personally, I find the 'this is all very complicated, and it's being attended to' line wholly unconvincing in the light of posts by Thatcher (and for further reasons) - you made a post to Alex, was it true? Privatemusings (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ps. I view FT's writeup, particularly in regard to Bishonen, as dishonest and inaccurate. Privatemusings (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Majorly

Bishonen has been involved in a long conflict with FT2, and as of late, has been posting more frequently to his talk page demanding he give answers over a question (not relevant what question). She is not the only one to do this, but this makes her in a direct conflict. Bishonen then notifies FT2 she has blocked him, and blocks him with her sockpuppet admin account, Bishzilla, indefinitely, then posts to AN/I explaining why. Her purpose for blocking seems to be "I wanted to try and get his attention" and "His not answering a question is disruptive". Neither of these points are things to block a long-term editor over. I won't comment on FT2's lack of answers, but it is not disruptive, and the manner in which Bishonen has posted to FT2's talk page, has sometimes been quite hostile. The main issue here is of course the blatant conflict of interest, and the obvious inappropriateness of this block. Bishonen is not a new admin. She knows perfectly well what will cause drama and what won't. She knows the dispute resolution methods. There's no way Bishonen placed the block thinking it would stick until FT2 opened up. This may sound bad faith, but I honestly believe it - I think she placed the block to draw attention to FT2's problem. This is, very clearly, abuse of admin rights - there is a difference between misuse and abuse. I honestly think Bishonen has abused the rights here, not maliciously as such, but in a sort of desperation to get FT2 to listen. I do not think she is suited to continue as an admin. Majorly talk 23:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DuncanHill

This RfArb appears to me to be an attempt to draw attention away from FT2's continuing failure to answer simple, legitimate questions. His persistent failure to do this is undermining Arbcom, and is a significant source of disruption generally. DuncanHill (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that this comment by FayssalF is probably the most sensible suggestion. [24]. DuncanHill (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the motion admonishing everyone and no-one, I have grave concerns that in the future it could be used to justify punitive action against editors who may criticize members of the committee. By failing to include any specifics it clarifies nothing and casts a cloud over all who have expressed dissatisfaction. DuncanHill (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by VirtualSteve

I concur with the overall statements being made from Durova onwards that Bishzilla acted improperly in her blocking of FT2. In my view Bishzilla has attempted to stretch the definition of "disruption" so as to force FT2 to comment. She did so without seeking support from the community so as to force a response from FT2 - which is not an appropriate reason for blocking FT2. Community interest in her perceived inaction by FT2 could have been easily gained if she had proposed a block rather than unilaterally occasioning it. Her actions at best do not represent clear, uninvolved thinking on her part. That said, (and in response to Jehochman's suggestion that we pass the decision on to Jimbo), Jimbo has already adequately commented in my view here - including a statement that the ArbCom has been in daily, careful, and thoughtful discussions of this issue with FT2, with dozens of messages so far this year including by my count 14 emails this morning along (pre-Bishonen block). There is no reason whatsoever for drama and excitement, and Bishonen should not have done this. I am taking no action at this time... Towards this fact I propose that a desysopping of Bishzilla aka Bishonen is not required at this time - but future disruption of wikipedia along these lines should end in that result.--VS ^talk 23:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SheffieldSteel

If the ArbCom accepts this case and finds against Bish, some editors will view this as closing ranks, punishing the admin who had the temerity to challenge an arbitrator, proof that ArbCom doesn't deserve our confidence etc etc. If on the other hand the ArbCom lets Bish off the hook, a different set of editors will begin to grind a different set of axes - admin abuse, the cabal closing ranks, proof that the admin corps doesn't deserve our confidence, etc etc. In addition to the political implications of a conflict between two long-standing wikipedians, each with their friends and enemies, there are also the good faith concerns of many editors and admins to consider. In short, this case is a recipe for massive drama with little foreseeable upside. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AuburnPilot

For gross incompetence, Bishonen/Bishzilla should be desysopped permanently. I've seen some utterly stupid actions in my time here, but this beats all. Bishonen/Bishzilla's block of FT2 was dumber than sticking a fork in an electrical socket and an undeniable misuse of the admin tools. We can live with one less brainless admin; there's enough of them already. - auburnpilot talk 23:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Giano

I suggest this case is dismissed, and the Arbcom re-focus their attentions as to why this matter has been allowed to arise in the first place. That people, obviously Bishonen, feel time has run out is hardly surprising - It has dragged on for far too long. Clearly something untoward has been going on, or we would not all be here. Secrecy breeds secrecy and then contempt. We now seem to have a large and unattractive pile of contempt - someone needs to shovel it away fast, I believe this to be a matter for JWales himself. However, while inexperienced the Arbcom are not wiki-virgins, they have been, like most of us, around the block a few time, this situation is deplorable - rather than blame Bishonen, or anyone else within grabbing distance, if JWales will not, then the Arbcom needs to look at the source of the problem and deal with it, and deal with it fast - or is this to be yet another famed case of shoot the messenger? - A habit so favoured by the old Arbcom. Giano (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Jtrainor

FT2 needs to be punted, but an indef ban of this nature is a hasty and improper way to do it. A better way would be to seek consensus for community action of some kind (a ban or otherwise) and then proceed accordingly. Jtrainor (talk) 03:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:R. Baley

Really? You guys are going to try and desysop Bish over this? Please re-think and vote with a clear head. This action is not a smart move. . .there is no emergency. . .
Disappointedly,
R. Baley (talk) 05:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday

I think there is one thing that must be said here:

The Arbcom has a habit of delaying action too long, and preventing arbiters from being able to answer simple questions. This tends to add to the drama. A good recent example was the Orangemarlin incident earlier this year, where the lack of any arbiter response for several days allowed a heated situation to spiral out of control, while a clear provisional statement would have at least began to calm things.

Several months to answer a question is simply ridiculous, and should be considered a complete failure of arbcom procedures. I would suggest that the Arbcom reconsiders how these cases are handled, in order to prevent dispute escalation by forcing people into silence while bureaucracy happens, when what is needed is a spokesperson to make appropriate calming words and explanations.

Perhaps an ex-arbiter could be chosen as a spokesperson, with the responsibility and freedom to act quickly in response to such issues. Perhaps some other option would work. However, something must change. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Verbal

Decline with a simple warning. FT2 should be removed from the ArbCom due to the lack of confidence the community has in him, and this is the underlying issue. This is equally a failure of ArbCom. Verbal chat 08:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kusma

Blocks shouldn't be used to call attention to an issue. It is pretty clear that Bishonen knows that and chose to ignore this rule. Desysopping is clearly unnecessary as she won't do this again (unless FT2 and the ArbCom choose to drag this out another couple of months; if you want a temp desysop, it should start in a couple of months, not now). The underlying issue (loss of community trust in an ArbCom member) needs to be dealt with instead of delayed and evaded before it leads to loss of community trust in the ArbCom as a whole again. Please be as open as you can -- "trust us, we're working on it" isn't an answer. Kusma (talk) 09:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Geogre

This complaint is pure special pleading. Are arbitrators users at Wikipedia? If they are, then the behavior policies apply to them as fully as any other users. Is there a special designation for administrators, arbitrators, 'crats? I.e. is my signature User:Geogre or "Admin":Geogre? Is FT2's, therefore, User:FT2 or "Arbitrator":FT2?

If a person is a user, then that person is subject to the same rules as all other users. If a user has inappropriately invoked oversight, then that person is liable to sanction. If the person continues to eject thousands of words and excuses that would make a tardy high school student blush, then there is nothing left except a block, because that person is refusing to edit openly.

A block should not be used lightly. I hope that everyone knows how much I dislike blocks. If conversation can achieve the goal, it is infinitely preferable to a block, but if discussion will not work, if the user is claiming to be superior to the community, to be special, to be too important, or simply will not discuss, then that person is breaking the only real rule we have, here: honest discussion. I do not support a "point" block, but it is a wholly appropriate use of the tools to block someone who may have committed a policy violation that could have enormous ramifications but who stops the discussion, invokes power, and hides his or her actions. To try to sanction the administrator who issued the block is silly unless there are special users who are not subject to the same rules as everyone else. Geogre (talk) 11:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:SDJ

Succinctly, dealing with the block without dealing with what led to the block is short-sighted to the point of foolhardiness. FT2 has long since lost community confidence, as the VP Arbcom Feedback page indicates very well. The underlying issue is the much more serious issue than one iffy block -- no matter the profile of the person blocked. SDJ 14:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tznkai

As a general response to everyone complaining about how the Arbitration Committee is taking to long to resolve the dispute, dragging things out, keeping quiet, etc. etc. etc...

Thirteen days. That is how long the 10 new arbitrators were in office before this started. In those thirteen days, the committee has started a major push for reforms, put together a CU/OS permission policy, restaffed a quickly emptying clerk's office, created two coordinator positions to make sure things don't fall through the cracks, dealt with the normal caseload business of the committee (including the requests for the ever classic episodes and characters/TTN, BLPSE a few times, and betacommand), closed the insanity that is the Ireland names dispute, moved Fringe Science to voting (as of posting there are 5 active cases - all of which have seen movement.) That is a decent amount of work and that is just what we've seen.

Notably a lot of the substantial policy and coordination work was done in response to the election mandate. This is what the community asked for.

As for the complaints that the "FT2 issue" wasn't handled more publicly, think about that real hard for a few seconds. I have and what I've come up with is this: the way to handle this situation that produces the least drama and the highest chance for a successful conclusion is, from the observers standpoint, completely indistinguishable from nothing at all, until it reaches closure. It probably also takes more than thirteen days.

TL;DR: If good faith is too much, at least give the Arbiters some patience.--Tznkai (talk) 16:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KillerChihuahua

If FT2 is an editor, he can be blocked. No ArbCom case there. If an admin makes a block they believe might not have support, or that might be questionable, they should list it on ANI - which was done. No ArbCom case there. If the community has handled it, yeah, the system works. No ArbCom case there. If the (briefly) blocked editor is under investigation, what has that to do with the block? Nothing. No ArbCom case there. So I'm wondering, where the heck is the grounds for this ArbCom case, precisely? Because if anyone is accepting this because an Arbiter was blocked... That's just not ethical. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

Bishzilla did what Bishzilla always does: pointed to the elephant in the room and said "look! elephant!". She may not always do it exactly right, or precisely as we'd want, but the stalemate had to be broken some time, and I think that now is the right time, with many new arbs who can take a dispassionate view. Sanction Bishzilla? Don't be ridiculous, she'd burn down Wikipedia in revenge. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cla68

Once the Committee releases its statement on FT2's explanation about the oversighted edits, I expect the arbitrators to post some motions here expressing either confidence in FT2 as an arbitrator, or if not, requesting him to resign. Once that is done and the votes are in, I expect us to move on from it. Cla68 (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lankiveil

I urge the ArbCom to reject this case at this time, until the situation cools down somewhat. There may be a case for Bishonen to answer to (making a block that you know is unlikely to stand is unwise). While the situation was mitigated somewhat by posting it on AN/I for review, it was hardly an optimal situation and it should not have been done, the community's seeming complete lack of confidence in FT2 not withstanding.

However, I don't see what this RFAr is supposed to achieve; it seems unlikely that Bishonen is going to go and go on any further blocking or vandalism sprees, and depending on your point of view, the action could be seen as a defendable, if perhaps rash application of IAR. In addition, given the activities at ArbCom being at the centre of this matter, any decision taken if the case is accepted (perhaps apart from a complete exoneration of Bish) will be seen as having a conflict of interest. It doesn't matter if all Arbs act with the highest ethical standards when making their decisions on this one, but it will look suspicious, and that's really not what ArbCom and this project need right now. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Protest by Bishonen against FT2's behaviour on this page

I join FloNight (whose note FT2 has ignored) in inviting FT2 to either remove or prove his baseless allegations above. Anybody writing a statement here is required to "state [their] request in 500 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where necessary." (Quoting the pink panel on this page.) Anybody: that's anybody from newbie to arbitrator. Supporting diffs are necessary in this case, for without them, FT2's wiki-invective collection is mere character assassination, cut out of whole cloth. Please don't tell the committee that you "can think of" me indulging in "aggressive and belligerent conduct," "extreme bad faith and hostility," "personal grudge," "extreme bad faith and animosity," "lengthy history of animosity and gross inappropriate conduct," "gross bad faith, gross personal attack of non-collegial behavior," "a repeated and habitual style to employ aggressive hostility to other users who she dislikes or who try to suggest better conduct," "use of admin tools in furtherance of that personal matter," "keen willingness to so escalate a delicate situation rather than calm it." Show them examples of how I do such things. Or remove your piece, please. If it even were a repository of truth, how would it be relevant to the case brought? While waiting for FT2 to do the right thing, I invite everybody to read the one single IMHO rather nice diff that he offers in evidence of my "lengthy history of animosity and gross inappropriate conduct in connection with other incidents and users": here it is.

If FT2 should continue to ignore FloNight and now myself, I suggest that a clerk or another arb step in and remove his scurrilous and irrelevant paragraph. Bishonen | talk 11:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by Bishonen

Apparently, contrary to the impression I had gathered from the voting below, there exist arbitrators who want to know about my side of things, and who have (once I'd posted on the talkpage,[25]) even expressed a wish to see comments from me here on the RFAR page itself. Carcharoth has asked on the talkpage why I wrote in the block log that FT2 had disrupted the arbcom, with the implication that I didn't know what I was talking about. "Did Bishonen actually ask ArbCom what progress was being made? Others did, but I see no evidence that she did. She stated in her block log summary: "Disruption of the arbitration committee and the project." Did she ask arbitrators whether the operation of the committee was being disrupted?" Well, of course I did. How else would I have known? Btw, the place you can see the clearest implication of my awareness of disruption is my ANI message,[26], not the block log, which has so little space for nuance. Have you guys read my ANI message..? But I digress. As Carcharoth suggests, there is indeed no evidence that I asked. It might be a little naive to expect such evidence. I did ask, and became aware of what kind and what amount of progress was being made internally in the committee, and what type of disruption was taking place. What I was told wasn't embellished with the clichés of diplomacy ("daily, careful, and thoughtful discussions"), but that I see as a virtue. My awareness wasn't detailed, but it was good; I'd stake something on it. Here's a post from Tony Sidaway which (somewhat to my surprise) sums up my position:[27]. Please note that no arbitrators have given me any indiscreet or person-oriented details, and nobody I have spoken with can reasonably be accused of breaching arbcom security. But in spite of that, I still won't answer any questions about my interlocutors, now or later. In the current paranoid and stressful climate, they could be harmed by any association with the notorious Bishonen, even though they did nothing wrong.

The above is merely a reply to Carcharoth's question, not an appeal. The idea of appealing for a change of mind to the same jury that is already on record with their individual, and sometimes quite heated, opinions about my action—well, as Yomangani suggests, no good can come of the process order Judgment, Sentencing, Decision on hearing the case, and Presentation of [my] Evidence.[28] Me, I don't imagine I would have the mental stability and the lack of prestige concerns to hear an appeal under those circumstances. Maybe y'all do, in which case I congratulate you. I just never seem to meet people like that; I don't think it's in human nature. And don't even get me started on the esprit de corps which—from the outside looking in—certainly seems to prevent an arbiter from criticizing a colleague in public. Such considerations assure me that an appeal would waste your time and my time. Bishonen | talk 17:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment on Everyking's statement just below

Everyking, how you and Durova can bear to waste the community's time and your own time and now the arbcom's time on the idiotic "problem" of Bishonen/Bishzilla is a mystery to me. You're even boring Wikipedia Review to tears on the subject, for god's sake! Nobody else cares! Unless it's time to add FaisalF to the club. Anyway, please stop worring, I've decided to stop using the sock altogether, I think she's had enough of a run. You'll have to get a new hobby. Bishonen | talk 22:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by Everyking

I call on the ArbCom to require that Bishonen use admin powers only on her main account. The Bishzilla account has a comedic nature that is not suited to the role of adminship, and furthermore it was the Bishonen account, behaving as a serious user, that passed RfA. Everyking (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

• Recuse - per my statement in this RfAr. Tiptoety ^talk 22:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Recuse Not that it matters. --Tznkai (talk) 16:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Recuse. Daniel (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/10/0/2)

• Comment. As Jimbo has noted, this is a matter that we have been discussing. As others have noted, the block itself is being handled on the community level. That said, I must express some frustration with the various requests and comments demanding that ArbCom do something about various long-term and tangled issues. Ten of seventeen arbitrators are brand new. It's not even two weeks into the new year and official seating of the new arbs. We're quite simply not going to hash through all these outstanding issues overnight, even the ones with high priority. There are several outstanding issues, multiple ongoing cases, and several appeals emails. On top of that, we are trying to address a number of reform issues, alteration of some arbitration pages, catch up on all the old but still relevant matters, and so on. But please, give us a chance to get settled in, get our bearings and hash out a lot of these issues. We are working through things as best as we can and over the next few weeks our progress on various matters will become much more obvious (with some matters addressed sooner than later). Vassyana (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline, without prejudice, insofar as this request concerns Bish'. If there's a pattern of recent problems with Bishzilla's use of admin tools, or there's good reason to believe Bish' will misuse the tools going forward, people know where to find the appropriate RfC forum and how to file a case to examine that distinct issue if necessary. This particular situation and the heavy focus on one bad block would just make a case on this issue a mess of drama and tangled tangential information. Vassyana (talk) 12:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further commenr re: FT2. The Committee is actively discussing how to best proceed right now. There are multiple options being considered and we need to permit enough time for all of the arbitrators to have a chance to see, review and contribute to the discussion. (That's just the reality of differing time zones and log-in times.) I know people don't want to just hear "trust us, we're working on it". However, I'd please ask for a minimal amount of patience. This is a very unusual circumstance and we are doing the best we can to move things forward as quickly as possible. Vassyana (talk) 12:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I will make it a comment at this stage, possibly to be changed, although I think it unlikely. The request here was to examine Bishonen's actions through the agency of Bishzilla, and did not refer to the use of oversight on some edits by FT2. As is shown by the comments from other editors, it would be quite impossible to take a case on that basis and it would also go against one of the principles of arbitration on wikipedia which is that we examine the whole dispute. As Jimbo has kindly confirmed on the ANI thread, we have been discussing privately over the last few days how we might resolve the issue of the oversights to the community's satisfaction. I am firmly of the opinion that handling the oversights issue by way of an ordinary Request for arbitration heard by the Arbitration Committee would not be an appropriate way of proceding because we have all worked closely with FT2. Because the two issues, Bishonen's block and the propriety of the use of oversight, are fundamentally linked, I think it would be dangerous to accept this case as it is. Rather I would prefer for us to agree a suitable way of inquiring independently into the oversights, and only look at Bishonen's actions after that has concluded. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline at this time. The request for arbitration, while made in good faith, invites a virtually unprecedented level of disputation. Frankly, this is where I would normally post my plea for calm, the avoidance of drama, and the like, but if I do that here it will sound like a re-run. I anticipate that there will be further developments in the reasonably near term regarding the underlying situation. I will say nothing else at the moment, because there is so much that could be said. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline at this time, I can't say much but arbcom is trying its best to nut out some solutions to the impasse which will make hearing this case (hopefully) unnecessary. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept a case dedicated to the block by Bishzilla, but recommend that we delay it until we have sorted out the underlying issue. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Decline. I am happy that motion 2 below is sufficient to address the main problem raised here. In regards to the use of a joke admin account, I think that is a matter for the community to decide. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept; with the provisio that the actual handling of the case is to take place after the handling of the FT2-related oversighted edits is handled (which should be fairly soon). — Coren ^(talk) 03:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline per Newyorkbrad and Casliber. Risker (talk) 05:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - no opinion yet on any case or the underlying issues here, but want to make a statement here and leave a placeholder (for lack of anywhere else) for a further statement to try and shed some light on what ArbCom has been doing for the past few weeks about this. Will post further on this tomorrow. For now, I want to echo what Vassyana said above: "We are working through things as best as we can and over the next few weeks our progress on various matters will become much more obvious (with some matters addressed sooner than later)." It should be noted that FT2 has made a statement in response to Thatcher's post here, which may or may not answer the questions that have been raised. Carcharoth (talk) 07:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline (see later for rationale). The points I wanted to make yesterday are still valid today, so I'm going to state them here. I said yesterday that we (the committee) had been discussing this, but what may not be clear is that just before all this happened it had become apparent that we were in a quandry and needed to find a suitable framework within which to proceed, given what is a unique situation. It's also no secret that FT2 (and recently the committee) has been under a lot of pressure about this. It needs to be resolved soon one way or the other, or at least a clear process started in the open. The recent and ongoing RfC on FT2 has released some of the pressure, while creating other flashpoints. Discussion within ArbCom is still proceeding, but I'd like to echo what Tznkai has said here: "the way to handle this situation that produces the least drama and the highest chance for a successful conclusion is, from the observers standpoint, completely indistinguishable from nothing at all, until it reaches closure" - I don't totally agree with that, as periodic updates can help reassure that the matter is progressing, and might well have helped here (such an update was suggested, but too late to pre-empt these events, though the recently created noticeboard may help here), but what was unhelpful, to the point of disruption, was Bishonen's block of FT2 using the Bishzilla account. Some forcing of the issue may have been needed, but not with this much drama, and certainly not with a block. To those focused only on FT2, this forcing of the issue is a desirable result, but the other consequence has been to push the Arbitration Committee further into uncharted waters when it was trying to get to grips with the situation. My point here is that it is not just FT2 that is being put under pressure by this forcing of the issue, but the rest of the committee as well and the committee as a whole. From what I have seen (see Tznkai's comment again), great strides and improvements are being made in the early days of this committee, and it would be a great pity if forcing of this issue set all that progress back, or even pushed the nascent committee to breaking point. Having said all that, and given that I don't entirely disagree with the need to force the issue, but more the manner in which it was done, I am still going to vote decline on this request because I trust Bishonen not to do something like this again. Carcharoth (talk) 03:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bishonen, thank-you for your statement. My comment on the talk page about you appealing was genuine, and I am sorry you feel that a statement from you would not sway us - I for one have taken the time to read your statement and consider what you have said. My decline of the request and support of your admonishment stands. In other circumstances I would offer both criticism and support of FT2, but this is neither the time nor the place. My position on the "progress" issue remains the same: it is not that there was no prevarication or that progress wasn't indeed slow, but that what progress was being made (and crucially, this was new progress being made by the new committee) was disrupted by your actions. It is that which I found most disconcerting. FT2 has stepped down from the Arbitration Committee. That matter is effectively closed. I hope that it will soon be possible to close this matter as well and move on. Carcharoth (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't think a temp desysop is needed. I do not agree with the block, and think it was unwise similar to the reasons stated by most user in the discussion on the AN/I. I would consider a case if compelling evidence is provided that she is using her tools to win a dispute. But since she took it to a Notice Board for discussion, and did not wheel war, I see no need for removal of her access at this time. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Comment. I agree, generally, that the Committee needs to take a stronger stand against admins that are using their tools in a manner escalates a dispute. But given the particulars of this situation, I do not think the Committee should extend our previous criteria for doing a temp desysop. It is my view that a significant portion of the Community will see this strong response as the Committee taking a stronger stand because the block was done against an arb. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline for the moment. A case to address only the block, without examining the underlying dispute, would be pointless; and I'm not convinced that the latter is best dealt with through an arbitration case. Kirill 12:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. Something definitely needs to be done, btu i don't think a case is it. Wizardman 14:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline for now, per FloNight and Kirill. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept I've been expecting something like this to happen. I'll save some time and stretch my view straightforward. I find both Bishonen action disrespecting the dispute resolution process beforehand and FT2's absolute inaction after many calls in public and private --which led to this-- to be completely unacceptable. In case this case is accepted I'll be asking for an admonishment of Bishonen and an immediate resignation of FT2 from the Arbitration Committee. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. I wish these requests didn't turn into no-rules free-for-alls. Cool Hand Luke 23:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

Bishzilla temporarily desysoped

1) Bishzilla is temporarily desysoped until the underlying issue has been resolved and a separate Arbitration case can be considered.

Support:

1. Proposed. The committee has been steadily considering the underlying issue that prompted this block by Bishzilla. The block is very questionable and warrants an arbitration case solely focused on it, but the underlying issue needs to be resolved first. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is a block in furtherance of a political dispute, and completely beyond the pale. This needs a case, but a desysop until the underlying issue is first resolved appears appropriate. — Coren ^(talk) 03:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC) (Moved to oppose below) — Coren ^(talk) 20:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I don't see a desysop being necessary here. Wizardman 02:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. No need, I don't think this is going to be a repeat performance. Risker (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. The block was a Very Bad Idea. I'm presuming Bish' gets the point. Absent evidence to the contrary, or that there is a real risk of Bishzilla abusing the tools going forward, a desysop is not appropriate at this juncture. Vassyana (talk) 07:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. At this point, a desysopping would only throw more fuel onto the fire. Kirill 12:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per my above comments. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Although the block was pointy and precipitate, it is unlikely to be repeated. A temporary desysop would therefore create more drama than it prevents. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose substantially per the reasons offered by my opposing colleagues above. However, all administrators should note that blocking a user "to force further discussion or action on [an] issue" is generally inappropriate, as reflected in this motion adopted by the committee in September 2008 on the unapproved admin bots request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. per others preceding (and my previous comment anyway) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Without any endorsement for the block which, in my opinion, was quite improper; it appears that there is no immediate risk of escalation. — Coren ^(talk) 20:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Per my decline on the main request. Would support an admonishment similar to the one Brad pointed out. Carcharoth (talk) 03:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. bainer (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Abstain for the moment. Wading through the diffs is demanding. Tempers are highly charged and I am not sure this would not escalate things. I'd accept a promise from Bish not to do it again. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain for now. Unlikely to support desysop, but also unwilling to in any way endorse the behaviour here. Carcharoth (talk) 07:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bishzilla admonished

There are 16 active arbitrators, so 9 is a majority.

2) Bishzilla (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is strongly admonished for her conduct in this matter. She is advised not to block users to force further discussion or action on an issue, nor to increase the pace of an issue, and not to take administrator actions with respect to disputes in which she is involved. Bishzilla is warned that any further such incidents are likely to lead to the suspension or revocation of her administrator privileges.

Support

1. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Without prejudice to further review of Bishzilla's bit use outside of this specific incident, if necessary. Vassyana (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Cool Hand Luke 23:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per my decline of the first motion, where I said I would support an admonishment. Carcharoth (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. All administrators need to understand that these are not empty words. In 2009, I expect that the Committee will more promptly desysop administrators that use their tools unwisely. Many members of the Community have indicated that they are tired of administrators escalating disputes and engaging in conduct showing lack of decorum. Previous to this action by Bishzilla/Bishonen, the Committee was already reevaluating standards and methods for removing privileges for administrators, bureaucrat checkusers, and oversighters. The overall events surrounding the situation did not make an immediate temporary removal the best course of action, but be beware that if a similar incident occurs, a temporary desysop could occur. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Kirill 00:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. She did go to ANI upon making the block, so I'm only tepidly supporting this. That being said, you just can't do a block like that. Wizardman 00:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. This is, ultimately, the use of an administrator tool in furtherance of a dispute. I should point out that going straight to AN/I after such a blatant misuse is emphatically not a mitigating factor: it is an admission that Bishonen knew that it was improper. — Coren ^(talk) 00:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. This was a one-off incident, but Bishonen/Bishzilla ought to have recognised the problems it would have caused. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 00:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Reluctant and unhappy support. Bishonen/Bishzilla is a valued asset to the project and has been for a long time. When Bishzilla withdrew from the ArbCom election, the comment I made was that I hoped to see much continued input here reflecting the fairness and thoughtfulness of Bishonen, the directness and good humor of Bishzilla, and the playful innocence of Bishipod. I also know that Bishonen was frustrated by the situation underlying the block, about which it is not necessary to comment further. So when I saw that this motion had been posted, I did not want to support it, even though I agreed with all of my colleagues that this was a clearly impermissible block. A digression: real-world judges are required to write opinions justifying their judgments, and many judges have sometimes said that they originally intended to decide a case a certain way, only to find that they needed to change their mind because "it wouldn't write", meaning that they were unable to produce reasoning to justify the result. As I tried to formulate a basis for opposing or abstaining on this motion, I found myself trying to finish the sentence "I oppose admonishing Bishzilla for this block because ..." — and I couldn't find a convincing "because": I realized I had crossed the line that separates looking for mitigating circumstances (which I do in every case) and coming up with excuses (which I do not). I therefore, with reluctance, will support the motion. I will add that in making my decision I have not considered the statement originally made by FT2, nor do I believe that it would serve a useful purpose for him to augment and restore the statement; the matter should end here and now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. support (sadly) - Brad sums it up well, I think things were heading in the ultimate direction they did regardless if the block, which was ultimately unnecessary. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

1. As the member of the committee who was possibly most involved in trying to resolve this situation from the time of my appointment, I find myself conflicted in responding to this motion. I do not believe that Bishzilla's block of FT2 was appropriate. On the other hand, I recognise that my own frustration—that the committee's efforts to resolve this matter were thwarted by this block and the ensuing escalation—has coloured my opinion on the degree of inappropriateness of Bishzilla's actions. Risker (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. I think the point has been adequately made already. --bainer (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

1. @ Tony Sideway She is the same person whether using either account, and presumably any motions would apply to the person. Yes, it is somehow a puzzling issue but we are dealing here with an administrative action done by an admin account and not a non-admin one. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. I just discovered large amounts of discussion on the talk page. Normally, I would have spotted this, but my workload has increased recently (strange that). I've commented there (see here and here), but I fail to see why Bishonen is making her statement there (though her statement does offer an explanation), rather than here. In future, I will be checking the talk page more often, but please can parties to a request make statements on this page, and can people flag up extensive discussion elsewhere that they may wish arbitrators to be aware of? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 11:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors warned

There are 16 active arbitrators, so 9 is a majority.

3) A number of actions taken by editors in relation to this dispute have escalated the situation, including behavior surrounding the RfC. Editors are warned that baiting, inflammatory comments, personal attacks and other actions likely to further escalate disputes are unacceptable. Such behavior may result in blocks or other sanctions to prevent disruption and will be viewed dimly by the Committee.

Support

1. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Vassyana (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Next time we should just block abusers. Seriously. Cool Hand Luke 23:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. It is my obligation to not oppose or abstain from reminding abusers of the seriousness and importance of Wikipedia's code of conduct. Wikipedia got no parliament where it is sometimes permitted to throw public objects on each other giving a bad example to citizens. A high degree of mutual respect and civil behavior should prevail. This is a serious project and we have the duty (as a community) to protect it against becoming a scene for deterioration and combat between unacceptable 'factions'. People who are deaf and indifferent to these serious and increasing calls can just take their personal disputes away off-wiki to their personal blogs. People donate their money and contributions to this project and it is totally unacceptable to them to see their donations being spent on personal disputes. I am accepting this motion as a general one covering all unnecessary and unstoppable personal disputes which have been harming the project for so long and which have reached a high level of impatience. Time to get some real order at home. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. I might have used different wording (the reference to "this dispute" is a bit vague), but I certainly can't fault the sentiment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. . As per CHL. It needs reiterating now more than ever. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Per Fayssal (especially) and Brad. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. This ought not to need saying. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. I agree with Coren, and find these generalised statements to be unhelpful. Risker (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Sam, Coren, and Carc. Blanket reminders just aren't helpful. Wizardman 18:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. In this instance, I don't think a blanket statement works. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. The motion is an accurate sentiment, but it doesnt help clean up this mess or any future mess as it merely indicates what we may do. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Agree with motion, but disagree with a generalised statement in response to what happened here. Per my comment below, and per Sam and John. Carcharoth (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. All true, but as a motion it's not likely to be useful at this point. Kirill 01:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Per Kirill. --bainer (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

True, but per Carcharoth I'm not comfortable supporting a blanket reminder. Might move to oppose but I'm not sure. Wizardman 23:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. While I echo the sentiment, I cannot support a blanket reminder of the sort since it has no actual effect. I'm not a fan of "symbolic gestures" in general, and in this particular case it sends the wrong message, I think (there was nothing especially egregious about the current disputes that make them stand out with other disputes so much that it needs pointing out). The Committee always takes a dim view of behavior that escalates, rather than diffuse, disputes, and this case is no different. — Coren ^(talk) 17:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

1. I'm still mulling over whether we should be using motions to pass general admonishments, especially if we are not going to specify the individuals who we are referring to. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I think enough people crossed the line that any list we create will have a strong possibility of being incomplete or force us to draw an abitrary line of inclusion for the most prominent offenders. Especially at this late point, I believe a general admonishment is the best way foward. It minimizes drama by not restirring specific pots, but everyone involved (especially the offenders themselves) should be aware of which editors this applies to. Vassyana (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Agree with sentiment, but feel this is the wrong way to issue this general warning. Not everyone follows this page. This needs to be a general announcement somewhere, with notices posted in the relevant places, including a strengthening of the mediawiki edit-text (what is seen when you click "edit this page" for this page). Currently it says: Remain civil in your interactions with others. The Committee does not look favourably upon comments that are intended to provoke reactions in others, and being incivil or provocative is counter-productive. In the event that a thread becomes heated, take a brief keyboard break and step away.". No need to tie such changes to this request. Carcharoth (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications and other requests

Place requests related to amendments of prior cases, appeals, and clarifications on this page. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at Arbitration enforcement. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the Talk page. To create a new request for arbitration, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Place new requests at the top. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How-to other requests

EK3 clarification

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3

Statement by Everyking

Earlier this month, the ArbCom voted to uphold the sanctions applied to me under the terms of the EK3 case. I am very uncertain about how the "restraining order" regarding Phil Sandifer is meant to be applied in various situations, however, and if this restriction is going to be in place indefinitely, a clear understanding of its nature is necessary for me to continue participating in the project comfortably.

The ArbCom apparently imposed and upholds this restriction based on the belief that I am a lunatic who is eager for the opportunity to contact Phil Sandifer and annoy him to the best of my ability. As I have repeatedly explained, this is sheer fantasy, and my only concern has been to see the ArbCom pass a mutual restriction that would equally apply to Phil Sandifer, thereby mitigating or neutralizing the severely negative effect this "restraining order" has on my reputation and community standing. If the ArbCom is just trying to keep me from contacting Phil Sandifer, the restriction serves no purpose, as I have no desire to contact him. There are, however, a variety of real, plausible circumstances under which I might cross paths with Phil, and it is completely unclear how I am supposed to behave in those circumstances.

One example that I have presented in the past is that of AfD: if Phil nominates an article for deletion, am I still allowed to register my opinion on the article as part of the discussion? I have been seeking an answer to that question for years. Furthermore, what if he merely comments—before me—on someone else's AfD nomination; am I allowed to make my own comment in that situation?

How should the "restraining order" be applied to articles? Am I allowed to edit articles that have been previously edited by Phil Sandifer? Am I allowed to edit in subject areas where Phil Sandifer has taken an interest (for example, webcomics)? What about discussions on the AN pages and the like: can I comment on an issue there if Phil has already commented (I have done this before and nothing happened, but I was very nervous about possible consequences)? Can I comment on an issue if he raises the issue himself (for example, by starting the thread)? Perhaps the best way to articulate the problem is to ask: am I prohibited from mere proximity to Phil Sandifer, or am I prohibited from actual interaction with him/commentary about him? In the past, restrictions have always been interpreted to my disadvantage, meaning that I must assume the former and avoid situations involving any degree of proximity. This could lead to an absurd situation in which I create an article, Phil fixes a typo on it, and I am thus prohibited from continuing with my planned work to expand the article further. Naturally this problem makes my participation on the project uncomfortable, and I call on the ArbCom to at least interpret the ruling in some reasonable fashion that gives me more freedom to participate fully in the project. Everyking (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Jayvdb, I am hoping that the ArbCom will state that I am allowed to participate in AfDs started by Phil Sandifer; contrary to what you say, this does in fact need clarification, as it seems to be understood at present that I am not allowed to do that. In November 2008, FloNight told me to not comment on AfDs started by Phil, although I do not know whether the other arbitrators agreed with her about that. Regarding the matter of "editing interaction", that is exactly the kind of thing I need clarified. If Phil has "recently edited" an article and I have not, does that I mean I am banned from contributing to that article?

While it is true that I was not blocked during 2008, this is because I was extremely careful about avoiding any kind of editorial proximity to Phil Sandifer, and on a few occasions when I did edit a page after he did, such as on ANI, I was quite nervous about possible consequences (possibly I escaped being blocked only because no one noticed). I feel that I should not have to deal with that kind of thing. Everyking (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Phil, these are not just hypothetical situations. In April 2008 there was a case where Phil nominated a slew of articles for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 United States presidential election_controversy and irregularities) and I was unable to vote. I contacted the ArbCom privately seeking permission to vote, but my request was ignored. Furthermore, this is a constant issue on a variety of pages such as ANI, where I am simply not sure what is allowed and feel that simply registering my opinion about a matter on which Phil has already commented is a dangerous gamble. Everyking (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Coren, I have pointed to a specific instance immediately above. It is deeply unfair to keep me under this scarlet letter restriction indefinitely and then punish me further by effectively upholding the most extreme interpretation of the ruling. To date I have respected the ruling very carefully, even when that means excluding myself from participation in various matters that interest me, and I would expect the ArbCom to acknowledge that by clarifying the situation in favor of a less severe interpretation. Everyking (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a test case, I have now made this edit to an AfD in which Phil has already commented. I ask the ArbCom to clarify whether or not that is an acceptable edit. Everyking (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Vassyana, yes, I am aware of that and do not consider it an appropriate method under ordinary circumstances. However, I have been trying to get the ArbCom to address this problem for years, and now some of you are telling me that, because I refrained assiduously from editing the same pages as Phil, there are no specific incidents to consider and therefore nothing can be done. In other words, I stand to be punished for following the restriction so strictly; it's like keeping someone under house arrest and then, when they ask to be released from house arrest, telling them that there is no need for that, because they haven't been leaving the house anyway. That's ridiculous, and I'm not willing to stand around and suffer for my own caution, so I figured under the circumstances that it would be best to give the ArbCom a specific incident to consider.

I think the "bright line", if we're going to have one, should be direct interaction or commentary. In other words, I think the ArbCom should allow me to comment on the same page as Phil, provided I don't comment in response to Phil or make reference to him, and also to edit the same articles as Phil, provided that the edits are uncontroversial article improvements. Everyking (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly it is entirely reasonable to expect that I should not deliberately follow Phil around, persistently editing things that he has edited, just as it is reasonable to expect him to refrain from doing that to me. However, it is unreasonable to expect me to refrain from registering my opinion in an AfD started by Phil; I have been broadly participating in the AfD (or VfD) process throughout my five years on the project, and there is no basis for believing that my participation in AfDs started by Phil would be intended to harass him. Indeed, in the test case I linked above, Phil and I voted the same way—I am interested in all AfDs as content issues only and I think Phil's involvement ought to be considered irrelevant. It is also unreasonable to expect me to completely avoid editing articles created by Phil, although it would be perfectly reasonable to expect me to avoid making edits of marginal value to a wide variety of articles created by him (that would be reasonable in any case where users had a history of antagonism). Perhaps in these matters we could say that the best approach is caution, rather than prohibition. I am totally willing to be cautious, and I don't expect that very many cases of overlapping editing would arise, but I want to be free to participate when I am solely concerned with the content and Phil's involvement is merely coincidental. Everyking (talk) 06:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if the ArbCom does not clarify the situation adequately, I will have to post a request for clarification each time I wish to edit a page that Phil Sandifer has edited, just to obtain permission in that specific instance. I think that imposes an excessive burden on both myself and the ArbCom. If the ArbCom wants me to stay away from articles Phil Sandifer has edited, I will respect that (he seldom edits articles anyway, to be frank), provided it only applies to recent edits and doesn't cover articles Phil edited months or years ago (certain cases could still arise where I might have to seek ArbCom permission, though, for example on a high-traffic article that is the subject of some immediate wiki-controversy). However, AfDs, administrative discussions, and policy discussions are a different matter, and I feel as a member of the community I should be permitted to express my opinion whenever I see fit, as long as I do not engage with Phil Sandifer in the process of doing so. Everyking (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have also registered my opinion at the Giano II RfC, which was started by Phil. As I have long held a strong and vocal opinion about Giano issues, I think it would be appalling if the ArbCom were to rule that I could not endorse a viewpoint in this instance, simply because Phil has involved himself. Everyking (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Phil Sandifer

If there are specific areas where Everyking feels unduly burdened by the restriction, let him bring them up. But I would rather not turn the restriction into something that becomes about rules lawyering, or that requires my constant negotiation and defending of. I've already had to deal with requests to lift this restriction three times in the last few months, which are three times more than I want to be dealing with Everyking. If there's a specific issue underlying this, fine - last time he brought it up I was perfectly willing to allow him to ask questions on my arbcom bid, in the interests of fairness. But I would rather not be in this position of having to constantly negotiate the parole in the general case, or in an attempt to engage in an extended modification of it that can go through a thousand absurd hypotheticals. But come on. What if I made a minor edit to an article Everyking had created? Really? What if I start an AfD? I do less than one of those a month. If there's an actual issue here, let's hear it. These are ridiculous hypotheticals.

Can the arbcom please rule that there will be no further general case motions about this parole for some nice, long amount of time? This constant having to come back to RFAr to de facto negotiate with Everyking rather defeats the purpose. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rootology

Contrary to Phil's statements, as Everyking is not the only person on Wikipedia under a similar restriction, and if memory serves there are still more, it does need clarification. Phil is not a special case or a particularly special user (none of us are). If UserA is restricted this way from UserB, what happens if UserA has edited a given article, and then UserB comes along? Is UserA then barred from going there? Barred for some time? What if one or the other starts an AFD? What if they both comment on some rambling ANI discussion? Are these restrictions meant to be (as I've interpreted them) from commenting on each other, or some inappropriate placebo for the UserB's of the scenario to not "see" the other party? The "blocks" if mutual in scope are a great idea to basically let useful users stick around while neutering drama. If the restrictions are not mutual, as detailed here, then the scope does need to be defined so that the UserA of the scenario doesn't have to worry about having a pointless and inappropriate cloud over their head from what amounts to an ultra laser specific restriction while improving Wikipedia. If the question of scope comes up, it's a good idea to clarify it, because it seems to be a good solution growing in popularity. rootology (C)(T) 04:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to clarify that this is NOT sour grapes in any way, shape, or form with my own situation, it's just a genuine curiosity for clarification about these cases in general. Specific to my own situation, as I'd said time and time in public and in private to people, I'm absolutely, totally, utterly, and completely fine with it all. The odds of he and I interacting at this point are functionally null. The closest we're likely to ever come to each other is both commenting on different subpages of WP:FAC for our own nominations for Featured status or random FARs. Our interests in content are simply light years apart. However, I do call shotgun on anything related to either Mount Rainier or Mount Saint Helens exploding, but he can have the mountains themselves as they're one of his specialities, unless if the theoretical eruptions kill me, in which case he can have it all. :) rootology (C)(T) 05:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

• Phil Sandifer notified. Daniel (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

• The outstanding remedy prevents "commenting .. about", or "interacting with" Phil Sandifer. If you both find yourself at the same xfD, both parties are expected to only comment on the article or page itself rather than the editor, so no clarification is needed there. If you regularly appear at communal discussions where Phil has commented already, or on topics that you know he has keen interest in, eyebrows would be raised.Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines#Motion re Abtract added a bit of clarity to what would be viewed as editing interaction: editing (including but not limited to reverting on) pages that [party 1] has recently edited but [party 2] has not previously edited. Everyking, you mentioned that you have needed to err on the side of caution because "In the past, restrictions have always been interpreted to [your] disadvantage". You havent been blocked often, so I am wondering when has this been interpreted to your disadvantage? Was it misinterpreted at all during 2008? i.e. did you have any close calls with someone threatening to block? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 20:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Unless there are specific incidents where implementation of this restriction has caused problems because of vagarities or ambiguities, I see no clarification to be made. — Coren ^(talk) 03:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Everyking, you've been around quite long enough to know that performing edits just to make a point or test the boundaries of restrictions is frowned upon by our community norms. It certainly isn't the way to get a favorable response. That said, has the restriction been unduly burdensome to you? How, specifically? (Being very honest, the AfD examples don't convince me. Phil nominates relatively very few articles for deletion and it's not like there's any shortage of AfDs to comment upon.) Can you give examples of how the restriction has been used against you as you assert? Presuming the restriction stays in place as is, since the purportedly vague nature of the restriction is a main part of your point, what bright line boundaries would you suggest? I should state openly that I'm skeptical as a general rule when it comes to claims of difficulty/unfairness in disentangling. Wikipedia is a huge and sprawling place with a ridiculous number of activities and topics to participate in. It should not be a herculean burden to disengage from and avoid another editor. Vassyana (talk) 12:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everyking, thank you for the response. I understand your point and the accompanying frustration, but the unaswered questions are quite answerable. You're asserting (if I'm mistaken, please correct me) that the restriction has been both unduly burdensome and used against you unfairly. All that I'm asking is that you substantiate the assertions. This doesn't require a test case. (To draw on your example, someone under house arrest doesn't need skip custody to go to the grocer in order to assert a reasonable need to visit the grocer.) Vassyana (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• In my view, Everyking should be free to comment on matters (including AfDs) even if Phil is on the same page, but should still avoid interacting with or commenting on Phil. There are also some standard situations that Everyking should usually avoid: articles created by Phil, AfDs started by Phil, discussions started by Phil, and so on (this is not intended to be, nor can it be, a comprehensive list). Common sense says that Phil should do the same to avoid interaction with Everyking. If either Everyking or Phil need clarification on specific points, they should feel free to e-mail the arbitration committee, while noting that such potential encounters should not suddenly become more common than they have been in the past. Please don't engage in deliberate testing of the boundaries of this restriction, but do make a note of situations that come up during your normal editing habits. Carcharoth (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• As per Carcharoth, posting on high traffic communal pages should not be a problem if there is no direct interaction noted or implied. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Both Everyking and Phil Sandifer know that. I don't believe someone would be able to define or present a detailed and comprehensive list of all possible scenarios where the boundaries get crossed or where restrictions get violated (i.e. commenting on the editor or bringing back history and old disputes). However, many would be able to judge and confirm whether boundaries get unjustly crossed when they really get crossed. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this request for clarification begins with a misapprehension. To my knowledge, no arbitrator believes nor has anyone else suggested that Everyking is "a lunatic who is eager for the opportunity to contact Phil Sandifer and annoy him to the best of [his] ability" (as stated above), or "a fifth-class editor, somewhere below anon IPs and above banned trolls and vandals" (as suggested on another website). It bears emphasis that each and every one of the ArbCom restrictions on Everyking has been lifted (or will technically be lifted as of next month) by unanimous vote of the committee, with the sole exception of this one which the committee chose to leave in place at present. Nor is there merit to any suggestion that the restriction has been left in place simply because Everyking previously criticized actions of other administrators, and particularly not because of criticisms that were levied in 2005 (before many of the arbitrators, including myself, had even started editing Wikipedia), nor merely because Everyking has participated on an external site often critical of Wikipedia (as have I). Beyond that, I am disinclined to review on-wiki here the events of three years ago, some of which I was not aware of until this most recent clarification request, as I do not believe that either Everyking or anyone else or the process would benefit from my doing so. With respect to the specific request for clarification, the limited remaining restriction on Everyking should be interpreted in a reasonable, and reasonably narrow, fashion. A test I think often makes sense in "User A is to avoid User B" situations is whether a questioned edit to a page that User B has edited would have been made anyway even if User B had not edited the page. For example, if Everyking looks over a dozen AfDs on a given date and !votes on all of them, although one of them happens to have been started by Phil Sandifer (and Everyking doesn't refer to that fact), fine; if Everyking !votes on an AfD on an article he's edited heavily that Phil Sandifer happened to put on AfD, fine; if Everyking never edits AfD for a month and then suddenly shows up on the only AfD created by Phil that month, not quite as fine. Hopefully few if any close calls will arise and the issue will remain largely moot, as I gather it has been for awhile except in these modification/clarification threads themselves. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]