Revision as of 23:00, 13 January 2009

Template:Active editnotice

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

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
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 ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

• WP:RFAR
• WP:A/R
• WP:ARB/R
• WP:ARBREQ

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

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

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

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

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

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

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Current requests

Bishzilla

Please be considerate when adding statements to this RFAR. Cases such as this frequently have a large amount of useless statements added, that only add to already overworked Arbitrator workload. An ArbCom that is not overworked is better for everyone. Deskana

Initiated by Durova at 22:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• 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:
• Biszilla
• Bishonen

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. 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 22:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

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 22:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Elonka

Posting an indef block of an active arbitrator is extraordinarily disruptive. Bish (and I use the short form since this user tends to engage in admin actions on one account, Bishzilla (talk · contribs) but 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 she should therefore either resign or be forcibly de-sysopped. --Elonka 22:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

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 22:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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. Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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, and this 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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. This turned me heads, and I lost all confidence in FT2 with this incident, and it was one of the reasons why I went on a long wikibreak. I'm surprised he's still in ArbCom. Editors were desyropped for lesser offenses. Secret 22:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• Recuse - per my statement in this RfAr. Tiptoety 22:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

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

• 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)

Ayn Rand Limbo

Initiated by Idag (talk) at 01:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• SlimVirgin
• ChildofMidnight
• Peter Damian
• TallNapoleon
• Kjaer
• Ddstretch
• Snowded
• CABlankenship
• J Readings
• Jomasecu
• SteveWolfer
• Endlessmike 888
• Ethan a Dawe
• Modernist

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Mediation
• RfC Talk:Ayn_Rand#Request_for_Comment
• Extensive discussion on Talk:Ayn Rand

Statement by Idag

Ayn Rand is a controversial figure and her article leads to the involvement of personal feelings for a number of editors. The recent series of disputes have resulted in huge edit wars that necessitated three full-protects in the past month. The talk page discussion is extremely bitter and, at this point, has violated almost every single discussion policy that WP has. People are so riled up that even a request for mediation is viewed as some type of assault on the article's integrity. Idag (talk) 01:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Response to SlimVirgin

I know this isn't my section, but another editor has indicated a strong resistance to mediation and the objector still wants time to think about his choice. Could we hold off on scrapping this request on the very likely possibility that someone won't agree to mediation? Idag (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC) Comment moved to correction section by clerk. Daniel (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by SlimVirgin

I filed a Request for Mediation, but it was rejected because one party disagreed; see Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Ayn Rand I must say I find it not entirely reasonable that 10 people can agree to mediation, but it's rejected because of one objection, and rejected immediately before that person even has a chance to reconsider. Anyway, it's hard to see how we can progress without mediation or arbitration because of the strength of feeling. A small number of pro-Rand editors are opposing pretty well any attempt to improve the article if it involves adding criticism of Rand or removing praise, even very repetitive praise. SlimVirgin 01:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The lone objector has removed his objection, and Ryan has reversed the rejection of the RfM, so it may still go ahead. SlimVirgin 01:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Synergy

Wait. We are talking about Ayn Rand, the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher, right? This request seems a bit premature. And to respond to SlimV: thats how it works unfortunately. You can't resolve a dispute with -1 parties, sadly. Synergy 01:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Slp1

I tend to agree with SlimVirgin that it is too bad that mediation is rejected so quickly after just one editor has declined it. I note that the editor concerned, User:ChildofMidnight has now retracted his/her position stating that s/he didn't understand the significance of the action. For all who are watching, I urge all involved editors to sign up for the mediation, or I suspect this venue will end being the final port of call. --Slp1 (talk) 01:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by TallNapoleon

I would REALLY prefer that we try mediation before going to ARBCOM. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Snowded

I concur with TallNapoleon, but I am not optimistic that progress can be made. --Snowded TALK 10:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• The filing party must serve all named parties with notification that this request has been filed. Daniel (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/8/0/0)

• Decline, mediation attempt is still being discussed. There are a number of people who have yet to decide whether they want to participate in the mediation, so user:ChildofMidnight should not be singled out here. John Vandenberg 04:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• Decline pending mediation proceedings. If the case is rejected I'll re-look at this. Wizardman 05:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• Decline pending mediation; ChildofMidnight was evidently unaware of the full consequences of declining mediation and has undertaken to reconsider. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per Sam. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per Sam. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per Sam. --ROGER DAVIES  12:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• Decline at this time, without prejudice, per all above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per Wizardman and Sam. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarifications and other requests

• WP:RFAC
• WP:RCAM

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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration. Place new requests at the top. Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/How-to other requests

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

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

EK3 clarification

• Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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 (Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

Statement by other user

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

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

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.Misplaced Pages: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 has recently edited but 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 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 20:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages arbitration