Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Arbitration​Committee

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

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

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

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

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

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions		10 May 2024	0/3/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	8 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

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

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions		10 May 2024	0/3/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	8 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

Request for clarification: Steve Crossin, Chet B Long, PeterSymonds, and inappropriate account sharing discussion link

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• NonvocalScream (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Steve Crossin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by NonvocalScream

Deskana stated that the committee is considering Steve's position, but not the administrators, the community may deal with those. The community has thus far found no sanctions are needed on any of the three. FT2 stated that the committee may may still sanction Steve for his problematic edits. If the committee wishes to sanction when the community has chosen not to, may we:

• Know the nature of the problomatic edits?

• Have a public case filed on the arb pages?

Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Flonight: Thank you for the fast response; May the committee inform the community of the evidence, perhaps the community can participate, given the feeling on the AN discussion thread, I believe this would be most helpful. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Flonight: For me to rephrase. May we participate in the decision making process on this? NonvocalScream (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

I question the provision of your decision that prohibits PeterSymonds and Chet B Long from regaining the tools via normal RFA. The community is in a good position to weigh the seriousness of this situation. On general principle it's better for the Committee to entrust such sysopping to the community's wisdom unless compelling reason exists that the community could not make an informed decision. Durova^Charge! 07:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Deskana: yes, please. Considering the confusion that arose over Shoemaker's Holiday, in light of the MONGO and Alkivar precedents, it would certainly be good to amend the decision and make it clear. Less drama for everybody. :) Durova^Charge! 04:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Jpgordon: Yes, please see my exchange with Deskana. Durova^Charge! 00:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

To Newyorkbrad, yes we are requesting that the two administrators who resigned their tools be allowed to run RFA. Under the current decision they are not permitted to do so, and the arbitrator who wrote the decision that way atates that this part of the wording was unintentional and he'd be glad to change it. Please do. Durova^Charge! 05:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Ned Scott

Arbcom does not have the authority to place restrictions on Steve at this time. They are attempting to circumvent the community's right to handle this situation. It was this kind of behavior that lead us to question ArbCom's authority at the recent RfC. -- Ned Scott 08:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

To reply to Deskana: ArbCom is here for when we've tried everything we can to handle it ourselves, but can't. I understand going to arbcom right away when it involves admin bits, but Steve is a normal user. Please, let us deal with this. While some people are upset about what has happened, there is no urgency here that would justify cutting the community out of this. -- Ned Scott 20:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

To reply to FloNight: You say "In the end, the Committee and Steve both agreed that prompt action would be better than a long drawn out public case. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)"

This is incorrect. Steve was pressured into accepting this because he believed it was his only option, and feared the committee banning him indefinitely. ArbCom shouldn't even be considering a case at this point. This is something for the community to decide. Arbcom is bulling/blackmailing Steve and his wife into this "agreement", and you should be ashamed of yourself for it. -- Ned Scott 00:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

To reply to Synergy: When I'm hearing this from Steve's mouth, then no, I'm not misinformed. -- Ned Scott 08:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"Ned, you appear to be misinformed. The discussion was moving towards a positive sanction in which Steve had agreed to" Nonsense is bolded. -- Ned Scott 08:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Per Steve's request, I'm dropping this issue.

I would like to apologies to the committee for some of my comments here. While I still believe this is a situation that the community should handle, Steve's fear of being banned is not the fault of the committee. -- Ned Scott 09:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Ral315

Note that Steve has apparently taken a wikibreak, which renders questions over his ability to attain the tools moot for the time being. That's not to say that the question shouldn't be considered, but that the final decision need not be made hastily now that the issue has been brought publicly. Ral315 (talk) 02:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Synergy

Ned, you appear to be misinformed. The discussion was moving towards a positive sanction in which Steve had agreed to. It was interrupted by an additional notice from arbitration. While I'd like to see Steve in a comfortable spot to edit, this might not be possible. This has been over for some time now, and I'd like to suggest that you let this go.

I'd like to also echo Durova. I too, am eager to see a statement with respect to Peter and Chet. Synergy 08:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ned, much of this began with hearing things come out of Steve's mouth. My comments are directed toward your assessment of the AN thread, not off wiki conversations. Regards. Synergy 08:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ned: Thank you for re factoring, I do appreciate the tone down. But its not nonsense. Here is the diff where he agreed to the proposal/sanction made by Seddon. Please ask yourself this: Is any of this helping Steve? If the answer is no, then please take my aforementioned suggestion. Regards. Synergy 08:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

To jpgordon: Yes. We are still awaiting further clarification on the reapplication of the two former admins. Synergy 17:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Giggy

I agree with Durova. Please consider her proposal. We, the community, are not buffoons, and we can make these decisions. —Giggy 08:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by MBisanz

The circumstances of Peter and Chet's re-confirmation RFA I have no feelings on. To address Ned Scott's point, I propose a test. Someone hardblock's Steve's account for 6 months. Then we get to test how many sysops feel it is worth putting their bit on the line to unblock him and also how long it takes arbcom to find a steward to desysop someone for violating their finding. In any case, Steve let AGK put the wikibreak enforcer in his monobook and Steve could very easily overcome it or post to his user talk:Steve Public page, so these offsite issues of being pressured are rather pointless, heck even if they were on-site, I'm still wondering how many people find Steve to be trustworthy enough to believe anything he says. MBisanz ^talk 08:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Orderinchaos

For the record I think the two former administrators have paid the penalty for their chronic lapse of judgement and that to say they resigned under a cloud should be sufficient, such that the community can decide if they decide to reapply at some future point. The Committee are obviously privy to information we aren't, but I was led to believe from the evidence presented that Peter's was initially logged into without his permission or knowledge, although the situation appears to have changed after that time. Orderinchaos 22:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Query from AGK

Is this matter not closed, further to Steve's retirement, and the retirement and voluntary desysopping of Peter and Chet? If so, both on procedural grounds, and from a general motivation to put this matter firmly behind us, would it not be best practice to archive this without takin action? Anthøny ✉ 00:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• Recuse, due to prior involvement with Steve Crossin in an advisory capacity. Anthøny ✉ 00:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Of course the Committee will give the Community reasons if we give sanctions. The Committee's job is to throughly collect all importance evidence, examine it all, and then have each arbitrator vote. We make a preliminary notice because it was important for the Community to be aware of the events. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Additional comment. The Committee went public with the announcement before we were finished with our discussion because of ongoing issues forced a comment. We knew that some people in the community knew and some didn't know about the account sharing, the desysops, and the Committee's investigation. At that point we felt a prompt statement was needed to the whole Community. The full Committee has not finished the discussion and voted. We will keep the Community updated as we make decisions. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
    • The Arbitration Committee decides when to accept cases and when to reject them. The Committee was approached by a non arbitrator checkuser with results that showed serious evidence of user account abuse, including administrator account sharing. The administrators resigned their tools. The administrators account sharing was coupled with other incidents of problematic behavior by one of the users before and after the check that indicated problems with trust could continue. This needed prompt action as well since real life issues were intermixed with the on site problems. There was public and private comments made by the Community, and these were taken into consideration, including requests to delay a finding or allow the Community to determine the sanctions. In the end, the Committee and Steve both agreed that prompt action would be better than a long drawn out public case. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• We seem to have forged a decision that we are happy with, but must wait for a few addition Arbitrators to confirm. --Deskana (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

  Durova: That was not actually intentional. I was the one that drafted the message that was placed on the administrators noticeboard, and I didn't exclude their ability to reapply through RFA intentionally... I just happened not to think to include it. If you wish, I could ask if the Committee would be happy with amending the statement to include their ability to reapply through RFA. I've certainly not got a problem with them doing so, but I can't speak for the other Arbitrators. --Deskana (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

  Ned Scott: Why not? That was exactly why we were created. I indicated that in my statement that the community could discuss its own sanctions if it wished to, but that the Arbitration Committee was also discussing its own. At the time, it seemed unlikely that we would agree on any additional sanctions. Things have changed since then. --Deskana (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Is there anything else that needs doing here? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• I was travelling last weekend and missed almost all of the discussion when these events were unfolding. The steps taken appear to be generally reasonable although I have not studied up on the fine points. I am not sure whether any further action is being requested at this point. Is it? Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
• I don't think we need to do anything further; it's now clear how the meaning of the wording, though perhaps ambiguous, was intended. James F. (talk) 13:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Archiving

If the case is closed and deleted, should it not be archived? (It wasn't, as far as I could see.) Also note that User:Coffee's user page and some of its subpages still include the admin cat (he's removed the cat from some of his pages tonight, but appears to have missed a few). Jayen466 01:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)