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
Designating Sri Lanka as a contentious topic	Motions	10 April 2024	0/0/0

[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
Mzajac	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	—	Case suspended

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	Motion	(orig. case)	27 February 2024
Amendment request: Armenia-Azerbaijan 3	Motion	(orig. case)	18 April 2024
Amendment request: Skepticism and coordinated editing	Motion	(orig. case)	16 April 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

Bedford

Initiated by Bedford ^Pray at 15:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Bedford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request`

• --Bedford ^Pray 15:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Courtesy notice sent to User talk:Jimbo Wales by Elkman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive454#Bedford_and_misogyny
• User talk:Jimbo Wales

Statement by Bedford

On Friday, July 25, 2008, a hook was used for DYK that was found acceptable by regular DYK viewers [1] was posted on Template:DYK. Without asking others, the hook was removed; with no real justification . [2] As I saw that there were no complaints on it on Did You Know Errors, and there appeared no consultation for this removal, I twice reverted the article, [3] [4] both times reverted by different individuals without asking why I and other DYKers found it acceptable, with reasons apparently due to feminist concerns and not Wikipedia objectivity. [5] [6] I objected, out on censorship concerns and because no one on DYK was apparently consulted. I did not revert a third time due to the spirit of 3RR, and because the hooks would be changed in an hour anyways by that point. Afterwards, Users Sceptre and Seraphim Whipp initiated a smear campaign on ANI against me, accusing me of misogyny. As things seemed able to blow over, an IP would later take something out of context on my Myspace blog that did not even relate to Wikipedia or a Wikipedian and did a drive-by posting on the ANI, furthering poisoning the well. Without asking me to explain, Jimbo Wales arbitrarily removed my sysop bit in a prejudiced manner, and demanded I grovel to him, and even if I did that I would have to be elected again to sysop, which would have proven fruitless as the well would have been poisoned enough to make any election unsuccessful. After I explained the context, most of the sentiment saw my comments as reasonably explained. However, I have still lost my adminship, to which Sceptre and Seraphim Whipp have continued to pat themselves on the back for, and celebrated that I did not get a chance at Arbcom. In the midst of this, to illustrate the chaos caused by the three defendants, another user, Kmweber, was threatened by a different admin, Elkman, just for supporting me on Jimbo's page. I request my sysop returned to me. Everything I did was for the integrity of DYK selection, community consensus, and prevention of censorship. I have never abused the tools, and I never will. There should have been a cooling off period that was not allowed to happen due to two conspiring female admins and a drive-by IP that Jimbo Wales gave more credit that deserved. He specifically said my loss of sysop was “Based primarily on your myspace blog posting “ [7], which has been illustrated that it should have been ignored by Wikipedia. Already, DYK has four times in 48 hours not had a speedy update solely because I have lost the sysop. Sceptre/ Seraphim Whipp have damaged Wikipedia far more than I have, and it’s their administrator privileges that should be looked into.

Impertinent question by Lar

Um, who is the (alleged?) other party or parties to this? There doesn't seem to be anyone else named. ++Lar: t/c 18:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales, obviously. The desysopping is, apparently, appealable to the arbitration committee [8]. — CharlotteWebb 18:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I asked one of the arbitrators, and he said I did not necessarily need to name a second party because "it's an appeal against a penalty".--Bedford ^Pray 21:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement and Links to Blog by Barneca

As someone who lobbied for Bedford’s desysop (and for a while his blocking or banning) I’d like to provide the following information and make the following comments:

This is Bedford's blog entry that was posted by the anon IP; it was subsequently taken down, so the link is to a Web Citation page. To clarify Bedford’s assertion above, this particular blog entry, the one linked to by the IP editor, is directly related to Wikipedia and Wikipedians.

There was another blog entry that led to a discussion about a possible block or ban here, but it is not related to Wikipedia or Wikipedians. Bedford subsequently provided an explanation for it here and I believe no one is lobbying any longer for a block or ban.

To my knowledge, this second blog post was not mentioned on-wiki until after Jimbo desysopped Bedford, so unless someone pointed it out to Jimbo off-wiki (or on-wiki and I just missed it), that second, non-Wikipedia blog post had nothing to do with Jimbo’s decision. If I missed someone pointing this post out to Jimbo, let me know and I’ll retract this last bit.

Finally, in anticipation of someone beginning a discussion about whether Jimbo should have the authority to do this unilaterally or not, I would see this as a red herring; the fact is, he currently does, and will continue to have it until some kind of community-based decision happens that takes it away.

Indeed, it was the first blog entry linked above.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by LessHeard vanU

Per the statement posted by Jimbo when notifying the community of the desysop, it appears that Jimbo provided Bedford with the choice of re-applying for the bit via himself - and thus onto an RfA - or via ArbCom only. It then appears that, in exercise of his powers, Jimbo has also decreed that ArbCom must accept a request for considering resysopping made by Bedford in this matter; any other reasons for accepting the reviewing of the case are secondary to that declaration by Jimbo. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, he may reapply to the arbcom. They are not compelled to accept his request for a hearing, though I have no objection of course, either way.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Since you've left Arbcom as the *only* ability to regain his sysop bit, you've pretty much forced arbcom's hand to take it on as a case, because a rejection would then be seen as an endorsement of your action. They are compelled now to make a decision of some kind. --Barberio (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarity, although late, is appreciated.

Under the circumstances, I would suggest that the ArbCom take the case so that it can be (further) clarified that Jimbo acted within the range of actions that it is understood is in his perogative, and that Bedford did indeed violate his position as an admin (but not, strangely, as an editor) with his actions. I suggest that ArbCom is appropriate as any appeal to Jimbo would, as stated, be referred to an RfA which would not concentrate upon the detail of the mechanism of the desysopping. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Concurring statement by Barberio

I concur with the statement by LessHeard vanU. With no prejudice either way on the outcome of the case, which I know little of and will not comment on, I also suggest it should be voted on as a choice between actively Affirming, or actively Overturning the action. With the status-quo being prior to Jimbo's action, I also suggest the burden of proof be on Affirmation. If the desysop was warranted, evidence should be provided to support the desysop, not the other way around. I assume that Jimbo will be able to provide this evidence. --Barberio (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Question by Ncmvocalist

I suspect there will be a large amount of the evidence has been/will be submitted privately. But could the Committee clarify if the case will be heard privately? Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell

Statement A: The Committee has repeatedly held that administrators are "role models" and the public face of the project.

Statement B: The project is not well-represented by an admin who dismisses genuine concern from other editors as the rantings of "Feminazi" "harpies" suffering from "PMS" and motivated by a lack of physical attractiveness.

If (A && B) are TRUE, then why take the case? If it's primarily a procedural matter of reviewing Jimbo's action, then it's going to be more harm than it's worth to turn this into the typical drawn-out slugfest of a full-blown case. MastCell ^Talk 20:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Re: Jpgordon: I don't read this as saying you have to open a formal case, only that you are one possible avenue of appeal. You guys can handle that appeal however you see fit. MastCell ^Talk 21:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by RMHED

Obviously the committee should accept this case, at the very least Bedford deserves a hearing. I would have hoped that such high-handed unilateral actions such as Bedford's desysopping were a thing of the past. Wikipedia should have evolved past that stage by now, by all means Jimbo could have expressed his opinion, but his unilateral action comes across as inappropriate, paternalistic and ever so slightly patronising. RMHED (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Followup Statement by Bedford

One thing has not been considered since this whole fiasco started: why the controversial hook was chosen in the first place. Go to Wikipedia talk:Did you know, section #29 as I type this, where it ranks the top 10 DYK views in June. It was a hook on Veena Malik. The hook was altered during its stay, but not removed. An alternative hook suggested for the article could have been used from GAB 2005, as in the case of Veena Malik's, but the ones who did the alleged censoring did not bother.--Bedford ^Pray 22:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

An additional followup, posted here. People want to overlook how rude Seraphim Whipp was to me on my own talk page, accusing me of COI and then dismissing me as if I have no right to counter her argument, and even refusing to hear my argument. It wasn't even my article. DYK admins have often promoted hooks they devised for articles they did not originally create or nominated; I would cite, but that's finding a needle in a haystack. I have proposed alt hooks before for articles I neither created/nominated, and if there were no endorsements of it, I did not use my hook, but instead used a different hook. Then again, there have been a few others on here who seem afraid to let me have my day in court, as it were.--Bedford ^Pray 14:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears clarification is in order. I did not create the article. I did not nominate the article. All I did was suggest the one alternative hook that people on the DYK page liked. If I was going to do COI promotions, I have a host of my own articles to do so. Admins on DYK have often devised new hooks from proposed articles, and posted them. This was the first time I did it, due to the fact it had four people who appeared for it. Previously, if alt hooks I suggested for articles I did not create or nominate had not been commented on, I used a previous hook. The hooks for my own articles are often the last one used from that day's crop. So to suggest that I act out of COI seems like trying to justify removing the content without regarding censorship. I purposely avoided wheel warring by not replacing it a third time. Also, we are forgetting that User:iMatthew worked hard on that article, and now people don't even want the article from which the hook come from to have a DYK tag on the talk page, even through the hook itself is not mentioned.--Bedford ^Pray 15:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This went from being accepted to being deadlocked in a span of 8 hours, so I must comment:

1. User:Daniel Case has said he has himself promoted hooks he devised for articles he did not create or nominate.
2. No attempt was made to discuss the appropriateness of the hook after it was placed before it was removed.
3. Excuses for removing it were "come on, guys, this is demeaning"[9] and "please, this makes us look like FHM" [10]; no reasons given to discuss consensus that it was inappropriate or not. None of the three who removed it bothered to replace it with a different hook from The Great American Bash (2005). (In 20/20 hindsight, the second time I reverted I should have gone for one of the other hooks; I'll accept a trout slapping for not thinking about that. It was 5am in the morning for me.)
4. I felt like I avoided WP:POINT by not doing a third revert. If I wanted to make a point, I could have done the third revert. Everything I did was to prevent censorship, and give User:iMatthew's article a fair chance on
5. At no time in the past will you see that I have promoted my own articles to next update (and I tend to have many articles), nor do I ever move around my hooks to make them more prominent. particularly not at the pictured slot.
6. WP:NOTCENSORED. The objections to the hook seem a form of censorship, and debate by ArbCom is needed to decide what is and is not censorshp.
7. When I last looked at my Myspace blog (a few days ago), it had only 400+ views in the past two years or so I had one. It is not a high traffic area. If an anonymous IP hadn't been stalked me, and then accused me of racism, we would not be having this discussion.
8. I should have read the rules more closely to see that I should not have commented under other peiople's statements. I apologize for that.

I ask the arbitrators who switched their votes to please reconsider.--Bedford ^Pray 17:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Uninvolved Pedro

I find Bedford to be disingenuous with his opening statement that He [Jimbo Wales] specifically said my loss of sysop was "Based primarily on your myspace blog posting..". As per the diff provided by Bedford himself this is not the spirit of the statement. Jimbo Wales also commented "but additionally based on your onsite behavior (and either would have been sufficient cause) )" [emphasis mine]. Pedro :  Chat  22:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

Whilst this looks set to be accepted anyway, I'd like to weigh in with a statement anyway. Bedford's statements were clearly disturbing and that led me to support Jimbo's desysoping completely. I've looked further into it now, and I think it could be good for ArbCom to look at whether a desysopping should be of a permanent nature or not. I personally think there should be a time period put on it - with regards to wheelwarring, we can't exactly say it was the worst case we've ever seen and the the comments Bedford made weren't the worst I've ever seen from a sysop (although they were extremely disapointing). If this had gone through RfC and Bedford had had chance to reflect fully on the communties thoughts yet continued to make such comments, I'd be all for a perma-desysop. As it happens, he hasn't had this opportunity so I would ask ArbCom to seriously consider putting a time length on the desysop. Prior to this incident, he's done some great work at DYK, and we could certainly use his help in the future there. If there's a promise that he won't make comments like this in the future, or wheel war over DYK entries, I would highly recommend he is given his sysop flag back. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Uninvolved R. Baley

Once again, I'm not sure what the Arbcom needs to do here. Seems like the problem has already been handled by Jimbo and his action supported by the community. No use in drawing things out . . . R. Baley (talk) 00:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Seraphim Whipp

I have the DYK template watchlisted, and noticed a hook had been removed with an objection. This was then reverted by Bedford. I reviewed the situation, visiting Bedford's talkpage to see what discussion had occurred. Krimpet made a polite enquiry about its removal. I evaluated the hook independently and found the wording to be sloppy, unorganised and the content seemed obscure. I also asked my brother for his opinion of the hook; he said, "It's wikipedia, not pornopedia". I then made a polite request for Bedford himself to remove the hook.

I investigated the situation further to see how the hook had ended up on the main page. Three separate hooks were suggested, one of which was written by Bedford and then promoted by Bedford (a practice that is strongly discouraged). I returned to Bedford's talkpage to inform him that I would be removing the hook (this was based on my initial opinion of the hook, taking into account my brother's opinion, and finally, the conflict of interest there was in Bedford promoting his own hook and the edit warring he did to prevent its removal). His response to my inquiry was rude and unnecessary, especially coming from an admin ("we have a bunch of feminists decide to censor Wikipedia, as they'd rather do that than actually do something fruitful for Wikipedia. Sad. Oh so sad. Pathetic, too."). In retrospect, I should not have replied in the way I did (a fact that I noted at AN/I). I wanted him to take note that I would not spend my time being insulted and was ignoring his latter statement. This must have rattled him, judging on the goading comments I received, or was the subject of. Aside from an exchange at Talk:Main Page, this was the end of the topic for me. When I logged on, I was informed of an AN/I thread involving Bedford. My comments can be found in that thread.

There are several flaws in Bedford's statement. I did not "initiate a smear campaign on ANI", have never "accused [him] of misogyny", the IP did not take the Myspace blog out of context since it explicitly referred to "Wikipedia or Wikipedians" (it was titled "Wikipedia and cretins"), "Sceptre and Seraphim Whipp have continued to pat themselves on the back for, and celebrated that I did not get a chance at Arbcom" - Sceptre nor I have made any reference to Bedford "not get[ting] a chance at Arbcom". The only conversation between Sceptre and I can be found on my talkpage as the conversation titled, "Apparently, you're an extremist feminist".

Bedford should not have +sysop reinstated. His conduct in this situation was unacceptable and the desysop has already been supported by the majority of the community. Seraphim♥Whipp 00:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

For the benefit of those who don't understand why Bedford's adminship was removed, I have collected a page of evidence that can be found here. Seraphim♥Whipp 12:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up statement:

I have already stated multiple times that I should have worded my initial language in a different way, but as I'm only human, I did react to being called pathetic, sad etc. In response, I used language that would show Bedford that I would not tolerate listening to his rudeness and did not want to communicate with him further (unfortunately I kept getting drawn back in due to the number of mistakes Bedford made with his comments which I wanted to correct, i.e. the number of admins who were objecting to the hook, the fact that I didn't remove it.) I did not accuse Bedford of COI, I called the facts as I saw them, something I'm sure Bedford understands. Seraphim♥Whipp 14:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Blechnic, clueless member of community

On Wikipedia things happen that involve major assumptions by insiders about what community outsiders (non-regulars and noobies, among others) see about a situation. I am very concerned about sexism and racism on Wikipedia, such as Wikipedia having a default logo that is essentially the white male who created it--the message being white males reign supreme on Wikipedia.

But I can't find the offending quote in the diffs, is it the bra and panties match thing? Bedford was desysopped for this hook?

If an administrator is desysopped for the protection of the community (whether by from his actions or by from his making the community appear badly to others), it seems there should be a clear and precise record somewhere of what happened.

I'm a member of the community and I cannot make it through the AN/I dramateria and the posted diffs to figure out what Bedford did to get desysopped. If I can't even find it, is it really necessary to desysop him for it?

I support a review of this case in order to make it clear to the community what happened--the whole community, not just the cadre of regulars.

--Blechnic (talk) 05:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by ThuranX

Like Blechnic, I'm confused about exactly what got his admin bits ripped off. Was it perceived callousness to women? Was is off-wiki comments? If the former, shouldn't they have brought it up on DYK when their removal was reverted? There are better ways to handle that sort of thing than edit warring. Further, since the hook had been reviewed by the DYK regulars, there was certainly a place to hadnle things properly. If the latter, what precedent does this set for talking about Wikipedia off Wikipedia? This would establish an horrific precedent of Chilling Effect on any editor who may either criticize OR defend Wikipedia. Do we really want to reduce Wikipedia to Fight Club?

I'm not defending any dumb or misogynistic comments Bedford made, but is de-adminning for not having a preset world-view responsible either? How 1984 are we willing to get here? ThuranX (talk) 05:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Sceptre

I endorse the desysopping fully. While I make no secret that I am friendly towards Seraphim Whipp, she didn't request my help in any way, either off-wiki or on-wiki. There was no concerted effort to smear Bedford. I echo Pedro's words that his on-wiki actions alone warranted the desysopping, and even if he didn't deserve it then, he does now. Also, I believe it was bad form not to leave a courtesy notice - I've just returned from a holiday in the past 20 minutes and I only found out about this through e-mail. Even so, I was preparing to file an arbcom request for emergency tool removal early on Friday morning ([11]). Sceptre ^(talk) 09:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by BanyanTree

While events were ongoing, I mostly limited himself to sitting on the sidelines and making unhelpful remarks, but some editors seem honestly confused about what happened so I'll take a stab at a statement. I apologize for the length but figure that it might benefit some people who want a fuller account.

Full post here after request to neaten things up. - BanyanTree 11:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, this incident can be divided into three parts: the DYK edit war, the subsequent on-wiki behavior and the myspace post. While admins have obviously been desysopped for wheeling, the indications are that it could have ended there with everyone walking away and chalking it up to some rough but not extraordinary jostling. The subsequent behavior is where the trouble comes in. Bedford continued pressing the matter across multiple pages, making broad accusations with aggressive language, while revealing a rather limited knowledge of some of the relevant policies. The myspace post was simply a continuation of the on-wiki attack. This matter is not about the DYK hook or subsequent edit war; it is about the dramatic escalation in language and scope outside of the DYK template, which I see being almost entirely pushed by Bedford. The is further aggravated by the fact that Bedford obviously has a rather shaky grasp of why he got into trouble in the first place, nevertheless why he no longer has the mop.

Comment by User:B

I strongly encourage arbcom to accept the case REGARDLESS of whether or not you believe there is any chance you would consider overturning Jimbo's actions. It is very important, in a case like this, to clarify exactly what actions justified the desysopping. His blog comments, while highly inappropriate, were off-wiki. If someone is being "punished" on-wiki for off-wiki actions, that is somewhat of a change to policy and needs to be clarified somewhere. I firmly agree with the desysopping, but I strongly encourage acceptance merely to avoid the "chilling effect" that could result from a desysopping of this kind.

I've read his blog comments. They are abhorrent and it's obvious that we don't need that from an admin. But it's still important to clarify that this is an exceptional case and that we aren't in the business of censoring each other's off-wiki thoughts. --B (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved armchair sophist Alecmconroy

• Yes, Arbcom should take the case. As it stands, Only arbcom can desysop an admin... ^*

(* with the rather awkward addendum that Jimmy Wales is the one individual editor who can unilaterally desysop without consulting Arbcom).

Arbcom should take the case based on the principles that everyone deserves their day in court, and no one user, however wise and nice, should wield unchecked power.

• Yes, burden of proof should be on those calling for the desysopping. In the absence of evidence, Bedford remains an admin. Just because, right now, that's the way we do things in all the other cases.

• Yes, Bedford should be desysopped because ample evidence exists. His response to the content dispute was to immediate resort to ad hominem comments: "bunch of feminists", "pathetic", Thanks for confirming I'm better than you, commenting on the gender of those who disagreed with him all of whom were women.

• Yes, the myspace blog posts are admissible (and deplorable). If his myspace blog were disconnected from his wikipedia account, I'd suggest we cut him slack on that-- people can say what they want in their own blog, so long as it's not done in such a way that somebody will connect the two. If someone did incredibly brilliant detective work to connect the two, I'd give it a pass on the ground that what a person says in his private life (even his online private life) is his own business. But his userpage links to his myspace, so he could reasonably expect that wikipedians will read his blog and easily know who he is referring to. So those statements too should be considered personal attacks.

• Therefore, Arbcom should vote to actively desysop Bedford, rather than just merely taking the weaker stance of declining to vote to re-sysop him.

--Alecmconroy (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Giggy

Hey, ArbCom, did you know that some of us were kind enough to set up a case relating to adminship for you. It's at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision, in case you forgot - that'd be understandable, since it's been so long. There's no way in hell you're going to resysop Bedford (User:Seraphim Whipp/Evidence, User:BanyanTree/Sandbox), so do we really need the drama? No, really? —Giggy 12:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

FloNight, are you seriously accepting because "we are going to field a request for the return of the admin tools"... "and thus we should accept the case with the least possible merit, ever"? I challenge you (and others who accept) to give one good reason why Bedford should be resysopped in the next <insert time it takes for this sort of ArbCom case to take place; considering how long it's taken you guys to deal with the aforementioned failcase, it could be anything>. —Giggy 14:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Jehochman

What Giggy said. Please deal with pressing matters. Do not spend your limited time with this. The opportunity cost is too high. Jehochman ^Talk 13:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Flo, should not Bedford demonstrate better behavior for a time before applying for the tools? There is no possibility of ArbCom resysopping him now. Why tie up the bandwidth to solve a problem that is not pendant when there are other problems that are overdue? Jehochman ^Talk 14:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Thatcher

So, Jimbo basically desysopped Bedford not for misuse of the toolbox, but for "conduct unbecoming." Endorsing this might be to the net benefit of the project, but will surely open several cans of worms, as any number of admins are routinely accused (some with more justification than others of course) of "conduct unbecoming." Be aware of what you do here, and think about the consequences before they bite you in the butt. Thatcher 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Rudget

It is clearly likely this request will be accepted by ArbCom (if not already) but before they actively seek remedies to the current situation of a former administrator who has been unilaterally desysopped they must thoroughly forsee the answers to two two important questions; one of the two is much commented on by Thatcher above, however, in addition to that ArbCom must seek the solution to whether the conduct of other users may have affected the end result. It is my view that some editors actions here were regrettable. Rudget 16:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved ClovisPt

Hi, I would urge the acceptance of this case. At the very least, concise clarification of the reasons for the lose of Bedford's admin privileges is in order. At the moment, it appears that these privileges were revoked primarily for uncivil behavior on the part of Bedford. However, it concerns me that other admins and editors seeking the removal of Bedford as an admin were extremely uncivil themselves, and were not held to account for this. Examples (from this discussion [12]) include the statement by BanyanTree that Bedford "continues to show a general lack of understanding that he's acting like a total dick"; the mocking suggestion to Bedford made by an anonymous administrator, hiding behind an IP address, that "Perhaps an attitude like this is why you're 36, single and still in school"; the implication by the same editor that Bedford was likely to engage in racially motivated violent attacks; and finally the attempt to interpret a post from Bedford's Myspace blog as first a threat against a wikipedia editor/admin, and then, when that didn't stick, as an indicator of stalking tendencies on the part of Bedford. I believe that the encylopedia would benefit if high standards of civility were applied to all admins.

Comment by Durova

Until the conduct issues overwhelmed the community's attention, the noticeboard discussion began as a review of a borderline wheel war between Krimpet and Bedford. With this in mind I respectfully suggest that Krimpet's name be added procedurally, as is customary in wheel war review arbitrations, since it appears likely the case will be accepted. That said, the community's support of Jimbo's decision in this instance probably makes formal review unnecessary. Durova^Charge! 18:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you post a link to the community support? This is really hard to see for an outsider. Nothing is clear here. It seems as if a small in-club met, fought, and kicked a member out, and are now saying "everyone" supported it. I finally realize the linked hood is the hook, not just the edit after it was oversighted. As a member of the community (or am I?), I would like to see my support of the desysopping in screen black and white. It would be nice, while this is still a request, to have something upon which to base an opinion. --Blechnic (talk) 04:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Wizardman

Being the nominator of User:Bedford and a DYK regular, I have a unique vantage point to this situation, and here's how I see it. I'll put it bluntly else I'd probably ramble on and speak of little solid ground. You see, were the comments made by Bedford wrong? Of course, no one disputes that. Did he wheel war? Yes, no one disputes that. What does this mean then? This case isn't really about the sysop status of Bedford, though that's of course a point. Rather, there are three points to this case that will merit arbcom consideration:

1. The extent of Jimbo's reach. This doesn't seem to be a major issue, and there seems to be consensus on this. Assuming this is true, it needs to be put in solid writing for future cases.
2. The language of the desysop. Jimbo said both the on-wiki wheel-warring and the off-wiki language merited desysop. Is this something that is accepted, and if so what ramifications does that have on future cases where a user may be participating in other forums and blogs?
3. The speed of the desysop. Was it necessary for it to be as fast as it was? This is actually the one that worries me personally. Could an RFC have solved the problem? Was it necessary for the desysop to occur at what apparently the height of Bedford's anger at what happened? I don't have the answers to these questions right now, but this case is what will answer them, ideally. Wizardman 21:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Vickser

As a DYK regular I'd like to support the desysoping of Bedford. In my time there I've seen him involved in several clashes over the appropriateness of certain hooks, plagiarism accusations, and the formatting of hooks. In each of these, I was astounded by his lack of civility. I didn't actually know Bedford was an admin until I stumbled upon this case: I had previously assumed he wasn't just on the basis of how impressively rude he's been over at DYK. I don't know whether or not arbcom would like to take the case just to double check things, but without a doubt I think Jimbo made the right decision. In my opinion, Bedford's behavior has been over the line and resysoping him would be harmful to the encyclopedia. Bureaucracy should not trump common sense, and I applaud Jimbo's choice. Vickser (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Prom3th3an

From what I saw of the ANI threads, Jimbo's talk page and (god help me for saying it) IRC discussions, there was definitely an overwhelming number of Wikipedian's who wanted Bedford desysoped for his disgraceful conduct. To my knowledge he has a history of questionable conduct and so Jimbo Wales did the community a favor by using the power vested in him and his judgment to desysop a user who was far out of line. I am sure Arbcom will have the wisdom to not to overturn Jimbo's decision, but in fact defer this to an RFA with reference to this case, that would reveal who is right and who is wrong   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 08:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Cube Lurker

In reference to Charles Matthews vote change. With all due respect, "Rubber Stamping" should not be done by refusing to accept the case. Decisions should be decided with a degree of due process. (Listening to both sides of the story, then having the comittee vote on the decisions). Sure it seems like a hassle, but it's the only way the full community can have faith in the system, not just those that already agree with Jimbo's actions.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment by MBisanz

Hmm, I generally don't comment in these things, but after looking over the situation, I'd say the desysop was good. I'd say that unless the arbcom has the intent of seriously considering restoring Bedford's bit at this time (as opposed to deferring to Jimbo or having Bedford re-apply in the future), that it just reject this case. Based on the conversation I've seen in different fora, I don't think the community supports a re-sysop at Bedford at this time, and would, based on my view of the facts and circumstances, suggest arbcom decline this case. MBisanz ^talk 14:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Further Comment by Prom3th3an

After further review and consideration, I can see no reason why ArbCom would accept this case, not only was it filled incorrectly (Bedford did not notify Jimbo Wales on his talk page as per Request requirements no. 5, which further questions his conduct) but I can see no reason why anyone would want to overturn the removal of his bits, as there is a large unofficial consensus in the regards of the sysop bits removal, personally I think ArbCom would be extremely foolish to accept a case that could possibly over ride community consensus.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion by Daniel

I find it highly unlikely that any arbitration case would result in the restoration of the sysop bit. I also find it unlikely that the Committee would prevent Bedford from renomination at RfA (which Jimbo prevented for whatever reason).

Therefore, I believe Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Closed motions is the solution, to the effect of:

Jimbo Wales' desysopping of Bedford (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is confirmed. Bedford is permitted to nominate himself at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship without restrictions. Alternatively, he may appeal for a reassessment of this position after a period of no less than six months, via private email to the Committee, at which point his adminship status would be reviewed.

The motion-style resolution used earlier this month was a great solution to solving an unusual situation with a workable solution and avoiding a full case, and I believe it would be similarly appropriate in this situation. Daniel (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• The question that I'd like to know: If ArbCom turns down Bedford's request, could he still re-apply to Jimbo (and the subsequent RfA), or is his appeal chance gone? - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 09:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• This case will be opened at 15:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC) provided it has four net votes to accept at that point. Daniel (talk) 02:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

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

• Bedford, I am sorry for the inconvenience but I see no link to your MySpace blog. Since Jimmy referred to it when desysopping your account, it would be very relevant to have a look at it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Link provided throughout statements. I accept the case. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Decline, per the reasons Charles has just given below. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Accept. I think we need to resolve this stand-off between alleged "misogyny" and alleged "censorship". No assumption on my part that the DYK regulars own any sort of space on the Main Page, of course. And I think ArbCom should review the remedy, to see if it meets the situation. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Having read over opinions submitted since I voted to accept: I now think ArbCom should rubber-stamp the desysop. This is pretty much WP:POINT in action, for an admin with an attitude problem. Altering a protected page to have "your" content on it is a misuse of admin tools, and this is an egregious case of obnoxiousness. Vote to reject and move on. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• I would accept this case because of the unique circumstances (the only previous case of desysopping by Jimbo was a temporary measure), and uncertainty about the meaning to be read into some of the statements made by Bedford. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply to Ncmvocalist, I do not see any reason to hold this case in private. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Accept. Seems to me we have to accept it, per Jimbo's statement; otherwise, I'd reject. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Decline per Jimbo's clarification. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Accept. --bainer (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Decline. I see no reason to overturn this. And to Josh and others, we are not required to accept this case, please see Jimbo's edit above: They are not compelled to accept his request for a hearing, though I have no objection of course, either way. Paul August ☎ 02:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Accept, per Charles. This is somewhat uncharted territory for the project, and some clarification on the various issues here would be helpful going forward. Kirill ^(prof) 12:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Accept. Now or later we are going to field a request for the return of the admin tools. Best to look into the situation now while the participants in the situation are all still active and available to comment. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

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
Designating Sri Lanka as a contentious topic	Motions	10 April 2024	0/0/0

[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
Mzajac	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	—	Case suspended

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	Motion	(orig. case)	27 February 2024
Amendment request: Armenia-Azerbaijan 3	Motion	(orig. case)	18 April 2024
Amendment request: Skepticism and coordinated editing	Motion	(orig. case)	16 April 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

Request for clarification : Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/John_Buscema

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

• User:Scott Free
• User:Tenebrae

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATenebrae&diff=228478711&oldid=228228599

Statement by Scott Free

I have a question concerning a statement by Tenebrae -

'...the version largely written by Scott Free's former identity, Skyelarke, which was disallowed by both RfC consensus and a lengthy Arbitration.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJohn_Buscema&diff=226555068&oldid=215860249

My question would be is the statement correct? Does the Arbitration ruling state that content contained in previous versions are not allowed to be integrated into the current article? I'm not clear about the consensus aspect, but my understanding is that of the closing arbitrator -

'(Referring to 'Consensus can change') ...This is certainly a legitimate and well-recognized principle. I don't know that it's applicable to this case because before the article was protected, it's not clear there was a consensus between the two versions, one way or the other. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration%2FJohn_Buscema%2FWorkshop&diff=181873872&oldid=181781354

I ask this because my understanding of the situation is that discussion on content had been interrupted (with about 30 or so referenced passages, having arrived after the RfC in question, left more or less incompletly discussed) due to conduct and civility issues that required arbitration. Following the Arbitration, which issued a decision aimed at resolving the dispute, in theory discussion could continue, addressing the unresolved content questions. So I guess my second question would be: Can I make edits to the article (within reason) that aim at reintegrating some or all of the 30 or so unresolved referenced passages?

Right now, I feel that if I should make edits to the article in that spirit, judging by the statement (which has been made in various forms several times), I would get a reply to the effect of 'the content being presented has been disallowed by RfC and an Arbitration ruling'.

In good faith,

--Scott Free (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding respecting post-arb consensus - That's also a question I have - What if no clear consensus emerges from the limbo the article was in? I did do a RfC to try and address this, but there was little in terms of comments on the specific issue of the previous disputed (and I say largely unresolved) content - the RfC ended up being pretty inconclusive aside from certain generalities about image use.

--Scott Free (talk) 11:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Tenebrae

Anyone can go on the John Buscema page and see Scott Free's disruptiveness even when editors besides myself try to dissuade him from continuing to promote his highly POV, often non-MOS, hagiographic fan page with over a dozen often decorative images. He was barred from editing the page for three months, and his obsessiveness over the page got him another month tacked on.

Please: Go read the lengthy Arbitration log, and the months of discussion that went on before and, now, afterward. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by GRBerry

There was a recent WP:AE thread posted by Scott Free, which I closed after 5 days had gone by. It was clear to me that it did not merit administrative action, and no other reviewer had suggested that use of tools was appropriate. During that thread it was discovered that the external link was to a out of date mirror of our article, and it looked due to lack of further dispute over the link like that would lead to consensus about it. This thread is now archived here. A followup thread, attended to by Shell Kinney, is still on WP:AE but will archive to archive 24 shortly. An even earlier related thread is here. No other WP:AE activity I'm aware of is relevant. GRBerry 03:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

The remedies in the case said nothing whatsoever about the content of the article; rather, they require that after your topic ban expired, both of you "respect consensus developed in the interim concerning the basic structure of the article and the nature of the material that should be included". Does your material respect the consensus that developed? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe I've tried, having made only non-controversial and minor edits and not having touched the article otherwise.

It might be helpful to read these two new related, closed discussions on the Admin Noticeboard, of which I've only now become aware, in which other editors and admins have addressed Scott Free's continuing disruptions and obsessive behavior: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#John Buscema and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Addenda to John Buscema. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Lyndon LaRouche 2

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

• Cberlet [13]
• Will Beback [14] (Has been active in helping enforce the case's rulings.)
• Post at relevant ANI thread [15] [16]
• Georgewilliamherbert [17]

Question by Cla68

The original Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 case contained specific findings against only two editors: Herschelkrustofsky and SlimVirgin. A post-decision motion [18], passed nine months ago, however, appears to expand the scope of the case to include any behavior exhibited by anyone that violates WP:NOR, WP:POV, or WP:BLP with regard to the LaRouche articles. The exact verbiage in the passed motion is:

The findings of fact of the original decision Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision, closed in September 2004, referred to two problematic behaviours:

• a pattern of adding original material, not an editor's own, but that of Lyndon LaRouche, to Wikipedia articles,
• a pattern of political advocacy and propaganda advancing the viewpoints of Lyndon LaRouche and his political movement.

The Arbitration Committee affirms that editor behaviour amounting to such patterns is not accepted on Wikipedia. Administrators should draw the attention of editors to these standing principles, which should be known by any editor engaging closely in LaRouche-related articles. After due warning, explanation, and reference to the basic unacceptability of POV pushing on Wikipedia, proportionate blocks may be applied by administrators. Cases of difficulty may be referred directly to the Committee for clarification.

It is also pointed out that the principles of Wikipedia:Biographies of living people, formulated since that first case, must be applied strictly to all biographical material appearing in articles relating to the LaRouche movement.

Passed 5 to 2, 17:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

If my interpretation of this ruling is correct, then should the recent block of Cberlet [19] for violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPA at Views of Lyndon LaRouche with this [20] remark on the article's talk page be annotated in the log of blocks and bans for this case? And, by extension, any other editors who have been blocked for violating these policies and guidelines in a similar manner to CBerlet in LaRouche-related articles should also have had their blocks annotated? Cla68 (talk) 03:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Will Beback

I don't understand the need for this. The original ArbCom case closed over two years ago. The only remedies concerned HK and his sockpuppets. Those blocks were logged because they had an escalation clause. Cberlet was an innocent party. Why would this block be logged - what purpose would it serve?

While we're on this topic, we might as well get a determination about the applicability of this motion to current editors. In particular, Polly Hedra (talk · contribs), who posted this message.[21] I simply deleted it as unhelpful and left a message on the user's talk page. However, since this matter is being contested it's worth making sure that remedies are applied evenly. The user is unremorseful.[22] As for being potential sock puppets of HK, there are several editors whose edits are very similar to HK's in that they only edit LaRouche-related articles and articles that LaRouche has a strong POV about, and they consistently promote that POV. Due to HK's clever puppet mastering (see the first RfAr), it is probably impossible to find them using Checkuser, and so they can only be determined by behavior.

FWIW, I received notes from Cberlet asking that the biography of Chip Berlet be deleted, and apparently signalling his intention to leave the project.[23][24] I'd guess that being punished while those who've baited him are unpunished might be a cause.

Comment by User:Marvin Diode

It seems a bit self-serving to call Polly Hedra's message on Will's talk page "unremorseful." She calls attention to the fact that Will deleted her comment on the LaRouche talk page, while allowing a far more inflammatory comment [25] by Cberlet to stand. This does not indicate any particular lack of remorse, but rather calls attention to a double standard which has been a continuing problem.

I also have real concerns about Will's proposal that editors be banned for holding a suspicious POV, in lieu of actual Checkuser evidence. Based on Will's long history of partisanship in LaRouche-related content disputes, I have difficulty believing that this proposal is motivated by nothing more than a desire to protect the project from sockpuppets. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment by User:Dtobias

The meme to the effect that "everybody expressing similar opinions to a banned user should be banned too" came into play frequently in the whole Mantanmoreland vs. WordBomb saga, and one would hope it had been discredited by now. This issue needs to be pursued in a "sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander" manner with no special consideration, pro or con, being given to either side based on their having a more powerful circle of friends here. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Is there a way for our established users to avoid name calling when they are confronted to difficult situations? Incivility (in all forms) has never been something constructive at all. We can do better than that and most people do not necessarily need to use such a language in order to prove something they believe is right. But logging it just for the sake of logging it is not a solution. It is rather an obstacle. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• The motion merely affirmed that, while way back in 2004 it may not have been entirely clear that policies like no original research and neutral point of view were ordinarily enforceable without going so far as having an arbitration case (for interest, here is a contemporary revision of NOR, and here's one of NPOV), by 2007 those principles had long since passed in to the general corpus of policy, and the existence of special remedies in this subject area in no way meant that general policy did not also apply. --bainer (talk) 07:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• This strikes me as petty and unnecessary. As per FayssalF, this is unhelpful; and per bainer, normal policy is handling these issues just as well anyway. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Request for clarification: /Homeopathy

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

• N/A

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This is just a reminder that the evidence page is still deleted. As this is pretty much a gross deviation from the norm, and as the last statement about it was Flonight's over a week ago, I figured it was time to go here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• As I replied to a query on my user talk page, I asked on ArbCom and got good replies about the reason. I'm still looking into the situation so I can make a good choice about what to include in the undeleted version. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

---