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

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

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024
Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction	none	none	25 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

Clarifications and other requests

Shortcuts

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

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024
Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction	none	none	25 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

Request for clarification on RFA options for User:Coffee and User:PeterSymonds

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

Rlevse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Coffee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (previously Chet B Long)
PeterSymonds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Both parties notified: PeterSymonds and Coffee

Statement by Rlevse

As the prior clarification on Steve Crossin, PeterSymonds, and Coffee did not specifically address the RFA option of Coffee and PeterSymonds as it was focused on other issues, can we get an explicit reading on whether these two users can or can not regain their admin bit by RFA or if their only option is through arbcom? Whenever there's a desyssop, I suggest the committee explicitly state if only arbcom is an option or if both arbcom and RFA are options. It'd greatly reduce confusion.

Statement by User:AGK

As thoughts specifically on how the Committee could respond to this matter, it may be worthwhile developing an "official announcement" in private (on list? on arbcomwiki?) to satisfy the queries raised by Rlevse, seizing the agreement of the arbitrators en banc, and posting that reply on this thread.

In all honesty, the usual system of arbitrators individually commenting; proposing motions, adjustments, amendments, or clarifications; and working towards satisfying the issues underlying; is not appropriate (no "proper response" is really given, from the committee as a single body at least), nor an efficient use of anybody's time.

Anthøny ✉ 02:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For WJB: how would you suggest we approach getting these requests for clarification done quickly and efficiently? Anthøny ✉ 10:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WJBscribe

Given Deskana's statement [1] that the language which excludes these two former administrators from regaining that access through the normal means was accidental, I would appreciate clarification as to whether they are free to run at RfA. The promotion of administrators should remain the preserve of the RfA process unless there is relevant information about a candidate known to the Arbitration Committee which, for good reason, cannot be openly revealed. It seems that, in this case, full disclosure of the circumstances in which these two users allowed a third party access to their admin account would be needed to reestablish community confidence. Given this, there is no obvious reason why they may only regain adminship through appeal... WJBscribe (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I disagree entirely with AGK's comment above: far too much ArbCom business occurs behind closed doors. If this simple question cannot be resolved in the open, I despair. WJBscribe (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re phrasing: May I suggest: "... were compromised, may each opt to regain their access either through the usual RFA process, or by application to ArbCom." This avoids the possibly confusing use of "their" and "access" would seem to me to be a better word to use than "status". WJBscribe (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Durova

Echoing WJBscribe's statement, with the additional comment that it surprises me greatly that the previous request for clarification closed without resolving this important point. Durova^Charge! 02:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To jpgordon: either option A or C would be reasonable. My only objection is to preventing the community from exercising its customary discretion, without special cause. Durova^Charge! 05:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) To Sam Blacketer and Newyorkbrad, please review the request for clarification on the Matthew Hoffman case, which Rlvese closed last month calling it a clear decision.[2] The principal thing it clarified is that a desysopped Wikipedian may not run for RFA unless ArbCom specifically allows it. In the words of TheBainer, which other responding Committee members endorsed:

I can say that desysopping remedies are always explicit about the methods by which the person concerned can reapply to be a sysop, identifying that it may be by the "usual means", by application to the Committee, or by some other means. In this case the method specified was "by application to the Committee, upon demonstration of six months editing in compliance with communal norms and conduct standards", and as such a request for adminship is not permitted within that decision.

When I presented evidence that TheBainer’s explanation conflicted with the Seabhcan precedent where the decision had been silent about RFA, and yet MONGO had subsequently been allowed to request readminship through RFA, I requested a link to any announcement of when the practice had changed. Bainer replied with the following:

Re Durova, I can't speak to what the then members of the Committee were thinking nineteen months ago in the Seabhcan case. All I was saying is that in every single case since then involving a desysopping, the Committee has expressly identified the methods by which the relevant user could re-apply for sysophood. I don't think there was any "announcement", it's just been included explicitly in all the remedies passed since.

Now, barely five weeks later, multiple Committee members fail to see the inconsistency. This is my sixth post to the second of two threads in making a request that you yourselves, as a body, recently declared to be mandatory. After this many attempts I’m at a loss to restate this simple matter politely, so here it is in blunt terms:

The community cannot read your minds. If you depart from precedent and establish a new formula for decision terminology, the onus is upon you to make a clear and public announcement to that effect in advance of its implementation. Once such a decision emerges it remains in force until ArbCom as a body (not a couple of individual arbitrators) changes it. You have conventions for doing so. Use them.

These are matters of basic organizational competence. They should require no reminder or explanation. I have sometimes counseled editors who were named parties at arbitration to put their best foot forward: if they did not conduct themselves in a reasonable manner during the proceeding itself, then the only reasonable conclusion is that they would not or could not do so under any circumstances. Have you forgotten that the community is scrutinizing the arbitration committee at a request for comment? Are you aware that the Italian Wikipedia recently shut down their arbitration committee?

Moreover, this must have the effect of yet another slap in the face to Shoemaker’s Holiday, whose health you consistently pay lip service to and then abuse. Put yourselves in his shoes for a moment—singled out and humiliated by an unannounced departure from precedent that you abandon at the very next opportunity--the best exercise of good faith he could probably attempt is a quote from Napoleon:

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.

Shame on you. Durova^Charge! 21:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Sam Blacketer: nothing about confidentiality in the Matthew Hoffman case compelled the Committee to make an unannounced departure from precedent in the way it wrote and intended its decision there. Nor did any concern of that nature compel the Committee to first neglect to include a necessary clause from the very next similar decision it handed down after the Matthew Hoffman clarification, or to fumble repeated requests to regularize the Coffee/PeterSymonds decision. Genuine concern for Shoemaker's health should have prompted special diligence to avoid compounding the unnecessary stresses the Committee has already created. It is base to invoke such a concern to conceal your own shortcomings. At least the emperor who had no clothes had the good taste not to steal the lame man's fig leaf.

Shoemaker's Holiday has contributed 28 29 another promotion tonight featured content items to the encyclopedia since his desysopping. In the same span of time, have all 15 of you together done as much? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Durova^Charge! 05:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up to Sam: is there a typo in your statement? I don't know who you intend to address, but those points are certainly unrelated to my objections here. Durova^Charge! 08:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam: I am at a loss to see how you construe such inferences from my posts. It was TheBainer who cited precedent as the reason Shoemaker's Holiday could not run for RFA, then when presented with a contradictory precedent he argued it was obsolete and practice had changed, and he also insisted that formal request for clarification was mandatory. That was the opinion the Committee endorsed. Now the Commitee may not be bound by precedent but you are bound by an expectation to be comprehensible; it simply doesn't wash to issue a series of vague and contradictory decisions worded indistinguishably whose real intention is understood by nobody but yourselves. We hope that you explain in advance, and when you fail to we must ask you afterward.

In particular it is important to avoid these irregularities when a man's health is concerned. The arbitrators I consulted with privately (I won't name them) expressed a desire to relieve Shoemaker of stress as a reason for offering to resysop him via private appeal. Whether or not you ever do so is not pertinent to this thread, but what is germane is that your actions are having precisely the opposite effect--needlessly and thoughtlessly so--if that were accident it would be bad enough, but when the Committee placed him under its parole it assumed an implicit obligation to be a model of steady and responsible behavior. Is this the example you expect him to follow: forgetting decisions from one month to the next and covering the gaps with excuses? Failing to heed five successive patient and necessary requests, then lashing out with non sequiturs when someone names the inconsistencies? Shoemaker's Holiday is not perfect, but he is unlikely to improve under such guidance as that.

To paraphrase WJBscribe I was near despair when I named Shoemaker's featured content production; there are far more Zoes in the world than Shoemakers. Want a featured credit, Sam? Tonight I downloaded two eighteenth century manuscript drawings of the Mayan ruins at Palenque. They're in good condition and suitable as beginner restoration projects; I'll collaborate if you're willing to learn. Perhaps if you try this you'll see what this site came so close to losing. I'm Wikipedia's second best at this medium after Shoemaker, and I'm not half what he is. Durova^Charge! 11:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Reaves

Given the sudden nature of this incident and the arbcom involvement pre-AN post, I think some sort of communication with arbcom by the parties prior to any sort of rights change would be the best course of action. John Reaves 09:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday

I was just told about this, but, well, I believe that everything the committee knows about me is to do with my health problems. If there's anything else, the committee has not said so when I asked them if there was. As they feel it's relevant, they have my permission to reveal any and all information they have on me, provided they present it with reasonable tact. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the Arbcom

With all respect, please stop talking about how you made the decision in order to protect my health. In fact, your handling of the process sent me into a six-month decline. Though I accept your intent was probably good, I'm afraid that it is simply galling to have you talking about how you did it to protect me now, given that, at the time, simple requests such as a break because I was having a full-scale nervous breakdown - which I told you - were denied, no time was given off for exams, and instead I was criticised for not providing more evidence while my health got worse and worse. During the recent appeal, it really did feel like Morven was using my illness to attack me. I did not want to be dragged into this discussion. Now that I have, I would ask that you please not speak on my behalf. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As this seems to be an issue, I will briefly list my health problems. The overarching one is that for the past 4 years, I have had symptoms similar to flu that last between two weeks and three months intermittently. It has been diagnosed as several related things, all of which come under the category of post-viral fatigue syndromes.

However, since it has lasted so long, several mental health issues have arisen as well, primarily depression and certain problems with nerves, due to finding it somewhat difficult to cope as, since the problems are intermittent and not outright crippling, I receive no help with coping with the effects whatsoever. This has led to a few nervous breakdowns.

The arbcom case was launched when I was already having money troubles over the effects of these, and while I was in one of my bad patches, where it can feel like I'm thinking through wool.

I do not want to criticise the committee too much - it is my hope they have never and will never suffer from long-term illness. However, as a counterpoint to this, the committee also seems to be unable to deal with such issues in Wikipedians, and their behaviour made things substantially worse. Particularly, continuing the case two months past the point where I revealed this to them and offered to resign adminship immediately can only be described as gross mishandling.

The committee's handling of this was, perhaps understandably, poor, and certain aspects of the case, which I'm sure we are all aware of by now, made things far worse. It is for others to discuss such points. What I would ask now is, that the committee, who have shown themselves so unable to deal with my illness with any sensitivity, recuse themselves from any further decisions on my half motivated by my illness, leaving that between me and my doctors. The committee's efforts to "protect" me, in all honesty, have only served to perpetuate their poor handling of the original case. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Recuse, from clerking duties on this thread. Anthøny ✉ 02:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

Comment -- I was kinda surprised it was closed, given the positive response when I asked if there was more that needed to be handled. I think we can do this just with a quick up and down vote. My thought is that the two left under a cloud, but a very visible cloud, and if the community says it's OK to come back as admins, it's OK with me; I can't imagine the community would hold back from grilling both of them completely regarding the situation that led to the accounts being abused; I haven't heard anything that would require any privacy, and I trust the RFA process is at least robust enough to reflect the concern of the community should they try. Other committee members might be more annoyed by the circumstances than I am, or perhaps more informed. I guess the choices should be (a) Coffee and PeterSymonds may regain their administrative status through the normal RFA channel; (b) they may regain their administrative status by application to ArbCom; or (c) they may regain their administrative status by RFA after application to ArbCom. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jpgordon. The circumstances in which these two users came to lose administrative powers are known and in my opinion the community has all the information it needs to decide if and when they should return to be admins. It is up to Coffee and PeterSymonds to decide whether to go through an RFA or to ask Arbcom to restore admin status. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A response to Durova, whose tone I regret is not constructive. I can't speak for what went on before my term began, but my take on the more recent decisions is this. Sometimes, concerns about the conduct of administrators come to the committee through being raised in public, and the entirety of the case is known to the wider community. In other cases, for various reasons, serious matters are raised in private which one or other party needs to be kept confidential, and in those circumstances the committee has no choice but to decide in private. In the case of these Coffee and PeterSymonds, nothing important is confidential and so the community is fully able to decide. Where one aspect of the case is rightly kept confidential, the community does not have a full picture and it would be unfair all round to have a decision about administrator status made by assumptions about factors which are not known. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To further reply, Arbitration on Wikipedia is not bound by precedent. When Shoemaker's Holiday's performance as an administrator was found to be below acceptable standards, but he gave an explanation to the committee of what lay behind it, the committee accepted his explanation. The decision was that his administrator status should be given up until the committee were satisfied that the underlying issue was no longer a problem (I was recused on his case, having only just joined). This was, in all the circumstances, thought fairer to all than having every member of the community make a judgment on what Shoemaker's Holiday had done and whether it was likely to happen again. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Final reply to Durova. First, there is no such thing as precedent in the manner you suggest. Second, administrator status is not a reward for producing featured content. Third, it is the time taken up by committee work which prevents arbitrators from writing articles. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As previously mentioned, I was travelling last week when this matter unfolded, but having now reviewed it, I concur that these two editors are eligible to regain adminship either through a new RfA, or through a request that this committee restore adminship after a reasonable time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is for (c) - that is, they're free to apply to RfA, but they can apply to us as well, if they would prefer. James F. (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Usually these days, we state what's intended. If we don't it is because we either don't see it as likely, or as likely any time soon, or we haven't ourselves actually decided (yet).
In this case, per Sam Blacketer/jpgordon, the community has all that's needed and should be able to assess the users at RFA without further ado. However. there is always some risk that they might not get a fair chance at RFA, so if either wanted to ask us to give a view or consider it, before deciding about seeking RFA, I'd consider that a reasonable approach. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motion in Coffee/PeterSymonds case

Clerks, please put this in the usual format for a motion.

User:Coffee and User:PeterSymonds, having resigned their administrator status while under scrutiny when their accounts were compromised, may regain their status either through the usual RFA process, or by application to ArbCom, at each editor's own discretion.

There are currently 12 active arbitrators, so a majority is 7.

Support:

jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could we add, at end, "at their discretion" for clarity? Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to figure out an unambiguous way to say that so the "their" clearly refers to the editors, not to ArbCom. Wording suggestions are welcome -- the intent is clear, however. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^(prof) 23:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added "at their election" as an attempt to address the wording concern; comments welcome. I would note that approval of an application to this committee for restoration of privileges would not be automatic, but that based on the information presently available, I would be inclined to support it after a reasonable amount of time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "at each editor's own discretion" will work better. But: I flipped a coin to figure out where the apostrophe goes. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I now recommend "may each ... at his own discretion" as a compromise and to address WjBscribe's concern above (although any of the proposed wordings would accomplish the result). Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC) Yes.[reply]

Oppose:

Request for professional consultation

There appears to be no other formal mechanism for initiating this type of request, so submitting under the general descriptor of other requests.

Per the following:

Wikipedia's arbitration committee has dealt with a number of situations involving serious harassment, threats, and health issues. These concerns fall far outside the normal scope of encyclopedic disputes; these issues have real world ramifications. The qualifications for which arbitrators are chosen--familiarity with site policies, experience in article dispute resolutions, etc.--have virtually nothing to do with the training and experience requisite for handling problems of this nature. Therefore I offer a solution.

Proposed:

By January 1, 2009 the Committee will either retain the consulting services of credentialed professionals in these areas, or else its members will obtain appropriate fundamental training in these areas from qualified professionals. If the consulting option is selected, normal client-professional confidentiality would apply to the relationship. If the training option is selected, training would be mandatory for all new and returning arbitrators and must be completed by February 15, 2009 or the arbitrator will be placed on the inactive list involuntarily and excluded from internal arbitration communications (mailing list, private wiki, etc.) until training is completed.

The Committee will submit interim reports to the Community via public announcement on the Administrators' Noticeboard on November 1 and December 1. No later than January 1, 2009 the Committee will announce its final action, complete with the names and professional qualifications of the consultants or trainers, and name the formal instruction (if any) that Committee members take. If a Committee member is placed on the inactive list due to failure to complete training, a training needed notation will be added next to that arbitrator's name. The community may request an independent audit for compliance in obtaining and retaining training/consultation, according to reasonable means per the Committee's specification.

Durova^Charge! 04:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policy proposals should be made on the talk page or village pump, where there can be proper threaded discussion. You don't get to bypass that and draw attention to your by posing it here. Abcom are not legislators of new policies. I already moved this to the talk page, but Durova reverted me. I invite someone else to move it now.--Troikoalogo (talk) 08:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to the substantive points. (Although I think this debate should be moved elsewhere). Arbcom is not your mother. Durova is correct that it is not qualified to solve issues of criminal harassment, intimidation, mental health issues etc.. But nor should it be, and even if it had "professional advisers" it would still be inappropriate. Arbcom are here to protect the project from user activity which is unhelpful to the aims of the encyclopaedia, and its members are well qualified to do that; it really should not be in the business of doing more than that. If people need professional assistance, or law-enforcement, or psychological help, then point them elsewhere. If arbcom were to "retain consulting services", I'd ask 1) to what end? 2) who would pay (is Durova offering)? 3) and would arbcom wish to be responsible for applying such subjective advice? No, stick to asking "what serves the encyclopaedia?" and "in view of this person's ACTIONS (not their state of mind) is it helpful to this project for them to be allowed to use this website?" Ultimately, and with due respect, the committee are simply glorified (and well-qualified) website moderators, do not pretend that they are, or should be, anything more.--Troikoalogo (talk) 09:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I'll chime in here to say that I think this proposal is the whole philosophy underlying BADSITES brought to its logical conclusion. If we were going to let emotional impact on community members dictate the contents of the encyclopedia, it follows logically the project should be compelled to hire mental health experts if not full-time psychiatric consultants in order to run the project in a way that minimized emotional harm to our community members.

To some, this proposal is, it seems, a serious one, put forward in good faith. To me, it's sort of a reductio ad absurdum. A few years ago, some members of Wikipedia started to assume that "Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia, it's a community". Practically all of Wikipedia have rejected that assumption by now, but a few still cling to it. Here we see that those people have now reached a conclusion which follows, in perfect logical fashion, from that initial assumption-- but the conclusion that has been reached is, nevertheless, patently absurd. --Alecmconroy (talk) 09:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's it nailed.--Troikoalogo (talk) 09:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]