Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

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

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

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	14 Dec 2024	04 Jan 2025

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions	1 December 2024

Current requests

Unapproved admin bots

Initiated by Prodego ^talk at 19:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Prodego (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Misza13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• MZMcBride (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• east718 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Cyde (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Chris G (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request`

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Adminbots

Statement by Prodego

For the past several years, the subject of 'adminbots' has been a touchy one on Wikipedia. There is a common perception that these adminbots are opposed by the 'ZOMGADMINBOT' crowd, who are worried about evil admin bot overlords taking over the wiki. Unfortunately, this attitude overshadows the legitimate complaints with admin bots, and more specifically unauthorized admin bots. Unlike all other unauthorized bots, unauthorized admin bots are often ignored, instead of being blocked, as policy prescribes. I think that this situation touches on some very important issues, including: (1) a different treatment of admins simply because they are admins (2) following a consensus among a minority that that is unable to gain wider consensus to change the policies to simply allow these types of bots (3) users taking the attitude that they are 'above' policy, or that it does not apply to them (4) lack of respect for the policies that have developed over time. Particularly in regards to this 4th point, is important to remember that policy is not law. However, if attempts have been made to change a policy, and they have repeatedly failed, simply ignoring the policy is not an acceptable line of action, it is disruption. Ignoring all rules is a great way to allow unanticipated and productive edits that would normally be against policy, but it is not intended to be applied against a policy that is already in place, and that has already developed a consensus on the exact issue for which you wish to ignore it. The users listed above have all admitted to running an unauthorized adminbot in some form, and (quoting Misza13) "will not request any approval simply because... the bot already is approved, authorized or whatever you call it and operaties[sic] within policy. If that policy is IAR." I find disregarding an established and well followed bot request procedure simply because you don't personally find it necessary to be a problem, and I hope that the arbcom will resolve this issue. I declined to simply block these users as policy suggests, under advice from a number of users, who suggested I file an arbitration case instead. I hope that the arbcom can solve this long term contentious user conduct issue once and for all. Thank you.

Simply put: If I can't follow policy, what is the point of policy. I would like the arbcom to implicitly or explicitly decide if it is justified, in this case, to disregard policy, as these users have, for what seems to me to be no reason other than that they don't feel like getting their bots approved. The alternative was to block Misza and file an RfAR on should anyone unblock, for violating the blocking policy. If necessary I can do that, is that what you would like? Additionally this is not about admin bots they are good. This is about unapproved admin bots we do have approved admin bots. Prodego ^talk 21:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Cyde Weys

Admin bots have been common practice for, what, over two years now? I don't see what arbitration will achieve. Rewrite the policy to reflect current practice and be done with it. --Cyde Weys 19:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I found some links, if anyone feels like reading up on some of the previous situations where this has come up. It never hit arbitration before, though.

• Bureaucrat's noticeboard discussion
• ANI discussion
• Village Pump discussion

And it's come up on my talk page a couple of times too, but I'll spare you all of that. --Cyde Weys 21:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

@Majorly:

Saying "false positives should never happen" is a utopian ideal at odds with reality. There are false positives (and false negatives) in every industry; the trick is to make them as infrequent as possible. Incidentally, when tasks are trivially automated (such as the CFD tasks my bot does), the error rate goes way down when they are handed over to a robot. The comparison here is against the human, and humans are far from perfect, especially when drudging through mind-numbing, tedious, and repetitive tasks. I made a lot more mistakes when I was handling CFD tasks manually than my CFD bot does now. Ever consider why, when a manufacturing process requires really tight tolerances, it inevitably comes down to a robot doing the precision work? --Cyde Weys 21:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved) CBM

There has been ongoing discussion about the issue of adminbots at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Adminbots. A change was proposed in the bot policy some time ago [6], and yesterday I removed the "proposed" sticker. It seems to me that (1) the issue here is that the bot policy has been out of sync for a long time, as descriptive policies often are, and (2) that problem is being resolved through discussion already. For the record, although I am familiar with bots and adminbots, I don't run any adminbots. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Re Carcharoth: the 'proposed' tag was added again. The main point of disagreement at the moment seems to be how to deal with existing admin bots; I don't think anyone has objected (yet?) to the part about future adminbots being approved by BAG. The discussion is at WT:BOT. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Spartaz and Carcharoth that it's better to ignore Prodego's block, which was quickly lifted with near-unanimous support for allowing Misza to run the bot, unless a pattern of such bad blocks develops. If the case were to be accepted primarily for the purpose of examining that block, I suggest renaming it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Миша13

This filing is an example of feeding one's process-wonky needs - playing the process for the sake of it. Not only Prodego is in error in his/her statement that other dispute resolution steps have been tried, he/she does not make clear what the arbitration is supposed to accomplish. ArbCom is not for making you feel warm and fuzzy about the process. On top of that, he/she is citing me with limited context and even then ignoring parts of it (specifically the part about the bot being already "approved, authorized or whatever you call it"). Plz u b wrting an lolenziklopedia, kthx. Миша13 19:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by MBisanz

I think we may be short some parties here, bot policy says:

Bots (short for "robots") are generally programs or scripts that make automated edits without the necessity of human decision-making.

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Adminbots#List_of_adminbots_and_admins_running_deletion_scripts lists several admins running automated scripts for admin activities who are not named in this RFAR. They probably ought to be added if ArbCom decides to take a global look at this issue. MBisanz ^talk 19:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment to Majorly, the block in question was this block [7] for rapid page moving of the Faggot (slang)[8] after this grawp-like edit [9] and this penis-vandal edit [10] some days earlier. He was later determined to be banned user User:Who ordered 137? and blocked indef, so I really would not hold it against Misza for blocking a banned user who was probably trying to trigger his bot. MBisanz ^talk 20:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Reading the comments here, at the RFC, and at WT:BOT, I'd like to raise the idea of formal WP:Mediation as a way to get all the parties on a single page under a single mediator to keep the conversation on track and towards a goal. Just an idea. MBisanz ^talk 12:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Since Prodego feels the apparently uncontrollable urge to block users he suspects of using admin bots, despite his previous involvement in the adminbots issue (including this RFAR), maybe Arbcom does need to accept the case to examine the behavior of all parties using administrative rights in this matter. MBisanz ^talk 21:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Majorly

There have been numerous issues with admin bots in the past. I can't think of any specifically, but I do remember an occasion when Misza13 (or rather, his bot) blocked a user because of a so-called bad username, and it wasn't. I remember him defending his (bot's) action, saying words to the effect of "99% of its blocks are good". That isn't good enough, it needs to be 100%. If this bot is so important and works so well, it should be approved like the one other approved admin bot, User:RedirectCleanupBot. Majorly ^talk 20:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

@MBisanz: I don't care if the user is blocked now. It was a false positive, which should never happen. Majorly ^talk 21:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

@MBisanz: And that isn't the one I was thinking of. Majorly ^talk 21:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments moved from a section set aside for another editor and reformatted.^[11] WP:RFAR/G#Responding to others' statements. Anthøny ✉ 21:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

@Cyde Weys: If the bot was approved, at least it was a legitimate process that made the mistake. Obviously mistakes will happen, but when they happen with what's essentially an illegal process, that's when there's an issue. I don't understand the apparent difficulty in requesting approval... Majorly ^talk 21:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed and refactored, again. Edit only your own section please. Anthøny ✉ 21:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Another comment: a request for a deletion bot was carried out in November last year, which would delete old user/talk pages from blocked editors. Despite it failing, ST47 continued to delete old page, en masse. Ignoring the outcome of a community discussion and running the bot anyway shows complete contempt for the community. The RfA may as well have not been run. Luckily, he doesn't seem to have deleted anymore since, but still, I don't like the attitude from many bot people around this whole thing (in particular ST47, Misza13 and MZMcBride). Majorly ^talk 08:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Despite this ongoing RfAr, MZMcBride continues to (what seems to be) bot-delete pages en-masse. We have an approved admin bot, running legitimately on its own account to delete broken redirects. Why do we need another admin account doing it illegimately? Why can't MZMcBride request adminship for the bot like Eagle101 and WJBscribe did? Majorly ^talk 08:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by krimpet✽

The point of IAR is to "be bold, but not reckless." Some of our community-elected admins have been running semi-automated and automated tools to help ease the workload for all and keep the project running behind the scenes. The engineering of these tools has been extremely careful and precise - one could say the "gray-area" nature of these tools has encouraged a very high level of quality assurance, since any false positives or bugs would probably lead to a huge, contentious discussion (like what led to the Betacommand arbitration case). If the filing party can provide some evidence on how these admins have actually caused disruption or harm since that case, that would be great... but I am not aware of any since then. krimpet✽ 20:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment from AGK

Whilst it is indeed true that adminbots have been a contentious topic in principle for a sizeable period of time (namely, the past 2 years or so), in practice their continued presence has not constituted any danger or threat to the project. I am even inclined to state that the actions of adminbots (robot code, mass-action scripts, etc., being used on administrator accounts) by-and-large are a net positive for the project, and have very little to no ill effect.

Should this matter be considered for acceptance by the Committee, I note that it needs to be demonstrated that there is a serious issue to be Arbitrated. The presentation of a sample of evidence showing that adminbots have a disruptive effect on the encyclopedia is what I have in mind.

It may be a more productive and more feasible course of action, to focus on analysing the results of the adminbots request for comment, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Adminbots. Developing a new forum for granting permission for administrators who run bot scripts on their account to continue to do so, as well as setting up a discussion specifically angled at how to interpret the RfC's results, may be a course of action likely to be more fruitful than a (premature) request for arbitration at this time.

Comment by probably involved Mr.Z-man

I'm not entirely sure why I'm not a party, given that I'm listed on the RFC talk page as having run an adminbot. I haven't run it in some time, mainly due to lack of time. Prodego writes:

unauthorized admin bots are often ignored, instead of being blocked, as policy prescribes

With the possible exception of polices that have real-world implications such as WP:COPY and WP:BLP, policy doesn't "prescribe" anything. It is a description of how things are actually done and probably should be done. As long as it helps the project (or at the least doesn't hurt it), no one has to follow policy (with the exceptions mentioned previously). The RFC mentioned above was not an attempt at dispute resolution, but a policy-RFC to get a policy for adminbots that doesn't suck. Blocking is supposed to prevent damage (hypothetical disruption is not damage, something has to actually be disrupted), from what I've seen, all of the adminbots currently operating are as, or more, accurate than humans. The benefit to Misza's bot is quite clear. Grawp socks are being blocked before they hit the pagemove throttle, often after only a couple moves. Mr.Z-man 21:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Additional Comment

Its quite obvious that the block of Misza was done specifically to get this RFAR accepted. If this is accepted, the case name and party list should be modified to reflect the real reason for acceptance, unless the committee has decided it does want to create a policy on adminbots (despite the progress on WT:BOT). Mr.Z-man 03:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved User:B

Having a mass arbitration is ludicrous. If there is any actual evidence of abuse, a case should be considered separately rather than asking arbcom to formulate our bot policy. Cyde, for example, has been running his bot non-controversially for a long time and it pre-dates a lot of the more recent complaining. It is an integral part of our CFD process and eliminating it would simply create extra work. If there's actual evidence that one of the named parties has abused the admin tools or run an unauthorized bot, ok, bring it, but lumping them all in together is asking for a policy to be created, not asking for something to be arbitrated. --B (talk) 21:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved JzG

Ages ago we had Curps (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), a user of such dramatic efficiency that pagemove vandals were blocked in no time and username blocks were performed almost at time of registration. I think it would be pushing our credulity to assume that no automation went into that. I would say that in as much as there is a consensus, it is that adminbots are a regrettable necessity in a few limited circumstances, but definitely not to be encouraged or allowed to proliferate. This appears to be a collision between principle and pragmatism. In the past, pragmatism would appear to have come out ahead on points. Whether that would still be the case now I don't know. On the basis of WP:BOLD, what Cyde says above, and policy being descriptive not prescriptive, perhaps a tweak to the policy page is the answer here. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• OK, Prodego (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) just blocked Misza13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), which in my opinion steps over the line into WP:POINT. All bets are off. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Carcharoth

I would urge a full reading of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Adminbots by everyone commenting on this matter, plus the earlier threads that Cyde has pointed out and any other history that gets linked to. There is quite a bit of background here. I think most of FT2's questions are answered or partially addressed in the RfC - maybe someone could summarise from that and answer the questions here (or indicate that they were not, after all, addressed at the RfC)? I lost track of the RfC towards the end - CBM has provided a diff to the proposed change to bot policy, and it seems this gained approval (is that right, CBM?). What I think was not addressed there was grandfathering in the currently running admin scripts and bots, as listed on the talk page of the RfC (someone else mentioned this list above, but please note that it may not be comprehensive). Was anything discussed about grandfathering in the existing admin bots? Carcharoth (talk) 06:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

To Daniel: An alternative: rather than desysop Prodego, I suggest just ignoring him. Desysopping would give him more attention. The block was swiftly reversed. No irreperable harm seems to have been done except to Prodego's reputation (unless you think the actions of any one admin affects the reputation of the admin corps as a whole). Let him continue to use the tools for other things if he wishes. I'm sure people around here have long enough memories that any future action like this will result in desysopping. Carcharoth (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by WJBscribe

Like many, my practice has been to turn a blind eye to admin bots unless they cause problems. A script that is outside policy but beneficial to Wikipedia is not going to keep me awake at night. To my knowledge, the only administrator who currently causes disruption to Wikipedia through high speed automated admin actions is MZMcBride - see:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive141#User:MZMcBride and large numbers of deletions
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive427#Massive redirect deletions

These issues have been raised in a current case to which MZMcBride's conduct as an administrator is being considered - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war. If these issues can be handled as part of that case, then I don't think a separate one is needed at this point.

I operate RedirectCleanupBot, a bot approved by the community to delete broken redirects. I have however been considering surrendering the bot and admin flags this account possesses. Put simply, the unapproved scripts being run directly on admin accounts are faster (the community specifically requested RedirectCleanupBot allow a chance for redirects to be fixed/targets undeleted before deleting them) and delete a greater range of broken redirects (not only those containing one revision), leaving very little for the approved bot to do. In my opinion, RedirectCleanupBot is superior as it links to the target of the broken redirect in its deletion summary and operates within the criteria laid down in community discussion. However, it is beginning to feel rather pointless running an adminbot as a token "approved" one, when most of the deletions the bot could perform are in fact done by another account. If the bot is to be merely a beard for what is actually happening, I am not comfortable continuing to operate it. WJBscribe (talk) 12:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Remark by Anonymous Dissident

The matter that underlies the premise of this request falls outside of the scope of the same request. The non-following of policy is merely one dimension in the issue regarding adminbot usage. It is the issue as a whole that requires conversational focus, as it were, rather than this "miscarriage of policy" face of it. The fact is that there is a disparity in the community as to where Wikipedia stands in regards to the use of automated scripts on admin accounts. Filing arbitration requests complaining about the disregarding of policy is not useful when policy is so unclear and so smothered in a latent but ever-present debacle that has been ongoing for many months, if not years. Instead of beating around the bush aiming to make sure policy as it is written is executed, we should instead work towards the clarification of this policy, towards the resolving of a long-standing issue that is the catalyst for the problems themselves. In addition, the lack of community consensus in this area render this request for arbitration inherently void, because action of any kind can hardly be taken when there is such sketchy foundations to base any such action upon. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

@Seraphim Whip below: adding a line about admins being allowed bots is an intriguing idea, but doesn't account for the ~1600 admins who were promoted by the community without this consideration. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 16:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Seraphim Whipp

Strangely, I find myself agreeing with part of the sentiment, that admins are allowed to run unapproved bots but editors are not. This kind of special treatment doesn't help with the idea that some editors have of admins. We need to define in RfA that by granting an editor trust to use +1 mop, we approve of them running a bot. If we can get this idea going, it would allow for greater transparency about admin bots. However, I don't think this is an issue for arbitration, but rather an issue for the community to form consensus on. Seraphim♥Whipp 21:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Chris

This case is premature, there is currently discusion going on at WT:BOT about the approval of adminbots. I suggest every one here should go and look at it, point out the flaws in the proposed policy and try to help fix them. If not we may just end up with rfa for admin bots (i.e. It doesn't work but it's the best process we've got) --Chris 01:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by SirFozzie

After the most recent actions by the initiator of this Arbitration request, I do believe that ArbCom should accept this case to review user conduct, with an eye to remove Prodego from administrator status. His actions on this issue, and his misuse of his administrator tools, as well as the "block and run" where he blocked the user, posted about it on ANI, and then disappeared, has shown he does not merit the mop. SirFozzie (talk) 22:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Daniel

Don't even bother accepting this case. Just desysop Prodego by motion (a-la CSCWEM), restrict him from reapplying only to ArbCom, and lets all move on. Christ, that's literally the worst, most point-driven, purely spiteful block I've ever seen. Especially given this Committee just warned him not to block just to create a case...don't feed him. Daniel (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, this block was made both after ArbCom members warned him below not to block simply to make a case out of this issue, and also after discussion had taken place at WT:BOT. Prodego knew about this discussion, by virtue of posting these four notes: [12] [13] [14] [15], 30 hours before blocking. Judging from the discussion at WT:BOT (as linked in his four notes), his position had considerably less support than what is required to be deemed consensus, hence some of the possible frustration and feeling of helplessness. This comment also speaks to his pre-meditated intent. Daniel (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Dragons flight

Prodego has declared his intention to leave Wikipedia. [16] Dragons flight (talk) 00:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps not. [17]

Regardless, I would encourage ArbCom to read my first link above, as it describes Prodego's point of view on recent events. Dragons flight (talk) 03:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Seicer

As a note, Prodego (talk · contribs) has resigned. seicer | talk | contribs 00:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• He may have declared an intent to leave but he still has his admin privileges. [18]. Thatcher 01:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Spartaz

I think we can all agree that Prodego's block was a poor decision from an otherwise effective and respected administrator. It looks like the community is finally coming to an agreement on admin bots and that written policy will shortly catch up with current practice. It seems that voting to accept the case now can only be to consider sanctions against Prodego but aside from this one staggeringly poor action there is no evidence that Prodego is someone who needs to loose the tools. I fear that opening a case will inhibit the community discussion that is taking place on admin bots while leading to massive drama and some form of admonisment that could just as easily be achieved by issuing Prodego with a WP:TROUT and letting everyone move on. I really hope that the committee are not seriously considering withdrawing the tools as Prodego is not a bad admin and there is no groudswell whatsoever for this. Please dismiss this case so the community can get on with their work resolving this issue. Spartaz ^Humbug!

Statement by Lar

I've worked with Prodego for quite some time. He's always struck me as a very reasonable, level headed person, who acts from a strong inner sense of principle, wanting to do what is right, what is logically consistent, what is of benefit to the project, what is helpful to others. What he has on his userpage right now [19]... is not empty rhetoric. I sincerely believe it is true and that he is deeply troubled by the inconsistency this policy has caused.

Policy on our project, for the most part, is descriptive, not prescriptive... it describes what we actually do, not constricts us to what we are forced to do. The policy in this area says "unauthorized adminbots are subject to blocking". And I've been led to understand that many of them have been blocked in the past. If, as others say, we turn a blind eye to bots for the good of the project (reasonable in and of itself), then the policy in this area is not really descriptive of actual practice. Prodego indicated to me that he has blocked unauthorized bots in the past, and that these blocks have stood. He was faced with an inconsistency... here was an unauthorized bot, one that the owner had been warned about, and yet it still ran. The owner dismissed the concerns as "wonkery". That was not helpful at all.

Now, faced with that circumstance, I might have thrown up my hands and said, "oh well, another inconsistency". Or I might have came to AN/I with a list of all the bots I had blocked in the past, and a list of current unauthorized bots, and proposed that all the blocked ones, en masse, be unblocked, or alternatively that all the unblocked ones be blocked, or request that the community thrash out what was the discriminating factor between those that were blocked and those that were not blocked. But then, I'm more of a talker than a doer, some say. Talking would be my first approach. But it is not that way for all. Which is a good thing or we would never get anything done.

In talking to Prodego privately I got the sense he really felt he had no other choice but to take this action, or be untrue to his sense of honor and duty. A project as large as en:wp, organized the way it is, has a lot of inconsistency by its very nature, so there is a unresolvable tension there. He acted to resolve some of it. You may not agree it was the right way to do it, but that is what motivated him, in my view. And we want that, really we do.

As an aside: I was dismayed and disheartened by the discourse I saw on IRC last night. Quite a mob mentality... There were people saying all sorts of incendiary things, to the point that some people had to be muted and threatened with removal by the mods. That sort of mob mentality is exactly why some say that IRC is bad for the project, and those who were doing so ought to be ashamed of themselves, frankly.

We ask our admins to be bold. To act in what they believe is the best interests of the project. To do, and then if it wasn't right, to undo. To know when to discuss and when to use action as a way to determine what consensus really is. A block is in some ways a big deal, but in others, not so much. You can fault Prodego for not having perfect judgment here, for not having determined in advance all the outcomes. But who among you is perfect? Who among you is able to predict the future with 100 percent accuracy? I am not so conceited to think I am. I suggest those calling for Prodego's head should look within themselves first, to seek first to understand, to examine what they would have done, instead of calling for heads. That's not helpful.

• I urge rejection of Brad's motion.
• I urge that no sanctions be applied to Prodego, other than a wet trout.
• I urge that the community expeditiously resolve the inconsistency in policy within a definite time.
• And if they cannot, I urge ArbCom to resolve the inconsistency for the community. THAT is something that would be useful for this arbcom to do. Imposing sanctions ... is not.

Additional commentary

A couple of weeks off the tools is a good idea. This was a very poor block, made for very bad reasons and in the knowledge that they were bad reasons. I see that the bot policy is being rewritten so that from now on adminbots will be processed through BRFA rather than RFA. This looks to me like an excellent idea: possibly existing adminbots could go through BRFA for reconfirmation.

But this is minor detail. Here we had a classic example of policy conflicting with obvious common sense: it is a very poor idea for admins to be choosing policy over rationality when the two are not identical. Prodego's not a bad admin, I'm sure, but then two weeks away from the admin buttons is a very minor sanction. Moreschi (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Stifle

I don't like the idea that admins can have tools suspended for acting exactly as the policy says they should. It's not obvious common sense to everyone, I fear. Stifle (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by DuncanHill

Desysop for applying policy correctly? Ludicrous. The only thing wrong with the block is that Prodego did not block all the admins who operate bots contrary to policy. Probably the biggest problem facing the community at the moment is the widespread perception that admins are a law unto themselves, above policy and the wishes of the community. An admin comes along who wants to counter that perception by using his tools in accordance with policy, and Arbcom move to suspend his tools. DuncanHill (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• Recuse. Daniel (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Question for the arbs...would this case, if opened, look at all aspects, just the block, or just the adminbot question? — Rlevse • Talk • 13:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Question on the motion: To clarify, the enforcement clause is a desysopping with an appeal window opening 15 days from now, correct?--Tznkai (talk) 15:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/2/0/2)

• I haven't even really started formulating my views on the issues underlying this request, but I would appreciate more detail on whether there are any specific problems associated with these various actual or alleged adminbots, as opposed to a purely procedural or policy issue. I'm not belittling policy or procedure bu any means, but this issue would have a heightened degree of seriousness if the bots in question are doing something incorrect or controversial (compare, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marudubshinki; Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand), as opposed to simply being arguably procedurally unauthorized. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Perhaps I'm reading poorly here, but I don't see what we're being asked to adjudicate here. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Accept. Per Flo. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• Reject. Discuss, discuss, discuss and form consensus about how to approve and use the bots. I see no user conduct issue needing review by the Committee. (And please do not give us a case by ill thought out block wheelwars on the adminbots.) FloNight♥♥♥ 22:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

  Accept to address admin conduct issue after block. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

  Leaving accept in place until I'm satisfied that the situation has been adequately addressed through the motion since I feel formal involvement by ArbCom is needed. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• What is being asked here could be categorized as a "divisive matter between admins". Some admins feel that common agreement on bots using admin tools should be applied, due to the risks involved and need to be sure what's going on given the trust bots require. Others feel that the bots identified as using admin tools in this way are proven and aren't being a problem so this would be pointless to require compliance ("wonkage"). Both views do have strong merits. I would like to refer some very specific questions back to community discussion, because the issue here is more that a good consensus hasn't been formed on some aspects:

1. When should an automated process or script using admin tools need to get communal approval of code and operation? (What's the baseline beyond which those become appropriate)
2. Do the existing known admin bots and scripts meet those requirements or some form of "proven okay by history of usage"? (If so, then no problem with them)
3. Should modifications and new bots and scripts always be checked, or only sometimes? (If the latter, under what circumstances or what baseline)
4. A user is given admin tools on trust of their judgement. But an admin who writes a bot or script that uses their tools, is asking for additional trust in 1/ their coding and bot design that are not tested at RFA, and in 2/ how they codify often-flexible matters to a strict set of rules, and which (per WP:BOT#Bot usage, a policy) may 3/ require a higher standard due to its higher speed and more automated nature. Should that in turn require some kind of explicit communal or bot-writer endorsement, or when should that extra trust simply be assumed given?

These are not general adminbot questions, or questions about definitions. They are very exact questions that some kind of decisions need to be made upon. Reach a consensus (or find a minimum/baseline that consensus can agree upon) on those four, then if there is still a problem, come back. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Update following Misza13/Prodego: Reject. RFAR is not intended to be "forced" this way. I accept that Prodego states he blocked Misza13 for what he considered good motives and in order to try and comply with an agreed norm that was non-uniformly applied. I accept others view this as trying to coerce a decision by forcing the issue. That block has been dealt with and unless it recurs (which I do not think it will), it is not a broad reflection on Prodego's general use of the tools in any other case. If it happens again then I would likely angle towards deliberate WP:POINT, misuse, and restriction/desysopping, but that just isn't visible right now. My questions above stand - if the community is completely incapable of reaching consensus on those four specific questions, or on the grandfathering of old admin bots, or if the issue blows up further, then possibly. But for now I still view this as a communal ambiguity and discount this specific case as not invalidating that view. I do not wish us to be coerced into deciding the entirety of admin bot policy for the community "on the rebound" from a once-off action. Unless unavoidable, or unless the debate irrevocably breaks down and we are left with a complete bitter division, then it is better to be the community that ultimately resolves how admin bots work, not this Committee. If truly unfixable then accept, but no evidence of this at present. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Reject as filed: per the arbitration policy, the Committee doesn't do advisory opinions. But if I can indulge in advising everyone of my opinion: the position for some time has been that anyone who chooses to run a bot or script on their personal account (or a non-bot-flagged separate account) is personally responsible for the edits that the bot or script makes, as if they had made them themselves. If there are actual instances of misuse of tools then a case (or cases) should be brought on that basis. --bainer (talk) 02:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Accept due to the recent developments. -- fayssal - Wiki me up^® 02:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• Accept per FloNight. Kirill ^(prof) 02:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• It is clear that Prodego's block of Misza13 has forced the issue and that some form of resolution of the immediate dispute is needed. However the arbitration committee is not the suitable forum for laying down firm rules about the circumstances in which administrators may run bots on their accounts. Per FT2 [=Sept 18 comment, not 23] this is a matter which needs community discussion; and that makes arbitration difficult. I would be inclined to run the case on the basis of the policy which has been followed in practice, as that appears to have more community consent. On this specific request for arbitration I will abstain at the moment; the block of Misza13 was swiftly overturned by consensus and there is no wheelwar. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• The original "adminbots" request was not going to be accepted, although it did point out again the need for the community to update policy in this area. Prodego's action in blocking Misza13 was inappropriate but does not increase the rationale for this committee's taking the original case beyond what previously existed. Opening a full case to address the inappropriate block itself would probably be overkill. Prodego has fully explained his position and rationale on his userpage, so the matter would seem ripe for resolution at this time, without lengthy proceedings. Accordingly, in lieu of voting to accept the case, I offer a motion. If the motion is not adopted, then my vote is to accept. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Motion

On September 17, 2008, Prodego (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) filed a request for arbitration alleging that several administrators, including Misza13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), were operating unapproved bots from their admin accounts in violation of the bot policy. Users who commented on the case generally responded that while technically unapproved adminbots were indeed being operated, the bots were creating few if any problems and had been openly accepted for a long time, and that the issue should be addressed by updating the bot policy rather than by disabling the bots or taking action against the administrators. Several arbitrators voted to decline the request for arbitration, and one specifically commented "please do not give us a case by ill thought out block wheelwars on the adminbots."

On September 22, 2008, Prodego blocked Misza13 indefinitely, with the log summary "Unapproved bot (see WP:BOT) on this account, please get it approved at WP:BRFA or cease using it until it is approved and you will be unblocked." Prodego did not post to a noticeboard or obtain any consensus for this non-emergency block of an exprerienced contributor and administrator, which he knew would be controversial, nor did he acknowledge that there was ongoing community discussion regarding regularizing the status of bots operated from administrator accounts. No evidence was provided that the adminbot apparently being run from Misza13's account was causing any problems, and no explanation was provided as to why Prodego chose Misza13 as the administrator he would block. Upon discussion at WP:ANI, the consensus was strongly against the block, and it was almost immediately reversed.

It is apparent that Prodego blocked Misza13 to force further discussion or action on the issue of unauthorized adminbots and that he feels strongly that a matter of principle is involved. The strength of his feelings is reflected in the fact that Prodego stated he was resigning his adminship after this block was overturned. See User:Prodego and User talk:Prodego for Prodego's position. We are not aware of any prior sanctions against Prodego for any prior misuse of administrator tools. Nonetheless, under all the circumstances, this block was a highly inappropriate administrator action warranting a sanction by this committee. See, WP:BLOCK, WP:POINT; see also, WP:SPIDER.

Accordingly, Prodego's administrator privileges are suspended for a period of no less than 15 days. They will be restored after 15 days upon request by Prodego to this committee, accompanied by his commitment that there will be no further blocks of this nature. The committee strongly hopes that Prodego will continue his participation as an editor and, in due course, as an administrator. The community is urged to continue its discussions concerning updating the bot policy.

There are currently 11 active arbitrators, of whom one is recused/abstaining, so a majority is 6.

Support

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Agree to take this approach with the understanding that before the sysop privileges are restored, Prodego needs to reassure both ArbCom and the Community that a block of this nature will not be repeated. 15 days is a reasonably period of time for this to happen but if a longer amount of time is needed, then the desysop will not be reversed. (Said to clarify that this is not punitive and that a 15 day reversal is not automatic). FloNight♥♥♥ 13:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Support. Having legitimate concerns, but expressing them in a disruptive fashion, is the very definition of WP:POINT. --bainer (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Support. Actions have consequences. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

1. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC) I find it very hard to support either side. All the points Brad makes are accurate - it was going to be controversial, it was not discussed, it was clearly not an emergency, there was discussion, the community views it as tool abuse, and others were not showing discontent at the bot (in fact it had high levels of approval). And yet... this is also an administrator who may have been banging their head on the wall regarding some kind of clarity what the community wishes on these powerful tools, and crucially, past communal conclusions have apparently veered towards an approval requirement but some users seem to decline to adopt that norm. If this were another area of the wiki then we would require agreed norms be complied with, not just by some and not others. There does seem to be an expectation that admin bots need some specific approval -- they are discussed (and have been rejected) at RFA, there is consensus on some aspects, the use of WP:IAR for adminbots by other users was previously criticized, and there is no indication anywhere I can find, that selected admins or admin-bots are exempt. By the same token there is long standing communal acceptance of Misza13's bot specifically as doing very good work and he had indicated he would seek approval in due course, just not immediately (or first). I almost feel that any response here could be justified as fair - support per Brad, per community, and per "don't ever misuse tools even once"... or reject per above, or abstain. In such circumstances I am still too much on the fence. AGF once, but once only. Leaving others to decide as they feel fit. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

   Update following more evidence - There was concurrent discussion, and clearly sufficient communal endorsement of Misza13's work to allow this long-standing situation to endure until that discussion concluded. This suggests that the block was poor judgement -- the matter was actually under discussion to enable it to be addressed, and was also clearly not an emergency. But I would not require temp desysop for this generally reliable administrator -- they got too closely involved and made a poor judgement but it doesn't seem at all habitual or (for now) likely to repeat. AGF that it was truly a "once off" (not just an excuse to repeat) and apparently now over, unlike some cases where repetition or other problem behavior seems much more likely and hence action is taken first time. Would rather that Prodego considered himself cautioned and never repeated. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:06, 23 September 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

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	14 Dec 2024	04 Jan 2025

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions	1 December 2024

Current requests

Request for clarification : Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff

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

• EconomicsGuy II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by EconomicsGuy II

To help clarify to what degree the ruling applies to articles submitted to Articles for Deletion I'm filing this request for clarification.

The ruling in the Badlydrawnjeff case says:

• (Principle 4) Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy. This deletion may be contested via the usual means; however, the article must not be restored, whether through undeletion or otherwise, without an actual consensus to do so. The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every aspect of the policy.

I would like the arbitrators to clarify if this means that:

• Administrators are not required to delete such articles but are merely entitled to do so even when closing Articles for Deletion debates
• Articles that would otherwise qualify for speedy deletion per this principle may be submitted to Articles for Deletion instead. Specifically, if an article is submitted to Articles for Deletion before an administrator spotted it and invoked the ruling the ruling no longer applies but is superceded by deletion policy?
• Consensus on Articles for Deletion is enough to satisfy the consensus requirement and effectively change the burden of proof back to the party concerned about BLP violations since the burden of proof on Articles for Deletion is on the person wishing to have the article deleted

The ruling also says:

• (Principle 3) In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." In practice, this means that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached.

I would like the arbitrators to clarify if this means that:

• Material removed even by non-administrators in good standing may be reincluded by anyone, specifically non-administrators, as long as this is done per consensus on Articles for Deletion even before the debate has been closed
• The burden of proof when such an article is submitted to review on Articles for Deletion is on the person making the deletion rather than the person who reincludes the disputed material thus effectively changing the burden of proof back despite Principle 4 as cited above.

Thanks.

• The article that prompted this is Thomas Muthee but I've seen this happen before. To JzG: I'm not asking for that. Please re-read what I said. I'm asking to what degree the arbitrators believe that normal deletion process can be applied to BLPs that happen to end up at AfD rather than be speedy deleted per the ruling. If deletion policy takes precedence over the ruling then the ruling can be gamed by taking the article to AfD where the requirements for consensus are less strict because the burden of proof has then been reversed back. I find that very problematic because according to the ruling the burden of proof is on the party that wants the article kept. Are you telling me that "I see no BLP problems" is a sufficient argument to establish such a consensus? If so I think I've overestimated the usefulness of this ruling. EconomicsGuy (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks Kirill and Flonight. That clarified it for me. I was not aware of the Footnoted quotes ruling. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

I don't see any ambiguity here. The principle does not limit the venues at which a deletion may be made, the presumption is always that contentious material be excluded until there is clear consensus to include (that burden of proof exists for all disputed content, anything else would be a POV-pusher's charter). The only unclear thing here is that the requester seems to be asking for a reversal of the normal burden of proof at DRV, solely for BLPs, which seems perverse to me - contentious BLPs should be more likely to be undeleted? Why would we do that?

I have no idea which article prompted this question, it might be helpful to know which one. Guy (Help!) 08:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Scott MacDonald

The burden of proof when such an article is submitted to review on Articles for Deletion is on the person making the deletion rather than the person who reincludes the disputed material thus effectively changing the burden of proof back despite Principle 4 as cited above.

Em? No. Need we say more?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 08:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Portions of the Badlydrawnjeff ruling have been superseded by the broader enforcement provisions of the Footnoted quotes ruling. Absent an unambiguous, active community consensus to restore disputed BLP material (as provided for in the latter decision), administrators are authorized and expected to ensure that it remains removed, regardless of whether the article happens to be undergoing AFD. Kirill ^(prof) 09:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Kirill that the BLP policy applies on every page in Wikipedia-English including articles up for Afd and where the deletion discussion is happening. The intent of the BLP policy is to modify the application of every policy on Wikipedia as it relates to content about living people. In the case of Afds, this change means that the past practice of keeping content on site if there is not consensus to delete is altered. In the short term, deletion (or blanking) is needed in some instances for articles about notable people as the content is researched for accuracy or reliable sources are found. For articles about living people the past default practice of "Keep" for notable people does not work unless the content is changed so it complies with our core polices and the BLP policy. This applies during the deletion discussion if an user raises concerns about the content and cites the BLP policy or the Footnted quotes case ruling. I hope that helps. FloNight♥♥♥ 10:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2

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

• Gazimoff (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by Gazimoff

I am requesting clarification from Arbcomm regarding the case above. This discussion may appear to be slightly premature, but I feel that it is appropriate to raise a request for clarification in order to minimise the potential for further disruption. TTN has been involved in two Arbcomm cases relating to content disputes. As a result of those cases, TTN has been subject to the following remedies.

The remedy from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters stated the following:

• The parties are urged to work collaboratively and constructively with the broader community and the editors committed to working on the articles in question to develop and implement a generally acceptable approach to resolving the underlying content dispute.

The remedy from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 stated the following:

• TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. He is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate. Should he violate this restriction, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.
• The parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question. They are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute

TTN was since blocked twice for violating these restrictions as recorded here The restriction placed upon him lapsed without extension on September 10th, 2008. Since that date, TTN has created a high number of deletion discussions. The concern here is not about the articles, templates and so on being listed for deletion. It is more about the high volume of content being listed for deletion in a short space of time only days after a lapsed editing restriction prohibiting this behaviour. Such action can potentialy stretch any cleanup team a wikiproject may have over a large number of articles, potentially reducing the quality of debate that can occur and leaving TTN open to criticisms of working against the wikiprojects involved.

The requests for clarification are as follows:

• Does Arbcomm feel that the editing restrictions listed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 met their required objective in encouraging good working practice from a long-term contributor?
• How does Arbcomm regard the large number of deletion discussions that have been started in relation to the encouragement "to work collaboratively and constructively" as stated at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters
• Would Arbcomm have any further reccomendations in this area in order to minimise further disruption?

I appreciate that Arbcomm are limited in resource, and hope that by presenting this concern early and cleanly, clarification can be reached with minimal impact on the project.

See also related discussion

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#TTN nominating large numbers of pages for deletion (link contributed by Coppertwig (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC))

Statement by GRBerry

Related WP:AE threads are currently at (reverse chronological order):

1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Violation of TTN's restriction?
2. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive26#Eusebeus
3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive22#Eusebeus still edit-warring over TV episode articles (partial copy also in archive 21)
4. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive21#TTN and Sonic the Hedgehog characters
5. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive20#Unreasonably broad interpretation
6. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive20#User:TTN
7. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive20#TTN and notability tagging?
8. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive20#And so it begins again

There have also been plenty of AN, ANI, et cetera threads involving many parties. I conclude that remedy #2 "The parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question. They are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute." has failed. GRBerry 18:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, the threads with Eusebeus's names in them were not selected for inclusion because I have any concerns about his actions, they were included to help the committee realize that the "all get together and sing Kumbaya" recomendation of remedy is not working and not going to work. In the archive 26 thread, DGG observed "The disputed cases are about minor characters in the most important fictional works, such as plays by Shakespeare, and even major characters in relatively unimportant works." No consensus is going to form that draws a hard and fast line with no grey zone ("no character articles" or "if the work can have an article, every character can have there own article" are both thoroughly rejected by the community. So long as there is a grey zone, there will be disagreements and need for community discussion. The committee should only make sure that reasonable conduct bounds are drawn and enforced for that discussion. GRBerry 03:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by sgeureka

One way to look at it: TTN is quickly destroying the 'pedia with his quick AfDs. Do something about it.

Another way to look at it: Crappy fiction articles get created (in good faith) faster than they can be dealt with through what-some-would-label "recommended" channels. Cleanup templates get ignored for months (usually because the articles cannot be improved), merge proposals for popular yet crappy articles often get shot down through local fan consensus or take forever (by which time tons of new crappy articles have been created), and bold redirects or bold mergers for popular yet crappy articles get reverted and have demonstratedly already led to severe arbcom restrictions when someone tried to enforce to leave the redirects in place. AfDs however, especially for long-time cleanup-tagged articles, get quick results with community consensus. Not perfect but accomplishes the goal in the absense of other workable solutions.

Summa summarum: Leave dedicated editors at least one tool to keep up with the desperately needed cleanup. Or: fight the source of the problem (creation of crappy and unimprovable articles), not the symptom (AfDs). – sgeureka ^t•c 19:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by A Man In Black

Bearing in mind where my obvious biases are, what's the harm in a bunch of AFDs of articles that will all either be deleted or merged? TTN was censured for edit warring, not cleanup. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Fut.Perf

TTN is right. Censoring him was wrong from the start. It really is as simple as that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by DGG (talk)

Based on a comment by TTN on my talk page, [20], I suggested there that the AfDs are being brought deliberately because of TTN's knowledge that they will not be approved at the article talk page. This is essentially the same behavior that the arb com was first asked to address--as it is in essence continuing, with afds showing no previous attempt to discuss, in clear violation of deletion policy, the restriction should be made permanent. There are a great many articles needing redirection , merge, or deletion. There are are a great many other editors to propose them. DGG (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by PhilKnight - responding to DGG

In situations where an episode or character article doesn't comply with notability guidelines, the article talk page is invariably dominated by editors who are vehemently opposed to any merge, let alone deletion. The problem is one of a local consensus attempting to override policy and guidelines. The obvious solution is to take the article to AfD. Accordingly, what DGG describes as a "clear violation of deletion policy" is normal practice for this topic area. Also, looking at WP:DELETION, there doesn't appear to be any requirement to start discussion before nominating the article. Obviously, it's good practice to notify the article creator, and perhaps even some of the other editors, however for deletion (as opposed to deletion review), I can't see any requirement for prior discussion.

Statement by Protonk

So long as non-community enforced pathways for dealing with marginal and sub-marginal fictional articles result in intractable stalemates and so long as the community cannot agree on a daughter notability guideline to deal clearly and appropriately with these articles, we will have situations like this. AfD is a perfectly acceptable route for dealing with articles which do not meet our inclusion guidelines. Since we have no real agreed upon guidelines that are binding concerning lists of characters, episodes and other daughter articles, AfD may be the preferred route. We may wish, in an abstract sense, that editors discussed improvement, then proposed mergers, then discussed why the merger didn't gain consensus, then prod, then nominate for deletion, but any editor who learns from past experiences will be tempted to skip steps. I see this as a policy issue that needs to be worked out by the community. We don't have an agreed upon way to treat characters and episodes (as it were), so we have problems like this. Fix that policy issue and we have fixed most of the problem.

Statement by User:Randomran

We need to assume good faith, rather than assuming that TTN is somehow on a vengeful mission after being locked away for 6 months. TTN got himself in trouble when he WP:BOLDly redirected pages en masse. He's learned his lesson, and is now soliciting the feedback of neutral Wikipedians in AFD. "AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia’s article guidelines and policies." I do not echo his support for deletion in each and every case, but he's using the process as it is designed. Anything else is a discussion of actual content: discussions that TTN has initiated, and cannot unilaterally decide. That's how Wikipedia works.

That said, I might advise TTN that he could generate more good will by nominating AFDs at more scattered intervals. He hasn't broken any policy, consensus, or arbitration decision. But this does needlessly inflame the inclusionists. The WP:DEADLINE applies as much to clean-up as it does to anything else: what's your hurry? Randomran (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by RyanGerbil10

So User:X was told not to do Y for Z period of time, X did not do Y until after Z (as asked), and now we're back at ArbCom? Seems to defeat the purpose if you ask me. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 19:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Norse Am Legend

Anyone's allowed to make statements here, right? What TTN is doing is similar to a police officer strongly and swiftly enforcing the law on any potential criminal that he sees or hears of. Is this acting in good faith? Possibly. Is he doing anything technically wrong? Apparently not. However, when every car in a five mile radius has a ticket on the windshield and the local courthouse is filled to the brim with people paying fines and undergoing trials, many people start to get really annoyed. Going on deletion crusades to "fully purge the video game and anime and manga character categories" and the like isn't something that should be fully endorsed without question - Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by ThuranX

Like many others here, I support TTN's efforts. As touched upon above, and seen in the AfDs in question, the local fan support serves to obstruct any management of a number of fiction related articles. The fans hide behind inclusionist thinking and essays, and are often good at mimicking the talking points, but they do a disservice to the real inclusionists by their actions. TTN's actions are commendable, as they make hte project stronger and more encyclopedic. ThuranX (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Kww

People need to stop expecting TTN to get blocked at the drop of a hat for making a legitimate effort to clean up a large section of Wikipedia. I'm sure he noticed articles that needed deletion during his 6 month restriction, so it looks a bit like a floodgate letting loose. However, looking over the articles that he has nominated, it looks like he is showing excellent judgement about what articles are essentially unsalvageable. As to the idea that one should discuss deletion on the talk page of an article first? Laughable. Articles essentially never get deleted by discussion on an article's talk page, because an article's talk page is watched virtually exclusively by people that think the article is interesting, and, by extension, desire to keep it around.

If this becomes as bad as it has before, it may become desirable to start having negative consequences for bringing unfounded cases to Arbcom's attention.Kww (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Comment, I'm aware of this request. I've briefly looked into the situation. I'm not seeing a problem that needs Committee action at this time. The Community needs to deal with the content policy issues involved, not ArbCom. I do not see any user conduct that approaches disruption. I urge all involved parties to listen to the input of other users. Before giving input to other users or taking an action, try putting yourself in the other persons shoes and thinking about how what you do and say will be received. Be understanding that other people have different views, and that they want what is best for Wikipedia, the same as you do. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• To extend a bit on what FloNight has already said... A simpler approach would be AfD-listing a few articles (a dozen or less?) and wait and see what would be the outcome. You can then, go on from there either way... stop and discuss the whole issue or list the rest. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 01:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

---

UninvitedCompany (talk · contribs) resignation from the committee

Noting that there is another upcoming election cycle, I would like to formally announce my resignation from the Arbitration Committee, effective immediately.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)