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

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

None currently

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

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

Motion to open the Aitias case

On March 15, 2009, a request for arbitration was initiated addressing concerns about Aitias (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s actions as an administrator. Because Aitias commented that he would not participate in the arbitration case, on March 22, 2009 the Arbitration Committee passed the following motions:

Motion 2

In order to avoid a ruling without the participation of the main party to the case, this request for arbitration is suspended until User:Aitias returns to editing.

Since User:Aitias has not voluntarily requested that his administrator access be removed, after this motion passes the Committee will invoke an immediate temporary suspension of his adminship. When User:Aitias returns to editing, he may contact the Committee and request the return of his adminship, which would trigger an additional ruling by the Committee about this current request for arbitration; or as an alternative, he may submit an RFA on his return to editing in lieu of a case.

Motion 3

The suspension of User:Aitias's adminship becomes a permanent desysop if he doesn't return within 6 months. Thereafter, Aitias may request adminship again through an RfA only.

Motion 4

User:Aitias is instructed to edit Wikipedia English with only the User:Aitias account until the issues in this dispute are resolved.

On Apr 7, 2009, Aitias contacted the Arbitration Committee and indicated that he was now able and willing to resolve the disputes and to participate in the case. To address the situation the Arbitration Committee will vote by motion to open the case now.

Motion 5

The Aitias case will open with Aitias remaining desysopped during the resolution of the arbitration case.

Support:

Proposed. FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 15:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With a note that the presumption is that, at the end of the case, Aitias will regain his sysop bit unless a remedy specifically states that he does not. — Coren ^(talk) 15:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Without prejudice, as Coren says, but the case must proceed now. Cool Hand Luke 16:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Request to consider removal of admin access: Mitchazenia

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

FT2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Mitchazenia (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notice to user [1]. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FT2

User:Mitchazenia is a dedicated editor and admin (RFA link) who is extremely active in the Roads project, a busy area of the wiki.

Earlier today Mitchazenia posted this at ANI. A similar "I need to do this before I commit suicide" note and self-block was posted in february as well [2]. ANI discussion ensued under the title "threat of violence", in which a number of admins concurred that the personal issues aside, the disruptive effect of such posts was a problem. Mitchazenia appears to have calmed somewhat, but still by his posts, the issue seems to be ongoing despite this [3][4].

We don't usually do "cool down" blocks, or "stay away" blocks (theres a javascript "wikibreak" gadget that some find useful). I think it is right to ask the committe, with kindness, to remove Mitchazenia's bit. Rationale:

Its a repeating problem. The user was okay a while, then it hit them again hard. Not the first time.
The effect is disruptive.
The user has said basically, they want/need outside help.
The actions appear to be escalating, that is, if ignored the "cry for help" is leading to a spiralling effect (or seems likely to).
The user is an admin, and instability in their judgement or balance may be more of a concern than it would be for a non-admin user.
Users who have this big a problem have at times cracked. Some go badly sideways in extreme cases (which this may in fact be). It can be an important factor, that we remove the stress before that point so we don't lose a productive user, nor the user an enjoyed activity and long-standing reputation.
Many users who have sysophood, comment that adminship can be stressful. It is possible that if adminship were removed the user would be less stressed, perhaps, and certainly the disruption and escalating actions to gain a block, would probably be averted.

For these reasons, as with other users or admins who have had periods of serious disturbance, I would ask the Arbitration Committee to consider removing Mitchazenia's bit, for a sizeable period of time, not in disgrace but to help prevent harm, perhaps help him, and help the project.

Posted as a request due to apparent simplicity, please move to full case if needed.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: An emergency desysop is just that - handling of the emergency. Once the situation's stable, a more considered discussion is more appropriate. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update 2: Be aware there is discussion of a friendly nature on his talk page, related to future conduct and so on. review there is probably useful, since the user (to avoid stress) has said they might not be active here. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mitchazenia

Since i get to edit now, I'll echo what I said on my talk. I was a dummy when I pulled that stunt, and now well, I regret it. I do not want my adminship back. I didn't get much support in the first place, and I really haven't deserved it for a while. Again, I am sorry. Don't go to any work on giving it back. Thanks.Mitchazenia : Chat Trained for the pen 16:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fast forward 24 hours. I am feeling much better after what happened. I don't agree with the ArbCom member that said its shouldn't be a black mark. In most of the community, people who have 1 big black mark are bound to fail an RFA, and being me, I doubt i'll ever get it back, even if I tried.Mitchazenia : Chat Trained for the pen 14:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Juliancolton

Mitchazenia has been emergency desysopped, so isn't this more-or-less a moot point? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch requested that this comment be cross-posted here from his talk page:

I don't want want to leave a comment at this point. :| - It could have bad effects, and its not worth seeing it.Mitchazenia : Chat Trained for the pen 15:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

–Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I agree with Gwen Gale. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Majorly

Perhaps FT2 missed that Mitch was emergency desysopped by Spacebirdy? Still, it would probably be helpful if ArbCom made it official, rather than just a steward's decision as a precaution.

Comment on motion: there are too many options here. Either allow him to ask the committee, or have an RFA. Allowing a bureaucrat to decide is inappropriate, as he undoubtedly was desysopped in "controversial" circumstances. Majorly talk 20:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NonvocalScream

I asked a steward to remove the bit "emergency desysop" as a precaution. This has already been carried out. ~~I don't understand the need for this.~~ Actually, Majorly does make sense to me. It may be a good idea for this to be taken to the project level (made official) rather than leaving it as is (steward action). NonvocalScream (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Log

<StewardBot> Spacebirdy changed user rights for Mitchazenia@enwiki from sysop to (none) with the following comment: emergency desysop, see user contributions

<Thogo> right.

<Thogo> thanks, scream

<scream> thank you

End Paste

I'll note in FT2's above statement where he stated "a number of admins concurred". I want it on record that a non admin also concurred. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re to CharlotteWebb Do note that at the hint of contacting the authorities, M quickly retracted his suicide threat. The entire thing was disruptive and the behavior was unpredictable. This is why the emergency desysop occurred, to mitigate danger to the project. And shame on who? Don't attack people. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re #2 to CW I did not have to establish he was a danger to the project. He did that all by himself. I rest in the fact that people here, and the stewards all agree this was the correct way. There is a consensus. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum I'll support NYB, that discussion today on wiki may be too soon. I further support M regaining his bit via a request to RFA, ARBCOM, or a crat. The removal did not result from any abuse of the tool. The "emergency" necessitating the removal no longer exists. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IMatthew

After speaking with Mitch on IRC, he's let me know that he doesn't plan on committing suicide. I was told that he always threatens, but never goes through. Just letting you know that the threat shouldn't be a major alarm. iMatthew : Chat 15:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gwen Gale

I would support bringing this editor back into the fold after a healthy break and strong hints of a more settled outlook. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I don't think arbcom needs to worry about this. As it winds down, if a very few admins who know Mitchazenia think it's ok for him to have the bit (and he wants it back), I'd say asking a bureaucrat to handle it should be enough. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CharlotteWebb

What was is the emergency here, other than that Mitch might hurt himself in real life? And if he was serious about this, how would/did desysopping do anything other than exacerbate the situation? If somebody reports to work and hints at killing their self would you fire them to further their depression? Shame on all of you. — CharlotteWebb 16:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've failed to establish that he posed any "danger to the project". This whole exercise had no possible effect other than to aggravate someone who might have actually posed a danger to himself (and still might for all we know—unless you're qualified to tell the difference between "I changed my mind", "I was joking to begin with", and "I told you what you wanted to hear so you bastards will leave me alone"). — CharlotteWebb 20:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Durova

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mitchazenia publicly for his 161 good articles, 9 featured articles, 4 featured topics, 1 good topic, 3 featured lists, 1 featured sound, and 32 DYKs. Mitch, you have many friends at this project who are proud of you, of your work, and are glad to help you--in the limited ways that we can--through this difficult time. Take care of yourself, and please accept my sincerest regards. Durova^Charge! 19:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rschen7754

I would encourage the Arbitration Committee to contact me if they have any questions about my involvement in the matter. I would also encourage Mitchazenia to contact me as well. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sam Korn

I would agree with Majorly: the motion as currently worded offers too many options. Either Mitchazenia was desysopped in contraversial circumstances (so an RFA or aproval from the Committee is necessary) or he was not (so asking a bureaucrat is all that is necessary). Offering both as options is confusing. Does the Committee consider this a desysopping "under a cloud" (to use that awful phrase) or not? [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 13:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Mitchazenia has been emergency desyoped. Does that committee wish to discuss this further? I am recommending that the committee clarify what means may be used to regain adminship. Tiptoety ^talk 16:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per discussion with a Arbitrator, I have unblocked Mitchazenia to allow him to participate in this RfAr. Tiptoety ^talk 16:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arbs and others, please pay attention to Mitchazenia's statement.--Tznkai (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the motions below, I am assuming that everyone is active (with the exception of Risker) making the majority 8? Tiptoety ^talk 05:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

At this point, I'm inclined to consider the incident closed with Mitchazenia having voluntarily given up his adminship because of stress. The emergency desysop was proper given the circumstances (and I thank the stewards for the swift response), but should not be viewed as a black mark against Mitchazenia. — Coren ^(talk) 16:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Due to Mitchazenia's statement, this no longer needs arbitration, and now would not be a good time to attempt it anyway. Mitchazenia can request adminship in the normal fashion, or request that the committee takes a look at this when they feel ready. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems moot now. Could those who know Mitchazenia, or are in contact, keep communication channels open if needed. Could those who don't know Mitchazenia please give them space here to avoid any ongoing stress from this incident. Carcharoth (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur with Brad and Charlotte. Do not think discussion now is appropriate (and the emergency action was not necessary, but going into that discussion now will only prolong drama). The immediate issue is moot. Mitchazenia needs to be given space now, and we should stop discussing this. Any loose ends can be tied up later in a few days time, though I will say that the option of an RFA seems remarkably poorly judged given the circumstances. Wouldn't that just lead to drama? Carcharoth (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Concur with Vassyana and Sam. No specific action needed at this time. No motions needed. All that is needed is to thank Mitchazenia for his work and wish him a speedy return to good health. Everything else can be dealt with later as and when needed. Sometimes taking a decision now for the future is not a good idea. We don't know what the circumstances will be in the future, so the decision on any potential request for readminship should be deferred, with the current status being that Mitchazenia was desysopped by a steward, and has accepted that. Nothing more needs to be done here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bit removal is a moot point now. But we should settle the issue of bit restoration. See motions below. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that under the circumstances, having all of this discussion on-wiki today was or is the best manner of proceeding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the current circumstances, I do not think we need to take any specific action at this time. The sysop bit was removed (under controversial circumstances) and Mitch has indicated that he is not seeking its restoration. I would like to echo Durova's gratitude for his hard work on the project. If he chooses to seek adminship at a later date, I would invite him to contact the Arbitration Committee before doing so. --Vassyana (talk) 06:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Vassyana. I thank Mitchazenia for his work and wish him a speedy return to good health. I do not think we need act on the motions below. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchazenia adminship restoration

1. Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) may regain his adminship via RFA, request to the arbitration committee, or request to a bureaucrat.

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 20:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 20:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 20:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the default, but it cant hurt to make it clear. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The obvious for the sake of formality. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 13:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Fayssal. --bainer (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 16:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Kirill ^[pf] 02:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1.1. Should Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) wish to regain adminship, he should consult with the Arbitration Committee, who shall advise him on the method for doing so.

Support:

Kirill ^[pf] 02:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

This isn't an arbcom issue, no arb issue is involved. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need to weigh us down with more work when the community can handle it. Wizardman 13:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
per Rlevse Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the advice committee. We'll take the case if needed in the future, but we shouldn't need act at this point. Cool Hand Luke 16:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]