Shortcuts WP:ARC WP:A/R/C Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. File an arbitration request This page is for statements, not discussion. If you must reply to another user's statement, do so in your own section (more information). Your section must not contain more than 500 words (Word Count Tool; internal gadget). This includes your replies to other users. To request an extension, either make the request in your statement section or email the clerks email list. Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, e.g. off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning. Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page. Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk. After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse. Declined case requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

Initiated by Snævar (talk) at 08:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Snævar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• User talk:Northamerica1000#Portal:Iceland Arbitration notification
• User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Requesting comment as third party in arbitration case

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Tried talking to him at Portal_talk:Iceland#Portal expanded, but he ignored half of it.

This issue is about Portal:Iceland started in October 2019 when Northamerica1000 refused to accept BrownHairedGirl's revert Special:Diff/920921460, which was made because NorthAmerica did not discuss the changes he made on the talk page of the portal. After the change, admittedly NorthAmerica did post an message to the talk page about proposed changes at Portal_talk:Iceland#Portal expanded, BUT ignored half of the opposition to his changes and made them anyway. He also continued not discussing most of his changes and still "silently" manually reverts changes, including this revert of mine.

I have some experience myself of dealing with disputes on my homewiki (iswiki), but that is not really possible when the opposing party behaves like this. It takes both parties to resolve it, and he does not talk enough for that to work. I tried cooling the issue down, as you can see by the date of the revert I made, but it makes no difference. I have posted an talk page message with every revert I have made, unlike NorthAmerica.

The proper way of dealing with this situation would have been to talk the issue right away, instead of manually reverting. He should have discussed his changes first. Northamerica1000 behaviour is not acceptable at all, and I am requesting an topic ban on the portal.

Snævar posted on the portal's talk page at 07:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC) diff. 27 minutes later, the user then initiated this discussion at 08:07, 12 May 2022‎ (UTC) diff. This provided me with no time to discuss at the Talk page. I have posted some comments there just before posting this statement here. Also of note is that prior to this, the user last posted on the portal talk page on 18:11, 5 November 2019‎ (UTC) diff. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As there has been only about one revert and one talk page edit and no community attempt at resolution, this case should be declined. Also note that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals#BrownHairedGirl_prohibited prohibits BrownHairedGirl from participating in this discussion. —Kusma (talk) 10:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note all of BrownHairedGirl's edit to portals during this time were reverted with them being restricted from the namespace and being desysopped. North was asked to post on talk pages about changes...they did do this in the case.....odd to see a revert 3 years after the fact. Moxy- 11:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too soon for arbs.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't whether to accept this case, but whether to preserve it as an example of what not to do. This may be the most premature and most misguided Request for Arbitration that has been filed in years. (No, just archive it with other declined cases, some of which were reasonable requests that are denied.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't make sense to me. jp×g 02:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• I have to admit that I'm not looking forward to "Portals II: Revenge of the ArbCom", and would like to forestall that as long as possible. It doesn't look like this matter has seen ANI or AN yet, so I don't think traditional dispute resolution has been exhausted. Just because we've heard a BHG and portals case before doesn't mean we have to hear it this time and at so early a stage, so I'm inclined to decline unless someone has a very compelling reason why only we can fix this. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 09:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Decline CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur with Eek; is there a reason this has not been to AN or ANI yet? Primefac (talk) 09:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Decline as premature and/or stale, depending on which end of the timeline you want to come from. Northamerica1000 hasn't even edited the Iceland portal since 2020, so bringing up a two-year old thread containing a single reply without any further discussion before ArbCom is a waste of time. Primefac (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm leaning decline, as I don't see a dispute ripe for arbitration. Having looked through the portal history and its talkpage, I see the following timeline: (1) edits by Northamerica1000 in 2019; a revert by BrownHairedGirl a few weeks later; a revert in 2020 by BusterD after the Portals case was closed; and then a revert by Snævar yesterday, on the grounds of "violation of talkpage discussion". There isn't much of talkpage discussion, but Northamerica1000 does attempt to compromise at some point after the Portals case finished, and a new status quo seems to emerge for two years.
  The Arbitration Committee is tasked with dealing with intractable user-conduct matters; for content issues, such as this one, please see our dispute resolution policy. That said, I do want to make a note about conduct here. While it absolutely doesn't rise to the level of arbitration, if anyone's conduct here seems subpar, it would be on Snævar's side. Keeping in mind there may be language or project-culture differences, responding to a talkpage discussion with {{cross}} usually implies "declined" or "not done" on enwiki, which in this context would not exactly be discussing but more attempting to dictate. A revert per a "violation of a talkpage discussion" is similarly odd; taken at face value, it implies that there is a strong consensus on the talkpage, but there is hardly a discussion there. Finally, the notification for this arbitration case ends with "... yet here you are still doing the same violation. (admin on another WMF project)". I don't see a violation of any rules by Northamerica1000, especially that BrownHairedGirl's revert was itself reverted not by Northamerica1000 but by BusterD, and a new status quo stood for two years. Also, being an admin on a different WMF project doesn't give one a particular status on the English Wikipedia. (If anything, Northamerica1000 is an administrator here.) For what it's worth, at one point there was enough issues with Wikipedians going over to Wiktionary and not being entirely familiar with how they did things, that a special welcome template was made just for Wikipedians. Again, this conduct does not rise to an arbitration matter, but at face value and combined with this arbitration request, it does come across as an attempt to dictate or otherwise strong-arm a content position. Maxim_(talk) 12:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Decline Maxim_(talk) 15:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline per Primefac. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline per everybody. Cabayi (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline agree with my colleagues. Worm^TT(talk) 17:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline and troutslap for the filing party. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this was brouhgt up on my talk page by a highly respected former arbitrator, just to clarify, the "troutslap" thing is a way of sayingthat you made a silly mistake by coming here with this, and nothing more. I don't think the filing is malicious or anything like that. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline --BDD (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Princess of Ara at 16:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Princess of Ara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Celestina007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• ANI - Celestina007's secret tools (current revision)
• ANI - User:Celestina007

There is an ongoing discussion at ANI filed by an IP editor on 8 April 2022. There was a similar thread filed about the same user in 2021. The current thread is difficult to properly follow and evaluate without a more structured process. There have been diverse opinions including disagreements from established editors on the best course of action but almost everyone who commented on the thread including Celestina007 themself agreed that there are serious issues bordering on persistent intimidation of new editors, possession of a government tool that enables them to perform a CheckUser to investigate Wikipedia volunteers they perceive as UPE, self-acclaimed most renowned editor dealing with Nigeria related articles in the history of the English Wikipedia and BLP violations. Many things have been suggested, ranging from an indefinite block to a topic ban and mentorship, but I believe that Celestina007 who is also a teahouse host and teahouse mentor has been under mentorship and guidance for so long by Barkeep49 and MER-C as indicated on their userpage. Considering the wide scope of the issues, I believe the issues cannot be effectively resolved at ANI and a more structured and formal investigation by ArbCom is needed to resolve the underlying diverse issues. Thank you.

Withdrawing request - The ANI thread has been closed satisfactorily. Kind regards. Princess of Ara 04:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This seems entirely too hasty considering the ANI thread is still going with no formal outcome. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Way premature; that is not even an acrimonious or intractable ANI thread, just one with multiple opinions, most well-reasoned. "I found it difficult to follow" is not a reason to punt to ARBCOM. Let ANI sort this out, no need for added calorie-free drama. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please withdraw this before other people waste their time commenting. Arbcom is a last-resort, not the Wikipedia Police Force. The ANI thread has only been open about three days, there's nothing to suggest it's not going to resolve the problem. (Indeed, there's no indication at present that Celestina007 even intends to return to editing.)

Oh, for goodness sakes. Just withdraw this, please. --WaltCip-(talk) 17:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly it is inappropriate to have an ANI thread and an ArbCom case on the same topic, at the same time, and accordingly this should probably be withdrawn for now. I would like to state however that there are concerns regarding what appear to be significant violations of WP:BLP policy which have been touched on in the ANI thread, but not discussed fully, which may ultimately have to be dealt with here if the community is not prepared to address the issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Access to non-public information appears to potentially be a prerequisite for addressing this dispute, e.g. in the current ANI discussion, KevinL states [2], this has been on ArbCom's plate for some time as it does encompass some matters not suitable for public discussion, which is squarely within ArbCom's remit, Barkeep49 describes ArbCom communication with Celestina007 and [3] the expectation of ArbCom confidentiality, although Beeblebrox states [4], I'd like to be very clear that the committee does not have any super secret evidence it is sitting on. In addition, e.g., Ritchie333 states [5], I closed the previous ANI, and have since spent time talking to Celestina007 both on and off-wiki about conduct, and DGG states [6], I should mention I am also aware of some oversighted material. , and it convinced me she needed assistance. There also appears to be a broader issue that could be addressed by remedial action so the dispute becomes easier for the community to resolve, including as discussed by Timtrent, e.g. [7] As someone who often tries to work out how to process suspected UPE, I find I have no defined route to turn to. For these reasons, arbitration may be most effective in finding the best way to move users beyond this dispute. Beccaynr (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this is not appropriate to be heard at this time. There is an active ANI discussion. That should reach a conclusion prior to Arbcom agreeing to hear this.

Beccaynr has been kind enough in their statement to quote my very real concern that the route to report UPE fizzles out for those of us who do not have admin tools. I'm not sure that is within the remit of Arbcom, but I feel it worth mentioning again. Celestina007 is at ANI and now here because they work diligently in UPE identification in a very difficult geography. Opinions may differ om their method of working and I choose to make no comment on that save only that they appear to be effective. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you should be so quick to dismiss this as premature. That ANI thread is one of the quickest and nastiest pile-ons I've seen in a long time and as WTT says it's not the first. It could well be that arbitration is the kinder way to deal with the issues with Celestina's conduct (which certainly are there)—if not as a case then by some "quiet words" and a motion—though I realise that taking something out of ANI's hands like that might be a political can of worms. And since she stopped editing a few days ago, maybe it's too late. – Joe (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: Your interactions with Celestina were part of what precipitated the first ANI, you've participated extensively in the WPO thread that has clearly been fanning the flames of the second, and three days ago you removed most of her permissions. I'm really surprised that you chose to offer the first opinion on this request instead of recusing. – Joe (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've participated in the ANI discussion. The access to non-public information appears to be a misunderstanding about how the Editor Interaction tool works, but I think that it had a threatening impact regardless. I agree with Worm That Turned. The ANI thread should have a chance to see if these issues can be resolved, however that happens, because plenty of people have concerns. There's also the overall theme of accountability. If these issues aren't ultimately resolved, ARBCOM is still here. I do think the BLP aspect that AndyTheGrump has mentioned is important, but again, the ANI thread is still active. This page says that "Arbitration is a last resort" and I don't think we've reached last resort quite yet. There are serious issues that need to be addressed, but I don't think we're quite at that point yet. User rights have been removed and potential sanctions are still being discussed. Clovermoss (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This seems clearly premature. The discussion is still in progress and is quite likely handle the situation. Additionally, based on what has come out there, it seems unlikely that this is really something that absolutely requires ArbCom's attention right now - if there was actual abuse of some sort of special tools things would be different, but it seems clearly-established at this point that that's not the case. --Aquillion (talk) 18:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration request is totally premature while there is a recent ongoing, albeit very long and messy ANI. Beeblebrox has already removed most of Celestina007's advanced permissions without which she will have little inclination to continue with the otherwise excellent NPP and UPE work she has been doing. She has stopped editing and the ANI has already been more than punishment enough whether or not it concludes with sanctions, and it provides sufficient learning for her if indeed she ever returns. To paraphrase DGG: 'and as for anyone who wants to stop [the ANI] discussion because we have not reached a conclusion, they need to rethink what the purpose is of ANI' - and of Arbcom. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The ANI is still ongoing and probably will be until a significant hiatus of comments ensues, or a closer chooses to put a stop to it. Robert McClenon has accurately identified the problem below: whether the ANI is indeed closable. Any closer will need roughly two hours to read it all and check the cited diffs, and probably not base their peroration alone on the most recent of the many subsections. Among other possible solutions, their decision - still not easy to make - could legitimately be 'Unclosable, over to Arbcom'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the ANI thread is less than a week old and the resolution doesn't appear to require the use of off-wiki evidence, I'm skeptical that ArbCom needs to step in at this point. ArbCom would make sense if the ANI were to degenerate into a true "no consensus for any option" position, but I don't think that such an outcome is so certain at this point that ArbCom should preemptively intervene. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 06:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors have said that this case should be declined as premature or very premature. I partly agree and partly disagree. It is not very premature, I strongly urge ArbCom not to accept or decline this case yet, and to consider two different situations in which ArbCom resolution is necessary. This case at WP:ANI has become enormous, and does not appear to be on its way to resolution. (I know that some editors that that closure is close at hand. I disagree.)

The first situation in which ArbCom should accept the case is if it proves to be unclosable. The simplest version may be simply that the case continues to grow, mostly with editors repeating themselves, and no one is bold enough to write a closure. On the other hand, an administrator may close the case, but their close may result in protests, and the case may be reopened or reclosed, but to no satisfaction. ArbCom should be ready to accept this case if it "falls through" community procedures, and should neither decline nor accept it now.

The second situation that ArbCom should consider, which may not be different from no close, is to accept the case as a way of relieving the community of the need to close it. If neither a community administrator nor ArbCom wants to decide this case, ArbCom should remember that they agreed to take hard cases.

So ArbCom should not decline this case, but should be ready to take it if, as seems likely, it is an unclosable monster. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:ANI dispute was closed 60 hours ago, and no one is demanding to reopen it. ArbCom should close this request as taken care of by the community.

WormThatTurned says that this case might have benefited from the structure of an ArbCom proceeding. I agree, not so much about this case as about extended complicated disputes at WP:ANI that last for a week or longer with multiple subtopics. However, I think that Worm and I are in a minority, and the other arbitrators seem to prefer any community resolution, no matter how chaotic. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend that this Arb request be turned down. Note that the ANI report was begun by an IP, who's made less then 10 edits to Wikipedia since 2015. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI report has been closed & decision given. Reckon, this Arb request should be rejected, more so. GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I spent the last ..... dear lord, nearly two hours, reviewing the ANI thread and will be closing it shortly. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks to Beeblebrox for closing the difficult ANI, obviating the need for an ArbCom-a-thon. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

*I'd like to see a clear and specific reason why the committee should intercede while there are sanctions being discussed at ANI. If that isn't forthcoming and very compelling I'd suggest withdrawing the request. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • Joe, I'm always willing to consider the possibility that I should recuse, but I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning here. Specifically that my actions are the cause of the previous ANI, and that I have participated "extensively" in the WPO thread. I gave her some advice, now at User talk:Celestina007/Archives/2021/June#painful lessons I've learned the hard way. I don't think that advice directly caused the ANI thread, although it is mentioned there. As to my participation on the WPO thread, there is only one comment from me in that thread that directly discusses Celestina, and it is simply a clarification of why I revoked those user rights, which I consider a purely administrative action based on a fairly clear consensus at the current ANI thread that she is not a "highly trusted user" who should have all those various hats. All of my other comments are either about something else or are jokes not about this case at all. Commenting on a thread there does not constitute an endorsement of every other comment in the same thread, or actions that other participants there may have undertaken here. That being said, the mere appearance of impropriety is something to consider in such cases and if this moves forward and it seems others agree with your position I'll reconsider. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Recuse I realize this complicates matters but I think we can take it as read that the "per Beeblebrox" comments below are in reference to my initially expressed concerns regarding the ANI thread. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur with Beeblebrox. Primefac (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Decline per the close of the ANI discussion, with no prejudice against a new case being brought if there are still unresolved issues that need a case. Primefac (talk) 09:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I also agree with Beeblebrox. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline, as the ANI thread has now been closed (by Beeblebrox). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not against a case here, given that this has been raised before already this year. However, I'm also willing to give the community a chance to figure out the issues, as well as being aware that Celestina hasn't actually edited for a few days. I would suggest letting the ANI thread finish and seeing if any sanctions make a difference before bringing it back here without prejudice. Worm^TT(talk) 17:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think this whole thing might have been better through the structured processes of Arbcom, but what's done is done. At the moment, the ANI is closed, there are some fresh restrictions in place and Celestina is back editing. Let's see how things pan out. Decline Worm^TT(talk) 09:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline without prejudice as premature. --Izno (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Recuse. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• My question is: what would we do that ANI isn't? It looks like ANI is headed for a topic ban and will narrowly avoid a general ban. If I had to read the Arb crystal ball, I'd guess that we'd end up in about the same place. I'm really inclined to let ANI reach an endpoint before we step in. I agree that the ANI thread was Not Ideal, given the panic, and the harshness levelled at Celestina, but ANI seems on the path to redemption, and is now having a more measured discussion. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Same questions as Eek, especially now that Beeblebrox has closed the ANI thread. Are there any remaining issues to examine that are not already covered by the close? Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline The ANI is closed. Let's see how things go with the restriction. --BDD (talk) 01:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline per BDD. Maxim_(talk) 16:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]