Case Opened on 11:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Case Closed on 00:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided at arbitration request and serve as opening statements. As such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.
Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.
Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.
Cla68 regularly engages in the harassment of long-term editors he dislikes, essentially waging war on them. He wikistalks them, inserts himself into content and other disputes they are involved in, assumes the worst of them, tries to stir up trouble against them, and encourages others to join in. His focus on editors he dislikes is sustained, continuing over many months, and appears to be malicious and obsessive, apparently designed to drive them away from Wikipedia, or at least to make them feel very uncomfortable.
He has focused particularly on SlimVirgin, dredging up ancient diffs to keep the issues going, even though she avoids interacting with him. This RfAr is being filed because he shows no signs of stopping the behavior, and if anything is escalating it.
The origins of Cla68's grudge against SlimVirgin go back to his March 2007 RFA, which failed over his support for User:WordBomb. Months afterwards he was still insisting that SlimVirgin had lied about him, and that she should be de-sysopped e.g. [1]. His behavior became increasingly disruptive, particularly around articles related to Gary Weiss, until on October 20, 2007, he was finally blocked for disruption. After being unblocked, he apologized to Jimbo for his "ill-considered comment that served to cause more drama, which wasn't appropriate," and promisedhe would "get back to editing military history articles and trying to help improve the project." [2] However, he fell back into old patterns, in particular his vendetta against SlimVirgin, refusing to let it drop, continuing to make negative comments about others, and using various subtle and not-so-subtle methods of harassment. He also expanded his activities to assuming bad faith about, or attempting to bully, any admin he saw as supportive of SlimVirgin (particularly those who opposed his RFA), or as hostile to WordBomb.
Most recently Cla68 implicitly threatened to out various editors with the press. Despite requests from several editors to repudiate his implicit threat, his initial responses are similarly menacing, e.g. "If the editors in question correct their behavior, then I'll gladly move on to other issues." "Like I said, if there aren't any more conduct problems (edit warring, canvassing, etc) related to ID articles, then I leave it alone." Only after five days of posts on his Talk: page from a half dozen editors indicating the inappropriateness of his comments, he finally apologizes "for not choosing my words more carefully."
I am requesting a remedy which stops Cla68 from harassing and making gratuitous and bad-faith comments about editors he dislikes, from using RFCs as weapons in his vendettas, and from attempting to coerce editors through threats, explicit and implicit.
I ask that this be accepted. Cla68 does good work in the main namespace, but it is constantly punctuated by prolonged attempts to make the project a toxic place for others. I have been one of his targets for over a year. It has involved wikistalking me to articles and talk pages I edit a lot and that Cla has never edited, claims that I edit in bad faith, that I am a liar, that I abuse the admin tools, that I am a "formerly respected" editor, and that I am up to something and need to be investigated. He often refers to my alleged sockpuppetry, and encourages others to post links to attack sites or posts them himself.
I have stayed away from him and haven't responded for months to the taunting, but despite that, he started a user subpage about me in March, which he continues to work on. It is purportedly a draft RfC, but in my view it is just an attack page. The subheads have included at various points, "Lying or other unethical behavior," "Personal attacks, retaliation, bullying, and attempts to intimidate," "Abuse of administrator privileges," "bad faith editing," and "abusive sockpuppetry." [3] [4] The diffs do not bear out the claims. His edit summaries seem intended to provoke e.g. "un-freaking-believable," [5] "you've got to be kidding me," [6] "incredible," [7] and "wow." [8] He has gone through my talk page and asked 45 editors who have disagreed with me about something (going back many months or even years) to take part in constructing the subpage, although I'm glad to say that very few have joined in, and some have taken issue with him. I believe the aim of the page is to cause me distress in the hope that I'll respond badly, which would allow him to kick up more fuss.
I'm by no means the only person he has done this to. He has targeted Jossi and several others, and he tried to make hay out of the coverage about Jimbo. His approach to people he dislikes is basically one of constant niggling, exaggeration, and attempts to humiliate. Any help from the ArbCom in putting an end to it would be very much appreciated. SlimVirgin talk|edits 21:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe the contents of that draft RfC in my userspace may be at issue here if ArbCom accepts this case, so I added SlimVirgin to the list of parties here. That draft RfC also contains diffs to edits made by FeloniousMonk (FM) [9]. I notice that within a few hours of me adding those diffs to the draft, FM initiated this ArbCom case.
First of all, SlimVirgin is correct to complain about those edit summaries of mine in that draft RfC. Those edit summaries are unprofessional and I shouldn't have done them. I apologize to SlimVirgin and promise not to repeat that behavior. If the arbitrators believe I should be sanctioned for those edit summaries, I'll accept the sanction because I was wrong and accept accountability.
I don't believe there should be an issue with having a draft RfC in userspace. This was done with the JzG RfC in order to facilitate collaborative involvement. Just a few hours ago someone helped edit the SlimVirgin draft RfC in my userspace [10]. I believe the content added so far to that draft RfC speaks for itself and is deserving of community comment once it gets posted. I hope that this effort by FM to bring this up here isn't an attempt to preempt the RfC from taking place.
The diffs helpfully provided by FM show either attempts at dispute resolution on my part, or responses to other editors. Full use of dispute resolution hasn't been accomplished here yet. FM didn't include a diff from a month ago in which I politely, but directly, asked him on his userpage for an explanation about a personal attack he had launched some time before, but for which he had apparently never apologized or retracted [11]. FM deleted my attempt at dispute resolution without answering [12]. Cla68 (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, to make things clear in case I wasn't above, there is a dispute between me, FeloniousMonk (FM), and SlimVirgin (SV). I was preparing an RfC to invite community input into the dispute. Although the RfC focused on SV, it included diffs of troublesome behavior by FM. FM appears to be leapfrogging over the dispute resolution chain in order to bring this here. Community input would probably be desirable first. Once the RfC was posted, FM would be able to list the same diffs for the community to comment on. I'm fine with airing the dispute here, but this isn't usually how we do things, judging from what I've seen in previous ArbCom requests here. Cla68 (talk) 07:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia. This is fostered by creating and maintaining an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among the contributors.
2) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, gaming the system, and using Wikipedia as a battleground, is prohibited. Administrators and other experienced editors should especially strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another.
3) Wikipedia exists only because of the community that creates and maintains it. Disagreements between editors on a wide variety of issues frequently occur. The airing of disagreements in a respectful and sincere manner for the purpose of resolution is normal and indeed desirable in any such collaborative project. Where disputes cannot be resolved amicably through the ordinary course of editing and discussion, the project's dispute resolution mechanisms may be used.
4) Behavior tending to cause unnecessary division or strife within the Wikipedia community is considered harmful. Examples of such behavior may include interfering with the consensus process through inappropriate canvassing, undue off-wiki coordination, coordinated "meatpuppetry", or factional voting; compilation of public lists of grudges or opponents other than the reasonable assembly of evidence for legitimate dispute resolution purposes; "ownership" of articles by self-appointed individuals or groups; warnings given for inappropriate reasons; threats; and misuse of administrator or other privileges granted by the community.
5) Adhering to the basic precepts of civility is as important during a disagreement as at any other time. The maxim "comment on the content, not on the contributor" should still be followed whenever possible, unless the dispute has unavoidably devolved into an examination of a particular editor's behavior, and even then, civility remains essential. Language more suited to advocacy than to the civil explanation of one's position on an issue should be avoided. Examples of inappropriate types of comments may include the assertion that because an editor edits in a given area or participates in a given WikiProject or also contributes to another website, his or her views and contributions are not entitled to respect; misuse of oversimplified characterizations in lieu of grappling with the force of another editor's actual arguments; facile allegations of user misconduct as an excuse not to engage in reasonable amount of discussion; or unduly stressing prior unrelated disputes in which a user has been engaged in lieu of discussing the current issue.
6) Administrators are trusted members of the community. The work of administrators who deal with complex situations and troublesome problems should be particularly appreciated. Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators are expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions; in particular, administrators who have been criticized or admonished in decisions of the Arbitration Committee are expected not to repeat the conduct in question.
7) Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, and unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their administrative actions and to justify them when needed.
8) Administrators should bear in mind that at this stage in the evolution of Wikipedia, they have hundreds of colleagues. Therefore, if an administrator finds that he or she cannot adhere to site policies and remain civil (even toward users exhibiting problematic behavior) while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem by poor conduct of his or her own.
9) Administrator tools may not be used to further the administrator's own position in a content dispute or, except in emergency circumstances or cases of blatant bad-faith harassment, in other disputes. Except for administrators' ability to use their tools to enforce policies on matters such as BLP or copyright violations, administrator status accords no special privileges in determining the content of articles.
10) All editors, and especially administrators, should avoid engaging in conduct that creates a reasonable appearance that significant site policies are being violated. This includes, for example, an administrator's repeatedly taking administrator actions that can reasonably be perceived as being taken to further the administrator's position in a content dispute, even if the administrator actually has no such intention; or an editor's repeatedly editing in apparent coordination with another editor under circumstances giving rise to persistent and reasonable suspicions of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, even if the allegations are disputed or untrue.
This principle is not based on any idea that "where there is smoke there is fire" or that "perception is reality" (such that every allegation is presumed true). Such assumptions would fail to assume good faith, which should not be disregarded until there is clear reason to do so. As well, some administrators will always be more controversial than others because they are more active, or because they deal in more contentious areas. Rather, if an editor is repeatedly and in good faith accused of persistent policy violations, then he or she has a responsibility to assess whether his or her behavior is unnecessarily creating or contributing to that perception. If so, the behavior should be changed.
11) It is completely unacceptable for any editor to harass another. See Wikipedia:Harassment. Acts of harassment, especially including but not limited to express or implied threats against another editor, damage the editing environment and may deter contributors from continuing to edit Wikipedia. Moreover, any user conduct or comments that another editor could reasonably perceive as harassing or threatening should be avoided. Where an action or comment causes an editor to reasonably feel harassed or to become fearful, then even if this result may have been inadvertent, the user who made the comment should take immediate steps to address the concern. If an editor is being harassed on or off Wikipedia, other editors must not contribute to the harassment, even if they are involved in a dispute with the harassed editor. They may, however, continue to express their views regarding the merits of the dispute. Likewise charges of harassment or similar misconduct should not be made lightly or unnecessarily.
12) A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia, including participation in websites or forums critical of Wikipedia or its contributors, is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions, except in extraordinary circumstances such as those involving grave acts of overt and persistent harassment or threats. Postings on other websites, including those critical of Wikipedia, sometimes point out on-wiki problems that should be addressed. However, an editor or administrator who edits Wikipedia or takes an administrator action prompted by commentary from any source outside Wikipedia itself must ensure that the edit or action reflects his or her own duly considered view on the proper action to be taken, rather than simply carrying out the views of others outside Wikipedia.
13) All Wikipedia editors, regardless of the length of their service or any positions they may hold, are expected to abide by at least our basic standards for user conduct. Experienced administrators are expected to adhere, at a minimum, to at least the same standards of behavior that they are responsible for enforcing. In the same vein, editors who see part of their role here as making constructive criticism of other users must strive to live up to the same standards to which they would hold others. Double standards, actual or perceived, can be seriously demoralizing.
14) Editors who consistently find themselves in disputes with each other whenever they interact on Wikipedia, and who are unable to resolve their differences, should seek to minimize the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them. In extreme cases, they may be directed to do so.
15) A user-conduct request for comment ("RfC") represents a forum in which editors may raise concerns about the conduct of a fellow editor or administrator. Although this procedure can be misused, when utilized in good faith it presents an editor with the opportunity to learn that concerns exist about his or her behavior, respond to the concerns, and if appropriate adjust his or her behavior. Civility and decorum are especially important in the highly charged atmosphere of a user-conduct RfC.
16) A "minor edit" is defined as one making only trivial or superficial changes between the current and previous versions of a page, such as typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, and the like. By clicking the "minor edit" box, an editor represents that the change would not call for review by other editors on the page and could never reasonably be the subject of a dispute. An edit summary should accompany each minor edit, although this can be brief (e.g., "sp", "punct", "format"). Except for edits automatically marked as minor by automated tools, which themselves should be used only in accordance with policy, any change that affects the meaning of an article should not be designated as minor.
17) An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse bad behavior or misconduct in another aspect of participation. An editor's misconduct also is not excused because another editor or editors may also have engaged in such conduct. However, such factors may be considered in mitigation of any sanction to be imposed.
18) In deciding what sanctions to impose against an editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioral history, and other relevant circumstances. Editors who are sanctioned are expected to carefully review the Arbitration Committee's decision and to take it into account in their future conduct, to abide by any sanctions imposed, and to address the issues identified to that the problems will not recur. The Arbitration Committee retains jurisdiction, in any Arbitration case, to reopen the case and to impose further and additional, and often much more severe, sanctions if behavior issues addressed in the initial decision are not resolved.
20) With respect to evidence presented in Arbitration proceedings, silence is not assent. If the Arbitration Committee says nothing about specific items of evidence, it neither validates nor refutes the evidence.
21) The pages associated with Arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
1) This case originated as a request to review the conduct of Cla68, submitted by FeloniousMonk with the later support of SlimVirgin. The case was accepted to review the conduct of each of these editors. Subsequently, Viridae filed a separate request for Arbitration against JzG. Because some Arbitrators believed that request involved overlapping issues with the earlier request, the scope of this case was expanded to review the behavior of these two editors as well. Each of these five editors has made substantial contributions to Wikipedia over a period of years, and has shown great dedication to the project, but to varying degrees, they have also engaged in certain types of behavior that must be addressed. We address each of their conduct, in alphabetical order. In view of the enormous quantity of evidence presented in this case, the findings must be of a summary nature and cannot address every issue raised or item of evidence posted.
2)(A) Cla68 (talk · contribs) is a longstanding and valued contributor to Wikipedia. Over a period of years, he has made outstanding contributions to the encyclopedia, as measured both by volume and quality. He has contributed tens of thousands of edits and is the principal contributor to more than twenty featured articles.
(B) In addition to his mainspace contributions, Cla68 has been active in project space, where he has often been critical of the actions of Wikipedia administrators. Some of his contributions in this arena have been positive ones, including his work in uncovering the deception discussed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland and in drawing attention to some of the issues underlying that dispute.
(C) Cla68 has at times failed to assume good faith with regard to the character and actions of administrators and other editors with whom he disagrees, and at times has suggested the opposite. He has not always been mindful of our norm against alleging that another Wikipedian is acting in bad faith or intentionally working against the best interests of the project, unless there is substantial evidence against a good-faith explanation. The presumptive explanation for most disputes or disagreements on Wikipedia is that two or more editors have honestly held, good-faith but differing views on the merits of an issue. Cla68 could readily have made at least most of his valid or arguable criticisms of Wikipedia and administrators with whom he disagreed on a given issue (such as the Mantanmoreland dispute) without asserting or implying that they had acted in bad faith.
(D) Cla68 has been engaged in a protracted series of disputes with SlimVirgin. Although many of Cla68's criticisms of SlimVirgin fell within the realm of reasonable discussion, there have been other instances in which his rhetoric was clearly excessive or uncivil. For example, Cla68 acted within policy by creating a userspace draft of a request for comment on SlimVirgin, but some of the section headings and edit summaries that he used in the page were intemperate. Cla68 later apologized for these excesses in the RfC draft.
(E.2) In May 2008, Cla68 posted a comment on an external website suggesting that if certain editors did not change their manner of editing, their real names might be disclosed in negative press coverage about Wikipedia. This statement was taken by some editors as a threat that Cla68 would seek to disclose the real names of these users (who edit Wikipedia under pseudonymous usernames) to the press. After being advised that his statement was being perceived as threatening and that several editors were seriously concerned about it, Cla68 arguably did not act to withdraw or clarify his comment as quickly as the circumstances called for. However, a short time later he explained that his statement was intended only as speculation concerning the possibility that the editors might be publicly identified by others, and that he did not mean to suggest that he would do this himself. Cla68 also apologized for not having chosen his words more carefully.
3)(A) FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs) is a longstanding and valued contributor to Wikipedia, who has, among other things, contributed several dozen new articles to the encyclopedia. He has been an administrator since August 2005 and has invested substantial time and effort in the project. However, he has taken relatively few administrator actions in recent months.
(B) FeloniousMonk has been a party to several prior cases decided by this Committee. In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu, decided in 2005, FeloniousMonk was "admonished not to use his administrative tools or give warnings in content disputes in which he is involved." In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist, decided in 2006, he was "counseled to consult with other administrators with respect to disruptive users and to cooperate with them in a collegial way."
(C) Despite having taken a relatively small number of administrator actions during the past several months, FeloniousMonk has used administrator tools in several matters where he could reasonably be considered as an "involved" administrator, such as the protection of Rosalind Picard and Phyllis Schlafly and blocks of User:Schlafly.
(D) Some of the instances of disputed administrator actions by FeloniousMonk cited in the evidence reflect inappropriate use of tools by an administrator involved in an underlying content or conduct dispute, while others might considered more debatable. However, in all these instances, FeloniousMonk should have been especially careful to avoid protecting or blocking in matters where he was or could reasonably be perceived as involved, in view of the prior express admonition by this Committee that he should avoid this practice. None of these matters was so urgent that it could not have been referred to a noticeboard or to an uninvolved administrator for consideration.
(E) From time to time, FeloniousMonk has edited certain articles, particularly those relating to controversies involving intelligent design, in conjunction with one or more other users in a fashion that has created at least a perception of excessively coordinated editing.
(F) FeloniousMonk has at times failed to assume the good faith of those with whom he disagrees in disputes on Wikipedia, particularly in controversies concerning intelligent design and related matters, and has made certain uncivil comments to and concerning other editors.
4) (A) JzG (talk · contribs) is a longstanding and valued contributor to Wikipedia. He has been an administrator since January 2006. In addition to his other valuable contributions, for more than two years he has dedicated himself to some of Wikipedia's most important and sensitive administrator tasks. These have included, among other things, addressing OTRS complaints by persons affected by the content of Wikipedia articles; enforcing policies such as those governing copyright issues and biographies of living persons; and protecting the encyclopedia from would-be misusers of project resources.
(B) As a result of his administrator work on some of our most sensitive articles, JzG has been subjected to significant incidents of harassment both on and off Wikipedia (see, for example, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher).
(C) Over a period of more than one year, JzG persistently directed uncivil comments and personal attacks at other editors. These comments frequently included obscene and vulgar language and abuse. Many of the incivil and offensive comments were contained in edit summaries so that they are permanently logged in page histories. Often, although not always, the inappropriate comments accompanied otherwise proper commentary, edits, or administrator actions, and the comments were often, although again by no means always or nearly always, directed at users exhibiting problematic behavior (but this generally is not a mitigating circumstance). JzG continued to make some of these types of comments even after Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG2 called his attention to substantial community concern about his style and other users characterized it as conduct unbecoming an administrator.
(D) JzG has taken several overly harsh administrator actions and made unnecessarily rude comments to new editors, thereby reducing the chance that these potentially valuable contributors would continue editing Wikipedia.
(E) JzG has voluntarily taken a series of wikibreaks in an attempt to reduce the stress that sometimes accompanies his editing Wikipedia and the role he has assumed, and has taken other steps in an attempt to address the civility issues as self-described as of March 2008 here. A review of his more recent contributions reflects that there has been meaningful improvement in addressing these issues.
5) (A) SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) is a longstanding and valued contributor to Wikipedia. She has made strong content contributions including tens of thousands of edits spanning a range of subject-matters, including important contributions to several featured articles. She has also contributed greatly to the development of several major Wikipedia policies, including the policy on biographies of living persons. She has been an administrator since March 2005.
(B) SlimVirgin has been the subject of an unusually persistent series of attempts to ascertain, and speculation concerning, her real-world identity, location, employment history, and other private information. Her involvement in high-profile discussions and administrator actions has resulted in several instances of harassment. SlimVirgin has been an outspoken opponent of any sort of on- or off-wiki harassment or stalking of editors, and has commendably worked to call attention to serious problems in this area, but has sometimes been too ready to accuse editors of this type of misconduct unnecessarily.
(C) In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2, decided in 2005, SlimVirgin was "cautioned not to make personal attacks, even under severe perceived provocation". Despite this caution, SlimVirgin has made several personal attacks and uncivil remarks toward other editors. She has also sometimes, when involved in disputes, excessively stressed other editors' involvement in unrelated issues or association with other users regarded as problematic, rather than the merits of the particular issue under discussion.
(D) From time to time, SlimVirgin has edited certain articles or policies in a fashion that has created at least a perception that she seeks to exercise excessive control over their contents, and has edited in conjunction with one or more other users in a fashion that has created at least a perception of excessively coordinated editing.
(E) SlimVirgin has designated many of her edits as minor edits even though they made material and significant changes to the page being edited. Because many editors exclude minor edits from their watchlists or recent changes, this has the effect (even if not intended) of reducing the scrutiny that other editors can give these edits.
6) (A) Viridae (talk · contribs) is a longstanding and valued contributor to Wikipedia. He has contributed both in mainspace, where he has created several articles, and as an administrator, which he has been since November 2006.
(B) Viridae has been involved in a series of disputes with JzG and has reverted a disproportionate number of JzG's administrator actions. In view of their disagreements on numerous issues, Viridae has agreed to refrain from reverting any of JzG's administrator actions in the future.
7) The bitter hostility among some of the parties to this case, and other editors who may be described as allied in some fashion with them, has created a severe drain on the energy and morale of many contributors. Over a period of months if not years, as a result of disputes like the ones culminating in this case, vast amounts of editor time and effort that could have been devoted to content creation and other improvement of the encyclopedia has been diverted. Many members of the community have been demoralized by the feuding, personal attacks, and perceived double standards.
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) The parties are instructed to carefully review the principles and findings contained in this decision. Each of the parties is strongly urged to conform his or her future behavior to the principles set forth in this decision. Each of the parties is admonished for having engaged in the problematic user conduct described above, and is instructed to avoid any further instances of such conduct.
2) By way of illustration and not of limitation of remedy 1, the parties are admonished and instructed to avoid the following:
3) The Arbitration Committee retains jurisdiction over this case, as it does over any Arbitration case. In the event that any of the parties, contrary to our hope and expectations, continues to engage in misconduct such as that identified in this decision, a request for a reopening of this case may be submitted on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. (Unless problems are severe, at least 30 days should be allowed after this case closes before submitting such a request, to allow a reasonable time over which the parties' future conduct may be evaluated.) The Committee will impose substantial additional sanctions, which may include desysopping in the case of parties who are administrators, without further warnings in the event of significant violations. If necessary, additional findings may be made and sanctions imposed either by motion or after a formal reopening of the case, depending on the circumstances. In the event that any such further proceedings are necessary, the excessive delays that have taken place in this case will not be permitted to recur.
4) Editors who have been directly or indirectly involved in the disputes giving rise to this Arbitration case, or similar or related disputes, are counseled to review the principles set forth in this Arbitration case and to use their best efforts to conduct themselves in accordance with these principles.
5) FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrative privileges are revoked. FeloniousMonk may apply to have them reinstated at any time, either through the usual means or by appeal to the Committee.
6) The Committee acknowledge the extraordinary duration of this case. Whilst there have been reasons for this to arise, an overall apology is due, and given.