Case Opened on 18:48, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Case Closed on 06:28, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Case Re-Opened 20:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Case Closed (again) 02:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Amended by Open Motion 01:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Amended by Open Motion 10:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Amended by Open Motion 16:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Amended by Open Motion 00:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

• User:Everyking
• User:Snowspinner

Concern over Everyking's conduct on WP:AN and its subpages, particularly WP:AN/I

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

It's on his talk page.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Mediation was attempted at WP:TINMC. It worked briefly, but fell apart rapidly. Wikipedia:Wikimediation was tried, with minimal comment.

Everyking's actions on AN/I amount to one thing and one thing only - attacking admins he doesn't personally like. The only thing that can be said for his conduct is that it has improved to the point where he at least seems to read into disputes before commenting. Regardless, his comments show a disregard for consensus, policy, and civility in favor of his own views. Adding to this are a tendency towards personal attacks as in [1], [2], [3], and [4].

Immediately prior to bringing this RFAr, I asked him to cool it, reminding him of our past discussions. [5]. He flatly refused. [6].

The following users have, in the past two weeks, asked EK to look into what he's talking about more, provide evidence, use a form of dispute resolution, or otherwise lay off. Bishonen [7], Radiant [8] [9], Ta bu shi da yu [10], TenofAllTrades [11], Jwrosenzweig [12], Carnildo [13], Jayjg [14], JRM [15], Mel Etitis [16], me (Snowspinner) [17], Calton [18], UninvitedCompany [19], David Gerard [20], Raul654 [21], and Kbdank71 [22]. More or less without exception, Everyking's responses to these complaints, questions, or comments is to ignore them, or to make further accusations.

I also find it telling that Everyking's immediate response to this case, rather than being to defend or explain his actions, has been to make accusations against the first arbitrator to accept it.

I would also like to note, I certainyl hope this doesn't end in Everyking's banning. I wasn't going to ask for it, at least. I intended to ask for a personal attack parole and a ban from the administrator's noticeboard pages except to use them to notify people of his own actions. Snowspinner 14:52, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Gerard accepted this case almost immediately. He has a stated animosity towards me and a personal alliance with Snowspinner, so I strongly believe he should recuse. Everyking 18:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My response was not a flat refusal. It was conditional: I told him if he moderated his actions, I would moderate my words. Everyking 18:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard knows perfectly well why he should recuse and I am not going to dig up evidence to prove to him what he already knows. That's an exercise in absurdity. I may not get to pick and choose my arbitrators but I should certainly have the right to expect that people who have made themselves my personal enemies don't get a vote on my banning. Everyking 18:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sannse has recused (which is correct of her to do), but Gerard will not, even though my history of disagreement with Gerard far eclipses any similar history with Sannse. Everyking 20:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what Snowspinner or the ArbCom have in mind to throw at me. I suppose revoking my adminship would be on the agenda (I know Snowspinner was pushing for that a while ago), but it's been established that one can only lose adminship by abusing it, and even my worst enemies will concede that I don't abuse admin powers (in fact, I'm an active RC patroller, and I've often been thanked for my vandal fighting there). Perhaps instead they'd like to ban me from the Wikipedia namespace like they did to Anthony. Beats me. As far as I can tell Snowspinner has been the one basically at fault through all this. We reached an agreement in mediation, and he proceeded to derail that agreement by increasing the number and severity of his controversial admin actions. I proceeded to increase my criticism in proportion to his abuses. Normally I'm pretty willing to admit my errors and excesses and move on, but I really think my record with the AN criticism is, if not pure as driven snow, at least generally beneficial, and even if I've been wrong about some things (and I probably have; sometimes I slip into devil's advocacy when I see people being denied what I consider a fair hearing), it's done no harm (and it's probably still helped in those cases by sharpening understanding on all sides). It's really very disturbing that Snowspinner engages in hugely controversial actions which are definitely harmful if he's wrong about any of it, and does so very frequently, and yet the question of punishing him is not even being raised. The observer untutored in wiki-diplomacy would doubtless be quick to raise accusations of cabalism. I'll finish this off by quoting Snowspinner himself about me:

"...Everyking's edits to the article namespace are exceptional - he's one of our best content editors, and I thank him for that. I'd also like to note that I am very pleasantly surprised by how much he's moderated his conduct on Ashlee Simpson articles - I'll admit I was one of the naysayers about letting him back on the articles, and from what I've seen I was wrong about that."

Everyking 07:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept. This has gone on long enough - David Gerard 18:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding recusal: We went through this in Everyking 2. You didn't supply substantiation then either, despite repeated requests. You don't get to pick and choose arbitrators on a case against you, particularly when you've racked up three - David Gerard 18:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should also note that when the case against you centres on accusations of mudslinging and refusal to substantiate ... then slinging further mud and refusing to substantiate it doesn't really help demonstrate the falsity of the allegations - David Gerard 19:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. →Raul654 18:42, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Recuse -- sannse (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept Fred Bauder 22:04, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. James F. (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Following IRC discussion between disputants Everyking, Snowspinner, and members of the arbcom, the following agreement was reached:

Everyking voluntarily agrees to avoid commenting on, second guessing, or otherwise alluding to Snowspinner or Snowspinner's actions anywhere on the Wiki. Everyking will, in short, pretend Snowspinner does not exist. Everyking may politely converse with Snowspinner on user talk:Snowspinner or user talk:Everyking. Everyking is also free to bring an RFC or Request for Arbitration against Snowspinner if he so chooses. Beyond this, Everyking's editing privileges will not be affected.

Case indefinitely suspended on 06:28, August 5, 2005 (UTC) with no action taken. Will reopen if necessary.

With [23] Everyking has withdrawn from the agreement that led to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3 being closed. In light of this, and his continued harassment of admins on AN/I (Most recently his criticism of jguk when he had clearly done no research into the situation), I ask that Everyking 3 be reopened, and that the previous requested penalty of him being banned from AN/I be instituted, or at the very least that the voluntary agreement be re-instituted by decree. Snowspinner 22:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did not criticize Jguk; I made a brief comment that the litany of evidence presented against him seemed "rather bad", and then I expressed a hope that he would show up to present his own side of the story, which he did. I find it unimaginable that Jguk could have taken what I said as criticism. Moreover Jguk is not an admin anyway (at least not on the list). If this is the best Snowspinner can think of to attack me with, my record must be virtually spotless.

The point of contention between us here is whether he should refrain from criticizing me as I have done with him (this arose because he recently attacked me in connection with his latest RfC). He refused to do so, so I withdrew from the agreement, since that's entirely unfair. If he would like to agree to that now, I will be happy to resume the agreement. Everyking 23:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A) That was not part of the original agreement, and I am not incluned to have things added to the agreement after the fact. B) The only criticism I have made of you was in the context of your endorsing an RfC against me. Surely you are not proposing that your agreement allows you to endorse RfCs against me (Which I don't dispute that it does) but that it binds me from in any way responding to that endorsement. Snowspinner 23:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I propose: that the same apply to you as applies to me. If I would be allowed in the same situation to say the same thing you did, then you have a point, but this is not my understanding of the agreement. Everyking 23:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall any component of the agreement that bound me - in fact, if you look at the Everyking 3 page, you'll see that the agreement only ever bound you. Snowspinner 01:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall that James F. was present when this was being negotiated. I certainly would never have agreed to it if I hadn't thought the spirit of the agreement was that we would both hold ourselves to an equal standard. Everyking 23:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to suggest we disqualify Snowspinner from any further involvement regarding administrative action against Everyking. Not doing so would create an appearance of unfairness, even if there isn't any. We have a responsibility to take an extra effort in removing doubt about our impartiality in our administrative actions. Users who appear to carry a grudge, rightly or wrongly, simply shouldn't be involved because the community trusts these decisions to be made objectively and not emotionally. Any decision which results from this proposal will be seen as tainted by the community and as a result, it will almost certainly fail to be binding. --Gmaxwell 00:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any further administrative action? What administrative action have I taken against him already? Snowspinner 01:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

any further involvement regarding administrative action. For example, bringing up this request. --Gmaxwell 02:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How is raising an arbcom request administrative action? It's not as though I'm an arbitrator and capable of voting on it, nor as though I wouldn't recuse if I were. What grounds can there be for stripping my ability to raise arbcom cases against a user? Particularly when the user in question has been the subject of two arbcom cases, and two mediated agreements, both of which he renegged on, and I have never once been reprimanded or sanctioned for my conduct in relation to him or any other issue? Snowspinner 23:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think everybody knows why you have not been reprimanded or sanctioned for your conduct (yet?), and it doesn't speak well of you or the ArbCom. Everyking 00:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think everybody knows why... You would be wrong. How about enlightening those of us not into reading tea leaves? --Calton | Talk 01:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be a very strong influence on the ArbCom, frequently putting forward cases which are invariably accepted and recommending penalties which the ArbCom usually goes along with, which makes it very unlikely that they would sanction him (maybe after the elections, if there's a major shake-up), even though he's done more wrong than half the people they've banned outright. It also makes it effectively impossible for me to get justice when he's the accusing party. Everyking 01:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see you've returned to your conspiracy theories, though I assure you, it's actually all the Gnomes of Zurich (Which had better not be a redlink. I'll cry if it's a redlink.) Snowspinner 02:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right, well, it's fitting that you'd disparage the logical conclusion as a "conspiracy theory". Actually I expected you to respond with the "me and the ArbCom are very reasonable, unlike you, and great minds think alike" argument, so I'll give you a point for originality. Everyking 02:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you know, I've made all the reasonable points enough times, now I've pretty much got to resort to the absurd ones involving gnomes. Snowspinner 02:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even the gnomes think that you are supported by the cabal, Phil. You act with absolute impunity and have several times brought cases to the arbcom that have more or less been predecided. You are once more here stirring up the shit with James instead of just ignoring him, because you know damned well that you'll be supported once again and can have someone who doesn't like you punished, not because you feel James is actually doing any harm to the encyclopaedia. Grace Note 01:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see Raul is trying to pin the blame on me for endorsing Snowspinner's RfC. Apparently he is ignoring the fact that it was made entirely clear that I could participate in RfCs against him. Even Gerard chimed in to say this was OK after I did it. Everyking 21:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The arbcom also decided to warn Snowspinner not to bait Everyking. As an outsider to the dispute it is clear to me that Snowspinner did not heed this warning. While the agreement in question was only between EK and the Arbcom (or the community, if you will), we have failed to uphold our side of the bargain by failing to later add teeth to the warning when it wasn't heeded. It's always better to ask than to order, but we must accept the consequences of our more conservative actions, Quite a few others have expressed the thought that the enforced cease fire should be bilateral. If anything goes forward here, I would suggest that it be a rethinking of the nature of that warning to snowspinner. Surely we should not take action against EK based on that comment on Snowspinner's talkpage, even if we accept that it has meanging at all it was quite clearly conditional on Snowspinners compliance with the warning. --Gmaxwell 00:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please find me this warning. I am unaware of it. And, again - are you seriously saying that if Everyking weighs in on an RfC against me, I'm blocked from responding? Snowspinner 01:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Snowspinner's response to my RfC endorsement is this: "What a surprise. Now you [Netoholic], Mirv, and Everyking have all weighed in against me. At this rate, I expect to wake up tomorrow and see that the sun rises in the east." Surely that's a personal attack by any standard. Anyway, again I ask whether he would tolerate the same out of me, in the context of our agreement? Everyking 01:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Gmaxwell. It seems to me Everyking followed his ruling to the letter until now (in a rather unfortunate incident). Maybe if Everyking and Snowspinner just agree not to get into these useless fights with each other the arbcom members would be satisfied? I find a re-opening of this case very tragic as Everyking is one of the best editors here, and from what I hear Snowspinner is a good editor too. I'd just hope they'd agree to take some time off from each other. People may find Everyking's criticisms annoying but that does not seem to partian to this particular case, and really, criticism for admins is a good thing I think, even if some think it smacks of conspiracy theories :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 01:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm one of Everyking's mentors (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 2). EK asked me to drop in here and talk about how the mentorship was going. His conduct has been much better on Ashlee Simpson-related articles. There haven't been any complaints from other users about his behavior, and there were only one or two instances when I felt that my input was required on Talk:Ashlee Simpson. I'm not sure whether to call the mentorship successful or unnecessary, but either way it should be lifted on schedule (it's been about 4 months since the mentorship agreement, June 19).

At the beginning of the mentorship I told EK that I was also concerned about his conduct on the admin noticeboard. [24] I didn't press him about it since the mentorship only covers his editing on Ashlee Simpson articles. Unfortunately his behavior on the noticeboard has not improved. EK suggested on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3 that the mentorship could be extended to his conduct on the noticeboard. That's up to the arbcom, but personally I think it's patronizing to have a team of people reviewing someone's conduct on a discussion board. Article editing is one thing, but if EK can't behave on a discussion page the proper response is to ban him from that page. It's not worth a mentor's time to mediate these political disputes. I also think Snowspinner and Calton have intentionally baited EK and they should stop. Rhobite 00:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, reject your assertion. Just about any contradiction seems to set EK off, and I'm not responsible for his reaction to his perceived slights. --Calton | Talk 01:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that suggestion about expanding the mentor arrangement was an attempt to solve an absurd problem with an absurd solution. Since the only sane solution, to let an administrator discuss administrative matters on the administrators' noticeboard, seems to be one that some of the arbitrators are unwilling to accept, I have to try and think up the next best thing. And I have no objections to it, aside from the demeaning principle of it, because I am sure that if my mentor on that board was anybody aside from Snowspinner or the rest of the handful that hate my guts (actually virtually all of this handful are on the ArbCom, funnily enough), no mentor would ever feel it necessary to so much as warn me about my conduct there. Everyking 06:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't hate your guts, James, far from it, and I've had very little contact with you, but I sometimes dread having to put admin actions on that board because of the almost inevitable criticism from you. On a few occasions, I've actually not put something up because of it (which ironically would have led to even more criticism from you had you realized), and on a couple of times (early on when I was first made an admin), I didn't take admin action because I saw you were around and I couldn't be bothered dealing with the comments. It's because of this kind of thing that negative feelings toward you grow. Maybe if you could start to see it that way round, instead of assuming the negative feelings come from nowhere. That doesn't mean everything's your fault, but I do think you triggered and now maintain the dynamic. On the plus side, if you're at fault, it means you're in control of it, and it's almost certainly not too late for you to change it, because this is a very forgiving community. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I think it's a good thing you steer clear of actions that you feel might be criticised. If you stuck to things that you felt James wouldn't be able to reproach you for, that would be to the benefit of Wikipedia. Of course you feel negatively towards James. Admins feel negatively towards anyone who points up their borderline or abusive actions. I don't think James deserves your reproach. You seem to think that the community would benefit from having admins who acted with impunity. I'm afraid I don't agree. Too many useful contributors are chased away by that attitude, so that you are left only with those who agree with you and your political and social POVs. Grace Note 01:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly true that EK is the most regular critic of admin actions on the noticeboard. There's nothing wrong with that. It is also true that he often criticizes (or had criticized) Snowspinner's actions. There are several possible explanations for that:

1. Everyking hates Snowspinner and is on a crusade to annoy him.
2. Everyking is so quick with his criticisms that other people who object to Snowspinner's (and other admins') actions often don't feel the need to repeat what Everyking has said.
3. Snowspinner is one of the more abusive sysops, so Everyking criticizes him more often than others.
4. Other people have given up on Snowspinner, so Everyking is one of the few with the will to criticize him.

I hope that the ArbCom doesn't assume that #1 is all there is to this case. Zocky 16:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Reopen; a new case seems unnecessary. James F. (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  FWIW, Everyking's suggestion that the agreement was two-way is laughable. I wish this problem would go away of its own accord, rather than return to us e'er and on. James F. (talk) 23:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Reopen Fred Bauder 01:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain for the moment (if I do accept, it'll be to accept it as a whole new case to consider the larger issues involving EK). Before we accept yet-another case, I'd like to see if it's possible to resurrect the agreement. →Raul654 05:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept (either as a new case or to reopen the old). I reconsidered my position after (1) seeing that no progress towards restoring the agreement has been made, and (2) I reread the agreement - "Everyking will, in short, pretend Snowspinner does not exist" Everyking apparently overlooked that part of the agreement. Snowspinner responded in kind, and ultimately then Everyking withdrew from the agreement.
• Reopen ➥the Epopt 04:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Reopen Jayjg ^(talk) 20:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1) Wikipedia:Civility

Passed 8-0

2) Wikipedia:No personal attacks

Passed 7-1

3) Users are expected to have some modicum of understanding of a situation before criticizing the people involved in it.

Passed 8-0

3) Everyking's behavior has often been uncivil, including border-line personal attacks [25], [26], [27].

Passed 8-0

4) Everyking superlatively performs the technical aspects of the duties of an administrator such as recent changes patrolling.

Passed 8-0

5) Everyking's commentary often reveals he is totally ignorant of the situations he is commenting on.

Passed 8-0

6) Calton (talk · contribs), and Radiant! (talk · contribs) have made unproductive and inflammatory commentary on Everyking's behavior. [28] [29]

Passed 6-2

7) Everyking repeatedly engages in critical remarks, which could fairly be characterized as sniping, regarding the actions of other administrators and the Wikipedia arbitrators in Wikipedia forums. Often he has not adequately researched matters before commenting on them. Decisions are frequently characterized as unfair, often of the basis of technical objections which have little basis in Wikipedia policy. See Excellent summary of evidence

Passed 6-0

Everyking banned from the administrator's noticeboard

[edit]

2) Except for posting notices of his own actions, Everyking is prohibited for one year from posting to the administrator's noticeboard and subpages thereof.

Passed 8-0

Everyking prohibited from commenting on administrators' actions

[edit]

3) Everyking is prohibited from making comments on non-editorial actions taken by other administrators other than on the administrator's talk page, a Request for comment, or a Request for arbitration.

Passed 7-1

Both superceded by a Feb 2008 motion, see below

5) Everyking is required to familiarize himself with the particulars of a situation before commenting on it.

Passed 7-1

Having considered the request to lift the remaining restriction (remedy X) in the EK3 case, the Arbitration Committee decides that the request is denied, but that the indefinite nature of the restriction is altered so that the restriction will now expire one year after the enactment of this motion. This expiration date of one year will be reset following any future unsuccessful appeals of this restriction:

Passed 7-2 at 00:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

X) Everyking shall not interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, Snowspinner, on any page in Wikipedia for a length of one year. Should he do so, he may be blocked by any administrator (other than Snowspinner) for a short time, up to one week; after the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be one year. The duration of this remedy is to be reset following an unsuccessful appeal of this restriction.

Passed 7-0, amended (in italics) by a vote of 7-2 with 2 recusals on August 15, 2009

1) Due to a history of past conflict the remedies in this decision are not to be enforced by Snowspinner.

Passed 8-0

Pursuant to discussion on the arbitration committee mailing list, Everyking has recently been causing more problems. Following our previous decision, he has instead begun harassing administrators on their talk pages. He has resumed editing Ashlee Simpson articles in the same fashion we previously sanctioned. Extraordinary Machine lodged a complaint on the ANI, and I recieved one in private from someone else (that person has refused to lodge one formally because he/she is fed up with EK from previous run-ins).

Per previous discussion, I'd like to propose the following remedies:

1. Everyking is banned for two weeks for recent offenses
2. Everyking's current prohibitions (his ban from editing the ANI, and from commenting on other admin's actions except for their talk pages, RFC, and RFA) - set to expire in November - are extended indefinitely for one year, until November 2007.
3. Everyking is placed on standard probation for all pop music articles - any admin may ban him from any/all of them for any misbehavior on his part
4. Should EK harass other admins over their non-editorial actions, any admin may block him for up to two weeks per incident, escalating to one year per incident after the fifth one. Raul654 22:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Of 11 currently active arbitrators, those currently supporting these measures: Raul654, Epopt, Fred Bauder, JamesF, Morven, Dmcdevit)

Passed 6-0 10:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Everyking has asked the arbitration committee to look into his two remaining paroles. The one pertaining to commenting on other admins' actions is still in effect. However, we have decided to suspend for three months the parole pertaining to music article. (Note: Unless we say otherwise, in 3 months it resumes) He may edit on music articles just as anyone else. Raul654 23:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC) link to original announcement Thatcher131 00:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Remedy 2 of EK3 (prohibition against posting on AN/I) is terminated.
2. Remedy 3 of EK3 (commenting on admin's actions) is terminated.
3. Everyking's music article "parole" is terminated.
4. Remedy 5 of EK3 is continued (and indeed, is a common sense requirement for all editors.)
5. Remedy X of EK3 (non-interaction and non-commenting on Snowspinner/Phil Sandifer) is continued.
6. The harassment ban and terms of enforcement in the July 2006 amendment to EK3 is continued.
7. Upon request by Everyking, these terms will be reviewed, but no more often than once per year, starting the date this motion passes.

passed 11-1 at 16:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked for one week due to comments about User:Bishonen [30][31]. Will Beback 23:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 11:15, 27 July 2006 Tony_Sidaway (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Everyking with an expiry time of 2 weeks (Arbitration Committee ban [32])