Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Flcelloguy (talk | contribs) at 21:43, 12 November 2005 (Rm image; does not fit well here, thanks!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

Request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. Before requesting arbitration, please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee.

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Arbitration Committee proceedings

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) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal none none 11 December 2024
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person you lodge a complaint against.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arb Com member votes to accept/reject/recuse/other.

This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

Current requests

Template

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless

Statement by party 1

I have debated on whether or not to participate in this RfA, unfortunately things like these can quickly turn into a kangaroo court, but I have decided to give it a shot.

Contrary to the allegations made by Stevertigo and Travb, this is not an attempt to have the article erased or to have a certain POV dominate it, only to clear up glaring NPOV issues, remove copyvios and plagiarism and improve the quality of the article. Let me repeat that for some of the editors who are questioning my motives : THIS IS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO HAVE THE ARTICLE ERASED OR TO HAVE A CERTAIN POV DOMINATE IT.

The problem with using so much cut and paste, as has been more than well documented, is that the information is plagiarized from sources overly sympathetic to the VVAW (including the VVAW’s own website) and the WSI. The inclusion of this information in its current form fundamentally alters the NOPV of the article. Why some editors cannot see this is beyond me. Would we allow an article on GW Bush to be comprised almost entirely of press briefings from the White House? Would we allow an article about PETA to consist primarily of quotes from PETA friendly sources? That’s all I am asking for here.

I think that a history lesson on the article might be in order. The anon began contributing to this article sometime in July of 2004. He has had a pretty consistent tactic. He takes out any information he disagrees with, places it in talk and begins an never ending argument of either the validity of the information, or the relevance to the article. Almost as soon as he began contributing to the article, editors began to draw attention to his use of plagiarized material [1]. Just in case any of you missed that, I was not the first editor to argue that the Anon’s use of plagiarized material was skewing the POV of the article. The anon then protects his edits using never ending and deceptively labeled Rv’s. Since he is using an EarthLink IP, he cannot be blocked, no matter how flagrant his violation is (he had 15rv’s in one day on another article), giving him impunity from any form of sanctions on his behavior.

I know Travb has accused me of instigating an edit war over this article, and he is partially right. There currently exists an edit war over this article, but I fail to see how I am chiefly responsible for it. Where other editors have given up in frustration, I refuse to drop the issue and walk away from the article. Some might say I am being a POV warrior here, I call it diligence. The talk page has 1 current page and three archived pages full of lengthy discussions that have not solved a damn thing. The plagiarized material still finds its way into the article and any information the anon is uncomfortable with finds its way out. One section, 540 words, is nothing more than a lengthy quote from a VVAW friendly author.

I have said before that I would abide by whatever decision is made. Not only do you have my promise, but you can sanction me if I don’t. Good luck getting the anon to do likewise. TDC 17:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)

TDC and 165.247.200.100

Confirmations

Awareness
Other steps

Statement by User:Travb

Since October 21, 2005 I have been involved with the page Winter Soldier Investigation. This page has been protected 9 times in ten months[6], once since I have been invovled with the page. Currently, User:TDC and anon have been the major players in revert wars. But other minor players have been recently involved with the editing of the page. The page has 421 deleted edits [7], I beleive many from User:Duk.

I attempted to set up a criticism section (which anon deletes full paragraphs from) and TDC is hooked on weaselwords, refusing to allow the word "testimony" to appear in the article. Neither wants to backdown or comprimise. Both are involved in retracted edit wars. Travb 04:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • TDC: TDC has been booted 13 times for similar revert wars [8]. See also Requests for comment/TDC-2[9], Requests for comment/TDC[10]

He starts revert wars like the recent revert war on Winter Soldier Investigation on several pages, and was recently warned again by Tony Sidaway on 5 November 2005 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents[11]

FIRST revert war: Because of a FIRST revert war[12] on Winter Soldier Investigation, which TDC started over long quotes, I erased many of the "superfluous use of direct quotations" (the reason why User:TDC erased many of the quotes) and moved them to wikiquote. This did not satisfy TDC.

SECOND war: TDC found a new, SECOND war. TDC and Duk then attempted to get the complete article Winter Soldier Investigation (along with Vietnam Veterans Against the War at the same time[13] erased for a "copyright violation" for no more than a maximum of 6 isolated sentences[14] that could be considered "copyright violations" in a 9 page article. I footnoted many of the copyright violations. AGAIN this did not satisfy TDC. User:Ed_Poor began to write the article from scratch, he even complained to User:Duk that "The first 4 paragraphs, having been written largely by me, can not posibly be considered a copyright violation."[15].(Earlier Copyvio banner) I stopped this attempt to rewrite the entire article by User:Ed_Poor with the participation of User:Sasquatch by filing a Mediation request[16]. User:Sasquatch and User:Ed_Poor changed the few sentences. User:Sasquatch protected the article on request[17] of User:TDC and User:Tony_Sidaway unlocked it a few days later.

THIRD revert war: TDC began a new THIRD revert war[18], this time over the word "testimony", which he did not want anywhere in the article, and other weaselwords such as "claimed", "alleged". TDC refuses to allow the word "testimony" to be in the article, and continues to revert back. I reported TDC to 3RR but there wasn't enough times to get him booted[19].

  • Anon: Anon is the other revert war participant. The opposite of TDC, he allows very little information critical of Winter Soldier Investigation to stay on the wikipage. Deleted link critical to WSI and two paragraphs critical of WSI[20]

I suggested spliting the article into a pro and con section, with a commitment from both parties that the other person only edit that section, but Anon refused[21].

TDC reported Anon to 3RR. I initially supported Anon, then realized Anon was as guilty of revert wars and deleting information that does not support his ideology, just as TDC does. I then retracted my support for Anon too on the 3RR page[22].


Conclusion: Incredibly all three of these revert wars perpetuated by TDC have only been since October 21, a space of 20 days. While you are at it, maybe you can arbitrate Vietnam Veterans Against the War[23] with the same perps and the same issues. Please help. (I hope I did this right, this is my first Requests for arbitration.)

Request for [injunction]

I suggest that:

Statement by User:TDC

I just wanted to add, what I think is one of the best examples of the Anon's deceptive editing and plagarism:

New York Times explained that he found nothing newsworthy to report because "this stuff happens in all wars." There were a smattering of articles sympathetic to the veterans in the underground press; and Pacifica Radio, with major channels on both coasts, devoted to a pacifist, left-wing perspective on current events, gave them excellent coverage. The CBS television crew that showed up were themselves deeply impressed, but none of their footage made it to the nightly news. source

from the WSI Wikipedia article

New York Times commented that he found nothing newsworthy to report because "this stuff happens in all wars." A few articles that were sympathetic to the veterans appeared in lesser-known publications, and Pacifica Radio, known for its left-wing perspective, gave the event considerable coverage. The CBS television crew that showed up were impressed, but only three minutes made it to the nightly news on the first night.

Instead of rewriting and crediting the information, the anon has simply rearranged a few sentences and changed significant factual portions of the plagiarized work, i.e: but none of their footage made it to the nightly news as has been changed to only three minutes made it to the nightly news on the first night. I mean which one is it? The source that the material was clearly ripped off from states something completely different. And I am bieng singled out for bad faith edits? TDC 17:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:165.247.200.100

Please limit your statement to 500 words (more soon)

Statement by User:Calton

I am only peripherally involved, but I would like to add one item to User:Travb's account above, which convinced me of bad faith being involved in the "Second Edit War" above: namely that when User:Ed Poor began writing a new article , his initial from scratch version was blanked 31 minutes later by User:Duk on grounds of being a "copyvio". --Calton | Talk 05:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Duk

Calton is flat out wrong here. This diff shows that Ed did not re-write the article from scratch. The version I tagged after Ed's edits had copyvios that were initially identified at Talk:Winter_Soldier_Investigation/Archive3#Copyvio_and_derivatives.2C_again, with more and more being noted on the talk page as they were uncovered. Many of these copyvios originated more than a year earlier and kept sneaking back into the article after an earlier copyvio revert. They included copied text and derivative work.

This article had large amounts of copied work in it for over a year that was eventually morphed (in August I think), so that the copied paragraphs weren't exact copies. There were still copied sentences, clauses and paragraph structure, however, and the article was never reverted to the pre-copivio version before the morphing. It was therefor a derivative work copyvio. I resolved the copyvio after a long listing on WP:CP by reverting to the pre-copyvio version. Later, the copied and derivative work kept sneaking back into the article, resulting in my tagging the page and at one time protecting it to keep the copyvio tag on.

For example; take the phrase that an entire regiment of the Third Marines had penetrated several miles into that neutral nation. It was from a paragraph that was added to the page as a copyvio from bigmagic.com, sometime before this version, more than a year ago. It was removed when I resolved the copyvio by reverting to this version, and reappeared again, resulting the the copyvio tagging that Carlton mentions above. This phrase by itself isn't much, rather, its the numerous other examples of copied text that were identified in the article's talk page (a bunch more were identified over the following weeks). Also, look at the derivative writing around the directly copied parts.

I've been called a lot of nasty names over this copyvio by people who think I have a political agenda, to which I reply that I have resolved thousands of copyvios but have almost no politically oriented edits (if anyone cares to look). Also, the harshest comments seem to come people who haven't taken the time to look closely at the article's history.

As for Travb's complaint over the deleted history, I did that per advice from the administrators noticeboard. --Duk 02:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, a half hour later after adding Duk, I have removed Duk as a central person in the arbitration. Duk, see your talk page.Travb 03:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Stevertigo

User:TDC has been a consistent and active foe and violator of Wikipedias NPOV policy in controversial areas and topics such as this one. He should be banned from editing any and all controversial topics related to U.S. military conflict. As stated above he has been consistent in using revert wars, policy and process rules (copyviolation, protection, 3RR, etc.) to POV war against the very existence of an article. How the Arbcom has managed to avoid banning him until now should be taken as evidence of the need for WP:DRR. -St|eve 01:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Tony Sidaway

This seems to be a case of an editor deliberately choosing to treat Wikipedia as a battleground. I have tried to rein back the edit warring. TDC sometimes goes for the better part of a week apparently going down his watchlist and doing reverts. A month or two ago I blocked TDC for a couple of days, and more recently I admonished him, and he seemed to get the point and stop. Although others are involved, when TDC stops the warring stops. Past experience leads me to the expectation that he will simply wait until my attention is elsewhere and resume. 08:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Tony, it would be nice of you to include the small detail that several other anons had target me and all my contributions with cute edit summaries like Die Nazi, DIE !. And you are right, for all the reasons stated above, I will not give up on this article. TDC 17:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)

.

Joshuaschroeder

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

I have placed a notification on Joshuaschroeder's talk page

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Iantresman (Talk)

I feel that contributions from User:Joshuaschroeder in the articles above, may contravene certain Wikipedia policies, such as exhibiting a non-neutral point of view, and indirect personal attacks. For example:

  1. Despite surviving a Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Electric_Universe_model at 06:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC), Joshuaschroeder attempts to delete and redirect the page elsewhere, six hours later at 12:09, 20 July 2005 (History)
  2. Having added information to the page on Redshift on "Causes" and "Neutrino redshift", (History) both with peer reviewed references, Joshuaschroeder removes them both and comments in Talk:Redshift in the section Variable particle mass theory, that "This article should not be a dumpster for any huckster's fanciful suggestions". The implication that peer-reviewed scientists are "huckster's" I consider a personal slur, and the dismissal of peer-reviewed referenced information to be point of view.
  3. In the discussion on Talk:Plasma_cosmology, on 14:25, 1 November 2005, Joshuaschroeder writes that "Until you understand the basic difference between comparison and explanatory theory, there is no reason to continue this discussion.", which makes it difficult to discuss matters.
  4. On the Plasma cosmology page on 12:20, 26 October 2005, Joshuaschroeder adds the Pseudoscience tag (History). As a science developed by Nobel Prize winner Hannes Alfvén and by other scientists shown at the bottom of the page, I consider the Pseudoscience tag to be quite insulting, and a personal attack.
  5. I feel that further comments by Joshuaschroeder demean the article on Plasma Cosmology, see my comments "Deeply troubled with Joshuaschroeder" (8 Nov 2005) [Talk:Plasma_cosmology], and hence are not neutral points of view.
  6. In Talk:Plasma_cosmology a contribution "Eric Lerner's criticism" (6 Nov) from plasma cosmologist Eric Lerner, also suggests that "Joshua Schroeder, has devoted a vast amount of time to vandalizing entries on plasma cosmology", which if true, is against Wikipedia policy.
  7. In Talk:Redshift Joshuaschroeder has refused to allow certain types of redshift to be added to the page, claiming the article is about a specific kind of redshift. This is not a neutral point of view. The discussion on the "Wolf Effect" provides detail.
  8. In Redshift, Joshuaschroeder adds a comment (15:31, 9 October 2005) about other kinds of redshift, suggesting that "These are frequency-dependent effects", when I have provide three peer-reviewed reference indicating that is not always the case, and I have mentioned in Talk:Redshift that I have had my facts checked by some of the authors. In this respect Joshuaschroeder is contradicting peer-reviewed scientists, and hence it is not a neutral point of view.
  9. In Electric Universe history on 19:47, 13 October 2005, Joshuaschroeder comments that "there is no way that the Electric Universe corresponds to an interdisciplinary approach since most proponents are not in any discipline". Despite being over-general, he is implying that none of the proponents are educated in any discipline, or have belonged to an education establishment? Either way, this is a personal attack and against Wikipedia policy. It's also inaccurate. Despite the subject being based on astronomy, physics, history, rock art (which I consider being interdisciplinary), the History section in the Electric_Universe_(concept) article clearly specifies proponents' disciplines.

Statement by Joshuaschroeder (Talk)

User:Iantresman has not gone through the traditional channels of trying to resolve this dispute and instead has appealed directly to arbitration. I do not object to his desire to resolve the conflict, but I do think that this is a bit premature. I spend much of my time trying to work with editors on a number of these articles who are not overly familiar with science and consequently make fairly poor contributions to particular articles. User:Iantresman is one such editor who has a tendency to add material that is either poorly researched, poorly worded, or out-of-place. He doesn't like having his edits removed and I think this is the true basis for his RfA. Joshuaschroeder 12:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (0/1/0/0)



Ben

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • FeloniousMonk has been informed. [24]
  • RoyBoy has been informed. [25]
  • Duncharris has been informed. [26]
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Ben has spoken with administrators Ryan Delaney | talk [27] and SlimVirgin | talk [28] regarding the problem. Ben also filed an article RFC [29] regarding the content of the article which did not prove fruitful. FeloniousMonk has informed Ben that he will not participate in a Request for comment regarding his conduct. [30][31].

Addendum: Please compare this with FeloniousMonk's personal statement later in this RfArb: "I'm not going to waste too time responding to this because Benapgar has failed to seek any other form of resolving this dispute first, jumping straight to arbitration." Ben 11:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Please also note that FeloniousMonk's RfC against Ben was filed 18 minutes after Ben initially filed this RfArb. --Ben 23:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ben | talk

FeloniousMonk is an administrator who edits and participates in the discussion page of the article Intelligent Design|talk. The user is currently involved in a dispute with Ben regarding the knowledge structure of the topic and the characterization of the current article. Ben's comments were initially hostile towards the structure of the article, saying the article was "horrible." [32] While inappropriate, this opinion regarding the article is not unique to Ben [33]. FeloniousMonk's response was off-topic and dismissive of Ben's concerns. Ben then modified two sentences in the disambiguation paragraph to what he believed more accurately reflected the nature of the article and which was helpful. FeloniousMonk quickly reverted this change without explanation, violating revert policy Subsequently Ben has been explaining his views and position [34][35]. FeloniousMonk's responses are off-topic and dismissive and do not adequately address Ben's position in the slightest. The majority of his responses consist only of his opinion without explanation, for example simply stating a change is "inaccurate and POV" and generally acting contrary to assume good faith policy. Ben also believes FeloniousMonk is using his networks as administrator to further obstruct Ben's and other potential editors' contributions [36].

Ben's position regarding the article content is that as the topic is presented and defined, the article violates No personal essays policy.

Ben asserts FeloniousMonk is conciously and repeatedly obstructing Ben's and other editors' ability to contribute and as such is violating ownership of articles policy and assume good faith policy.

Many other users also have strong concerns about the article and about FeloniousMonk's conduct and violations of ownership policy. FeloniousMonk has even claimed that "new editors edit this article all the time," however in a week's period [37] the changes are not substantial though the article averages 15-20 edits/day and the discussion page 40-50 edits/day.

On November 5, 2005, FeloniousMonk used his administration privileges to block Ben[38] for inserting into the introduction, almost verbatim, FeloniousMonk's own assertion[39] regarding the factual accuracy of the introduction [40] [41].

RoyBoy is an administrator and has violated civility policy and troll policy by engaging with contributors on the Intelligent Design talk page whose comments served no purpose other than to insult the contributors to the article.[42] Both RoyBoy and FeloniousMonk used this as an opportunity to insult the user[43][44]. Later RoyBoy generally made offensive comments regarding creationists [45]. When confronted about his actions he said "LOL, yeah that's my favorite" in reference to what he called his "joke." Later he said "I'd concur its needless to improving the article, but that's not the end all be all of a discussion page. Of course if you had enough experience to be an admin; you'd stand a good chance of understanding that."[46]

Duncharris is an administrator and has violated civility policy by referring to Ben as "a lowly troll." [47] Duncharris was not involved in any way with the dispute on the Intelligent Design talk page and showed up solely to make this comment. Duncharris subsequently reverted without comment a contribution by Ben on the Coingate article[48]. The reversion was entirely unnecessary and inaccurate. Duncharris had previously not contributed to that page. Ben asserts this is a case of intimidation and harassment. Ben further believes that Duncharris' actions were a result of communication with RoyBoy or FeloniousMonk with an intent to harass. Ben also is concerned that an earlier case of vandalism on a similar page may be related [49].

Statement by FeloniousMonk | talk

I'm not going to waste too time responding to this because Benapgar has failed to seek any other form of resolving this dispute first, jumping straight to arbitration. Needless to say, there is a user conduct RFC I have filed on Benapgar's chronically disruptive behavior, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Benapgar, and my comments on the trouble Benapgar has been causing for the last two weeks of personal attacks and disruptive refusal to accept consensus can be found there. FeloniousMonk 00:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RoyBoy | talk

My first RfAr, I'm in the big leagues now. Ben has a habit of taking things out of context [50] [51] and attempting to read my mind [52] in order to prove something and/or silence/bully me by making baseless/opinionated allegations and then calling for my resignation. [53] On top of that he seems to think he can beat us over the head with WikiPolicy. [54] [55] Which makes me inclined to not like him; and I hope WikiPolicy has some sort of mechanism with which to send a message even Ben can't ignore; that Ben's not only in the wrong, but is going about it the wrong way. [56] In summation; repeated attempts to read my mind, motivations, actions indicates to me – that as of now – Ben is not suited for Wikipedia. <--- 131 words, not too shabby! - RoyBoy 800 22:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dunc | talk

Ben is a lowly troll, as can be seen by his trolling at talk:intelligent design and indeed this frivilous complaint. He is the latest in the long line of religiously-inspired creationist POV warriors to try to tell us that there are POV problems with the articles on evolution or intelligent design because they follow the policy at WP:NPOV#pseudoscience:

represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view

A lot of work has gone into these articles to make them NPOV on a tricky subject. (Yet again) A newbie turns up and wants to completely rewrite it. Yet he does not understand the (admitedly quite complex) motivations and subtleties of ID, for example drifting into theology, and cannot provide a scientific theory of creationism.

Yet irritated that he's not got his way he's throwing his rattle out of his pram and complaining that there is a cabal. This RFA is simply another escalation in a childish harassment campaign. I can hardly believe that I am being forced to respond to this trolling, and anyone just needs to look at his RFC to see how unreasonable this chap is being.

I reverted his coingate since I believe he can't be trusted, though that whole article is a mess and he really couldn't've made it any worse! I have no interest or knowledge on that subject, and reverting him may have been an error on my part, but he's just nitpicking and his own record speaks for itself.

I really have found this little episode quite amusing and for the record would like to say that I am not intimidated in any way by this pathetic individual. Dunc|☺ 22:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (2/3/0/0)

Requests for Clarification

DreamGuy

Please refer to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy for details.

It is unacceptable that this request has been closed. I am told that no action has been taken; indeed, with the exception of Fred Bauder, the Arbitration Committee appears to have taken no action at all with regard to the request. It is inconsiderate to move to close without participating to any degree; it is unreasonable that the votes of Committee members who made no effort should have weight against the member who did. I ask that the Arbitration Committee do the work expected of them. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 23:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You had ample time to submit evidence and make a case for sanctions; you did not. ArbCom cannot leave cases open forever waiting for parties to get around to submitting evidence. If you file a request for arbitration, it is your obligation to assist the ArbCom in pursuing a solution; you can't just dump the case in our lap and expect us to do all the work. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's an incredibly callous position when you know quite well one of the involved parties (Gavin the Chosen) has been blocked from editing and cannot edit the request pages. There had also been a wealth of evidence presented before the case was accepted. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 12:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked users may submit evidence and/or argument by email to any Arbitrator; this is clearly stated in Arbitration policy. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Gabrielsimon is the reason Gabrielsimon is blocked. He had every opportunity to submit additional evidence, but chose to use sockpuppets and get into edit wars instead. android79 13:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The characterization that Gabriel was not allowed to submit evidence is false, as he did, and quite extensively. He even wrote up his own long page of accusations and linked to it. The admins declared that his comments and those of the other people complaining were "utterly unpersuasive". Apparently Eequor here is still majorly in denial about what NPOV is all about, as the edits of mine she was complaining about were discussed there as being the ones that made things more in line with the NPOV policy instead of less. Frankly, the situation never should have gone to arbitration in the first place, as the claims were spurious from the very beginning. The complainants had their chance, and the admins overwhelmingly agreed that they had no case. Instead of complaining, those who presented evidence should learn from this experience and stop harassing other editors out of misplaced personal vendettas. DreamGuy 17:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To which I'll add - not only did the participants have ample time to present evidence, but the motion to close was made two weeks ago, with nary a whisper from any participant in the case. →Raul654 19:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see everything that happens. I had also expected that the request would not be closed until Gavin the Chosen was allowed to edit again. A brief notice of the motion to close would have been the polite thing to do. The Arbitration Committee has failed to communicate. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 14:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"I can't see everything that happens. " - that's what a watchlist is for. I suggest in the future you put it to use.
"I had also expected that the request would not be closed until Gavin the Chosen was allowed to edit again." - you made an assumption which turned out to be wrong.
"A brief notice of the motion to close would have been the polite thing to do." - we (voluntarily) conduct all our proceedings in plain view on the workshop and proposed decision pages. We are overworked enough as it is without adding needless jobs, like reminding you to pay attention to cases you start.
"The Arbitration Committee has failed to communicate." - no, you failed to pay even a modicum of attention to the decision as it unfolded. If you had spent half as much time supplying evidence as you have here complaining the case was closed for lack of evidence, it would never have been closed in the first place. →Raul654 20:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the assumption turned out to be wrong, but it's strange you would make that statement. It was a very reasonable assumption, and one would be persuaded to believe it correct in light of the committee's total inaction over the weeks that followed the opening of the case. Any of the five arbitrators who voted to close could easily have explained that more information was needed.
This is volunteer work, but you knew you were volunteering for particularly demanding work with great responsibilities and obligations, such as actually conducting proceedings on the /Workshop page, which you did not do. If the minimum is too much work for you to carry out, you should not get involved, and should avoid interfering. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 00:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue was a little too subtle Fred Bauder 18:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed in your edits to the Workshop page that you seemed to be inventing up news issues yourself to try to rule on that were not the ones under discussion. I don't think that it's that the issue was "subtle" but that you were intending to try to enforce your own viewpoint on the articles in question. That's what the editors on those articles work on consensus for. The complaints that the accusers in this proceeding had were overwhelmingly rejected by consensus of editors on the articles the disputes started on as well as the admins who looked at their accusations. Further, the complainers were the ones actively trying to violate NPOV and other policies. So, rather than complaining about subtleties, perhaps you should have been concentrating on the actual policies. DreamGuy 19:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I also noticed that you more than once linked to talk page edits where I explained an example of what pushing POV would have been, and you presented them as if I were trying to force that view onto the article itself. My edits to the pages in question consistently were for NPOV purposes, and the fact that I could come up with hypothetical examples of what I could have been doing if the accusations against me were true in no way should have been presented as what I was actually trying' to do on the articles themselves. I will assume good faith and chalk that up to not following he conversation instead of purposefully misrepresenting my words, in which case you shouldn't be talking about other people allegedly missing subtleties when you missed the boat completely. DreamGuy 19:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, DG. I don't know what happened in this case, but if no action has been taken against you, that's the end of it, and you should be pleased. You've been very, very rude to a fairly large number of people: sometimes under extreme provocation, having to contend with Gabrielsimon and Enviroknot, but sometimes for no reason at all. In your shoes, I'd thank the arbitrators and be on my way, and try not to be so aggressive in future. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am pleased no action was taken, but then the case shouldn't have even been opened as it was, as the arbitrators overwhelmingly agreed. I would, however, take your claims of rudeness more seriously if you hadn't been inappropriately rude and aggressive towards me for so long. I appreciate that we have not had any conflicts in months, and that you stepped up to defend me when another admin blocked me inappropriately by mistakenly reading evidence on a 3RR complaint. On the other hand, I have to wonder why you wouldn't chastise Eeguor and Fred for insinuating above that five different arbitrators weren't doing their jobs just because they ruled against what they wanted if your aim is to point out when someone is being inappropriately aggressive? DreamGuy 20:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You misconstrue my position. Actually, the arbitrators in question didn't rule at all, if you look at the request pages. The only one who attempted to draft a resolution and rule on its merit was Fred Bauder. That's the problem. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 14:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, they DID rule. They ruled against you. Apparently you are unwilling to accept that. You need to wake up and realize that your complaints were, as they clearly stated, "utterly unpersuasive". They rejected your claims as nonsense. You should learn from your mistakes and readjust your actions accordingly. DreamGuy 19:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amazed this has been removed already. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, since it was Raul654, who moved to close in the first place, but this indicates the Arbitration Committee is not interested in fairness. Below is an email that I'm relaying from Gavin the Chosen, since he has not been given an opportunity to comment. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 14:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i am sorry but i cannot make comments as i cannot do anything just now. if i could i would say that i think [DreamGuy's] responses on the arbcom page are a fairly good example of his hyper agression.
i'd also point out that his behaviour continues, even without me (who was supposed to be the abuse)

Further:

in a message, one of the involved arbitrators said they discussed dreamguy's RfAr, but i can see NO evidence of that anywhere on the server. i've looked.... are they just playing favourites with their pet?

Communication in secret really undermines the validity and usefulness of arbitration. There is no record that any discussion took place, which is vital to a fair and complete decision. The committee appears unscrupulous. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 20:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amazed this has been removed already. - don't be. If you'll notice the top of this section, it says "Requests for clarification"; it does not say "Lodge complaints about the arbcom here". This is not a request for clarification, so it was removed. Also notice the top of this page - "This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment". →Raul654 20:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I had initially placed this in the Current requests section, as I was seeking a reopening of the case, but Kelly Martin moved it here. Shall I move it back, then?
Oh, and a minor note... I presume you have this page on your watchlist. Did you not see Kelly Martin's edit? ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 00:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom is interested in fairness. They fairly looked at your ridiculous claims and dismissed them. And Gabriel of course is not an objective judge on what proper Wikipedia behavior is, considering that he has been banned for several months now and is still blocked for another month. The ruling clarified the point that you and Gabriel have nothing to stand on in your accusations. You lost. Accusing ArbCom of improper or biased conduct only goes to further prove my point that you two were just acting out of personal malice and that your POV-pushing was something that needed to be stopped, even if you were upset about it and tried to paint NPOV language as "bad faith". Please learn from this incident and stop making false accusations. DreamGuy 19:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy, the RfAr against you was closed without prejudice because the complaintants failed to pursue the case, not because we found your arguments compelling or the arguments of the other side "ridiculous". No ruling was entered; your conduct has not been vindicated. You are strongly advised not to assume that the matter has been resolved; should the complaintants or any other parties seek to file against you again, our lack of a ruling in this matter will in no way preclude us from investigating your conduct anew. Do not tempt fate. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree fully with Kelly Martin. →Raul654 20:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thirded. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They had offered lots of supposed evidence and accusations, and you called their arguments "utterly unpursuasive". How exactly anyone can now say that they "failed to pursue the case" (?!?!?) and that "ridiculous" is not a reasonable synonym for "utterly unpursuasive" I fail to understand, but by all means characterize it however you see fit. Investigate my conduct all you want, there's nothing there for anyone to complain about. It would have been nice if someone here actually unequivocally stood up for me against the harassment of these editors, especially since they are now harassing you in the same way with their spurious complaints, but then if you don't feel ready to do that yet, that's fine by me. I do have to wonder, however, just how far they need to go before you do decide to take a side. The main complainant being blocked for extremely long periods for just the sort of actions I was pointing out to everyone more than 6 months ago would seem to be a pretty good clue that his side shouldn't be trusted, but oh well... It's unfortunate then that you didn't rule and that you now make statements implying that I should have something to fear from you. I guess this place never changes. DreamGuy 23:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding parties that do not answer an RFAr

What is the policy regarding parties that are subject to an RFAr but do not answer or even acknowledge the existance of the RFAr? I am refering to User:Pigsonthewing. What happens if he just blatantly ignores the calls on his talk page to answer the RFAr filed? I mean, you can't just let the case grow old and moldy. Linuxbeak | Talk 18:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a clear display of what many editors have had to deal with regarding POTW. He respects nothing but his own viewpoint, everything else just doesn't exist to him. Karmafist 01:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If he does not wish to add evidence in his own defense, that will certainly not be to his benefit. Dmcdevit·t 01:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But what actually happens, does the RFAr just continue and reach a verdict without his defense? Banes 06:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I assume so. If arbitration is meant to be corrective measure against misbehaving editors, it can't be a voluntary action. This is where you go when mediation has failed. Of course IANAA (I Am Not An Arbitrator :) Dmcdevit·t 06:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I might suggest that if someone fails to respond to Arbitration then a temporary defender should be appointed for them. Isn't there some sort of 'advocates' group? Someone who could at least speak up and say, 'Hey there is another side to this'. For instance, I'm not a particular fan of POTW, but I know he is a very active editor... from what I can see, the majority of his edits don't result in any controversy and expand Wikipedia's library of information. That should be considered even if the same intransigence which he manifests when there ARE disputes leads him to shun this procedure. --CBDunkerson 14:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We look at the evidence and accept it if appropriate; notify him that it was accepted and go ahead and hear the case. Fred Bauder 19:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is kind of a related matter, I'll mention it here. At present, if there's an Arbcom case involving a user who goes absent, it is put into abeyance. This doesn't seem right. Should that not be heard (quickly) and then resolved. It seems silly to say to a user, yes - please come back to WP, but if you do you may immediately be subject to a ban of a few months when that user already has, for whatever reason, disappeared for a few months, jguk 19:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We are always running behind, that's why we usually suspend proceedings if someone is not editing. Sometimes we are glad to see them back, sometimes not. Generally if they are making substantial contributions in areas unrelated to the arbitration case we will try to find some limited remedy. Only if nothing else works do we resort to general bans. Fred Bauder 22:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If someone has left, then no benefit will come of further proceedings and so having the proceedings is a waste of ArbCom's time. In POTW's case, I've spoken to Phroziac (the lead complaintant) and she says that the objectionable conduct has not persisted since the RfAr was filed, which leads me to question whether we need to do anything at all. I'm therefore taking a wait-and-see attitude. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not involved, but for what it's worth, I don't believe Phroziac is the lead complainant. Phroziac's only edit to the RFAr was to sign the post, saying that he was aware of the RFAr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ral315 (talk • contribs) 04:39, November 7, 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider myself the leed complainant either, but it might have something to do with my signature being the first on the list. :) --Phroziac(talk)  05:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes people who claim to have left don't really leave. "172 2" was such a case. It is also a precedent that should be examined for acting despite the failure of a defense to be mounted.--Silverback 15:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speeding Ticket

I think in analogies, so I have one for this situation. Right now, POTW is much like a speeder on the highway, going 90 miles per hour when there are no police around or when he feels like it, going down to the speed limit when police are around or when he feels like it, and then once he feels like it or the police presence is gone, he goes back up to 90 miles per hour.

However, unlike traffic cops, you don't need a radar gun to see evidence, you can see it in his behavior in the past from his contribs and the RfC. Whether he's speeding right now or not is irrelevant, he deserves a ticket. Karmafist 16:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please let me know which arbitration this refers to? Samboy 07:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The 'Request for Clarification' and 'Speeding Ticket' sections above were connected to the 'Pigsonthewing' arbitration request, but got left behind here when it was accepted. --CBDunkerson 08:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It comes down to a philosophical question—is it the ArbCom's role to 'ticket speeders'? That is, should the ArbCom be handing out punishments when people break Wikipedia's rules? I'd like to think that the ArbCom is here–along with every one of our other processes and policies–for the purpose of building an encyclopedia. The ArbCom should be prepared to step in where an editor's behaviour is interfering with that primary goal (and where other attempts at resolution have failed.)
In other words, if an editor has made a nuisance of himself but later ceases the offending behaviour, it may not be necessary for the ArbCom to interfere further. If there is a sign of further trouble, we still have a record of the previous bad behaviour, and the ArbCom can 'throw the book at them', as it were. Obviously the amount of misbehaviour we should be prepared to set aside depends quite heavily on the circumstances. Some offenses are akin to 'speeding', others are closer to aggravated assault. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ten. Whether or not he's doing something now is irrelevant. He's been a problem user in the past, he has refused to reform, so therefore he's going to continue to be a problem user in the future. Something has to be done, and I fear that the ArbCom is the only place where it can happen with the current structure of Wikipedia.Karmafist 22:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The primary goal should be to build a encyclopedia witch has a certain quality. This quality in the case of wikipedia is obtained by letting persons with different opinions argue on a level playing field and let them reach a version which is acceptable to all. When you don't see the need to offer a level playing field, one side of the argument will just walk away. Making Wikipedia a encyclodedia of low quality. You don't offer a level playing field when you say that some persons don't have move inside bounds of their parole.--MichaelSirks 12:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the lack of enforcement of RfAr/Climate change dispute, there are no ArbCom actions. (SEWilco 21:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Aw diddums, won't the arbcomm conduct your vendettas for you? How sane of them. But in fact that case shows you who wrong you are: the arbcomm very effectively banned JG and Cortonin. Did you forget that? William M. Connolley 22:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]
The amount of game playing/favoratism associated with ArbCom procedings is truly a disgrace. Klonimus 07:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Voice of the ArbCom

Am I correct to assume that, when an ArbCom member voices an opinion on an issue not currently under arbitration and not related to arbitration procedure, that ArbCom member is speaking for him- or herself, that his or her opinion does not necessarily match that of the rest of the ArbCom, and that his or her opinion should be given the same weight as that of any other editor in good standing?

I believe this to be obvious, since the alternative seems be to disallow ArbCom members from voicing their opinion on anything before consulting their peers, which is kind of silly. To be absolutely clear, I am not accusing anybody of anything. I just noticed that some people mistook the opinion of some arbitrator to be more official than the opinion of anybody else, when it was not intended as such. So I thought some clarification might be in order. In particular, I would like to see a short statement along these lines added somewhere on our Arbitration Policy pages. Radiant_>|< 13:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you were more explicit about what you are talking about. You are correct, in general, that statements by users who are arbitrators made outside the context of arbitration carry no more weight than that of any other user. However if the statement relates to arbitration or a particular dispute which was considered in arbitration the statement may or may not reflect discussion within the arbitration committee, a majority or minority view or a simply a individual view. You might keep in mind that this is a wiki and if I write an article, Wikipedia:Wikilawyering or Wikipedia:Wikikarma, others, including arbitrators may modify it, perhaps adding value and eventually authority to it. Issues have to rise to a certain level of visibility in order for the entire arbitration committee to consider them. In a particular instance if you have a concern about something it can be helpful to email one of the arbitrators and ask them to forward your mail to the entire committee. Fred Bauder 15:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think so; last time I mailed the arbcom, the mail was misrepresented to attack me. I was asking about the general principle; I don't have any examples that are presently relevant; if I do, I'll let you know. Radiant_>|< 16:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are asking for an absolute rule on a very broad basis, when in reality this is a very subtle phenomenon. I know there are occasions when I make a comment using the arbcom's authority (such as this comment a few days ago), and (as you can see in that comment) I do my best to make it clear when I am conveying the committee's position instead of just my own. If no such hints are given (such as the plural "we") then you can safely assume I am referring to my own opinion and not the committee's as a whole.
As far as giving opinions about matters "not currently under arbitration and not related to arbitration procedure" - generally this shouldn't happen, but I am not comfortable speaking in absolutes. What about matters being requested but that have not yet been accepted? I know there have been occasions where a member of the committee has expressed the committee's opinion on a matter not currently under arbitation (such as the arbcom RFC questions I posted a few months back)
As for whether or not it matches the other members' opinions - presuming to speak for others is a dangerous game to play, but there are a huge number of occasions where people want to hear from the committee, and we are not going to have seperate disucssions for each one of them (like Everyking's question yesterday and my answer to it). When I respond to these questions without prior discussion, I only do so when I am almost-certain the other members of the commitee will agree with what I said (or something close to it) →Raul654 19:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your two answers. I wasn't looking for an absolute rule, more like a confirmation that in matters unrelated to arbitration, arbitrators generally speak for themselves and not for any higher authority. Not to limit the Arbs, but rather to reassure the occasional n00b that gets confused by this. Radiant_>|< 16:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Bogdanov Affair case, recently closed

There are a few outstanding issues which I would be most grateful if the Committee would please clarify for me regarding the status of the accounts which were banned under the former temporary injunction. Since I was requested by Fred to make the various blocks on the temporary injunction, it means I have been receiving the e-mail dialogue from the parties wishing to be unbanned, and as a consequence of the recent closing of the case a few have written to me asking to be unbanned. My queries are as follows:

  1. The final remedy decided upon by the Committee has been that the various Bogdanov Affair participants are indefinitely banned from the article itself. The previous temporary injunction was that they were banned indefinitely from Wikipedia; since this has now been replaced with only an article editing ban, does this mean all of those users are now entitled to edit Wikipedia, and thus should be unblocked?
  2. A specific user, XAL (talk · contribs) was initially banned by Fred prior to the passing of the injunction, although she is named in it. If the above is true, that is the users should now be unblocked, should XAL also be unblocked or is she a special case due to Fred's direct involvement?
  3. Also, XAL has never edited the article, but has only been involved in the talk page. She has never edited the Bogdanov Affair article itself; there are a number of other users like this. Does this mean they fall outside of the purview of the enforcement decision? That is, is the ban from editing the article to be taken to also refer to the talk page? If not, we shall have to suffer a repeat of the whole talk page débâcle once again, since the users currently indefinitely blocked from editing shall be able to legitimately edit the talk page, and thus we may end up with yet another arbcom case about their talk page editing.
  4. Regarding the decision on enforcement: "Any user banned from editing Bogdanov Affair who nevertheless edits it, may be briefly banned from Wikipedia entirely, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses, and after the 5th offense, up to a year." Since it was I who set the blocks, it must likewise be my duty to unset them. Also, others have indefinitely blocked a multitude of sockpuppets of Igor Bogdanov. Does that mean that I must go through the contributions of all of the users who have been indefinitely blocked, change those bans on users with 5 offenses or more to a year's ban, and unban the rest? (since, after all, they have been blocked for longer than 1 week). Also, this decision is liable to give rise to a whole load of Bogdanov sockpuppets that are discarded after they have been used for 5 offenses. If this really is what the admins involved must do, this would be a most laborious task considering the vast numbers of sockpuppets used.
  5. No decision has been made regarding the page protection. The present scenario of having to revert changes, and protect the article regularly, due to banned users editing is most unsatisfactory. Undoubtedly, the article will need to be protected more often as a result of the above enforcement decision, since we shall not be able to block sockpuppets solely on the basis of name or after having made only a few edits which blatantly disclaim who is operating the account.

I am most grateful for the Committee's work on this matter, and would appreciate an expeditious response since I have been receiving some consternation from various blocked users via e-mail. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock anyone who is blocked but who has not been trying to edit the article. Those who you are sure have been trying to edit the article during the injunction, need not be unblocked. Please don't unblock XAL. I'll try to help you with this tomorrow. Fred Bauder 04:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are responsible for this mess. You only need to unblock folks when you have time. Fred Bauder 05:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rex071404

Per this page, [57], and it's advice to bring issue's pertaining to enforcement of a previous arbitration ruling to the RfAr, this information has been posted here.

Recently, Rex has been causing a lot of trouble at John Kerry. He has consistently edit-warred and has forced the page into protection Twice [58] [59] while at the same time violating 3RR Twice [60] [61]. The issue is the same exact one that has been brought up in previous ArbComm hearing's: John Kerry's 1st Purple Heart. In fact Rex talks about that in his opening statement in his first ArbComm hearing. [62]. Numerous people have attempted to dialog with Rex regarding this, so much so, that the discussion now occupies 6 archive spaces and approximately 700 kb worth of talk not including the current talkpage. [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] A vote was recently attempted to try and close the discussion. [69] Even after that, Rex continued to push his POV, which resulted in the page being protected for the second time. [70]

My question is this, do the Remedies, Enforcements and Judgements from previous Arbitrations still apply to this case? [71] Or have they all expired as Rex claims they have? [72] Do the three previous arbitration cases and two previous RfCs [73] [74] which involved this same exact issue; John Kerry's 1st Purple Heart; constitute an attempt at other methods of dispute resolution? Does the community need to go through a 4th Arbitration Case against Rex over the same issue? Or is there a "Requesting Enforcement of Previous Arbitration Ruling" template that I am missing? -- Mr. Tibbs 20:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May I back up Mr Tibbs's intervention here. Rex has reduced the John Kerry page to chaos with endless nitpicking rows (Does a wounded man have a 'wound'? Is a bandage necessarily made of cloth? Medical definitions ad nausuam, a list of 50 'issues' he wants discussed, which actually boil down to five repeated in different ways over and over again, etc.) Rex's antics have alienated people who tried to be fair to him and listened to his endless raising of the same issues over and over and over and over, or rather his agreeing something, moving on, then returning back to square one 48 hours later and starting the argument all over again. The article and talk pages are right now unusable and will remain so until until Rex's antics are dealt with and ended. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 21:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Archive
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=28145951"