Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Woohookitty (talk | contribs) at 17:48, 4 December 2005 (→Requests for Clarification). 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.

How to list cases

Under the below Current requests section:

  • Click "[edit]";
  • Copy the full formatting template (text will be visible in edit mode), ommitting the lines which say "BEGIN" and "END TEMPLATE";
  • Paste template text where it says "ADD CASE BELOW";
  • Follow instructions on comments (indented), and fill out the form;
  • Remove the template comments (indented).

Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template


Current requests

Haiduc

Involved parties

On October 30, 2005, Haiduc created the category and began populating it. When he added Gaozu of Han and Emperor Hui of Han to the category, I objected (on his talk page) and then look at the category's current occupants. Feeling that the category had a number of flaws, I added a CfD -- which led to a lengthy discussion that I feel needs ArbCom intervention. Pages involved: mostly Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 30, but also User talk:Haiduc, the two pages above, and Talk:Gaozu of Han.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHaiduc&diff=29990792&oldid=29986304

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

No other steps, other than trying to talk it out with the other party (as evidence on the CfD page and on Talk:Gaozu of Han) has been attempted. The reason is that it appears to be inappropriate to request mediation over a CfD, nor, based on the tone of the discussion, would it appear likely to be fruitful.

Statement by party 1

During this discussion, Haiduc has repeatedly accused me of homophobia -- which I let go a couple times -- but I feel has been way too overused to let stand. I have made genuine efforts to try to explain my position -- including translating a passage from Shi Ji, which Haiduc himself indicated that he was unable to read due to his inability to read Chinese -- and explaining why, based on the context of the chapter of Shi Ji where the passage came from, I hold the position that I'm holding. I believe that I got no good faith response out of him. Further, he has called, if not me (I feel that implicitly the statement included me, which he later disavowed, to his credit), other people who participated in the discussion "juvenile." Both of these are, I believe, violations of WP:NPA. He has also further threatened to circumvent the CfD process by simply renaming the category -- which was only one of the objections that I raised with regard to the category and not per se the "meat" of the objection. --Nlu 05:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2

 (Please limit your statement to 500 words)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/2/0/0)

Gibraltarian

Involved parties

Strong disagreement in Gibraltar-related articles. Mainly Disputed status of Gibraltar (main discusion in Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar) and History of Gibraltar

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

I've informed Gibraltarian today. See [1]. His response has been: GET LOST. DO NOT CONTACT ME AGAIN UNDER ANY PRETEXT. YOU BEHAVIOUR IS BENEATH CONTEMPT. GO AWAY! [2]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Spangineer has tried to mediate in the process. He's also requested comments with no result. He has adviced me to start the arbitratrion process.

Woohookitty has taken care of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and could possibly report about the "respectful" requests for unprotection by Gibraltarian.

Cyberjunkie has repeatedly warn Gibraltarian against personal attacks, but it's proved unsuccessful.

Statement by party 1

Gibraltarian, apart for refusing taking part in the dispute resolution process, keep on his personal attacks on me.

The following are what I consider a handful of violations of policies and guidelines:

  • Gibraltarian has also accussed the administrator in charge of the mediation of being biased: What a coincidence, the Ecemaml troll was allowed to make his revert just before the protection.....how nice for him. HASN'T IT SUNK IN YET?? THAT WAS HIS INTENTION ALL ALONG, AND YOU HAVE FALLEN INTO HIS TRAP! He is a troll! [5], misunderstanding what a protection is.

I've proposed a step-by-step process to solve this dispute (see Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar), but it hasn't been accepted (nor rejected, just ignored).

--Ecemaml 09:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2

 (Please limit your statement to 500 words)

Statement by uninvolved party Dmcdevit

This issue has come up on RFPP repeatedly, and I think I was the one to respond first, so I'll make a note. I recommend that the arbcom accept this case to consider edit warring by both parties, as well as Gibraltarian's incivility/personal attacks (I'm in no position to be able to judge the NPOV dispute). The first time, I blocked both parties for 3RR. Nothing seems to have changed since then, despite Spangineer's valiant, but failed mediation effort. While I think Ecemaml was acting in good faith, he was is at his wit's end and resorted to indulging the edit warring. Gibraltarian, however, has insisted on making personal attacks against Ecemaml in probably every post to RFPP and in talk page discussions, calling him a "troll" at every chance (eg, this is a good example). He, as opposed to Ecemaml, seems to view edit warring as a valid means of encyclopedia writing (an extraorfinarily large amout of his article edits are reverts without edit summaries). This attitude, both in edit warring and personal attacks is unacceptable, and I think is at the point where sanctions are appropriate. Dmcdevit·t 09:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved party Woohookitty

I also have been dealing with this case on the protection page. Just a couple of observations. One is that Ecemaml is an admin on the spanish wikipedia. To me that just gives credance to Dmc's idea that he got into this edit warring because he felt like he had to, not for any malicious reason. What I find interesting is that Ecemaml is called a troll alot by Gibraltarian, but it's Gibraltarian who has shown the troll-like characteristics, such as posting the same information over and over again, personal attacks, etc. Please take this case. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

Requests for Clarification

Requests for clarification from the Arbcom on matters related to the arbitration process.

Bogdanov Affair question

Now instead of working on the Bogdanov Affair page, the users who were banned from editing the Bogdanov Affair (including CatherineV) are editing the talk page of the article instead. Can they be blocked for doing that or not? The RfAr decision isn't clear on that. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 17:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ultramarine

I wonder why this one is in the "voting" phase when there is nothing in the "remedies" and "enforcements" sections (not even on the "workshop" page)?

I am recused, but looks like a work in progress, if you have some ideas go to the workshop page and make some suggestions. Fred Bauder 15:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser Awilliamson

From WP:RFM/JoA:

User:Durova: We seem to have broken the deadlock and the article is much improved. I'd like to solicit Admin's help for one continuing problem. Switisweti and I are convinced that AWilliamson is still damaging the article via anonymous IP addresses. These range from aggressive POV edits to outright vandalism.

-St|eve 07:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zen-master race and intelligence ban clarification/justification question

The admin Ryan Delaney has banned me (I am on probation) from the race and intelligence article for adding the {npov} template to a highly and fundamentally disputed article (and area of research). A quick look at the talk page will show the article and area of research have been accused (with citations) of unscientific and racism inducing methodologies. It also has as its foundation IQ testing which is itself highly disputed on numerous points.

Another admin has already poitned out to Ryan that (from Wikipedia:Probation) "A ban may be imposed only for good cause which shall be documented in a section set aside for that purpose in the arbitration case. Banning without good cause or in bad faith shall be grounds for censure, restriction, or removal of administrative access". The only explanation Ryan offered was in a check in summary which labeled my action as a "disruption", I challenge Ryan or anyone to show exactly how adding an {npov} template to an article that is (fundamentally) disputed in good faith is a "disruption"? For recent discussion of this see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zen-master#Impositions_of_a_ban_under_the_probation_remedy. There seems to be a highly coordinated effort to censor, mischaracterize or lessen fundamental criticisms of "race" and "intelligence" "research". zen master T 18:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have a history of disruptively adding permanent {npov} templates to articles until you get your way. This is part of a pattern. Jayjg (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A quick look at the talk page will show other editors agree with me that the race and intelligence article is fundamentally disputed. Please assume good faith and investigate this issue. The criteria here is not about me getting my "way", the issue is Ryan Delaney and other admins repeatedly trying to deny the existence of criticisms of what appears to be a racism inducing article, aren't you at all concerned about that possibility? How can adding {npov} be "disruptive" if an in good faith dispute exists? zen master T 19:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While there are legitimate issues with respect to the framing of the issues, your way of struggling regarding the framing of issues has been found to be disruptive, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zen-master#Disruptive_edits. Fred Bauder 20:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Baku Ibne

I know this case was quite a while ago, but for those of you who remember it, I have one question: Why was Baku Ibne not among the accounts blocked as a result of this ruling?

It appears to be an oversight, but Baku_Ibne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has not edited since March, 2005. Fred Bauder 15:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zen-master

The ruling against Zen-master seems to be very specific regarding Race and intelligence, but he's currently editing in the same disruptive manner at Conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): editing against consensus and when he can't get his own way, slapping the NPOV tag on it, replacing it when he's reverted, and making complex, partial reverts so that it's hard to see whether he's violated 3RR. Given that the same behavior seems to be involved, can the ruling be extended to this article too? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How is adding the {npov} tag to a disputed article a disruption? I assume that most of the recently active editors of Conspiracy theory (of which Slim is not among them) would agree with the statement that we are making some progress with the article NPOV wise, so what is the basis for her complaint exactly? Please provide citations and an explanation of how a particular wikipedia policy is being violated. zen master T 02:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think, despite Zen-master's Race and Intelligence block, that you need to Assume good faith - especially Fred Bauder, who, as an administrator, should try to be more objective. For example, on the mailing list, he apparently called a number of authors 'POV-pushers', 'POV-warriors', etc. (myself included) [6], [7], etc.
"Exactly, excellent parallel; although, this POV bunch is a bit bigger and better organized. And intimidating."
"Exactly, but are we all going to be bullied by POV warriors?", etc.
I fear that a belief in a 'POV cabal', of which Zen-master is apparently a member, may color Fred's opinions unduly. Indeed, what does the addition of an NPOV tag to an article violate? It happens a great deal on the other side of many of the ideological 'conflicts' I've seen Zen-master and others involved in. Ganging up on Zen-master without a clear idea of what's been violated just doesn't seem fair, nor objective. Just my $.02. And I am not trying to blame, nor accuse - just to remind folks of the need to be objective.
Last, extending the block to 'all articles', and making it 'indefinite', is, in my opinion, completely unwarranted and disproportionate to Zen-master's behavior, and I would hope such actions were not taken lightly against such users who are not fundamentally ill-intentioned, nor intentionally destructive to Wikipedia. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I don't know that I have ever considered your edits regarding any matter, but certainly we should be fair to Zen-master and not overdo it. Fred Bauder 03:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I am one of the editors that was being (imho, maligned) in that mailing list conversation, which is why I was aware of it having transpired. Honest thanks for exercising your best judgment, Fred. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Zen-master has been relentlessly POV pushing on the subject of conspiracy theories for many months. A block on his editing conspiracy-related pages for three month would be a modet and appropriate response to his disruptive actions. SlimVirgin has bee a saint trying to deal with Zen-master.--Cberlet 03:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cberlet, I'm not surprised at that - SlimVirgin has shown herself to be a well-intentioned, even-handed editor and colleague. The issue here, however, is whether Zen-master should be indefinitely, totally blocked as a result of his behavior. While I disagree wholeheartedly with a lot of what I saw on Race and Intelligence, I cannot see the rationale for such an action on that basis. He's an editor with very strong opinions, an aggressive style and a lot of passion - but not an intentionally disruptive, nor destructive editor. I think there is a fundamental difference there, that necessitates discretion by the administrators. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cberlet, I don't think our positions on the Conspiracy theory matter disagree all that much, take a look at my most recent tweak of your intro changes and let me know either way on the talk page. I think we are making progress towards clarity and NPOV there. zen master T 03:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of who's POV pushing, or if anyone is, I'd like to point out Zen-master's edit warring. It doesn't show any sign of slowing. In fact, ZM has violated 3RR on Conspiracy theory recenlty, for which I *almost* banned him from it (except for the little fact that I couldn't). I don't know about indefinite, but I think it is certainly fair to extend probation to all articles, especially considering probation does not restrict contributions, that's it's point: it only restricts disruption. Dmcdevit·t 03:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zen-master, you asked for examples of policy violation. I'm alleging violations of WP:3RR, WP:NPA, WP:NOR, and WP:V. You've been engaged in a vigorous campaign for months to stop the phrase "conspiracy theory" being used in Wikipedia. You tried to have the term banned as a page title, and lost the vote decisively, posting dozens of repetitive posts, refactoring the voting page to change comments or the sequence of comments, fabricating (with no hint of irony) conspiracy theories of corruption between the editors opposing you. You edit-warred around the same issue in the same way at AIDS conspiracy theories, with 3RR violations; complex, partial reverts; reverting over what tag should be on the page; and making accusations of bias against everyone who disagreed with you. You're now doing it on Conspiracy theory, where you're opposed by Carbonite, Willmcw, Tom Harrison, Jayjg, Adhib, BrandonYusufToropov, Shoaler, Rhobite, Cberlet, and Calton, whose edit summary of "been there, done that, got the t-shirt" when he reverts you [8] tells the whole story. You've posted 40 largely repetitive posts to talk in the last three days; edit summaries saying you're "cleaning up" the intro, when in fact you're changing it completely to reflect your inaccurate and unsourced POV in violation of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability [9]; adding the two-versions, NPOV, or totally disputed tags and revert-warring when people try to remove them [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] making personal attacks in edit summaries, [18] and at least one recent 3RR violation. [19] There's more, but I hope that's enough. You're a handful, Zen, to say the least. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slim, I admit to 3RR (and served my time), though most recently the cases were me trying to add the {npov} tempalte to the Conspiracy theory article to merely signify the existence of a neutrality dispute, which I am still surprised my fellow wikipedia editors aren't/weren't willing to allow (even if they disagreed with my content changes). It may seem like I am repetitive on the talk page but I am indeed vigorous, as you say, trying to understand your and everyone's POV and either logically convince you and others of my interpretation or understand yours to the point where I could become convinced of it. I apologize if I have riled you up, you may not believe me but I can only assure you I am interested in improving and working toward a bipartite version of the article. zen master T 04:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question only of POV, but of accuracy. Your versions (the ones I've read) are inaccurate. It's not true, for example, that "Conspiracy theory has a literal definition and a popular culture usage ... Literally, the phrase means exactly what its individual words mean, a theory alleging a conspiracy." That is your fabrication, and it would mean that the accepted story of 9/11 (that al-Qaeda hijackers flew planes into buildings for the reasons stated by Osama bin Laden) was a conspiracy theory. But that term is in fact always used in a way that's a great deal more complex and more loaded than that (always used that way; not just in what you're calling popular culture) and it's recognized by, I think, everyone else editing that article that "conspiracy theory" is a very particular narrative genre. In any event, even if you were 100 per cent correct, you're editing disruptively against consensus, and it's your behavior that's objectionable, not your beliefs. You should also bear in mind that the editors opposing you have very different POVs from each other, and yet they've found common cause in opposing you. That alone ought to tell you something. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest (and I don't mean to minimize your points in any way), the subtlety of the issue as you present it doesn't communicate 'Zen is disruptive' to me, as a completely outside viewer. It communicates to me that the issues are deep and exactly the kind of thing that well-intentioned editors struggle with. The fact that other editors oppose his perspective doesn't make it disruption. I've seen a lot worse behavior tolerated a whole lot more around here. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, take a look at the histories of Conspiracy theory, AIDS conspiracy theories, and Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory, and also look at the talk pages. It may take you a few hours unfortunately to get the full flavor of it. I disagree about your view of what counts as disruption. If I'm opposed by ten or more good editors (and that's the point here: they are all good editors) over a period of months on multiple pages regarding almost every edit I make, and if I find myself unsupported and left to post 12 posts to talk every day that say the same thing, then at some point I have to ask myself whether I might be wrong. Zen-master never does that, and that's the problem in a nutshell. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If that's what's happening, I agree it's indeed disruptive. I've dealt with that kind of thing from other editors as well - but my personal experience with Zen was that he was a lot more even-handed than that. If not, an RfA should/will lead to a formal expansion of the probation he is under. I'd just hate it if Zen, whom I have seen edit in a constructive and cooperative way, is blacklisted. It would make me question whether there was a grand conspiracy afoot against him.
Yes, I was being both ironic and facetious. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slim, I have seen how the phrase "conspiracy theory" has been used on wikipedia talk pages. For example, editor A has said "let's include allegation X" but editor B comes along and says "No, allegation X is a conspiracy theory!" with no regard to whether allegation X is cited or otherwise appropriate for article inclusion. Wikipedia policies should be exclusively used to determine if something is appropriate for inclusion, not alleged association with some genre, right? Wikipedia policies should be exclusively used to neutrally present a subject, and be unaffected by alleged association with a genre, right? The first paragraph's definition we have in Conspiracy theory now is actually synonymous with the literal definition (says the same thing with more words, a theory that alleges a conspiracy). At this point, the only change I would recommend to the intro is we should specifically note the two definitions/meanings are often confused, do you agree there is confusion? Separately, I've been wondering what do you mean by "narrative genre" exactly? In my interpretation this issue we are trying to find a bipartite way of describing is best thought of as an "allegation" and not as a "story" nor "narratives" nor anything related (at best it is indeterminate what they are and relevant places should make that point clear). If someone believes, even subconsciously, that a particular theory is a story or from the narrative genre or should be categorized within the conspiracy theory genre the article is still required to cite exactly who is counter claiming that about the theory, which is why I believe we need to have a sufficiently clear definition in Conspiracy theory to make that point/requirement as clear as possible. zen master T 04:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again. "Narrative genre" means "type of story". There is no "literal definition" of "conspiracy theory." That's like saying the literal definition of kindergarten is a garden for children. But that's not what it means, either in German or in English. Meaning has to do with the way words are in fact used in the world, and "conspiracy theory" is always used in a certain way, which I have explained to you a thousand times, as have others, so I'm not doing it again. But you are missing my point, I assume deliberately. The problem is your behavior, not your beliefs. You are editing disruptively, have been for months, always do, show no sign of stopping, show no indication that you even understand what is meant, show no remorse, feel no concern about the amount of time you waste, give no indication that you do any research into the topics. Your presence at a page invariably signals deterioration, both in terms of quality of content and in terms of relationships with other editors. I'm sorry to be so blunt. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The literal definition is important to note and understand because people may be confused into unconsciously assuming that any theory that alleges a conspiracy is a member of the "conspiracy theory" genre, they have the same name. Recall that editors argued in favor of "conspiracy theory" in wikipedia article titles because, they claimed, some subjects are "literally conspiracy theories" so it seems to me the implied literal definition is the exponentially key source of the confusion here, and we should fix it or at least clearly point it out. zen master T 05:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Zen-master, please do not extend your battle over "conspiracy theories" to this page. The issue at hand here is whether your conduct amounts to disruptive editing within the ambit of our previous order. Regretfully, I would say that it does not; clearly our previous order was insufficiently broad. At this point, I concur with my colleagues above, in that we should definitely consider expanding the scope of our order to all pages. I would have to say that you have demonstrated quite clearly your capacity for disruptive editing, just with your edits to this page. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How are my edits to this page disruptive? I've just been trying to explain the issues. zen master T 06:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem at Conspiracy theory, but it's one of those mothcandle articles that will always be at the sharp edge of such problems so long as Wikipedia retains its open-armed stance, which I take it we here all support. So it would seem to me to be wrong to exclude Zen-m for insisting that his rare views be respected by the article. If he goes, someone else will stand in his place (see Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Accusations for a related article suffering identical problems without Zen-m's input). I agree that Zen-m's mode of insisting imposes a heavy burden, and approve of the suggestion on his talk page to try to limit edits to one per day. Wouldn't it be nicer still if we could just informally agree with him that all parties should back off, say until the New Year, to do their research and come back to the fray with substantial new cites and materials, the better to illuminate the current impasse? Or, perhaps, give SlimVirgin and her 'co-conspirators' the month off by locking-down the article. But picking Zen-m out is no solution, besides being unkind. Adhib 21:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=30128719"