Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Removing request for arbitration, Banning Policy II: declined by the Committee
Line 6: Line 6:


<!-- PLEASE PLACE NEW CASE REQUESTS BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- PLEASE PLACE NEW CASE REQUESTS BELOW THIS LINE -->

== Banning Policy II ==
'''Initiated by ''' [[User:Hell in a Bucket|Hell in a Bucket]] ([[User talk:Hell in a Bucket|talk]]) '''at''' 18:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator -->
*{{userlinks|Hell in a Bucket}}, ''filing party''
*{{admin|Swarm}}
*{{admin|Fred Bauder}}

;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
*[diff of notification Swarm] [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Swarm&diff=prev&oldid=654524364]]
*[diff of notification Fred Bauder] [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fred_Bauder&diff=prev&oldid=654524411]]

;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
* [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fred_Bauder&diff=prev&oldid=654520389]]
* [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=654521841]]

=== Statement by Hell in a Bucket ===
Well I thought this was sorted in the banning policy case but apparently [[User:Swarm]] and [[User:Fred Bauder]] think it's ok to use discretion on banned users. The policies and finding have been pointed out and the response is that admin get to do what they want. I think that needs a admonishment at best or frankly a good desyopping. In case anyone is worried this was a borderline judgement if you see [[User:Saint Kohser]] you can see the evidence is there, there is no doubt who it is. [[User:Hell in a Bucket|Hell in a Bucket]] ([[User talk:Hell in a Bucket|talk]]) 18:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
*[[User:Swarm]] I'd run scared too if I hadn't read "2) When an editor's conduct is exceptionally disruptive or inappropriate, that user may be banned from editing Wikipedia. Banned editors are prohibited from editing Wikipedia in any way, from any account or anonymously, and all contributions made in defiance of a ban are subject to immediate removal. While users in good standing are permitted to restore content from banned users by taking ownership of that content, such restoration should be undertaken rarely and with extreme caution, as banned editors have already had to be removed for disruptive and problematic behavior. A user who nonetheless chooses to do so accepts full responsibility for the consequences of the material so restored." [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning_Policy#Banned_editors]] but I'm sure such things are beneath you as admin. [[User:Hell in a Bucket|Hell in a Bucket]] ([[User talk:Hell in a Bucket|talk]]) 18:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
**Holy fuck [[User:Swarm]] you must have missed this part of that small paragraph let me help you by bolding it. '''Banned editors are prohibited from editing Wikipedia in any way, from any account or anonymously''' Maybe it's just me not using common sense but leaving them unblocked lets them edit the encyclopedia, I must have missed that day in class where we don't block banned users or their socks. [[User:Hell in a Bucket|Hell in a Bucket]] ([[User talk:Hell in a Bucket|talk]]) 18:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
*[[User:WJBscribe]], I agree with you fully that vandalism should not be restored but ther additions being removed do show that they are sourced. Are we going to argue the merits of a user that has been banned for disruptive practices and take them at their word? I certainly wouldn't and I think that anything sourced should be checked and the two examples you provide do have a source. [[User:Hell in a Bucket|Hell in a Bucket]] ([[User talk:Hell in a Bucket|talk]]) 18:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
*[[User:Salvio giuliano]] That worked well for Tarc in the banning case...Maybe it's because we are dealing with admin and not regular joe schmos? [[User:Hell in a Bucket|Hell in a Bucket]] ([[User talk:Hell in a Bucket|talk]]) 18:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
*[[User: Courcelles]], [[User:Salvio giuliano]], [[User:Guerillero]] and [[User:Gorilla Warfare]], [[User:DGG]] if we are to ignore all rules is it ok to ask my friend Off2RioRob back and ask that he not be blocked so long as he is removing BLP violations? This is what you are saying is ok? It's the same typoe of situation except to my knowledge he isn't inserting those BLP vios in there. [[User:Hell in a Bucket|Hell in a Bucket]] ([[User talk:Hell in a Bucket|talk]]) 18:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
*[[User:Newyorkbrad]] Isn't it common practice to actually alert someone there are discretionary sanctions in effect prior to sanctioning? [[User:Hell in a Bucket|Hell in a Bucket]] ([[User talk:Hell in a Bucket|talk]]) 19:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by Swarm ===
The relevant AN/I thread is at [[WP:ANI#Immediate block request of User:Saint Kohser]]. As evidenced there, Hell in a Bucket is disruptively '''''restoring vandalism''''' to articles that's being undone by the banned user who added it. This is insanity and HIAB deserves a whale for this one. The second paragraph of [[Wikipedia:Administrators]] states that administrators "are never required to use their tools". [[Wikipedia:Ignore all rules]] states, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." [[WP:BURO]] states, "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies." As I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=654521507 explained at ANI], if any administrator were to disagree with us they would be well within their rights to block the user in question, but attempting to punish us for not following a rule for the ''benefit of the encyclopedia'' is nothing short of utterly ridiculous and I won't defend myself against this absurdity further. [[User:Swarm|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.0em 0.0em 0.9em black'><big>'''S'''</big><small>'''''warm'''''</small></span>]] [[User talk:Swarm|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em red'><sup>'''''we ♥ our hive'''''</sup></span>]] 18:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
*{{ping|Hell in a Bucket}} None of that even remotely contradicts our well-reasoned justification for not blocking the user. [[User:Swarm|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.0em 0.0em 0.9em black'><big>'''S'''</big><small>'''''warm'''''</small></span>]] [[User talk:Swarm|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em red'><sup>'''''we ♥ our hive'''''</sup></span>]] 18:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
*{{ping|Hell in a Bucket}} What part about being [[WP:IAR|we're ignoring that]] is so difficult for you to understand? [[User:Swarm|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.0em 0.0em 0.9em black'><big>'''S'''</big><small>'''''warm'''''</small></span>]] [[User talk:Swarm|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em red'><sup>'''''we ♥ our hive'''''</sup></span>]] 18:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by Fred Bauder ===
I plead common sense. [[User:Fred Bauder]] [[User talk:Fred Bauder|Talk]] 18:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
:See [[Work-to-rule]]. [[User:Fred Bauder]] [[User talk:Fred Bauder|Talk]] 18:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
{{cquote|Work to rule has been described thus: " 'Work to rule' has a perfectly well-known meaning, namely, 'Give the rules a meaning which no reasonable man could give them and work to that.' "}}
[[User:Fred Bauder]] [[User talk:Fred Bauder|Talk]] 18:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by Spartaz ===
Is this an April Fools joke? [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 18:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
@{{u|Fred Bauder}} does that mean we have to start paying you? [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 18:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by uninvolved WJBscribe ===
Blocking or not blocking in these circumstances is a judgment call and I can see how it could be argued either way. What I find totally unacceptable and inexcusable are the edits by [[User:Hell in a Bucket|Hell in a Bucket]] that <u>reintroduced</u> vandalism into the articles in question (e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Made_In_India&diff=prev&oldid=654518418], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Koegel_Meat_Company&diff=prev&oldid=654518413] etc). Those actions damaged the encyclopedia. Whatever [[User:Hell in a Bucket|Hell in a Bucket]] may have thought, those edits were not supported by policy - if a banned user adds inappropriate content, then later reverts that addition, there is no justification whatsoever for reverting the removal only and leaving the problematic content in the article. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] [[User talk:WJBscribe|(talk)]]</strong> 18:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by Samwalton9 ===
[[Wikipedia:Banning policy#revert]]: "This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand)". Of course the account will be blocked, but if they're undoing vandalism that is permitted by policy. [[User:Samwalton9|'''S'''am '''W'''alton]] ([[User talk:Samwalton9|talk]]) 18:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by BethNaught ===
{{edit conflict}}
Hell in a Bucket has been so fixated on enforcing the ban that they have actively reinserted the vandalism removed by Saint Kohser across six pages. The vandalism was each time subsequently re-removed by other users. (Page histories: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sagami_Railway&action=history], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colin_Hilton&action=history], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Mathison&action=history], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Basil_Hiley&action=history], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Made_In_India&action=history], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Koegel_Meat_Company&action=history]) It appears that Kohser has now finshed, so block them, sanction Hell in a Bucket for actively damaging Wikipedia, and move on. [[User:BethNaught|BethNaught]] ([[User talk:BethNaught|talk]]) 18:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by Coretheapple ===
<s>This request for arbitration is ridiculous. A banned user engaged in a stupid "experiment," proving that yes, malicious people like himself can insert falsehoods into Wikipedia. He goes back to remove the falsehoods to prove what a great guy he is, and some editor has a problem with that. Honestly, if I didn't know better I'd say this is an April Fool's Day joke. [[User:Coretheapple|Coretheapple]] ([[User talk:Coretheapple|talk]]) 18:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Re the comments below, I agree that "kicking it upstairs" to the Foundation for legal action is the right way to go. [[User:Coretheapple|Coretheapple]] ([[User talk:Coretheapple|talk]]) 13:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)</s>

Striking out my previous comments and revising, in light of the comments below. I think that this is not a job for the Arbitration Committee, which has already done all it can do. This is a malicious user, a person who has identified himself by name, who has deliberately introduced errors into Wikipedia. If he was sincerely interested in completing his "experiment," there are a number of ways he can do so. He can't do it on Wikipedia, so he can list the errors off-wiki. Either way, it seems to me that based upon the history of this person's disruptions and the time he has wasted over the years, either the WMF should take legal action against him or the rest of us should let him disrupt Wikipedia until that point is reached, and waste no more time over him. [[User:Coretheapple|Coretheapple]] ([[User talk:Coretheapple|talk]]) 13:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by Newyorkbrad===

The background here is that Thekohser announced several weeks ago on Wikipediocracy that he was conducting an "experiment" in which he would vandalize 30 Wikipedia articles by deliberately introducing false information, in order to test whether the misinformation would be reverted, and if so, how long it would take. Last night, he announced that his test was concluded and that he would now be reverting his vandalism, after which he will write a blog post on Wikipediocracy pointing out that much of his sneaky vandalism went uncorrected, and then seek press coverage.

To state the obvious, deliberately introducing misinformation into Wikipedia is impermissible from any editor, much less from a banned editor who is not supposed to edit at all. There is a presumption that accounts of banned editors are to be blocked, and certainly any account or IP being used to introduce false or questionable information would be subject to immediate blocking. What Thekohser has done here, however, is to create a single-purpose, plainly disclosed account for the express purpose of removing the misinformation and reverting the articles to their original state. His goal is to put all of us to the Hobson's choice of either allowing the "Saint Kohser" account to edit, thereby creating both dissension within the community and publicity for his "experiment," or blocking it from editing, in which case he will claim that it is Wikipedia's community and administrators, rather than he himself, who are now responsible for allowing the vandalism to stand.

The obvious, if awkward, solution to this dilemma is to allow the Saint Kohser account to edit so long as it is reverting the vandalism its owner inserted, though not to make other edits. As other commenters have observed, it is impermissible to knowingly reinsert known or strongly suspected misinformation back into articles, regardless of any policy or guideline that might otherwise apply. Thus, such edits by "Saint Kohser", where it is plain that they are removing misinformation (and are checked to make sure they are not introducing new misinformation), should be allowed to stand. This does not, however, apply to his bragging notes on the article talkpages.

This situation should be handled with discretion and, as others have said, with common sense, which contrary to popular belief is not actually against Wikipedia policy in any situation. User:Hell in a Bucket, not for the first time, has shown poor judgment in reverting some of Saint Kohser's edits and especially in escalating the matter to this page at this time. Some of his edits have reintroduced misinformation into biographies of living persons. (Hell in a Bucket posits the possibility that the original edits were in good faith and it is the reversions that constitute the vandalism, but the IP edits can be traced to the general known geographical location of Thekohser, rendering his explanation the far more likely scenario until the edits can be checked.)

Because these edits by Hell in a Bucket are unacceptable, in my capacity as an administrator, I invoke [[WP:NEWBLPBAN|the discretionary sanctions applicable to BLPs]] and instruct Hell in a Bucket that he is prohibited from reverting any edit on any article relating to a living person that has been the subject of a revert by "Saint Kohser." (This parallels the remedy adopted in the original ''Banning policy'' arbitration case, in which the editor who was found to have used poor judgment in reverting was excused from further participation in making those decisions.) This does not affect the right of any other editor to edit such articles after verifying or refuting the information to be reverted or reinserted.

None of this, of course, means that I or anyone else find Thekohser's behavior acceptable. The fact that the wiki open editing model is vulnerable to bad-faith abuse of this kind is, unfortunately, not a novel revelation. Conducting another "experiment" aimed at demonstrating it was neither necessary, nor authorized, nor ethically permissible. Significantly, the Arbitration Committee has also condemned a previous "breaching experiment" in which Thekohser deliberately vandalized BLPs (see, [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride_2#MZMcBride.27s_role_in_an_.22experiment.22|here]]). Thekohser also previously obtained unauthorized access to an administrator account, requiring an emergency desysopping (see [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_6#Emergency_desysop:_User:Cool3|here]]). If, as appears, the mechanisms available to the editing community are unable to control this individual's gross misconduct, it may be appropriate for the Wikimedia Foundation Office to review the matter. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 19:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

===Statement by uninvolved Herostratus===
The whole thing is rather maddening, and the person is indeed attempting to set us up to have to choose between unpalatable options, and then use whichever choice we make against us. The presence of _________s in your system (the reader may guess what goes in the blank) is a challenge to the most robust systems, which ours is not. I don't know what the answer is but I do know (or believe) a couple of things:
*First, we're all on the same side here, and against this Thekohser/Saint Kohser person, so I wouldn't recommend that anyone be sanctioned here. That's feeding the beast. Everyone here is trying to help in their own way.
*Second, you should seldom just do what the enemy wants. Another reason to be very cautious about handing out any sanctions here.
I only want ArbCom to take the case if it offers some chance of moving forward. This sort of thing is going to come up again, so some discussion and guidance on how to handle it might be called for, or per Newyorkbrad, kick it upstairs to the WMF, which is in ArbCom's remit I think. If there's ever a person for whom kicking upstairs to the WMF is called for, this guy'd be the one I guess, altho I don't think there's enough there for them to do anything. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] ([[User talk:Herostratus|talk]]) 23:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by JzG ===
Please speedily close this. It is blindingly obvious that drama and trolling were the primary purpose of the "experiment". The correct response is block, sigh and move on. This particular individual has a long history of deliberately doing obviously-not-evil things with sockpuppets precisely to start this kind of shit-fight. It works every time, as we see here.

Oh, and since the vandalism was introduced by the banned user in violation of his ban, [[WP:RBI]] means we leave it removed, i.e. back as it was before he inserted it in the first place. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 18:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by {Non-party} ===
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->

=== Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*

=== Banning Policy II: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/11/0/0> ===
{{anchor|1=Banning Policy II: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small>
*'''Decline''' When we take banning policy to the point that someone is putting vandalism back into articles, things have clearly gone off the rails. Sometimes common sense is really the right answer, we can exercise discretion to leave actually useful edits alone, independent of the account or status of the person who made them. To be clear, I totally hate the idea of breaching experiments, but when actual vandalism is being undone, let it be, folks. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] ([[User talk:Courcelles|talk]]) 18:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
:*There's a difference between blocking sock accounts and indiscriminately reverting their edits. Revert bad edits, don't revert edits that are obviously good. And if someone reverts your reversion, assume they have good reason and don't [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Koegel_Meat_Company&action=history do this] without discussing it. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] ([[User talk:Courcelles|talk]]) 19:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
*I'll just point the filer to [[WP:IAR]]. '''Decline'''. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> '''[[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]'''</span> [[User talk:Salvio giuliano|<sup>Let's talk about it!</sup>]] 18:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Hit Wikipedians beside the head until they can use common sense''' *cough* '''decline''' --[[User:Guerillero|<font color="#0b0080">Guerillero</font>]] &#124; [[User_talk:Guerillero|<font color="green">Parlez Moi</font>]] 18:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' per Courcelles. While I agree that most edits performed by banned users should be reverted, people should not be doing so when it results in vandalism being reintroduced. I'm also a bit unclear on why an arbitration case is being requested here. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]] <small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 18:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' The whole experiment provides all the more reason why the user and his socks should remain banned, but this needs to be done in such a way that doing it does not harm the encyclopedia further. [[WP:IAR]] is the equivalent of "use some common sense." There's a reason why it's the most basic of our policies. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 19:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' per Courcelles. I also endorse [[user:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]]'s use of BLP provisions and his remedy. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 19:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Decline''', in full agreement with Newyorkbrad. Banned users shouldn't be editing, true, but we also shouldn't so blindly revert them that vandalism and inaccuracies are inserted back into articles. In this case, the administrators involved with the situation exercised their discretion and good sense. That's why we have human admins who were chosen (presumably) for their discretion and good judgment, not bots. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 20:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' and also agree that reverting needs to be sensible. I don't agree with the idea that we shouldn't revert good edits by banned editors - it's one way we discourage them from continuing to sock, but reverts still always should be checked to see if they are sensible and don't actually make the article worse or violate policy, particularly with BLPs. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 21:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' per what {{u|Coretheapple}} said before they struck their comment. -- [[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]] ([[User talk:Euryalus|talk]]) 21:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
* '''Decline''' per NYB and CTA. This can be archived now, &nbsp;[[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|''talk'']]</sup> 07:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
* '''Decline''' per {{ping|Herostratus}}, esp. the bullet points. -- [[User:DeltaQuad|<font color="green">DQ</font>]] [[User_Talk:DeltaQuad|<font color="blue">(ʞlɐʇ)</font>]] 15:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:13, 2 April 2015

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Historical elections 13 Sep 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) Motion (orig. case) 26 July 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) Motion (orig. case) 17 August 2024
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 8 September 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=654679960"