Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Zeitgeist (film series)		2 July 2015	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	7 June 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads	none	none	4 June 2024
Amendment request: India-Pakistan	none	(orig. case)	7 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions	none	none	10 June 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Zeitgeist (film series)

Initiated by Robert McClenon (talk) at 21:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Robert McClenon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Earl King Jr. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sfarney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jonpatterns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pincrete (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEarl_King_Jr.&type=revision&diff=669687314&oldid=669677006

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAndyTheGrump&type=revision&diff=669687432&oldid=669666578

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASfarney&type=revision&diff=669687563&oldid=669683044

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJonpatterns&type=revision&diff=669687684&oldid=669663347

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APincrete&type=revision&diff=669687813&oldid=669115767

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Talk: Zeitgeist (film series)
• Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_115#Talk:Zeitgeist_.28film_series.2
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Earl_King_Jr.
• Talk:Zeitgeist_(film_series)/Archive_2
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive272#Request_Admin_Eyes_at_Talk:_Zeitgeist_.28film_series.29
• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Non-factual_smear_on_Zeitgeist_the_film_page (Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC))

Statement by Robert McClenon

The topic of Zeitgeist (film series) has been the subject of considerable battleground editing. Moderated discussion was attempted at the dispute resolution noticeboard, and resulted in three RFCs, two of which are awaiting closure, and one of which is about to close. The discussion has resulted in frequent personal attacks and has been subject to tendentious editing. An example of the personal attacks was: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AZeitgeist_%28film_series%29&type=revision&diff=665286949&oldid=665283024

A previous AN thread was archived without conclusion. An ANI thread is now running, involving a request to topic-ban one editor. However, that editor is not the only editor about whom there are conduct concerns. A full case is requested to identify editors to be sanctioned. While some aspects are already subject to discretionary sanctions under WP:ARB911, WP:ARBAP2, and WP:BLP, the entire topic may need discretionary sanctions.

Statement by Earl King Jr.

That article brings out hot debate on the talk page. Too hot. Too aggressive and to personal. The talk page needs current and future review with little to no tolerance of battling or personal attacks or tendentious editing. I suppose one way to do that that fairly distributes responsibility is too look at the overall behavior of all persons connected for perspective. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by AndyTheGrump

Firstly, I would like to reiterate what I have already said on the current ANI thread - that I don't think arbitration will be necessary if Earl King Jr. is topic banned, and that if he is, I will voluntarily stay away from the topic myself. In the event that this does go to arbitration, I will of course present evidence concerning the background to the post that Robert McClenon links above - evidence which amply demonstrates that not only has EKJ routinely used article talk pages as a soapbox for his own opinions on the topic, in an entirely inflammatory manner, but that he has blatantly violated WP:BLP policy in doing so. Something which the community (or at least that part of it that posts at ANI) has repeatedly refused to address. If 'personal attacks' are really the issue here, the attacks made by EKJ on a named individual need to be the starting point of any discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sfarney

Difficult to comment without a specific question. I will try to collect a list of issues with a summary statement, if that will help, but I don't know how anyone can arbitrate an issue without a statement. Can we be more specific? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Given that this is a controversial subject, I recommend the most neutral language. Since the film and the movement are now combined, and may or may not be again separated, I must include my comments on both. An encyclopedia is by nature a neutral source of information. And given the breadth of audience who will use it, neutrality is a vital element. Human knowledge advances by breadth and freedom, not narrow orthodoxy. And every group so far that thought it was totally right and could violate that idea has eventually be proved wrong. But what is neutrality?

1. Information must always trump attitude and opinion. Loaded, value laden words and statements should be tightly corralled in an area such as "reception," "objections," or "controversies." Outside that corral, mixing information with opinion is highly improper. Specifically, using the lede to announce these films are about "conspiracy theory" or "pseudo-documentary" is wrong.
2. Not all "reliable sources" are really reliable, or quotable. When an RS offers ill-formed opinion in place of fact, it is not appropriate for WP. When I started looking at this article a few weeks ago, reviews were cherry picked to say the films were "bogus" and "crap." Wikipedia can and should rise higher than that.
3. When a primary source makes a clean statement of its own goals, that statement should be permitted, even if couched in a "they say" clause.
4. I firmly believe that the existence of WP is dependent on respecting and following the copyright and BLP rules. We are not excused from libel and slander by putting the words in quotes and arguing that someone else said it first. Every publication has its own rules for libel, and some have very deep pockets to defend those rules or take the hit. Wikipedia does not. Specifically, we get nowhere by calling a living person an "antisemite," even if the word is credited to some RS keyboard, and even when that word is in the opinion section. Messing with people's professional reputation can get us shot -- and if we do it, we probably should be.
5. The value and respect for Wikipedia by the general public tacitly depends on these rules. Fox News loses audience by slathering its reports with opinions. It winds up preaching only to the choir. We shouldn't let that happen to Wikipedia in either direction. If you really want to reach past the choir, clean up the language. Honest, neutral information gets through everyone's information censors. Opinions are stopped and searched at the borders. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

When I first started reading this article about two months ago, it was nothing BUT opinions. The editors objected to some of the statements in the films and never got past it. King argued that it's not a documentary because it is not factual. Never mind the definition of a documentary, it isn't one because it isn't factual. It's propaganda, conspiracy, etc. A whole RfC and hundreds of thousands of bytes argued on whether it is a documentary. I believe that point was eventually won in favor of a documentary. But this is an improper use of sources. Sources establish fact. Sources also offer opinion, but sources differ on opinions and people do not come to Wikipedia for opinions. When people look for opinions, they read the Jerusalem Post, Fox News, or the editorials of St. Louis Dispatch. They do not come to Wikipedia for opinion. Furthermore, if Wikipedia tries to state as fact what these sources present as personal opinions, the Wikipedia becomes a fraud, and a misrepresentation of the sources it pretends to quote. A documentary may be said to be propaganda (as many documentaries are) and it may be called "propaganda" by a reliable source (as many do), but it is still a documentary by the Academy of Motion Pictures. And that is the only reliable source, not some $10 a word opinion factory in the Washington Times. If Wikipedia publishes opinions as facts, it will be fraught with contradictory statements, all from reliable sources. It will be a Tower of Babel, a chattering confusion like the Internet itself.

A few weeks ago, the article was little more than one long expression of contempt, with no statement of what the film is, what the movement is, or anything else. It was fact-free, like a diet soda or a "news" item in People Magazine. As King recently explained, he has many times in the past reverted statements from the primary source, and strongly hinted he would do again, so I haven't bothered to try.[1] Disallowing Zeitgeist producers or Zeitgeist movement to speak for itself is a violation of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves." But King has made very "free" with WP policy and rules, and never admits when he is proved wrong. This strongly suggests that King's misstatements, inventions, and ignorance are intentional -- he will not be corrected beyond the moment because he has not learned anything because it was not a mistake to begin with -- it was intentional abuse of policy.

King has even argued that my BPL notification titled "Non-factual smear on Zeitgeist the film page" was itself a BPL violation.[2] The logic is awkward and difficult to follow, but apparently, when I say our Wikipedia article is a smear (vilification[3][4]) of producer Peter Joseph's reputation by calling his statements "antisemitic," somehow I am violating BPL on the reviewer whom WP is quoting.[5] It is tortured logic to reverse the spear and force me to hold the blade. But the worst of this is the logic by which one Chip Berlet arrives at his accusation of antisemitism. It seems some of the arguments in the film sound similar to arguments Berlet has heard from a list of antisemites. Therefore, the film must have "borrowed" the ideas from those antisemites, and therefore, the films must be antisemitic. Another reviewer who cites Berlet's opinions admits that the films do not mention Jews, and therefore the films contain "covert antisemitism." I do not argue whether Joseph is antisemitic in his personal life -- but our sources do not support the slanderous accusation. The statements are not statements of fact, and their reasoning is simply not factual. But through the abuse of RS authority that King says we must follow, we must quote those statements from the reviewers, else we would be "censoring reliable sources." But to complete the hypocrisy. those are almost the ONLY statements from the reviews that we cite. In my way of thinking, we cannot quote those accusations without smearing Peter Joseph himself, because he wrote, produced, and narrated the film. Pincrete agrees that a person could not produce an antisemitic work without being an antisemite,[6] which confirms my argument that accusations of antisemitism against the films are really accusations against producer Joseph and therefore BPL issues. [The BPLN is stalled now because of the ANI and this action.]

In conclusion, I have worked with dozens of other editors in varying degrees of disagreement over the years. King seems unwilling or unable to collaborate on editing that does not match his opinions. I am suspicious that he has worked on little else in the last year outside this group of articles. His pattern of editing closely matches WP:SPA and WP:NOTHERE.

Statement by Jonpatterns

There is an ongoing problem with the actions of a particular editor. It looks likely action will be taken on this, and that this ArbCom will be rejected. Therefore, I'm not going to comment further here at this point.Jonpatterns (talk) 10:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Pincrete

My involvement extends only to the last 2-3 weeks, becoming involved only as a result of an RFC. I agree with most of what Arthur Rubin says immediately below:

• Earl King Jr. has sometimes been uncivil, bordering on personal attacks, also tactless in a manner which may have inflamed discussion. He would probably like the article to present a very negative impression of the film and 'movement', however, in my limited experience, I believe he has 'backed off' on behaviour and content when reasonable arguments are presented calmly. Small but significant steps have recently been made in both balance and readability ('documentary style', neutral synopses, removing 'conspiracy crap', 'trademark' and the needless repetition of 'conspiracy theories', have all been changed with little 'drama'). Possibly he should be sanctioned, but a topic ban is not justified and would reduce attempts to make the article WP:NPOV.
• AndyTheGrump has made personal attacks and needlessly 'personalised' disagreements, but has largely been a positive influence in my short experience.
• Sfarney repeatedly personalises all discussion in a manner which is combative, on a number of occasions, when asked to stop by me, he intensified and appeared to regard it as his right to do so. I endorse Arthur Rubin's comments about his actions re: BLP. Grammar/Sfarney took little part in discussions on the 'incremental' improvements which I refer to above, appearing to be more interested in 'grandstanding' and 'gladitorialising'. I believe he should be warned.

I'll supply diffs if required. Since I won't have this on my watchlist, I would be grateful if someone would 'name' me if my attention is required.Pincrete (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

nb I strongly resent Grammar/Sfarney's use of my name above to support an argument which he knows I disagree with. The diffs he offers are clearly pointing out the difference between being XYZ and having been described by ABC of being XYZ, a distinction which he consistently refuses to acknowledge or sees as irrelevant. The first is an assertion of fact, the second is an attributed opinion. This is an example of the sort of selective mis-quoting which wastes so much time on talk.

Statement by involved non-party Arthur Rubin

There are definite problems here, which do not seem to be being properly dealt with on the drama pages. As I see it:

• Earl King Jr. has been uncivil, and his accusations of editors "supportive" (my term) of the films and/or movement of being "fans" (his term) borders on personal attacks. However, I believe he has a reasonable approach as to what should be in the article or articles. Possibly he should be sanctioned, but a topic ban would reduce attempts to make the article WP:NPOV.
• AndyTheGrump has made personal attacks.
• Sfarney has made some personal attacks, and violated WP:BLP on the article talk page and in WP:BLPN while accusing Earl King Jr. (and me, in restoring text) of violating WP:BLP in the article. I'll supply diffs in the evidence phase, but much of the offending text was still there as of the end of the month.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Georgewilliamherbert

We have a Community General Sanctions proposal (redrafted to our normal standards) in play on ANI for the topic area; the vague idea got 5 yes 2 discussions/questions (one of which was the note it was too vague) prior to my redrafting / reproposing. I would not close since I redrafted, but it looks likely to pass if the same support level transfers to the redrafted, enforceable one. IMHO, it would be wise to wait and see if that consensus and pass happens and if neutral admins working with general sanctions can settle things down, rather than the full effort of a Arb case. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

I have been deeply involved in the disputes over these articles until early this year, particularly disputes with Earl, departing due to my commitment and ArbCom's advisement to stay away from contentious topic areas following the GamerGate arbitration case. My rather minor involvement since then has been strictly limited to the sidelines until today. At the current ANI case I explained my prior involvement in the disputes mentioned by the initiator of that discussion and cited past instances where Earl's conduct was raised. The current topic ban proposed for Earl is the fourth I can recall. I initiated the first in this thread started by Andy and @Somedifferentstuff: initiated the second one in this thread. As can be seen above, since then @JzG: and @Dennis Brown: have proposed topic bans. From what I have seen and based on my own interactions with him, I think Earl is probably the biggest source of disruption and conflict in that topic area. More than enough evidence exists at present to support a topic ban, perhaps even a site ban given the copyright issues he shows elsewhere. Should the current ANI discussion result in a topic ban for Earl and general sanctions for the topic area then I think this arbitration request will not be necessary. If either of those fails, especially if both fail, then an arbitration request is probably the best way to resolve these issues.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by JudeccaXIII

I want to clarify some things since I was kind-of involved with having the article protected. I requested administrator Ed Johnston to protect the article for reasons be 2RR violators & the disputes in the article's talk page. The request is here. Before the request, I had sent warning notices of 2RR violations both to Sfarney and Earl King Jr. Sfarney cooperated with my notification, however, Earl King Jr. removed the notice with the edit summary of ...Ikan. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by mildly involved Dennis Brown

Part of the problem is a common one, too many proposals going on at one time. I proposed a topic ban, it was going strongly, then someone does a GS (overkill, since it boils down to one person), and then he takes it to Arb. Well meaning, but you end up getting zero sanctions when you muddy the waters so much. Regardless, I don't see evidence that the community can't handle it without Arb intervention, so taking the case seems out of process. We need fewer processes, not more. If we would have just left it at the topic ban, there would be no further problems that a block can't fix. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by completely uninvolved Softlavender

An ANI, a GS draft, and an ArbCom request, all filed on exactly the same day? And while multiple RfCs are running? Doesn't work. Choose one (or two), and let them run their course and then after a few months ascertain their efficacy, and if necessary, then ArbCom. There's a reason that one of the blanks to fill out here is "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried". Softlavender (talk) 05:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

Sanctions are likely to be required, but given that the Zeitgeist movement is pretty much covered by WP:FRINGE I'm not convinced that a new case is needed. There seems to me to be good evidence of long term POV-pushing by Zeitgeist fans, but we do actually have the tools to deal with that and it does not rise to the level of Gamergate or some of the other festering sores on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 07:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by completely baffled Rich Farmbrough

• There is a proposed sanction at AN/I. Therefore "other resolution methods" have not been exhausted. Reject, without prejudice. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC).
  

Statement by Z1720

I commented on the Zeitgeist (film series) talk page when I saw an RFC proposed by Robert McClenon in late-May.

I observed many conflicts of interests from editors on both sides of the argument who were trying to push their POV. Instead of figuring out what is best for Wikipedia, some editors were trying to win an argument. The above-mentioned RFC (and other threaded discussions) can be seen on the Zeitgeist talk page. Eventually I decided not to comment anymore because I thought my time and efforts would be better served in other articles. If editors still want my opinion on the topic they can comment on my talk page and I will be more than happy to help.

From what I observed in late-May/early-June, the dispute is between some editors who want to give more coverage to the Zeitgeist movement (that emerged from the movie) and those who want to purge information on Wikipedia of the movement because it is potentially a WP:FRINGE topic. I hope uninvolved editors will seek a remedy by consensus so we can put more time into improving the article and Wikipedia.

If this case is accepted I would ask the Arbitration Committee to consider the WP:Battleground behaviour of editors on both sides. I also hope the ArbCom will look at potential violations of WP:COI of editors within an RFC. The proposed remedies should aim to allow uninvolved editors to develop consensus on how to move forward with this article.

Please do not hesitate to comment on this case page or my talk page if you have any questions/concerns about my statement. Z1720 (talk) 04:04, 4 July 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.

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Zeitgeist (film series): Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/1/0/2>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• Given that this is being discussed currently at ANI, I would like to see the outcome of the threads there before deciding whether or not to take this case. Yunshui ^雲_水 06:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, given the way things are going there, Decline, with no prejudice towards the filing of new case request if the proposed community sanctions are not implemented/are proved to be ineffective. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• I would also like to see the community processes given a chance to work before initiating a case. Watching those processes but leaning to decline. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
• I feel like cases should be requested after other dispute resolution processes have been tried, not while they're ongoing. If these are closed and the problems continue, then perhaps it is time for a case. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)