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
Improper Administration by Vanjagenije		15 April 2016	{{{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

Motion name	Date posted
Block of Rp2006	18 June 2024

Improper Administration by Vanjagenije

Initiated by Josslined (talk) at 22:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Josslined (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Vanjagenije (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Josslined

Statement by Josslined

1. While editing Saint Thomas Christians article I encountered a disruptive user Jossyys who was commenting as a sockpuppet with 117.196.150.216. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jossyys for evidence of sockpuppetry.

2. An edit war ensued and was reported: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:117.196.150.216_reported_by_User:Josslined_.28Result:_Semi.29

3. Meanwhile 117.196.150.216 reported me of sockpuppetry. I had inadvertently been logged out when I made some edits.

6. Vanjagenije blocked both me and my shared IP address 192.76.8.34 for 3 days.

7. In my appeal I clarified that I had been inadvertently logged out and provided detailed evidence proving I had taken ownership of my edits on the talk page almost immediately. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Josslined

8. Vanjagenije removed the block for sockpuppetry but retained the block for 'edit-warring'. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Josslined

He did not lift nor change the reason for the block for my IP address 192.76.8.34, nor change the status on the sockpuppetry case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Josslined/Archive

9. I had made 4 reverts- I had wrongly interpreted the 3RR rule to mean 3 reverts of a single user. I had reverted user 117.213.58.242 once in addition to user 117.196.150.216 thrice (both are likely sockpuppets)

10. Vanjagenije refused to engage with my appeal that a 3 day block was not justified for edit warring my case nor was based on Wikipedia Guidlines, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring/Administrator_instructions#Results

See particularly: ""If the admin decides a block is warranted, then they must take into account the user's past history of edit warring (by checking their block log), if any, and the severity of the 3RR violation." [Emphasis added]

See my full appeal of this block on my talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Josslined (second block appeal).

72 hour block was clearly excessive given:

- I broke the 3RR rule by mistake. - I tried to discuss with the opponent. - I am a new user with no history of edit warring. - I let the page stand as my opponent's version and stopped the edit warring. - My opponent was not blocked for more reversals than me and the page was semi-protected.

11. Vanjagenije has proven incapable to administrate wikipedia properly:

1. They can not follow the guidelines or refuses to do so, either out of incompetence or an ego trip. 2. They can not admit they made a wrong ruling nor revert their punishment. 3. They are easily manipulated by a disruptive users- such as Jossyys through false sockpuppetry accusations.

---

Response to comments

(EDIT)

1. It is clear to all reasonable persons that Vanjagenije didn't follow the policy guidlines on edit war blocks, even if some subscribe to Solipsism. It is a massive coincidence that the penalty for sockpuppetering is the same as edit warring.

Being a new user (another factor the policy states Vanjagenije should take into account) I wasn't aware any the other step in the dispute process. I have now posted this in the administrator's notice board, though I am not sure that is actually dispute resolution.

2. To reiterate Wikipedia guidelines on edit war blocks:

"Administrators decide whether to issue a warning or block; these are intended to prevent, deter and encourage change in disruptive behavior, not to punish it. Where a block is appropriate, 24 hours is common for a first offense; administrators tend to issue longer blocks for repeated or aggravated violations, and will consider other factors, such as civility and previous blocks. Where multiple editors edit war or breach 3RR, administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues. According to WP:Administrators, "Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist.""

It is clear to any neutral party that none of these guidelines were followed. My opponent in the edit war has kept their version of the article and has clearly won the war, with no repercussions.

• @TP I'm glad you strangely believe in a world outside your own mind- including ability of other people to reflect- what's your proof? Firstly, yes I do care about that article, given I spent a lot of time researching on it so it is upsetting when disruptive users manipulate it using edit wars etc and multiple accounts. But as anyone can see if they care, I haven't reverted them, and have tried to engage in a discussion. Which is why I find it incredible that I was blocked 3 days- despite an honest attempt to do things by the book. Further for those who lack some critical thinking, the purpose of the last paragraph above was to demonstrate that even this portion of guidline wasn't followed: Where multiple editors edit war or breach 3RR, administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues. None of the guidlines were followed, not a word. One wonders how can Wikipedia still allow this person to be an admin? But then again, I am not so naive as to think reason or evidence as opposed to relationships and inertia drive this systemJosslined (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Callanecc I disagree. A discussion forum has no power to provide accountability.

The arbitrators have to ask three questions: 1. Is a wanton disregard and inability to follow Wikipedia guidelines a sufficient condition to remove an admin? 2. Is it theoretically possible to identify a wanton disregard and inability to follow guidelines? 3. Did Vanjagenije wantonly disregard the guidelines and show an inability to follow them?

My answer to all 3 is clearly yes. Your answer to the second seems to be it is impossible because it's 'subjective'. I feel that's a cop-out.

Dispute Resolution Update

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Request_for_the_removal_of_User:Vanjagenije_as_an_administrator

The above discussion has been closed after a record 5 hours in the early hours from midnight to some time 4am UTC! So I guess dispute resolution has passed to the next stage which is this I suppose, when a large number of people are asleep! So I suppose it is times to rule on the merits (i.e. side with the more powerful admin, without any recourse to the faculty of evidence or reason!)

To Note:

1. Not a single argument was made to address any of my points.
2. Not a single justification for how a single guideline could be construed to have been followed was made.

I mean if you want to pretend to have a process at least do a good job of it!

@ TP 1. If you can point to one word or sentence engaging with the substance of my complaint (as opposed to an assertion I am wrong and that I shouldn't appeal the conduct of an admin on this matter), I will say this appeals process is about the evidence not about power. My point is that no matter the merits of my case, I shall not win because the merits have not been considered or engaged with yet. What is your evidence that User:Vanjagenije followed these guidelines:

""Administrators decide whether to issue a warning or block; these are intended to prevent, deter and encourage change in disruptive behavior, not to punish it. Where a block is appropriate, 24 hours is common for a first offense; administrators tend to issue longer blocks for repeated or aggravated violations, and will consider other factors, such as civility and previous blocks. Where multiple editors edit war or breach 3RR, administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues. According to WP:Administrators, "Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist.""

My case is he couldn't have considered this guideline because had he done so he could only have reasonably given me more than 24 hours ban if he seen one of the following: I had a history of blocks (I didn't), that my violation was aggravated (which it isn't), that it was repeated before (which it wasn't), or that I wasn't civil (again I was civil). Evidence to show he did consider these guidelines would be to prove one of the following: I have a history of blocks, my violation was aggravated, it was repeated before, and I wasn't civil. No such evidence has been presented. If it is I shall withdraw my concern this process isn't about evidence.

2. Calling this a dead horse is another of way of saying there is no appeals process or dispute resolution process for the conduct of an admin. Once the admin decides, case closed- who cares if the guidelines were followed, because to appeal it is a dead horse.

3. " And you'll be asked, not gently, to leave the project. " Sounds like a threat: If you make an appeal of the conduct of an admin or engage in the process of dispute resolution, you will be kicked out of Wikipedia. Wow this system is worse than I thought it was. Josslined (talk) 10:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Finally I would like to say, some of you may think this is relatively a minor issue. I would like to ask a bigger question- what are the means to ensure admins follow guidelines and what are the recourse for address when they clearly by all reasonable standards don't? That is not a minor issue and needs to be addressed. Josslined (talk) 10:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@ Vanjagenije Now makes two claims.

1. He now claims he wasn't sure I wasn't sockpuppeting.
2. Even if I was accidentally logged out it would be an aggravating factor.

My response:

Point 2 is easy. If I wasn't sockpuppeting it isn't an aggravating factor. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Editing_while_logged_out

Point 1: He lifted the sockpuppet block. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Josslined. I had presented evidence which is quite conclusive (repeated from my talk page):

• After my IP address,192.76.8.34 made its second reversal, in 10 minutes I had created a discussion page- by which time I figured I had been logged off. In the discussion, I wrote (I)" 117.196.150.216 (talk) is engaging in an edit war. The user repeatedly reverting edits I did- mainly stylistic but also to make the text more in line with the sources." [Emphasis added].

• By this time 117.196.150.216 (talk) had reverted twice the edits of my IP address (II) 192.76.8.34 and once of my account. This should be sufficient proof that I didn't intend to deceive anyone by editing as an IP address, since I used the word "repeatedly" it is clear I included the IP addresses as me.

Sources:

(I)https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASaint_Thomas_Christians&type=revision&diff=714399135&oldid=686196494

(III) The contributions of 117.196.150.216 (talk): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=117.196.150.216&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2016&month=-1

(II) The contributions of my IP address: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/192.76.8.34 Josslined (talk)"

Statement by Vanjagenije

• This user was edit-warring. Even more, theye were logging-out to avoid detection. I blocked them for three days for this combination of edit warring (they made 4 reverts in about 2 hours) and disruptive logged-out editing (form of sockpuppetry). They claim that they were accidentally logged out, which I have no way to verify. But, even if that was an accident, it would still be an aggravating factor. I still think the 3 day block was appropriate. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by TParis

Recommend Arbs decline this. User:Josslined has only begun taking steps in the dispute resolution part. The next step would be to raise the entire matter at WP:AN and discuss the circumstances of the block which hasn't been done. Also, Josslined needs to show abuse of policy. Their complaint doesn't appear to support that User:Vanjagenije actually violated any policy, but rather that they believe that Vanjagenije isn't flexible enough in applying policy. That's a very subjective complaint.--v/r - TP 23:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Josslined: I'm not going to argue with you about this all day, but I will point out that you will never know, and you can never prove, what Vanjagenije considered. You have no way to prove they didn't consider your block log. They can consider it, and disregard it at the same time and thus fulfill the requirement. Regardless, 3 days is suitable for a first time 3RR violation.--v/r - TP 23:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Josslined: Someday you're going to reflect on this and realize how your last comment sealed the fate of this case request.--v/r - TP 00:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• @NE Ent: I didn't recommend Josslined take it to AN at all. I said that this issue isn't suitable for Arbcom because the case hasn't followed the dispute resolution steps. The next one, of course, would be AN. However, my recommendation would be for Josslined to drop the issue because it's subjective at best and deserved at worse. They aren't going to get anywhere. But, you mistake my first comment as directed at Josslined. It wasn't. It was directed at the Arbs.--v/r - TP 04:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
• @Josslined: Look guy, you're setting yourself up for failure, here. You said that we'd "side with the more powerful admin, without any recourse to the faculty of evidence or reason". That's a charged statement. Because what you're saying is, that no matter what the merits of the case are, if you don't get your way then you're going to blame it on loyalty to the admin. You're going to walk away from this, no matter what the merits are, believing there was a conspiracy against you. And that's a set up, buddy.

  The only person not displaying faculty of reason is yourself. You believe that disagreeing with you isn't a matter of reviewing the evidence, but it a matter of loyalty to the admin. I can tell you right here that I don't know the admin and couldn't give two shits about them. Furthermore, I can tell you that an admin I do care about, Gamaliel (talk · contribs), is currently in an Arb case above and I've criticized his behavior regarding the event. And, I've recently criticized him regarding another unrelated matter to the Arbcase. If anyone on this project is going to side against the admins here, I guarantee you it'd be me. I'm the dissenting voice, generally. I'm the devil's advocate.

  The core of this matter is: you are wrong. You've got a misguided and slanted view of the facts of this case and your righteous cause for your warped sense of justice isn't ringing true on uninvolved bystanders. You have two options: 1) Continue your self-righteous crusade and remain deaf to reason, or 2) realize that the advice and perceptions you're getting from the uninvolved isn't some conspiracy or cabal to circle the wagons around an admin. Your "evidence" isn't evidence. You've got some diffs of the admin discussing the matter with you, and a guideline that says the admin should do something in their own head that you cannot prove has or has not been done.

  So, and I strongly urge you to listen to me, walk away and find something to edit. This isn't going to end badly for Vanjagenije. They didn't break a policy. You've presented your evidence, no one agrees. Either find better evidence or move on. The person this is going to end badly for is you. You can claim that it is an injustice and there are people out there who would agree with you because, frankly, they're going to agree with any rant against an admin on Wikipedia regardless of the facts. And you can join that crew if you want and rail against the admins. But it's not going to serve you well at all. From the perspective of everyone with a bit of reason and sense, you kept beating a dead horse until no one wanted to listen anymore. And you'll be asked, not gently, to leave the project. That's how this ends for you if you keep going. Sorry. Take my advice, find an article to edit.--v/r - TP 05:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Exasperation from NE Ent

At the risk of breaking multiple "Ent rules" -- don't post after enjoying some awesome Stone Brewing Co.#Special_releases, don't antagonize arbitrators when you have a case in the works -- what the heck are you all thinking??? (Tom Paris, GW, Callanecc). "Discuss at AN/ANI" is the wrong answer. This is a one month, 300 edit account -- telling them to take a pissing contest against an admin to AN is the wiki-equivalent of telling a kid to go play in traffic... what did you think is going to happen there??? Josslined at least has the explanation of being a newbie to the surreal world of Wiki land -- your advice is total WP:BITE. (Since I've only had one of those IPAs, I'll toss in I get ya'll are reacting out of wiki procedural habit, rather than malice, but still ...) NE Ent 03:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Darwinian Ape

Wikipedia needs editors, not the other way around. Wikipedia guidelines and policies are created in such way to reflect this fact. Sanctions should be preventative and not as punishments, and while the policies and guidelines are really great, people who enforce those are sometimes less than great. I don't see Josslined, as a new editor, getting any advise or even enough warning before the block.(the length of the block is irrelevant, it makes the editor feel not welcomed in WP)

Vanjagenije should reread WP:BITE which is based on one of the pillars of Wikipedia. Here they seem to be suggesting Ignorantia juris non excusat, while the Wikipedia policy is the opposite. The only one who seems to get the frustration of Joss seems to be Ent, who advises him to forget the treatment he got and move on. While it is a sound advice, I believe this is an example of how newcomers feel when they try to contribute in good faith and immediately met with WP:ALPHABETSOUP answers and blocks. This attitude is systemic and has a serious negative effect on Wikipedia. Darwinian Ape ^talk 14:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved SSTflyer

Recommend arbs decline per WP:TOOSOON. SSTflyer 10:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Newyorkbrad

Although clearly this matter is not destined for an arbitration case, administrators should bear in mind that blocking is a blunt instrument, especially when relatively new editors are concerned.

An edit-war over article content can be perceived as a problem. I certainly agree that the wiki model of content creation will not work if edit-warring is routine.

On the other hand, given the ever-present concern about how we bring in and keep new contributors, often an edit-war is also an opportunity: it means that two or more people are very interested in the contents of an article, and in having it reflect what they understand to be the correct facts. Where the editors appear to be participating in good faith (I am not speaking of blatantly dubious edits), an administrator may choose to remind the editors of how best to resolve the edit-war: by engaging in constructive discussion, bringing additional sources to bear, or perhaps by moving away from the disputed passage or article for a time and focusing on related contributions that could be made elsewhere.

Sometimes, a sincere edit-war between two good-faith, newish users may mean that there are two potential long-term Wikipedians who have temporarily lost sight, or have not yet found sight, of the best way to make contributions and resolve disagreements. Philosophically, we can work to acclimate these people to an understanding of our expectations for editors, or we can adopt a "sink-or-swim" model where editors learn from being blocked that certain behavior must be avoided. As a project, for years we have claimed we adhere to the former model. Sometimes-rigid enforcement of 3RR is a conspicuous exception to this, and I am not sure why this is so. I will not say that blocking should be a last resort in this or similar situations, but I certainly agree with Darwinian Ape that it should rarely be a first resort.

I expect that when Vanjagenije was initially looking into this, he saw the logged-out editing as an aggravating factor. Logging out to avoid scrutiny is indeed prohibited (see, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/International Churches of Christ#Sockpuppetry and IP editing). But I do not understand the comment that even if Josslined's statement that he logged out inadvertently is believed, it is still an aggravating factor.

There is not going to be an arbitration case here, but I hope that administrators who handle AN3 reports will carefully consider these thoughts. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2016 (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).

• Notified Vanjagenije and took the liberty of reformatting a bit so it's easier on the eyes. Kharkiv07 (T) 23:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
• Recuse; I was the clerk who recommended some sort of block at the SPI. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  • (For the avoidance of doubt, I'm recusing as an ArbCom clerk based on my actions as an SPI clerk.) Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Improper Administration by Vanjagenije: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/8/0/0>

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

• Decline This is not yet ready for arbitration as earlier steps in the dispute resolution process (either WP:AN or WP:ANI) have not been attempted. In any case there doesn't appear to be an abuse of admin tools which would require ArbCom to step in, but rather a disagreement over the way (subjective) they are applied which would be much better discussed by the community. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
• Decline --kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
• Decline. I'm also not seeing admin tool misuse that would require ArbCom to handle this. Given that there is currently a discussion at ANI about this incident, I think the best way forward is to allow that discussion to continue and decline this case request. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
• Decline I think this is over. Doug Weller talk 15:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
• Decline as premature, per Callanecc. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
• Decline per Callanecc. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
• Decline as premature/hopefully over. Keilana (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
• Decline per Keilana. Courcelles (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• Decline per not yet. Drmies (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• Decline not at this juncture --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)