Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by YellowMonkey (talk | contribs) at 23:38, 28 February 2007 (→‎Clerk notes: c). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Ongoing problems surrounding Yasuke   16 September 2024 4/0/0
[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.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/How-to

Current requests

2004 Madrid train bombings

Initiated by Southofwatford at 20:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Igor21 [[1]]

Randroide [[2]]

Larean01 [[3]]

Raystorm [[4]]

Burgas00 [[5]]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Attempt to create new neutral main article [[6]]

Attempted RFC [[7]]

Attempted request for mediation 1 [[8]]

Attempted request for mediation 2 [[9]]

Latest RFC [[10]]

Statement by Southofwatford

The articles on the 2004 Madrid train bombings , together with its subsidiary article, Aftermath of the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings, have been subject to a lengthy dispute that has been running since July last year. It is difficult to summarise all issues in such a long dispute. The key question in the dispute has been the treatment to be given to conspiracy theories concerning the Madrid bombings. There are also important but secondary issues, most notably the acceptability of sources for information concerning the bombings. Although each user has their own opinions, the main division of opinion is between those who believe that the main article should not be dominated by discussion of these theories, and one user who supports the conspiracy theories and who believes they should be given at least equal weight.

We currently have a situation where the disputed nature of the affected article is not being respected [[11]], [[12]], and since the New Year the dispute has deteriorated sharply as a result of this. A continuation of things as they are at the moment makes the outbreak of an edit war at some point very probable; as we have a situation where one user wants to carry out unilateral and disputed changes, whilst all others involved in the dispute have voluntarily avoided any significant editing of the article while attempts to resolve the dispute are made. In the end such a situation becomes unsustainable as the article continues to shift towards the point of view of a single party to the dispute. Also, articles tangentially related to the subject are being “infected” by insertion of POV material concerning the conspiracy theories in an attempt to circumvent the dispute, leading to multiple references to the same issues appearing in different places.

I have tried to launch two mediation processes and one RfC, none of these have got off the ground. Prior to this there was a significant effort made to find a wording for a neutral main article that would permit the separation of the conspiracy theories and other controversial issues into a separate article; this effort was also unsuccessful despite getting close to a reasonable conclusion. I have reached the conclusion that arbitration is needed to settle the key issues, a point of view endorsed by an administrator who has been witness to the dispute [[13]]. In my opinion the article as it currently stands is simply not useful as a reference on the bombings and associated events. Despite very substantial edits, and the addition of more recent information, it is in many ways in a worse state than the version which existed 12 months ago. Unfortunately, the politicisation of the bombings in Spain has led to the English account of the train bombings being targeted as a political platform.

Let me add a brief comment on the question raised by jpgordon - the key issue at the heart of the dispute is the treatment of the conspiracy theories within the article(s). If it becomes an issue of particular users it is because we have been unable to reach any solution to the dispute - Randroide has resisted any solution which does not give equal (or greater) weight within the article to the conspiracy theories. Southofwatford 19:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Randroide

No RfC not RfM was ever presented: We only had sterile discussions about the issue at the talk page.

I ask for User:Gimferrer and User:Dr Debug to be listed as involved parties.

I ask for Southofwatord´s contributions to be seen.

ABOUT 2004 Madrid train bombings

The article as it was 12 months ago:
  • Randroide (me)
  • New sources inserted into the article by Randroide (me): Forty five sources

[15][16] [17][18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60]

    • New sources inserted by Randroide (me) but provided (at the talk page) by other users:
Provided by Igor21 [61][62]
Provided by Southofwatford [63]
  • Sources deleted by Randroide (me): None.
  • Unsourced statements pasted into the article by Randroide (me): None

ABOUT Aftermath of the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings

The article was tagged as "unsourced" in August 2006 [64].
Southofwatford tagged the article as "total dispute" in September 2006 [65], with the purpose (his own words) of providing a light level of protection [66].
In January 2007 I, Randroide, tagged +50 unsourced blocks of text [67][68]
The subsequent discussion with Southofwatford is here: This is the place to see how far you can go with discussion and consensus with Southofwatford, even in a clear-cut issue as the deletion of unsourced text.
In February 2007 I, Randroide, hided the unsourced statements [69]
Southofwatford reintroduced the +50 blocks of unsourced text, thrice [70][71][72]
  • New sources inserted into the article by Southofwatford: None.
  • New sources inserted into the article by Randroide (me): One [73]
  • Unsourced statements pasted into the article by Randroide (me): None.

Randroide 20:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {username}

Clerk notes

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

Falun Gong

Initiated by Olaf Stephanos at 23:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

A message has been left on the talk pages of all involved parties. [74] Olaf Stephanos 00:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware, comment below. --Asdfg12345 01:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Arbitration was sought for the Falun Gong articles earlier, but ArbCom refused the case. This time we're not dealing with a content dispute. This editor has repeatedly violated fundamental Wikipedia policies, and now it's time to get somebody else's word on that.

Statement by Olaf Stephanos

(truncated version, about 500 words)

Samuel Luo, an anti-Falun Gong activist, has made few contributions that comply with Wikipedia's core principles. He has demonstrated his inability or unwillingness to constructively discuss his edits with other users; furthermore, he has never expressed any repentance for his disruptive editing behaviour. The comments left on the discussion pages, the large number of misleading edit summaries, the negligence of appeals for discussion (there have been a few attempts, but they are consistently void of cooperative mentality), and his own statements of his advocacy support our case.

It is patent that Samuel's mission has never been to create a neutral encyclopedia article but, instead, to use Wikipedia for promoting his agenda. He has sought to turn the Falun Gong articles into an extension of his own anti-Falun Gong website. Samuel's reckless behaviour has been the principal trigger of edit wars on these pages. Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions#Neutral point of view (and associated principles) provides a good description of the current situation: "Aggressive point-of-view editing can produce widespread reactions as editors attempt to combat an outbreak of it, mobilizing others to join the fray. While this creates the appearance of disorder, it is better seen as an attempt to deal with a refractory problem." I've repeatedly told everyone that I don't oppose to any material that conforms to Wikipedia standards. We're not seeking arbitration for the Falun Gong articles per se, but before we can have a successful mediation case, patent vandalism needs to be uprooted. Samuel has been blocked five times already, so we're dealing with a noted troublemaker.

Given his strong opinions and a large personal interest in this issue, we do not think that Samuel will be leaving the project for good. However, an official intervention might be the only thing that makes him realize how he needs to mend his approach. In truth, he will be forgiven if he repents his latest series of violations, constructively adds his own edits while respecting WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:Verifiability, and promises that he will do no more lawless blanking. We want to edit these articles according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines without constantly having to ward off harassment and anarchy. It has come to this after one year of full-blown chaos; we have now compiled the evidence and ask ArbCom to evaluate it. For the sake of convenience, we'll simply expose a few egregious examples from each month, even though Samuel's edit history is studded with similar behaviour.

We suggest that the latest series of edits occurring in early-mid February is examined thoroughly. They are a good reflection of a general trend. Blanking material from human rights organizations and peer-reviewed journals is a common pattern in Samuel's edits. Usually the edit summaries he leaves behind are highly misleading: he might have claimed to "add a quote", even though most of the edit consists of blanking large sections of sourced material. He also tends to infuse his text with obvious weasel words and "novel narratives" not backed up by sources; their removal has frequently lead into revert wars. Here's just a handful of examples of Samuel's edits: [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81] (an administrator removes Samuel's personal website, Samuel reverts). If the ArbCom is willing to look into this case, I can provide a clear, concise and illustrative list of Samuel's noteworthy violations in reverse chronological order.

Statement by Asdfg12345

Final version, culled, per request. Now 492 words.

Agree with the essence of Olaf's note. Samuel has been a persistent and unrepentively disruptive editor since he began editing. His violations of wikipedia core policies are extensive and egregious. He provides very little useful material for discussion and often leaves misleading and/or highly hypocritical edit summaries. This, long term, obviously leaves other contributors in a helpless situation. He has been sanctioned in the past. Please be assured that this description is not exaggerated -- the evidence stands for itself. Some of the content Samuel has included, for example on the Li Hongzhi (founder of Falun Dafa) page, has often come directly from his personal website, which he has repeatedly reverted deletions of, also violating WP:LIVING: compare this to Samuel's personal website (note this is just an example, not a very good one, that the content is taken straight from his site.) There are more of these examples -- the edits tell the story well enough.

If still relevant, I want to respond to Tomananda but to do no more than clarify the situation and quote myself as the words actually appear on the Talk page:

I will continue to remove all edits which misrepresent Falun Dafa and force a POV on wikipedia.--Asdfg12345 11:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC) -- I hearby solemnly declare that the previous post does not accurately express my intentions, heart and attitude toward editing on wikipedia. I now retract this statement and apologise for any confusion or miscommunication, as it was not intentional. My statement of intent and understanding of my role on wikipedia are more fully and accurately expressed in a later post. --Asdfg12345 16:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I struck through my brash comment, apologised and explained myself the next day.

Some more things: this is not about retribution. If Samuel recanted his latest series of violations and started working in accordance with wikipedia's principles, stopped blanking etc., I would not have any more interest in this request. Samuel is automatically forgiven. Of course, I did not initiate this request. Regarding my edits and understanding of wikipedia, I would say there is probably a great deal of naivity in the early days, both in editing and talk page discussions. I am acutely aware of this, though I have never done anything like large scale blanking of sourced content. I have always explained myself, invited and engaged in (sometimes rather lively!) discussion, and the only stuff I have ever removed and challenged is (of course, what I understand to be) tendentious. In the end I would say I have become mostly enmeshed in abstruse content disputes, and there is a very clear and qualitative difference between that and what we are talking about here. Also, as a side note, I think there are some editors involved in this suffering from a bad case of m:MPOV.--Asdfg12345 21:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Tomananda

Asdfg has a history of blanking. It’s outrageous that he and Olaf would now initiate an action against Samuel, who is as much a victim of the Falun Gong as he is an "activist". I was happy that Asdfg stopped blanking sometime in February, but apparently that was for the purpose of preparing a "case" against Samuel.

There is a long history of blanking, deceptively identified edits, and POV warrioring by Asdfg, Omido, Dilip and others. Those violations can be documented going back to Spring, 2006. But does it really make sense for us to go down this road? Everything Samuel has done he has done in good faith, and often in response to a barrage of edits done by multiple Falun Gong practitioners working in concert.

If this case is accepted, unfairly singling out Samuel, I will document how the violations done by Falun Gong practitioners far exceed any violations Samuel may have done. The practitioners delete material they consider negative, even direct quotes from their master who demands that they not talk about his teachings at the higher levels with “ordinary people.” Yet we seem to have made some progress with the mediator and I think that should continue. --Tomananda 09:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy in General: Yes, Samuel and I share the same "machine." That fact was fully disclosed here [82]. Rather than raising this non-issue, we should be talking about the systematic campaign of deception that you and other Falun Gong practitioners have engaged in on these Wikipedia pages.

Response to Asdfg: The history is all there for anyone to read; I didn’t think it was necessary to recreate all that history when I reported your declaration of POV warrioring. Here’s a more complete picture of what happened:

From the Talk Page, Falun Gong

  • Asdfg: 6 February Main Page Talk: “If you swear off introducing fallacious material, I’ll swear off blanking it.”
  • Fire Star: 6 February “The problem is, it is your opinion that the material is fallacious.”
  • Asdfg: 16:50 February 6: “I hereby solemnly declare that the previous post does not accurately express my intentions.”

Next day on the Epoch Times page

  • Asdfg: 1:49 7 February ... Asdfg blanked material which relies on direct quotes from Master Li Hongzhi:

A mini edit-war ensued, done by both “sides” of FG debate, including Tomananda. Within that context, Asdfg continued to blank the Li Hongzhi material:

  • 1:27 8 February
  • 19:16 9 February
  • 1:08 10 February

Next, on February 11th, Asdfg reverted his own edit saying "I recant. You win.”

Some conclusions:

  • Asdfg continued blanking material he considered “fallacious” after he “solemnly sweared” that his previous post did not accurately reflect his real intentions.
  • Asdfg had a mysterious change of heart on February 11th.
  • Around this time, Asdfg, working with other Falun Gong practitioners, prepared an arbitration case against Samuel.
  • Among the major obstacles to agreement between the two sides of the Falun Gong edit wars is whether Wikipedia should report Li’s own teachings “at the higher levels” which include the idea that his disciples, as a condition for their salvation during this period of Fa-rectification, must work to destroy the CCP. --Tomananda 09:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HappyInGeneral

Both Samuel and Tormananda share the same machine, IP, so how much of their activities are Sock puppetry is unknown. Both of them have a strong agenda and both of them ignore parts of a logical reasoning getting back to the same old propaganda style accusation of Falun Gong. See here Talk:The_Epoch_Times#Li_says_The_Dafa_is_judging_all_beings, and here Talk:The_Epoch_Times#.22advertises_itself_as_a_qigong_practice.22; these being just the latest examples which I encountered without doing any research on this. I think that the case presented by Olaf is on good grounds, because since we are on Wikipedia we should respect some of the rules, especially when dealing with a lengthy content debate. Having a list by with all Wikipedia Policy violations done on the Falun Gong related pages is fine by me, and actually I would really like to see it. --HappyInGeneral 13:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jsw663

Oppose ArbCom action not because of relevance, but because not all dispute resolution steps have been tried sufficiently. I am aware that on exceptional grounds some users may be banned directly despite this, but this case is not that simple.

Mediation has nearly been impossible for Falun Gong-related pages. There have been content edit wars for years now. This case against Samuel by one camp is part of a wider picture - that two main camps (pro- and anti-FG) have been engaged in edit wars for years, and have sought to ban each other from Wikipedia in order to impose a POV edit of what is going on. There is a third camp that has sadly not had too much effect, which is trying to restore order and to focus editors on writing NPOV articles. This includes mediators, of which Armedblowfish is now the one, who is trying to reach compromise. Like the mediator Armedblowfish, I share the opinion that this ArbCom case does not help in reaching a final version.

Accepting this ArbCom case could also mean a flood of cases against pro-FG users. This is because they also have an agenda - to see that no critical content (or excessively little critical content) of anything to do with Falun Gong is on Wikipedia pages, including a disproportionate number of the anti-FG camp be banned so that their pro-FG POV can be enforced. Violations of Wikipedia policies have been tolerated in spite of their actions PRECISELY BECAUSE we want a finalized version of the Falun Gong-related page article. This is why greater tolerance has been urged.

It has already been established that Samuel Luo and Tomananda are different people in previous cases. Thus the sockpuppetry allegation by Happy In General above holds little water, unless the ArbCom is willing to overturn an administrator/sysop decision it made before.

So to put it in perspective, also look at pro-Falun Gong users like Omido whose actions have been infinitely worse than Samuel's edits. Andres18, another pro-FG editor, has condemned me for bringing a mediation (not arbitration) case against Omido who engaged in mass section blanking and absolutely no discussion, including announcing his intention of ensuring only a POV version was on Wikipedia. This shows his bias by the pro-FG camp in affecting the equality of application of Wiki policies too, saying we should clampdown on Samuel's actions but not Andres18's or Omido's. This is why I oppose on the grounds that not all dispute resolution steps have been taken to a sufficient degree as laid out by policies for bringing cases to the ArbCom. Launching an ArbCom case merely to seek someone else's view (see Olaf's reason in the Confirmation that Other forms of Dispute Resolution have been Tried) is clearly not valid. A third-party view can be sought on that, and does not need to waste the ArbCom's time for something so petty. Jsw663 15:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS As a side note, and in partial response to Asdfg, the MPOV tag can also apply to all the pro-FG editors who insist their view is neutral now since they suddenly became the "masters" of Wikipedia policy enforcement. It is important to re-establish when rules should be adhered to, and when they are merely being abused by parties to enforce their POV edit. Jsw663 14:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mcconn

I've noticed a process for most regular editors. When they first start editing they aren't aware of the rules or principles of wikipedia and naturally make edits in violation of them, but as time goes on they learn more about these rules and begin to edit more in compliance with them. I've been working on the Falun Gong pages since before Samuel started editing, so I've been around to witness his whole development as an editor. There is a big difference between Samuel and the other editors who have been involved in editing these pages for some time, which is that others have developed in this regard while Samuel hasn't at all. With regard to his talk page behavior, edit summaries, and general attitude, the others in support of this case have already said it well. Overall, I think that an editor like Samuel needs a wake-up call like this to get him on the right track. Moreover, I think that this "wake-up call" would do well to encourage others involved with these pages to be more mindful of their own behavior. With regards to what Jsw and Tomanada have said about others being equally suited for a case like this, I highly disagree. There are no other editors currently involved as regularly as Sam who have a track record anywhere near as bad as his. Mcconn 16:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Samuel Luo

To keep this short I am not going to respond to Olaf’s statement point by point but just state my objection to this action.

I began editing the Falun Gong page on March 23, 2006. My first edit was on the Falun Gong talk page proposing to add sourced material. I respect Wiki editing principles and the opinion of fellow editors. However, quickly, I found that there was, and still is, a group of Falun-Gong-practitioner-editors (here after, FGers) on Wikipedia trying to prevent anyone from exposing the group’s concealed core teachings and critical comments from western critics by blanking. On April 2, 2006, after only a week, I had to post a message objecting to FGers blanking on the talk page.

Unfortunately, FGers have continued to blank sourced material without any consequences. It was under that influence that I too became more aggressive. In the past year, I was blocked a few times, sometimes fairly and sometimes unfairly. As a result I have come to respect Wiki editing rules. In my last edit conflict with FGers I provided a list explaining my edits on the talk page. I have also tried to initiate a dialogue with FGers to work out our dispute. Despite my repeated attempts, I was ignored and am now met with this complaint.

There has been a series of edit-wars on Falun Gong pages, for months we have been begging for a formal mediation. This action against me comes at a time that Armedblowfish is making progress in resolving our disputes. [83] It seems to me that this action is intentionally taken to derail the work of the mediator. Sure enough, as a result of the filing of this complaint Armedblowfish has announced officially putting the mediation on hold.[84]

A request for Arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution, because the filing of this complaint interrupts the mediation work in progress. I do not believe it should be accepted. I urge you not to accept this case not because I am guilty of anything, but rather because this complaint does not address the fundamental problem of the dispute on Falun Gong pages.

If this case is accepted I will provide a argument to defend myself and if the committee rules that I am not suitable for editing Wikipedia, I have no problem with leaving. As Wikipedia editors, we are all volunteers. While FGers are working hard on these Falun Gong pages because their master has promised them eternal salvation, I am here with a desire to stop this group of editors from turning these Wikipedia pages into propaganda for their cult. --Samuel Luo 01:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see the change of the title to Falun Gong; even thought I may still be scrutinized, but because this case looks into the behaviors of editors on both sides, I now also urge the Arbcom to accept this case. --Samuel Luo 20:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

State by Yueyuen

This is absurd. Falun Gong editors have routinely blanked sourced material. They have violated many more Wiki rules many times over than Samuel has ever did. Samuel's parents are both falun gong practitioners and because of that he has done serious researches on this group. Samuel has contributed a lot to making these articles educational for the public. For his contribution he is hated by falun gong editors and they have singled him out.

falun gong people have left hateful messages on samuel's talk page. The following was post just two weeks ago: "Fuck you Samuel Luo, may yuo rot in hell motherfucker."[85] I don't believe accepting this case would do anything to resolve the problem on FLG articles. --Yueyuen 03:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved user Penwhale

One has to realize that FLG is itself a controversial topic. Unfortunately, this does not help the fact that we have to maintain neutrality (which is one of the pillar of Wikipedia). Based on the action-reaction, I propose a rename of the case to Falun Gong which is more appropriate, as I believe we need to look at actions from both sides, based on personal attacks towards Samuel. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 09:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by more-or-less currently uninvolved user Miborovsky

I used to be active on this page but have since given up. Arbitrators, please be aware that this is NOT a case on a single user, but a case on the entire plethora of FLG-related pages and articles. As such, this case WILL be used as "evidence" favoring inclusion of POV material and WILL hugely affect the "balance of power" heretofore more-or-less precariously maintained. This is a political case, NOT a user conduct case. -- 我♥中國 20:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Notices being placed on talkpages for the offending users to shorten their statements by tomorrow or a Clerk will do so. Newyorkbrad 01:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. Essjay (Talk) 01:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/1/0)

Requests for clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process. Place new requests at the top.

Clarification regarding the Bogdanov Affair

Yes, the thorn-in-the-side returns! Three sock puppets — Bester (talk · contribs), Stern (talk · contribs) and Tron (talk · contribs) — have in the last three days vandalized the Bogdanov Affair article, subject of a 2005 ArbCom ruling. All of their accounts are older, in contrast to the one-shot sockpuppet accounts created to muck with that article earlier, but they have been inactive for a long time (Bester since 3 July 2005, Stern since 2 August 2006 and Tron since 26 February 2004). Edit mannerisms (diff, [86]) are similar or identical to the sockpuppets encountered last year (such as these).

Samuel Blanning (talk · contribs) and I both suspect that these may be compromised accounts. In that light, I'd like to request an emendation of the enforcement decision which currently states the following:

New user accounts and anonymous IPs which focus on editing of Bogdanov Affair shall be presumed to be participants in the external dispute and, despite not being specifically mentioned in this remedy, are subject to it.

Is it possible to amend this statement so that it also applies to user accounts which have been inactive a significant length of time (say, greater than six months) and which may be compromised, particularly if they exhibit the same editing behavior as known offenders? These are, I should add, very predictable puppets. Anville 22:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to add: Sam Blanning has created a long-term abuse entry for this matter, which see. Anville 23:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been operating under the assumption that previous rulings, e.g. RFAR/Iasson: One user or several? (a ruling repeated in other cases which I don't remember offhand), allow for the blocking of such compromised accounts, but a change to the wording of the specific case would be appreciated. Only place I disagree with Anville is that I don't think it would be a good idea to include a time limit ("greater than six months") in the amended ruling. The length of time isn't the giveaway, it's the fact that these accounts first display none of the characteristics, then they fall dormant, then they suddenly spring up as Bogdasocks. I wouldn't like to be in a situation where the fact that the account had been compromised would be as obvious as in the case of Bester, but it only fell dormant five months ago.
Arbcom rulings are generally slow to change and risky to ignore, so the Arbcom shouldn't, in my opinion, seek to set out exactly how administrators may act to fight a specific abuser once they've ruled that they need to be dealt with - whether a particular account has been compromised should be left up to the judgement of administrators and the community in general on a case-by-case basis. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Sam Blanning's comments and upon further reflection, I've struck out the "six months" part of my remark. Anville 23:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification regarding a self-identified pedophile

A few days ago, Arbitration Committee member Raul654 had written in response to my querry regarding self-idenitifed pedophiles, (in part) that:

If someone is still editing as a self-identified pedophile, that would seem to me to be a violation of our ruling that people should not bring the project into disrepute. [87]

User:Clayboy (Contributions) writes on his user page that "I self-identify as a "boylover"; a pedophile and an ephebophile." My question is: whether it is within my discretion as an administrator to block Clayboy's account indefinitely and direct him to create a new account in which he refrains from self-identifying himself as a pedophile (and by extension, linking himself to his prior account)? El_C 16:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on Parole violations

Refer to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier

No time limit is given for the Parole violations. Am I correct to assume that this ends when the article ban ends as well? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parole is generally indefinite unless otherwise stated. However, that decision is oddly worded compared to recent cases. I'd guess that since more than three months have passed, you should make a formal request to lift the revert parole. Thatcher131 22:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does not appear that any revert paroles were actually passed in this case. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier/Proposed decision#Revert parole. (The majority in this case was 6.) Recent precedent is that an enforcement provision that remains in the decision as an artifact of a remedy proposal that was not passed, but has no adopted remedy to enforce, is to be disregarded. Compare Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Konstable/Proposed decision#Implementation notes. Given the prior difficulties you encountered, you might be well-advised to abide by the proposed parole limitations voluntarily if you intend to resume editing the relevant article. However, if you wish, clarification can be requested from the arbitrators on this issue, or perhaps they will comment here. Newyorkbrad 03:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The revert parole didn't pass, only the mooted enforcement for if it had passed. TDC is on parole from this case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Depleted_uranium#TDC_placed_on_revert_parole, and that expires May 6, 2007. Dmcdevit·t 03:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had actually wondered about that. There appears to be a discrepancy in the decision. In the “Proposed Remedies”, there appeared to be no consensus on a Revert Parole [88], then in the Proposed Enforcement section there is unanimous support for a “Parole violations” [89]. The “Parole violations” also appears in the final decision. So now we have several questions.
1. Why is there a discrepancy between the proposed decision and proposed enforcement?
2. What does this discrepancy mean, if anything.
3. What is the expiration date, if any of the “RV Parole”?
Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From the Winter Soldier case, a revert parole was proposed but failed. See here. Therefore the enforcement proposal does not take effect, there being nothing to enforce. (It probably should have been left off the page.) There is no revert parole from the Winter Soldier case.
However, a general one-revert parole was approved in the Depleted Uranium case, see here. As stated, you are limited to one content revert per article per day, for a duration of one year from the date the case was closed (6 May 2006). Thatcher131 16:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to be obtuse here, but there is a discrepancy, and the final decision does lay out a provision for Rv Patrol, and has a unanimous passing vote. I was confused about this at the time as well. I am seeking clarification because the anonymous user has returned. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Well, you can't enforce something that doesn't pass. There were 10 active arbitrators on the Winter Soldier case, so a majority is 6. The proposed 1RR parole on the anonymous editor had a vote of 5-2 here, so it didn't pass. Unfortunately, this mean that now that the one year ban is over, the anonymous editor can revert more than you can, because of your parole in the subsequent DU case. That certainly seems unfair, particularly if the anon editor is continuing to revert war. I can only suggest that you try one of the following; ask for semi-protection at WP:RFPP, try to get some admins to watch the page for you, use RFC to demonstrate that your version has consensus, or file a request to reopen the Winter Soldier case, showing that the anon editor is back and is continuing the same behavior. Good luck. Thatcher131 16:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Thatcher's opinion above: the Winter Soldier revert parole did not pass (to my disappointment), so discussion of its enforcement is nugatory; once the Depleted Uranium revert parole expires, TDC's revert rate is capped only by the 3RR (which is an electric fence, not an entitlement). ➥the Epopt 16:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The anon is back, but has an account now. I filed a checkuser, and it indicated that it was likely that the new user was also the anon. The edits are not taking place on the same article, but a related one. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is always the usual dispute resolution process, at the end of which, if the editor is still disruptive, is arbitration. You could try filing an arbitration case now; acceptance would depend on whether the arbitrators agree that the editor's previous pass through arbitration and current behavior are enough to demonstrate the futility of running through the whole DR process from the beginning. Thatcher131 18:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Thatcher and The Epopt. However, one can approach the Arbcom, or even AN/I, if disruptive behaviors that were once under Arbcom sanction recur, and the process for getting those sanctions re-applied or even extended are often much less formal and quicker. Jayjg (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make and vote on such motions. Other editors may comment on the talk page)


Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=111698289"