Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Picaroon (talk | contribs) at 00:22, 13 May 2007 (→‎Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0): count). 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
Anachronist   16 June 2024 0/5/0
Rio Grande 223   19 June 2024 0/1/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
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
Motion name Date posted
Block of Rp2006 18 June 2024

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/How-to

Current requests

Abu badali

Initiated by Jord at 17:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Jord

User:Abu badali repeatedly tags non-free images for deletion even when a fair use justification exists and has been confirmed as being in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines by all interested parties who have discussed as such on the page. In at least one case, he deleted all of the source justification on a page and listed it for speedy deletion, as a minor edit, and the image later had to be undeleted by an administrator (Jord's request for undeletion, response). [This particular image was retagged again for speedy deletion by Abu badali shortly before this arbitration request was made and deleted after the request was posted - Jord 20:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)][reply]

When other Wikipedians question these activities, User:Abu badali has undertaken wikistalking and harrassment of the complaintants (see here for an example of him doing it to on admins talk page) and mass-tagged all of those users images for deletion.

As a result of these activities, an RfC was started re: User:Abu badali approximately six months ago. User:Abu badali has refused to respond to this RfC despite being aware of it since at least 19 December 2006 when he edited his user page to mock it.

We request that User:Abu badali be banned from editing for a period of time and his activities monitored after that period to ensure he does not continue his unacceptable activity.

Statement by Abu badali

I will briefly comment on the topics in Jord's statement.

  1. About my "repeatedly taggings", diffs would be welcome. There are more than one reason a image may be deleted. Probably those taggings were for different reasons.
  2. About deleting "all of the source justification", a diff is welcome. I can't think of a reason to do that (unless for bogus source info).
  3. About speedy deletions, I tagged with {{db-i7}} images that were tagged as replaceable for weeks but were never reviewed by admins. I stand to my actions.
  4. The "wikistalking and harrassment" link is actually a link for a discussion where admin Theresa knott accuses me of stalking and I rebut the accusation. I stand to my actions and words in that case and I have nothing to add.
  5. "As a result of these activities, an RfC was started..." - Not quite. The RFC is anterior to all these activities. It was started for reasons that are unclear to discover per the confusion in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abu badali#Statement of the dispute.
  6. About "mocking the rfc" in my user page... The statements on my user page shouldn't be taken seriously unless you're prepared to accept the fact that I am a Tenebrist character in my real life. For the record, I have "mocked" my failed RFA as well. But if this is really a problem, I can remove theses statements, or add a "this is no serious" warning.

I believe that, if accepted, this ARB case is a greate opportunity to clean up the mess at my RFC. Unfortunately, there isn't enough room here for citing 10% of it's problems.

Best regards, --Abu badali (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Reformatted. Jord may speak for himself, but generally we don't have joint statements. The other parties may make their own statements or endorse Jord's in their own sections. Thatcher131 18:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also shortened the case name. Newyorkbrad 18:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Side note: the image in question that Jord was requesting undelete is currently deleted based on replaceable fair use, which is disputed. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 08:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)

AACS encryption key controversy

Initiated by --Rodzilla (talk) at 20:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Rodzilla

Administrator Thebainer is abusing his powers in order to unilaterally exert his opinion in an edit war on the article AACS_encryption_key_controversy as it relates to Image:HD_DVD_Night_Digg_Frontpage_Screenshot_before_rose_blog_post_censored.png. He engaged in an edit war and unnecessary speedy-deletion of a consensus-accepted image[1][2][3][4] and full-protected both the image page and the article page. Other administrators have since unprotected the image page, but not the article page. He made no efforts to reach consensus on the article's talk page and still has not done so. Many of the editors who have commented are in agreement that his actions are unwarranted and abusive. All of his discussion has been circular and repetitive, and he seems unwilling to accept or even consider another's point of view (see the discussion on his talk page, in which he continually repeats himself without considering new POV's).

Statement by Seraphimblade

While I do disagree with Bainer's actions in this case, I think arbitration is premature here. We just suffered a massive spamming campaign with that key, so I don't think a bit of an itchy trigger finger on his part is a tremendous error in judgment. He's been willing to discuss the matter, I'd sure like to give that, at least, a go before starting any arbitration. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Konekoniku

I think the facts of the case here stand for themselves, and Rodzilla's summary of the issues is very thorough. I would like to raise some additional points, however. In this case, Thebainer himself has admitted that the Wikimedia Foundation has taken no stance on this issue. Therefore he is acting entirely upon his own judgment on the matter, and not the judgment of the Wikimedia Foundation. Moreover, he has refused to even discuss the issue on the AACS_encryption_key_controversy talkpage, as multiple people (including many admins) have invited him to do. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, he himself admits that he is following no official Wikipedia procedure either, but is rather explicitly going "out of process" (his own quoted words from the discussion above) and therefore intentionally violating standing Wikipedia policies and procedures. I therefore believe this is as clear an example of admin abuse as it gets. Konekoniku 21:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: With regards to what Raul654 has written, I do not believe we are asking ArbCom to make a policy decision as to whether or not posting the key is permissible (as such a policy decision would probably be beyond the remit of ArbCom anyway), but whether or not Thebainer's actions were/are acceptable. (Of course, it's possible that these two issues are inseparable.) Konekoniku 04:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment: In response to what arbitrators User:Paul_August and User:Mackensen have posted, I agree that no further penalty than a reprimand is warranted. However, I do request that ArbCom does formally make a ruling to this effect and issue such a reprimand in order to set a clear example for future editors/administrators who may be tempted to apply similar abuses of power in similar situations. Nor is this a hypothetical danger either, as evidenced by User:Ned_Scott's recent actions as described in User:MrMacMan's statement.Konekoniku 08:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bryan Derksen

I'm in broad agreement with the above statements, both that Thebainer's acting inappropriately (good intentions perhaps but really bad implementation) and that arbitration is also a bit premature. However, if things do continue as they've been going in my brief interaction with him so far I can see this becoming a significant problem. My own involvement so far has been limited to a single unprotection (the image page) and several requests on talk pages for there to be a substantive dialog about the image, I'd have preferred to give that more of a chance first and perhaps post at the administrator's notice board for more eyeballs as the next step. But since we're here now perhaps the needed dialog can be made to happen this way instead. Bryan Derksen 21:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since my statement above a new copy of the image in question has since been uploaded at Image:HD DVD Night Digg Frontpage before rose blog post screenshot.png, a contested speedy delete request for it has been made with arguments similar to those involving Thebainer, and an edit war has erupted at the main article over its inclusion. I'm starting to think this arbitration request may not be so premature after all, discussion and consensus appears very hard to achieve right now. Bryan Derksen 08:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by David Gerard

I've been watching this one closely (article editing! it's fun!) and unlocked the article (back to semi-protected). Edit-warring up to 3RR then locking the article on one's preferred version is, um, just not the right thing without an excellent justification afterwards. We don't even have a DMCA notice, and I doubt we'll get one. Also, The Number has been on es:wp since Saturday 17:50, and I notified the Foundation about it the moment it was up and no-one's seen fit to panic. This was unnecessary and not effective, even in a good cause - David Gerard 22:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as an editor on the article, I would ask only that Thebainer not do this again and it be left at that. Admins do sometimes have to do stuff because it's damn well right, even if I disagree this particular action of his was necessary - David Gerard 23:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kaldari

Per discussions at Talk:AACS_encryption_key_controversy#Digg_screenshot_note, I restored the image Image:HD DVD Night Digg Frontpage Screenshot before rose blog post.png that Thebainer had deleted out of process. I also left a note on Thebainer's talk page explaining why I restored it. Thebainer then deleted the image again without any meaningful discussion. I have left two separate polite messages on Thebainer's talk page, neither of which have been responded to. I have no interest in wheel-warring with Thebainer, and I find it disappointing that he would act in such a unilateral fashion. I would hope that he would at least show courtesy to a fellow admin and respond to my requests to discuss the issue further. I'm hoping he just hasn't gotten around to it yet. Kaldari 23:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thebainer

I apologise if I haven't been sufficiently clear in my discussion on this matter. Let me explain why I have acted in the way that I have, by saying that my intention at every stage has been to protect the project, and by outlining the assumptions under which I have acted:

  • That the issue is not merely editorial, but involves legal questions;
  • That the Foundation's explicit avoidance of this issue was, in light of the Foundation presently not having General Counsel to advise them, indicative of nothing more than an intention to avoid, for the time being, taking a position which could involve damaging consequences;
  • That the early consensus developed among the legally aware people who had looked into the issue – that the key should be excluded until the legal questions could be resolved – was still in play and should be upheld.

If any of these assumptions were incorrect then of course my actions would not be appropriate and should be undone, because the issue would be purely editorial and it would be highly inappropriate to do anything other than respect an editorial consensus. But I have made these assumptions based on the best information available to me, and it is on this basis that I have acted. If my assumptions are incorrect then naturally I will accept that and will certainly take no further action. --bainer (talk) 05:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved editor Ben

(Posted elsewhere.)

Statement by MrMacMan

I've been trying to avoid this matter ever since I asked User:Jimbo about what his take on the issue was here. I don't feel that this arbitration needs to address whether or not something should or should not be included, it should ask itself if people are following proper policy. I listed to his advice to 'Take it slow, see how things are going' so I read discussion on the talk pages and didn't try to rush into it without thinking the issue through. I feel we were getting lots of different opinions from many editors and were building consensus. Based on the views of the discussion on the talk page slightly before May 8th the uncensored image was posted. Then the string of back and forth edits occurred as well as the deletion of several copies of the uncensored image. Seeing these edits in real time made me rather confused -- I looked for some further discussion on the page about the images, but Thebainer didn't post anything on the talk page. I also noticed that no only were the images being reverted they were also being deleted nearly simultaneously. Then the page was fully protected. It was abusive to have an ongoing dispute and then fully protect a page without even talking about the edits you were making beforehand. I find the war wheeling (detailed better above by Kaldari) can't be understood. If your going to speedy delete something without discussion (or without even stating the policy that your using to speedy delete from) you have to take a moment to realize that another admin took the time to under your actions and that you should probably try to figure out why.
A similar edit war happened this past night with User:Ned Scott. He also had not previously commented on the article in the talk page, but removed the image nevertheless. In am edit summary he cited 'using image to get past text ban, plain and simple...' here. While no such ban exists I messaged Ned User_talk:Ned_Scott#AACS_images telling him about current discussions. He also tagged the image for a speedy delete here with the rational 'using an image to get past the text ban', i put a holdon tag and started discussion on the image talk page here. He went on to state that 'The Foundation doesn't get a choice in the matter, it's a matter of US law.' here. Again I don't feel that this is poicy, yes we are held to U.S. law, but there isn't any legal decision about the key yet either, in fact, the article says so itself. MrMacMan Talk 10:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alecmconroy

If ya'll take the case-- take the case just as a behavior issue-- don't stray into content/policy dispute. The legal question should be left up to the Foundation, the content/policy dispute should be up to the community. I'd hope Thebainer would just not do this again, and it be left at that. If that won't work, I guess you have to take it, but i'd hope you only decide the question of an admin who persists in acting this unilaterally in the face of such disagreement about whether his actions are appropriate.

On a side note, I'm not a lawyer, but I have worked in legal research. I don't think Wikipedia is exposed if we publish the key, but I can tell you one thing-- having the Foundation or ArbCom coming out and saying "It's okay to publish the key on our site" would almost certainly be exposing the Wikimedia Foundation to much more liability than the actual act of the community publishing the key. I think both risks are pretty much zero, but that's just one more reason to leave it up to the community. Saying "You now have Arbcom's formal and official permission to use our servers to do X" is almost always worse, legally, than the actual event of "Our servers being used for X". --Alecmconroy 11:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

Arbcom exists to arbitrate on user conduct. There is no doubt that Thebainer is acting in good faith, and there is no doubt of the good faith of other established users above either. The legal quesiton of inclusion or otherwise of the key is a matter for the Foundation; in the meantime I guess we have to apply the standard approach of excluding disputed content until there is consensus for its iclusion, but that is actually a side-issue. In as much as good faith has not been called into question, this case would appear to be dead in the water. 12:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Cerejota

I believe that user Thebainer while acting in good faith, based his actions on erroneous assumptions about the stance of the consensus to that point in the various pages.

As someone involved in various discussion, in various pages, on various aspects of this controversy and related positions, I can say that the "legality" aspect is a weak one among the community.

Of much more concern to the community in general has been the issue of memespam. While the essay at WP:KEYSPAM does touch upon a legal discussion, the bulk is about this spam. I have defended the initial hard lockdown of the key, and was able to get an admin to edit the then-locked Digg page using our community methods.

However, the spammers have been kept at bay, and we are back to normality.

While WP:KEYSPAM is an essay that enscasulates a certain consensus, the talk page reveals it is under debate. And Thebainer might well remember that consensus can change.

There is also the unfortunate appearence of fishy behaivior: others admins un-protect the page, and Thebainer engages in edit warring, which when he approaches WP:3RR, bang, a full lockdown (not even seaosned editors allowed!). That is a clear misuse of administrative power. This was not spam, this was a legit editing dispute that the admin, against all policy, resolved by locking down.

Administrators should avoid even the appereance of misuse. In this case Thebainer appears to have tried to use his priveleges to stiffle WP:CCC in the middle of an editing dispute.

I think ArbCom cannot let this opportunity pass to create a guideline and precedent for admin behavior. With great power comes great responsibility. --Cerejota 13:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ali'i

My apologies if I am not allowed to post here, but I must humbly request that if this case is accepted by ArbCom, that you do not try and rule on the legality of posting the key. You are not lawyers and are not spokespeople for the entire Wikimedia Foundation. You are supposed to decide issues regarding user conduct on the English language Wikipedia. So if this case is accepted, please stick to deciding if Thebainer erred in his judgment and/or acted inappropriately. The issue of actually posting the key is not yours to decide. Mahalo nui loa. --Ali'i 13:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second statement by Kaldari

I believe this case arose because of confusion regarding what there was consensus on. During the spamming incident, there was consensus against posting the key as it was merely spam, i.e. there was no reason the key should be included in Wikipedia and allowing it to be posted merely encouraged further spamming. Also there was a perceived risk of legal liability. Once the spamming had died down, it was fairly evident that the key itself had become encyclopedic. The New York Times referred to it as "the most famous number on the Internet". The number itself gets 1.5 million Google hits. And several mainstream media sources have published the number in their coverage of the issue. For the most famous number on the Internet to be completely absent from Wikipedia, even in its article about the controversy surrounding the number, was somewhat ridiculous. In discussions on that article's talk page, consensus was emerging to include the number, although in a very subtle, indirect way (that would also be difficult to challenge legally) - by including a screenshot of the front page of Digg from the "user revolt". In this way, our inclusion of the number would only be incidental to our coverage of the topic, rather than a blatant challenge to the law as some editors would have preferred. In order to facilitate further discussion of the issue, I undeleted the image in question, but did not add it to the article. Thebainer, no doubt operating under the previous assumption that there was an all out "ban" on including the number in any form, summarily deleted the image again and attempted to keep the article in full lock-down. Although his intentions were no doubt admirable, his approach (which amounted to edit/wheel warring) and his unwillingness to participate in ongoing discussions left much to be desired. Kaldari 16:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second Statement by Cerejota

I think it is beyond the scope of these statements to question or not the procedural scope of an ArbCom proceeding. I also disagree that this is only about concerns of the use of administrative powers during a content dispute.

It is also about using legal arguments to invoke extreme administrative measures.

TheBainer's arguments for his conduct were of a highly charged nature. To invoke legal issues in order to create the impression that regardless of POV on the content dispute, one is endagering wikipedia if one includes the number.

By alleging he was simply protecting the legality of wikipedia, and having a convoluted explanation as to why the Wikimedia Foundation remained silent, TheBainer was having a chilling effect on the free debate and consensus seeking.

This is beyond a mere editing dispute.

This points to a policy void: if legal matters are the sole purvey of Wikimedia Foundation then what to do when Wikiemedia remains silent?

The answer should be obvious: let the community sort it out.

But that an administrator was able to harm the community process by misuse of his administrative status means that a clarification, and a set policy, is needed.

The ArbCom could and should consider that void, using this case as an opportunity.--Cerejota 01:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

The arbitrators have requested that statements on this page be kept concise and preferably not more than 500 words. Recall that the issue at this time is whether there is a case that the Arbitration Committee should hear and decide. If the case is accepted, parties will have a full opportunity to present evidence and proposals. Parties whose statements (including both statements for those who have posted two) dramatically exceed 500 words are requested to shorten them. Newyorkbrad 01:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Duly noted and shortened :) Kaldari 03:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to mention that so did I --Cerejota 09:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/5/0/1)

  • Decline. Premature. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm waiting to see Thebainer's response to this before choosing to accept or decline. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Changing to Accept; I agree with Raul654 that we'll probably have to deal with this sooner or later, and I can't see an advantage in 'later'. All editors are making a good-faith effort to do the best for Wikipedia, it seems to me - they just disagree about what that is, and I think the questions go deeper than simple editorial judgment. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Waiting as well, although it does seem a bit premature at this point. Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. One way or another this is going to continue for the foreseeable future until either the arbcom or the Foundation makes a definitive statement one way or the other (as to whether or not it is acceptable for the AACS key to be put in an article), and an arbitration case is the most expedient venue to do that. Raul654 03:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. The only relevant issue for us in this proposed case is editorial conduct, primarily it would seem, of Thebainer. However although his actions were probably misguided, everyone seems to agree they were well intentioned. Probably the most that is warranted here is a reprimand. Unless this behavior were to persist, I'm willing to leave it at that. Paul August ☎ 18:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline; I agree with Paul. Mackensen (talk) 18:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline, also agree with Paul. - SimonP 12:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. There was point to the case being proposed, to air opinions; but Paul's argument seems valid: if the actions were in good faith, then we'd only give out a caution. The lesson here should be specific, and not designed to limit independent admin action in unforeseeable circumstances. Charles Matthews 13:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject, agree with Paul. FloNight 00:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for clarification

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2

It's more than one year since this closed, so the specific sanctions against Reddi are no longer in place.

I'm under the impression that Reddi is violating the spirit of this ArbCom decision (with the additional problem of abusing Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal as vote bank, see this evidence in the Paranormal case).

Do I have to go through all steps of conflict resolution again or can I restart an ArbCom case directly?

Pjacobi 15:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You should certainly make some kind of good faith attempt to discuss the situation with him, but I expect the committee will take Reddi's history into account and not require the full gamut of dispute resolution before considering a case. Thatcher131 16:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram

[5] [6] [7] I'm just curious as to whether the ArbCom decision for one revert per week per article applies here or not. Nowhere in the decision does it say it is limited to mainspace. --Ideogram 03:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that he tried to comment about one of the edits here and the editors reply here. MrMacMan Talk 20:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per prior cases and common usage, the revert parole applies to all project space pages like categories, AfD, and so on. I doubt the arbitrators meant for the parole to apply to his own user page. Edit warring over the practical joke box is probably more disruptive as the box itself. Thatcher131 03:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100% with Thatcher, and would add that interaction between the two of you (Certified.Gangsta and Ideogram) should in general be held to a minimum. The parole restrictions will hopefully help in reducing friction on the mainspace pages you both edit, but there is no reason for either of you to be concerned with the content of the other's userpage. Newyorkbrad 21:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll thank you not to perpetuate the lie that this case was all about the interaction between the two of us. As I stated repeatedly, I did not touch any of Gangsta's edits since April 10th. Simple observation of Gangsta's contributions and block log since then shows he is continuing his disruptive behavior, while I have had no such problems with any other editor. I don't know exactly what happened in this arbitration case, but don't rub my nose in it. --Ideogram 18:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that while Ideogram made the request for clarification here, he was not involved in the edit war that prompted it. Thatcher131 18:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid use of the term "lie" anywhere on Wikipedia and especially on arbitration pages. There is no allegation that Ideogram was involved in edit-warring at User:Certified.Gangsta; my observation was that there also is no reason to bring a concern about that page to this forum. In any event, hopefully this concern is now resolved. Newyorkbrad 21:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editor taking advantage of Gangsta's 1RR restriction to taunt and harass

Please note Sumple's disgraceful revert warring at Gangsta's userpage [8], taking advantage of Gangsta's 1RR restriction to taunt and harass. I ask the arbitrators to take some action to prevent this kind of thing in the future. I don't think the restrictions they placed on Gangsta were intended to pin a general "Kick me" sign on him. Bishonen | talk 22:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • They're revert-warring over the joke banner? I swear to God, I'll pistol-whip the next user who reverts over a joke banner. Furthermore, if there was any kind of consensus, it was to let well enough alone. Mackensen (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bishonen, is there some reason you don't want to act directly? Anyway, I noted on the noticeboard a couple of days ago that this was inappropriate. It seems to have stopped; if it starts again, you can report it to WP:AE. You're right that editors under sanction should not be baited. Thatcher131 23:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, there is: I prefer not to act as an admin, or at all, since I submitted evidence in favor of Gangsta in the case, and was attacked by Sumple and others for it. A completely uninvolved admin would clearly be more appropriate. I would certainly have done some shouting if I'd seen the revert war, though, or noticed the ANI thread (with its exceptionally un-noticable heading) sooner. Bishonen | talk 00:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
        • I really feel the action that needs to be done is quite obvious. Though I understand why Bishonen wouldn't want to act directly. -- Cat chi? 03:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is already a thread on WP:ANI about the baiting matter here. Sean William 23:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Everyking appeal

It has been four months since my last appeal, and I want to try again. I will try to keep this reasonably brief.

I will not cause problems if released from the restrictions currently placed on me. That is a certainty and a pledge. The restrictions were first imposed in November 2005 (based on events which had occurred not in the immediate past, but in the spring/summer of 2005), with subsequent amendments in December 2005 and July 2006. Since the time of the last amendment, no one has, to the best of my recollection, complained about me or sought for any action to be taken against me (with the exception of the September 2006 desysopping, which was based on an off-wiki comment I made). This is, therefore, 10 months in which my behavior has been uncontroversial.

I am very conscious of mistakes I made that lead to the ruling, and my awareness of these mistakes has helped keep me free of controversy during the subsequent period. I believe I was responsible for a lot of unnecessary drama developing on the AN pages. At the time, I didn't worry about drama, and this was a serious flaw in my approach that was counter-productive; from it came only incivility and the deepening of disputes. It has been a long time since then, and I am now quite conscious of the importance of keeping a difference of opinion from reaching a boil and not allowing personality conflicts to grow and overshadow substantive issues.

In February I underwent an unsuccessful RfA, and I have spent a lot of time studying it. It's clear that I have a lot of critics, and I want to prove them wrong; I want to move forward without dragging old controversies along with me and help the project in more respects than I currently can. The restrictions keep me locked to the most unpleasant events of my editing career and don't allow the past to become history. Everyking 04:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see you've moved beyond your previous (Bush-eque) claim that you've never done anything wrong, in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary. It shows that you are making progress.
I am concerned, however, by your recent defense of Chahax. Chahax used his IP address to make ridiculous pro-creationism edits, and then used his main Chahax to put the Intelligent design on featured article review, claiming it was unstable (not in small part because *he* was the one doing it). Using checkuser, I caught him and blocked him. You came to my talk page to defend him, saying "Chahax seems to have explained himself adequately; however, I suspect that isn't enough for you", to which I replied "You have an interesting definition of "explained himself adequately" - he admits he made the biased edits in question, and denies he did anything wrong." I find it disturbing that either (1) you apparently consider his actions acceptable, or (2) you did not properly investigate his actions beforehand (for which you have previously been sanctioned). Worse, it is this very behavior - leaping to the defense of obvious problem users - that got you banned from the administrator's noticeboard. For the record, Chahax later turned up on two attack sites (Righttorace and WikipediaReview), in a discovery institute blog and a Christian Science Montior article describing how hard it is for anti-science crusaders to put misinformation into our articles. You do not seem to have come to terms with your propensity to leap to the defense of obvious problem users, which in effect, makes you their enabler. I therefore see ample evidence for your continued ban from the administrator's noticeboard, from critizing other admins, 'etc. Raul654 19:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except in heinous cases, I believe in giving users the benefit of the doubt and second chances. Chahax presented what seemed to be a sympathetic case, and moreover you had not just blocked him for an initial period to see if he would get the message, but indefinitely. We have plenty of admins who take hard lines against users, and I try to help mitigate that tendency by acting as a voice for fairness. In no sense do I try to be anyone's enabler; to the extent that they are doing anything wrong I oppose that and try to get them to correct themselves. You will notice in the case of Chahax I proposed to him that he not nominate the article in question again, and instead propose nominating it on talk. In this sense I was trying to get him to replace a behavior that was causing a problem with an alternative that would probably be uncontroversial, while still allowing him to speak his views about the article. Everyking 03:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am at a loss to understand how you can claim Chahax presented a sympathetic case. At the time you came to his defense, were you fully aware of the all of his actions, as required of you by the arbitration decision? And, assuming you were, do you consider his actions - seriously biased editing, sockpuppetry, starting a featured article review under false pretenses, et cetera - to be acceptable?
To be frank, I'm seeing eerie parallels between this case and previous cases where you jumped to the defense of problem users: Skyring, Hollow Wilerding, and all the others whose names I forget. Why shouldn't we believe that you are simply saying what you think we want to hear, so that we will drop the sanctions, and then you can go back to your old behavior? Your actions of three weeks ago do not seem to coincide with what you are saying now. Raul654 04:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chahax argued that he was not concealing his use of an anon account and that he was not therefore guilty of abusive sockpuppetry. I found that reasonably convincing. I do not agree with his edits about intelligent design, but the ones I saw (from his IP address) were not appalling, ban-worthy POV pushing (examples [9], [10]), and I say that as an atheist. A short block to get a message across may have been in order, but not an indefinite one.
I'm not aware that I was ever sanctioned for defense of alleged problem users, or that the ArbCom feels it is objectionable to do what I have done in those cases. I feel what I have said on this subject is consistent; what I said to you in my initial reply was the same thing I have always maintained about my attempts to intervene in these problem cases. Everyking 04:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

(If I'm allowed). "I will not cause problems"; "a pledge"; "I am very conscious of mistakes I made"; "I believe I was responsible for a lot of unnecessary drama..."; "this was a serious flaw in my approach that was counter-productive"; "I am now quite conscious of the importance...".

You know, wikipedians don't do mea culpa very well. Face matters. Can't we give some credit here. I've disagreed with this contributor on just about everything, and I'm vaugly aware of some of the problems. But we give useless trolls who contribute nothing the benefit of the doubt, we unblock vandals just to see if it will work, even Danny Brandt gets another shot. Why not here? Is there not at least some chance this is genuine? Yes, I'm sure he'll still have views that will annoy some people, yes he'll probably defend stuff we don't like. And? Perhaps arbcom are aware of things I'm not, in which case ignore me, but otherwise, why not? --Docg 22:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure he'll still have views that will annoy some people, yes he'll probably defend stuff we don't like. And? - that's the whole point. That's what got him banned from ANI in the first place, and prohibited from criticizing other administrators actions. You admit he will probably go back to the behavior that got him sanctioned (for good reason), and you don't see a problem with that? Frankly, I can see lots of reasons to keep the sanctions up, and very, very little benefit that could come from removing them. Raul654 03:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think that was what got me banned from those pages. My understanding was that the ArbCom objected to my expression of views in a way it considered disruptive (and I concede that the way I expressed things at that time was sometimes disruptive), not to the views themselves. I'm not sure I would even still be contributing if I believed the ArbCom sanctioned me purely because of my views. Everyking 03:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You were sanctioned for two reasons: (1) Because you repeatedly antagonized administrators about their actions (with such regularity that others turned it into a drinking game), and (2) it quickly became apparent from the ensuing discussion that you often did so with little (if any) understanding of the facts that led to those actions. Raul654 03:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note:

Newyorkbrad 15:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that only the restrictions imposed in Everyking 3 are still in effect. Thatcher131 14:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Decline. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse. Mackensen (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Paul August ☎ 18:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. I see no reason to revisit the existing conditions. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline Fred Bauder 06:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I voted decline because Everyking's sustained and continuing pattern of inappropriate agitation on policy pages and with respect to administrative actions is incompatible with either administration status or constructive contribution to policy determinations. Fred Bauder 19:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline FloNight 16:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Request for additional remedy in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ChrisGriswold

After ChrisGriswold's voluntary desysopping, Thatcher131 removed the request for arbitration of ChrisGriswold's disruptive sockpuppetry initiated by John254 here[11]. As one of the parties ChrisGriswold's sockpuppetry injured, I suggested here[12] and here[13] that, in the case of Taylor Allderdice High School, he could easily reverse the damage he did by reverting his sockpuppet's edits along with explaining and apologizing in an unreserved manner at the talk page. Despite continuing to contribute to WP[14], ChrisGriswold has not availed himself of the opportunity to remedy the damage he did via his sockpuppet, Superburgh.

While I fully appreciate ArbCom's swiftness and efficiency in dispatching this case, I confess my level of WP experience retards my comprehending the justice ArbCom meted out, particulary since ChrisGriswold has done nothing but declare the correctness of the actions I reported--despite being told they were deemed disruptive, or else the checkuser would have been denied[15]. ChrisGriswold has shown no remorse for his disruptions, only apologizing to his former fellow admins for inconveniencing them. He still shows no regard for those he hurt, and does not make the restitution that remains in his power to easily make.

I request ChrisGriswold be required to further correctively act by 1) performing the simple remedy of reverting his sockpuppet Superburgh's disruptive deletions[16][17][18][19] which contradicted the consensus ChrisGriswold endorsed months previously[20]; and 2) unconditionally apologizing and explaining on Taylor Allderdice High School's talk page. Such corrective actions would go far to clear the atmosphere in which another editor, Steve_block--with whom ChrisGriswold believes he works in tandem[21][22]--and I were just beginning the next step to resolve a longstanding dispute[23] when ChrisGriswold's sockpuppet intruded. ChrisGriswold's allocution would demonstrate that WP doesn't encourage fiefdoms where turf is defended and allies cultivated.

It would also relieve the chill ChrisGriswold tried to establish when his sockpuppet Superburgh wikistalked me here[24] and here.[25] Despite the praise ChrisGriswold expressed for the consensus of which those two page I had created were a part[26], he used his sockpuppet four months later to tag the pages for speedy deletion. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 17:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since any editor can revert edits needing to be reverted, the Arbitration Committee does not need to mandate reverts. Also since apologies, to have value, should be voluntary, the Arbitration Committee does not mandate apologies. However I would strongly encourage ChrisGriswold to take any action he can to help remediate any negative consequences of his past actions. Whatever he does or doesn't do in this regard may be taken into consideration during future cases, or requests for adminship. Paul August ☎ 18:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. Because remedial action has not been forthcoming from ChrisGriswold, I have now reverted his disruptions to Taylor Allderdice High School myself. I am concerned, however, that the sockpuppet he used to disrupt, Superburgh, no longer indicates that it is ChrisGriswold's sockpuppet. Is Superburgh still blocked? 0-0-0-Destruct-0 23:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that account is still blocked. You can check the block status of any user by clicking on "user contributions" and then on "block log." Newyorkbrad 00:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see. I guess I meant the sockpuppet tag on Superburgh's user page, not a block, but I now see the contention going on with that page. I request Superburgh's sockpuppet tag be left intact longer because I refer to Superburgh's page in my justification for reverting him at Taylor Allderdice High School's talk page. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 01:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Three days after I reverted the disruptive edits here[27] and explained on the talk page here[28] Ned Scott repeated, without variation, ChrisGriswold's disruption here[29], which still breaks the consensus established on the talk page, disrupts the mediation that we were about to begin here[30], and goes against, without explanation, the admins' consensus on this page that the edits I originally reported in the checkuser request[31] were abusive. Is this a continuation of the same disruption warranting scrutiny of Ned Scott's actions and a further remedy that will allow the mediation to proceed? 0-0-0-Destruct-0 01:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ChrisGriswold case, which technically was not accepted, concerned a request for ChrisGriswold to be desysopped or otherwise sanctioned for misusing his alternate accounts. If you are now complaining about edits that Ned Scott made, pursuing this case is not really the way to go about that. (You would also have to at least give Ned Scott notice of the fact that he's being discussed here.) I suggest that you should approach the dispute resolution in the usual way, hopefully including the mediation that you say is about to begin.
Incidentally, having taken a quick look at the page in question, this should hardly be one of Wikipedia's more intractable disputes to resolve, and certainly should not require arbitration. Newyorkbrad 02:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit confused. Is there a sockpuppet allegation? This isn't the median for it. -- Cat chi? 10:01, 11 May 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=130432655"