Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Riana (talk | contribs) at 15:30, 26 September 2007 (→‎Statement by Riana: +). 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

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 10 Oct 2024 24 Oct 2024
[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

Hugh Hefner

Initiated by JerryGraf on Sept. 26, 2007

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Jerry Graf has been notified JerryGraf 06:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue Gremlin has been notifed Rogue Gremlin Talk

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

The parties have actively sought to resolve their differences on the discussion board conneced with this article: This dicussion can be viewed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hugh_Hefner#Edit_Conflict

Statement by JerryGraf

Rogue and I debated for many days. He has deleted my comments nearly a dozen times with little or no evidence to support his view that my remarks do not belong on this page.

The statement that Rogue Gremlin opposes is shown, in complete context, in blue, below. It comes from the top of the Hugh Hefner page:

Hugh Marston Hefner (born April 9, 1926 in Chicago, Illinois), also referred to colloquially as Hef, is the founder, editor-in-chief, and Chief Creative Officer of Playboy Enterprises[1]. He is the majority owner of Playboy Enterprise Inc.[2]For decades, Hefner and Playboy Magazine have been icons of American sexuality and a voice for the sexual revolution.


The Playboy empire peaked in 1972 when the magazine sold over 7 million copies. Today, total circulation is just over 4 million.[3] The company Mr. Hefner founded, Playboy Enterprises, has since 1983, been managed by his daugther Christie Hefner, and today derives only one third of its revenues from Playboy Magazine. The balance comes through the dissemination of adult content in electronic form, such as television, the internet and DVD's.[4] Much of this electronic revenue comes not from the soft nude imagery which made the magazine famous, but from hardcore pornography connected with the company's ownership of Spice Digital Networks[5], Club Jenna[6], and Adult.com [7]

In editing this, Rogue argues that he "Removed the negative comments on the biography of a living person." This argument is falacious and the comments should be returned. First, the "negativeness" of ownership of pornography assets is nowhere proven. Second, even it were indeed negative, Wiki guidelines do not prohibit such material from being in the biography of living persons. The actual language is: "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." None of these conditions hold true as every single thing I posted is plainly sourced.

I argue that Hugh Hefner as the largest shareholder (over 60%), controlling shareholder, and most highly paid officer of Playboy Enterprises Inc. must be measured in no small part by the business results of that company. Once cannot reasonably divorce Mr. Hefner from all that happened since the day after he created Playboy Magazine in 1953. The image of Mr. Hefner as the sophisticated playboy may have once been connected with reality. Today, the business he owns is quite different than the one he started. The magazine itself does not make money. It loses it. Real money is made mostly in the TV and web business in which Playboy (under other trademarks) disseminates hardcore adult entertainment. My citations prove these points. I have not sought to comment on any of this. Only to report it.

The comments he is making are clearly about Playboy Enterprises and belong on that page not Hugh Hefner's biography page. Not to mention if you read to comment. The last half that I deleted is ment a negative comment against the character of Hugh Hefner, as admitted by this person in the talkpages. Someone owning a majorit of stock in a company or being the highest paid employee does not make them the boss of the company. These are assumptions by JerryGraf. Christine Hefner is both Chairman of the board, and CEO of Playboy Enterprises. Hugh Hefner is merely Editor in Chief and Chief Creative Officer and is NOT even on the board of directors. It is common knowledge his daughter has ran the company for the last 26 years. This person just wants to bring down the character of Hugh Hefner. With the acquistions PEI has made after his daughter took over the company. So the stuff this person is trying to add belongs on PEI's page or Christine Hefner's page.Rogue Gremlin 13:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {party 2}

Clerk notes

It is good that the parties have been discussing this issue on the article talk page, but there are other methods of dispute resolution that should be tried next. For example, it does not sound like a WP:third opinion or WP:mediation have been attempted. If there has been further effort at resolution that is not already described above, links should be added. Otherwise, the filing party should consider withdrawing this arbitration case and pursuing those steps instead. In addition, please note that the arbitrators usually resolved disputes about user conduct (such as disruptive editing, violations of policies, etc.) as opposed to content disputes (what a specific article should or shouldn't say). Newyorkbrad 12:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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


Ned Scott-White Cat

Initiated by - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps at 04:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Ned Scott notified White Cat notified Centrx notified

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Ned Scott's RfC

Further dispute resolution is unlikely to be possible. See these edits

Statement by initiator User:Penwhale

The history of Ned Scott and White Cat go all the way back to May, when Ned Scott decided to revert White Cat's edits of changing old signatures.

Since then, White Cat and Ned Scott have been constantly quarreling, resulting in the RfC linked above, which I won't reproduce here. White Cat accuses that Ned Scott has been harassing him on multiple articles lately. The breaking point is this edit, in which Ned Scott listed the article on AfD using an inappropriate comment (yeah, you are SO nominated for deletion.. hahahahahaha).

Regarding this RfAr request, I'm hoping that these two editors can stay away from each other.

I consider Centrx an (peripherally) involved party because he also had a hand in reverting the signature changes by White Cat.

Response to Shalom

It's not just the old signature revert war anymore. It's gotten to the point where they're warring over multiple articles as well as talk pages. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 04:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Shalom

I don't think this is a particularly complicated case. White Cat wants to change links to his userpage. Why, I don't know, and I don't care. Ned Scott wants to stop him from doing that. The result has been a lame edit war over changing links in talk page archives.

With due respect to Penwhale and the involved parties, I don't think the Arbitration Committee needs to bother with such a simple case over such an insignificant underlying issue. ArbCom has more important cases to worry about. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ned Scott

I'm very sorry to the community for making a big deal out of the Cat signature issue. As I said on the RfC, at the time I felt the community backed me up, especially having other admins at the time who were also reverting him. The community made it clear that they didn't think it was worth the fuss, and I backed down from the issue. Cat's claims of harassment and stalking were unfounded.

I fully disclosed why I nominated the trek-dog article for deletion, because it was related to a discussion on WT:FICT, where I was already active. Cat came there because people were putting merge tags on articles he felt was notable, and I thought the best way to address it was to let the community decide in an AfD format. This was far more productive given his behavior in similar discussions in the past, where he would pretty much ignore guidelines, consensus, and anything else that didn't agree with him. I didn't think it was wrong or over the line. My edit summary for the AfD was simply that I felt it funny that a dog in Star Trek had an article, and nominating it was an obvious thing to do. Likewise, I didn't think highly of Cat's rationale for keeping the article. A bad response on my part, but this wasn't me seeking him out, or looking to harass him. Frustration got the better of me, having been in several discussions about fictional notability with him in the past.

Had it not been for the discussion on WT:FICT, and had the article been unrelated to that discussion, I wouldn't even know it existed. There are several articles that Cat is very involved with that I'd like to clean up, but I avoid because I know he has an attachment to those articles. I didn't think Cat had an attachment to Porthos (Star Trek), but only that he felt it to be notable (I looked at his contribs to see what articles he was referring to regarding the WT:FICT thread. I did not look at the edit history). Selecting the article because of his involvement was not because it was White Cat, but because it was one of the articles he was talking keeping in the WT:FICT discussion.

During all this, which happened last night, several admins where aware of the situation, and there was even a discussion on IRC about it. Some people felt it was in bad taste that I thought the whole thing was funny, and although I feel that's a bit of an over-reaction, I can respect that view. Never did I think it would result in me getting blocked 11 hours later, nor did I think an RfArb would be filed.

Is there tension between White Cat and myself? Yes. Do I seek him out, or does he seek me out? No. I personally don't think there is an issue here other than some lingering bad feelings (which I am guilty of), and the rest being a massive amount of over-reaction from White Cat. I even tried to make light of the issue, but that might have made it worse. I'm not even that active on Wikipedia as I was a year ago, let alone even seeing Cat around the place. If the community really is concerned enough about this, then I'm open to trying mediation. Taking this to arbcom is overkill, and would only feed the drama at this point. -- Ned Scott 05:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ST47

Well, I don't think I've done this before.

My involvement here began when White_Cat first changed his name to White_Cat. He wanted to change his signatures from one format to the other, to keep them linking to his new username - he wanted the redirects deleted as well, and he used one to justify the other. At first he did it by hand, then he made a bot request. Mets501 approved for a trial, which is traditionally 50 edits, the bot went way over that and ended up on AN/I, and most of its edits were reverted by Ned Scott. We didn't want to approve the bot with the community against it until we were sure it was needed, so I asked White_Cat to explain why this way necessary, which is on that page, but for continuity I'll quote it here:

  • I prefer to keep a consistent sig. When you look at an archive you can easily identify me this way. A lot of people would not know who "Cool Cat" supposed to be in about say a year. It helps people better identify me. I feel this is the responsible thing to do.
  • In the past I had fancier sigs including sigs which displays all the barnstars I earned and stuff. I had been meaning to solve that issue for quite some time. This is the perfect opportunity for it.
  • Is this entire thing critical? No. But it was never a requirement that bots are to be used for critical tasks only. I am letting a bot take care of a task I am allowed to handle manually to save myself time.

Myself and possibly two, possibly three, bot approvals regulars discussed this off-wiki, and in a nutshell decided that:

  • Keeping a 'consistent sig' may not be useful, as required for bot policy (WP:BOT), and does not have community support.
  • Cleaning up some old sigs does not require all pages ever signed to be edited
  • Redirect policy says that links to redirects that are not broken need not be fixed
  • As evidenced by the reversions and the ANI topics, this bot did not have community consensus.

And I denied the bot. That was May 27th. Since then, he had three other maintenance bots approved, and then requested this. Three bot approval members commented negatively, as did Deskana, a bureaucrat, and the request was closed.

That's really the extent of my involvement, plus I have school now, but I'll probably add more later.

Statement by User:White Cat

I'd like to referance to the signature comment above by shalom first as I believe this problem is an ongoing issue if the discussion on Centrx's talk page is any indication (and since he is an involved party). Help:Reverting#Do not reads (bold emphasis not mine):

So while the actual edit itself was no big deal, the revert of it is a big deal unless help pages are written just to pass time - which I do not believe they are.

Ned Scott has made many other "guest" appearances on discussions.

  • This was not the first time I have encountered Ned Scott. One early example I do recall is as far back as July of 2006: User talk:White Cat/Archive/2006/07#Spellchecking archives.
  • He was on two of my commons adminship requests. In one an actual participant and on second - well a commentator after the closure of it. User was never active on commons at any point. - Now I know this is beyond the scope of arbcom but this is demonstrating a behavioral pattern:
  • His other and most notable appearance was on the signature issue and the related deletion of my former userpage (User:Cool Cat) which Ned Scott repetitively recreated forcing a MfD. He reverted the closure of the MfD 4 times and even taken the matter as far as DRV and more. More evidence is available at the older version of the linked RfC. This entire signature-related nonsense created an artificial problem on weather or not updating signatures is indeed controversial despite it being "an insignificant underlying issue".
    Centrx was also mass reverting my wikipedia-wide signature alterations repetitively even inside my own userpace.

One other problem I have with Ned Scott is his incivility. He was warned and even blocked for it so I am under the belief that he is aware of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Most recent example includes the following:


I have exhausted all forms of dispute resolution. I have made my best effort not to escalate the matter. For example I have not attempted to fix my sigs since then until the issue was resolved. I figure he would probably revert me on commons or maybe even tr.wikipedia.

-- Cat chi? 12:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

Not sure what there really is to arbitrate here, it's just two users that have created a petty argument and need their heads banging together, I wouldn't say the matters out of hand. Ned's not all in the wrong here, White Cat seems to like causing as many problems as he can with his signature in order to kick up a response, he loves the wiki-drama that comes with it. If this is accepted, then I would suggest taking a close look at both users conduct here as there does seem to be little bit of pointy behaviour. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved ^demon

I just wanted to echo Ryan's statements above mine. This is an absolutely stupid issue that isn't worth fighting over. I have every reason to believe that both editors have been acting in good faith, but I do feel that there might have been some pointed behaviors. With Ryan, I'm not sure whether there's anything to arbitrate, rather a firm reminder to both to always assume good faith (notwithstanding evidence to believe otherwise), to not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point, and to remember to try and respect the community. While you may not agree with them at times, if everyone you encounter says "Don't do this," then don't go do it. ^demon[omg plz] 13:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thatcher131

This issue is raised now because White Cat and Ned Scott are getting into each other again. It appears that after White Cat initiated a discussion regarding mass merge/redirects of fictional characters at WT:FICT (a page where Ned Scott has a long history prior to this incident), Ned checked White Cat's contributions and nominated Porthos (Star Trek) for AfD, based on White Cat's complaint that too many minor characters were being merged without AfD discussion. [3] [4] Ned also taunted [5] [6] White Cat regarding this nomination. This appears to violate an agreement made at RfC/Ned Scott to voluntarily stay away from White Cat. Ned was blocked for 24 hours for trolling White Cat.

The best way to resolve this situation would be for Ned Scott and White Cat to avoid each other as much as possible. When they do come into contact, through mutual involvement in articles broadly related to the topic of fictional characters, they should treat each other with respect, enforced as necessary by taps of the administrative cluebat. I don't think Arbitration is required at this time. If Ned Scott challenges the application of the admin cluebat, he should reflect first on whether he wants to substitute an ArbCom clueaxe. Thatcher131 14:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Riana

With apologies to any offended, I believe this boils down to White Cat's love of attention and Ned Scott's inability to resist a chance to taunt White Cat. Ned's involvement with WP:EPISODE sometimes seems to be a convenient scapegoat for his following White Cat and his edits, and White Cat often seems unable to take it into his stride. The best and least messy way to resolve this would be to tell them both to shake hands and act like grown-ups henceforth, and when they do come into contact with each other, to make every effort to ensure hackles are not raised. If administrative cluebatting is necessary for either party, I am happy to provide, but I'm not entirely sure that the situation currently requires full-scale arbitration. No need to escalate this - perhaps this is the wake-up call all parties need?

If the case is accepted, I do not think preventing interaction entirely would be very conducive to a collegial editing atmosphere, but if this interaction is somewhat limited, or supervised by an uninvolved party, that might work. ~ Riana ⁂ 15:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.)

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

Requests for clarification

Place requests for clarification on matters related to the Arbitration process in this section. Place new requests at the top.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zacheus-jkb

I would like the Arbcom to confirm that User:V. Z. is an alternate account or a sockpuppet of User:Zacheus, and is subject to the decision. (Originally, the account V. Z. was the user's real name, then it was blocked on the user's request, then it was - again on the user's request and to protect his privacy - renamed to V. Z. and the user created another account Zacheus to use [he indeed confirmed that they are operated by the same person], but the block did not carry over after the rename.) - Mike Rosoft 17:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason for this request? A user can have more than one account as long as they are not used abusively. Thatcher131 17:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; in fact, I have an alternate account, and it's an open secret which one it is (hint: look at the history of my user page). On Czech Wikipedia V.Z. was known to evade his ban using sockpuppet accounts (I don't know of any evidence of their misuse on English Wikipedia), and also had a habit of wikilawyering, so I would like it to be explicitly declared. - Mike Rosoft 20:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given Zacheus was put under restrictions, it would make sense along the lines of the recent incident with Vickers on AE, no? Daniel 09:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am uneasy about this request because it is so vague. Certainly it is part of the case evidence that V. Z. and Zacheus are both accounts used by this person. He changed the name of the V. Z. account because it was his personal name; the account still links to talk page edits signed with his real name. However, neither account has contributed much lately and there are no accusations that Zacheus has been misbehaving, so the only outcome of this request is to call attention to the prior case and its particulars. Thatcher131 17:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there is no action required here and this thread can be archived, but would appreciate confirmation from at least one arbitrator before doing so. Newyorkbrad 15:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deathrocker

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker resulted in Deathrocker, now called Daddy Kindsoul (talk · contribs), being placed on revert parole. This was violated at least seven times in the following year and resulted in seven separate, logged blocks. Since that time, this user has been blocked twice more, most recently by me for one year as provided by the remedy.

Daddy Kindsoul claims that the revert parole was for one year only and that he is no longer under any sanction. I can find no reference to a time limit in the arbitration case. My question, then, is whether or not the remedies in this specific case were to apply for one year only, were to apply until the user had gone one year without violating the parole, or whether the parole was indefinite. --Yamla 15:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find no reference in the arbitration decision to any time limitation. There may be other issues relating to this block that are discussed on the user's talkpage in connection with his original unblock request, but they can be addressed at the administrator level if the user wishes to pursue the matter. Newyorkbrad 14:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that? I disagree with the 1 year block for the reason that the original remedy did not provide the escalating clause. (The Enforcement section did =.=) However, I do believe that he is on revert parole indefinitely if a date wasn't mentioned (unless someone willing to clarify this?) - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 02:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus in regards to user:Halibutt behavior

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus case dealt with Eastern European topics, currently I, and several other contributors, have problems with on of this case involved parties, namely user:Halibutt's disruptive conduct practice. I asked assistance for solving this problem on several places [7][8] and I was informed that the proper place would be WP:RFAR itself. Current problems, involving Halibutt, includes continuing neglect towards WP:POINT, WP:AGF and general harassment of various contributors. For more detail explaining my problem please see my post at Arbitration enforcement. I would like to receive assistance solving this situation, because such disruption of particular contributor done on Wikipedia could be harmful for the future of the project. Thank you.--Lokyz 21:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The case of User:Halibutt is indeed one very important to this ArbCom case. Halibutt was once a very active member of this project, among the Top 200 most active contributors, and an author of several Featured articles as well as many DYKs. However months - if not years - of insults and baiting (with "are you a liar hallucinating between interludes of POV pushing and peppering Wikipedia with propaganda?" being my favorite example of comments that are allowed to go unpunished, thus certifying that CIV/NPA are dead policies) from several users with rather strong POV and a feeling of ownership over many areas Halibutt was interested in (ex. history of Poland-Lithuania) eventually resulted in Halibutt drastically limiting his activity in the project. Despite the harassment he faces, Halibutt still occasionally comes back and contributes to an article, or creates new ones - only to receive in return comments like "your metaphors really show your level of culture and bias", "You been whining... So why don't you have the balls to simply leave, as promised so many times before?". Just a few days ago, Halibutt expanded one article, only to be flamed on talk. The comments he recently left on my user page, and to which I assume Lokyz refers above, illustrate the problem. Yes, Halibutt's post is not the most diplomatic, and he makes some generalizations I strongly disagree with. But he also nails the problem: several POV-pushers, Usenet-type flame discussion warriors and pure trolls are driving good content creators away. User:Halibutt is not the only one who has limited his activity, due to harassment from certain editors (many of whom named as parties in my ArbCom); I could name several others who decided that they find no pleasure in contributing to the project in exchange for constant insults and sniping (originating, among others and often enough, from Lokyz, ex. [9], [10], [11]). This is why CIV/AGF/NPA policies were invented in the first place: to prevent fans of sniping and commenting on other editors from driving away those who prefer a more civil and academic discource. Nobody can say that driving content contributors away is good - particulary if the said contributors never violate our policies unless grossly baited. But this is what's happening, right here, right now. Gross incivility is going unpunished, baited users either lose temper and join the trolls and/or leave the project. This is the real problem, threatening the entire project and turning it into an arena where we are seeing the wiki-version of 'survival of the fittest' - only those with most foul tongue and thickest skin survive, the rest gets banned or leaves, disgusted. I can only hope ArbCom will address this issue before it is too late.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He only received those comments after posting a 1000+ word rant calling everyone in a row trolls, ultras, morons, idiots, nationalists, etc etc. on your talk page. That it was not an outburst of frustration is proved by five of his postings of the same content. The mess on Narutowicz page started not after he expanded it, but after he unilaterally moved it without any discussions knowing perfectly well that it will be challenged (we been there so many times before to assume otherwise). While his productive edits are welcome, such distruptive behaviour is certainly not. Renata 15:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You got the order of the events a bit wrong. 1st, Halibutt expands the article. 2nd, he moves it as per his sources. 3rd, move war erupts, with Halibutt getting flamed at talk for daring to move the article he destubbed and expanded. 4th, Halibutts post the "rant" complaining about the editors who flamed him. 5th, one of the editors who flamed him complains here about the rant. As far as I see it, the problem would never appear if certain editors would try to assume good faith and talk to the editor who expaned the article and presumably knows a thing or two about the subject - before they started flaming him and accusing of various things for daring to move the said page.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A brief note. As per the obvious problem (above) where it is unclear indeed "who is more wrong" as well as another "Request for clarification" (see #Piotrus below), I would thoroughly welcome ArbCom taking the case back, analyzing the editors' behavior (including mine) and render a meaningful judgment to replace or add to the too vague one rendered and voted earlier. ArbCom took upon itself one a very messy case and in the end produced a non-decision whose consequences are bound to bring up these endless "clarification requests". I was tempted to start such requests on my own several times and decided not to since I did not want to be seen as the one who does not let the sleeping dogs lie, bygones be bygones, etc. The fact is that all dogs are awake and the proof is that these requests continue to pop up. Perhaps it is inevitable that the case needs to be brought to a more meaningful closure. Even if such would keep "an amnesty" intact, clarifying what parties misbehaved, which parties "are reminded" and what the offenses were are especially needed in view of the outright defiance of the involved editors to even admit to any wrongdoing. --Irpen 00:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I often disagree with Irpen. This is not the case here, I completly share his sentiments.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polish editors or single Polish editor that is the first question. Violation of WP:AGF or violation of Wikipedia rules (like WP:RM) is another. POV bashing or contributions is a third. Generalization or research - that means specific, but by no means selective details is fourth.Knowing the subject or googling on occasion is fifth. And please WP:AGF - I'm not trying to insult anyone, I'm not pointing a finger at anyone, I'm not using metaphors like knives - I'm just asking direct questions.--Lokyz 00:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is part of Halibutt's post: " Better yet, wiki is like a town where you can visit all sorts of restaurants with different cuisines. Plenty of Polish pierogi bars, pizzerias, stylish French bistros, English fish'n'chips eateries, and so on. However, there's only one Lithuanian restaurant with flies in every dish and a psychopathic chef running with his knife from one bar to the other, just to kill some clients here and there.
Perhaps it's my problem that I like Lithuanian cuisine and would love to visit the restaurant. Yet, apparently I shouldn't. And I shouldn't even get near, as it's dangerous. The only remedies I know are to either kill the crazed chef (but I'd have to do it alone as there's nobody else to see the problem), open up my own Lithuanian restaurant (impossible, as the crazed chef would kill me) - or move to another town." [12] I find this language disturbing. Novickas 14:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Selective quoting is not the best method of citing somebody. And I'd hope that ArbCom does loook one day into the activities of the "crazed chief" and his friends. As amusing as the metaphore is, the problem is quite real.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You did recognize that selective quoting is not the best way? Then how about google or google books searches like for example "Lithuanian+nationalist" ? Meanwhile another question remeins open - did someone know the fact, or did he find it on your list and then googled selective? As for evidences - you might wwant to read the Talk:Antanas Baranauskas page - there you'll find plethora of "knowledge" evidences. I did especially like this one "Right... So a guy who wrote some poems in Lithuanian is automatically a Lithuanian, right? Err... wrong, my dear. Similarly, currently the article suggests Baranowski (as he called himself) was born in Lithuania, even though he was born in the Russian empire to a Polish family." Quite an amusing read, a good example how someone tries to expand an article using "knowledge". Most fun part is that this so called "knowledge" denies every fact, that does not suit it's beliefs - even Polish encyclopedias, clearly quoting him as "poeta litewski". If you'd read it as a whole, you'll soon find quite a recognizable behavioral pattern. And i do will try to describe it with metaphors, that's your speciality.--Lokyz 15:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I started Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus most of attention was concentrated on Piotrus disruptive conduct practices. However his allies, like user:Lysy, user:Halibutt, behavior in some extend was even worst, this especially include Halibutt conduct. Currently user:Lokyz listed problems traces its roots year back. Uncontrolled and disruptive manner of Halibutt’s edits resulted Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Halibutt , there community critically evaluated his misconducts towards ethical slurs directed towards Lithuanians, excessive neglect towards WP:POINT, inability to cooperate, attempts to derail article renaming processes etc. In my view after Halibutt’ RfC nothing changed in his behavior. Let me illustrate with some examples. Exactly the same ethnicity driven commentaries were produced and later. Excessive naming various contributors as trolls [13] even those, with whom he never interacted; the most shameful of those was his so called “leaving message” [14] there he accused editor of criminal act. As you may guess Halibutt never proven that such offenses were made, despite was asked. Now his friend Piotrus trying, by picking selective diffs, to show that Halibutt’s received criticism is for nothing. In other hand Halibutt harassed editors with impressive stubbornness [15]. These are “impressive” offensives as contributor Halibutt declared that he left Wikipedia (current status of his involvement is mystery to me) I am personally disappointed that those insults transited to main space, like [16], [17]. These are few examples of Halibutt’s past conducts. After Piotrus’ arbitration case ended in 2007-08-19 general amnesty was declared. In 2007-08-28 Halibutt started move-revert campaign on Stanisław Narutowicz article. When he was advised by several contributors to use proper procedures regarding article naming, Halibutt accused contributor of vandalism [18] . Later, completely ignoring WP:POINT, WP:OWN, started removing parts of article, portraying it like some sort of game [19]. While is not secret that Halibutt’s improved articles has original research, POV foundations I disagree with Hali butt’s neglect towards WP:OWN. Soon afterwards of main space disruption Halibutt turned his sight on administrators Piotrus talk page. Virtually Piotrus talk page was converted to attack page [20], were he attacked various editors and labeled them “ultras”, “blinded ultras”, “idiots”, “bunch of hammers” “people lacking honour” on the most nasty ways. As we can see in the past there were attempts to solved problems regarding Halibutt’s behavior, but those attempts did not prevented future Halibutt disruption. So I would like to receive suggestions from Arbitress how to deal with such Halibutt’s disruption practices. Particularly then contributor thinks, that disrupting Wikipedia is refreshing. M.K. 10:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comment: I would require to be convinced that User:Halibutt is currently a disruptive editor here. Some of what is posted above is far from relevant to that point. The page move story shows that in the end due process was applied. Perhaps it should have been applied sooner, but simply moving a page cannot be classed as disruptive. Charles Matthews 15:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews, let me point out directly that I see wrong on those edits. Without consensus article was moved for three times. [21][22][23]. In my view breach of WP:CONS. What about rationale under page title move “revert vandal” [24], then there was no vandal. What about removing article parts [25] in my view its is classical example of WP:POINT and breach of WP:OWN. How explain such “suggestion” on other article’s page [26] (such Halibutts behavior, during article’s naming procedure, was discussed earlier [27] as well.), another neglect towards WP:POINT. What about his “comments” regarding contributors, there they named as “rolls”, “idiots” etc. [28]. As my earlier presentation above shows, these are not new or isolated incidents. So how to approach these problems, advice is badly needed and soon. Thank you, M.K. 10:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BURO. But I would advise everyone concerned to drop the combative attitudes right now. There is not unlimited patience with these chronic problems. Charles Matthews 13:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus

As an ArbCom clerk recently noted, "there are no enforceable remedies in that case". Setting aside the question "So what was the point of this entire case?" I would like to ask for clarification of the "Parties reminded" remedy: "All parties are reminded of the need to edit courteously and cooperatively in the future. Failure to do so will be looked upon harshly by the Committee, and may result in the summary imposition of additional sanctions against those editors who continue to act inappropriately." What is not clear to me is what are the recommended actions if an editor, named a party in the case (or otherwise familiar with it), is behaving in a manner that I believe violates WP:CIV and related policies and creates a bad atmosphere at discussion pages. Where, if anywhere at all, can I report this, without encouraging the criticism that I am 'forum block shopping'?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add to this a request for clarification.
  1. All along I wanted to ask who among the editors are considered among the "parties reminded" to be viewed under the parole of the deferred punishment? Several editors who took part in the ArbCom did not have a single allegation brought against them at the workshop. Are they too on the parole?
  2. Further, several editors alleged the abuse of gaming the WP:CIV as a shortcut in resolving the content disputes to one's favor. Also, along the same lines, is the devious behavior wrapped in a "civil" wrapper considered more WP:CIV compliant than an utterance of a profanity at the talk page?
  3. Also, are the wikipedians allowed to maintain the laundry lists of grievances, black books and other forms of attack pages on en-wiki, other public servers of Wikimedia foundation and in the public areas of internet?
ArbCom did not make its position clear on any of this issues. And those issues are either urgent or already popping up.
I felt from the onset that the clarification on those positions are very much needed but hesitated about starting a request for clarification on that disastrous ArbCom as resurrecting unanswered question could have prompted accusations of "not letting bygones be bygones", "holding grudges", etc. But Piotrus took it upon himself to open the request anyway and since this is going to be studied I would like to add my questions to it. --Irpen 02:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To answer Irpen's question based on view of a bystander:
  1. This question would coincide with one of the clarification requests that I wrote below in a way. (See the A-A 2 section below.)
  2. I believe that provoking someone to violate WP:CIV should get you in trouble, since instigators rarely get out of the case scathe-free. However, users shouldn't lose their cool under any circumstances.
  3. About laundry lists, there's only 1 recent case that I, as a clerk, could recall, and that would be Tobias Conradi case. I'm not sure what the norm on this is, though.
- Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 15:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 Remedy

As the closing clerk, I noticed some interesting problems with the remedy 1 of this case. The remedy 1 puts edit supervision on the editors sanctioned in the original case, however, at least 2 editors sanctioned in the original case was not named as a party to the newer case and was surprised/shocked of the development. I'd like some input from the Committee to explain the ruling on this. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 04:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, under this case, other editors who edit in a similar manner to the previously-sanctioned editors may be placed under the limitations of the original Armenia-Azerbaijan case. Do these sanctions expire one year after the editor in question is notified, or are they indefinite as no time limit is mentioned? The supervised editing remedy from the second case appears to be indefinite, as no expiration is mentioned, so my question is whether this is indeed the case and whether the other remedies are still meant to expire after a year, including on other editors brought in under the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 decision. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this situation requires attention from the committee. Frankly, I was always troubled by remedy number 1, which took all the users who were placed on revert parole (revert limitation) in the earlier case, and now placed them on supervised editing (which I gather is a new term for some form of probation and/or civility parole) as well. This was done despite the observation that although some of the parties to the earlier case had continued to display problematic behavior, others had done little or nothing wrong since the earlier decision, and there was no real reason to be applying additional remedies to them.
The problem is magnified if, as has been stated, some of the parties to the earlier case were not parties to the newer one. The case was such a sprawl and so many editors were listed as parties (and there was edit-warring over the list for awhile) that the clerk handling the case probably assumed that all the (unbanned) parties to the earlier case had been listed again. (From now on, I will check for things like this in every case myself.) If that didn't happen, then at a minimum anyone who was subjected to a remedy without having been notified of the case should be entitled to have the case reopened and to be heard on this issue. Newyorkbrad 19:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. See below.
As far as the duration is concerned, "until the situation improves" is probably a good rule of thumb. I am content to leave the decision up to the enforcing administrators. Kirill 19:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to NYB, I was also the clerk in the original A-A case. However, this case was opened anew, so I did not add the parties from the old case to the new one. I never assumed that they were listed. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 20:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, there was no reason to look for the additional parties or add them at the beginning of the case. However, when a remedy showed up on /proposed decision (or originally in an arbitrator proposal on the workshop) applicable to "all the parties to the prior decision," we should all have checked then to make sure that all of them were parties in or had all received notice of the new case. My fault as much as anyone's. Newyorkbrad 20:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With due respect to Kirill I think this is a non-issue and his motion is a mistake. Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 provides that any editor who edits disruptively on the topic of "Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area" may be placed on civility parole, 1RR and probation by means of a warning on their talk page. The fact that some editors in the first case were not notified of the second case is easily remedied by a note on their talk page. Passing the motion below would take a small group of editors who were placed on 1RR and exempt them from the civility parole and probation that applies to every other editor on Wikipedia following an appropriate notice. Thatcher131 20:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • They could be placed back on the remedy, yes; but only if they edit disruptively. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt; staying out of the second case does count for something, I think. Kirill 20:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dren. I missed that remedy #2 still applied. Sorry. Thatcher131 20:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thatcher, I had to look that word up. Clearly I have some remedial TV watching to do. More seriously, Penwhale, could you advise which users subjected to the remedy in the first case were not parties to the new case? (I ask you instead of doing the research myself as you know which users have complained to you already.) Thanks, Newyorkbrad 23:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not so much of "complaining", but TigranTheGreat and ROOB323 were the ones affected. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 01:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • While User:TigranTheGreat was not included in the list of the parties to the second arbcom case, many users provided evidence of his behavior which they considered to be disruptive. So he was definitely a party to the second case, and he was well aware of it as he provided evidence himself. His non-inclusion was just a mistake, because most users considered all the parties to the previous case to be parties to the second one as well. On the other hand, no one complained about ROOB323, so he should be the only one affected. Grandmaster 06:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a quick note, since contributors in the 2nd ArbCom case ended up there due to pretty much the same disruptions as those in the 1st case, would not it be simpler to just place everyone on 1RR parole? I think this would significantly reduce the reporting and decision overhead, whether something should be considered a civility violation or not. Thanks. Atabek 14:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

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


Extension of remedies in Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

Those parties to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan who were not named as parties to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 and were not given notice of the proceedings are exempted from the extension of existing remedies imposed by Remedy #1 in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. They remain subject to Remedy #2.

See also discussion above. As there are currently 11 active Arbitrators, the majority is 6.
Support:
  1. We messed up here. Kirill 19:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Paul August ☎ 13:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. There is a defect in noticing everyone in, but the remedy should properly apply to everyone. Fred Bauder 13:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=160484660"