Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MastCell (talk | contribs) at 21:28, 1 November 2007 (→‎Statement by MastCell). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Ongoing problems surrounding Yasuke   16 September 2024 4/0/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Historical elections 13 Sep 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) Motion (orig. case) 26 July 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) Motion (orig. case) 17 August 2024
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 8 September 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/How-to

Current requests

Kmweber

Initiated by Mercury at 19:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Current discussion on WP:AN

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kmweber

[1]

[2]

[3]

Talk and archives

Statement by Mercury

I'll be brief in this summary. In the event this case is accepted I'll introduce evidence and comments at the appropriate places. This editor has commented to Requests for adminship, time and time again, with the same comment. "I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. The opinion is unhelpful and contains a bad faith assumption. That in itself is not an issue. The issue is that this editing style has been discussed many times, and linked below. The editor insists on a consensus the he should stop, before he stops. However, the fact that we are having these discussions in a perennial frequency is causing disruption. Making these comments after so many discussions about them, appears to be trolling, tendentious. The editor has been blocked for disruptions recently, and unblocked. I will not reblock, or file yet another RFC, for more discussion. I request the committee to look into the behavior here. Mercury 19:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {party 2}

Clerk notes

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

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

Moriori

Initiated by MastCell Talk at 17:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

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

This case involves egregious misuse of administrative tools and therefore I'm bringing it here to see if it can be dealt with expeditiously by ArbCom rather than through WP:RfC (see my statement).

Statement by MastCell

Moriori (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) got into a dispute with Liftarn (talk · contribs) when Liftarn questioned the PD status of one of Moriori's image uploads here. Their exchange can be seen here. Moriori, in apparent frustration, deleted a number of his own image uploads, repeatedly using the deletion summary "while disruptive arseholes like User:Liftarn can rule on Wikipedia, I withdraw my image contributions." Moriori then blanked his userpage and talk page and has not been heard from since.

Leaving aside the issue of whether one can delete one's own contributions, it appears that Moriori used his sysop tools in frustration and repeatedly labeled another user an "arsehole" in deletion summaries, which are indelible. I'm asking ArbCom to quickly review this case; I believe Moriori should be speedily de-sysopped for egregiously misusing his administrative tools in a manner which is harming the encyclopedia. If he expresses an explanation, contrition, etc then consideration could be given to re-sysopping him, but at present I think he should be desysopped to prevent further damage which might occur while he's this frustrated. MastCell Talk 17:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to gadfilum: If Moriori wants to return to being a good contributor, then he could have the bit back (and even without the bit, nothing's stopping him from being a good contributor). I just think that if an admin storms off in a petulant deletion rampage, we should withdraw his sysop bit until it's completely clear that he's calmed down. MastCell Talk 19:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Durin and jeffpw: I understand ArbCom is generally a last resort; however, no other mechanism for desysopping really exists at present. I don't think a lengthy ArbCom proceeding is necessary; however, I do think that this user should be desysopped preventively until it's clear that no more damage will be forthcoming. That said, if this request is out of line, then let's close it and move on. MastCell Talk 21:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Friday

I hope I'm not a "party" to this, but FYI: he also said he'd be back later to delete more images. I have undeleted for now so the immediate damage has been undone, but he's stated his intention to do more damage. This is not good. Update: Looking more closely at the timestamps, maybe he's already been back to do the rest. Still, the stated intention of continued disruptive concerns me gravely. Friday (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ElC

Of course you're party to this, you've been undoing his deletions. But I don't understand the whole fear behind becoming party to arbitration pages (how I loath the "statement by uninvolved idiot" qualification!), just create a Chipoll and you'll be okay! But I digress. I don't think we should fear the mainpage being deleted or anything. I wish more calm was injected into this dispute. El_C 18:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by gadfium

I'm not involved with this, although I consider Moriori a friend. I think arbitration is premature. Moriori is upset, and he's said and done things in anger, but the actions are easily repaired. If Liftarn can shrug off the insults, then no harm is done. Taking this to arbitration so quickly looks like a surefire way to lose a very good contributor.-gadfium 18:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved User:Alison

I'm not sure what can be achieved at this point by an Arbitration case given that the person in question has not had much opportunity to address the issues. Frankly, they're angry and they lashed out. Unfortunately, they used their admin tools to do so. Right now, calm discussion and mediation is the way to go, not to inflame the situation by threats of de-sysopping, etc in a case where an admin with a good record is probably going to leave in disgust. In short; we're far from being at the arbitration stage. Let the guy respond - Alison ❤ 19:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Jeffpw

It seems we've skipped a few steps, here. I thought arbitration was a last resort. Yes, Moriori screwed up and overreacted. Yes, it was a huge error in judgment to use his tools to make his point. But this is just as big an overreaction. I would think the usual step in this sort of dispute (and certainly with any non-admin it would be) was blocking to stop further damage, then sorting the mess out. I suggest closing this out and following dispute resolution, or blocking until discussion has continued. I do not think desysopping is a good idea at this time. Moriori is a valuable contributer to this project and we need more admins, not less, particluar with the coming invasion of anon-created articles. De-escalating seems the better option than going nuclear. There's plenty of time later to drop the A-bomb if it's needed. Jeffpw 21:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by uninvolved User:Durin

Taking this to ArbCom is ridiculously premature, the bringer's statement not withstanding. No RfC's been filed, and there hasn't even been an opportunity for Moriori to respond to his talk page. What he did was wrong, I think we can all agree on that. But, that doesn't make an ArbCom case. In the least, let an opportunity for discussion pass. Other alternatives include WP:AN. ArbCom's got enough burden without having to deal with this. Also, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Suggest very rapid rejection and close of this RfAr and redirect participants to more routine dispute resolution methods. --Durin 21:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {party 2}

Clerk notes

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

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

Comic book characters

Initiated by Steve block Talk at 16:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[6] and [7].

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Steve block

I seriously think this situation is spiralling into a dangerous path. Of the two editors, User:Asgardian appears to me to have a reluctance to engage in debate and to respect consensus, preferring instead to edit war, as seen in user's block log. The editor has been advised as to the nature of Wikipedia,[8] and their own behaviour, [9], but lately the editor has taken to blanking messages on their talk page, [10], [11] so it is hard to judge how to communicate with the user and what is taken in. I think the situation has now escalated to the point that User:Tenebrae has taken it upon himself to police Asgardian's edits, which is fuelling the edit wars. I appreciate there could be other dispute resolution methods open, but I am not encouraged as to how productive they would be. There has also been evidence of incivility, examples of which can be seen at [12], [13], [14], [15] , [16], [17] and [18]. I think this requires arbitration to sort out how best to proceed, since the situation is now at the stage where it is causing disruption across a number of articles and creating a hostile atmosphere. For me the situation is now reminiscent of that which led to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic, and intervention is needed to untangle the mess and devise remedies. Steve block Talk 16:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Asgardian

The concern is appreciated, but you've jumped the gun again. Look at the last few days. A compromise was reached on AA, and I'm going to post in Talk I've actually found a nice extra for the article. It gels with Tenebrae's request for a frontal image, so there should be no issue there. He (I assume T's a he - if not, apologies) kindly took on board a point I made re: a fact in the AA article, and I backed him on a decision made on the Vision article. I've also made some suggestons re: the Speed Demon article, although curiously no one has responded so we can settle the finicky points. As for Blood Brothers, that too can be solved (locked for an unusually long time?). I believe T has acknowledged the need for a FCB, and I am willing to give way on the date-method of writing the PH, so long as the style is not too conversational and has the odd break if there's a large amount of information.

I openly admit I've clashed with T, but I also respect him as I can see from his Edit History that he does try to keep some of the articles up to a high standard. If we can all maintian civility, then all things are possible. I'd just like some of the other users -such as Wryspy - to remember that I'm one of the few that will actually sit there for a few hours and rewrite articles that badly needed work. No mean feat (see Thanos).

Asgardian 06:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {party 2}

Statement by jc37

Placeholder - I would like to wait until the 2 parties comment first. - jc37 02:44, 1 November 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)

Indian Rebellion of 1857

Initiated by srs 15:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved Parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[19] [20] [21] [22]
(Parties notified by uninvolved passerby Nwwaew. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by srs

Earlier (wrongly) placed on Arbitration Enforcement, I am still something of a newbie to Wikipedia AUP enforcement. Re-pasted this request below.

Tendentious editing by multiple editors - User:Bobby Awasthi and User:DemolitionMan who continue to bring a hindu nationalist NPOV into the article. Edits by others are greeted with abuse (DemolitionMan loves to call me a "janitor", because, well, I'm an ISP postmaster), or summarily reverted, with 3RR skated around by tag team editing, or in the case of User:DemolitionMan by creating sockpuppets, for which he was banned for a day and his sock perm-banned some days back.

Mediation has failed - Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-15 Indian Rebellion of 1857 - a mediator, User:Phoenix-wiki has recused himself and suggested that the case be taken to the arbcomm.

Case accordingly placed before the arbcomm

nb: One of the parties in this request has just been banned for a week - User_talk:DemolitionMan#Blocked_2 - for persistent violation of WP:3RR and history of disruptive editing, including confirmed (checkuser) puppeteering.

srs 15:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Ronnotel, blocking admin

Prior to the filing of this case, I blocked User:DemolitionMan for one week per a request to WP:3RR that is directly related to the subject matter described above. I am willing to unblock if it is determined that User:DemolitionMan's input is required. I, too, have found User:DemolitionMan's behavior to be tendentious, disruptive and overly POV. As per Nwwaew below, I think that an RfC may be a preferred next step rather than ArbCom. So far, the user has shown little interest in responding to an attempt at mediation. Ronnotel 20:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per User:DemolitionMan's comment below - the reason for the lengthy block is because of his history of tendentious editing, previous blocks, and pattern of disruptive behavior which necessitate administrative action in order to protect the encyclopedia. He has engaged in persistent edit-warring after repeated warnings. He has been confirmed as a sock puppeteer. Yet in this edit, he disingenuously claim to be unaware of WP:3RR policy, even though his sock had earlier created a WP:3RR report. While he agreed to engage in mediation, he immediately reverted to his tendentious behavior when the mediator decided against him. He even admits below to being adamant about enforcing his POV into the article in question. For all of these reasons, and others, I found it necessary to place a block on his account. As I said previously, I'd be willing to unblock so that he can more easily participate in this case. However, I'd like to ask that he agrees to refrain from editing the article in question until this issue is resolved or the 1 week period expires. User:DemolitionMan, you can respond on your talk page if this is acceptable. Of course, you may also contest the block using the procedure described on your talk page. Ronnotel 13:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Nwwaew

In my opinion, this case needs to go through the Mediation Committee (and maybe a Request for Comment) before Arbitration. It was going through the Mediation Cabal, but the mediator decided to drop out, and choose another mediator, or file an arbitration request. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by srs

The mediator decided to drop out because at least one of the parties - User:DemolitionMan was actively resisting mediation, as well as leaving comments on the mediator's talk page accusing him of PoV pushing on the article. You can take this one through all the wikipedia admin stages formally but it would be IMO a waste of time and goodwill from all concerned when extremist PoV pushing + childish rudeness is involved, as in the case of User:DemolitionMan.

He actually reminds me of User:HKelkar if that rings a bell .. the two of them are cut from the same cloth in right wing hindu ideology, choices of pages to edit (For example, User:Hkelkar was on Tipu Sultan for quite some time, User:DemolitionMan on Indian Rebellion of 1857 as well as some other pages such as Winston Churchill. Similarly, their tactics (use of socks, wikilawyering etc) are quite similar.

I would respectfully submit that this RFAR be taken forward, as the other previous steps (involving mediation) assume good faith + misunderstanding / communication gaps on both parts, which is noticeably not the case here. srs 01:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DemolitionMan, by email to Nwwaew

Firstly, I shall admit that I've been adamant. However, I don't like being branded an "RSS/BJP Hindu nationalist" all the time. I also take exception to user Josuquis not being banned for 3RR, while I am banned by user Ronnotel. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander.

Secondly, coming straight to the point both - Bobby Awasthi and I have provided numerous references to the term "Freedom Fighters" being a legitimate term used by a variety of sources. Look at the link here

http://www.google.co.in/search?q=%22Freedom+Fighters%22+%2B+1857&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

That is the link for the following string in Google - "Freedom Fighters" + 1857

The contention of both Josuquis and Srs is that this does not represent a NPOV. Both Awasthi and I have taken exception to the fact that these two users are definitely not qualified to make a call on the same. I would be pushing a militant Hindu POV if I were insisting that the British be dubbed "evil", "terrorists" or "exploiters". The users also wish to delete from the infobox that certain civilians also took part in the Rebellion. If all combatants are to be listed, why make an exception for the civilians? What's the point of white-washing history? A NPOV should represent a balanced view. How is sticking to a British POV make it NPOV. After it was pointed out to me that the word "Freedom Fighters" should be avoided according to Wikipedia rules, I agreed. I did check other sites on Wars of Independence where the term "Patriots" is used. When this was pointed out, Josquius promptly went ahead and deleted the term "Patriots" from Venezuelan War of Independence.

The article clearly states that whether this was a War of Independence or merely a Mutiny is a matter of perspective and there are enough points which show us that they were both depending on the perspective you look at. Shouldn't the Infobox reflect that?

Lastly, I would like to know from Ronnotel, on what basis does he/she separate set of rules for implementing 3RR? (Posted by Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) 11:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Addendum, in second e-mail

"The infobox is just about facts- a bunch of Indians rebelled against the East India Company and after a lot of people on both sides were killed were eventually beaten". This is the statement by Josuquis and his raison d'etre for not putting a balanced perspective in the infobox. That is my whole point. He has the right to consider them "a bunch of Indians", just as I and a host of other Indians have a right to to consider them "Patriots". Why should the infobox merely reflect "bunch of Indians". If that is not pushing a British POV, what is?

Mentioning "civlians" is pretty important. History shows that they took part in the Rebellion of their own accord. The only reason Josuquis doesn't want it in there is that it strengthens the case for it being a "War of Independence". Josuquis now claims that Indian civilians fought on the British side too. I would like to see some references for that as I most certainly don't believe it.

And the 3RR is a bunch of lies. He has been reported before and Ronnotel chose not to do anything about. It smacks of double standards, nothing else. I breached 3RR on the assumption that just as Ronnotel did nothing to Jos, he would extend the same courtesy to me as well. I guess I was mistaken. Even now I can easily spoof an IP address (would take me less than 10 mins) and religiously engage in an edit war but I don't want to break any more rules. However, irrespective of what Jos says about it - I hope Ronnotel will be able to give me his reasons for what I perceive to be double standards.Posted by Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) 16:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Josquius

To the above:
1: I have not broken the 3RR on that article.
2: The civilians point is a minor one, but I don't believe it needs adding to the article that Indian civilians fought in the rebellion. Civilians are involved/caught up in practically every war; under casualty lists by all means list them but under combatants it isn't the done thing. Also I notice DM forgets that a lot of civilians were caught up against the rebels too.
3: Yes I edited the VWOI article, I am trying to improve the whole of wikipedia not just the one article, it was simply that DM brought that to my attention that I edited it (for the better).
4: British POV is a major issue with regards to dealing with demolition man, anything that doesn't comply with the world view he was taught is apparently 'British POV' (British in this sense meaning a old school tory and not a modern, painfully PC, overly black-washing of history Brit). Our side is not pushing a British POV at all, we're simply trying to remove the extremist Indian POV in favour of a NPOV.
5 (the big one): Yes the war can be interpreted in any number of ways. The infobox however is not the place for this. The infobox is just about facts- a bunch of Indians rebelled against the East India Company and after a lot of people on both sides were killed were eventually beaten. The infobox is no place to mention that the Indians were all traitors who got what was coming to them or that they were valiant martyrs who were fighting for the good of India. Just that they existed.--Josquius 14:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

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/Great Irish Famine

Remedy 1.1 of the case calls for 3~5 administrators to serve as mentors... However, almost two months since the decision of the case, and no mentors have been chosen for the article. Could we do something about this? - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 23:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/My_desysop_of_Zscout370 clearly displays that the community is still at odds over the recent Jimbo Wales drama and when an exhaustive discussion fails to produce a consensus, the issue is usually deferred to the ArbCom. I have not yet decided whether I am prepared to write up the case but the clarification from the committee is needed on the issue on which there is still no clarity.

Does the committee have a jurisdiction to review the actions of Jimbo Wales when such actions were done in the capacity of a Wikipedia user, that is an editor, an administrator or a steward?

Clearly, ArbCom has no jurisdiction upon Jimbo's actions made on behalf of the board but what about the rest?

What would be appreciated is a simple yes/no answer to this fairly general but important question. All caveats, including Jimbo's "special status", "special role" and the fact that he appoints the committee itself (at times not even consulting the community [23] ) are known. So, please let's not make this request another fork of the pretty heated board referenced above. TIA, --Irpen 18:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not Jimbo Wales's original delegation of authority to the Arbitration Committee in 2004 would have included jurisdiction for ArbCom to review Jimbo's own administrator/bureaucrat/steward actions is doubtful. After all, the Wikipedia:Arbitration policy provides that ArbCom decisions may be appealed to Jimbo Wales. However, in discussing a recent block, Jimbo posted earlier this week that "[o]ne of our oldest traditions, absolutely unquestioned across the entire history of Wikipedia, is that I have the right to ban users who violate our social norms. I am happy to review my own actions, and indeed happy to have them reviewed by the ArbCom, and of course as a matter of tradition equally as strong, I would defer to the ArbCom in any review of my own actions." (Emphasis added.) Thus, Jimbo has agreed that his decisions may be reviewed by the arbitrators. Whether to grant a review in a given instance, precisely what types of decisions are reviewable, and whether such reviews should be sought by filing a conventional request for arbitration or via a different procedure, would presumably be questions for the arbitrators to resolve. Newyorkbrad 20:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Irpen, I love you but you are wasting your time here. Nothing on Wikipedia is ever going to change by challenging Jimbo. He is the "God king", or "King God" or whatever it is they say in Yankyland. He thought of the Wikipedia idea first so has the right to only speak to re-enforce his own view. In spite of this odd leadership the project survives mainly because of addiction of the hardcore content editors and a constant turnover of new editors. The nasty noncontributing little admins stay and procreate themselves because there is little other for them, with their limited capabilities, to do elsewhere. For the true editors by the time disillusionment sets in, addiction has usually caught them. So in spite of the leadership the content of Wikipedia continues to improve, and will continue to do so. If you can accept that life can become very much calmer if not - well the intelligent are welcome everywhere. Giano 21:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amen, brother. -- !! ?? 22:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, I know all that. But I wanted to hear the opinion of the arbs whether they accept the idea in principle that they may be tasked with the reviewing the actions of their benefactor.
Brad, thanks for your comment. I gather from it that in your opinion the committee has a jurisdiction of this narrow issue only. Of course it is always up to arbs whether to exercise such jurisdiction, but this is a separate matter. I hoped to hear from the arbs. --Irpen 21:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which case is this supposed to clarify? Charles Matthews 22:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I gather it is intended to seek clarification of the arbitration policy itself. (Perhaps the instruction at the top of this section—"Place requests for clarification on matters related to the Arbitration process in this section"—could itself use some clarification.) I can relocate this thread to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration policy if that would be a more suitable location for it. Newyorkbrad 22:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo's own words quoted above, answer the question that was asked to be clarified, so in effect the power behind the board has answered. As for whether such a case should be brought, that's just silly unless someone can first come up with some very specific questions they feel need answering that have not been answered. I think the talk pages about this have clarified that Jimbo and the community sometimes don't speak the same language and that we all need to learn better how to minimize disruption. If anything is needed at this point with regard to all this, it's an effort by everyone to learn new skills at how to be less disruptive. WAS 4.250 23:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a constitutional question (there's the Anglophile again) the Arbitration Committee can and has in the past reviewed actions undertaken by Jimbo, although usually at his request. For the committee to request that it review an action undertaken by him that he had not personally referred to the committee would be different in form but not substance. Mackensen (talk) 11:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo sent an email to wikien-l on 19th April 2007 saying:

Here, let me by decree in this very instant make the following binding
pledge upon myself:
In the event that the ArbCom makes a ruling against me, overturning any
decision I have made in my traditional capacity within Wikipedia, the
ArbCom's decision shall be final.
*This* is a significant change to our policies.
--Jimbo

I think that answers this question quite conclusively. --Tango 12:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Charles Matthews has hit the nail on the head in his question: Which case is this supposed to clarify? --Tony Sidaway 19:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Requests for clarification do not have to refer to an individual existing arbitration case. This request presumably refers to a potential case regarding Jimbo's desysopping of Zscout370. David Mestel(Talk) 19:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a former arbitration clerk, I am not aware of any change in the status of this section from requests for clarifications of arbitration committee rulings, to general clarifications on policy (which the committee has been historically loth to do outside actual cases). When did this occur? --Tony Sidaway 19:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's sort-of evolved that way. Raul654 19:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Presumably whenever the subtitle was changed to "on matters related to the Arbitration process". I suspect in reality the real question is whether it is something that has a prospect of occurring, rather than mere conjecture. David Mestel(Talk) 19:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Let's not spend too much time on the location-of-the-thread type questions. As I said above, if an arbitrator believes this would belong better on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration, I'll be happy to move it there. Also, regarding the substance of the inquiry, those interested should now refer to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jimbo Wales#Response for Jimbo's latest comments on this topic. Newyorkbrad 19:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly think it would be inappropriate, in view of the responses and views on the RFC, to take this to an arbitration request. --Tony Sidaway 20:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, pretty much anything (within reason) can be the subject of an arbitration request. Whether or not to accept it is for the committee to decide... David Mestel(Talk) 20:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's been demonstrated that Jimbo's actions aren't default-accepted as being automatically on-the-button, and that when necessary the community will overturn the actions. It has also been demonstrated that Jimbo's actions are, 99% of the time, well thought-out and reasoned, and that should be respected. Nevertheless, whilst it's possible there has been a miscalculation in the decision-making that went on here on Jimbo's part, whether such a thing occurred is up to the Arbitrators, and that will be reflected in their decision to accept or reject. Anthøny 22:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyking 3 remedy expiration

I have a question regarding a detail from the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3. It is a minor point, but I figured it would be better to put it here than on a talk page, where it might be overlooked. The arbitrators decided in the aforementioned case that I should be under a set of restrictions "until November 2007". No specific date was given, and as November 2007 is now nearly upon us, this detail has become significant. It could be interpreted as meaning that the restrictions end when we enter the month of November, or it could be interpreted as meaning that the restrictions end on Nov. 11, the second anniversary of the closing of the original case (pre-amendment). Naturally I prefer the first interpretation, and given the extraordinary duration of these restrictions I feel it would be more reasonable to end them on the earlier date, but I hope that the ArbCom will clarify this for me and determine which interpretation it considers more reasonable. Everyking 05:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to preface this by saying I do not feel EK has reformed, that he still repeats the same mistakes that led to his banning from the administrators' noticeboard and involuntary desysopping (that he gripes about others' administrative actions without doing a scintilla of work to educate himself on the situation), and that it's only a matter of time until the arbitration committee will have to deal with him again. With that said, (like all good computer engineers) I consider "until" to be exclusive of the termination condition. Therefore, I feel the correct interpretation would be that EK's restrictions should expire at the end of October. Raul654 14:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. November 11th it is. The intent was clearly a one year extension. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do any other arbitrators have an opinion on this? I mean, if it's split, then it's effectively the later date, because I can't go out on a limb and try posting on AN and risk repercussions for that. Everyking 03:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
November 11 it is, then. Kirill 03:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Robert Prechter remedy

User:Newyorkbrad suggested this was the place to come for this problem.

In the RfA for Robert Prechter Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert Prechter I was banned from editing articles related to Prechter, essentially because I was putting "too much" negative information into a WP:BLP. I consider this ban a stain on my reputation. I think that subsequent events have shown that the decision was wrong, and I request that you review the ban.

In early August User:Rgfolsom quit editing Wikipedia following two major set-backs (for him not for Wikipedia). In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socionomics (2nd nomination) it was again decided that Socionomics be deleted (it was supposed to be put into a tempory redirect to Prechter and is still there.) Folsom offended many editors in that debate with his attack-dog style. As the closer said:

Discussion. — This is a very unwieldy discussion, so for the sake of efficiency I am simply discounting anything written by Rgfolsom (talk · contribs), who is being paid to promote and defend Robert Prechter's concept of "socionomics" and has a conflict of interest. As volunteer editors, we are simply not playing in the same league as he.

About the same time he fought unsucessfully to have the following deleted from the Prechter article:

In July 2007, the Hulbert Financial Digest, published by Dow Jones, reported that Elliott Wave International's Elliott Wave Financial Forecast had a 15-year annualized return of negative 25.4%/year and a return of negative 17.8% over the life of the newsletter.[17]

This is well documented, and other editors would simply not put up with his demands anymore. I think this is why he quit editing - everybody could easily see his bullying tactics, and the community would not let him use them anymore.

Since I was banned for putting too much weight on negative material, I think this fact needs to be considered (the negative 25.4% annual return over 15 years). When an investment advisor has a negative 25.4% annual return duing the biggest bull market in history, I don't see how the documented quotes from major news sources that I put in the article could be considered to be overly negative.

Combined with his attack-dog style which has offended just about everybody he's dealt with, I'd like you to reconsider the ban.

Sincerely,

Smallbones 23:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was partially involved during the mediation stage of this case. Rgfolsom was a most-disagreeable person to deal with via e-mail, and I think the restrictions on Smallbones were a bit too much. Personally, I would endorse a restoration of Smallbones' full editing rights. ^demon[omg plz] 13:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Question from Zeq

Hopefully this is the right place for such question. If not I appologize. As you may recall I am banned from article Palestinian Exodus by previous rulling from few years back and I have followed that ban. There is a new article Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus which I began to participate - mostly on talk (made 2 rather small edits to the article - this is the biggest one: [24]).

I have only now noticed that that article is actually a fork and refernced in Palestinian Exodus. If my ban apply to the new article as well I will of course stay away from it. please clarify.

I will stay away from the article from now until such clarification is provided. Thank You. Zeq 15:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq made 5 edits to Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus after his suggestions on the Talk page were ignored. This is a clear violation of the intent of the ArbCom probation and further evidence that Zeq has little interest in adhering to Wikipedia policies or editing in good faith. I would recommend that Zeq's article ban be extended to all articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as he has been causing disruption to these articles for two years now. For the record, I blocked Zeq for 24 hours due to this incident. Also, for the record, I have no involvement in any of the articles in question. Kaldari 16:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed some edit-warring at Arab citizens of Israel between Zeq and other users. Zeq has been responsive to my intervention (I reported the incident as 3RR, though it did not meet the technical requirements and Zeq himself did not violate 3RR). He communicated with me in a civil manner on my talk page about the reverts and his probation. He is also responding at the article Talk in what I would ordinarily interpret as a good faith discussion. Similarly, Zeq initially started editing (BRD) at Allegations of Israeli apartheid in a manner unsuited to such a volatile page. Since then, he seems to be engaged usefully in the Talk page discussion. Granted, I sense that he tends to promote a POV rather than work entirely thru a neutral viewpoint, but I must say that seems to be quite common for Israel-related topics. Though I don't know the history or severity of the case, I wonder if a topic ban would be hasty. In any case, perhaps you should look at his apparent responsiveness (with me) before deciding. Thanks. HG | Talk 18:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because POV-pushing is common on Israel-related topics does not mean it is to be tolerated or ignored. Yes, Zeq has learned how to edit within policy (most of the time, and only after severe and sustained efforts to rein him in). However, the extent to which he edits within policy is only just as much as is required to avoid sanctions. He is clearly here for one purpose only - to push his specific point of view. He has been doing this without rest for 2 years. If Zeq was content to channel his POV-pushing into adamant debate and discussion, I would say he's a great asset to Wikipedia. The fact that he edits tendentiously and disruptively, however, and has eaten up at least as much administrator time and effort as any of our worst trolls or vandals, convinces me that Wikipedia would be better off without him. Wikipedia is NOT a battleground. However, as long as Zeq and similar users are given free reign, it sure as hell looks like one. Kaldari 21:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since User:Kaldari was kind enough to unblock me I just wanted to say that the facts - as he presented them above, as well as his descriptions of me as "POV pusher" are not true. As for the facts (number of edit, when did they occur) a simple review of the history files will show that the way he describe the issue is not what took place. I will save you the detail unless someone really care. I am not this monster some people try to paint me as. I am working on some of the most difficult articles in wikipedia, I am doing it under conditions of probation for two years and most of the time I only get into problems becausee people think that my probation give them the justification to ignore me (or revert me) and some admins who make the mistake and block me based on some misunderstanding. many of my blocks over the last two years have ended up in being unblocked once the facts cleared. maybe it is time to remove this probation all together or make sure there is policy which allow users under probation - who wish to edit within policy - to edit without the stigma of "probation". Zeq 21:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Y'know, sometimes even I am inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt, but when one stumbles across pages like User:Zeq/apartheid propeganda, it makes it a little difficult to see anything but "POV pushing" here. I realize it is an old userspace page, but it kinda makes it clear that you've got a particular axe to grind. Tarc 23:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc, it is a priavte page created a year ago during the big "israeli apartheid" discussion. that is all. means nothing and never completed. don't make any concusions from half baked ideas. But it prooves my point: People go out of their way to find fault in what I do. I have forgot about this page and I don't know how you found it. Zeq 04:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost uninvolved editor - I don't expect to agree with anyone all the time, and I expect to disagree with some editors a lot. But I don't expect to have to question their judgement. Edits such as this, inserting this little essay on Arab citizens of Israel from User:Zeq are very worrying, and he's reinserted it once and then again only last week. The whole thing appears to be aimed at inciting hatred and fear - worse still, some of the references (eg this, the last one) are totally worthless and could never have said what is claimed of them. This topic, more than most, deserves integrity from the editors participating. PRtalk 15:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost uninvolved editor part II - I find more disturbing insertions even in this same article. This edit here suggests that the "PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION has stated" certain things eg "There was no doubt that it had largely contributed to increasing the hostile feelings of the Arabs for the Jews.". But examining the actual report (not referenced, I've had to find it), it turns out this is not what the report has stated, it's what one witness, a "M. Van Rees" has put in his evidence. I've not removed this particular claim and sizable clip from the article so far, I've only provided one historians synopsis of the whole business, but it's quite worrying to discover that this kind of distortion is being inserted into articles. PRtalk 21:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • A reply from Zeq to the so-called "Almost uninvolved editor: You are always welcome to disagree politly with my edit but stop doubting my intentions. Always WP:AGF. I am tired of people accusing me in things I did not do. The facts are clear: The refernced document [25]include a section from which I quoted excatly what is in the article. The source quotes page 31 of the Shaw report. That is what I said no more no less. PS an editor with the name "Palestine Rememebered" (which is also happnd to be a an advocay/propeganda web site can not claim that he is uninvolved in this issue. I wonder alos if your user name comply with Wikipedia policy. Zeq 10:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the original remedy allows any admin to extend the ban to any other article, the question is somewhat moot. Any administrator (e.g. Kaldari) is empowered to ban you from the forked article regardless of whether or not it is considered to be equivalent to the original one. Kirill 04:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

makes perfect sense and simple. Thank You. I will stay away from that article although no formal ban has been issued by any admin as of now. Zeq 10:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's common sense. Fred Bauder 11:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify please: Is Kaldari extending the ban to Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus or (per K's recommendation above) to the entire Israeli-Palestinian topic? Kirill apparently refers to a single article. Thanks. HG | Talk 16:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zeq's probation allows any admin to ban him from any article he disrupts. Zeq must be notified on his talk page and the ban must be logged here. No ban is currently logged. It is to everyone's benefit for admins enforcing such remedies to be as clear as possible to prevent misunderstandings, so you should ask Kaldari what his specific intent is and ask him to properly log it. Thatcher131 13:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute removed. Take it elsewhere. Are there further questions as to the application and enforcement of the probation? Thatcher131 22:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make and vote on such motions. Other editors may comment on the talk page.)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=168590808"