Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CJCurrie (talk | contribs) at 00:49, 9 January 2008 (→‎Statement by CJCurrie). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Anachronist   16 June 2024 0/5/0
Rio Grande 223   19 June 2024 0/1/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads none none 4 June 2024
Amendment request: India-Pakistan none (orig. case) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions none none 10 June 2024
Motion name Date posted
Block of Rp2006 18 June 2024

Current requests

Extraordinary rendtion by the United States

Ccson Ccson (talk) at 20:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Swatjester

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Ccson

I have inserted text within the article and cited the World Policy Council as the source for the statements and their opinion. User Swatjester continues to remove the text because he feels the source is unreliable. I have shown the WPC is associated with a university, the WPC seek the advice of experts when needed, and I have consensus from other editors that the source is reliable for their opinion. I attempted cabal mediation, however, the user declined mediation and reverted again.

The opinion presented is the agreement of 9 persons whose background include a Senator, U.S. Ambassadors, U.S. Congressmen, College Presidents, Leaders of Churches and Foundations, and a professor at Ivy league universities.

Each person is highly regarded for their individual opinions and an agreement of the nine should be regarded more highly as a reliable source within wikipedia.

I hope the committee will accept this case and determine that the World Policy Council is a reliable source to cite within Wikipedia.

Statement by Kendrick7

Current use of this source fails WP:SOAP because no third party source is given which attests to the WP:Notability of this group's opinion.

This is a content dispute, and premature prior to filing a WP:RFC

Statement by {party 2}

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Decline. Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution. The Arbitration Committee focuses primarily on user conduct disputes and generally does not decide article-content issues, such as whether a given organization's work-product is sufficiently reliable to be used as a source. The filing party acted responsibly by seeking assistance from the Mediation Cabal, but there are other dispute resolution avenues that can be pursued, including seeking a third opinion or filing an article-content request for comment. Please pursue these avenues toward obtaining consensus on the issue raised. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. This is a fairly routine content dispute and the debate on the reliable sources noticeboard has barely begun. I would advise the filer that, in order to avoid charges of 'forum-shopping', he may want to concentrate on that avenue for the moment. There appears to be no associated editor misconduct. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine-Israel conflict

Initiated by Ryan Postlethwaite at 17:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Jaakobou, PalestineRemembered, Tiamut, Eleland, Pedro Gonnet, ThuranX, Sulanda, CJCurrie, RolandR, Chesdovi, Armon, G-Dett, Itzse, Tewfik.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

The battles that are going on at Palestine/Israel articles are now getting out of hand and the community is no longer able to handle them. The history of Saeb Erekat is an ideal example of the problems we’re faced with here. Despite there being discussion on talk pages, the parties insist on edit warring with Jaakobou continually changing the article to his version – despite it being arguably a BLP violation (Jaakobou has basically been trying to label Erekat a liar). Other articles paint a similar picture (Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian, Palestinian Fedayeen, Second Intifada, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Allegations of Israeili apartheid, Islam: What the West Needs to Know, Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, Arab citizens of Israel, Pallywood (Note:This is not an exhaustive list)). What it boils down to is severe ownership issues from certain members of the dispute, and an unwillingness for parties to make compromises and stick with consensus. I realise there are no user RfC’s in this dispute, the problem is, who to create an RfC for? We’ve had many previous threads on AN/I about this, a previous arbitration case which was closed without action and now all parties seem resigned to getting their point across through edit warring and other disruption. A quick look at the block logs of a number of the participants show that they have no respect for some of our editing policies and guidelines. Any further efforts at attempting to stop the dispute other than arbitration are simply going to add gasoline to the fire and will act solely as a stepping stone to arbitration at a later date. I hope the arbitrators will accept this case to look at remedies including editing restrictions and/or article/topic probations. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PalestineRemembered

I don't understand why I'm named in this Arbitration. I've repeatedly called for the ArbCom that bears my name to be re-opened, but this cannot be it - the other party has not been included.

I have completely avoided addressing User:Jaakobou for 7 weeks, last this and an occasion I asked him to stop wiki-stalking me. Restricting myself in this fashion has greatly reduced the good work I can do, but I can provide evidence that, I believe, will prove there is a pattern of really serious tendentious editing going on. There are multiple violations of virtually every policy of the project. I have documented the Saeb Erekat case (mentioned above) here.

  • 1) Question for Jaakobou - has you ever operated any other Wikipedia (English version) editing-accounts, and, if so, have they been operated in ways that would attract censure.
  • 2) It has been suggested that problems in I-P conflict articles are nearly insoluble, I would dispute this. There are a small number of participating editors who appear to have very little experience of scholarship. There are enough of them to feed off each other and drag the whole project down (ie one or two would be tolerable, but we're supposed to operate with far too many around). I believe that if we identified all those who are unfamiliar with books we would find them to be the same people who cannot process what is likely to be an RS. Either of these features probably render an editor to be a net drain on the project. Muzzling them won't stop the problems, but it would make everything manageable again, not much worse than what goes on in other areas.
  • 3) Endorse MastCellTalk suggestion - this process urgently needs a pro-active clerk (will deserve a medal) to stop disruptive behaviour within the process. Not because I-P conflict discussions are (necessarily) worse than others, but because the problem of harassment is out-of-control generally.
  • 4) I can confirm that Steve, Sm8900 shows all the signs of being a fine collaborative editor. I don't believe anyone has accused him of any misbehavior on these topics, and it is disturbing to see him accused with the rest of "all parties seem resigned to getting their point across through edit warring and other disruption." PRtalk 19:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sm8900

Hi. this is Sm8900. I would like to add my input. i have been a frequent contributor to many discussions in these articles. sorry , but i do somewhat question the need for this arbitration. this request makes no specific statements as to what actually needs to be done or addressed. it's my understanding that Arbcom proceedings exist mainly to sanction other users. I have a concern about the wholesale nature of this proceeding. I would like to see more details about what needs to be addressed here.

I am concerned that starting a case like this might actually create greater conflict than the discussions which it would supposedly address. Sorry, I disagree with statements in the request; I feel that this community has been manifestly able to frequently have positive discussions. There are some articles where that has not been the case, but I feel that those should be addressed individually, not wholesale in a manner which invites the most minute problems and individual flaws to end up taking up most of the time and energy. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PR. sorry if my text was incovenient. everything is fine with me in regard to this case, so please feel free to remove my comments if you wish. thanks very much for the helpful sentiment which you expressed. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if anyone wishes to discuss this case informally, they may do so by going

to this page. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GRBerry

I strongly encourage the committee to review editing patterns across a broad spectrum of articles here. We have factionalized editing occurring, and also individually problematic editors from both factions. I haven't been interested enough, nor willing enough to suffer the inevitable personal attacks consequent upon acting, to take a wholistic view and determine which editors Wikipedia would be better off without, if any, nor what other solutions would work. I believe there is a pattern of "edit war, page protected, change page to war over, don't discuss the original edit war" occurring. Some of this is a natural consequence of attending to a watchlist, some seems to reflect users who don't want to collaborate and/or create a NPOV article. As an example of the sorts of problems that are encountered routinely consider the following sets of protections on Nov 29 and Dec 5.

November 29, 2007
December 5, 2007

Statement by Kendrick7

I don't edit in this topic area as much as I used to; I hardly recognize the names of half the listed parties. But, I agree with Sm8900 that this could quickly devolve into a witch hunt which won't be good for anyone involved.

Insomuch as I can answer Kirill's question, the situation in Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict is more or less the same as every other part of the Wikipedia trying to cover an ongoing civil war. There is always a slow influx of zealous new editors on both sides, and either they learn the ropes in a few months or they don't. If they remain problematic -- and I admit to cringing a little when I saw Jaakobou had installed Twinkle -- then an RFC is a better first step. Meanwhile, occasionally an article gets enough neutral editors going on it at once, as I recall occurring lately with Palestinian exodus for example, and the quality of the category does slowly improve.

Update: Ah, I am now caught up per the AN/I thread and User:Jaakobou#Detwinkled. Glad I wasn't the only one cringing.

Reply to Eleland: The thinking is correct as there are two sides to this little chess game, and instead of an RFC on the behavior of particular editors individually, bringing this to ArbCom puts all the pieces into play. The AN/I thread comments regarding WP:KETTLE forebode the likely attempt by one side to sacrifice one editor in exchange for an editor of greater value on the other side.

Reply to ThuranX: Yes, I also don't understand why you'd be a party here; Ryan seems to have listed just a lot of people who commented in the AN/I.

Reply to Durova: I concur that other dispute resolution would be a better first step; the examples Ryan give above are either rather ancient or ongoing or not even dispute resolution per se. P.S. You shouldn't get upset at G-Dett's little poke in your belly -- it just wouldn't be a cabal without you!

Statement by MastCell

This probably ought to go to ArbCom since there are real problems here, and no admin who values his residual sanity would get involved in trying to resolve them given the prevailing atmosphere and history. The only suggestion I have is that, if this goes to Arbitration, an uninvolved party (clerk or Arbitrator) seriously needs to ride shotgun over the Workshop and discussion pages to prevent them from turning into yet another front on the WP:BATTLEfield. MastCell Talk 18:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Eleland

I urge ArbCom to accept this request. While it stems primarily from good-faith content disputes, the manner in which these disputes have been conducted has been seriously disruptive across literally dozens of Wikipedia articles. Admins recognize the problem and the problem users, but generally don't go beyond brief 3RR blocks because the subject matter is so touchy, and they don't want to be seen as favouring one side. Actually, that's the problem here; we're clearly thinking in terms of sides. Normal dispute resolution has succeeded occasionally (the lists of Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada, finally removed from their politicized context as an Israeli-only List of massacres committed during the al-Aqsa Intifada, being a case in point) but more commonly failed miserably (Saeb Erekat, the never-resolved Battle of Jenin slugfest, etc, etc.) The buck has to stop somewhere, and ArbCom is it. <eleland/talkedits> 19:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, in addition, there may be some parties who ought to be named additionally. Offhand:
Armon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
G-Dett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Itzse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Tewfik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
And surely others. <eleland/talkedits> 20:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tariqabjotu

I also strongly urge the Arbitration Committee to examine this case. Resolving this issue, or at least issuing remedies related to it, would go a long way to defusing the minefield that is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles and Middle East articles in general. I have not assessed the full situation, but every time my actions intersect with these articles, I see what appears to be an attitude a lá "I'm right, everyone else is wrong; thus, my edit-warring is okay (or actually not edit-warring at all) and everyone else is a disruptive POV warrior". Not good, to say the least. -- tariqabjotu 21:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I know I'm being pedantic here, but can we please reorder the entities in the name of this case, from "Palestine-Israel conflict" to "Israeli-Palestinian conflict", if/when it gets opened? The latter arrangement seems more customary both here on Wikipedia and elsewhere, and the former sounds awkward. -- tariqabjotu 21:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.S. I don't believe ThuranX (talk · contribs) and Chesdovi (talk · contribs) should be involved in this case. I'm also unsure about the involvement of G-Dett (talk · contribs), Itzse (talk · contribs), Suladna (talk · contribs), and Tewfik (talk · contribs). -- tariqabjotu 21:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ThuranX

Not really sure why I'm considered an involved party. I watch AN/I and I like reading through some of the cases and chiming in when I think that wider community input is useful, or the opinion of a third party editor can help. I've got all of three article space edits to any of the relevant articles (two to The Palestinian Fedayeen, one to the definitions of Palestinian). I'm not particularly into edit warring about these articles, but I have acted in these few instances when I think I can help. One was corrected (the Def. of Palest-ine/ian), and the other two probably got lost in the edit warring there fast. For me, wider involvement in Wikipedia, via AN/I, has just been a way of expanding my awareness here, by getting me into new subject areas. Although it's possible some here think I've got a 'side' going because i happen to be Jewish, not the case. I've been reading the cases and reviewing them, and anyone who looks at my contribs to AN/I will see I kibbitz in lots of cases, sometimes to some particular help, other times, it goes silently ignored. Either way, fine by me. I've got no particular interest in this entire situation beyond being frustrated watching the project resources being squandered on the cyclical fighting, and in noting who I think has been responsible for violations of policy and creating problems. Do I have opinions about the topic? yes. I keep them out of the cited facts, because frankly, I suspect most of the editors of these articles write more from personal assumptions and POV, and I'd rather see cited facts I disagree with than not. Cited facts make me rethink my own attitudes.) Do I have opinions about who is at fault here? Yes, and they're already stated in the relevant AN/I threads about Jaakobou and Eleland. In summary, no clue why I'm here, not an edit warrior on here, just an uninvolved third party. ThuranX (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Durova

Jaakobou has undertaken mentorship with me. This mentorship regards Wikipedia policies only, not the related content dispute. He tells me he wishes to pursue other dispute resolution at this time. Arbitration in general is a last resort, and I ask in good faith for the other parties to consider whether a brokered solution would be feasible.

I am neutral regarding the underlying conflict and, I hope, sufficiently respectful of both sides. About two years ago I started a short article on a Judaism-related topic and at present I'm doing a little bit of editing that relates to uncontroversial parts of Palestinian social history. DurovaCharge! 21:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G-Dett, please strikethrough that insinuation regaring me. It's very bad faith and treads on the margins of a personal attack. DurovaCharge! 23:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes, Durova! I'm not sure how the wires got crossed, but...that was a straight suggestion, not a sarcastic insinuation. Sure, we've clashed briefly a couple of times, but I regard you as very even-handed on ME pages and related issues. There was a mediation way back about whether Wikipedia should report with a straight face something that Juan Cole said about himself in wry self-deprecation, and two partisan editors were locked in what appeared to be mortal combat, and if I remember right you were stern and effective. I was trying to think who would be a good foil to HG on my proposed 'cabal', someone who could be bad cop if necessary but had no ideological dog in the fight, and I thought of you.--G-Dett (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by G-Dett

I'm glad this has been brought forward; many thanks to Ryan for doing so. Two other editors who might be included here are 6SJ7 and of course Jayjg.

I have two suggestions and will keep them both brief. One is that User:HG be included somehow. He is a very unusual editor in that he's widely trusted by both sides. I'm sure he has real-life views but they are no more detectable in his Wikipedia presence than is his body odor. He seems to be drawn to resolving intractable debates, as if they were 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzles and he some kind of savant.

Ideally we could have a mini-cabal but frankly I don't know who else would be on it (Durova?). Part of HG's success has been that he never tells anyone they're talking balderdash, even when they are; he's more of a facilitator of mildly Socratic dialogue. There are many other intelligent and non-aligned editors, who however through very occasional and understandable flashes of intellectual impatience have been branded partisan.

My second suggestion is that we have some sort of moderated ME-related forum where inter-article balance issues could be discussed as they arise, and loose working principles formulated. There are certain policy-interpretation memes that come up regularly in editing disputes, and even when they're semi-resolved there's no take-away. I know "other stuff" isn't supposed to exist on Wikipedia, but it certainly does exist on ME pages, and the fact that we're not supposed to talk about it has just forced it underground into "strategy," often of a passive-aggressive sort.--G-Dett (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CJCurrie

I would agree that Arbcomm intervention on this file is long overdue. The controversies on pages having to do with Israel/Palestine can no longer be described simply as "content disputes"; many of these pages have become completely dysfunctional, due in large part to the reasons identified by Ryan and others.

Two further comments:

(i) The list of involved participants seems to have been chosen in a fairly arbitrary fashion. User:Jayjg is the most noteworthy omission, though I'm certain that others have been left out as well.
(ii) I would recommend that this ArbComm case be restructured in such a manner as to encompass pages that do not specifically address the Israel/Palestine conflict, but address related matters and involve many of the same participants. New antisemitism strikes me as a particularly relevant example, in light of ongoing discussions on its talk page.

CJCurrie (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {additional party}

Clerk notes

Parties, please don't edit each others' sections. Dialog is usually less effective than making a clear and concise presentation of why Arbitration is needed to handle this dispute. PalestineRemembered, you may add additional parties by adding their names above, notifying them on their talk page, and putting a diff of the notification in the confirmation section. Thatcher 18:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Accept, primarily to consider the overall situation in this topic area. Kirill 17:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept per Kirill. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis Presley / Onefortyone

Initiated by Steve Pastor (talk) at 16:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Onefortyone[2] Rikstar [3] Northmeister [4] LaraLove [5] Maria202 [6] Jaye9 [7]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Several editors have made heroic attempts to work with OneFortyOne. All editors who have tried to do this have thrown their hands up in frustration, as can be noted by the comments of the editors who have joined in this request.

Statement by Steve Pastor

Comments by the combined editors of the Elvis Presley article should suffice to substantiate the following request

that user OneFortyOne be permanently banned from editing the Elvis Presley article, including the Discussion page. Furthermore I request that OneFortyOne be banned from editing any article with a mention of Elvis Presley, including, but not limited to, the Milton Berle Show, Steve Allen, The Steve Allen Show, Ed Sullivan, and The Ed Sullivan Show articles.

This has been a long term pernicious problem. As Rikstar has written, 141 "knows how to play the edit warring game without getting into obvious trouble, his posts beg to be answered ... and this has been as tiresome as it has been unproductive". It should be noted that 141 brings up the same previously rejected arguments and material over and over again.

OneForty One has been banned previously. You may wish to review the following pages: [8], [9], [10].

The following are remarks are from on the Discussion page of the Elvis Presley article:

Disruptive editing. 141 continues to edit this article unilaterally, making little or no effort to co-operate with others. 141 was asked to leave my last edits for others to consider and comment on. He did not. 141 was asked to justify his accusations of fan bias in later sections on these pages first. He did not, and has gone ahead and made changes. It was explained in detail above that 141's edits regarding guitar playing didn't work and that the citation was incomplete. He reverted the changes I subsequently made and it remains a poor read and poorly cited. 141 has been asked if his intention is to make this an article of GA or FA status: no comment. 141 is refusing to allow any of his precious edits to be removed, inspite of article length, and the good will of others in removing or allowing the removal of their own contributions. Rikstar 12:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

We've approached a point where regardless of efforts to include onefortyones edits within the summary style of Wikipedia, and despite concessions to him; this editor continues to spoil any effort to bring improvement to the article so that it may become among the best at Wikipedia and receive feature status. Numerous editors thus far including yourself and tireless Rikstar have improve this article substantially. I would hate to see it all ruined by one editor who is not getting the point of our efforts nor Wikipedia WP:Point. It is time this matter is resolved by outside parties. --Northmeister 01:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This article has been degraded enough. Too much time and hard work has gone to waste. This article has great potential to be an FA. Currently, it can't even keep GA. It's time to fix the issues that ail this article. Lara❤Love 17:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It pains me to see what one user, 141, has done to this article. I watched many others work very hard on getting it to FA status. Maria202 (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

So much of the "current controversy" occurs because one particular user (guess) keeps trying to own this article, and the Talk Page. I'm in favor of taking it to arbitration, or even having him banned for his behavior in and about this article and Talk. It's a shame that this user has made such a mess of this page with his obsessive blather that the page is sinking into a swamp of user despair. Hoserjoe (talk) 00:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC) To Steve Pastor add me to your list, please.--Jaye9 (talk) 15:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I will add my own comments:

If I thought it would make a difference to 141, I would go through the archeives and repeat the arguments that have been made by other editors as to why this material does not belong in this article. Since 141 has been unable or unwilling to understand, or accept any other viewpoints on this subject, that exercise would be pointless. Steve Pastor (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Rikstar has by far put the most effort into this article, and provided these additional comments.

I posted my worries about improving the Elvis article on Dec. 8, 2006 - my comment is still in the summary of FA/GA submissions. My concerns actually referred to the involvement of one user, Onefortyone, though I did not mention him by name. His history already indicated that he had an alarming and persistent preoccupation with negative and sexually biased material, something not reflected in other encyclopedic articles. I noted he had at times been banned/committed violations.

By May, 2007, I was being actively encouraged by user Northmeister to edit (he has since given up) because of other editors' concerns about the state of the article; the lack of progress seemed tied to article length, trivia, fan bias, structure and to 141's continued involvement. In the last 6 months, I have tried to improve the article but I have felt regularly frustrated by 141's talk, edits, reverts, ignoring consensus and general tactics that lead me to seriously believe he has some kind of agenda to be disruptive and/or to have his POV included at any cost. His posting of a list of miswritten lyrics implying Presley was gay was as perplexing as it was disturbing. Responding to his claims, new submissions, etc. has taken up more time and effort than with any other user, and the payback has been negligible.

141 is shrewd: he knows how to play the edit warring game without getting into obvious trouble, his posts beg to be answered if only not to give his claims undue weight, and this has been as tiresome as it has been unproductive. I hope that my own posts on the talk pages will give sufficient details about the specific objections I and others have had to 141's editing behavior, and that they will be seen as fair and as objective as possible. It should be noted however that the frustration over many hours of discussion/arguing with 141 alone has pushed me to the point where I have felt physically repelled at the thought of doing any more editing, period. I have stretched my patience to its limit trying to negotiate with/accommodate/tolerate 141, to ignore his rehashing of stale tactics/arguments. However, the evidence is there, I think, that this and other articles will never improve as they should with his continued involvement. I also believe he has scared off too many people who could help make this a featured article. And I may well be another casuality. Rikstar (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Additional statement by Onefortyone concerning false claims by Steve Pastor

Here are some false claims made by Steve Pastor in his statement above:

  • "141 continues to edit this article unilaterally, making little or no effort to co-operate with others."
This is not true, as the discussion page shows and my efforts in order to shorten longer versions of specific paragraphs previously written by me prove. See [11], [12]. See also [13]and [14], [15], [16]. However, if some users removed entire, well-sourced paragraphs, I did not agree, which I hope is understandable. In these cases I tried to reinclude the deleted material in the original form or, alternatively, in revised, abridged form. It should be noted that others also reverted such edits. See [17], [18], [19], [20].
  • "141 was asked to justify his accusations of fan bias in later sections on these pages first. He did not..."
I did. See [21], [22], [23], [24], etc.
  • "It was explained in detail above that 141's edits regarding guitar playing didn't work and that the citation was incomplete. He reverted the changes I subsequently made and it remains a poor read and poorly cited."
For my response, see [25], where I have demonstrated that Steve Pastor's edits regarding guitar playing "suggests that Elvis's music was accepted from the beginning by the majority of listeners. But this isn't true," as the sources I have provided show. The said passage has been reworded by me and Rikstar several weeks ago and it is now a good read.
  • "141 has been asked if his intention is to make this an article of GA or FA status: no comment."
This is also a false claim. For my statements that I am willing to help to make Elvis Presley an article of GA or FA status, see [26], [27], [28].
  • 141 is refusing to allow any of his precious edits to be removed.
This is not true. For example, when Rikstar shortened this section, I did not revert it to the previous, much longer version written by me. In many other cases, I accepted edits by others, as the contribution history of the Elvis article clearly shows.

So much for Steve Pastor's false claims.

Statement by Onefortyone

It's interesting that User:Steve Pastor requests a ban in view of his biased removals of well-sourced, critical information and inclusion of fan-oriented material in Elvis-related articles.

To my mind, the whole thing is simply a content dispute concerning Elvis-related topics. Pastor seems to be primarily interested in removing critical information and including material mentioning "that some of Elvis's greatest assets were his youth and good looks." And he adds, "I have several sources (my favorite is a BB King statement, which can be seen on dvd) that he tought Elvis would be popular whether he could sing or not." See [29]. See also these four edits of May 2007: [30], [31], [32], [33]. Furthermore, which contributions to The Ed Sullivan Show are more encyclopedic? This one and this one by Steve Pastor or that one and that one by Onefortyone?

In the past, User:Steve Pastor repeatedly removed content he didn't like from the Elvis page. See [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], etc. etc.

What is more, Steve Pastor frequently includes references to specific fan sites and DVDs in Wikipedia articles. See [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59]. Other users had also a suspicion that the hyperlinks Steve Pastor prefers seem "designed primarily to sell CDs." See [60], [61]. This inclusion of references to Elvis fan sites, DVDs etc., which is not in line with Wikipedia policies, may indicate that Pastor is part of an Elvis fan group and may therefore be an editor who has a conflict of interest.

Concerning the well-sourced material I have used for my contributions, Steve Pastor writes:

  • I think we need to keep in mind that many of the people who wrote about Elvis were writing books. Much of what they write is opinion and doesn't need to be repeated here. See [62].
  • We no longer have to rely on second hand accounts of many things. We also no longer have to rely on someone elses account of what the music sounds like with the availablity of samples. See [63]

Here are some other commentaries concerning my contributions:

  • ... If the Presley article is so POV and controlled by biased Elvis fans as you claim, then feel free to make all the edits you like. They seem to wasted just appearing on the talk page. You are obviously intelligent, erudite and can write excellent prose that is unimpeachably cited. Other people are freely editing the article, so why don't you? See [64]
  • I like your recent compromise. It shows we can work together and that you understand my concerns. I moved the later material to 1968 comeback to fit better in the article. In this way we can work towards your concerns. See [65]
  • A Resilient Barnstar for learning and improving from criticisms, and not letting mistakes or blunders impede your growth as Wikipedian. I'm really impressed. See [66]

As far as I can see, I am the only editor who frequently cites his sources, among them mainstream Elvis biographies, essays by reputed Elvis experts, books by people who knew Elvis and peer-reviewed studies published by university presses. For the many sources I have used for my contributions, see [67].

Significantly, my opponents now endeavor to remove exactly the same sourced information that my former opponents had removed, who are banned by former arbcom decisions. To my mind, Steve Pastor and some new sockpuppets of Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabbadoo are still edit warring with me, as multiple hardbanned User:Ted Wilkes alias User:DW and banned User:Lochdale did in the past. Onefortyone (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

I direct the Committee's attention to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive249#Still an unresolved problem. I am concerned that the current remedies against Onefortyone may be entirely insufficient to deal with the level of disruption that seems to be going on. I urge the committee to accept this matter for review to help resolve a long running controversy that the community has been unable to handle. Onefortyone appears to have been in persistent conflict since at least May 2007 and probably much longer. I remain concerned about the possibility of disruptive sock puppetry, and of false allegations against other editors. Jehochman Talk 23:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel comfortable applying the existing probation remedy because it is too narrowly written. I believe Onefortyone has significantly impeded development of the article, based on the statements of involved parties. Additionally, Sam Blacketer has stated that he thinks Onefortyone's editing has been acceptable. It seems that there is a conflict amongst administrators how to handle this problem. The status quo since at least May 2007 has been paralysis resulting in valued contributors becoming frustrated to the point that they abandon the article. I think an expedited review of editing since the last case and a decision to remove, alter, or sustain the existing remedy would be helpful. Jehochman Talk 22:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LaraLove

In the months I have been working on this article, I have found Onefortyone to be a consistent obstacle in article improvement. My involvement started after the article was improperly promoted to GA status in August 2007. It's my opinion that every attempt to bring this article to GA standards is halted by Onefortyone. Evidence has been shown on Talk:Elvis Presley that brings Onefortyone's sourced additions into question, as it appears as though he has selectively pulled information in order to push his preferred POV. He refuses to allow information to be removed in order to bring the article down to a manageable, readable length, which is why his latest additions remain. I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Elvis Presley in hopes of being able to get more attention on the article, however, it's no further along now than it was when it began a month and a half ago. Something has to change in this situation because no progress is being made and every other editor that consistently works on this article is ready to give up, which is not in the best interest of the project. Lara❤Love 18:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

There appear to be two reports in the enforcement archives, see first and second and the enforcement log. Thatcher 17:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • The situation is troubling, but I am not certain that a new case is necessary. It appears that the problem could be addressed through enforcement of the existing remedies through a report to Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement. That page is used where an editor fails to abide by a rule in a prior arbitration case(s) and enforcement of remedies under the prior ruling are sufficient to resolve the issue. Could the parties kindly address whether the problem could be addressed more efficiently in this way. If arbitration enforcement is insufficient to address the problem then I lean toward acceptance, subject to Onefortyone's statement and possibly as a Review of editing since the prior decisions rather than a whole new case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Onefortyone is a restrained editor of the actual article on Elvis Presley and his more recent additions appear to be reliably sourced and have stayed in the article. While the talk page can get heated at times, I am very reluctant to sanction an editor merely because they happen to be in a minority. Discussion and debate is working. The current sanctions are in my view sufficient. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline for now as per Newyorkbrad. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not want to reject a case that can not be handled by past remedies or the community, but I do not see evidence for a case now. I need to see more specific evidence that we need to be involved before I can accept. FloNight (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland national football team (IFA)

Initiated by Djln

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried.

Considerable debate at Talk:Ireland national football team (IFA). Debate has also been raised at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football and Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish Football. A Wikipedia:Third Opinion has been asked for. Tried to seek help at Administrators Noticeboard. To date issue remains unresolved issue.

Statement by Djln

The issue is complex. That we all agree on. In a nutshell Ireland national football team (IFA) is an article about a national soccer team that represented Ireland between 1884 and 1950. After 1950 the organising body, the Irish Football Association only selected players from Northern Ireland and in effect this team then became the Northern Ireland national football team. As the two IFA teams represented two different territories – Ireland and Northern Ireland – there should be two different articles. There is a whole Category:Former national football teams of similar cases. The case most similar is Czechoslovakia national football team which then became the Czech Republic national football team. Fasach believes the two IFA teams should be merged into one article. I am opposed to this.

Statement by Padraig

I fully indorse the point made by Djln, this article deals with a team that played as an all-Ireland side until the 1950's, there is no justification for the proposed merge.--Padraig (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fasach Nua

  • The article content and title do not match
  • Contains significant Original research
  • Fails WP:Notability
  • Acts as a POVfork
  • Content inconsistant with the main IFA international team article

It is essentially a content dispute, other less drastic avenues such as mediation have yet to be tried Fasach Nua (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {party 2}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/7/0/0)

  • Reject, content dispute. Kirill 23:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. This dispute does not require attention from the Arbitration Committee, which primarily addresses user misconduct rather than disputes about the content of articles. Earlier steps in Dispute resolution, including Mediation if necessary, should be used to achieve a consensus resolution of the issue raised here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject, content dispute. Let the third opinion request play out, or consider making a request for comment, which would also help to get some fresh input if the debate is stagnating. --bainer (talk) 10:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Whilst ArbCom's policy mandate does allow it to look at all disputes, in practice almost all cases it accepts are to look at serious issues of problematic user conduct. A dispute about content and its presentation, like this one, can often provoke new thoughts about an article or result in better understanding of others' positions. Consider mediation or request for comment on the matter, which are approaches that draw more on the the wider community as a whole. Or indeed, even consider that the important thing is the content writing of the encyclopedia, more than which slot it goes into, and decide not to get so deeply drawn into disputing, that the broader picture is overlooked: that either way the information will be made available to readers. FT2 (Talk | email) 12:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. This is a content dispute and the participants have just taken a few wrong turns in trying to sort it out. The best advice is to persevere as suggested above by bainer and FT2. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject and support the above comments that other avenues of dispute resolution might help and need to be tried. FloNight (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Paul August ☎ 18:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Dominicanism

Initiated by Zenwhat (talk) at 19:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[68] [69] [70] [71]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

XLR8TION (talk · contribs) was banned for a week by Nishkid64 (talk · contribs) [72] Also, see the see Wikiquette alert. [73]

Statement by Zenwhat

To begin with, I was completely outside of this dispute but happened to come across it while surfing Special:Random. User:UnclePaco has been pushing anti-Dominican and anti-black racism, including fringe theories about Dominican racial heritage. These include denying that modern Dominicans have any genetic relation to the native tribes that preceded them [74], claiming that such native tribes were wiped out entirely [75], and Dominicans today are mostly of "African roots," not of Hispanic or Native origin. [76] And he characterized a Dominican politician as supporting "reverse discrimination" by appealing to black Dominicans and that black Dominicans maintain "political supremacy." [77] Recently, he has attempted to associate the Dominican Day Parade with crime. [78] [79] And he has used homophobic epithets. [80] He posted a video critical of black Dominican basketball player, Felipe López [81] and black NBA star, Amare Stoudemire, [82] whose status as a Dominican cannot be confirmed, but he is from Florida. [83]

Aside from the above obvious POV-pushing, this is an overall pattern of behavior, where some of his edits seem to be made with the subtle intent of supporting racism, such as by uploading the mugshot of the black dominican involved in the alleged plot to attack St. John's University [84] and trying to create an article to push POV about that event. [85]

He has engaged in wikilawyering in order to push his POV. Recently, he reported XLR8TION (talk · contribs) for violating the 3RR on Dominican Day Parade [86] and for bad ettiquette. [87] by being accused of speaking English as a second language. [88]

After noting on WP:ANI that his 3RR report was unfounded, an anonymous user suddenly made baseless accusations against me, of harassment and stalking. [89] An RFCU will likely confirm this is UnclePaco, who has been making edits while not logged in, possibly in order to hide his identity. [90]

He's also engaged in edit wars over long periods of time, attempting to insert two objectionable photos of his into various articles on Dominicans. See his contributions list to see the reverts.

XLR8TION's accusation that UnclePaco speaks english as as second language was rude, however, given UnclePaco's name and the fact that he does often use broken english [91], this is a reasonable criticism. A one-week ban seems particularly extreme and XLR8TION's violation of the 3RR doesn't apply, because UnclePaco is editing in bad faith.

I request that XLR8TION be unblocked, that UnclePaco be blocked for a time determined by the arbitrator, and that he be investigated for sockpuppetry, per the edits by the anonymous user above.

Although there's been no RFCU, It's pretty much been confirmed that the anonymous IP isn't UnclePaco, UnclePaco's ban is now over, and I wasn't aware of XLR8TION'S block log, so these comments no longer apply. However, I do request that some arbitration ruling be made about the "violence section," on Dominican Day Parade, because of its contentious edit history, as admin Sam Blacketer suggests below. Zenwhat (talk) 06:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Zenwhat

XLR8TION reverted other editors over the "white nationalism" reference and claimed he was being accuse of racism. He also told B to stop making ignorant accusations. This matter could have easily been resolved, had XLR8TION asked the other editors what they were referring to. There was no need to make personal attacks or continuing the edit war. Also, XLR8TION may not have a history of being a "white nationalist troll", but he certainly has a history of violating 3RR, making personal attacks and being uncivil on Dominican-related articles. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishkid64

UnclePaco filed a 3RR report against XLR8TION on January 1, 2008. The two users had been edit warring over this edit by UnclePaco, which highlights the incidents of crime at the Dominican Day Parade in 2007. B found that both users had violated WP:3RR on Dominican Day Parade, but they were currently engaging in discussion in the talk page, so he felt blocks were not necessary. Hours later, UnclePaco left a message at the 3RR report board about personal attacks from XLR8TION. XLR8TION's comment on Talk:Dominican Day Parade were uncivil, as he justified removing UnclePaco's additions because they brought the article to a "standard that is low and unreliable." Next, he claimed that from UnclePaco's edits, it was apparent that English was not his first language. XLR8TION states that since he is a native speaker, it is his "duty to maintain proper grammar and structure in articles." Afterwards, XLR8TION and UnclePaco continued to edit war on Dominican Day Parade, and XLR8TION began an edit war on Puerto Rican Day Parade, which included admin B (talk · contribs) and IP users. On Puerto Rican Day Parade, XLR8TION added a reference from a [www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/puerto-ricans-133236p6.html] "white nationalist" message board. 67.87.197.9 removed the reference. XLR8TION reverted the edit with the edit summary: "Revert, there is nothing mentions White power here". Another IP removed the reference, and XLR8TION reverted the editor, stating that the removal of sourced information can be labeled as vandalism. Admin B (talk · contribs) came to the article and removed the reference with the edit summary: "Completely unacceptable source (white power message board), no position on the rest of it." XLR8TION promptly reverted B, and left a threatening edit summary, in which he told B to "refrain from ignorant accusations" and that his next revert would lead to "corrective action." B reverted and left an edit summary: "You're joking, right? It's a message board (bad) with a big logo in the upper left corner that says 'white proud'" Meanwhile, on Dominican Day Parade, an IP re-inserted the material previously added by UnclePaco. XLR8TION promptly reverted. Shortly after, B went back to the 3RR board, where he requested a review of the previous 3RR report by an uninvolved administrator. Two minutes later, XLR8TION reverted B's edit on Puerto Rican Day Parade and told him to once again refrain from ignorant language.

I saw the report and evaluated XLR8TION's contributions. As I was reviewing his contributions, he made an edit at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, in which he accused B of making racist and uncivil accusations of "white power" against him. 15 minutes later, I blocked XLR8TION for one week, due to edit warring, incivility and personal attacks. Within the hour, I received an e-mail from XLR8TION about the block. He felt the block was unfair, and claimed that he was being accused of "white power" propaganda. We sent over a dozen e-mails back and forth, in which I explained the reasons for the block. He claimed he did not know the message board he was adding as a reference was a "white nationalist" website. He stated that his firewall at blocked parts of the page, so he did not see the banners indicative of the site's purpose. He believed that this firewall should be taken into consideration. He repeatedly asked what I was going to do about UnclePaco. He advocated for a block, but I felt it was unnecessary. Finally, I told him I would look into the matter. When I went back on Wikipedia hours later, I saw UnclePaco was edit warring on St. John's University (New York City)‎ and Dominican Day Parade. I then blocked UnclePaco for 24 hours due to edit warring.

A few points of clarification from ZenWhat's statement and the entire case, itself:

  • No dispute resolution
  • I blocked, not banned XLR8TION for one week. I have been in contact via e-mail regarding his block
  • Sandstein declined the unblock request on XLR8TION's talk page
  • XLR8TION's 3RR report was not unfounded; B (talk · contribs) found both UnclePaco and XLR8TION had violated WP:3RR, but he chose not to block the users at the time
Reply to Nishkid64
I received an email from XLR8TION, where he claimed that he did not realize Stormfront.org was a "white power" site, and feels embarrassed about the matter, because his ISP has a firewall his blocks certain objectionable content (I assume he means a word filter, he could explain better than I). A copy of the email can be found here: [92] Because he does NOT have an history of contributions supporting white nationalism, per WP:Assume Good Faith, I see no reason to disbelieve him. Although I admit the edit war was a bad idea and I would like to hear more specifics about his ISP's firewall. Zenwhat (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I received e-mails from XLR8TION as well. The issue is not about "white nationalism", but about the edit warring and personal attacks he made on Puerto Rican Day Parade. A firewall is no excuse for inappropriate incivility and edit warring. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by UnclePaco replied on January 7, 2008

  • Amare Stoudamire isn't hispanic at all. He's black. I posted an article that spoke about him and summarized it. [93]. What you wrote is a strech of the imagination and simply trying to find things to bury me on.
  • The felipe lopez article. [94] This was his last college game. How is it critical of him? http://youtube.com/watch?v=vdmf9l6b8Bc Again, trying to find something to bury me on. Why don't you look at the video!
  • the alleged homophobia comment. In the context of the article we discussed how allegations with no substance can still make it into articles, such as [Rock Hudsons] personal life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_Hudson#Personal_life[95]. We discussed the Patriot Act, Habeous Corpus, Guilty until proven innocent (i.e. Rock Hudsons personal life). [96] To which he stated Gay not being a crime, and that depends on what nation you're at. AT no point did I make homophobic remarks. If someone chooses to live a certain lifestyle that is on them. I'm indifferent.
  • Dominican Day Parade crime section. I created a section similiar to two other articles in New York about parades that had similiar sections. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Day_Carnival#Violence and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rican_Day_Parade#Controversy . I placed in verified information NY Times, NY Sun, NY Daily News, NY Post to illustrate this. Why is it ok for the Labor Day Carnival to have a violence section and the Puerto Rican Day Parade to have a controversy section, but the Dominican Day Parade not to have one? I have brought this up on talk pages. [97]
  • The black supremacy section, well I did reinsert the trivia section [98]. I simply didn't read the whole thing. It was originally inserted in Dec 2005 way before I became a member. I saw it was deleted and saw the first couple of sentences and it looked good to me. [99]
  • Dominican racial identity is simply up for debate. [100] There are numerous articles that state that DR is simply african and spaniard. Also that the native indians died off.

http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/amholocaust-5.html http://pine3.info/Barbecue%20Heritage.htm http://forests.org/archive/general/columbus.htm http://forests.org/archive/general/columbus.htm http://www.websteruniv.edu/~corbetre/haiti/history/precolumbian/tainospring.htm http://www.delhey.de/content-00/en/reports/domrep.htm www.dominican-rep.com/history.html http://www.icumedia.com/santodomingo/sd-history.shtml http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096409671 http://www.intellnet.org/resources/american_terrorism/IndianGenocide.html to easily name a few.


There does seem to be some kind of relationship between Zenwhat and XLR8TION. For a period they seem to have a similiar writing style and utilization of edits or accusation that has no true source. Look at the Felipe Lopez article and what I was accused of for example. How could that even remotely be considered to be anti-dominican or racism. Zenwhat below states that he wants us to Assume Good Faith for XlR8TION (for posting racist message boards, and stating that english isn't my first language ; which I might add is someting that individuals who are on those sites tend to do (white message boards). They tell people to speak english or mock peoples english skills), but is going for the throat with me with outlandish accusation. UnclePaco (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:B

I have interacted with all of these editors over the last few days on two separate occasions while patrolling WP:AN3 and I will make an effort to give some background.

UnclePaco (talk · contribs) reported XLR8TION (talk · contribs) for 3RR on Dominican Day Parade. (See [102] for the thread.) Both users were in violation, but appeared to be talking it out on the talk page. I felt it would be appropriate to simply warn them, rather than block them. After that, XLR8TION resumed edit warring and repeatedly adding a link to a thread on a white power message board [103] to Puerto Rican Day Parade. I removed it for obvious reasons and he reverted the removal twice. I realized my prior conclusion that the disruptive editing had stopped was incorrect and, though I would have been justified in making the block myself, in order to maintain transparency I posted a request at 3RR that another admin review my previous decision and consider making a block. Nishkid64 decided, based on the continued edit warring, incivility, and inappropriate external link, to block XLR8TION for one week. I concur with this block. During the interim before the block was made, XLR8TION opened a frivolous WQA alert concerning my removal of the inappropriate external link.[104]

UnclePaco has repeatedly added to Puerto Rican Day Parade the comment "with Manuel Vargas being deemed the ring leader." [105] That statement is supported by the source, although not knowing the issue, I can't see a reason why this matters - no foundation is given - who is he? He has also edit warred on Dominican Day Parade. Again, I don't know anything about the issue to conclude a right or wrong, only that it is a disruption. 67.101.248.187 (talk · contribs) seems to almost certainly be UnclePaco editing while logged out. UnclePaco says on his talk page that he isn't the IP, and it's completely moot to everything else I typed - I just assumed it was him based on seeing the same edit summary in the same article, this wasn't meant to be an accusation. --B (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously feel that overturning XLR8TION's block would be a bad idea. UnclePaco's editing is somewhat tenuous and if it continues, it can be dealt with, but arbitration is premature. --B (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the above, I have serious doubts about the technical likelihood of this selective firewall. "Stormfront White Nationalist Community" is the top level forum of this message board and it is printed in plain text (not an image) in the same HTML file (not overlayed by a javascript). The "White Pride World Wide" image is on the same domain (www.stormfront.org) as the rest of the site. The alt text is "Return to Stormfront White Pride World Wide Main Page". This particular sub-forum is the "América Latina White Nationalists in Latin America." There is enough racist nonsense on that message board that I feel sick in my stomach from just looking at it. I am often told that I have a poor imagination, but I have a difficult time imagining someone taking more than a cursory glance at this site and not realizing what it is. --B (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The blatant obviousness of Stormfront as a white nationalist site is precisely why I believe XLR8TION's claim that Stormfront's material is partially blocked. Even a legitimately white nationalist troll is probably not going to be stupid enough to cite Stormfront.org, with "White Nationalist" plastered all over it, then claim in his edit summaries that it isn't white nationalist, and engage in an edit war over it. It's not effective trolling. It's the same reason there isn't a "White Nationalist" usebox. Per WP:Assume good faith and because XLR8TION doesn't have a suspicious edit history, as all white nationalist trolls should, I think we should reserve judgment on the issue until XLR8TION can explain his claim more in detail and name his specific ISP. If he does both, we could easily confirm or deny the claim. XLR8TION seems genuinely concerned that his reputation has been severely tarnished by being branded a racist. If this matter isn't cleared up, it may affect the credibility of his future edits. It wouldn't require hardly any effort to confirm or deny and, if it turns out that I'm right, it's a particularly important detail for the arbitrators to consider. Zenwhat (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please move your comments to your section. If you want, you can make subsections like ===Reply to B=== or something, but you should not edit another person's section. If the site was "partially blocked", exactly what part wasn't blocked? It doesn't make any sense. There's no mindreading software that can selectively cleanse the page of the racist material and leave whatever it was being used to source. But if he is really seeing something else, he can take a screenshot of what he is seeing (alt+printscreen), paste it into Microsoft Paint, save it, and upload it to somewhere like flickr or webshots and post the link here. --B (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Cheeser1

As one of the primary responders to the WQA complaint, I would like to point out a few things. The block was not for this incident, but for something else that occurred. Check the block log and the WQA history:

Block Log: 21:41, 3 January 2008 Nishkid64 (Talk | contribs) blocked "XLR8TION (Talk | contribs)"
WP:WQA: 22:50, 3 January 2008 UnclePaco (Talk | contribs) (185,592 bytes) (XLR8TION) (undo)

As for the WP:SKILL issue, it doesn't matter if UnclePaco is the worst editor in history, WP:SKILL still applies. And "but he really is bad at English" is not a valid defense, nor is "but he's not a good contributor." There may be merit in considering UnclePaco's contributions, because they were certainly dubious. But XLR8TION is responsible for his actions and they can't be excused based on the quality of UnclePaco's contributions. He has a history of being warned and blocked for incivility, personal attacks, and edit warring in this exact way (read: he should know better), and his block seems to be self-evidently appropriate (several instances of totally incivility during edit wars). His appeal was declined because his defense was the same one coming up here: UnclePaco is bad at English, and he's a bad contributor. That's not relevant, especially since he's being blocked for an incident prior to it. The prior incident, by the way, was also reported at the WQA here, where you can confirm that the block is not related to the incident involving UnclePaco - not that another round of incivility doesn't support the validity of the block anyway. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: After seeing a more thorough account, it seems that all of these incidents are loosely related. However, there is still a misunderstanding that UnclePaco reported XLR8TION at the WQA, and then he gets blocked, and then UnclePaco is the winner. There was a similar issue when XLR8TION asserted that UnclePaco had not been warned for 3RR, when he had (and has, in fact, been blocked too). Like I said, UnclePaco's POV and content issues merit examination (although perhaps not here). Unblocking XLR8TION is not related to that, and does not seem warranted. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more consideration: As for the edit warring over the Stormfront message board "reference" - XLR8TION's explanation about some sort of partial firewall seems dubious, but I'm willing to accept that as an explanation for his having used such an obviously inappropriate source. Once. When someone says "your source is a white nationalist messageboard, and is thus inappropriate," then you just found out what all your "partial firewall" or whatever was blocking on that page (although I can't imagine it wasn't obviously some kind of forum, which should be enough). Edit warring and breaching WP:CIVIL in order to reinsert a source that he has admitted to at least being unable to assess the reliability of - that's not appropriate and is not excused by anything others might have done. I think XLR8TION even jumped to the odd conclusion that "the reference you are citing is a white power messageboard" means the same as "you are a white supremacist." --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by trying to be funny Kendrick7

Looks like a Jesuit plot to me. Oh, wait -- wrong anti-Dominicanism. -- Kendrick7talk 22:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/6/0/0)

  • Decline. Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution; there is no evidence that earlier steps have been attempted. If there is serious concern about the one-week block, the matter can be raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for input by other admins and editors. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject, per Newyorkbrad. Kirill 23:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject, premature. I agree with Brad's comments. I would also add that this seems suitable for mediation, should other methods of dispute resolution not be productive. --bainer (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Nothing in this request suggests that WP:RFC or WP:ANI would not be better venues at this point in time. Or indeed, mediation. Either content or conduct RFC would perhaps be especially valuable; conduct RFC by both parties particulary since it has a tendency to clarify conflicting claims about behavior and approaches such as described above, and users can often get good commonsense on the conflict issues and how the community and its norms see them. FT2 (Talk | email) 12:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would myself accept this case because the edit history of Dominican Republic does show a long history of disputes involving misconduct and because the accusations made in the case are serious enough to merit arbitration even though previous dispute resolution has been minimal. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject, I think that editor conduct issue exist but I am hopeful that through further community action that an arbitration case can be avoided. FloNight (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline as premature. Paul August ☎ 18:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia-Azerbaijan 3

Initiated by White Cat at 17:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

  • Anybody that is involved that I had forgotten. This can be added by anybody.
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by White Cat

The dispute hasn't been resolved and has been continuing on as if the previous arbitration cases didn't happen. A good number of involved parties on the previous cases continue to post inflammatory comments, game the system, and other such acts of disruption. Current remedies had been ineffective in preventing the disruption nor in resolving the disputes. On some occasions the remedies had been used to game the system.

Although I believe arbcom is fully aware of it, Arbitration enforcement Archive 10, Archive 11, and etc is full of flame wars and related material.

I have been uninvolved from the most part. The parties came and started revert waring in List of attacks by the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia and removing sources. Even governmental sources seem to be unacceptable. That has been the entirety of my involvement with this case.

-- Cat chi? 17:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of argument, lets just say I have been overall disruptive. Had not the contribution of Andranikpasha, Eupator, and VartanM perhaps had a hint of disruption? Why am I the only one receiving the topic-ban proposal?

Reply to Moreschi. "Requests for arbitration" is a poor place to "forum shop". Who am I shopping for? Arbitrators? That accusation is false. If Arbcom rules that the entire Azerbaijan-Armenian war had been my fault, sure. Then such a ban would be warranted.

-- Cat chi? 18:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Several people had been banned by arbcom. The fear of sockpuppetary has led to situations where bad behaviour is overlooked over sockpuppetary fears.


from this page

Inflammatory ethnic comments (such as the one above) are merely not recommended, I would hope that such is supposed to be outlawed. The example above is mild in comparaison to other nonsense.

-- Cat chi? 22:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I also am weary of the Armenia-Azerbaijan rfars. Relatively good users such as myself are given the boot on sight while behaviour of people who have been involved on both RfArs are overlooked. Moreschi's attitude on an unofficial IRC discussion was rather unpleasant for example. His treatment of me is also apparent on this very page.

I do not believe Armenia-Azerbaijan thing will be resolved with the current remedies. While I do understand that spelling out what is disruptive gives disruptive users a mean to avoid the remedies. That is why the boundaries of the Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute were loosely defined. However loosely defined boundaries may be also giving admins too much power.

-- Cat chi? 22:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply to John Vandenberg: Thats a big fat lie and you know it. All attacks in question with the Exception of two of them are cross sourced by MIPT which establishes the ASALA connection clearly. The two exceptions were covered by the two sources that are removed.

[106] ASALA is mentioned numerous times. On some occasions Tr.Gov didn't state who was responsible but they do agree that an attack happened. Therefore referencing them for this purpose is perfectly legitemate. The tone on the tr.gov source isn't exactly neutral. The material covered is of course partisan. As is US gov partisan on Al-Quida and etc. Partisan websites are not banned. Since the material used from the partisan source is not in dispute, their use is not an actual problem. No one raised any objections on the content in the article.

If a North Korean related organization starts shooting US employees such as ambassadors, embassy employees and such can't I use the US government as a source? Why the double standard?

[107] ASALA is mentioned numerous times. One of the attacks ASALA connection is only mentioned on ATMG.org. MIPT has nothing on that attack MIPT is rather incomplete for 1975 and prior. ATMG has more of a diplomatic tone. Presents information in a more neutral way. It does not delude into pre WW2 issues that are irrelevant to ASALA. I do not know nor care about their information on non-ASALA related matters. That has no bearing or relevance to the article on ASALA attacks.

I removed www.atmg.org as a compromise but that wasn't enough. Both links had to go. My only fault was restoring sources.

All VartanM and Andranikpasha did was revert war. Was this their first time? Hardly! Just check their recent contribution history. Many examples. Were they on revert parole when they started removing sources from the ASALA article? No. VartanM has a Christal clear block log. So does Andranikpasha despite frequently revert waring.

If I am going to be damned at least damn me for what I have done not what others have done. How the heck am I "sparking off" a dispute on an article that VartanM and Andranikpasha had no edits whatsoever prior to November 2007.

There is a very serious problem here if I am the one accused. I will edit wikipedia normally if a bunch of Azerbaijanis, Armenians, Turks, or any other group of ethnicities in dispute do not like it, though luck. No admin threatening me for hardly doing anything (I merely restored sources) will change that.

If we are in the business of banning people for adding sources, you have bigger problems in your hands than you think.

-- Cat chi? 07:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Moreschi

This is ridiculous. White Cat's just forum-shopping here (see ANI here.) Two options. Either take this case, rename it and ban White Cat from anything related to Armenia (see my comments on ANI and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek). Or chuck it out, because the remedies from AA2 are working as much as they are able, insofar as long-term peace and harmony in this area is very unlikely. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 18:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC) )[reply]

I also endorse the statements of Folantin, Thatcher, and John Vandenburg. I've applied the ArbCom remedies piecemeal, letting the punishment fit the crime (revert-warring, even done politely, is rewarded by revert limitation only: that is, being a tad rouge), but it would be nice to have official permission to actually do so. I sent a few emails to the ArbCom mailing list on this subject recently, which I know at least a few people read. This could more usefully be handled by an open vote on this page, however, or perhaps via a review.
That's all that needs doing, and I speak as an admin who's been highly active in dealing with the Armenia-Azeri disputes. Unless, of course, you want to deal with the problem of White Cat's relentless Turk-nationalist agenda advocacy, largely consisting of Armenian Genocide denial. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 12:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Andranikpasha

Unforunately the real life, politics has its influence also to Wikipedia and I think the AA2 remedies are doing maximum (maybe more than needed due to the lack of sockpuppetry) in this situation. And surely White Cat needes an admin involvement to stop his "source" pushing to Armenia-related articles. Andranikpasha (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Folantin

I second what Moreschi says. White Cat is just forum-shopping over a content dispute. List of attacks by the ASALA is related to Armenian and Turkish issues, but not directly to Armenia-Azerbaijan. The main argument between Armenians and Azeris is only tangentially relevant to this matter (it's mostly concerned with Nagorno-Karabakh and has little or nothing to do with the ASALA) and it is currently being dealt with at Arbitration Enforcement. Admins are having some success in calming the main Armenian-Azeri dispute down. This latest move by White Cat simply inflames matters and is completely unhelpful. What's the point of dragging users into another ArbCom because White Cat wants to use a particular (unreliable) source? White Cat has a history of trouble-making on Armenian issues and I second the suggestion he be restricted from editing in this topic area. --Folantin (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update I completely concur with John Vandenberg's statement below. This is just another example of White Cat going forum-shopping because he can't get consensus to use a dubious source on the talk page. He went to ANI over a similar issue on the same page in March 2007 when he want to use an extremist hate site, Tallarmeniantale, as a "reliable source" for the ASALA attacks [108]. This is simply White Cat disrupting Wikipedia to get his own way. Unsurprising behaviour from a user who once put WP:CIVILITY up for deletion to make a point [109]. --Folantin (talk) 08:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Grandmaster

I don't think another arbcom case is really necessary right now. What we actually need is proper application of the existing remedies and maybe better definition of the terms of the remedies to avoid troublemakers getting away because of minor technical issues. Grandmaster (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Thatcher that endless arguments on WP:AE became annoying. In my opinion, reporting rules should be modified to put an end to this. I think that regular users should not be allowed to post responses to reports, except for the reported party, which should be allowed to post a brief explanation of its actions. Only admins should be allowed to post responses to the reports. That would end the mess the AE board has become. Grandmaster (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thatcher

Response to Newyorkbrad: In my view, the effectiveness of the prior remedy would be greatly improved by allowing uninvolved admins to place editors on restriction (probation, revert parole and civility probation) on a discretionary basis, as the current language requires incivility, making it impossible (or at least more difficult) to impose restrictions on POV edit warriors who are polite (see Kirill's comment).

The alternative is an absolute topic ban. The editors here are certainly immovable in their convictions, and seem largely unable to agree on compromise language that respects all points of view. However, enforcement so far seems to have focused on the 1RR limit, rather than topic bans (which are permitted under the probation) so it might be premature to issue broad topic bans (not to mention the problem of sockpuppetry that would likely arise).

The other problem is one of vexatious litigation, in which certain parties report each other over the most minor perceived infractions, and argue at length on WP:AE. I suspect this can be handled by more aggressive refactoring. Thatcher 19:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by VartanM

I believe arbitrators can help and a review could be helpful for clarifications and few changes, but not a new case. First, Ehud Lesar, who many are convinced is Adil Baguirov[110], second to wave the condition of incivility as a condition to include members in the revert restriction. I think every person who regularly edits articles related to the region should be required to justify their edits in the talkpage. I also believe that arbitrators should put conditions as to what is a justification in a talkpage, with conditions. Some members have been abusing it by adding a irrelevant sentence or two as a justification to their reverts.

I believe there are more things that should be done, but I'm not including those, I presented things which are general and that both parties would find it helpful to deal with. I also agree with Thatcher, on the baseless reports on the enforcement page. So, I think the review could deal with those who have abusively reported members for enforcement, and if there is evidence to such abuse they could be restricted to report others there. I think Atabek's behavior should also be reviewed, but that would be opening a can of worms and having to do with evidences and counter evidences. VartanM (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Atabek should be the one assuming good faith. Both Fadix and Fedayee start with an F, I had the link of the evidences on a word document and posted the wrong one. If Atabek even bothered to check the evidence he would see that it didn't have anything to do with Azerbaijani members but White Cat in 2005. It's also easy to lie about members who could not defend themselves. As when he claims that Fadix has used several socks, he is probably mistaking him with AdilBaguirov. The two socks (not several) Fadix created didn't disrupt and were self exposed by Fadix himself. VartanM (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rlevse

I am responding per User:Newyorkbrad's commment below as I have recently been active on the arb enforcement page in an admin role. It seems to me the issues here are pretty much the same as before, therefore, opening a new case would simply be a rehash and hence a waste of time. The views by Thatcher and Moreschi make the most sense to me. In summation, we need to more actively and forcefully use the tools already in hand and/or bring in more stringent enforcement methods. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Penwhale

Concur with Thatcher in that the remedies probably need reworking, but a new case isn't necessary. I recently dealt with VartanM whose only point was that he wasn't uncivil (in which his edits were quite contrary to that). - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 01:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Vandenberg

I agree with Thatcher and VartanM that the existing remedies could use tweaking to help prevent people who insist on being difficult while being (barely) civil, but the issue of sources on ASALA is being blown out of proportion by White Cat, who is the only one wanting to include a Turkish government source on the article. On close inspection, that Turkish government webpage was being used as a source for attacks that are not even mentioned on the webpage, and for attacks that the website doesnt attribute to ASALA. If there is a case here, it is that White Cat was edit warring and is now looking to spark off a third round of an unrelated dispute because prior attempts at gaining wider support, on user talk pages, AN/AE and AN/I, didnt have the desired result. John Vandenberg (talk) 06:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ehud Lesar

I think it would be a good idea to have stricter rules on baseless accussations, such as those above made by Vartan. If a user is proven to be not a sockpuppet after continuosly accussed of being one, it should be made clear once and for all for the accussing parties to stop harrassment campaigns. Moreover, these parties should be demanded official apologies Ehud (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment by EconomicsGuy

This case may not be the right place or time for this debate but it is going to need ArbCom's attention again sooner rather than later. I urge the arbitrators to read the archives of WP:AE just month back. The arbitrators only have one issue they need to consider: are these people here for the encyclopedia or not? As will be obvious to the arbitrators once they review the debates (flame wars) of the last month or so the remedies are being used as entitlements to disrupt as long as they are being civil on the surface at least. Is this the sort of disrespect for the purpose of 2 past ArbCom cases and endless waste of time that we should accept? I sincerely hope not for the sake of Wikipedia as a project and I hope that the arbitrators will look at this again with more realistic ambitions and expectations and draw the inevitable conclusion that needs to be drawn here. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Lar

This m:Requests_for_CheckUser_information#Andranikpasha crosswiki CU case may or may not have some bearing. If I can answer any questions, please do not hesitate to ask. ++Lar: t/c 15:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment by Atabek

If I may ask, why is User:VartanM assuming bad faith against me again above and reciting my name, when I am not even involved in this particular case raised by White Cat? And using the evidence of a banned User:Fadix, caught with several socks, to bring more groundless accusations against another User:AdilBaguirov that he was in conflict with? And didn't the last ArbCom principle [111] prohibit contributors from doing this? And wasn't VartanM assigned to mentor Andranikpasha, on whom new evidence of violations is being presented all over various language Wikis? And what is with repeated violations of WP:AGF in regards to John Vandenberg? How many users have to be the subject of attacks by VartanM, before he is finally explained that he needs to calm down and assume good faith in his interactions with other contributors? Atabek (talk) 07:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Comment. We are expecting to look again at all the 'general sanctions' cases, including Armenia-Azerbaijan, once we new arbitrators have settled in. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would appreciate input from the administrators active on Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement as to whether a new case would play a useful role here in potentially honing the remedies available, or whether it would only compound the disruption and bitterness that already exist. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Based on input above, decline as a new case, but agree that the committee should revisit the issue of remedies available. I invite the admins familiar with this matter to present a proposed motion in the "requests for clarification" section of this page, with the earnest request that editors keep responses to any such proposal as brief and non-argumentative as possible. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to say reject for now; we do expect to look at this again, as Sam mentions, but since this situation essentially revolves around enforcement issues, it can best be dealt with by motion in the earlier case. --bainer (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This series of disputes has gone on a long time. There have been persistent comments that the previous remedies are not as well drafted as they might be, echoed by comments above by experienced administrators that they are having to flex the wording somewhat and would like not to have to do so. Other administrators have commented similarly that using the remedies is a bit problematic. However no claim is being made that the principles or findings of fact were misplaced in prior cases. The sole persistent issue raised is that 4 months after AA2, enforcers are seeking better remedies for use on the same problem. I'm prepared to believe this is a reflection of a genuine (slight) mismatch of drafting to the needs of the dispute. Accept (with limited scope) at this point, or as an extension of remedy, purely to hear evidence of any disruptive behaviors where the remedies are not fully helping, and to consider whether we can provide the disputants with reworked remedies, in light of current experience. We can do that quickly without duplicating our future work on the cases themselves. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject I see more harm than benefit from re-examining the case in whole. Prefer to look at this in a limited manner and tweak enforcement remedies. FloNight (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Paul August ☎ 17:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for clarification

Place requests for clarification on matters related to past Arbitration cases in this section. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at Arbitration enforcement. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the Talk page. Place new requests at the top.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae

I presented lengthy evidence documenting possible sock puppetry during this case, [112]. Since a check user request has just established Asgardian has edited using an ip address in a manner violation of the arbitration ruling, does this mean new sanctions need to be considered, or should we stick to the prohibitions listed in the case outcome? Hiding T 21:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC) <edited to add link to checkuser request and clarify a point, Hiding T 21:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)>[reply]

Any uninvolved administrator can take action against an editor who sockpuppets to avoid an ArbCom restriction. Reports of infractions should be posted to Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remedy extension in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

Per the discussion regarding a new case for Armenia-Azerbaijan articles, I'd like to make a proposed remedy extension for the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 case. We're at the point now where it's clear the the previous remedies do not go far enough and administrators should be given greater authority to deal with the disruption in articles relating to this case. It's important that the committee make it clear that any form of disruption (not just limited to incivility with edit warring) will no longer be permitted on these articles. My proposal is as follows;

To address the disruptive editing that has taken place on Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles, any user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing (including, but not limited to incivility or pushing a point of view) on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator. This may include any user who was a party to either cases, or any other user after a warning has been given. The administrator shall notify the user on his or her talkpage and make an entry on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#List of users placed under probation. Users placed under probation are limited to one revert, per page, per week and any revert (except for obvious vandalism) should be accompanied by an explanation on the article talk page. They are also required to be civilised in all discussions and in edit or log summaries. Any uninvolved administrator may place an article ban on a user that breaks the terms of their probation, or block the user for a period of up to one week. After five such blocks or bans, the maximum length of a block is increased to one year. All bans and block are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Log of blocks and bans.

Ryan Postlethwaite 18:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a welcome improvement to address the fact that these editors have learnt to edit war civilly, however it does not address the core of the problem: they edit war as a united front, so attempts to reform individuals result in anon edits, socks, renames and other clued up approaches to keep the admins hands tied in frustrating ways. John Vandenberg (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do appreciate all these concerns, but I'm not really sure what remedies could cover this - many of these issues are out of the scope of the ArbCom, and probably even the scope of the community. CheckUser of users couldn't be done at random, but obviously if there's clear sockpuppetry that could be dealt with via the usual channels. I've struck through, one revert, per page, per week - obviously we need to limit the disruption here, and one revert per week stops the users moving around every article uinder the scope of the decision and reverting it once. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "no speeding" sign of one revert per week is a good idea. The wording of the rest of it is also acceptable provided it is clearly understood that this remedy is applicable to any anon or freshly minted user that steps into an existing debate or rekindles an old one. In order to avoid throw away accounts being used to do reverts, it would be advisable for the uninvolved admin to also revert when this occurs. Due to past experience, it would also be helpful if it was made clear that WP:BOLD and WP:IAR does not apply to Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles. John Vandenberg (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be best to stick as closely as possible to the original wording, just without the incivility clause:
Civility supervision, revert limitation, and supervised editing have been described previously in the case and at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. This allows maximum flexibility. So far we have made little use of the supervised editing restriction (allowing an admin to ban an editor from an article or topic for a period of time or indefinitely) but I think we need to start moving away from mechanical 1RR limits that encourage vexatious litigation ("his rationale was insufficient") and toward broader more permanent sanctions. Thatcher 06:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3

Some of the restrictions imposed on me by the Arbitration Committee in stages between November 2005 and July 2006 expired in November 2007; however, according to former arbitrator User:Raul654, I am still subject to two of the restrictions—remedy "X" from the original November 2005 ruling, and remedy 4 from the July 2006 amended ruling—and they will remain in effect indefinitely, until lifted by the ArbCom. (I don't know if the rest of the ArbCom agrees that they are still in effect, but the only arbitrator who has spoken about it says they are in effect, and therefore I must assume they are until or unless the other arbitrators say otherwise.) I am not concerned about falling afoul of these rulings, and have no intention to ever do the things they prohibit, but by remaining in place these remedies act as a "scarlet letter" impeding my participation on Wikipedia, enabling people to ignore, dismiss or insult me because I am "not a user in good standing", and rendering it almost hopeless for me to attempt to regain my adminship through RfA, which was taken from me by the ArbCom in 2006 for an issue unrelated to the case in question. I think these remedies accomplish nothing except to marginalize me and should be lifted. Everyking (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The committee has seen a fairly large number of aggrieved parties to previous arbitration hearings present appeals immediately after the changeover in membership, so please accept our apologies for not responding immediately. The term "in good standing" is an imprecise one capable of being taken strictly or loosely. Could you help us by pointing to recent examples where you feel you have been suffering through the presumed continuation of these remedies? Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Raul654 announced on behalf of the committee on November 14 that one of the remedies against Everyking (parole on music articles) was being suspended for 3 months, but would automatically go back into effect 90 days later unless otherwise decided by the committee. This means that we will need to review Everyking's recent editing in early February so we can make this decision by February 12. For the sake of efficiency, I suggest that we review this request for relief from the remaining sanctions at the same time.
For those of us who were not active at the time of the prior decisions, the history of these cases (including even locating "Remedy 4" and "Remedy X") is a little bit difficult to follow. Either now or when this request is renewed in February, could either Everyking or a Clerk please provide a more complete set of links and a quick summary of the history? Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brad's suggestion of hearing everything together in February is all right by me, although of course I would prefer if it was heard now—these sanctions have been in place for an extraordinarily long time. My editing on pop music articles has varied very little over quite a long span of time and I don't see how it could be expected to be any different in February, so I see no reason that issue could not be conclusively decided at the present time as well.
The key issue concerning the effect my arbitration sanctions have on me is that very many people simply will not vote for someone with ongoing sanctions in an RfA. Some of those opposing said that they would be willing to vote for me when the sanctions expired, which was understood to be in Nov. 2007, but as it turned out the ruling was interpreted (at least by Raul) to mean that certain aspects of it remained in place even after that point. I don't have many other clear examples, although I think there is a widespread subtle effect; because I have stayed out of disputes for so long there have been few occasions for people to blatantly batter me with reminders of my low status. In October, after some articles were deleted purely because the person who wrote them was believed to be a banned user (I believe that content should be judged on its merits and not based on its author), I requested that User:Lar provide me with copies of the articles so that I could determine if they were suitable and potentially vouch for them, or at least put them through WP:DRV, and he told me that he would not because I was not a "user in good standing". I never obtained the copies and as far as I know the articles are still deleted. Everyking (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to your last point, the circumstances surrounding the particular banned user are exceptional, as I believe you are aware. As someone who generally supports giving second chances to users, I strongly advise that you would probably be better served by not using your interchange with Lar as an example of something that the remedies have prevented you from doing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well, if we're going to get into a discussion of strategy here: I thought about not mentioning that because some people have particular feelings about the issue, but it was the best example I could think of in recent memory, and he asked for specific examples. Everyking (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for increased enforcement /Brahma Kumaris

A previous request by Thatcher131 was declined declined in April however the the pattern of disruption has continued, has been experienced by non-affiliated editors, and evidence of the disruption being due to the same editor using a succession of different accounts has been built up. Yes, the article has improved substantially due the input of editors with no association with the article subject, however the disruption is something the article, and other editors, could well do without. Relevant sockpuppet reports are [113] [114] [115].

The pattern of disruption usually involves editing with contempt for consensus, edit waring, taunting other editors based on their affiliation, incivility and ranting against the article subject. Strong enforcement of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:NOR and WP:CONS would effectively screen out the disruption.

I have tried using normal dispute resolution methods but this is getting tiring for me, other editors who have dropped by to help and also the admins that have to deal with the constant requests for help. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that there has been little to no "disruption" at all and this is just another preemptive strike by an individual that admits to be part of the organization in question, a new religious movements' called the BKWSU, own Internet PR Team; and is acting in accordance with the organization's PR aims. An individual that has invested a huge amount of time, effort and admins' energy in attempt to control the topic for his affiliated organization.
To state this for the sake of new admins coming to this issue is hardly "taunting". It is a statement of fact. I hope that eventually the Wikipedia admins will appreciate this for what it is. Simon has become incredibly skilled in his manipulation of Wikipedia admins and constructing accusations.
Let's look at the timing of this and the collusion of yet another BKWSU contributor, User:76.79.146.8. Bksimonb requests an early unprotection, User:76.79.146.8 reverts and accuses vandalism, attacks etc. Both complain to admins etc. Bksimonb puts RfA.
Putting aside the loaded and hysterical language, the seemingly endless accusations and complaints, if we look at the differences between the BKWSU's chosen version, the main differences are really;
  • the removal of weblink to an informed independent website that makes public and openly discusses the BKWSU's core teachings, the only independent website about the organization and one that the BKWSU's USA trust spent considerable amount of money attempting to recent silence via legal action and failed to do so.
  • the attempt to play down the centrality of channelling and mediumship to its practises. The channelling and mediumship of a spirit guide its followers are told is God and a centrality which illfits with its public face and political ambitions.
  • the instant removal and erasure of considerable time and effort made making neutral and beneficial formatting ... etc the 65 edits, here;[116].
Personally, I just want to get on and contribute to the Wikipedia. I am sick of being the target of these people. I know the subjects I edit on. I add form, content and provide citations. It gives me no pleasure to be continually subjected to wasting admin's time and constantly tripping over the stumbling blocks these people are persistently using in an attempt to exclude me.
I am happy to discuss this in detail and supply all the diffs that illustrate just exactly what Simon and the BKWSU are up to if required. but, frankly, the Wikipedia admins cannot see this for what it is by looking at nature and amount of complaints this individual has made, then I am afraid that I would wasting my time.
References;
--Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 18:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a remedy I am asking for strong enforcement of Wikipedia's policies. If this causes a problem then it is clear where that problem lies. I am not asking for unilateral enforcement. I am happy for the same rules to apply to me and other editors. It is clear from the above post that there is a strong bias against the BKWSU and a rather obvious attempt to discredit me and other editors based on our affiliation and non-agreement with the the above editor's own views. In the above post alone I am being accused, as if it were some indisputable fact, of "collusion", "PR", "preemptive strike", "manipulation" and censorship. In fact, I am most grateful for the above post as it clearly illustrates the problem. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 05:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the need for enforcement of Wikipedia's policies. In particular WP:COI where it states;
" Editing in the interests of public relations is particularly frowned upon. This includes, but is not limited to, edits made by public relations departments of corporations; or of other public or private for-profit or not-for-profit organizations; or by professional editors paid to edit a Wikipedia article with the sole intent of improving that organization's image."
BK Simon B is a member, if not leader, of the BKWSU Internet PR team. In fact, I think the correct title is "core Internet PR team". The Internet PR team of the organization in question. If Simon choses to deny this, here, then I am happy to provide evidence to support this assertion. He is and has been supported by other BK followers (BK is the title followers given themselves) and they also work together to suppress other internet source, e.g. they (Simon and other BK Wikipedia editors) recently acted in a failed attempt to close down an independent website via a domain name dispute. This is the same domain that BK Simon and the other BK contributors keep removing from the article; http://www.brahmakumaris.info.
I do not think it is fair that the Wikipedia's admins have their time used up protecting the PR interests of a new religious movement but that it is only in this context can we understand what is going on here.
The BKWSU has invests a considerable amount of money on its public face and generally keeps hidden from newcomers the more extreme elements of its beliefs, e.g.
  • the practise of mediumship or channelling of a spirit they claim is God himself via their mediums at the Indian headquarters
  • the belief is a 5,000 year Cycle of time that repeats identically
  • numerous failed predictions of the End of the World in which 6 Billion are meant to die so that 900,000 of their faithful followers will inherit a Golden Age heaven on earth (all, of course, backed up by independent, academic sources).
  • their historical revision and superiority as God's chosen religion
The last year or more has been one long war of attrition in which the BK followers, with varying degrees of finesse and investment in gaming the Wikipedia system, have attempt to distort the topic to hide these core, identifying elements to bring the topic inline with the 'vanilla' version presented on their websites. This gaming continues with a barrage of complaints, accusations, unfounded vituperative depending each time on some new admin or contributor not knowing the history and not knowing the organization.
I think it is wrong that the Wikipedia allows this waste of volunteers resources. I think this individual has made a disproportionate amount of complaints underling his and his organization's single intent ... which is to break the spirit of any informed, independent contributor and push their PR agenda. Even the Scientology article includes independent websites and external links. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 08:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just an outside view from a regular user, but the article is on probation and adding unnecessarily positive or negative stuff without reference to core policy seems to be against the terms of this. The remedy reads, "Any user may request review by members of the Arbitration Committee", which both sides appear to have done in the section above. Also in Principles: "Users with a deep personal involvement with a subject who edit in a disruptive, aggressive biased manner may be banned from editing the affected article or articles, per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest." User:Bksimonb has a self-declared conflict of interest, and per WP:COI as cited in the arbitration, needs to consider whether the edits are promoting his organisation, or promoting the interests of Wikipedia. I can't tell exactly what has been added by the user, but I made a reverse diff of Lucy's revert which gives some clue as to what matters are under dispute. The article was reverted to the pre-Lucy version and immediately full-protected by User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry on 26 December 2007. I am unsure at this stage whether User:Lucyintheskywithdada also has a conflict of interest in the opposite direction - user commenced editing on 21 December 2007 and, strangely, their main edits have not been focused on this article. However, their reference to the BKWSU Internet Team in their very first edit to the page suggests they may be a historic participant in the dispute. Orderinchaos 08:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have a go at trying to get this one on track - it does seem to have rather gone off the rails. If Wikipedia policies were strictly enforced here it would be necessary to ban everybody involved, which while resulting in peace and a complete end to edit warring on the article, would certainly not be a desirable outcome. Strict enforcement of the rules before has led to a situation where it appears the article overly favours one side, is far from encyclopaedic and needs a lot of sourcing. I'm acting purely as a content editor and negotiator with no past history and no particular views on the subject, and am quite happy to defer to arbitrators on any matter. Orderinchaos 09:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Orderinchaos. Although I obviously find some of your initial assessment challenging the important thing for me is that you are prepared to work with us, and I really appreciate that. As far as COI issues are concerned I have tried my best to act within limits and leave the most drastic edits to outside editors who have dropped by. I appreciate that it probably doesn't look that way without a detailed analysis of the article history and talk archives. I don't expect you to do that so I'll just take it all on the nose for now knowing that everything will transpire in it's own time if you stick around. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to disagree with you Orderinchaos, the article is, or at least has been prior to the BKs revision, very highly sourced. It lists all the major and many minor BK sources. One of the problem it has suffered is the BKs team persistently removing not just references and citations but also perfectly good copy and formatting edits. This is not bitching, the history demonstrates it and it worth studying. The purpose has surely been the same as all the admin complaints; a bad will disincentive for any informed non-BKWSU contributors.
I am sorry but although I have been cautioned to let this go, I must ask for action to be taken on the obvious WP:COI by the Internet PR team. Fine, a Christian editing a page on Christianity, that is acceptable. But the representative of the "Core Internet PR Team" of the organization warring on the organizations own topic, I am afraid that really is too much given all the illwill.
Whilst doing my laundry, I made a spreadsheet of this individual; Bksimonb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Of 1266 edits only a handful were not related to the BKWSU. Going by the summaries alone (approximately ... my attention to detail has some limits)
  • 103 were Administrator requests related to the BKWSU (including 26 "Reports" and 50 re "enforcement")
  • 76 were "Suspicions", e.g. "Suspected" complaints related to the BKWSU,
  • 76 Revision of non-BKWSU contributors
  • 88 related to Sockpuppets accusations related to the BKWSU
  • 69 Related directed to Adminstrators noticeboard related to the BKWSU protection
  • 13 checkusers complaints related to the BKWSU
  • 13 POVs related to the BKWSU
  • 3 were page delete requests related to the BKWSU
This equals approximately 428 non-constructive edits, or a third of the total. These are then mirrored by the other BKs such Appledell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I suggest this is disproportionate to the value to the Wikipedia, the time and efforts of other volunteers. I think I can find 4 time he actually added a reference, the rest are just passing judgement on or removing other's work.
In his original arbcom statement [121] he writes, "we (BKWSU Internet PR Team have no problem with critical websites". But then in reality, he and other members of the BKWSU team both persistently remove all independent websites links from the article under a variety of guises and work together on a failed legal attack to silence the leading one. As I state before, even the Scientologists are mature enough to allow criticism and critical links on their topic.
Surely it would be naive of us not to consider that "creating a problem" is in order to achieve an end result within which even uninformed inaccuracies are better than referenced precision. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 13:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Certainly there are some pro-BK or BK-affiliated editors working here. There are also some people committed to "exposing the truth" about BK. Interestingly, brand new editor Lucyintheskywithdada (talk · contribs) is making exactly the same arguments as a number of previous editors, including the editor who used 195.82.106.244 and was banned for making personal attacks. The "truth" about BK often comes from alleged internal BK documents that are in the possession of former members, and which do not meet the reliable source guidelines, although I understand there has been improvement in this area. Ultimately, the article probation that passed had unique wording that makes it unenforceable except by the Arbitration committee. What is needed therefore is a review by the Committee to determine whether the current disputes are within the normal scope of the dispute resolution process (thus directing the parties to RFC, mediation etc.) or whether the disruption is sufficient to adopt a more muscular remedy. Thatcher 02:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to make a factual correction here.
The "internal BK documents" that have been referred to as such by the BK editors, or debate with regards to this topic, are the channeled messages believed to be God speaking through their mediums called the Murlis. It was discovered that some at least had been published with an ISBN number after all but, in principle, it is accepted that the main body are disallowed. Other early sources of literature, including Indian ones are all taken from publicly sources are equally held by the BKWSU. So there can be no controversy over these.
There is some inconsistency towards the use of BKWSU produced materials, e.g. the BK editors refusing certain publications but then using other publication or their websites to support their own claims, e.g. that charity projects are theirs, where the documentation appears to support they are not BK ventures. The debate has really be about "who" gets to use and chose them, i.e. whether they are a BK or not; what is a "contentious" citation or not and the guiding principle being whether or not it matches their current publicity or not.
We are dealing with a very specific and narrow topic here with relatively little literature. Any contributor coming forward is going to rely on the same sources and references. I would suggest that there would be no contention at all if Bksimonb and the other BKs were not pursuing their policy of total reversion over even utterly neutral edits (typos, formatting etc) ... and shooting the messenger by way of killing the message.
I think what the topic needs is a chance to develop without persistent and personalised BKWSU censorship before motives are assigned. To that end, I am asking the committee to extend some trust and allow us to do so.
I also think the article needs to be split into a number of others to allow each aspect to be covered in detail, again something the BKs keep disallowing. Part of the problem is a simple dispute caused by the artificial constraint imposed by insisting it all fits onto one page.
I am not a new editor. I joined as Lwachowski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) but forgot my password, I rejoined and immediate drew admin attention to this as AWachowski [122] attempting to recover my original account. My diffs are here if they are to be criticised [123]. Please do.
Despite making clear the change of name, these were reported by Bksimonb and disallowed with any chance of comment because they were either too similar (of course, they were meant to be!) or the name of a real person (Wachowski is a fair common name in Poland) forcing me to register another name Creationcreator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).
Creationcreator was then contrived to be a sockpuppet account by Bksimonb and reported again on two separate occasions using the L/AWachowski change of name despite his knowing clearly that I had lost a password and made efforts to have it official changed. No checkuser was made other alleged accounts. None of these have ever been used consecutively.
I am happy to use one account IF I can be left alone without an obvious policy of exclusion by the BKWSU PR guy Simonb ... and if it can be recognised what is going on. Please note again the collusion; [124] [125].
I am being open here in trust and good faith, with all the attendant risks. I make no effort to hide this. This not sockpuppetry. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could the parties and/or administrators with the relevant background please clarify whether this is a request for enforcement of the existing remedies from the prior arbitrator, or whether the committee is being asked to clarify the remedies or enact new ones? If the latter, please clarify exactly what is being proposed or requested. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The existing article probation states only that the parties may ask for a review; it does not have the usual enforcement provisions such as allowing admins to issue topic bans for disruptive editing. Bksimonb appears to be asking that the article be placed on standard article probation so that admins could hand out topic bans and so forth. I have not reviewed the content or recent contribs/talk page to see whether Bksimonb is correct in his assessment that certain editors are disruptive (as opposed to merely disagreeing with him). Thatcher 16:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate input from administrators active on Arbitration Enforcement (including Thatcher) regarding whether a Review case is warranted and/or whether a motion to add the standard enforcement provisions to the decision should be adopted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for asking this but I would appreciate if the arbcom would look at enacting new remedy with regards to the "core BKWSU Internet PR team" and WP:COI. I also have posted recently on the talk page noting the involvement of Sockpuppets of Ekajati; IPSOS/Ekajati/GlassFET. I have been cautioned about persisting in the use of the above term but it is the organization's official term for the group, under the BKWSU USA leadership, which Bksimonb represents. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I request that User:Lucyintheskywithdada and all relevant incarnations he admits to above be blocked for persistent violation of WP:NPA and WP:OWN.
I am an outside editor trying to work in good faith on the article and each time I ask a question for clarification, suggest that he create a sandbox, or otherwise engage in in consensus building, he reverts to personal attacks or WP:Own. I've gone to a great deal of effort to research the articles and most recently acquired a copy of the book that Lucy suggested getting (Walliss's book) yet he continues his relentless attacks.
For example of violation of WP:NPA, scroll to the end of this entry [126].
This, this, and this are clear examples of WP:OWN.
From WP:OWN: "An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions. The discussion can take many forms; it may be purely negative, consisting of threats and insults, often avoiding the topic of the revert altogether. At the other extreme, the owner may patronize other editors, claiming that their ideas are interesting while also claiming that they lack the deep understanding of the article necessary to edit it."
Lucy's repeated diversionary tactics (including filing checkusers, reports here, etc.) and disruptive talk page edits demonstrate his unwillingness to discuss substance and build consensus in good faith. He is violating arbcomm's ruling that current and former associates refrain from personal attacks and aggressive edits. Please block. Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a lot of allegations, accusations etc flying around, and that's actually the main problem at present - I think the content issues have all but faded into the background while each of them accuse each other of various violations of policy and/or being sockpuppets. If the parties can set that aside and work together, there would not be a need for a review. If they are unable to, it's probably the only option. I don't think an encyclopaedic article is impossible from the people and sources available. Orderinchaos 00:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to NYB's request - the review request seems to have been made as part of a campaign by one side of the dispute against the other side of the dispute, a continuance of a pattern which extends back some months. Said other side has come in and made allegations/launched processes in response. Past enforcement of the ArbCom, whose decision was a broadly sensible one, by admins viewing individual / out-of-context requests (without criticising any of them, as it took me days to determine where things were at) has sadly been narrow in focus and has been gamed somewhat by involved editors, particularly those on the BK side. The response of course has been the other party turning to increasing degrees of shrillness, which we're seeing above in the bolding of paragraphs and bizarre allegations. The unfortunate reality is that this article is a mess, one needs to be something of a subject expert to wade through it and improve it (I've actually read a lot of source documents in recent days), and the few here who have that expertise are small in number and have a history of conflict with each other. Orderinchaos 03:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate a more thorough investigation. I can't really go along with some of the above assessment. Firstly the "shrillness", bolding of paragraphs, presumptions of bad faith, soapboxing and bizarre allegations are something I encountered right from the very first time I posted [127]. What you call "gaming" is just what happens when help is requested and there is no response. One naturally tries escalating the issue. I've always tried to be as reasonable as possible but when in the absence of any feedback at all when I've signaled an issue, I can't really be expected to know how to proceed or what, if anything, I was doing wrong at the time. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that I have no complaint regarding arbcom and arbcom enforcement. The problem is in finding any useful feedback or response with lower forms of dispute resolution. For example, should any editor have to spend a year and a half being constantly harassed regarding their affiliation [128] ? Regards Bksimonb (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should note I'm not in ArbCom, am not a clerk, etc, so my "investigation" carries the weight only of my own opinion, as much as that may be regarded or ridiculed in some quarters - I'm an admin, I've been a user for almost two years, and I'm trying to use my experience to end a dispute in a good-faith manner, however impossible a task that seems. I come from outside the dispute and until 30 December had no exposure to any of the disputants. My concern is simply that most of the action reports which have led to actions being taken have been initiated by yourself. Then you point to those actions as evidence that the community is acting on your concerns, and use your own reports as justifications for other reports. When you are in a position of an identified conflict of interest regarding the article, and all your reports are about people who disagree with you, while people who agree with you appear to have gotten off, you can understand the problem for Wikipedia and the community in trusting the soundness of these reports and actions. In addition it appears that these actions on your part may have assisted in escalating the dispute which has continued for well over a year now and shows few if any signs of ending soon. Orderinchaos 22:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your efforts to end the dispute. However I must protest that I have never reported someone simply because they disagreed with me. I report editors who blatantly ignore consensus, constantly make crazy accusations against other contributers and the article subject, use the talk page as a soapbox for propaganda, use anonymous IPs (probably proxies) and other accounts abusively and taunt editors on their talk pages and in edit comments. Is this really a normal part of the editing process we should be expected to live with? I would have thought that editors who behave in such a way have effectively forfeited any right to be a part of any editing process. It's kind of disheartening. It's like my house constantly gets burgled and when I complain to the police they say I am part of the problem because I complain so much. Nice. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 05:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did BKSimon ever put in a complaint against BKWSU editors who did the same, e.g. Riveros [129]? Why so few citations in comparison to blocks, bans, and reversions? I am sorry but we have to see all this talk of "consensus" for what it is; media control.
The organization has considerable personal and material resources and yet throughout the history of the topic has done, basically nothing to add value (by which I mean citations and references) whilst engaging in cover up. Please allow us the chance to develop the topic without the organization's own censorship.
This is why, following the involvement of IPSOS I would like a checkuser to be allowed on Cleanemupnowboys.
I suspect they are Reneeholle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as the edits patterns match and our experience is similar to that on the Talk:Alice Bailey and related admin complaints.
Personally, I would just like some peace of mind that it is not IPSOS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) or Riveros11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) back again under another guise. I am not asking for a punitive results, just a commitment to openness and straightforwardness. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 07:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested motions to /Digwuren

I request that the Committee consider the following motions. It is not clear where request for motions in a prior cases ought be placed, so could the clerks move this to the right spot if this is not it. Thanks. Martintg (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: I have moved these requests to the "requests for clarifications" section as probably the best place for them. I agree with Marting that it is not clear from the instructions where a request for relief from a prior decision should be posted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Committee will be discussing these motions soon-ish. They have move toward the top of our To-do-list. FloNight (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suspension of bans for both User:Digwuren and User:Petri Krohn

It is now obvious, after an initial bit of confusion and subsequent clarification, that the remedy 11 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#General_restriction will be most effective in combating incivility, which was the core issue of this case. No one was calling for year long bans for either party in the original case, in fact most involved and uninvolved were explicitly against any ban, as Alex Bakharev succinctly argued here and seconded by many others including Geogre and Biophys in Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Proposed_decision#Remedies_are_too_harsh. Note too that Digwuren did make a reflective and conciliatory statement aplogising to those he had wronged and forgiving those who had wronged him Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Proposed_decision#Statement_by_Digwuren. Compare this to the recently banned Anonimu, where there was a clear concensus for a ban and he was defiant and un-remorseful to the end.

While a year is a long time, and shortening it may be useful, I'd like to see those users expressing remorse, telling us what they have learned and promising not to continue behavior that led to their ban before any shortening or suspension of a ban is considered.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no point in banning these editors, especially Petri, who unlike Digwuren, even sincerely apologized long before the case and was still punished for his actions taken prior to the apology, unlike Digwuren who continued to create "occupation" badwagons, revert war and bait contributors even while his arbitration was ongoing. Still, as far as Digwuren is concerned, I neither proposed nor supported a year-long ban. I have a very thick skin towards incivility and this aspect of his conduct did not bother me much. But if he is unblocked, he must be on the short leash regarding the number of reverts and coatracking.

Overall, I think that case needs a new hearing in light of how editors see it now in the retrospect and by the hopefully wisened up ArbCom as well. Also, there were several new developments, chiefly, editors using the "editing restrictions" to blockshop and vigorously "investigate" each other. This whole matter needs a fresh look, perhaps by a renewed Arbcom after the election which is almost over.

I would object to selective reversals of the original decision. The case was handled badly in a hands-off-by-ArbCom-type way during the entire precedings. Selective return of Digwuren and doing nothing else would just make matters worse. Rehashing that decision overall may be a good thing and hearing all parties in an orderly way by the arbitrators who actually listned and engage would be a good thing though. --Irpen 19:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of the involved parties had findings of fact regarding revert warring. The differentiating aspect for Digwuren and Petri Krohn was using Wikipedia as a battleground. Note that the root cause of this battle was the Bronze soldier controversy, which has now largely resolved itself, the threat for further battling has significantly diminished. Also given that bans are in principle intended to stop further damage to Wikipedia, rather for retribution and punishment for its own sake, and they have already served some months of this ban, I see no reason to continue this ban, particularly since there seems a concensus against a ban in the first place, the parties have shown remorse as I have linked above and the Bronze soldier issues have dissipated. I am not asking for selective reversals, just a suspension. Martintg (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I would support suspension of the ban of Digwuren and Petri. It would make sense to match it with some sort of the revert parole and/or topic bans Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to re-confirm my opinion since it has been mentioned above. Yes, I support the suspension of the ban of Digwuren and Petri since they are highly productive editors. The ban could be replaced by a restriction on the number of reverts per week if necessary.Biophys (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strike User:Erik Jesse, User:3 Löwi and User:Klamber from the Involved parties list

These people were offline long before the case even started, never participated in the case, and continue to be offline to this day. No or little evidence was presented against them and no finding of fact either. In fact they had absolutely no involvement in the issues of this case and were only mentioned because they were included in an earlier checkuser case. Note however it is a finding of fact that Petri Krohn used Wikipedia as a battleground, and the checkuser case against these and other Estonian users was a part of that warfare. We don't want to perpetuate this wrong against these three editors.

Therefore I ask ArbCom to amend the case such that their names are struck from the list of involved parties and thus the notices removed from their talk pages. In fact I made a similar motion to this effect Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Workshop#Motion_to_strike_3_L.C3.B6wi_and_Klamber_from_the_list_of_parties during the case and it was seconded by the clerk Cbrown1023 at the time. I know it is a minor issue, but it is an important gesture that ArbCom ought to do to further heal the hurts and encourage them to return, particularly User:3 Löwi who has been an editor of good standing since 2005.

Expand definition of "uninvolved admin" in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#General_restriction

The principle of involved admins not being permitted to issue blocks is founded on the issue of conflict of interest and that trust should be maintained in the impartiality of the blocking admin. Generally "involved" means personal involvement in the immediate issue or article. However, given that the span of this general restriction covers all of Eastern Europe, and the principle that trust should be maintained in the blocking admin's impartiality, and that political issues (the role of the Soviet Union and communism) is the basis for much of the conflict on Eastern Europe; the definition of "involved" should be expanded for this remedy to include admins with overt and obvious political view points or past significant involvment in content disputes within Eastern Europe

The recent episode concerning blocks issued by El_C illustrates this problem. An admin with a "vanity page" consisting of figures associated with communist oppression and terrorism wades into a dispute involving Eastern Europe, not only is this highly provocative, but alarm bells start ringing as to the impartiality of this admin. Note that this is same admin saw no problem with the behaviour of the recently banned Anonimu, uncivilly branding those who brought the complaint as "ethno-nationalist editors". This fact of questionable impartiality and lack of trust only served to inflame the situation resulting a commited and significant editor and wikiproject coordinator Sander Säde to leave the project.

While one must endeavour to assume good faith, never the less, there would be an issue of trust in the judgement of an admin if, to illustrate with an example, they had a vanity page consisting of images of Osama bin Ladin and Hezbollah on their user page wading in and handing out blocks in a dispute regarding Israeli related topic. Common sense dictates that controversial admins of questionable partiality should not be involved enforcing this remedy.

Good point, but it all boils down to the issue of anonymity. El C at least declares some of his POV on his user page. I, for example, declare quite a few more things. Would you prefer to trust a user who declares nothing? How can we be sure if such declarations are truthful, and not ironic or simply deceptive? Looking back at the Essjay controversy I still think all admins should be required to reveal their identity, education, and POVs... but I am well aware this will not fly. I think "uninvolved admin" should be one that is accepted by the parties; but of course that creates a possibility for the parties to evade judgment by refusing to accept any admin as uninvolved. Perhaps to avoid that but deal with the problem you outlined, we should have a procedure parties can lodge complains about admin's involvement, where this could be reviewed by other admins and if involvement is determined (something like CoI), the admin's action is reverted and warning issued? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I am one of the most sought-after admins by both the Armenian and Azerbaijani factions. They never cared what is on my user page, they just care that I'm fair, and indeed I have such a record dating back years. Conversely, I've had pro-Palestinian groups or extreme-right Europeans refuse to have me as an uninvolved admin because I am fluent in Hebrew, requests which I always denied. El_C 15:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this particluar case, I fear the problem isn't actual conflict of interest so much as perceived lack of impartiality. While people knowing El_C may very well feel quite comfortable that he does not let his political leanings influence his judgment, the fact that they are very visible nonetheless will give the impression that he might be siding with one side of a debate, or "overcompensate" for the other. This does not mean that other editors with less visible politics would do a better job, but giving such ammo for complaints is probably a relatively bad idea. — Coren (talk) 17:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's important to assume good faith. You are not calling to ban people who exhibit the flag of Israel on their userpage from admin actions on Israeli-Palestinian issue, so why this? Both Azerbaijan and Armenia were former Soviet republics, why are editors there acting differently than editors here? The reason, I think, has more to do with a perceived [130] personal dispute than political (see for example the attempt by the user above to delete Bishzilla (thread)). Anyway, I would gladly delete my user page, but such ruling need to be applied consistently, anticommunism should not be getting a priority because of easy targets. El_C 20:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to specifically make the point that I didn't feel your impartiality was at issue, and I'm sorry if you understood this differently. My point is that perception is the key here and that leaving the enforcement to another admin would not be so much more trouble. And, personally, yes I would expect someone who displayed an Israeli flag on their userpage to also avoid admin action in Israeli-Palestinian issue — not because I think them unable to act fairly and impartially, but because the appearance of impropriety is a probable source of heat. — Coren (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a trap, but I'll answer. Appearances do count (for example, I never edited the Communism article even once), but this is far from it. What about someone displaying the American flag in relation to articles about 911 or modern Iraq? Some would have me cease enforcing Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute which I have been doing for years, even though both factions seek this, due to abstract appearance of political correctness. It's a red herring (pun intended), anyway; Wikipedia is not a free-for-all.[131] El_C 02:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support the proposal by Piotrus to have a review procedure for such cases. The reviewrs have to decide if the blocking admin is indeed an impartial side. If there are any doubts about that, the block should be lifted immediately.Biophys (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

Motions

Block of Rp2006

The Arbitration Committee assumes the block of Rp2006 (talk · contribs).

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support:

  1. A consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE recently decided to block Rp2006 for violations of their topic ban coming immediately after the expiration of ArbCom's 1 month block of them. This is an indefinite block, with the first year being Arbitration Enforcement. Given the private evidence we have, I think it makes sense for ArbCom to assume responsibility for this block. I also would like to see extra scrutiny applied to any unblock request rather than having it go through the typical process if Rp2006 were to apply after a year when the AE part of the block expires. Seraphimblade, the blocking administrator (acting on the AE consensus), has no objections to us doing this. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. my personal preference would be to call this a ban and let them appeal in 12 months, but this works too --Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Given that there is private information that should be considered when addressing any future unblock requests. - Aoidh (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Primefac (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cabayi (talk) 08:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator views and discussions

Community discussion

As a note, if this passes I'll tack it onto the remedies list for SCE in my notes as the previous block against Rp2006 was also under that case and based on what I can grok from the AE thread this block was levied for pretty much the same reasons as the previous. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=183077245"