Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NativeForeigner (talk | contribs) at 10:23, 8 April 2015 (→‎WikiBullying: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
WikiBullying   3 April 2015 {{{votes}}}
[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: Conduct in deletion-related editing Motion (orig. case) 30 April 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 13 May 2024
Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction none none 29 May 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.


WikiBullying

Initiated by Ret.Prof (talk) at 13:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

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

Statement by Ret.Prof

Organized WikiBullying has become a major problem. DiffDiff "There are gangs of editors who protect themselves & their friends, & I don't know what can be done about them. I wish these groups didn't exist, but they do & there is little interest in controlling them." - Admin. Llywrch (See WP:Tag team)

The Anti-fringe WP Religion Editors are made up of two admins, six user accounts and an undetermined number of alternate accounts. Diff1, Diff2 & Diff3 Their stated purpose is to remove “fringe” and I have been warned that they will hound me, until I am "driven from this encyclopedia". The evidence will show that I am "a mild-mannered user", have been "bullied", "belittled" and that WP is "no longer a hospitable place". Diff4 Diff5

At Arbitration I will present substantial evidence to prove:

  1. that the disputed edit at the NPOV Noticeboard was NOT FRINGE. Diff Notwithstanding a productive discussion at the 1. Talk page of Gospel of Matthew and 2. DSN - Gospel of Matthew, we were still far from resolution. Therefore, I went to the NPOV Noticeboard hoping to get input from the wider community. Here the discussion was wrongfully closed before any uninvolved editors could weigh in, (after only one hour and 49 minutes) by the Anti-fringe editors.Diff. This was "not appropriate", nor were the "premature unilateral threats of punishment." Diff I was then brought before the ANI and wrongfully banned which amounted to WikiBullying.
  2. that for over a year, every edit (ten edits) that I have made has been rapidly deleted, even ones of little consequence. Diff I will present evidence that this was intended as harassment and amounted to WikiBullying.
  3. the personal attacks at Mediation amounted to WikiBullying, but first I will have to demonstrate that such evidence is not privileged.
  4. that my being brought to the ANI as an "Incompetent editor who pushes Fringe" was harassment. My "deficiencies as an editor" were expanded to include rudeness, self-aggrandizement, arrogance, tendentious and disruptive editing, along with general attempts to undermine my personal integrity.diff Indeed the "principal objection" to my editing is as follows: I exist on Wikipedia! diff I will bring evidence to establish these personal attacks are false and are in fact WikiBullying.

The intention is clearly to WP:HOUND me everywhere I work until I am bullied from this encyclopedia... unless arbitration puts a stop to it. They have consistently violated WP:Griefing WP:Civility and WP:Harassment. Therefore I am requesting that The Anti-fringe WP Religion Editors be banned from Wikipedia. However the extent and duration of the ban needed to allow me to resume normal editing should be left to the wisdom of the arbs. diff For a summary of my alleged wrongdoing see Assessment as well as my Response.

For the NPOV origins of the dispute see Background.
@Guy aka JzG: I will abide by your wrongful ban... and you are correct that Arbitration may go against me. Indeed if the many, many allegations against me are correct, then I should be banned from Wikipedia forever. If they are not, then I should be protected form WikiBullying and WP:Harassment.
This conflict is about two very different visions for Wikipedia! A careful review of the 'anti fringe edits' show that they consistently delete material that does not reflect their POV. My vision for Wikipedia is that articles should be up to date and written from a NPOV reflecting the state of the scholarly issues as outlined the reliable sources.
@Courcelles Please see Response to An Assessment and Characterization by Robert McClenon
@Robert McClenon Please do not change the name as this is not about Gospel According to Matthew IE CONTENT but WikiBullying on a grand scale IE BEHAVIOR
Courcelles, Salvio & DGG: The ANI has been wrongfully closed and I have been wrongfully banned by an involved Admin. Diff See also "It is blatantly obvious that nothing here is going to have any action taken, and it is seriously doubtful that there is even any reason why action should be taken." Yes the many many charges against me were serious but the evidence was lacking. diff My hope is now that I will luck out with some Arbitrators who are willing to accept this case and more importantly are willing to dig. Diff
Robert McClenon: Actually all disputes were resolved last year. Furthermore I faithfully stood by every compromise and totally complied with every agreement!!!! I have not raised Hebrew Gospel by James Edward once. Then in March, 2015, I asked for some clarification re minor POV concerns. A small group of editors took offense and requested I be banned. When it became clear I had done nothing wrong in my request, the allegations changed to: for 8 years Ret.Prof has been a really really bad editor and we know his type!
BMK: re your comment that "Ret.Prof has made only 10 edits to articles" (All deleted). Please be patient for at arbitration, I will present evidence why this was not voluntary and due to harassment etc.
@Dougweller don't you this see as a major conflict of interest!!! Because of our history you should recuse yourself!
@Arbs: I have substantial evidence about serious editor misconduct and very bad behavior. Please give me the opportunity to present it in a calm, reasoned fashion. If it boomerangs on me, so be it...at least I will know it was the evidence that showed I was not right for Wikipedia. Nothing worse than not being heard!
Well, it looks like my request is going to be declined. In a way I am relieved, as conflict is not something I enjoy and Arbitration would have ruined my summer. Also, as an old guy, I am coming to the conclusion, I don't have the skill set necessary to have done a good job at arbitration. I will abide by the ban. My only hope is that I have raised awareness of the problem regarding gangs or cliques. Groups of editors working together are very powerful. I also believe this problem will increase and that it will really hurt Wikipedia. I have done my best and can only hope some young editors in the future will be able to rectify the situation, so that Wikipedia can truly be an encyclopedia that everybody can edit...even an old retired professor. Wishing you all the best! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mediation Committee

I would remind everyone that all communications in mediation provided through the Mediation Committee are, per policy, privileged and cannot be used in any other proceedings, and that the Arbitration Policy provides that "Evidence from official mediation is only admissible with the express prior written consent of the Mediation Committee." For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

This dispute has been going on for more than a year. This particular dispute involves the date of the Gospel According to Matthew. Other issues concerning the early history of Christianity (first century AD/CE), such as Historicity of Jesus and Ebionites, have also required ArbCom intervention. This dispute is not limited to a single editor; there are multiple fringe positions, being pushed tendentiously, which are sometimes characterized by conduct issues both supporting and opposing the fringe views. A sanctions regime is needed to deal with these repeated disruptions. There is currently a thread at WP:ANI concerning the Gospel According to Matthew, which includes a proposal for community general sanctions. The ArbCom may choose to see whether the community imposes community general sanctions; if so, this case may reasonably be declined as being handled by the community. Alternatively, the ArbCom can accept this case procedurally to impose ArbCom discretionary sanctions by motion, or may accept the case for a full evidentiary hearing, knowing that discretionary sanctions will be part of the remedy. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest renaming this case to Gospel According to Matthew issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thryduulf - The mediation was "successfully" concluded not yesterday, but a year and a day ago, and the issues then came back. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Carter

I believe this is ultimately, redundant. As I have already said on the relevant ANI thread, at WP:ANI#John Carter and Ret.Prof, I am in the process of gathering evidence to present at ANI for the purposes of considering a site ban or topic ban of Ret.Prof from early Christianity. Considering the history of this matter, I believe there is every reason to believe that this can be handled at ANI, and, as I have already indicated there, I intend to have the evidence for community sanctions prepared and included there hopefully by no later than the end of the day tomorrow. However, if the matter is taken up, I believe that it should also include consideration as to whether trainee clerk User:Robert McClenon has, through some of his recent comments, which can be presented as evidence, the judgment and knowledge of policy and guidelines to be able to be trusted in that role, a concern I have already expressed at User:Callanecc's talk page here. John Carter (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Interesting response, and I had not considered that. That, however, does not necessarily mean that my actions are necessarily correct, but, at the same time, it does raise questions already raised about whether this might be a rather obvious attempt at forum-shopping to perhaps forestall the inevitable. Although I am rather frustrated by the recent deletion of even, so far as I can necessarily tell, even the material in the request for mediation, as opposed to the mediation itself, which I understand is privileged information, I believe it is not unreasonable. It is rather obvious to me, personally, that this might be an attempt at a last ditch effort to prevent the OP being banned, which I personally think is a fair characterization of it, but I would be interested in knowing whether this request would, if accepted, necessarily prevent or preclude community discussion about the possibility of sanctions against the filer of this request. John Carter (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would also be truly amazed to see evidence of the last paragraph of Ret.Prof's assertion above. So far as I can tell, I have never explicitly stated my personal POV, and would love to see someone indicate to me exactly where I have. Believe me, if you think theology gets confusing as is, add Star Trek type thinking to it, and it gets even more incomprehensible, even if you are someone who is a native English speaker, which I often fail to adequately indicate in my typings here that I more or less am. That is, frankly, one of the reasons I haven't discussed it at all, the other being that, to the best of my knowledge, it might be unique to me, although, admittedly, I haven't really checked. John Carter (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given the existing three-month topic ban, I would have no objections to seeing the request die myself. And, I guess, under the circumstances, requesting an indeterminate topic ban and/or site ban of the filer strikes me as basically pointless, so I won't be pursuing gathering that data, unless a full case is accepted.
I might however have no objections to a motion to be able to impose discretionary sanctions by motion, or however that is phrased, in the broad topic area of early Christianity, given the numerous different religious beliefs regarding the era and the sometimes wildly divergent minority and/or fringe academic views regarding the period. In the mediation, I think it was in the mediation anyway, I remember talking about an academic book which detailed no less than 12 different theories of the time of composition of the Gospel of Matthew in the past 25 years, ranging from shortly after the consensus time of the apparent death of Jesus through the end of the first century. And it referred to an earlier work discussing the various theories put forward 25 years earlier, which is why it limited itself to just those 25 years!
I think there is also a legitimate question, I guess, whether Ret.Prof can take part in an arbitration when he is topic banned. You arbs probably know that best. If he can't, I have no desire to see a trial in absentia.
The issues of Robert McClenon's competence to serve as a clerk is still a real one, as is my own behavior. If there is a desire for a case on those grounds, of course, that is a different matter entirely.
If that more limited case, and/or a full case are not accepted, however, I do believe that there may well be reasonable grounds for a decision which allows imposing discretionary sanctions on the topic area of early Christianity by motion, and/or, possibly, because the Gospel of Matthew is generally considered to be the first chronological gospel, and everything else more or less depends on its dating, perhaps to immediately impose a more limited set on discretionary sanctions relating specifically to that topic. John Carter (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding what Jehochman said below, if in three months we find ourselves in the same situation, I have a feeling ANI would be likely to handle it rather quickly. And I believe, with the precedent of the existing sanctions, I think the matter might well be resolved in a more, well, long-term basis there, if problems should recur. John Carter (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ched

I agree with the quote above by Llywrch, regardless of whether they are admin or not. I also believe that the tone in many areas of wiki has grown increasingly hostile. I will also note that any of my interactions with John Carter have been very positive, and I've found him to be objective to all sides of a discussion.

  • Note to all parties: So far, Arbcom has declined to decide content issues; they tend to deal with behavior issues. So comments (and if accepted, evidence) should be provided with that in mind.
  • Note to Arbcom: I would be willing to participate in this case IFF it was accepted. However, I will not be available on any predictable or regular basis due to various personal reasons, including travel, until the end of the month. I do however receive email on my phone if there's anything important.
  • Note in general: Any evidence I have at this time would involve the "bully" and "gang" aspects, especially as it relates to WP:PA]. I am not active in the "religion" areas, but there may be a few other "fringe" items I think worth reviewing. The important part of this note however is to say that any of my "evidence" would likely necessitate the inclusion of additional parties. — Ched :  ?  17:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tgeorgescu

It is not Ret.Prof's existence which irritates established editors, it is his behavior (WP:LISTEN, WP:COMPETENCE#Bias-based and WP:REHASH). He claimed that he would be organized bullied. The claim of being organized would be very difficult to substantiate, even if it were real, so I suggest that he drops it. About bullying, there is a difference between seeking to redress harm to Wikipedia articles and simply bullying somebody because other people do not like his viewpoints. Ret.Prof does not understand that bona fide editors have earnest and valid reasons for opposing his edits, and that this is not the same as hate directed against his person. The noticeboards were filled with claims by Ret.Prof and against his editing practices, for several years. If he finds himself in hot water or about to lose a dispute, he quits editing for several months claiming being bullied and then he returns with the very same claim that had produced trouble (or a similar claim in certain cases). Also, there is a distinction between WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE and I think Ret.Prof conflates the arguments against those two categories. As I have stated before on the noticeboards, I have nothing against a newbie who does not know the rules, makes a mistake, gets corrected and then improves his editing behavior. I am only opposed to those who do not want to learn the rules of editing Wikipedia or are unwilling to abide by the rules. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have literally had four years of disruption by an editor who has openly declared his intention to use "passive resistance" for the "good of Wikipedia". This is a textbook definition of tendentious editing. It's time to put these chronic behavioral issues to rest via arbitration. I'm letting everyone know well in advance in order to have time to prepare their statements. Ignocrates (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

What I deplore is that Ret.Prof forgot the part with "I promptly apologized and rectified my error." Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too harsh sanctions against the reported users will alienate those who are competent and care about the history of Christianity and Bible scholarship articles and open the door to POV pushers, so the quality of those articles could degrade if the adopted sanctions are too harsh. Competent editors in these topics have been decimated by retirements attributable to pressure from fringe pushers. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, what irritated other users was this: Ret.Prof made edits seemingly supported by certain references, and the references failed to verify his edits. He either misread or cherrypicked the sources, or indulged in original research based upon primary religious sources (ancient writings). If this only happened once, it would be excusable, but it got repeated many times. The wrong eyeglasses excuse would do, but only once. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

On the subject of the clerk trainee, I (and a number of others) made clear comments at the RfC survey he generated at Wikipedia talk:Civility/Archive 18#Arbcom's position on expletives. Apparently there's been other problems elsewhere though (like here or more obvious from this exchange: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]).

I think this time the problem was raised here after his community sanctions regime proposal at ANI (which is still open); I have to agree that it is premature for the dispute which is the subject of this arbitration and the subject of the ANI. Ironically, a community sanction might be imposed on him if issues persist, so if you want to sort it out before it gets to that point, this would be an opportune time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not proposing the matters I've identified above to be dealt with via a case at this stage.
And on the subject of discretionary sanctions, there really needs to be evidence of problems which would demonstrate that the regime is necessary. That is, not just a couple of problem editors or not just a couple of editors reacting to them (which is the type of thing being mentioned here). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the level of formality recommended by Jehochman regarding the sanction on the filing party is essential here (as I said here), but I've pinged another administrator (EdJohnston) who might be in a position to more simply address that and he has responded with this which should help. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

I have not come across this dispute at all until now. Looking at it with what I guess should qualify as a fresh set of eyes, what I see is one user with fringe views who refuses to take "no" for an answer, refuses to accept that Wikipedia is , by design, a mainstream encyclopaedia, and considers that the increasingly forceful attempts by the community to get him to abide by consensus, amount to bullying.

I'm at a loss to see how acceptance of this case could end well for the filing party, and would recommend him to withdraw it. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: based on my reading of the ANI thread, the obvious refusal of Ret. Prof to accept any answer he doesn't like, the absence of any substantive contributions in any other area, evident issues with WP:OR/WP:SYN, and the duration of the dispute, I have closed the thread with a 3-month topic ban. I seriously can't see how this could go any other way: any aggression from others seems to me to be entirely the result of an obdurate refusal on the part of Ret.Prof to accept consensus. I'd be interested to see how he collaborates in areas where he does not have idées fixes, so let's see how that goes. Guy (Help!) 11:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jehochman - I understand your point, and you are very likely right. As I think I have by now made clear, my thinking was simply to give Ret.Prof, who is clearly intelligent and resourceful, a chance to establish some kind of reputation outside of this area, so that he is not judged solely on the basis of a subject where he clearly has strong opinions. Several people have said that he is unlikely to do this, and that he will at best merely wait three months and restart the same arguments. I agree this is not at all unlikely; if it happens we will know more about him, specifically we will know that he has no interest in Wikipedia other than promoting his POV in this narrow area, and I think that will make a more permanent sanction entirely uncontroversial. However, I am inclined to assume good faith and give him at least a chance. As it is, any outcome from arbitration other than a ban seems to me unlikely, and the intervening weeks and months will doubtless be filled with Sturm und Drang which, frankly, gets dull after the first few dozen times. I am entirely open to this being reviewed at AN or some other appropriate venue, but I do think the community can handle it, as it's narrowly focused and basically revolves around a single editor. Guy (Help!) 16:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question and comment from Beyond My Ken

I'm not a party to this, but I have a procedural question for the Mediation Committee: does the privilege cover only the discourse of the parties during the mediation itself, or does it extend to any actual evidence that might have been presented in the course of it? In other words, if a party gathered together diffs as evidence for the mediation, are those diffs themselves (and not the form of their presentation in the mediation, which I would expect to be privileged) not available for that party to use again in the arbitration case, should it be accepted? BMK (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that in deciding whether to take this case or not, the Committee should not automatically accept the statements made by Ret.Prof above. For instance, in their #2, Ret.Prof writes "that for over a year, every edit that I have made has been rapidly deleted, even ones of little consequence". The problem is that this implies that a substantial body of work has been tamperesd with, but, in fact, in the last 12 months Ret.Prof has made only 10 edits to articles, all of which occurred between September 2 and 14, inclusive. In the calendar year 2014, Ret.Prof made only 32 edits to articles, one of which was a self-revert. So, while Ret.Prof's statement may be literally truthy (I have not looked into the "rapidly deleted" part), the implication that a substantial body of work nas been censored is not true at all, especially since his largest edit in the past year was 195 bytes, and the largest edit in 2014 (not counting the one that was self-reverted, or the restoration of another editor's deletion, which was 1,819 bytes) was -456 bytes. Anyone with substantial editing experience here knows that these are not indicators of a extensive contribution to the two articles involved (Gospel of Matthew and Oral gospel traditions). In other words, Ret.Prof appears in their statement #2 to be attempting to overstate what happened. (Ret.Prof's article contrib list)
I have not looked into any of Ret.Prof's other statements, but to find this misrepresentation raises in my mind the concern that there may be others, which is why I suggest that the committee actively look into Ret.Prof's claims before making an decision about whether to take this case. BMK (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mdann52 - Thanks! BMK (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would urge the Committee to decline the case in favor of waiting to see if the topic ban makes a difference. BMK (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jerodlycett

I came across this when I went to NPOV/N in an attempt to try to provide a non-involved advice on the matter of Gospel of Matthew. I watched the fighting there for several days before getting frustrated with the lack of any real attempts to discuss the matter at hand (the age of the gospel). I then opened that AN/I, as I felt their behavior there needed addressing. I feel that ArbCom is the true solution to this, given that it's a matter of behavior, but I do not believe a non-party can open a request here. I'm asking the ArbCom to please accept this, and let it play out in full. Jerodlycett (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by In ictu oculi

This is a holding statement because I am not aware of the recent activity. I am familiar with the incidents of 3-4 years ago. However I have just looked at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#Incompetent_editor_who_pushes_fringe_views, and RetProfs few last 12 month edits and they seem to confirm yet again the recurrent nature of the RetProf problem. This editor is, sorry to say, incompetent, relentlessly pushing the same mix of fringe theories and original research about a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew from old and fringe sources. I heartily endorse a topic ban as suggested above. However I don't see that there is any case why the Committee should accept the case request. This doesn't seem to fit the requirements for an Arbitration case as there is no organised or even un-organised group of editors on the other side, simply a WP:RS WP:FRINGE issue, which would be best solved by a topic ban at WP:ANI. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved) Mdann52

@Beyond My Ken: MedCom privilege does not cover diffs etc., just the discussion made at the venue. As you said, it is the form of presentation and discussion that took place. (WP:MC/P#PRIV is the full policy) I'm not getting involved, just answering the above question Mdann52 (talk) 08:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Guy Macon

In my opinion, this case should be renamed "Dispute on early Christianity pages" or something similar. Calling it "WikiBullying" enshrines Ret Prof's assertion that this is all about how he has been treated, while calling it "Gospel According to Matthew issues" misses the other pages where this dispute has occurred and may (in an ambiguous way) enshrine the idea that this is all about the content of the Gospel According to Matthew and other pages. Nor, of course, should we enshrine the idea that this is all about the behavior of Ret Prof and/or Robert McClenon, as suggested by John Carter. The scope of the dispute should be a matter of discussion, not something that is enshrined in the case title. The case title should simply say where the dispute is occurring.

I would further urge acceptance of this as being a case that ANI is not able to resolve.

Full disclosure: I have worked with Robert McClenon before at WP:DRN, where we both are dispute resolution volunteers, I was the volunteer at the failed WP:DRN case, and I have made a few comments in passing as this has been brought to various other noticeboards. More recently I have offered advice to Ret.Prof on his talk page. I will try not to let this influence any statements I make concerning this case, but bias can be unconscious, so please consider this when evaluating any statement that I may make. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC) Edited 21:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that I was wrong, and that a three-month topic ban has been imposed at ANI (and I might add by an admin with a long history of being fair and even-handed, in my opinion). I would urge Ret Prof to spend the next three months doing productive work in areas not covered by the topic ban and to pick topics where he has no strong feelings or unpopular viewpoints, and where his current opponents have never edited. Using the tool at https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py and entering the name of one of his current opponents and the name of whoever last edited the page he is looking at is a good way to see if the opponent has ever edited that page.
A three-month history of collaborative editing would be evidence that the problem isn't just Ret Prof not being able to get along with anyone. Having the same sorts of issues with a new set of editors would be evidence that the problem is Ret Prof not being able to get along with anyone. And his current opponents suddenly taking an interest in the new topic would be evidence of wikibullying and stalking. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

I noticed that JzG closed the ANI thread[6] after voting in the thread,[7][8] so Retired Professor is correct that the ban against him is not valid. I recommend that an arbitration clerk either (1) reopen the ANI thread and let somebody else close it, or (2) close the ANI thread with a note that it is now subject of an arbitration request. Based on the level of vitriol, accusations, and counter-accusations, I think arbitration of the wider dispute would be productive. Jehochman Talk 17:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At JzG's request, as a totally uninvolved party, I have reviewed the ANI discussion and endorsed the close. I still feel that arbitration would be appropriate, or else we will be right back in the same position after three months, I fear. Jehochman Talk 00:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JoeSperrazza

I believe there is no need to reopen the referenced WP:ANI thread, nor reverse the administrator action taken therein. Per WP:INVOLVED:

One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'.

Thus, no Arbitration action is needed at this time. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

WikiBullying: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <1/9/0/1>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

  • Awaiting statements from others, I'd particularly like to hear why this is here today given that the mediation was closed as "successful" yesterday - that makes me immediately suspicious of forum shopping. Everyone should note that arbitration will deal only with behavioural issues and will not make any judgement about the content dispute. Thryduulf (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the closure of the ANI thread with a topic ban, I'm now leaning to decline this request, at least for now, to see how that goes and whether it resolves the issues. I'm going to wait for a few other opinions before nailing my colours to the mast though. Thryduulf (talk) 12:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The topic ban appears to be supported by the community, so I'll decline this request for now. Per Salvio, if we see the same issues in 3 months time - or if the continue in whatever other topic areas Ret.Prof. chooses to contribute to, then we can reconsider things at that point. Thryduulf (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure for now. @John Carter, I believe it is being alleged that your attempt at that ban is itself a matter of bullying,so I do not see how you can claim that your proposal there is a solution to the problem presented here. DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • i don't think that we need to get involved here at the moment, if at all. The ANI could reach a satisfactory conclusion. If the community can handle this matter we should like to do so. Courcelles (talk)
  • Accept I think there's still things to be resolved here, and declining this now is merely kicking the can down the road a few months. Courcelles (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am leaning towards voting to accept this request, because, at the moment, the ANI thread seems to be going nowhere. Regardless, I'll hold off on voting for a while, hoping – the perennial optimist – that the community can solve this dispute without the need for a protracted case. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline. Let's see if the temporary topic ban is enough to solve the dispute or if the same problems will resurface in three months' time. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per Salvio. Dougweller (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline in hopes the issue will now see itself resolved, without prejudice to taking it up later if it proves not to be. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would have accepted pre-topic ban. As it stands, Decline as presently resolved elsewhere. -- Euryalus2 (talk) 08:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline, largely per Euryalus.  Roger Davies talk 11:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. LFaraone 05:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline This may come back to us but I hardly view it as a given. NativeForeigner Talk 10:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=655488915"