Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Morven (talk | contribs) at 01:28, 16 October 2007 (→‎Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/0/0/0): reject). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases

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 none (orig. case) 30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 none (orig. case) 13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 13 May 2024
Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction none none 25 May 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/How-to

Current requests

Cberlet and Dking

Initiated by Marvin Diode at 12:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Talk page notifications: [1][2][3]


Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Attempts were made at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Cberlet, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Dking, and Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected/28#Lyndon LaRouche and related articles

Note: I have undeleted the RfCs for the purpose of this request. Thatcher131 01:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Marvin Diode

Cberlet (talk · contribs · logs) and Dking (talk · contribs · logs) are the Wikipedia usernames of advocacy journalists Chip Berlet and Dennis King, who have worked as a team for over twenty years, mainly in activism against Lyndon LaRouche and his organization. They also work as a team at Wikipedia, and I contend that have used the project to aggressively promote their shared POV in violation of WP:SOAP. I keep Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics on my watchlist and I have responded to many requests, but I have not seen anyone else push an agenda with the sort of truculence that I have seen from Cberlet and Dking.

Lyndon LaRouche, as is well known, espouses many controversial and exotic opinions that are well outside the political mainstream. However, Cberlet and Dking are not content to let him be hoisted by his own petard. They have both written many articles and in King's case, a book, which claim that LaRouche's writings are full of coded or veiled messages. Berlet and King provide "decodings" that utilize the methodology of conspiracy theorists, in which they claim to be revealing the hidden, esoteric truth, that LaRouche is a closet Hitlerian fascist himself, despite his perpetual campaigns against a revival of Hitlerian fascism. As an example, Dennis King finds that photos from LaRouche's science magazine, of spiral nebulae and fusion plasma experiments, are "reminiscent of the swastika." To my way of thinking, the relevant Wikipedia articles should simply report, in summary form, that Berlet and King hold these views, particularly if they are of a highly speculative or "decoding" nature. However, Cberlet and Dking insist that this view must dominate the articles and be explicated at length. This raises numerous problems with policy, including WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE and WP:NOR. Recently an admin, citing BLP, removed comments about LaRouche that Cberlet had posted on his user talk page and two article talk pages. Cberlet, complaining of censorship, engaged in an edit war to restore the comments on his user talk page[4] and was temporarily blocked as a result.[5]

I proposed that when their views have appeared in mainstream publications, those may be used as sources and would not be disputed (this satisfies the requirements of WP:REDFLAG.) Although both Cberlet and Dking have denounced this proposal as censorship,[6][7] I continue to believe that this proposal is consistent with Wikipedia policy and would be the simplest solution to a persistent problem.

Another policy issue which arises in this context is WP:COI. It is my view that both Berlet and King are exploiting Wikipedia to raise their public profiles and draw traffic to their respective websites. Action was taken April 15, 2007, and on subsequent days by the team at the COI noticeboard to remove WP:LINKSPAM by Dking (Dking has recently renewed his linkspam campaign.) One of the editors who conducted the LinkSpam cleanup later expressed this view: "Cberlet and Dking are both COI SPAs: single purpose accounts with very obvious conflicts of interest." [8]

There is also the issue of tendentious editing and civility. Cberlet and Dking have been involved in many fierce disputes (not limited to the LaRouche articles.) I have watched these develop at a number of LaRouche articles; when a dispute arises, Cberlet and Dking immediately label their opponents "LaRouche followers" or "LaRouche apologists," which is inappropriate (regardless of whether it is actually true: at WP:NPA it says that one type of comment which is never acceptable is "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.") Cberlet and Dking have recently become more careful not to specify any individual editor, but this does not excuse the practice -- WP:POINT refers to "'Borderlining' (habitually treading the edge of policy breach or engaging in low-grade policy breach, in order to make it hard to actually prove misconduct.)" Cberlet and Dking then characterize these reputed LaRouche followers in the most offensive terms, including using the expression "house Jews" to describe Jewish supporters of LaRouche([9].)

Finally, I would ask the ArbCom to address the conduct of Will Beback (talk · contribs · logs), who has often supported inappropriate edits by Cberlet and Dking, and wikilawyered on their behalf. He exerted himself to obstruct earlier efforts at dispute resolution such as the deleted RFCs, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Cberlet and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Dking. I should clarify here that he acted mostly as an editor and not as an admin; Will didn't delete them himself, but instead encouraged User:El C to do so, after first disrupting the process by dominating the discussion with accusations against other editors. When the matter was discussed at the ANI[10], it was suggested that a request for mediation be pursued, but when that was done, Will Beback declined to participate, saying that it "appears mostly to deal with a behavioral dispute."[11]

Final note: Cberlet has said that he is taking a one month break.

Statement by {party 2}

Statement by {party 3}

Statement by Will Beback

Despite his protests, Marvin Diode is obviously a follower of Lyndon LaRouche. There's nothing wrong with that, but his comments and actions need to be seen in the context of the history of LaRouche editors at Wikipedia.

Chip Berlet and Dennis King are acknowledged as the leading experts on Lyndon LaRouche. King wrote the only full-length biography of LaRouche, which was issued by a major publisher, Doubleday. They are routinely quoted in news stories about LaRouche going back more than 20 years. Since then the LaRouche movement has returned the favor, writing about the two journalists as being involved in a 1980s conspiracy funded by the (liberal) Ford Foundation and (conservative) Richard Mellon Scaife to "get LaRouche". However there does not appear to be any ongoing financial benefit to Berlet and King in their coverage of LaRouche. King's book is out of print, and he's recently uploaded it to a non-commercial website. Berlet works at a private research firm and is apparently mostly engaged in other topics. So I don't see how there is a COI on their parts.

OTOH, a succesion of accounts apparently belonging to LaRouche followers have had a very real conflict of interest in supporting their cause. The most famous and enduring of them is Herschelkrustofsky, who was a chief subject of three ArbCom cases and who has been found to use a string of sock puppets. The most recent HK sock account that's been identified, with whom Marvin Diode worked closely, was MaplePorter. Other accounts, most of which were probably HK socks, include:

  • Weed Harper
  • C Colden
  • Cognition
  • BirdsOfFire
  • NathanDW
  • ISTJester
  • Sci.notes
  • Ibykus prometheus
  • AnonIPuser
  • ManEatingDonut
  • Tsunami Butler
  • HonourableSchoolboy
  • Don't lose that number
  • Plus other past and current accounts

I believe that Cberlet's recent decision to take a "Wikibreak" was based on his frustration with facing this succesion of accounts promoting the LaRouche agenda through edit warring.

Marvin Diode says that Dking and Cberlet "utilize the methodology of conspiracy theorists" to reveal a "hidden, esoteric truth" about LaRouche. Considering that LaRouche himself is widely viewed as using conspiracy theories that depict esoteric truths about history, politics, and science, this charge is particularly odd. Since I've been editing Wikipedia and have researched both LaRouche and the media coverage of him, I'd say that the King and Berlet views of LaRouche are solidly within the majoritarian views of the subject, and that they have not engaged in improper original research.

Cberlet recently described LaRouche as a "notorious antisemite, sexist, and homophobe". It is certainly true that LaRouche is frequently described as "antisemitic".[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] A judge in a libel case decided that calling LaRouche "anti-semitic" is a "fair comment".[20] His 1980s AIDS campaigns in California were characterized as requiring the long-term quarantine of tens of thousands of HIV-infected individuals, a large percentage of them homosexual. Cberlet's error wasn't in using those terms for LaRouche, which are fully sourceable. It was in not maintaining proper neutrality by saying that LaRouche has been called an "antisemite" instead of saying he is an antisemite. That's a subtle distinction and should not result in major penalties.

The RfCs were decertified by another admin because there were no serious attempts by the involved parties to settle their differences prior to the RfCs. Prior to decertification I wrote outside views that pointed to problematic behavior by Marvin Diode and others. This is acceptable because RfCs (and RfArs) cover all parties and not just the initial targets. The mediation request initated by Marvin Diode did not seek to resolve content issues. Instead it asked whether Dking and Cberlet had violated policies. I declined to participate because that isn't the role of mediation. Instead I started an RfC[21] that resolved the content problem. In a submission for the recent THF case, Marvin Diode claimed that Cberlet has engaged in the "unwarranted promotion of fringe theories" and wanted the ArbCom to "examine" his behavior.[22] I have lost track of how many times LaRouche-related editors have sought penalties against Cberlet, but I think it's enough already. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thatcher131

I would like to open my statement with a quote from User:WAS 4.250 [23]:

I believe Marvin Diode accurately describes Berlet and King as advocacy journalists. Take for example Berlet's statement, "King and I took a train down to DC to celebrate the incarceration of convicted felon and neofascist homophopbic antisemite Lyndon LaRouche. We did not attend the trial, but we wanted to applaud and cheer as he was led off to jail." While they are experts in LaRouche, they are not unbiased journalists. Wikipedia's reliance on them to maintain the Lyndon LaRouche articles would be problematic even if they were perfectly behaved Wikipedians, which they are not. As noted in the RFC, Berlet edit-warred at Lyndon LaRouche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on 3 July 2007 over the insertion of source material that he wrote for Encyclopedia Judaica [24]. Recently, Berlet introduced an inflammatory and derogatory statement about LaRouche on his user page and two talk pages [25] [26]; I redacted the comments [27], and then briefly blocked CBerlet when he edit-warred to reinstate them. However, in researching this situation I found the same comments made in article space [28]. Also note that Berlet's recent Wikibreak statement calls unnamed Wikipedia editors "aggressive bullies and stalkers", "racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, and Islamophobic bigots," and compares Wikipedia's failure to deal with LaRouche supporters in the manner Berlet would like to the complicity of the German people in Kristallnacht.[29] [30]

Berlet's behavior on non-LaRouche topics has been poor at times as well. He tangled with User:Intangible over labeling some political parties as "Far Right"; in the insuing Arbitration Enforcement discussion, Berlet's position amounts to, "I know it's a Far-Right party because I wrote a book about it." I attempted to suggest at Talk:Progress Party (Norway) that one problem with the article was that it criticized the party for being "Populist" and further criticized its economic populism, without actually reporting the views of any economists on why economic populism was bad or offering any alternative views. Berlet decided I was wholly inadequate, biased, and uninformed. As far as I could tell, he was content to use "Far Right" as a perjorative label for the party without providing any context or balance.

Dking has edit warred over the insertion of web sites he controls as sources and external links [31] [32] [33]. He also edit-warred at United States v. LaRouche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over the removal of a quote favorable to LaRouche [34], including considerable disparagement of the source.

To be fair, many of the editors with whom King and Berlet have edit-warred have subsequently been blocked as suspected sockpuppets of Herschel Krustofsky, or for pro-LaRouche disruption in general, and checkuser Dmcdevit found that an IP editor who taunted CBerlet after I blocked him is a user with a previous ban for making anti-Semitic remarks.

In closing, it appears that in the neverending battle with pro-LaRouche editors, Berlet and King have been annointed the lesser of the evils, and have been given latitude to say and do things that would have resulted in Arbitration long ago for less well-known editors of less contentious topics. It may in fact be better for the encyclopedia that Berlet and King be treated this way—who else cares enough about LaRouche to maintain his articles in the face of strong pro-LaRouche advocacy editing? And it should probably be considered that any probation or revert parole that might result from this case (should it be accepted) will be a troll-magnet and will drop Arbitration enforcement to an even lower Circle of Hell. There does not seem to be an obvious easy answer. Thatcher131 02:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Krimpet

Looking at this as an outsider, it does concern me that our usual conflict of interest guidelines have largely been overlooked here. Berlet and King seem to have been given an unusual amount of leeway in editing articles they have a clear professional stake in, and in a tendentious and aggressive way to boot, as Thatcher131 and Marvin Diode have demonstrated above.

If, say, Michael Moore started openly editing articles on the Republican Party and healthcare, liberally citing his own works, edit warring, and labeling editors with opposing views dismissively, how would the community react to this? --krimpet⟲ 16:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Recuse, as I looked into the MaplePorter (talk · contribs) issue and blocked the account. Picaroon (t) 01:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you need to be recused over that. I doubt we can find any admin, be it a clerk or an arbitrator, who didn't block one disruptive pro-LaRouche single-purpose account. [not to misuse this comment space, but for now I will briefly add that my own statement is forthcoming, and, that, at the moment, I am inclined to suggest a closed proceeding] El_C 11:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'll remove this once my statement is up. A brief suggestion: I strongly urge that this case be renamed Lyndon LaRouche 3 (per 1 and 2). El_C 11:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I regard this as another example of your playing defense on the Berlet/King team, similar to the deletion of the RFCs. The misconduct of Berlet and King is not limited to LaRouche articles. --Marvin Diode 13:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recusal of a clerk is not a big deal. There are at least four of us active at the moment, and only one is needed in any particular case. Newyorkbrad 11:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about a big or small deal, it's about the shortage of finding someone who hasn't dealt with pro-LaRouche advocacy. El_C 13:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Accept to consider the behavior of all editors involved. Kirill 01:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept Fred Bauder 17:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. I see no need to re-examine things here; the people and issues involved here have been up before the committee before and I see little change. That the LaRouche supporters are back under different names changes little. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Bible

Initiated by Luqman Skye at 07:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[35]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • None listed

Statement by LuqmanSkye

To avoid controversy, several readers requested that the sprawling Bible article be divided fairly into articles for the various bibles of the world. The Christian Bible did not have any independent article, though the Tanakh and Hebrew Bible already had their own articles. Without losing any information, an already-existing (redundant) disambiguation page (Bible (disambiguation)) was used to direct to separate articles for the various bibles. Without discussion, an administrator, Shirahadasha‎, reverted this refinement for no compelling reason, possibly a personal bias for his stated religion of Judaism, redirecting the Christian Bible article to the general Bible article, effectively deleting several high-quality additions to the Christian Bible article. He then locked the general Bible article after reverting all of the high-quality edits, even simple edits such as alphabetization. The general Bible article does not adequately treat the Christian Bible until its second half, focusing its first half primarily on the Tanakh and Jewish interpretations of it. There has been a consistent effort to place "Jewish" before "Christian" throughout the article even though this violates alphabetical order. There will be endless controversy with inevitably biased results until each Bible is allowed to have its own article on an equal footing. Deleting and redirecting improved articles for the various bibles, without comment, back to this general biased article and locking pages without discussion surely violates Wikipedia's policies. For an administrator to delete the new article on the Christian Bible and redirect it to a long sprawling general article for no compelling reason other than personal point-of-view is an abuse of administrative privileges. It would not be good to lose my high-quality edits and to waste my work implementing requested changes because of an administrator abusing privileges. It would not be good policy to disallow a fair article on the Christian Bible, with its Christian exegesis, as this document has been one of the most influential documents in the history of humanity. The sprawling Bible article has Christian interests consistently placed behind Jewish interests, with Shabahada immediately reverting any edit that does not follow this pattern. Please arbitrate in this case by allowing high-quality requested improvements to the articles for various bibles and by addressing the abuse of administrative privileges for personal point of view by Shirahadasha‎. After his reversion of my work, when I requested help from other administrators to resolve the issue, Shirahadasha claimed he wanted a discussion of the merits. Given his previous actions, using his privileges to revert all edits, including simple edits such as alphebatization, it does not seem to me that Shirahadasha will allow a consensus that violates his biased point-of-view. It is not correct for an administrator to disallow a fair article of the Christian Bible on an equal footing with the articles on other bibles. Please arbitrate in this matter as it is a very important one for a large group of people.

Statement by uninvolved Melsaran

Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process, and is primarily intended for conduct disputes. This is clearly a dispute over content, which should be settled on the relevant talk page. ArbCom can't help you to get your way, as they do not rule over content. If you and the other persons involved can't reach a compromise, you may wish to file a request for comment or a request for mediation. Arbitration is premature at this stage. Melsaran (talk) 12:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Wikidemo

There does seem to be a complaint in there about abuse of administrative power by User:Shirahadasha in editing and then protecting an article for POV reasons. However, arbitration is premature before asking Shirahadasha (or another administrator) to reverse the edit protection in order to allow for normal consensus editing of the articles in question. Wikidemo 19:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random comment by uninvolved Adam613

By the way, I think Shirahadasha is a woman. The complainant refers to her as "him" repeatedly. Adam 19:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved User:B

An important part of the request - "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried" - is empty. Arbitration is the last step, not the first step. The protection is unquestionably incorrect in this case. The correct procedure is to (1) ask Shirahadasha to undo it herself (reminding her of the protection policy) and if she does not, (2) bring it to WP:ANI. As a side note, I don't see any logical reason to redirect Bible to the disambiguation page as there is plenty of useful content there ... but that's a content dispute outside the bounds of use of admin tools. --B 20:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved User:Jossi

ArbCom does not deal with content disputes, so this is the wrong forum. Pursue this in other fora as per dispute resolution. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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


Frontline

Initiated by Liberal Democrat at 13:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
In absence of notification by the filer, I notified Vrsrini at User talk:Vrsrini (history). Daniel 13:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Liberal Democrat

The dispute with the user vrsrini was regarding the point on Anti - Imperialism which this party tried pointing out (along with many in the past) with sufficient sources that it was just Anti -Americanism ,which the current editor in Chief of the The Hindu group is endorsing at all levels,Standing on a high horse on issues like civil liberty and Freedom of press ,the magazine spaces articles and view points from media agencies Like Xinhua which appeared like a double speak/hypocracy,this was the only point many users in the past and this user now was trying to point out, but the contrarian editor vrsrini has tried discounting this down through out the period of time.For a better insight of what I'm trying to point out about Frontline magazine ,please find time to check out the following articles 1.[1] 2.[2] 1.[36] 2.[37] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberal Democrat (talk • contribs) 13:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {party 2}

Clerk notes

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

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



Requests for clarification

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

Clarification needed for motion in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

Certain editors are currently going around Wikipedia removing citations to quackwatch per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal#Use_of_unreliable_sources_by_Fyslee. Claiming that, for example, Quackwatch is an "an unreliable and partisan source". For example. Was it the intention of the arbitration committee to declare unequivocally that Stephen Barrett or Quackwatch were unreliable and partisan for articles on alternative medicine? This, to me, looks like Arbcom making a content decision if this is the case. ScienceApologist 21:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have observed the same. I do not believe this was the intention of the Arbcom ruling. I second SA's request for clarification since other editors seem to have a different opinion. Avb 22:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for Motion in Prior case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz

Re: Rex Germanus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have moved this here from the talkpage. Although the heading "Requests for clarification" is not clear, this is the customary location for proposals of this nature. Newyorkbrad 00:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Today I blocked Rex Germanus for one month for disruption at ANI.[38] One September 30 he was blocked by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for 24 days for "WP:POINT, persistant conflictuabl edits, chronical failure to work for the project rather than use it for personal crusades" [39], but the block was lifted early on October 1 so Rex could participate at WP:CSS per an offer by Moreschi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Rex came to ANI today and made frivolous accusations and refused to desist, in spite of the fact that Jossi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) had previously warned him that any disruption after the unblock would lead to an immediate block.[40] Arnoutf (talk · contribs) commented: "Agree with this block; any edits beyond his own defense (reason for restricted unblock) where a favour, Rex should have been careful not to abuse this leniency."

Rex Germanus' has been blocked repeatedly for edit warring, POV pushing and disruption.[41] The community is thoroughly tired of these problems, and the opinions at the WP:ANI thread suggest that Rex has already been given many more chances than other editors who have been sitebanned. Rex has been blocked 9 times since he was put on probation.

Enough is enough. I request a siteban. - Jehochman Talk 00:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 Remedy

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

Also, under this case, other editors who edit in a similar manner to the previously-sanctioned editors may be placed under the limitations of the original Armenia-Azerbaijan case. Do these sanctions expire one year after the editor in question is notified, or are they indefinite as no time limit is mentioned? The supervised editing remedy from the second case appears to be indefinite, as no expiration is mentioned, so my question is whether this is indeed the case and whether the other remedies are still meant to expire after a year, including on other editors brought in under the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 decision. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this situation requires attention from the committee. Frankly, I was always troubled by remedy number 1, which took all the users who were placed on revert parole (revert limitation) in the earlier case, and now placed them on supervised editing (which I gather is a new term for some form of probation and/or civility parole) as well. This was done despite the observation that although some of the parties to the earlier case had continued to display problematic behavior, others had done little or nothing wrong since the earlier decision, and there was no real reason to be applying additional remedies to them.
The problem is magnified if, as has been stated, some of the parties to the earlier case were not parties to the newer one. The case was such a sprawl and so many editors were listed as parties (and there was edit-warring over the list for awhile) that the clerk handling the case probably assumed that all the (unbanned) parties to the earlier case had been listed again. (From now on, I will check for things like this in every case myself.) If that didn't happen, then at a minimum anyone who was subjected to a remedy without having been notified of the case should be entitled to have the case reopened and to be heard on this issue. Newyorkbrad 19:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. See below.
As far as the duration is concerned, "until the situation improves" is probably a good rule of thumb. I am content to leave the decision up to the enforcing administrators. Kirill 19:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to NYB, I was also the clerk in the original A-A case. However, this case was opened anew, so I did not add the parties from the old case to the new one. I never assumed that they were listed. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 20:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, there was no reason to look for the additional parties or add them at the beginning of the case. However, when a remedy showed up on /proposed decision (or originally in an arbitrator proposal on the workshop) applicable to "all the parties to the prior decision," we should all have checked then to make sure that all of them were parties in or had all received notice of the new case. My fault as much as anyone's. Newyorkbrad 20:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With due respect to Kirill I think this is a non-issue and his motion is a mistake. Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 provides that any editor who edits disruptively on the topic of "Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area" may be placed on civility parole, 1RR and probation by means of a warning on their talk page. The fact that some editors in the first case were not notified of the second case is easily remedied by a note on their talk page. Passing the motion below would take a small group of editors who were placed on 1RR and exempt them from the civility parole and probation that applies to every other editor on Wikipedia following an appropriate notice. Thatcher131 20:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • They could be placed back on the remedy, yes; but only if they edit disruptively. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt; staying out of the second case does count for something, I think. Kirill 20:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dren. I missed that remedy #2 still applied. Sorry. Thatcher131 20:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thatcher, I had to look that word up. Clearly I have some remedial TV watching to do. More seriously, Penwhale, could you advise which users subjected to the remedy in the first case were not parties to the new case? (I ask you instead of doing the research myself as you know which users have complained to you already.) Thanks, Newyorkbrad 23:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not so much of "complaining", but TigranTheGreat and ROOB323 were the ones affected. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 01:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • While User:TigranTheGreat was not included in the list of the parties to the second arbcom case, many users provided evidence of his behavior which they considered to be disruptive. So he was definitely a party to the second case, and he was well aware of it as he provided evidence himself. His non-inclusion was just a mistake, because most users considered all the parties to the previous case to be parties to the second one as well. On the other hand, no one complained about ROOB323, so he should be the only one affected. Grandmaster 06:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • "His non-inclusion was just a mistake" as in "Darn it, I forgot to add his name to the list"? If he (or any editor) was not on the list of involved parties in the second case, nor even told of its existence, then how can he be a party to the part 1 sanctions imposed in the second case? It is that simple, or wikipedia descends into a Kafka-esque justice system. Meowy 02:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a quick note, since contributors in the 2nd ArbCom case ended up there due to pretty much the same disruptions as those in the 1st case, would not it be simpler to just place everyone on 1RR parole? I think this would significantly reduce the reporting and decision overhead, whether something should be considered a civility violation or not. Thanks. Atabek 14:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is shocking that ANY editor can fall foul of these remedies without having any prior warning of their existence. If these restrictions are to be fair then there must be an earlier stage to the process where editors are first warned of the existance of these pre-existing remedies and that they run the risk of breaking then if they were to go about editing an entry that falls under those remedies in the same way as they would an "ordinary" entry. A warning should be placed on every wikipedia entry to which these draconian restrictions apply. Meowy 02:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, TigranTheGreat was well aware of the second arbcom case, as he was providing evidence on other users, while others were providing evidence on him. [42] His non-inclusion was just a technical mistake. And I agree that some sort of warning would be good, but there are hundreds of articles covered by the remedy of arbcom 2, is it possible to add a warning to every one of them and who should do that? Grandmaster 04:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a "justice system". Basically, anybody who cannot behave or respect policy is out, justice or no justice. Nobody will be banned without warning, but, IMHO, there are topics that are so severely and systematically disrupted by ultra-nationalists, that need to impose "draconian" measures on misbehaviour by topic, not just by individual account (which are a dime a dozen), in the interest of maintaining a sane editing environment for serious editors. I have been saying this two years ago, and I am glad the arbcom is now seeing the need for this. dab (𒁳) 09:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any editor who edits disruptively on this topic area may brought under the umbrella of this case by a notice on their talk page. A templated warning is available at {{Armenia-Azerbaijan enforcement}} which explains the situation thoroughly. Rather than apply the notice to thousands of articles, this notice is given to the editors involved (so far 6 in addition to the editors involved in the case itself). If you are arguing for two separate warnings, (i.e., a warning about disruptive editing before the notice about being placed under the remedies can be given) that would be nice, and many admins will do that, but ArbCom didn't require it. Thatcher131 10:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

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


Carl Hewitt

To clarify the ruling in the Carl Hewitt case of February 2006 [43], I move:

  1. The ban on Carl Hewitt's autobiographical editing was not time-limited and still applies.
  2. The scope of the ban should include Hewitt's current research areas, such as concurrency, and all promotion of the value of the work of his past students such as William Clinger, work on the actor model, logic programming, and accounts of the development of major concepts of theoretical computer science. This is in addition to areas already ruled off-limits.
  3. Given the scale of apparent evasions of the ruling during 2007, by the use of large numbers of IP numbers from the West Coast of the USA, semi-protection of affected articles may be applied for periods of up to one month, and to their Talk pages in cases of overbearing comments.
Charles Matthews 13:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC) (recused in the case)[reply]
As there are currently 8 active arbitrators (excluding 1 who is recused), a majority is 5. The editor whose conduct is at issue has been notified of this motion and invited to comment on the talkpage.
The motion has passed. It will be archived to the relevant case's page in 24 hours. Picaroon (t) 01:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill 17:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Extension of remedies in Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

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

See also discussion above. As there are currently 9 active Arbitrators, plus 1 currently away has already voted on this motion, the majority is 6.
Support:
  1. We messed up here. Kirill 19:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Paul August ☎ 13:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. There is a defect in noticing everyone in, but the remedy should properly apply to everyone. Fred Bauder 13:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=164858102"