Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tony Sidaway (talk | contribs) at 14:39, 3 July 2006 (→‎AI: This is an enforcement issue. As a Wikipedia administrator I've blanked and protected his user talk page.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. Before requesting arbitration, please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom).

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions   10 May 2024 0/5/0
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 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

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and (exceptionally) to summarily review new evidence and update the findings and decisions of a previous case. Review is likely to be appropriate if later events indicate the original ruling on scope or enforcement was too limited and does not adequately address the situation, or if new evidence suggests the findings of fact were significantly in error.

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. If your case is accepted for arbitration, the arbitrator or clerk will create an evidence page that you can use to provide more detail. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person against whom you lodge a complaint.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arbitrators' votes to accept/reject/recuse/other. Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after four accept votes are cast. When a case is opened, a notice that includes a link to a newly created evidence page will be posted to each participant's talk page. See the Requests section of the arbitration policy page for details.

This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Please do not open cases; only an Arbitrator or clerk may do so.

See also



How to list cases

Under the Current requests section below:

  • Click the "[edit]" tab on the right of the screen appearing above the section break line;
  • Copy the full formatting template (text will be visible in edit mode), omitting the lines which say "BEGIN" and "END TEMPLATE";
  • Paste template text where it says "ADD CASE BELOW";
  • Follow instructions on comments (indented), and fill out the form;
  • Remove the template comments (indented).

Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template

Current requests

SPUI probation appeal

Involved parties

SPUI was placed on probation in the Pedophilia userbox wheel war, and requests an appeal.

Statement by SPUI

I have been banned twice under the terms of the probation, both times for non-disruptive actions. Both bans were undone before their scheduled expiration, but not before a significant length of time. This effectively creates a situation in which any admin can block me for about a day for any action they label as disruptive. --SPUI (T - C) 11:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I request that Fred Bauder be recused. In the present arbitration involving me, he has arbitrarily chosen to consider my view as "wrong". He recently said that he "certainly wouldn't lift a finger" if I am blocked under probation, no matter what the reason given by the blocking admin. He has managed to take a side in the conflict, and is thus an involved party. --SPUI (T - C) 03:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by brenneman

I agree that the terms of this probation should be adjusted. In the last instance, it appears very little attempt was made to either understand the history of the page, to investigate the ongoing discussion of the page, or to communicate with SPUI in any way. I haven't seen SPUI do anything so toxic that it had to be killed right now, so is there some reason he doesn't need to be warned before he's blocked? - brenneman {L} 12:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tony Sidaway

Recusing both because I advised SPUI to appeal his probation if he found it too onerous, and because I intervened and imposed the first ban (actually a series of temporary article bans to last for seven days) he discusses after he had reacted in a characteristically defiant and provocative fashion [1] [2] to intervention by another administrator about a spate of many inclusions of the word "fuck" in article edit summaries [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] .

The bans were terminated by me after another administrator had, with my permission, "gone the extra mile" for SPUI, while warning him that he would not intervene in the case of a repetition of provocative or disruptive behavior. [12] --Tony Sidaway 12:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that this application might be dealt with in any of the following ways:
  • a clarification of the intent of the injunction in the pedophilia userbox case;
  • a new motion in that case;
  • merge with the highways case;
  • rejection comments giving brief guidance on the handling of this kind of case;
  • a new arbitration case.
--Tony Sidaway 22:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Physchim62

Support hearing the appeal in order to modify the terms of SPUI's probation. There are disagreements among admins as to how the probation should be interpreted and enforced, and as to what penalties SPUIs behaviour should attract. Clarification would be welcome. Physchim62 (talk) 14:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Recuse. I must admit I have lost my patience. Fred Bauder 13:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. I'm not currently of the opinion that the probation itself is inappropriate—the trouble seems to be over enforcement, which short of spelling out every possible case of blockable behavior and the appropriate block length for each I don't think more action by arbcom will solve. (Clarifying note: dear gods, no, I'm not going to try to spell out all the possible blockable offenses.) Disputes over the appropriateness of blocks for specific incidents should probably go to WP:AN/I instead. FWIW, probation is not a "get your whacks in free" card for SPUI's opponents, use your judgment and good sense and warn him first even if you don't have to, and don't dismiss his opinion just because he gets on your nerves. And as for SPUI, don't deliberately test our patience or I won't have any sympathy when you're blocked again. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trey Stone appeal

I am taking the initiative of requesting the following appeal upon receiving this inquiry on my user talk page. [13]

In an arbitration case closed in August 2005, Trey Stone (talk · contribs) was baned "for one year from editing articles which concern politics, particularly articles which concern the foreign relations of the United States." [14] At the time, I considered the ban long overdue. I had taken a hard-line against Trey Stone for nearly a year. For example, I even was a critic of Tony Sidaway's earlier attempt to "mentor" Trey Stone, as I considered him an unreformable trouble-maker.

However, since last August, Trey Stone has dramatically changed his behavior, proving to be a constructive contributor more interested in helping Wikipedia than promoting an ideology. He has honored the arbcom restrictions on his edits entirely. I have little doubt that he has stopped his previous pattern of sockpuppet editing. Nor has he been disruptive on the talk pages of any political and historical articles, which he is allowed to edit. Moreover, he has shown himself to be incredibly knowledgeable, well beyond what is usually expected of someone his age (he started his first year at Occidental as recently as last year, I believe). I request that that arbcom repeal of last year's decision, allowing him to start work on Wikipedia a couple of months early. 172 | Talk 01:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
[15]
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

(Not a dispute)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

Second recusal in a row for me this morning. I did try to reform Trey Stone. I considered him to be a potentially valuable, salvageable editor, and while I won't examine the merits of the appeal at this stage I think it would be inappropriate for me to clerk this case. --Tony Sidaway 12:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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


Sathya Sai Baba

Involved Parties

Confirmation That All Parties Are Aware Of The Request
Confirmation That Other Steps In Dispute Resolution Have Been Tried
I disagree with this request for arbitration by SSS108, because I do not think that mediation has been fully tried. In the 3rd mediation I followed exactly the same procedure as in the 1st mediation, that is checking whether the mediator was experienced enough before accepting him. I took a wikibreak that lasted only one day which cannot reasonably considered a delaying tactic. I admit that I have been slow in giving answers in the previous mediation which I do not consider a valid reason for refusing mediation and resorting to abritration. The reasons why I was and am slow are as follows. 1. I have never been a single purpose editor and do not want to become one. 2. many often difficult questions were asked to me by the mediator BostonMA. 3. I want to give the right answers. 4. some difficult questions by the mediator BostonMA were very theoretical and non-practical i.e. questions about the reputability of sources that were and would not be used for the article, so I treated them as not urgent. Andries 08:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, Andries had every opportunity to tell Wisden17 or me that he wanted time to check the experience of the mediator. He said nothing. Despite asking Andries for a answer, he gave no answer until after Wisden17 closed the mediation case and arbitration became the only option left. I do not feel that mediation is viable when Andries chooses to answer questions on a time-table that suits his own whimsy and which even brought the former mediation to a standstill. SSS108 talk-email 17:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, checking the experience of the mediator was something that was also done in the case of the previous mediator, so this was business as usual. I do not have to explain every question about something that is business as usual immediatedly. Secondly, I do not intend to answer questions at whim, but already stated that I would take a maximum of one week to answer questions during the mediation. I can understand that one week may make single purpose editors like SSS108 impatient, but I thought and still think that this is an acceptable time-table for Wikipedia standards. Andries 23:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may not be feel that you are obligated to respond to my questions. Nevertheless one would think you would have had some courtesty to respond to Wisden17. You did not respond or give any explanations to Wisden17 and his statements stand as a testament to this fact. Period. SSS108 talk-email 04:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean that I did not respond to Wisden17? Is there any question that he posed me that I did not answer within in a week? I cannot find it. Please show it to me or retract your statement. Thanks. Andries 07:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I already explained myself. I will not do so again. SSS108 talk-email 16:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement By SSS108

("Sathya Sai Baba" will be referred to as "SSB"): Andries is the webmaster to the largest site opposing SSB on the internet: hetnet.nl/~exbaba. Andries now claims, after a three year period, he is not the webmaster for the site but is the "Main Representative, Supervisor and Contact" for the site (Ref). Therefore, Andries direct involvement with the largest site opposing Sathya Sai Baba is indisputable. I can provide more proof about Andries webmaster status on request. Andries personally compiled the Recovery Section on his website: (View Andries claim: Still online as of June 25th 2006). Andries is associated with (and openly promotes) the Christian Anti-Cult Activist Dr. Johannes Aagaard, founder of the Dialog Center and other Christian organizations. This recovery section not only has a very strong Pro-Christian tone, it also proves that Andries actively promotes an Anti-SSB/Guru/Cult POV. Because of Andries disenfranchisment with SSB, he unremittently attempts to undermine and bias the SSB Wikipedia articles by pushing his Anti-SSB/Guru/Cult POV. Even BostonMA (the former mediator) was confounded on how to approach the ever-multiplying disagreements on the SSB article: Ref. On Wikipedia, Andries has publicly made comments about his involvement in a "cult" (with SSB) and his emotional trauma because of that involvement (Example 1 - Example 2). Outside Wikipedia, on a public forum, Andries claimed he felt "raped" by SSB. These comments suggest that Andries interest in SSB is negative and (in my opinion) he is using Wikipedia as a venting, "therapy" (Andries word) and retaliation forum. I would also like to add that I am not the only person who has problems with Andries. He is a contoversial editor with whom others have many problems as well. See: Guru Talk Page, Post Cult Trauma Talk Page and the Prem Rawat Talk Page. Because of Andries bias, status on the largest Anti-SSB site on the internet, recent controversial edits, reinterpretation of Wikipedia policy, attempts to change Wikipedia policy to push his POV and behavior towards (and in) mediation (as stated in "other steps" listed above), I believe that mediation is no longer a viable option. Therefore, I seek the intervention of the Arbitration Committee to resolve these ongoing disputes, POV pushing and controversial edits that have no end in sight. On A Personal Note: I am not a Wikipedian in the literal sense (nor currently wish to be one) however, since I realize the significance of Wikipedia on the world wide web, my only purpose on Wikipedia is to balance out the SSB articles that have been dominated by Andries for years. SSS108 talk-email 17:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement By Andries

First of all, I oppose this request for arbitration, because mediation has not been fully tried as I explained above. Second, almost all comments that SSS108 makes here are unrelated to the case in question, the article Sathya Sai Baba. The complaints are related to my behavior in general and my off-wiki affilations but then the title of this request for arbitration should be called user:Andries, not Sathya Sai Baba. Andries 09:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You refused to agree to a reasonable time-table for mediation. The complaints stated herein are primarily about your behavior and bias on articles pertaining to Sathya Sai Baba. Of course, your behavior extends deeply into other areas as well and pointing out this behavior makes a clearer case for the bias I believe you systematically and unremittingly push on Wikipedia. SSS108 talk-email 05:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the complaints herein are mostly related to my general behavior. Please either remove all the complaints about me unrelated to Sathya Sai Baba article or re-name this request for arbitration into user:Andries. But please understand that if you re-name this request for arbitration into user:Andries then the request for abritration will probably not be accepted because this is the first time that complaints about my general behavior would be made in a formal manner and other dispute resolutions, normally preceding a request for arbitration, such as wikipedia:request for comment have not been tried. Andries 06:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Andries, no offence, but I would rather act on the advice of the ArbCom. I would also like to point out that you were also wanting to request Arbitration because other avenues were not successful (Ref 01 - Ref 02). The fact that you are now trying to prevent the ArbCom from listening to my requests suggests that you are trying very hard not to be held responsible for your bias and POV pushing. You never attempted to make a reqest for comment and the former references show how you were willing to supercede a request for comment in favor of arbitration. Now you arguing the opposite. SSS108 talk-email 15:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SSS108, I only tried to draw the attention of contributors who had previously shown interest in the article to the problems in it. The reason why I oppose this case for arbitration is because not all other dispute resolutions have been exhausted which is a condition for filing it here. It is not because I am afraid of the arbcom, because you are the one who should be afraid of the arbcom, not me, because your behavior on Sathya Sai Baba was far worse than mine. I did file a request for comment. Andries 18:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Andries, you just said that "wikipedia:request for comment have not been tried". Now you are saying that you did file a request for comment. Where and when did you file the request for comment? What was the result? And if I am the one who should be afraid of ArbCom, then you should have no problem continuing with Arbitration. Now should you? SSS108 talk-email 04:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk Notes

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

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



Requests for Clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process.

AI

Last September, this user was banned indefinitely by the ArbCom for legal threats. He made one edit to his talk page in October, which was subsequently reverted. However, this past May, he has re-emerged, and now seems to be dominating his talk page. In addition, someone placed a one-year block on top of his indefinite block. Has he resolved his legal threats? If not, should his indefinite block stick and/or his talk page protected? Editor88 03:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an enforcement issue. As a Wikipedia administrator I've blanked and protected his user talk page. He remains banned and should not edit. On this occasion I won't reset the ban but any socking will result in a reset. --Tony Sidaway 14:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EffK

This past February, this user was banned one year by the ArbCom. His talk page was protected and then unprotected, and he has used it to engage in dialog with Musical Linguist and Str1977. Is that allowed? If not, should his talk page be reprotected? Editor88 03:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, I don't care if EffK continues to post on his talk page so long as he does not otherwise try to edit. If he becomes disruptive on his talk page, any admin may reprotect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dyslexic Agnostic

Is the ArbCom probation restricted to article/project pages, or does it extend to talk pages as well? Titoxd(?!?) 05:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any appropriate page at all, talk pages included. Dmcdevit·t 07:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article probation remedy for Election

Does the ArbCom intend that Phil Sandifer, a party to the Election case, have the same power to ban other editors from the articles involved that the ArbCom is granting to administrators in general in Remedy 2.1? If not, could that please be made explicit? I am concerned about the chilling effect on editors such as myself who wish to continue editing the articles but do not agree with Phil in certain respects which could invite the abuse of this new remedy. I'm not opposed to the remedy for other admins in general; nor am I suggesting that Phil would likely ever take part in such a clear conflict of interest. It's just that I, and I think others, would be more likely to help improve the articles if this unlikely possibility were considerably more remote. 71.132.140.65 08:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators involved in a conflict are never supposed to use their adminship to gain the upper hand in the conflict. If he were to, arbcom decision or no, it would be wrong. I don't see any reason to make a specific remedy to this effect, especially since there has been no evidence presented of him abusing adminship in this case. Dmcdevit·t 15:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Phil did threaten to block me for disagreeing with him, describing my conduct erroneously as 'vandalism', on a related article (the 3rd, aborted VfD, if I recall) on which he was an editor. I believe that diff was presented. However, since he didn't actually follow thru on his threat, I guess that's been taken to mean that there's been no evidence presented. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Dmcdevit. It would be entirely inappropriate for Phil to use his adminship here; he should refrain from doing so under normal admin conduct guidelines, without it needing to be specifically stated. (And preferably, he should not even appear to suggest it.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PoolGuy

"User PoolGuy shall use one user account. That user account may be PoolGuy or a new account which he may create in order to get a fresh start. Should he create a new account he need not disclose its name." [16]

If he's allowed to create a new account without telling anyone, doesn't that make probation rather difficult to enforce? --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing: PG is continuing to request the unblock/unprotection of one of his other accounts, GoldToeMarionette, claiming that no policy violations were cited. Can someone clarify to him that the most important clause of the decision is "...shall use one user account"? 15:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
If he choses to create a new account, and continues with the same problematic behavior we will have no difficulty in identifying him for enforcement of probation. Fred Bauder 20:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently having a conversation with him in which I'm making it clear that "restricted to one account" means he can have one unblocked account, and I don't care which one it is (see User talk:PoolGuy). It's not sinking in as far as I can tell, but that's been his problem all along. --ajn (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In light of his behavior after the RfAr closed, it is my opinion (and I hope an ArbCom member will do this) that the RfAr should be reopened to impose further sanctions. --Nlu (talk) 04:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is making people think I am using more than one account or trying to use more than one account? I just want the original problem that GoldToeMarionette should not of been blocked be remedied. ArbCom would have included the violation in the findings of fact had there been one. There wasn't, the account should be unblocked. I can't believe after all of this, that this is still somehow hard to understand.
Nlu, I am still disappointed in your attack mentality. I am sorry for you that I don't put up with it, but it is extremely unbecoming in an Admin. I still don't understand why ArbCom did not penalize you for your role, especially since I was right in what I posted. How the world would be different if you would remedy rather than attack. PoolGuy 04:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have chosen to use the account "PoolGuy". There is no sense unblocking an account you can't use unless you wish to no longer use "PoolGuy". We are not going back and hashing over a stale matter. Fred Bauder 11:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, it does matter. There are now users out there that think I did something wrong. Unblocking the account will demonstrate that I in fact did not. By leaving the account blocked, users like Nlu will think that they were justified in their treatment of me. What you view as stale, I view as central to why I challenged the block. Some Admins out there think I created multiple accounts to violate Wikipedia policy.
Let me traslate it to the real world. It is like a judge saying, "Since you are now out of jail, we will not complete that DNA test to prove you were in fact not the perpetrator of the crime. Why should you care, you aren't in jail any more."
I do not like that Administrators get to liberally use an iron fist, and despite it being inappropriate, their behavior is encouraged by the opinion of ArbCom. PoolGuy 13:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on this:

--Tony Sidaway 11:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)


Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=61853056"