Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m →‎Statement by Herzen: link to archived DRN discussion instead of a diff
→‎Ian Fleming article: Removing request for arbitration: declined by the Committee
Line 6: Line 6:


<!-- PLEASE PLACE NEW CASE REQUESTS BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- PLEASE PLACE NEW CASE REQUESTS BELOW THIS LINE -->
== Ian Fleming article ==
'''Initiated by ''' [[User:Anomalocaris|Anomalocaris]] ([[User talk:Anomalocaris|talk]]) '''at''' 11:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator -->
*{{userlinks|Anomalocaris}}, ''filing party''
*{{userlinks|SchroCat}}
*{{userlinks|Cassianto}}

;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
*{{Diff|User talk:SchroCat|prev|639175115|Informing SchroCat}}
*{{Diff|User talk:SchroCat|prev|639175211|Informing Cassianto}}

;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
<!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration -->
*{{Diff|User talk:SchroCat|prev|639168637|Urging SchroCat to reconsider}}

=== Statement by Anomalocaris ===

At [[Talk:Ian Fleming#Full stop and comma inside or outside quotes]], I started a discussion. That discussion is by no means complete. At 08:56, 22 December 2014, [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]], a party to that discussion, arbitrarily ended the discussion by using [[Template:Discussion top]] in violation of the prohibition against its use by a party to the discussion. At 10:21, 22 December 2014, I commented at [[User talk:SchroCat]] {{Diff|User talk:SchroCat|prev|639168637|urging reconsideration}}. In less than one minute, at 10:21, 22 December 2014, SchroCat reverted my edit. Ordinarily, I would make further attempts to reason with a user, but this user has made it clear in postings on [[User talk:Anomalocaris#Ian Fleming|My talk page]], [[Talk:Ian Fleming#Full stop and comma inside or outside quotes]] and [[User talk:Cassianto#Talk:Ian Fleming]] that reasoning does not work. Consequently, I am requesting arbitration. I request a decision that [[Template:Discussion top]] be removed from [[Talk:Ian Fleming#Full stop and comma inside or outside quotes]] and not be reinstated until the issue is resolved according to standard Wikipedia procedures.

[[User:Cassianto]] is not a direct party to this violation, but I believe is an interested party and is included as a courtesy. —[[User:Anomalocaris|Anomalocaris]] ([[User talk:Anomalocaris|talk]]) 11:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I submitted this under the heading ''Talk Ian Fleming Full Stop Discussion Stop''; please note that this request for arbitration relates to a violation of Wikipedia policy on a talk page, not on an article page. I respect the decision of the arbitrators, but I also encourage everyone to remember that Wikipedia's policies, including the prohibition against using [[Template:Discussion top]] by a party to the discussion, must mean something, and there must be some way to have wikipedians abide by it. If we allow one party to a talk page discussion to unilaterally declare the discussion is over, we undermine the entire dispute resolution process, which starts in the talk pages. If the solution is merely that I start another section per [[User:Hasteur|Hasteur]], given [[User:SchroCat]]'s past behavior, I anticipate SchroCat using [[Template:Discussion top]] again. If you think that arbitration is "too serious" for this, imagine how much more arbitration will be called for if the use of [[Template:Discussion top]] by discussion participants becomes widespread. The stakes are higher than this one discussion. —[[User:Anomalocaris|Anomalocaris]] ([[User talk:Anomalocaris|talk]]) 22:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate the sage counsel of [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]]. I should have paid more attention to the possibilities listed under [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Resolving content disputes with outside help]]. I apologize for inconveniencing the arbitrators and not taking intermediate steps first. I have the information I need for taking such steps. If it is possible, '''I withdraw, cancel, and dismiss this request for arbitration.''' — [[User:Anomalocaris|Anomalocaris]] ([[User talk:Anomalocaris|talk]]) 19:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by SchroCat ===
=== Statement by Cassianto ===




=== Statement by Hasteur ===
Involved parties should never close article talk page discussions in which they are primarily involved. 3 days to get the laundry list of complaints resolved. I note that even in the closing statement that the issue is not resolved. Suggest that {{U|Anomalocaris}} open a new talk page discussion about the remaining unresolved complaints, that {{U|SchroCat}} recieve a very wriggly trout for causing more drama by their [[WP:TPO]] violations after it was clear that Anomal did not appreciate the changes, and that the remainder of the dispute be bounced to the Content Dispute Resolution options [[User:Hasteur|Hasteur]] ([[User talk:Hasteur|talk]]) 13:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Nikkimaria ===
An hour's worth of discussion on a user talk page does not constitute sufficient dispute-resolution efforts to warrant ArbCom intervention. This is a tempest in a teacup, and should be dismissed as such. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 14:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by The Rambling Man ===
Not sure how this has escalated from a minor punctuation-based content dispute to requesting the "incisive uber-thoughts of the brains-collective". Arbcom can't and won't help with this, it's a false claim, and the claimant needs to be reminded how Wikipedia works. This page is worthy of deletion. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 21:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


===Comment by Nsk92===

Of course, this request should be declined as not ripe for arbitration, and it looks like it will be declined shortly. Personally, it is disputes like this one that make me detest the MOS (I really find it impossible to care about whether the full stop sign should be placed inside or outside the quotation marks). Having said that, a couple of practical points: Anomalocaris, you should consider filing an RfC at [[Talk:Ian Fleming]], following the instructions given at [[WP:RfC]], to get some extra input for this dispute from other WP editors. Also, Hasteur is correct that it was completely inappropriate for SchroCat, as an involved party, to close (and with a self-declaration of victory, no less) the dispute thread where SchroCat and Anomalocaris were the only participants. I hope that one of the admins or arbs who have commented in this RFAR request, or at least have read it, will leave a warning at SchroCat's user talk page regarding this point. If SchroCat does something similar again, such an action should be reported at [[WP:ANI]] and would deserve a block as a form of [[WP:DE]]. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 07:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

=== Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''

=== Ian Fleming article: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/7/0/0> ===
{{anchor|1=Ian Fleming article: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small>

*'''Decline'''. The [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Punctuation inside or outside|MOS guidance on punctuation inside or outside]] seems straightforward. There is sometimes tension between the MOS's recommendation of "[[logical quotation]]" form and the customary punctuation format in American English, but that should not be causing trouble here as [[Ian Fleming]] is written in British English (see [[WP:ENGVAR]]). There is absolutely no reason that disagreements over punctuation should have reached the level of contentiousness they have here, and I urge everyone to [http://www.theonion.com/articles/4-copy-editors-killed-in-ongoing-ap-style-chicago,30806/ please be careful out there]. P.S. After having spent the last few minutes reviewing this dispute, I would like a martini, please. "Shaken, not stirred." [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 15:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
**'''Archive request as withdrawn'''. Thank you. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 20:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
*'''Decline'''—this is not an issue that needs arbitration. <font color="#cc6600">[[User:David Fuchs|Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs]]</font><sup><small>(<font color="#ff6600">[[User talk:David Fuchs|talk]]</font>)</small></sup> 20:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' Although I could see a point to maybe having a motion instituting discretionary sanctions to shut down ''any'' prolonged, tendentious arguments about punctuation, I do not see an arbitration case here. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 23:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
*'''Decline'''. [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens|talk]]) 07:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' per colleagues. ''[[User:NativeForeigner|NativeForeigner]]'' <sup>[[User talk:NativeForeigner|Talk]]</sup> 07:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
* Also '''Decline''', &nbsp;[[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|''talk'']]</sup> 08:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' as withdrawn. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 21:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
*'''Decline'''. '''[[User:LFaraone|L]]<font color="darkgreen">[[User talk:LFaraone|Faraone]]</font>''' 22:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

== Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 ==
== Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 ==
'''Initiated by ''' [[User:RGloucester|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:12pt;color:#000000">RGloucester </span>]] — [[User talk:RGloucester|☎]] '''at''' 05:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
'''Initiated by ''' [[User:RGloucester|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:12pt;color:#000000">RGloucester </span>]] — [[User talk:RGloucester|☎]] '''at''' 05:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:48, 24 December 2014

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17   22 December 2014 {{{votes}}}
[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.

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

Initiated by RGloucester — ☎ at 05:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • This link to an AN/I thread is not directly related to the present dispute, but shows how contentious this article has been from day one.
  • This is another AN/I thread, directly related to the current dispute, and evidence of the disruptive editing occurring. No real results.
  • Another AN/I thread, dealing with edit-warring. No real results.
  • The crux: another AN/I thread, from about a month ago, where the idea of requesting arbitration was first mooted.
  • The most recent DRN case, closed as a failure by the DRN volunteer, mentioning ArbCom as the most likely solution.

This article has been a lighting rod for dispute from the day it was created. It has resulted in numerous threads at the reliable sources, neutral point of view, administrators', and dispute resolution noticeboards, not all listed here. None of these have produced any tangible result. The article in question is under WP:ARBEE discretionary sanctions, but administrators have refrained from sanctioning anyone, and one uninvolved administrator even said that he thought his involvement in enforcing those sanctions could've resulted in a threat against his person and family. A small group of editors dominates this article, and each has his or her own view of how it should be developed. Vague "camps" have formed, one revolving around Ukrainian and Western positions, and one around Russian positions. The result is a constant stalemate, with the same editors attacking each other repeatedly, and pushing for their own favourite version of the article. WP:AE has not been utilised, and any such utilisation is likely to result in more partisanship on the part of each of the "camps" involved in this dispute. The big picture needs to be analysed. Quite frankly, this dispute should've been resolved ages ago. It has festered far too long, and taken up much too much time at various noticeboards, for months. ArbCom needs to step in and sort it out, and find out what's at the bottom of this dispute. The tendentiousness needs to stop, and so does the advocacy.

@Newyorkbrad – I suggest that all of the frequent contributors to this article need to have their behaviour examined. There has been a certain tribalisation on the talk page, and that's the source of the problem. It is systemic, not individual, and I believe that AE simply cannot handle systemic problems like this. There is a reason no AE case has been filed, and that's because it would only further tribalism I've mentioned. I suggest that ArbCom must examine the disruption cause by this tribalism, and by both camps stymying each other through personal attacks and other forms of WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. RGloucester — ☎ 18:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@BMK: I do not edit this article, and I'm not involved with the dispute myself. I have no particular position on what should happen to the article, other than that Wikipedia policies should be followed in its development. I'm only aware of the dispute because I've been involved with other articles about the Ukraine situation, and I've seen spillover. RGloucester — ☎ 21:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Since MVBW insists on continuing the battleground behaviour that dominates the talk page of the article, I will say that the only edits I made to this article were in July right after it happened, and were copyediting, nothing more. That is plain to see. I made three edits in August, after that, and no more. None of my edits of the article has anything to do with the present dispute, nor have I made even one edit to the article since August. RGloucester — ☎ 22:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC) @BMK – As you can see, all those edits were at the start of the article's development in the summer, prior to this dispute. They have nothing to do with this case, as you'll see if you look at them. I have not edited the article since then, which is apparent. I got out as soon as saw the germination of the dispute. I brought this to arbitration because no one else will. You can see the evidence of intransigence, with this dispute boiling over to many noticeboards for months. The involved editors have reason not to want an arbitration case, and that's why one hasn't been raised. It is also why AE hasn't been utilised. Regardless, I'm not particularly interested in your comments, as you yourself are not an editor that is concerned good conduct. Such a vindictive editor as you who follows people around and constantly attacks them really has no place here. RGloucester — ☎ 23:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC) @BMK – That was a joke, BMK. I was making fun of the dispute. Here is the answer I gave at the time. As I said, this dispute is one where the theatre of a content dispute is played out, with petty arguing over trivial things. RGloucester — ☎ 02:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC) @Seraphimblade – This not a problem that requires arbitration enforcement. This is a problem that requires arbitration, to evaluate the systemic problems at play in this dispute. Again, this dispute has been ongoing for months. If you decline this case, it will likely continue for months, just as it did after each AN/I thread, NPOV noticeboard thread, RS noticeboard thread, or DRN case. Every attempt to deal with it has failed. RGloucester — ☎ 21:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SaintAviator

Thank you in advance for this effort. I welcome this investigation. The behaviour by VM has been over the top. I suggested he take a long break. I have taken the middle road as much as I can. Nothing has worked. Im sorry VM but you have bought the Ukraine war here, and its been unpleasant. I think you need some distance from the article. This is supposed to be an Encyclopaedia, but the process has been diabolical. SaintAviator lets talk 23:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

This is primarily a content dispute, although there are some behavior issues. However, this case should not be accepted, for the following reasons:

1. A lot of the problems have been caused by "fly-by-night", disposable accounts, which show up, cause trouble for a week, then disappear or get blocked after having caused much drama. Note that the account which filed the DSN request was exactly that; nothing was heard from them after they filed the request (in fact I'm about to submit an SPI on that account). Hence this DSN was not filed in good faith anyway. An ArbCom case is not going to help with such accounts.

2. To the extent that there are a couple regular users who have behaved problematically on the article (in particular User:USchick), the one avenue that hasn't been tried is utilization of existing discretionary sanctions via WP:AE. I sincerely regret not having filed a WP:AE report several times in the past few months. Had I done so, the relevant users would have been blocked or at least warned, and this behavior would have stopped, one way or another. At the time I kept thinking "ok, let's give this user one more chance... ok, one more chance... ok, last chance..." I promise that's over; if users continue to engage in disruptive behavior WP:AE reports will be filed. We do need to give the discretionary sanctions a chance to work - that's what they're there for, to cut the workload of the committee.

3. It's the holidays. Folks aren't going to have time to participate. By the time this gets off the ground, if accepted, most of the drama will be over.

Let me restate the main point: give discretionary sanctions and WP:AE a chance to work. That's what they're there for, so that every dispute doesn't wind up in ArbCommittee's lap. They have NOT been tried so far.

Happy Holidays!

Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RGloucester - yes, WP:AE has not been utilized which is the point, but I doubt utilization would result in "camps" fighting each other. One thing the admins at WP:AE are good at is cutting off that kind of nonsense. It's a different venue than WP:ANI or similar drama boards in the sense that it is NOT the usual "free for all" or where the outcome is dependent on how many of your buddies or newly created accounts show up to support you. All that gets nipped and ignored, and decisions are made on strict (some would say too strict) interpretations of policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon - pending changes protection would definitely help a lot here. A LOT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Herzen - Herzen, will you please restrict yourself to linking only to reliable sources, or at least desist from linking to sketchy blogs and personal webpages, or sites of dubious provenance? I am sure it is not your intent but I'm always wary of following these links you provide lest I get some thing unwanted on my computer. There's also absolutely no legitimate reason to link to these conspiracy stories, even if they are malware free and I'm just being paranoid.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add: Please note that in their latest comment [1] User:USchick states: "We went to ANI in good faith here to ask questions like - Which one of us is being disruptive? Is this acceptable behavior? And we didn't get any feedback. ".

This is completely false. User:USchick filed a spurious ANI report against me [2] which began with the words: "I would like to report User:Volunteer Marek for disruptive editing at Malaysia Airlines Flight 17". Does this sound like "going to ANI in good faith" to you??? Does this sound like "(we asked) questions like - which one of us is being disruptive"???? And there was plenty of feedback:

  • "Having read the discussion on the talk page, I agree with Marek's assessment of the situation. Indeed it does seem as though multiple editors have tried to explain rationales for particular edits that USchick disagrees with, and USchick is not listening and relentlessly flogging the dead horse." by User:Ivanvector who has commented here (and whom I've never interacted with).
  • " I clicked on some diff that was apparently irrefutable evidence that Marek should be blocked. There was jack shit there" - by User:Drmies
  • "The mentioning the admin and their concerns for their safety here, when they don't involve VM, is highly inflammatory and certainly not helpful to your cause" by User:Serialjoepsycho. This was.... wait what?!!??!? "Concerns for their safety"??? That's right. USchick - who remember, went to ANI in "good faith" - insinuated several times in that thread that I had threatened another user's - an admin's - children. Not fucking kidding. They did this. When called on this bullshit. They said, quote: " VM was involved in those discussions, bud did not make a direct threat". That's right, they then insinuated that I had made an indirect threat against someone's children. You can't make this up.
  • And you know what, this wasn't the first instance of such behavior from User:USchick. Here is an ANI thread which discusses false allegations of racism by User:USchick directed at another user - User:Geogene who has since left Wikipedia (no wonder!) [3]. What happened was that USchick wanted to use a source which was quoting crazy conspiracy websites in the article. Geogene said "that's not a reliable source because it quotes crazy conspiracy websites". USchick then accused them of racism [4] (this was actually the second, more egregious instance of this accusation)

Seeing a pattern yet? How this editor has not been sanctioned - or even site banned - is beyond me. These are the two instances where I sincerely regret not having submitted this to WP:AE. If there is a source of disruption on the article talk page, you got the reason for it right there: User:USchick. User:Herzen may soapbox on the talk page and loose temper and make some inappropriate remarks, but it's true, as far as the article itself goes, their edits have been mostly kosher. I can't think of a single constructive edit to either the article or the article's talk page by USchick.

Which shows that there's no need for a full blown case, this is something which could've been handled at WP:AE (had I hadn't been lazy and filed the reports), will be handled at WP:AE if the behavior persists. If you do want to be constructive here then a motion regarding User:USchick's behavior would definitely help. Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by USchick

There are two groups of people here. One group wants to make changes to the article, and the other group is holding the article hostage and will not allow any changes unless they "approve" them. This needs to stop and I don't care who gets blocked in the process, even if it's me. We need an adult to step in and break this stalemate. This drama has been going on since July, so I doubt it will blow over in two weeks over the holidays. USchick (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@BMK - RGloucester is not in any of the camps and brought this case in good faith. I'm sure everyone involved has a political interest though. The crash itself is under investigation with very little evidence, only speculation. One "camp" of editors has already determined "the truth" about the crash and is using cherry picked sources to defend their version of "the truth." Everyone else is all over the place politically, but they are willing to discuss options. Even when Time Magazine reported about two theories that the investigators are considering, there was an edit war, because only one side of "the truth" is allowed to be told. Link to that conversation: Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 21#Time article. People are very selective about what they already believe, and anything else is not allowed in the article. When they can't discredit the source, they discredit the reporter and ask for "evidence" before the source can be used. I'm not aware of any policy that requires "evidence." Here are two examples of editors discrediting sources and asking for "evidence" because without "evidence" apparently, it's "Undue." Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 22#reward. And here, after a long discussion, it was determined that the source was fine, but there was something wrong with the reporter and the article itself was "flawed" because it didn't match "the truth." Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Flight path update. USchick (talk) 04:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What this case will help to resolve: We went to ANI in good faith here to ask questions like - Which one of us is being disruptive? Is this acceptable behavior? And we didn't get any feedback. This is why the behavior continues unchecked. We need feedback about who is acting according to policy and who is not. If this committee can do that, that would be most helpful. USchick (talk) 06:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Herzen

I believe RGloucester's description of this case is correct, with the qualification that his claim that there are two camps, "one revolving around Ukrainian and Western positions, and one around Russian positions" is misleading, since the "Western camp" has been much more stable than the "Russian camp", since many editors who have tried to do something about this article tending to represent the position of the "Western camp" were not in any way trying to push a "Russian position", having no interest in Russia or favoring one side in the Ukrainian crisis, but merely found the article to be unbalanced. And there have been several such editors who have stopped participating in editing this article, apparently because they became demoralized.
I believe that my approach and attitude towards editing this article can be described with two simple points. (1) In the discussion in Talk, I engage in what can be called polemics and advocacy for my views on this subject, but when it comes to editing the article itself, I make every effort to attain NPOV, and I believe that other editors working on this article, including those whose views differ from my own, recognize this. (2) My dissatisfaction with the current state of the article can be stated simply, Right after MH17 was downed, lots of stories appeared in news media suggesting who was responsible. But after that initial period, two official investigations were launched into this incident, a technical one into the physical causes of the crash, and a criminal one, both investigations led by the Netherlands. I believe that since there are now these two ongoing investigations, the article should be based on what officials carrying out these investigations say. Yet the article in its current state revolves around not these investigations, but around speculation and what has appeared in social media. My experience has been that it has been impossible to achieve a compromise with those editors who want the article to continue to revolve around speculation and news reports about what has appeared in social media, as opposed to revolving around the two official investigations. – Herzen (talk) 07:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See this portion of the diff that was the basis of the recent DRN case that RGloucester referred to:

the Dutch government, in a letter to parliament, stated that only two options are examined by the Public Prosecutor: "An attack from the ground or an attack from the air".

The criminal investigation is considering two scenarios, not just one, but it has proven impossible to get that fact into the article for any length of time, The main purpose of that DRN case was to get this simple fact into the article, but the DRN case failed. And to explain the compromise that was rejected: that the Dutch criminal investigation is considering two theories, but considers one theory much more likely to be true than the other one. – Herzen (talk) 08:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bdell555: Apparently you are unaware that the US is engaged in an information war with Russia. So it is to be expected that news outlets such as the NY Times will publish hysterical hit pieces against the Russian media such as the one you quote. I will not address that op-ed in detail, since this is not a discussion about what sources are reliable, but will restrict myself to pointing out that Russian media, including state owned and controlled media, are at least as reliable when it comes to the Ukraine crisis and MH17 in particular as Western media. I have explained this many times, so I am not going to do so again here. (On second thought, see this: I addressed the issue earlier today.) And the reliability of Russian media was not relevant to the recent failed DRN case, because the dispute there involved Dutch, not Russian, sources.
That dispute revolved around whether the MH17 article should mention that Dutch criminal investigators are considering the possibility that MH17 was shot down by another plane. Certain editors are adamant about blocking any mention that this is a possibility being seriously considered by investigators (even though investigators consider the other possibility, that MH17 was shot down by an by a SAM to be much more likely to be true). I would say that that is the main issue underlying the endless bickering that occurs over this article, not the nature of Russian media.
I am sorry to have to inform you that while the NY Times op-ed you quote says "Russian media spread a multitude of conspiracy theories about the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17", the Head of the Central Investigation Department of the Security Service of Ukraine Vasily Vovk recently said in a press conference that one of these "conspiracy theories" might be true, namely that MH17 was shot down by an air-to-air missile. (Link to Russian language story on this by a Ukrainian news outlet) Thus, even Ukrainian officials are now admitting that there are two working theories for how MH17 was downed, but some editors are preventing the Wikipedia article about MH17 from making that clear, only willing to allow mention of the second theory as a crazy Russian conspiracy theory. – Herzen (talk) 05:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Arnoutf

Most of this seems to be revolving about use of media: reliability, and what constitutes a small minority view (related to undue attention). Two main topics that divide the "camps" are

(1) the lack of reliability of Russian media - and to what extent the view in that media are non neutral and hence not to be used; or whether the Russian media depict a minority views representing only a very small minority of involved countries (ie the Russian view in comparison to most of the rest of the world) and hence to be used on a very limited scale.

(2) whether all non Russian media reports should be lumped into a single category of Western media (oddly enough including Ukrainian media) which can 1-to-1 be compared to Russian media (which in this scheme would no longer represent a small minority).

In addition talk page has been plagued by extremely bad behaviour from day 1. I have tried to compromise, but in general this has been seen as yielding the point without any effort from the other involved editors to reconsider their position. This, in combination with accusing editors of bad faith suggestions (in particular editors critical about the role of Russia have been stereotyped as Russia haters) creates an atmosphere where serious discussion is impossible since every criticism on the position of other editors is classified as bigotry (and hence requires no attention or re-evaluation of the own position) and where every effort of reaching towards a compromise is seen as agreement there is no value at all in the own, original position. Arnoutf (talk) 07:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Herzen acknowledges polemic talk page behaviour. A polemic (using the Wikipedia description) "is confined to a definite controversial thesis. But unlike debate, which may allow for common ground between the two disputants, a polemic is intended only to establish the truth of a point of view while refuting the opposing point of view." That is one of the main problems on this page. There are several editors who are not willing to look for common ground, and if their position is challenged revert to uncivility. Arnoutf (talk) 09:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved DRN volunteer Guy Macon

I am the DRN volunteer (not to be confused with the user who has the word "Volunteer" as part of his username) who tried to help resolve the recent DRN case. I have never edited Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 and my only edits to Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 have involved procedural issues concerning dispute resolution. It is my hope that after any user behavior issues are dealt with the content dispute can go back to DRN and be resolved.

In my closing comments on the DRN case, I suggested arbcom, but I am agnostic on the question of whether that should be a new arbcom case or arbitration enforcement.

In my considered opinion, the often-used option of saying that the article is already under discretionary sanctions and doing nothing would not be effective in this case. Doing that essentially sends the problem back to ANI, and we have seen that ANI is unable to resolve the behavioral issues involved.

There is, however, one option that has not been tried: pending changes protection. This would change the basic paradigm from "who do we block/topic ban?" where we have to show that a user is disruptive to "who do we give reviewer rights to?" where the user has to show that he/she can be trusted. This would also make malicious drive-by content change by new / non-autoconfirmed accounts much more difficult. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC) Edited 06:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: I agree with your assessment and should have been more clear that I think level one pending changes would be helpful but is not a substitute for dealing with user behavior issues. It solves a problem, but it does not solve the problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by completely uninvolved Biblioworm

In my opinion, this case should have gone to the Mediation Committee as a last ditch attempt to resolve the case before coming here. --Biblioworm 16:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Robert McClenon

First, I would like to thank the dispute resolution moderator for trying to resolve this content dispute, but conduct issues made resolution impossible. I respectfully disagree with User:Biblioworm that there is anything that a Mediation Committee mediator could have done that the moderator did not do. A Mediation Committee mediator has no more tools than a dispute resolution moderator, and cannot deal with personal attacks, tendentious editing, or sock-puppetry.

I ask the ArbCom to consider whether to accept this case for a full evidentiary hearing to determine whether any editors need to be site-banned, or whether to pass some sort of a motion against further WP:ANI threads to clear the way for letting arbitration enforcement work, or whether just to let arbitration enforcement work.

Arbitration enforcement has not been used on this case, although it is clearly within the scope of WP:ARBEE, because Ukraine is unmistakably in Eastern Europe as usually defined. A full evidentiary hearing is, in my opinion, only needed if it is thought necessary to determine whether any editors need to be site-banned for disruptive editing. Otherwise, the ArbCom can instruct the parties to this case to let Arbitration Enforcement work.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

I think this article is actually in a good shape, and the dispute has been de facto resolved per WP:Consensus. There is no need for administrative intervention, in relation to the article. What happens are two or three users who want to get an upper hand in a content dispute by filing numerous complaints (DRN, ANI and this arbitration request) and creating disruption. Here is some evidence.

  • This user is an SPA who edited only three pages and received two blocks for edit warring in two of them. He submitted a DRN request about Malaysia Airlines Flight_17 [5], but did not took any part in the DRN discussion.
  • User USchick wanted to make an WP:AE request, but changed their mind [6] and instead filed a battleground request to WP:ANI [7]. I am calling this a "battleground request" because it was left without action on WP:ANI, and rightly so. She/he does almost nothing but complaining about Malaysia Airlines Flight_17 [8].
  • RGlouster claims without any arguments that WP:AE is not an option [9] and submitted this arbitration request. His behavior and comments, such as this, this and insistence, contrary to the facts (see below), that he is not involved in this subject area are a problem. I explained him that WP:AE should be used, for example here, but he did not listen. Note that he did not provide any diffs of problematic behavior by other users in his request.

@Seraphimblade I think that USchik, RGlouster and perhaps some others do not want to use WP:AE because they are afraid to be sanctioned themselves for filing a frivolous report, such as this one.

I believe this case has no merit and explained it here. There is only one user who recently edited almost exclusively Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 - see their last 500 edits and before. She/he indeed could be a subject of an arbitration about Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17. The behavior by some others might be problematic, but it goes through a number of pages, only one of which was Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. One wound need individual cases about each user submitted to WP:AE if there are any problems.

@RGlouster. You said that you did not edit page about Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 [10]. How come, when in fact you reverted edits by other users on this page [11]? My very best wishes (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I can see that you made "only" 33 edits in this page [12], which you think is not "involvement". My very best wishes (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tlsandy

Comment by uninvolved Beyond My Ken

Since there seems to be agreement that there are two "camps" involved in the dispute over this article, it would be helpful to know for all the named parties which "camp" they consider themselves to be in; specifically, what camp is the initiator of this action, RGloucester, a part of? BMK (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RGloucester - According to the article's revision stats and that of its talk page, you made 33 edits to the article and 79 edits to the article's talk page. While this doees not make you one of the primary editors to either one, it also doesn't really support your contention that you don't edit the article. Of course, that doesn't mean that you are partisan in regards to this issue, since your edits could all be unbiased and even-handed -- they would have to be examined to determine if you, in fact, don't carry any POV on this subject, which might have a bearing on why you brought this issue to Arbitration, and that could be a factor in the Committee's evaluation of any evidence you present. BMK (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@RGloucester - What was your uninvolved, unbiased, non-partisan purpose in requesting that the article be speedy deleted just last month, as you did with this edit? BMK (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@RGloucester - Just so it's clear, you are saying that you put a speedy delete tag on a 134k byte article which had been around for 4 months not because you actually thought it qualified for speedy deletion, or because you, for whatever reason, wanted it to be deleted, but as a "joke", making fun of the dispute that you now, one month later, think is so ultra-serious that it must be dealt with by ArbCom? BMK (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Ivanvector

I encourage the committee to accept this case, primarily because it seems that all other avenues have been tried and have failed to correct the toxic editing environment at this article. Like others, I am of the opinion that further attempts at mediation/dispute resolution are moot. It is clear these will continue to fail here, due to the "tribalism" which RGloucester suggested - a situation quite accurately described by Arnoutf above. In the fourth listed AN/I thread (this one), it was apparent that the article's content issues are minor, but are amplified by the conduct of a few editors, editors who are stubbornly unwilling to even consider a civil approach to those who disagree with their entrenched views. TParis went so far as to suggest a novel approach intended to find common ground among the combatants; most refused and went immediately back to attacking each other instead, and that seems to be behaviour typical of several editors. RGloucester suggested that "the idea of requesting arbitration was first mooted" in that thread; I'm not sure what he meant but I think it's the opposite - the closing statement reflected the view that Arbcom was not far off because AN/I is not equipped to handle this.

As further evidence of editors' insistence on attacking each other, at the recent DRN, the editors had to be told fourteen times to refrain from commenting on each other's conduct, not including one dire final warning posted in all caps by a DRN volunteer (which the editors ignored). Clearly several editors here are not interested in collaborative encyclopedia building, they are more interested (or exclusively interested) in taking sides and battling to defend their point of view. I don't know what the solution is here, but I suspect it will involve reviewing the conduct of multiple users, and topic bans for several of them. I don't want to suggest which users, I am nowhere near close enough to the issue. With respect to Guy Macon, I don't believe that pending changes is the solution here because it involves the conduct of [auto]confirmed editors who can simply bypass pending changes. I don't want to reignite the old PC/2 arguments here so I won't say more - ask me on my talk page if you like. Ivanvector (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Passing comment from Harry Mitchell

I'm not sure what ArbCom could do here except impose discretionary sanctions, which are already in place. I recommend that editors in the topic area utilise the enforcement mechanisms that already exist for conduct issues. The admins at AE are very experienced at enforcing discretionary sanctions (including under ARBEE) and I for one would be willing to do so again if sanctionable misconduct is brought to my attention. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sayerslle

The article doesn't seem too bad to me and I don't understand the motivation of RGloucester in all this - an editor who for a laugh nominated this article for deletion a while back - 'petty arguing over nonsense'. Bizarre. what is it now ?- serious arguing over supremely important things? Nor do I see anyone not able to edit the article. this is just a waste of time imo. I don't think I agree much with USChick who seems to want the article to say 'nothing is known -the world awaits the results of the criminal investigation' as I think articles should reflect some of the wider RS reportage - but thats what talk pages are for - to discuss what gets filtered out of articles. Sayerslle (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

Why is evidence against specific individual editors not presented in a cogent form perhaps in the userspace? If there are persons or parties who believe arbitration is necessary (such as RGloucester), that evidence ought to be ready at-hand already rather than prepared later. It may be easier to assess whether there is any point in accepting a case request for this after seeing what the specific evidence against each of the individual listed parties is. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Brian Dell (User:Bdell555)

This opinion piece in the NY Times explains well what's been going on here: "'Everything is P.R.,' my Moscow peers would tell me. This cynicism is useful to the state: When people stopped trusting any institutions or having any values, they could easily be spun into a conspiratorial vision of the world. Thus the paradox: the gullible cynic.... At the core of this strategy is the idea that there is no such thing as objective truth. This notion allows the Kremlin to replace facts with disinformation. We saw one example when Russian media spread a multitude of conspiracy theories about the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine in July, from claiming that radar data showed Ukrainian jets had flown near the plane to suggesting that the plane was shot down by Ukrainians aiming at Mr. Putin’s presidential jet. The aim was to distract people from the evidence, which pointed to the separatists, and to muddy the water to a point where the audience simply gave up on the search for truth."

@RGloucester: and friends having been demanding that the Kremlin view be given more credence and more coverage, in RGloucester's view, "The Russian opinion is important. It isn't fringe" such that it needs to be featured more, as if the reliability of Kremlin-controlled media is irrelevant. And when featuring the Kremlin's claims, we are not supposed to follow RS if the RS treat the Kremlin claims skeptically, we are instead supposed to spin dry what the RS say in order to present the Kremlin's lies with the "neutrality" missing in the skeptical RS. Change the claimant to Ukraine instead of Russia, however, and RGloucester does a spectacular flip flop, demanding that a Ukrainian government contention be removed and declaring "We want to report what could potentially be propaganda at face value, with no analysis, no verification? Idiocy, pure and simple."--Brian Dell (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Ubikwit

It's about time some of the underlying issues were addressed in a case. As always, sourcing is a major aspect of the intractable nature of the dispute. The have been endless discussions at RS/N, and not long ago a more focused RfC, as follows archived discussion on state-owned/operated media outlets. In light of numerous relevant policies, such as WP:NOTCENSORED, for example, there is a case worthy dispute at hand.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 10:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Clerk notes

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

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/2>

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

  • Awaiting more statements, which should ideally indicate what we might do in a decision that would be helpful in resolving the dispute. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also be interested to hear how anyone thinks an arbitration case would help toward resolving this issue, especially given that discretionary sanctions already apply to the article. I don't see any indication that any matters believed to require arbitration enforcement have been brought to the proper venue where several admins very experienced in enforcing discretionary sanctions will see the request, and would strongly recommend that enforcement action be requested in that way rather than any other. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=639482867"