Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

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.

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[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
Mzajac	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	—	Case suspended

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024

Arbitrator motions

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. 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.

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.

• Arbitration policy
• Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
• Developer help needed
• Arbitration template
• Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents

Purge the server cache

How to list cases

Under the below Current requests section:

• Click "[edit]";
• 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

DarrenRay and 2006BC

Involved parties

• User:DarrenRay
• User:2006BC

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• DarrenRay [1]
• 2006BC [2]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

(If not, then explain why that would be fruitless)

I don't think this is particuarly relevant. These two people are heavily personally involved in articles they've been edit warring on, and have shown no inclination to cease in the future.

Statement by Ambi

The essential basis of this is that two people are using Wikipedia as a soapbox to wage war on an auditor who is in the process of suing them over allegations of corruption.

A few years ago, the Melbourne University Student Union crashed and burned amidst complaints of dodgy dealing. It was subsequently liquidated, and the auditor, Dean McVeigh, sued three former presidents - Darren Ray, Ben Cass, and Andrew Landeryou, over their role in the collapse. A couple of weeks ago, Ray and Cass both popped up in Wikipedia, creating what essentially amounted to an attack article at Dean McVeigh and edit warring incessantly at the article on the student union (now at Melbourne University student organisations). They've now created Rugs Galore, an article on a company that McVeigh was criticised for his performance in liquidating, with 80% of the article being a long screed about McVeigh's alleged misdeeds. This is a fairly simple case - two people who are being sued by an auditor over their role in the collapse of a company are way too personally involved to be editing articles about said auditor and said company. Ambi 02:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Outside statement by David Gerard

This may be related to the Australian Politics Vandal, a troll/vandal who adds possibly defamatory statements to all manner of articles related to minor Australian politics. The link is not certain, but it smells of it - David Gerard 11:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I've looked in CheckUser. There's a sockpuppet theatre going on here. I'll be writing up a private report with details for the AC and blocking a string of sockpuppets very soon - David Gerard 18:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by DarrenRay

"Since many people read Seigenthaler's op-ed, and few people responded to the original article, some [citation needed] Wikipedia contributors (known as Wikipedians) questioned his reluctance to simply correct the page. Other contributors pointed out the existence of an autobiography guideline on Wikipedia which is often interpreted to mean that users may not edit pages about themselves, and still others noted that even if he corrected the page, he would have to keep track of it for the rest of his life to be sure that inaccuracies were not added and compared opting-out of spam to the demand that Seigenthaler fix the inaccuracies himself.

From Seigenthaler controversy article

1. To the very limited extent that I have made edits that relate to myself, I have been motivated by what I believe to be the legitimate objective of ensuring neutrality in the articles that mention me. The alternatives including publicly attacking Wikipedia seemed much less appropriate choices. It's hard not to admire the creation of a free encyclopedia for everyone. I note that that the last time I edited the article that contains some information relating to me was on 11 March and was quite uncontentious and did not in any event relate to me.
2. I was told by one experienced editor that because I was not an anonymous editor that my contributions would be closely scrutinised if I edited about myself. I don't have any problem with being subjected to that scrutiny. But I don't see why my honesty about my identity should enable anonymous/pseudonymous editors to say that my contributions are - per se - illegitimate and not worth considering. I am not proposing to write a vanity article about myself, I would just like the opportunity to correct errors when I identify them, as I believe Mr Seienthaler ought to have done.
3. I did not write the Rugs Galore article but there is an afd about it, and I personally think it's worth keeping. I have had some involvement with one of the people (Dean McVeigh) involved in that article but (he's not an auditor by the way) but I read the article and don't have any issue with it.
4. The Dean McVeigh article had many versions but I don't believe that any contribution I made could be said to constitute an attack. In any event, the article has been for the time being merged with another article and there haven't been any edits about that content for well over a week.
5. I have tried to reach an understanding about what Wikipedia's rules are and believe I have complied with them. I have - even if I do say so myself - contributed as much as I could to Wikipedia in a short term. I must have caught the bug or something, but the main point is that I believe my openness about my identity should not make me the punching bag de jour. If there are specific edits that I have made that Ambi has an issue with (I certainly have issue with many of hers), I would be pleased to discuss that. I have a lot to learn and am keen to do so.
6. David Gerard's suggestions that I am another user or vandal are not correct. I stand by every edit I have made. I find it a little ironic that he would suggest that I am guilty of defamation in light of what's being going on.

DarrenRay 06:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Garglebutt

I have probably been more involved in the heat of this battle than most other editors. Both the involved parties came to WP with strong agendas and predetermined views on how articles would look, with strong opposal to any views that did not coincide with their own. They sought and ignored advice from others, including admins, as they tried to find a way to enforce their particular POV on the articles of interest to them. I appreciate there are (at least) two sides to every story, but it is not appropriate to swing an article from one extreme to the other and call it NPOV.

The blog of 2006BC[3] is a slanderous and vitriolic critique of Dean McVeigh, which makes it difficult to believe that he has come to WP to write balanced articles that reference McVeigh or the union liquidation in general. Edits I made that provided direct quotes from media coverage where reverted by both parties as slanderous or POV[4], and suggested that the quoted newspaper was a biased source(Talk:Melbourne_University_student_organisations#Reversion_of_facts). DarrenRay also tried to remove tags making his personal involvement clear stating this was irrelevant[5].

One of my concerns has been the apparent collusion by DarrenRay, 2006BC and to a lesser degree User:AChan to revert attempts to rework what are considered POV edits by other editors to these and other articles to avoid WP:3RR by passing the baton to the next person when each individual hits 3RR. This is bad faith editing and has made it even more difficult to gain consensus in balanced edits.

Criticisms aside, both DarrenRay and AChan have made some worthwhile contributions when they are not revert warring over contentious political articles, but on a number of occasions when things seem to be settling down, 2006BC has stirred the pot as is the case with the Rugs Galore article. Garglebutt / (talk) 13:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Xtra

I have previously supported a Request for arbitration against these two and their "associates". They are not interested in consensus building and are continually adding personal attacks against Dean McVeigh. Normally I would think that it is good that someone associated with an organisation is adding content, but ith these two users I differ. Due to their continual POV pushing, adding of personal attacks, reverting against consensus, I believe they should be banned from editing any page to do with Melbourne University student activities and from adding any content to do with Dean McVeigh. Xtra 00:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Statment by BC2006

Could this arbitration also consider the personal attacks and discourteous remarks made from User:Garglebutt and User:Ambi. Garglebutt has also been engaged in user page vandalism. Is it appropriate now to list those or do we wait for later? 2006BC 01:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, if User: David Gerard is making allegations against me (if he is), I believe it would be procedurally fair for him to disclose anything that might later be regarded as relevant, including political associations and so on. I note I make no allegations here at all (I've had enough of all the personal attacks going on) but I thought it might be helpful for me to prompt a disclosure now before we go much further. 2006BC 02:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

In response to David Gerard's statement:

Can you please explain what you mean by "sockpuppet theatre". Far from being a sockpuppet [Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry] I edit while disclosing my name, on my user page where I disclose my political affiliation. I look forward to David Gerard engaging in similar disclosure. Without this a 'private report' will be very hard to take seriously. --2006BC 02:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

FourthAve

Involved parties

FourthAve (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jaysuschris (talk · contribs) (bringing this issue to the attention of the committee)

Jesster79 (talk · contribs)

Tony_Sidaway (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Notice to FourthAve

Notice to JesseG

Notice to Tony Sidaway

Notice to Reyk

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

1. Various warnings
2. Talk page intervention
3. Talk page intervention
4. Attempted mediation by Reyk
5. RFC by me.

Statement by Jaysuschris

It was my sincere hope that this matter could be settled without coming to this forum. Unfortunately, the intervention of various third parties has done little to abate FourthAve’s behavior. His consistent violations of WP:NPA and WP:NPOV in the face of informal and formal warnings by other editors, stern warning by administrators, and even a couple of account blocks, has led me to the realization that no other choice exists. The following list is a summary of activities that I believe the Arbitration Committee should consider.

1. Personal attack A B, C, D against me
2. [6] Personal attack against JesseG
3. Obscenity/Extreme violation of NPOV (sexually derogatory language)
4. Extreme NPOV violation in Bob Vander Plaats
5. Extreme NPOV violation A, B, C, D, E, and F in University of Dubuque
6. Extreme NPOV violation A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H in Jim Nussle
7. Personal attack when notified of the RfC A, B, and C
8. Probable sock puppet (all edits were WP:NPOV or WP:NPA violations in the custom of this editor)
9. Personal attack A, B, C, and D against Tony Sidaway

FourthAve’s behavior goes beyond what should be acceptable, even in politically sensitive articles. It is my hope that the Arbitration Committee will join me in the view that FourthAve should be enjoined from editing Jim Nussle, Bob Vander Plaats, and University of Dubuque while this matter is considered due to his demonstrated unwillingness to adhere to WP:NPOV in these articles. - Jaysus Chris 11:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

 (Please limit your statement to 500 words)

Statement by JesseG

In regards to the FourthAve user, I wish that it had never had to come to this level. I wish that we could've resolved this issue long before having to take it to this formal level. However I don't see that we have much choice here, as FourthAve has ignored repeated requests to respect others (contributors, other people, institutions, etc). However our requests seem to have all fallen on deaf ears, FourthAve has not only ignored such requests, but has also continued to engage in personal attacks. He has been blocked for short periods of time, and after these blocks have expired, he comes back and engages in further attacks.

I feel that some sort of stronger action needs to be taken by the administration of Wikipedia. FourthAve has shown through word and deed that he will not listen to others and will do what he pleases, regardless of whether or not it is acceptable behavior. He has shown nothing but contempt for others. And if he will not respond to arbitration by ceasing personal attacks and vandalism of articles, then he should be banned from making further contributions. It is still my hope, even now, that FourthAve will avail himself of this one last chance he is being offered, that he will cease making personal attacks and vandalizing articles so that he can continue to make a useful contribution to the Wikipedia article.

JesseG 04:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

An odd case. This fellow has many, many edits and considers himself a good ("admin level") contributor to the project. However he is obsessed with the supposed evilness of political Republicans, in particular a certain Iowa Congressman. FourthAve has repeatedly and persistently added allegations of political corruption and moral turpitude of this fellow and his current wife to the biographical article on the Congressman and also to related articles. He has accused those who object to his lurid addenda of being such things as "a typically Republican vandal, like those in the Speakers office editing wikipedia for partisan advantage" and "a vandal, a troll, a piece of shit."

Over the past few days I've been attempting to dissuade this fellow from pursuing his obsession; his other edits seem to be in good faith if not of particularly high quality. He continued his vandalism today at the end of a 24-hour block [7]

I'm not convinced that an arbitration would have any effect in this case. His problematic activities are blockable, and inasmuch as he is likely to respond to blocks by limiting the vandalism and personal attacks, so he is likely to avoid progressively longer blocks. Should his behavior continue, he will be blocked for months or perhaps permanently. I can think of no possible arbitration remedy that could further empower the community to remedy his actions, and suggest that arbitration would probably be a waste of time at this stage, Should he eventually respond to blocking by ceasing vandalism and personal attacks, then in all likelihood there will be no remaining problem with this editor, and in any case this would be a problem for a future arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 12:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

At the time of writing, User:FourthAve is just about to start the second day of a seven day block imposed by User:Nlu in response to the former's renewal of his comically inept personal attacks [8] [9]. He had not, however, resumed his vandalism on that occasion. --Tony Sidaway 05:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Reyk

The trouble with this guy is that he thinks he's in the right. Most vandals, trolls and other such people know they're doing the wrong thing, but not FourthAve. He considers himself to be a decent contributor to Wikipedia, and indeed he is so long as he's not talking about politics. Unfortunately he seems to think his political opinions are unassailable fact and that anyone who attempts to rein in his POV pushing is either stupid or malicious.

It's so hard to reason with a person like that. He refuses to compromise on any point, and he deals with criticism by levelling bizarre accusations and obscene personal attacks at people. Even when warned, and blocked, he just will not change his behaviour. It's a pity it's had to come to this, but I don't think he'll ever listen to anyone.

I would love to be wrong on this one, but I believe it will eventually require a long-term block or even a banning. Reyk 21:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Outside comment by MONGO

The level of personal incivility has become blockable and is borderline bannable at this point. I posted an unrelated comment on Tony Sidaway's talk page and saw that the next edit to Sidaway's talk page was a partial blanking of the page by User:FourthAve[[10]. I asked FourthAve[11] if this was an accident and s/he responded about being at an admin level of editing[12] (not sure what that has to do with the page blanking), but later again, did not answer my question at all, instead being deliberately confusing[13]. I saw further incivility after being informed about FourthAve and tried to communicate about the need for civility [14], [15], [16]. When User:Jaysuschris informs me of the situation in more depth, FourthAve responds with nothing but insults and profanity to Jaysuschris...I also should ask all to note the reference to the following comment by FourthAve in the last diff: "Jaysus Chris is blasphemous by his choice of user name: he clearly has a deep personal hatred of the Ten Commandments". FourthAve then calls Jaysuschris a "bitch" and signs(?) his next post to my usertalk with "Ten Commandments"[17]. FourthAve last comment on my usertalk was a bit calmer, but still argumentative, and this was after I had repeatedly asked him to be more civil.[18]. My usertalk page is then hit with this edit[19] by an anon, and asks me "Shall I call you a homosexual slut?", right after mentioning editor Jaysuschris and the Ten Commandments again. The rudeness and incivility doesn't seem to have abated much, with edit summaries such as "Fixed right-wing-whako depravity", [20], and POV unreferenced nastiness such as "Bullock is a whore", "many graduates of UD regard him and his wife as common prostitutes" [21]. If this keeps up a long term block is mandatory. Start with a week and then a month. Editors to this project do not need to be called "bitch", "piece of shit", or "homosexual slut". Further acts of incivility should then result in longer blocks. It should be noted that I see his contributions aside from the incivility to be suspect as well, as they are extremely POV and unreferenced, so I'm not sure much loss is going to occur to Wikipedia if FourthAve sits out a week or even a month block to try and reconstitute themself.--MONGO 20:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

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

• Accept and note that that arbitration proceedings have no bearing on whether blockable offenses can be blocked for, and you ought to pursue that as well. Dmcdevit·t 07:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Accept ➥the Epopt 04:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Statement by Sander on Talk:Dutch language

Involved parties

(Provide links to the user page of each party and to all accounts they have edited with. Briefly summarize case. No details.)

• Sander (initiating party)
• Arturus
• Andries
• Arnoutf
• ClairSamoht
• Doric Loon
• Ronline (mediation host)
• AvB
• Gareth Hughes
• Woodstone
• Meursault2004

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

(main message)[[22]] (Arturus)[[23]] (Andries)[[24]] (Arnoutf)[[25]] (ClairSamoht)[[26]] (Doric Loon)[[27]] (Ronline)[[28]] (Avb)[[29]] (Woodstone)[[30]] (Meursault2004)[[31]] (Gareth Hughes)[[32]]

Note: I have moved the message on User talk talk:Arturus to User talk:Arturus — sjorford (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried:

We tried discussing the matter and have had a mediation.All, inconclusive.

Statement by party 1

The ongoing dispute is about re-adding the following line in the Dutch language article (Which I support and they oppose):

Dutch is one of the few languages that have produced another language while still being a living language itself.

During the discussion I redefined the line (because of the sometimes used broader meaning of language) to:

Dutch is one of the few languages that have produced another language while still being a living language itself¹

¹ note: Creoles, Pidgins and mixed languages aren't taken into account.

This is accurate and the truth, Dutch is one of the few.As it is one of the two Indo-European languages to have produced another language while still being spoken itself (Afrikaans) together with German (Yiddish).

The totall languages on earth according to ethnologue is 6.800, although they count dialects, mixed languages (like:Franglais) creoles and pidgins and also a huge amount of extinct languages as well so the amount of actual language in the socio-political meaning (which the line in question aims at) is much, much lower ... The total languages in the indo-european language tree is 443 (3 billion people speak a Indo-European language natively), that means that of the 443 IE languages only 2 have produced another language while still being spoken itself (under ideal circumstances). That's 0,45% of the IE languages, now it is logical and known that other language groups behave in the same way.In any case, Dutch is one of the few.

The opposition focusses on the fact that there is no original research to back this line up.Ie, no article or such.But the wikipedia article Door claims that the function of a door is to : to allow people, animals and objects to pass I'm pretty sure an article has never been written about that, because it's so obvious.Just like the line in question. Sander 11:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: The person to question the sentence in the first place, Arturus agrees with me now.

Adding:

• http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middelnederlands (In Dutch, has an English version) Middle Dutch was spoken till 1500 when Modern Dutch (1500 present) took over.Afrikaans began to differ from the 17th century.
• Brazilian Portuguese is a collective name for the varieties of Portuguese written and spoken by virtually all the 180 million inhabitants of Brazil. Source Wikipedia.
• I did provide arguments, when the commision reads the talk page, they'll see the opposing party was repeating itself.
• Afrikaans is a separate language, and not a creole. It was recognised in 1925.

Statement by party 2

Sandertje poses that "Dutch is one of the few languages that have produced another language while still being a living language itself".

On the formal side of this dispute there is the rule of "no original research". Wikipedia is not about new coined theories, but established fact. After being asked to supply references, Sandertje has not supplied any sources whatsoever, he just keeps repeating his opinion. Sandertje even writes that he is convinced there is no publication stating this as a conclusion of professional research. He presents a reasoning based on a single diagram of one language group, but has so far declined to reveal the origin of this chart (he might as well have drawn it himself).

Since no supporting sources are given, it should be seen as original research (at best), or as patent nonsense (at worst).

On the content side of the dispute, focus is mainly on the phrase one of the few. It is a normal process of language development that one language splits off from another. That two branches of a language separated culturally or geographically undergo different changes over time and are then considered to be different languages is the entire history of genetic language development. It is hardly meaningful to say that one of them stays itself and the other is being "produced". Whether one of the formed languages keeps the same name as the common ancestor is more a political than a linguistic issue. Furthermore, the line between dialect and seperate language is blurry. Therefore that one language is alive while another, that split off from it, exists as well, cannot be considered a rare case.

A Google search for "language tree" delivered on the fist page of results a few sites containing diagrams showing language trees (see Talk:Dutch_language#Small_sample_of_language_trees). All of them showed Dutch and Afrikaans as both descending from a common ancestor, not Afrikaans as a direct descendent of Dutch. With this, the stronger idea that Dutch is one of the few living languages with offspring might even be considered a moot point. −Woodstone 13:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by party ClairSamoht

Modern Dutch is not 17th-century Dutch, although Sandertje argues otherwise. Afrikaans is a creole based on 17th-century Dutch, Khoisan, Khoikhoi, German, French, and Malay, although Sandertje argues otherwise. Brazilian is dismissed by Sandertje as a mere dialect, despite the fact that it bears the same relationship to Portuguese as Afrikaans bears to Dutch.

Abraham Lincoln was posed the riddle, "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?" His answer was "Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."

The same logic is relevant here. If that obvious statement were obvious, it would be obvious. ClairSamoht 15:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

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

• Reject without prejudice. The case as articulated so far in not arbitrable: a conent dispute. Rather, if there is demonstrated consensus being violated or edit warring or incivility or whatever, I'll consider it, but not as a case to weigh different opinions of a content matter. Dmcdevit·t 06:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Reject per Dmcdevit. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Henryuzi: Request for Appeal of ArbCom Sanction

I ask the ArbCom to reconsider its sanction against me ([33]). Henryuzi 06:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)henryuzi

Involved parties

Fred Bauder is the arbitrator who proposed the decisions that affected me ([34]). I have notified him of this appeal ([35]). Based on his advice, I believe that there is no other alternative to this way of dispute resolution.

Statement by Henryuzi

I have been sanctioned by the Wikipedia arbitration committee ([36]). This sanction took place in response to my voluntary and unsolicited submission of a statement in a preexisting arbitration of other parties ([37]). No one has presented a statement of charges against me. I had no opportunity to collect evidence, challenge my accusers, or formulate my defense. To the best of my knowledge, I have never been accused of violating Wikipedia editorial guidelines in my contributions ([38]). The arbitration committee has failed to respond to my request to clarify the nature of conduct for which I was threatened with sanctions, and eventually sanctioned. Fred Bauder has referred me ([39]) to Jimbo Wales and this body in response to my request for an opportunity to appeal the ArbCom decision to the extent that it affects me. I ask the ArbCom to reconsider its decision. Henryuzi 06:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)henryuzi

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/0/0)

• Reject for now. The Arbitration Committee is not a true court, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, nothing more. Please present an reason for me to reconsider the decision in terms of benefit to the encyclopedia and not lawyering. After reading your statement, I'm still not convinced in the least that the decision wasn't the best for the encyclopedia. Dmcdevit·t 07:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Reject ➥the Epopt 04:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Reject, it is obvious that you are the editor who started the trouble. Fred Bauder 19:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Waya sahoni and WP:RS vs. SCOX and Linux Community Editors

Involved parties

• User:Waya sahoni
• MediaMangler
• Aim Here
• MJ
• OneNamelessCat
• Vigilant
• Jerry
• Kebron
• Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
• BWD
• Vryl
• talks_to_birds
• User:Pgk - admin "enforcer" for SCOX
• Natalinasmpf - listed herself as a party

Clerk note. (1/0/0/0)

This case application has been moved to /Waya sahoni because of the bulk. Please add comments, arbitrator votes, etc, there, and they will be precised by clerks here.

Precis:

Waya sahoni requests an injunction of three months against certain parties editing the article Jeffrey Vernon Merkey, on the grounds that they injected poorly sourced content. Respondents claimed for the most part that this was a frivolous, disingenuous or ridiculous request. Some stated that they believed that Waya sahoni was actually Jeffrey Vernon Merkey himself. Waya sahoni withdrew the request for arbitration.

Fred Bauder voted to accept, primarily to consider whether the information in the article was adequately sourced, but also to consider the editing of Waya sahoni. He added "I think we need an affirmation of intent to avoid autobiographical editing, if a complete ban is to be avoided".

Waya Sahoni has stipulated that he is prepared to undergo a voluntary ban from editing Jeffrey Vernon Merkey in the form of a joint agreement with arbcom. He requests that the other involved editors be similarly banned from the article but be permitted to make contributions to the article's talk page, and that anyone who has stated that he's "here to stalk Jeff Merkey" be banned from following Waya sahoni or Jeffrey Merkey around Wikipedia to revert or deface their edits.

Currently there is one arbitrator acceptance vote, no recusals, no rejections.

Last updated by --Tony Sidaway 20:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Requests for Clarification

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

Everyking probation

Rewriting previous request.

Everyking is clearly using the opportunity to float the possibility of appeals as an opportunity to continue to harp on the injustice of his case. Whereas this only bothered me previously, it is starting to cross over to Everyking's latest way of submitting me and the other people he opposes to constant badgering and pointless criticism. In particular, I'm concerned with edits like [40], where he basically repeats his criticisms of me in a thinly veiled fashion and under the guise of a query about an appeal.

In short, Everyking is using the opportunity to ask about appeals as a continued theater and platform for the same behavior that got him into the situation he's appealing, and this behavior has come to be targetted at me specifically. Again. But beyond that, the situation is simply becoming stressful. For all practical purposes, the case has been in continual appeal since it was closed.

So I have two questions. 1) Is carping about the injustice of the ruling a tacit reiteration of the claims that caused the ruling? 2) Would the arbcom consider a restriction that limits EK's complaints regarding the case to actual appeals rather than inquiries? Phil Sandifer 19:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Counterpoint of sorts: While I can understand some frustration at Everyking's apparent stubbornness, I believe he is acting in good faith, whatever questions can be legitimately raised about his judgement in doing so. Everyking seems to be a pretty direct and literal kind of guy and I think the best way to read his words is to take them at face value. Veiled accusations don't strike me as something he understands, much less uses. If his intention were to attack you, I don't think there'd be any ambiguity about it. I think his motivation in asking the ArbCom questions is to get the answers to those questions, period.

And frankly, when he accuses the ArbCom of refusing to give (useful) answers, he's not wrong. The ArbCom has a habit, I have observed in the months I've been a regular spectator at this page, of being extremely tight-lipped when it comes to explaining their reasoning. 90% of the time, if not more, they will either not respond at all, or respond with a terse and (I'm sure unintentionally) very condescending-sounding referral back to the ArbCom decision in question, or similarly unhelpful response. Well, if those decisions were sufficiently clear to settle the issue, the questions wouldn't have to be asked in the first place. This does not apply just to Everyking, he is simply more persistent than most about trying to get a helpful answer after getting several unhelpful ones. I could be mistaken but I don't think I have ever seen an ArbCom member simply lay out, in clear, specific language, how they intend a ruling to be interpreted, when someone asks them to do so; then they wonder why people find their responses unhelpful. I'm sure there's a reason for it that I'm just not seeing, but from here it looks downright perverse. PurplePlatypus 09:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak to all possible decision, but with Everyking, he has a long history of searching for and exploiting any possible loopholes, so our remedies for that case were written in very broad and subjective terms. Raul654 19:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I've given Everyking just about all the helpful answers I had, a while back. I've also seen others give other helpful advice and it has not been taken; I don't think it would help to repeat myself on this issue simply because he asks again. The situation has simply not changed and sheer repetition is not at all helping his cause; I have not seen a productive response to any of the good advice he has been given (I'm thinking in particular of things said by TenOfAllTrades, who's had insightful and patient things to say) and do not think my own replies would have any better effect.

As to interpretation of decisions, most of the time it's "use your best judgment". The rulings have to be somewhat broad or we'd have to amend them constantly for each new way of violating its spirit; better to get broad instructions and then ask here or on AN/I "does this action in this particular case seem OK?" if you're unsure about enforcement. I'm looking down at the other requests for clarification and none of the answers seem condescending or rude to me. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Really, I think the main difference is I want real resolution, and the ArbCom wants me to wait out my extraordinarily long sentence. These two things are in basic conflict. The only way the situation can be resolved is through an appeal, but the ArbCom won't accept that because they want the sentence to remain as it is. So, when I ask: "how can I get an appeal?", the response is either unworkably vague or even tautological, or it requires me to do things that are utterly unacceptable (such as renouncing my basic principles)—and the ArbCom, knowing that, is perfectly happy to let me appear stubborn, I suppose.

As a humorous aside, what Mindspillage thinks is a good idea regarding the enforcement of my case—ask others for their opinions before doing something iffy—is basically the root of the whole issue I'm in trouble for. One can hardly ignore the irony of the situation: I'm being punished for advocating something that the ArbCom itself implicitly acknowledges, in its advice regarding that very punishment, is a correct approach. Everyking 10:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

"Really, I think the main difference is ... the ArbCom wants me to wait out my extraordinarily long sentence." - I can't speak for the other arbitrators, but I have no interest in seeing you 'wait out' our decision. I would have much preferred to make your "sentence" forever or until you learn to behave properly, whichever happens first. Raul654 03:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Forever? How long do you people think you're gonna remain in charge around here, anyway? Everyking 04:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII probation

Due to frequent, problematic disruption of the admin's noticeboard, such as reporting month old vandalism by a user he was engaged in a dispute with and repeatedly shouting, I considered banning RJII (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from the page under the terms of his probation. However, the decision spefically uses the word "article"- Would this ban be covered by the probation, or would an amendment of the previous decision be necessary for a ban to take effect?--Sean Black ^(talk) 08:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem with this, as it's in line with the spirit of our ruling. If he's being disruptive, he ought to be banned from it. RJII doesn't seem to be getting our message, however. You may want to bring consider, on AN, enacting the general probation for an appropriate length of time. Dmcdevit·t 09:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Given this, I have done so. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#RJII_Banned_from_AN_.26_AN.2FI Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 10:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Copperchair

Can anything be done about this user's constant blanking of his Talk page, including the removal of legitimate warnings and ArbCom notifications? I was very surprised this wasn't addressed in his ArbCom case and believe an additional injunction regarding it would be the least that would be appropriate. (Frankly I'm not actually sure why he isn't hard-banned; it's difficult to imagine a better example of someone who is a net negative to Wikipedia. But one step at a time, I guess.) PurplePlatypus 09:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

If he's blocked, the page can be protected, though I don't think people blanking their own talk pages is usually something to take action on. Inquire at WP:ANI. As above, if you think an indefinite block, or hardbanning, is appropriate at this point, raise the issue on WP:ANI; the conditions of his probation state: "Any three administrators may impose a partial or general ban up to and including an indefinite ban for good cause". Dmcdevit·t 09:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

CarlHewitt

If the anon 24.23.213.158 is CarlHewitt, then I believe he's violating Remedy 1 in editing Arbiter (electronics). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain to me how that is autobiographical editing (and not just editing in his field)? Otherwise I don't see the justification for an IP check. Dmcdevit·t 09:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

He seems to have created the concepts, according to the references and previous discussions. But whether or not the Admins (or whichever level administers blocks) agree that his current edits are autobiographical, it should be noted that he and now Anonymouser may be Carl. See the history of Talk:Indeterminacy in computation for details. (Also, to whose attention should I bring questions of identity related to Arbitration remedies.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

These don't appear to check out as Carl Hewitt, according to the location of that ip. Fred Bauder 01:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I know Hewitt edited from User:67.142.130.28, both IPs are from California. I also find User:71.198.215.78's and User:24.147.9.238's edits suspicious. —Ruud 04:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

There's little doubt in my mind that this is Hewitt; Bah, who cares. Not a massive land grab.--CSTAR 19:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Concur that User:71.198.215.78 sounds suspiciously like Carl, as does User:24.23.213.158. I don't see anything obvious in the contrib history for User:24.147.9.238 — did you mean someone else? --Allan McInnes (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

User:24.147.9.238 added an external link to MIT CSAIL to Scheme programming language, but I may be seeing ghosts here. —Ruud 02:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh my... User:Anonymouser. This guy removed the NPOV tag from Scientific Community Metaphor. —Ruud 02:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Instantnood 3

Instantnood has made a request [41] that someone representing ArbCom address that the case was opened properly. SchmuckyTheCat 08:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Given that ArbCom cases do not have a hard time limit, Instantnood being blocked around when the case was opened is immaterial. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing the matter here SchmuckyTheCat. Members of the ArbCom should have recognised I was not able to submit a statement when they opened the case. I understand that my statement is not a prerequisite, and the case can still be opened in the absence of my statement. Yet this should only be done when I refused to submit one, or ignored requests directed to me. This did not happen. I wanted to submit one, but my right was suspended. — Instantnood 12:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

So, by Instantnood statement, I believe that we should stop the process of the case (currently at Proposed decision) and wait for Instantnood's argument, then re-consider all the given evidences and come up with another conclusion, similar or different. Deryck C. 15:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

dyslexic agnostic case

Is the arbcom passing the 6 month ban as a motion because a lot of the votes there appear to be second choice votes and its not made clear by the exisiting pageBenon 00:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Ban has passed, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dyslexic_Agnostic#T-man.2C_the_Wise_Scarecrow_banned_for_six_months Fred Bauder 19:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC). However it will be effective only if the mentorship fails. Fred Bauder 19:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone case

The arbcom recently placed all three on probation, the latter over usage of sources, the former two over edit warring on the issue of allegations of homosexuality and bisexuality in articles. I have deliberately avoided entering the debate on the issue of sources because I do not have access to US biographies and magazines and so cannot prove either accuracy or inaccuracy. I have had to block both Wilkes and Wyss, the former a number of times, for clear breaches of their prohibition on editing biographical articles on allegations of homosexuality and bisexuality. The latter seens to have quit WP in a huff as a result. Wilkes however, while not editing articles, is using talk pages to mispresent onefortyone's probation by alleging that Onefortyone was convicted of lying by the arbcom. See also here. In fact the decision of the arbcom related to the reliability of sources, not lies.

Probation explicitly mentions articles. That could be interpreted narrowly to include just the article and not the talk page, or broadly to include the talk page, given that the talk page discusses and shapes the contents of the article. The arbcom ruling explicitly uses the word "broadly". Does this mean that three admins may also impose restrictions on the edits placed in talk pages dealing with the areas (homosexuality and bisexuality) that Wilkes is prohibited from editing. Wilkes has clearly breached Wikipedia ettiquette but has he breached the implicit conditions of his probation by posting allegations that another user who was the subject of an arbcom ruling is a "convicted liar" when that is a distortion of the arbcom ruling? FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The ruling does not make "article" explicit with regard to the newest remedy. That general probation is to apply as a full ban. Any three admins can ban him (as in a block-ban, not ban-from-an-article) for a year or less. This "good cause" can include any kind of disruption, certainly the kind you are describing, if three admins agree. Dmcdevit·t 00:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Never letting the thing go, on and on and on, focusing on that one issue is certainly disruptive. I think the gist of the decision is that it is not up to either of them to police Onefortyone. Fred Bauder 02:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)

Archives

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests (unofficial)