Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case
Requests for arbitration
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
---|---|---|---|
Seeking Insulation from Administrative ‘Attack’ for Contribution | 13 August 2020 | 0/8/0 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
---|---|---|---|
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing | Motion | (orig. case) | 27 February 2024 |
Amendment request: Gender and sexuality | none | (orig. case) | 13 March 2024 |
Amendment request: India-Pakistan | none | (orig. case) | 18 March 2024 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. This page is for statements, not discussion.
|
Seeking Insulation from Administrative ‘Attack’ for Contribution
Initiated by AranyaPathak (talk) at 15:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Involved parties
- AranyaPathak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Bloodofox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- Link 1
- Link 2
Statement by AranyaPathak
As per the instruction received from the Arbitration Committee in response to mail dated 10.08.2020, I am submitting this for the kind consideration.
I joined Wikipedia on 19.07.2020. Majority of my initial edits were getting reverted (WP:OWNBEHAVIOR)(diff1)(diff2)(diff3) and when the reverting editor refused to explain and discuss (WP:BRD , Principles of Wiki Etiquette)(diff4), I reverted only a few of the edits (WP:UNDO) for which an administrator gave a message (WP:Editwar, WP:ADMINACCT) (diff5) in one-sided manner for 3RR, while also warning me for block (WP:ADMINCOND,Discrimination) (diff6).
The same administrator has again warned me for trying to communicate with the other editor regarding content with disparaging remarks (diff7) while emphasizing on adminship 22/07/2020 (WP:AFNN).
Under instruction of the same Administrator (diff8) when the user page and edits] of some editor was observed, and an legitimate edit was made to one of the articles, very strangely I was accused of (WP:AOBF) wiki-hounding (WP:HUSH, WP:AOHA), harassment (WP:HA#NOT), revenge (WP:HA#NOT)and was threatened to be blocked 23/07/2020 again (WP:ASPERSIONS , Provocation). Hence, I stopped editing existing pages due to such threats and concentrated on creating new pages.
As several community discussions were underway regarding my created pages, the aforementioned administrator again threatened me to block, mentioning if I create ‘further non-viable articles’ 30/07/2020 (WP:WhenToBlock)(diff9).
Following the advice (threat), I stopped creating new articles and started to enrich the already created articles in draft and main space and continued discussion with other users regarding the articles/category under AfD, PROD, CfD etc.
And then, I have been blocked very much unexpectedly, by the very same administrator for 7 days (WP:BLOCKPOL#DURATION) citing a comment from an AfD discussion (WP:COOLDOWN,WP:BP#Recording, WP:BLOCKREQUESTS) as an instance of ‘egregious personal attack’ (diff10) 1/8/2020 (WP:Block#NotifyingUser,WP:EXPLAINBLOCK,WP:Adminguide, WP:NPA_Examples, WP:GuidelineforBlock).
Under such persistent irregularities, hostility, persecution and threats, I appeal to kindly provide me serious, effective insulation, protection from such attack and thus enable me to contribute to this reputed forum through content creation.
Since, I am new here, if there is any formal inadequacy, please don’t reject this appeal, instead please allow me a chance to make it free from any procedural error. Regards --AranyaPathak (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Cassianto
You've been here four days and already you are starting a (malformed) case at ArbCom? I smell a rat. This should be at WP:AN, if anything, not here. CassiantoTalk 16:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Floq
OP says "As per the instruction received from the Arbitration Committee...". Surely that's not correct? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- At some point, "new enthusiastic editor who is probably trying to edit in good faith in a language that is not their own but at every step simply refuses to listen to any constructive criticism from experienced editors, and as a result takes up a significant amount of their time with no end in sight" becomes a blocking rationale. Personally, I think we're at that point. Bish is a friend so I won't get involved myself. But geez. Look at the effort poor User:Vexations is putting in, to no avail. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Timtrent
On the editor's talk page I posted Please just treat this as a lesson learned, draw a line under it and move ahead.
You found what appeared to be a useful set of additions to the encyclopaedia, but other editors reached a consensus that this was not to be. Thsi is life. It happens.
Simply work out how to work collegialy with other edtors and this incident will be behind you.
It appears instead that they wish to follow this through to whatever the bitter end happens to be. I would hope for the only outcome to be strong advice to leave this well alone and seek to enjoy editing here. They are not in the right, but simply had a difficult early experience. They need to be encouraged to move away from Arbcom, and, to be fair, any other dispute resolution mechanism. There is no dispute unless they choose there to be. Fiddle Faddle 10:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- I have made an offer to the editor on his talk page. It is to mentor him. That offer will not expire, but it has to be accepted before it starts. Fiddle Faddle 09:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Deepfriedokra
Regrettably, this user's talk page is covered with warnings and advice. This personal attack, on top of the other problems and unheeded advice, certainly merited a block. There is an amazing amount of problematic behavior discussed on the user's talk page considering they have been editing for less than a month. Again, a one week block was certainly warranted for the personal attack. Regrettably, the user may be a poor fit with Wikipedia. Let us hope the user will take in the feedback they have received and edit more constructively. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- Per Joe below,
These are routine, fair administrative actions @AranyaPathak:. I strongly encourage you to take what Timtrent has said here on board
. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC) - Sadly concur with what RexxS writes below. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Statement by RexxS
AranyaPathak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has so far made around 300 contributions in the 3 weeks or so since the account was registered. Apart from disputes like this one, their interest has focused on creating or amending dozens of articles about creatures from folklore, cryptozoology. A typical one is Draft:Circhos. They have two problems.: (1) they have no grasp of reliability of sourcing and the standard we need to write about fringe theories, so they throw out sources already present in some articles and substitute ones they have found (seeming to think that the Fortean Times and similar are reliable sources); and (2) they are impervious to advice. That combination represents a serious potential time-sink for editors who try to correct the problems AranyaPathak is causing, and it may be kindest to simply bid them farewell sooner rather than later.--RexxS (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Robert McClenon
My first thought on reading this case request was that it is incomprehensible. My second thought was that the editor is fortunate that the ArbCom doesn't issue boomerang competence blocks for incomprehensible case requests. My third thought, on reading other comments, is that the most favorable possible reading is that this is a new user who is enthusiastic about desiring to join a community that Wikipedia is not, and that this editor needs to be ignored and allowed to decide whether they are able to join the community that Wikipedia is. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Seeking Insulation from Administrative ‘Attack’ for Contribution: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Seeking Insulation from Administrative ‘Attack’ for Contribution: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/8/0>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)
- Decline. The advice given in that e-mail was that the Arbitration Committee does not hear appeals from short-term blocks, but that requests to review use of administrator tools should be made on-wiki (rather than through private e-mail to us, unless confidential information is involved). What was inherent in that statement, although maybe we should change our standard e-mail reply to make it more explicit, was that requests for arbitration should document serious or repeated admin misconduct that has not been addressed in other forms of dispute resolution. Here, I see no such evidence. As a procedural matter, the proper people have not been notified of the case request; ordinarily I would suggest that either the filing party or the Clerks follow up on this, but given the weakness of the request it would probably be better just to decline the case and move on. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- Decline as premature. This is best addressed at WP:AN, unless there is egregious administrator misconduct, which I am not seeing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- Decline per NYB and GW. Katietalk 20:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- Decline what NYB said. Regards SoWhy 09:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- Decline. These are routine, fair administrative actions AranyaPathak. I strongly encourage you to take what Timtrent has said here on board. – Joe (talk) 10:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- Decline per above. –xenotalk 12:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- Decline I'm quite certain the community can deal with this and an arbcom case is not needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Decline per above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)