Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Crockspot (talk | contribs)
8,746 edits
Line 73: Line 73:
==== Clerk notes ====
==== Clerk notes ====
: (This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)
: (This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)
==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0) ====
==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/1) ====
* Would it be possible for you guys to just read through [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia]] and then settle this like kind and thoughtful Wikipedians? [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 17:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
*
----
----


Revision as of 17:19, 23 April 2007

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

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area   6 November 2024 0/5/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Yasuke 13 Nov 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) Motion (orig. case) 17 August 2024
Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy, et al none (orig. case) 7 November 2024
Clarification request: Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee none none 7 November 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/How-to

Current requests

Soviet occupation of Romania

Initiated by Biruitorul at 16:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[1]

[2] - I am aware. Biruitorul 16:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[3] - I am aware. Daizus 16:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

[9]

[10]

Statement by Biruitorul

Since March 26, a dispute has been ongoing at this article. The main issue revolves around the title and whether the presence of Soviet troops on Romanian soil from 1944 to 1958 should be labelled an "occupation". A subsidiary matter is whether the article should be split and a new article called "Liberation of Romania" be created, although meanwhile a new article called King Michael Coup has appeared. Still, in an edit war just today, User:Anonimu kept replacing the split proposal tag as well, so it seems there is still a desire to split. I believe this case needs arbitrators' involvement because a third opinion was solicited, given and ignored by the other side; mediation was not accepted by two users. Biruitorul 16:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {party 2}

Clerk notes

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

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

NYScholar

Initiated by Notmyrealname at 22:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14] - I am aware. Crockspot 23:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[15]: See User talk:NYScholar/Archive 4#ArbCom/Lewis Libby; Temple Rodef Shalom. where I have posted my response and updated and archived the notification. --NYScholar 08:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[16] - I am aware now Fermat1999 15:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[17]

[18]

[19] -- Aware, responded. Quatloo 13:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

[20]

[21]

Scroll down to "Lewis Libby" and click on "show" to see the content of this notice: it was declared "inactive" by administrator in both incarnations. --NYScholar 15:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Notmyrealname

NYScholar has made it impossible to have a civil discussion regarding identifying Lewis Libby as Jewish, whether to include various Jewish category labels to Libby, and whether to include Libby as the sole identified member of the Temple Rodef Shalom. Fermat1999 also made inappropriate entries on the Temple page, but NYScholar has repeatedly engaged in behavior that violates WP:OWN, WP:NPA, WP:BLP, among others. He has rejected my previous attempt of mediation, rejected the result of an rfa on the Libby talk page, and made personal attacks against myself and others on NYScholar's talk page, on my talk page, and on the Libby talk page. I have made several efforts to involve other editors into the original dispute by posting twice on the WP:BLPN page, and by encouraging other neutral editors to weigh in. An administrator that blocked NYScholar for a 3RR violation (and extended the block due to continued abusive edits by NYScholar) suggested that I bring this to arbitration.Notmyrealname 20:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I am not seeking arbitration regarding the labeling of Libby as Jewish or not, but rather about NYScholar's conduct that has prevented everyone from being able to reach consensus on this issue. These actions include hundreds of edits per week (often per day), name calling and personal attacks against me and others (his recently archived talk page contains excellent examples), conspiracy theorizing, edit warring (including actions that led to a recent block), a rejection of the outcome of an rfc, and a refusal to engage in peaceful debate either on the relevant talk pages or through mediation. Additionally, I and several other editors are concerned that one of his main arguments in the content debate has been that the issue of Libby's Jewishness is relevant due to the fact that he was involved with US policy towards Israel, and his insistence in including Libby as the sole entry in a list of members of his Temple. Notmyrealname 22:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Crockspot

I'm really only peripherally involved with this dispute. I am sure that I have removed Jewish categories from the article, citing WP:BLP, but I couldn't tell you when the last time was. I have made comments on the talk page regarding the use of religious categories as well. I haven't been paying much attention there lately, I'm working on other wiki stuff right now. But I am surprised that this dispute is still going on. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Use of categories is unambiguous. To continually violate it should result in a block for the user. It's a pretty cut and dried case. Not much else I can say. - Crockspot 00:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Addition to statement - For me, the only question here is this: Has the subject ever publicly self-identified as Jewish? I don't believe he ever has. If not, then we can't call him a Jew on Wikipedia. That's the current policy. It's really as simple as that. - Crockspot 16:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NYScholar

I have just seen this heading; the user is engaged in a personal vendetta that she/he seems unable to let go of. I have pointed out these problems before. I [had] changed the heading of this arbitration request to focus on the content of articles rather than on contributors. [Re: references to WP:BLP; clearly, the subject (Lewis Libby) is a public figure and WP:BLP#Public figures applies to the article about him, which goes beyond biography; both tests in WP:BLP#Use of categories have been met, moreover; but see my talk page update (archive 4), where I question whether even "lawyer" as a category applies to Libby currently, due to the suspension of his law license by the D.C. Bar.] Having reviewed the block history of some of the administrators involved in disputes concerning subjects relating to Jewish topics and particularly to Israel, I have noticed that they remove one another's blocks and engage in trying to block users who disagree with them. I strongly suggest that any administrators involved in this arbitration request not also be involved in editing articles on those subjects so as to preserve neutrality and impartiality, so as not to violate WP:Neutral point of view and WP:POV in these articles. So far it appears that truly "neutral" editors and/or truly "neutral" administrators have not been "weighing in" on this content dispute. By repeatedly appealing in talk pages to clearly non-neutral administrators and clearly non-neutral users, Notmyrealname has not been seeking out Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; instead, the user has been seeking out users who already agree with her/his POV and repeatedly rejecting the arguments of those disagreeing with him/her (See linked archive 10 of the BLP Noticeboard on Lewis Libby). I moved my full statement to my archived talk page 4: User talk:NYScholar/Archive 4#Archived fuller statement of response to the ArbCom; it provides links to various relevant talk page discussions. [updated.] --NYScholar 11:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[See my objections to this presentation of what is a long-standing editing content dispute. See my comments in Talk:Lewis Libby. I strenuously object to this so-called "abitration request" focusing on me; I objected to the same attempt to focus on me rather than on the content in dispute in the articles by this user in her/his so-called "mediation request": see its history. Many other parties object to Notmyrealname's et al.'s deletions from Lewis Libby, which also pertain to their deletions from Temple Rodef Shalom. I saw this change of the heading after spending a lot of time working on additional sources in the talk page for further improvement of the article. This user has apparently no interest in the subject of the articles themselves, and is intent only on persisting in this personal attack on another contributor, in this case me. I find this further attempt to do so outrageous. The user is unable to abide by the previous lack of support in the BLP noticeboard, and is now trying this method. --NYScholar 13:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Having just seen an addition to this filing by Notmyrealname above: "To be clear, I am not seeking arbitration regarding the labeling of Libby as Jewish or not, but rather about NYScholar's conduct that has prevented everyone from being able to reach consensus on this issue. These actions include hundreds of edits per week (often per day), name calling and personal attacks against me and others (his recently archived talk page contains excellent examples), conspiracy theorizing, edit warring (including actions that led to a recent block), a rejection of the outcome of an rfc, and a refusal to engage in peaceful debate either on the relevant talk pages or through mediation. Additionally, I and several other editors are concerned that one of his main arguments in the content debate has been that the issue of Libby's Jewishness is relevant due to the fact that he was involved with US policy towards Israel, and his insistence in including Libby as the sole entry in a list of members of his Temple. Notmyrealname 22:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)":
I reply further: This is another inaccurate description of the problems in this article. Counting edits, which are mostly typographical error corrections is misleading (as Wikipedia guidelines pertaining to doing so states). The "tit-for-tat" complaints about "personal attacks against me and others" is wholly manufactured from out-of-context and inaccurate descriptions of editing summaries; it neglects time-stamps which disprove its claims. The statement alluding to "one of his main arguments in the content debate" is entirely inaccurate: since time and time again, I point out that the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the security of Israel as a main topic pertaining to Libby's policymaking role in his positions in the White House (as both assistant to the President [Bush] and chief of staff to the Vice President [Cheney]) is a main issue pertaining to Lewis Libby: see the talk pages, and this point as discussed by several other Wikipedia users, incl. Quatloo below and in Quatloo's own replies to the BLP noticeboard dispute (archive 10: Lewis Libby, scroll down), already linked [provided directions above]. I stand by all my comments pertaining to this subject (Lewis Libby). I see no content provided by Notmyrealname in this article that is accurate; only misinformation that had to be corrected and continual deletions of properly-sourced reliable sources and properly-annotated common citations re: Libby. As I have said, this is not a matter of one contributor disagreeing with Notmyrealname and Jayjg (mostly) and recently humus sapiens. Over the course of the many archived comments in Talk:Lewis Libby, many others have disagree with their tactics. As far as lack of civility, Jayjg's posts provide the examples of that, not mine. I have not been uncivil, but I have justifiably protested the incivility of others (incl. both Jayjg and Notmyrealname, who persists in commenting on contributors rather than on content, violating WP:NPA, as she/he does again here). The talk pages of these other three users indicate that they have indeed enlisted one another in deleting sourced content from the articles in question in Wikipedia: Lewis Libby and Temple Rodef Shalom. Notmyrealname ignores the fact that long before she/he posted this request for arbitation, I already had questioned whether the temple article even is notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. Moreover, I was not the user who inserted Libby's name into it; I provided the source for an otherwise unsourced insertion by another user, and I made corrections and updated the material that that user had provided. If the other user had not added the name, there would have been no need to do that. Since Libby is a public figure, the insertion was within WP:BLP#Public figures. (updated) --NYScholar 15:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)]
[Moved by an administrator to this spot from beneath the comment by Quatloo later:]Please note that in Talk:Temple Rodef Shalom, I also questioned some time ago whether the temple itself is notable enough to have an article about it in Wikipedia. (I was not the user who added Libby's name to the article originally; I only provided the source(s) to document it and a section heading for the other user's listing and tried to update and correct the sentence given, making it into a bullet, to which more "notable members" could be added as they might become known.) I would recommend the deletion of the entire article. But I agree with Quatloo otherwise as well. Please see Talk:Lewis Libby. --NYScholar 13:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)]
[Point of information: it appears very likely that the source for the Tulsa Jewish Review is actually the Jewish Telegraphic Agency report(s) by Ron Kampeas; I have provided a link to the actual archived "What's Nu" section of the Tulsa Jewish Review in past comments in the archived talk pages of Talk:Lewis Libby and in sources that Jayjg et al. deleted. The reliability of the note to the Tulsa Jewish Review in "Lewis Libby" in the Notable Names Database is checked and verified via the JTA reports by Kampeas. (The only reason that I have annotated the NNDB source "Lewis Libby" as possibly unreliable is due to its statement as fact of Libby's first name as "Irve", which is still somewhat controversial and unsubstantiated with absolute certainty. The rest of the source seems reliable.) The TJR and the JTA are equally-reliable published sources, as are the many other Jewish community newspapers reprinting the JTA/Kampeas article (with the sentence about Libby's membership in Temple Rodef Shalom in various versions). --NYScholar 14:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)]

Statement by Fermat1999

While I have not always agreed with NYScholar (in terms of including Libby's temple membership for example), I think some of his hyperediting and frustration has been caused by undue harrassment and even trolling by [jayjg], [notmyrealname] and [humus sapiens]. In particular, not so subtle suggestions of anti-semitism with no proof, and at times remarkable rude comments and personal attacks. A simple review of the history will show that.

Much like Tony Judt, I almost feel like I should disclose my background before I type further, even though I had no desire to originally. I don't consider myself jewish at all, but ethnically from my father's side I am, and I did do both church stuff and reform temple stuff as a kid. I also went to camp as a kid, and birthright as a teen. I of course support Israel's existence, but my politics have strong sympathies for palestinian rights, and I am strongly anti-war. Full disclosure. I try to be very non-biased in my editing, and previous to registering recently, primarily edited medical articles or pop culture on a semi-occasional basis.

What I thought was a harmless honest biographical comment on Libby being jewish has turned into a wiki nightmare. I remember being in early undergrad and having to verbally spar with friends who jokingly talked about a jewish conspiracy. While I knew they were joking, it still pissed me off deep down. But the relentless censoring in this case, is the type of behaviour that probably fuels such idiotic conspiracies. Here we have a politician that is powerful, involved in policymaking in Israel, and indicted for the crime of perjury, and somehow the fact that he is jewish is deemed 'not notable'? Virtually EVERY major politician has their religion and ethnicity noted. Gonzalez, Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice, ad nauseum for example. But in this case, with reliable documentation of Libby's ethnicity/religion, it is continiously being removed. And not only that, but those that support the inclusion of such information are being tagged as anti-semitic, initially indirectly and more recently directly. That is simply intolerable, and unfortunately such slander can lead to people to respond back with strong emotions. That is what I think has occured to nyscholar, and to some degree myself.

Lastly, I think some sort of audit needs to be done on jayjg in particular. His behaviour has crossed the line on what I think is reasonable administrator behaviour. I feel a bit guilty critisizing a longstanding member, being relatively new myself (at least in registered form), but I think to many NON RACIST and REASONABLE members of wikipedia, he has been amazingly hostile and rude. This is not to say that I myself can't improve. We all can strive to be better people I suppose.

To finish off, I never commented on the TEMPLE PAGE EVER. Not one edit. Anywhere. I never agreed with the inclusion of the Temple comment, and have stated that previously in the Libby article. Not sure where Notmyrealname came up with that total untruth, but I hope it helps explain some of the frustration some of us editors have had with Notmyrealname, jayjg and humus sapiens. Fermat1999 16:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Quatloo

I became aware of this issue only after reading about it on the BLP noticeboard, and I do not have involvement in editing articles on Jewish or political topics, with the exception that I once voted for keeping a category on Jewish Fencers because of the special relationship between those two groups (though I think I would vote against other Jewish sports categories unless such a situation existed also for that sport). I do have a general interest in BLP policy and in copyright. Some observations:

The fact that Libby is Jewish is supported by a reliable source, namely the Tulsa Jewish Review. That publication has been published continuously for over 70 years. In the point of Libby's case it is very specific to identify his temple. There are additional online sources for Libby's Jewishness which are not reliable, and I have noticed that editors will indicate those, and attempt to argue that the sources do not meet WP:RS. But the Tulsa Jewish Review meets WP:RS (it gives no requirement that the source not be regional or provincial, and indeed such a requirement would be absurd), and the question is moot. One cannot argue for exclusion of the fact based on its source.
We are thus reduced to the question, under BLP: Is this information germane to the article? The religion of all high government officials (elected or not, it makes no difference) ought to be included in the article. Religious issues often impact on questions of policy, and this is one of the most important pieces of background information on an individual. If reliably known it should be included. But even if one were to disagree with that postulation, the question boils down to: For a person involved in policymaking regarding Israel (as Libby definitely is), how can we possibly omit the fact that he is Jewish?
Any analysis beyond mere statement of religious affiliation would require citation of highly reliable sources. But statement alone does not require additional proof of relevance -- involvement in policymaking makes it relevant.

For this specific dispute, I am not familiar with the parties involved (I do not monitor the article in question), but if someone is forcing the deliberate omission or removal of this information from Libby's article, it is likely agenda-driven and that person should probably be stopped. As for the article on Temple Rodef Shalom itself, I express no opinion other than it is possible/likely the article lacks sufficient notability to warrant an entry in Wikipedia. Quatloo 13:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Decline as premature. Postings on the BLP noticeboard are not part of the dispute resolution process; please pursue one of the preliminary steps before bringing this to arbitration. Kirill Lokshin 15:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Accept, as the previous steps have apparently been pursued, and are merely not properly linked here. Kirill Lokshin 22:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus

Initiated by M.K. at 10:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • Talk page notifications:

[22][23][24][25][26][27] [28][29][30][31] Please note that user:Halibutt informed that he is leaving Wikipedia [32][33] , but looking to the related users contributions, he wasn’t not. In any case left message on talk [34].

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by M.K.

Piotrus contributing to Wikipedia for several years, sadly his valuable edits are marked and with history of inadmissible actions, starting from misused of administrator tools [44][45] ending with mocking from contributors [46] and trolling [47][48]. Preserving time I will keep to the minimal. His actions still are the major problem to contributors, who have dealing with related articles, some examples:

  • [49] removal referenced information, which not suits his POV with edit summary “rv inappopriate tag and preposterous claim”
  • [50] reverting with edit summary “you are joking? please stop restoring Soviet propaganda”
  • [51] removes referenced terminology which not suits his POV, important to note he personally expanded his part some time ago, but did not classified it as POV back then [52]
  • [53] removal of info continues [54]
  • [55] referenced information removed again…
  • [56] same: referenced info removed…
  • [57] again removal referenced information with edit summary “npov”, worth noting that with referenced info, which was lastly removed due to “nopv”, Piotrus moved it several times without removing it completely [58], [59] (quite strange arguments – “lead should summarize the lead” as well as “it fits there better”)

And of course such selective removal of information promotes revert wars [60][61][62] and these are only few examples. And different contributors noted and stated many times that such behavior is inappropriate [63][64][65][66] . For violating reverting policies he was blocked [67]. Administrator Piotrus also, in my view, violated WP:LIVING. He began to inserting badly attributed sources to living person article claiming that presented source is an embassy web page [68] while it was just some sort tourist-information center [69]. Seeing such poor handling of sources I found more inaccuracies and misuse of sources in related article [70], and I asked for check quotation and references [71], but was reverted and suggested that WP:Living is not applied in other articles which relates with living persons [72] , in contrary to the policy and leaving Wikipedia vulnerable. Worth noting that after few minutes he began to finding serious flaws himself [73]. (also worth noting with which intentions article was created too [74] please observe edit summary). Nevertheless misuse of sources were present and much later [75] . It should be stress that Piotrus continued to mock from person in question too [76]. Once again violating the policy. Even the neutral mediator warned that there is a problems with related articles [77][78]and even warned not to remove NOPV version [79] but in vain [80]. Only active and systematical actions from mediator made progress to these articles, but problems still present. Another problem of Piotrus that he mocked from contributors in different cases, starting from name-callings in his native language [81] , stalked users [82],[83] other examples [84],[85], [86] etc. It should be noted that problems with Piotrus behavior has many contributors – Germans, Lithuanians, Russians etc, starting from quite newly contributors [87][88][89] and ending with established ones [90]. But the most disgusting event to place then another contributor [91] started labeling 1991 events as annexation. Instead to prohibiting such actions Piotrus launched shameful comment [92] directly towards me and the state. And yes I regard this and this as tragedy of Lithuanian people in 1991. My attempts to communicate and resolve the problems usually ended with threats [93]. So I ask ArbCom to accept this case for scrutinizing such systematical Piotrus misconducts.

Update.Just small expansion after Piotrus presentation, which lacks concrete facts but full of interpretations. And reading his replay I made impression that he seeks that every contributors word should receive some sort of support or oppose, endorse etc. I have to agree with user: Mikkalai remarks [94] that Piotrus fail to see basic rules, as for this time - Wikipedia is not some sort of democracy, then votes solves the problems. Regarding alleged Harassment, I do not think that asking for contributor to stop removing reverenced information and desire to know the motives why such actions there taken, can be classified as Harassment for intimidation particular contributor. But we probably will see more Polish contributors coming and stating the same in the future. Speaking about the same area - indeed questions can rose [95] [96], [97] is the wrong accusations, as noted by other contributor [98], of vandalism also listed as harassment [99] ? I do not going to list misinterpreted quotations of my words in Piotrus replay; if the case will be accepted these points of interest [100] [101] will be fully covered as well. And what left? A, saga continues [102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110]. M.K. 08:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Piotrus

Note: refactored to reduce length.

M.K.'s accusations are groundless and certainly not motivated by any "good faith" (in two words - caveat lector). It is my belief that ArbCom should discard this case and warn M.K. that such disruptive attempts to slander his opponents will not be tolerated, per Wikipedia:Harassment and related guidelines; or if the case is accepted, behaviour of both parties should be scrutinized. Below is my reasoning for such a strong-worded reply.

This is not the first time that user has attempted to portray me as 'evil incarnate' following the same modus operandi: 1) take a few controversial edits (we all make mistakes, especially in a space of ~3.5 years...) 2) ignore that most of those controversial edits were discussed by community and dismissed or supported (in a few cases I apologized for certain actions and never repeated them, which doesn't prevent M.K. from bringing them up again and again) 3) spice them up with ten times as many innocent edits with extreme bad faith interpretation to 4) create an illusion of serious pattern of wrongdoings, and 5) clamor for attention of other editors with presumed goal of misleading neutral editors into condemning me. His claims - although seen by many (RfC, etc.) have never been supported by neutral editors (all support he ever gets is from users representing his content POV and/or having a grudge against me from other content disputes). The best example is his comment at my RfC; despite his comments being posted at the very beginning of the RfC, they were supported by only two people out of 40 who commented (both of which with a grudge against me ([111], [112])). Another example is his attempt to get me for 3RR (3RR report with consensus for no action, followed by a complain at AN that was ignored by the community...).

Second, his "attempts to resolve dispute" can be hardly considered that (the only two real attempts to resolve the disputes involving me and M.K were IMHO the informal Wikipedia:WikiProject Lithuania/Conflict resolution which yielded no consensus and my RfC in which 5% of users supported M.K. claims; other links concern local content disputes or don't involve M.K.). Other than agreeing with the claim that I am a vandalizing troll and withdrawing from this project I can hardly resolve this in a manner acceptable to him. Consider that most of his 'attempts to resolve the dispute' by posting on my talk page are basically personal attacks, accusing me of wrongdoing and unsupported by evidence. Here he is stating that I "have been warned by different contributors and mediators [not to remove tags]" - note no diff provided (I have never been warned on that by a neutral editor, and certainly no mediator or other DR official). Here he accuses me of bad faith, using socks/canvassing, censorship and such; claims are of course not supported by neutral editors and backed with misinterpreted innocent edits. The post is not even directed at me - only at other editors, to inform them (on my talk page...) of how 'evil' I am. This MedCabal case is another example: opened by one of M.K.'s friends in a content dispute, it was closed immediately by the mediator with the comment "You need to assume good faith and participate in the discussion". ArbCom case he mentions is an even better example of twisting all facts: see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus-Ghirla for details, but briefly: most comments by observers supported my statements, and case was dismissed because of other party's withdrawal (note that the solution discussed was a civility parole on the other party, not me). How can anybody call this slander by a user with growing block log a 'dispute resolution attempt' is beyond me - unless, of course, it is cited here solely to draw readers attention that somebody accused me of 'falsification, trolling, vandalism' and such. The other links of the 'dispute resolution attempts' - content disputes on article's talk pages, peppered with personal attacks on my person and other users - are hardly acceptable 'dispute resolution attempts'.

His arguments about my wrongdoings can be taken apart in the same way as above. They either link to innocent edits portrayed by M.K. as wrongdoings, or edits that have been discussed by the community and consensus reached I was right (most of them are discussed at my RfC in detail). Let me draw attention to how he presents those issues with few examples: even through consensus has been reached on my RfC (as well as in a MedCabal case) that I have never misused my admin tools, he repeats this claim presenting the same evidence as was shown and discarded previously. In most cases M.K. is also interpreting my actions in bad faith. His claims that I was criticized by a 'neutral mediator' at Kazimieras Garšva and Vilnija is a gross misrepresentation of the case, in which mediator criticized the behavior of both parties (involving more than just two users), not mine specifically, and which ended in a compromise which only M.K. occasionally disputes (ask User:DGG for details). Virtually all content disputes mentioned ended in a consensus I find acceptable - but he doesn't - something that may explain reason behind this RfArb. His repeated claims that my actions were criticized by many fails when we note that this critique is carried out by the same small group of editors, whose arguments have never held up to public scrutiny (re: my RfC, MedCabs or ArbCom examples again). His claims of me promoting revert wars are amusing when we consider that articles he mentions (ex. [113]) are often FA-class articles written by me where I am merely ensuring POV remains neutral as it has been judged by the community during FAC process. His claim that I was blocked for repeated revert wars should be contrasted with the fact that the only time I was blocked was because of a controversial report by a single-purpose sock that I thought was purely vandalizing, a conclusion that was reached by many (ex. this discussion). All of his other claims can be denied in the same way; forgive me but I don't have hours to take comment on every innocent link he tries to portray as an abuse, although I will be happy to do so if an ArbCom member contacts me for clarification for any particular example.

Lastly, I will just comment on the strange selection of users M.K. have chosen to contact with information of this ArbCom: with few exceptions they are users who are often involved in various content disputes with me, and who are likely to present their individual grudges in support of M.K. claims (be on a lookout for many content disputes brought up, not policy violations...). I strongly urge neutral editors to consider what angle such editors may have in commenting here.

Concluding: M.K.'s "evidence" against me is primarily bad faith interpretation of non-controversial edits or repeated claims on issues discussed and closed by the community. His claims were most tellingly reviewed and discarded in my RfC. His behavior towards me violates several WP:CIV/WP:NPA policies, primarily Wikipedia:Harassment: nitpicking good-faith edits, repeated personal attacks (false and bad-faithed claims of my wrongdoing), user space harassment. I'd particularly ask arbcom members to look at parallels with The Recycling Troll case, and consider how M.K.'s behavior, repeating groundless claims against my person - on various discussion pages, talk pages, and in wikipedia namespace - resembles that of the TRT, who was harassing RickK in a similar manner.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Durova

As the Committee is already aware, I attempted to mediate the dispute between Piotrus and Ghirla a few months ago. Piotrus remained willing to pursue that process but Ghirla declined. I proposed Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation afterward, partly as a non-arbitrated alternative to some of the longstanding Eastern European editorial conflicts. Piotrus has been amenable to that option but on no occasion did his opponents agree to it. I write this without comment on the actual merits of the case. Yet it is my considered opinion that lack of resolution on this issue has hindered Wikipedia's smooth functioning in a number of ways, not the least of which was its connection to the immediate events that brought down Wikipedia:Requests for investigation. I consider the loss of that undermanned noticeboard to be a considerable detriment to Wikipedia. As a group, the involved parties in this proposed case have consumed substantial volunteer resources in fruitless endeavors and it is my opinion that they have sometimes pursued unhealthy structural changes to Wikipedia in pursuit of narrow goals. I request that the Committee accept this case to examine all sides. DurovaCharge! 18:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Darwinek

A short comment. It seems to me M.K. arguments don't hold water per Piotrus analysis, but M.K's behaviour indeed violates WP:HARASS in my opinion and he should be warned to stop it. I constantly witness M.K.'s behaviour and can say he has got a personal problem with Piotrus (which is not Piotrus fault) and therefore this "case" shouldn't be accepted by ArbCom. - Darwinek 19:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dr. Dan

A shorter comment. Because these accusations are serious, and concern an administrator, and have been bantered about before without a resolution, perhaps they need to be addressed once and for all. Let the concerned parties speak their piece. Dr. Dan 00:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Novickas

Having earlier filed an arb against Piotrus [114], I support this investigation. That case was based on ethical research issues. Just two more recent problems out of many: he removed a reference from the Žirmūnai article on the grounds that the source was POV [115] - a misstatement of WP policy; the use of the phrase "evil incarnate" in his statement above is inflammatory. The limited number of editors working in this region, and his frequent use of Polish-language references, means that his work is not as thoroughly reviewed as other English Wikipedia articles are. The LT editors must then exercise a disproportionate amount of oversight. More scrutiny from the wider WP community is needed. Novickas 12:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by frequently involved Irpen

It would be easier for me to just state my views on the issue but I am at a real difficulty on how I can make a recommendation to an ArbCom because the issue is somewhat unique. Yes, we have a huge problem here but I don't see how it can be solved at all by any method including the ArbCom. That Piotrus is an extremely productive, committed and prolific editor is plain obvious. In fact, after Ghirla moved his activity from en- to ru-wiki (without doubt Piotrus is primarily responsible for this huge loss that will never heal), the place of the most prolific editor in the topics of my interest (Eastern and Central Europe) is undoubtedly held by Piotrus. I will not waste time praising his commitment and a huge amount of work he is giving to this project simply because those are already known, the room at ArbCom page is precious and this is not what brought us all here. Piotrus' editor's quality narrows the choices of the remedies but does not make problems non-existing. So, I will concentrate on the latter.

All these controversies take root in a huge stack of interconnected content disagreements between multiple editors with strong views, sometimes affected by nationalism or, at least, differences in narrattives in national scholarship and/or education. Piotrus, an experienced editor, knows perfectly all the tricks to get an upper hand in such disputes.

Using double standards
  • applying loaded terminology selectively: if he defends the terms, like "occupation", "invasion", "massacre", etc, it is because they are "referenced"; but when he strives to remove these exact terms in cases when the usage does not fit his POV, he calls such terms "POVed"
  • Double standards with Proper names: defending certain national terms as "more authentic" but rejecting other national terms as "non-English" or "counterhistoric"
  • Double standards with sources: attempts to impeach certain statements claiming their being referenced to "non-Western", "non-English", "not online", "non-academic" or "Cherry-picked" sources but persisting and vigorously defending sources of similar origin/standing when they happen to advance his POV
Wikipedia:Tendentious editing
  • especially the WP:TE#Undue weight clause by flooding many articles with marginally or irrelevant material that happen to give prominence to his pet issues
Next, and perhaps worst, is what I would call "ungentlemanly conduct", such as
  • Gaming the civility policy in order to prevail in content disputes (I mean invoking WP:CIV in discussions where civility concerns, while possibly existing are clearly minor).
  • Frequent baseless accusations of opponents in WP:NPA violations
  • Threats to report an opponent to the "proper" venue
  • (Especially unbecoming) resorting to such reports, including running to boards and other admins' talk pages with complaints aimed at achieving some sort of his opponent's sanctions (up to blocks) which may include even false reports to a 3RR board. His style of using WP:PAIN and WP:RFI made the boards to be deleted If it does not work in one board, Piotrus occasionally runs hectic sprees from board to board in the projectspace as well as selected admin's talk pages.
  • In such instances, Piotrus, if he can, prefers to act through proxies, inviting other editors to act and telling them exactly what to post and where to post it.
  • Another demonstration of double standards, when Piotrus is confronted about his actions he makes persistent and excessive pestering for diffs; but since he knows that the diffs are there this is aimed at nothing but forcing the opponent to waste time. OTOH, when presented with diffs, Piotrus accuses the opponent in "digging through dirty laundry".
  • Another highly unbecoming habit, especially in view of demonstrating such a heavy-handed approach towards the content opponents, is the persistent refusal to curb disruptive editors who advance the POV he favors but instead cleverly using them as battering rams or for a Good cop/Bad cop trick in the content disputes (no need to elaborate, the comparison is exact and explains it all)

I gave some of the issues that are rather narrowly specific to Piotrus and make working with him particularly difficult. It does not mean that he is clear of the more usual human wikisins, such as occasional sterile just under 3RR revert-warring, occasional incivility and personal attacks but I can tolerate those, especially since there are plenty of editors much worse in this respect.

I must confess that I am at loss as to what ArbCom can do with all this. The problem is obviously there and it is huge. Forcing Ghirla out of en-wiki alone is the profound loss that came from this host of controversies. But at the same time, I am at loss on what could possibly be done with this mess, and, frankly, I am not sure that ArbCom could help. It may but I just don't see how. Blocking Piotrus, even temporary, is out of question since he is writing content and a lot of it. Deadminning would simply not affect anything as incidents of admin abuse that I have seen are long in the past. I have not noticed any admin actions made by Piotrus in the past year or so (which means that if there were any they were not notable in a bad way) and adminship is in no way involved in this host of problems. As we all know too well (examples are abundant) WRT to all editors who commit so much time to the project, it is especially dangerous to have them humiliated, including by an insensitive ArbCom decision, a consideration that ArbCom should take very seriously.

At the same time, the lasting effects of this mess bring lots of bad blood felt by every community of editors around Poland as the Russian, Lithuanian, Belarusian, Ukrainian and German editors have all shown the huge frustration from this all. Until now, I was living with the idea that we will just have to take it as is since no solution seemed in sight. Loss of Ghirla is so far perhaps the highest damage Wikipedia suffered from this. Maybe others will follow but I remained under the impression that nothing can be done. If ArbCom can come up with some creative measures that would work, it should and we will all be better off. If it can't or won't, this frustrating state of affairs will continue indefinetely or until it gets solved by itself, which is rather unlikely.

It took me all the time I have for now to write all this and I realize that diffs would help the arbitrators. I assure you that I can provide diffs to every assertion and I will do so over the weekend. That is unless the Arbitrators decide that even with diffs this is the kind of a problem that ArbCom cannot help and we just have to live with it. --Irpen 12:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Renata3

I was about to post my opinion, but Irpen beat me to it. So I have really nothing to add, except that I urge ArbCom to take this case and (hopefully) solve this mess once and for all. Renata 13:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jadger

Piotrus is constantly revert warring with editors. we should look up to Admins, not see them as hurdles to get over. I have seen someone post a reference many times and for him to then only allow the parts that he supports into the article. for instance, on Institute of National Remembrance, I supplied a number of references that describe the IPN as being a witch hunt, and he then edits it to say "if less realistically" he did that repeatedly, revert warring despite the fact that the source was very reputable ([[the Guardian).

--Jadger 02:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as you can see by his statement above, Piotrus is degrading to editors, no matter who they are. He constantly cries foul while letting lose his own cannonade.
--Jadger 02:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Appleseed

Just about everyone listed as an involved party is part of a relatively small but dedicated group interested in articles about Central and Eastern Europe. However, it is not the entire group, and it is skewed heavily toward Piotrus' detractors, few but vocal. This skew is the first red flag of what I believe to be a bad-faith RFAr by M.K.

The accusations presented here are not new: M.K's vague accusations of "violating policy"; Dr. Dan's calls to desysop; Irpen's accusations of "tendentious editing" and his claims that Piotrus drove away Ghirlandajo, etc. Most were previously presented in Piotrus' RFC, and in the end the community decided overwhelmingly in Piotrus' favor.

As Irpen points out, there are indeed difficulties among this group of editors, but for the most part they are content disputes. It is my belief that with enough editors, POVs cancel out, and Piotrus' opponents are trying to do an end-run around this (sometimes difficult) process. Since Piotrus is familiar with WP policy, and his opponents are unable to win content disputes on a technicality, it appears they have resorted to dragging a prolific and respected editor through RF*s.

Please note that in addition to filing this RFAr, M.K also cosponsored Piotrus' RFC, and is inexplicably using it against him despite a favorable outcome for Piotrus. M.K also authored Halibutt's RFC. It is my understanding that M.K's harassment of Halibutt in that RFC and elsewhere led to Halibutt severely cutting back his involvment with the project; prior to this, he had been a very prolific editor. Repeating that achievement appears to be M.K's motivation in this RFAr.

The Piotrus-Ghirlandajo conflict was previously scrutinized in this RFAr. Later on Durova offered to mediate, but Ghirlandajo left just when a compromise (which involved cility parole) was about to be reached. I am not sure why Irpen thinks Piotrus caused this. Ghirlandajo, who was the other sponsor of Piotrus' RFC, has since been making some under-the-radar edits while avoiding this outstanding issue. Ghirlandajo's RFC can be found here. So here we have another issue that's already been addressed.

To summarize, I think that M.K.'s accusations are a rehash of accusations that were previously addressed in several venues. It has been initiated by an editor who resolves content disputes by dragging his opponents through RF* pages. It would be unfair to put Piotrus and everyone else through this again. Appleseed (Talk) 03:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chris Croy

I have no connection to this case or any of its participants. After reading all of the above and looking over M.K.'s diffs, I have no clue what's going on. For example, M.K says Piotrus abused his administrative powers by...unblocking a user who was blocked for 24 hours. I'd like for someone who knows the situation better to create a chart detailing the POV everyone is supposed to be pushing, e.g. Piotrus favors a Canadian point of view while M.K. favors a South Western Sahara point of view. The chart should include examples of specific disputed facts, e.g. Piotrus believes the First Canadian Spork Division was right to invade the Southwestern Sahara to stop the on-going genocide of the Lilliputans by the Yahoos while M.K. believes it was all about the South Western Sahara's camels and furthermore the use of sporks in mortal combat was a crime against humanity. Would someone please do that?

Statement by Poeticbent

Sifting through the list of grievances by User:M.K I have a nagging feeling of dejavou and wonder how much of what is being said here was inspired by Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus-Ghirla. Yet another editor is counting “South Western Sahara's camels” (see statement by User:Chris Croy) and protesting against the misrepresentation of their possibly inflated numbers which has been revealed by the “Canadian Yahoos” promoting the actions of “First Canadian Spork Division” in the region.

But seriously, as Peter Cheremushkin of Moscow State University wrote: “the twentieth century provides a striking example of the difficulties involved in the process of potential reconciliation [between Eastern-European nations - Poeticbent]. The Poles have historically viewed Russia as a foe, and for their part the Russians regarded Poland as a kind of appendage to their country. In one way or another this was true both for the Soviet period of history and for the post-Communist world. The burden of the past has continued to hamper the creation of new relations."(1)

Meanwhile, according to David A. Crocker(2): "If reconciliation is understood as the transformation of a relationship, then reconciliation systems can be visualized along a continuum, ranging from “thinner” to “thicker”. At one end is the so-called “thin” version of reconciliation in which former enemies can peacefully coexist and are willing to listen to each other. At the other end is a “thicker” version, which implies the achievement of a harmonious relationship."

"This process begins with the acknowledgement by opinion-makers (journalists, historians, intellectuals, or in this case, Wikipedians), who can speak openly of the wrongs wrought by their nation on another nation."(1)

________________________
1. Peter Cheremushkin, “Russian-Polish Relations: A Long Way From Stereotypes to Reconciliation”, Moscow State University (pdf file)
2. David A. Crocker, “Reckoning with the Past Wrongs: A Normative Framework,” Ethics and International Affairs, 13 (1999): 60

--Poeticbent  talk  17:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by evrik

It seems to me M.K. arguments don't hold water per Piotrus analysis, and may be harassment. Personal feelings on M.K.'s part have almost nothing to do with Piotrus' actions (which is not Piotrus fault). Having followed the RfA between Piotrus-Ghirla I think that this is just a continuation of harassment of Piotrus. This "case" shouldn't be accepted by ArbCom. I would like to see Piotrus cleared of the allegations of bad behavior simply to clear his name.--evrik (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beaumont

I do not agree with Irpen who seems to imply that a respectable editor is to be considered with a greater attention to not to 'hurt' him. I do not see why - otherwise great - contributions by Piotrus have anything to do with judging his conduct and why it may narrow possible solutions. If Piotrus deserves a warning, desysoping, a ban or whatever for a reason, let's apply this regardless editcount or FAcount. Please remember that one prolific but problematic editor can make a problem for many other 'simple' contributors. And why shall we not respect the many 'little' ones?

That said, I agree that WP:HARASS and curious bad faith assumption is to be considered on M.K.'s side. Conversely, what he provides against Piotrus, does not look seriously. His interpretations of diffs are sometimes offending reader's abilities to analyze. This is why I hesitate a bit. If it was Piotrus who initiated the case, I'd probably recommend opening the case. I believe that a sincere examination of mutual conduct could be beneficial. But long standing problem is not easy to solve in 5 minutes and it could also be a waste of time. Further, I have impression that more than 50% of M.K.'s accusations are just content disputes, see e.g. what M.K. qualifies as "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried". So initiating this case can be viewed as an attempt to eliminate/disturb the "enemy" (initiating a pointless case on this page, does it cost anything?). It makes me recommend rejection of the "mutual examination" up to the time when Piotrus initiates a case too. If this happens one can consider that both of them see no way but to proceed by ArbCom. Now, I did not see any real attempt, as e.g. direct discussion or mediation, to solve the problem before coming here (just content disputes). Perhaps it would be better to dismiss the case and not to waste the time that some productive editors normally devote to content creation.

Clerk notes

The previous arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus-Ghirla, was closed without prejudice due to inactivity. Thatcher131 18:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Talkpage notes left asking M.K. and Piotrus to reduce their statement length per request by Charles Matthews below. Newyorkbrad 14:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Robdurbar

Initiated by Newyorkbrad at 22:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Notice left on User talk:Robdurbar.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Not applicable.

Statement by Newyorkbrad

As the arbitrators and other readers of this page are undoubtedly aware, long-time editor and administrator Robdurbar went on a spree of inappropriate administrator actions on the morning of April 19, including deleting the Main page and blocking Jimbo Wales and several bureaucrats, all without explanation. There is extensive discussion of his actions on WP:ANI. See also this checkuser case, finding no overt evidence that his account was compromised.

When it became apparent that there was a serious problem, someone flagged down a Steward, who desysopped Robdurbar on an emergency basis. This was very much the necessary and appropriate action. However, as a formal matter, involuntary desysoppings on En-Wiki are decided only by the Arbitration Committee.

This is a pro forma case intended as a vehicle for the Arbitration Committee to confirm this desysopping. In lieu of opening a formal case, if no explanation is received from Robdurbar, I propose that arbitrators confirm that they have consulted and decided that "Robdurbar is desysopped. He may not reapply without permission of the Arbitration Committee." Newyorkbrad 22:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to comments below, while a hijacked account still remains a possibility, in spite of the checkuser comment, it was pointed out on ANI that besides blocking admins who tried to stop what he was doing, some of the accounts Robdurar blocked belonged to editors he'd had disputes with in the past, suggesting to some people who had interacted with him before (I have not) it really was probably him. :( Of course, if Robdurbar shows up a few days or weeks from now and post a shocked "yikes, that wasn't me," the situation can be reevaluated (indeed, a motion in this case will provide a location for the reevaluation to take place in). From everything I've read, this is believed to have been Robdurbar, but not a "mental illness" situation. Rather, the best theory I've seen for what happened is that Robdurbar decided to retire last month because he was finding editing too addictive or time-consuming (see his goodbye comments from early March), felt himself being drawn back (there were one or two good-faith edits just before the rampage started), and wanted to make sure he wouldn't be tempted to resume editing or adminning, at least not under this account, for quite awhile. Unfortunately, he has succeeded, although I hope this method of Wikibreak enforcement does not become common in the future. Newyorkbrad 16:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tony Sidaway

Seems like a reasonable step, though possibly over-cautious. I don't think Robdurbar would have much luck finding a bureaucrat to give him back the bit.

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

In this case I do believe arbitration is the right step. Not only to confirm the desysopping, but also to decide on whether Robdurbar could be considered for future resysopping, and also to determine his future editing priviliges. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Messedrocker

Is arbitration really needed? The guy went batshit insane, and desysopping was a preventative measure to prevent him from doing more. As soon as he explains himself, he can be unblocked and restored. Until then, no adminship or editing privileges. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 02:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Samuel Blanning

Judging by the attack on Bogdanov Affair involving hijacked accounts a couple of months ago, it isn't that hard to find an account to hijack (or three), and such an account having sysop status is just bad luck (and possibly the admin using an obvious password, but I can only guess about that). With the number of accounts I had to block in February that probably belonged to innocent contributors, I'm inclined to give Rob the same benefit of the doubt, as opposed to assuming he was mentally ill. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After being given some more details on my talk page I no longer believe my initial assumption - much as I want to. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Belated) Comment by Cas Liber

I'd have to wonder about mental illness (I work in the area), seems weird that someone would not get involved for 6 weeks and then go off like that. The lack of an antecedent dispute that I can see, the presumed age and the time to deterioration are all suggestive of some form of manic episode of bipolar disorder. These things are mostly cyclical. Hopefully the door is left open and some dialogue or explanation will come out of all this. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 00:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tdxiang

Just a case of a haacker attack, not a deliberate abuse of sysop tools. Do you really think this requires an Rfar? :( Perhaps emailing Robdurbar himself (directly) would be better. Spare him the confusion of this situation which he, I suppose did not want to happen at all.--Tdxiang (Talk) 03:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Although the usual number of acceptances to open a case is 4, since this is essentially a decision to confirm desysopping, I'd like to wait for at least 7 confirmations (a majority of active arbitrators). Thatcher131 15:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/6)

John Smith's and Giovanni33

Initiated by Deskana (fry that thing!) at 22:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • I attempted my own form of dispute resolution, detailed at Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story#Let's try something. I would only have implimented this had every party in the article agreed, as attempting to enforce an agreed version when they didn't agree to the decision process would have been a very bad idea. John Smith's agreed to the mediation, but Giovanni33 has so far not said either way, but said he is tempted to reject it on principle, though he appreciates the effort at dispute resolution.
  • I do not believe an RfC or formal mediation request will lead to any results between the two, thus my request.

Statement by Deskana

Both John Smith's and Giovanni33 have been disagreeing with each other on a lot of articles, including, but not limited to, Mao: The Unknown Story, Theory of everything and The War Against the Jews. Both users blame each other for the arguments [116] [117]. They have also both had requests for checkuser filed against them (see this and this) because both accused each other of using sockpuppets, although it is worthwhile noting that both accusations were backed with evidence on the RFCU pages. Giovanni33 has used sockpuppets abusively in the past. Both users (and others) have discussed an issue regarding Mao: The Unknown Story at great depth at Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story#All change without any sense of a final decision being made. The discussion (including comments by other users) now totals at 9479 words including signatures and timestamps. I believe there is very little chance that the users will ever agree on anything at all, and the constant accusations and off-topic remarks about each other. Both have violated 3RR before, and been blocked for it [118] [119]. I am attempting this RfAr not only to attempt to see some resolution of the conflict between them, but also to seek guidance on their history of edit warring across multiple articles, even when neither of them are involved. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 22:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ElC

At a glance, it dosen't appear that Deskana is being even-handed in this case. I voiced similar concerns when John Smith was reported for 3RR and Deskana did not impose a block and instead opted to protect the page on his version. I'm open for corrections, but it does not appear the full lengths of dispute resolution were attempted, and, as such, I provisionally recommend that the Committee decline these content disputes. El_C 22:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not claim Deskana is partisan, and any lack of even-handedness may well be inadvartant (I have no reason to believe otherwise). In my email response to John Smith, I requested he submit an accounts on my talk page (with diffs), but he argued against it. So I let it go. El_C 23:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Smith's

I think it is unfair for El C to make allegations about Deskana being partisan. If you look at the Mao: The Unknown Story page it was locked to the version that Giovanni supported - and Deskana overruled another admin to make it into a permanent lock until the matter was resolved. So in all fairness he has shown complete impartiality when it has come to locking the page.

If anything, I do not believe El C is being even-handed. I e-mailed him about your block even though Deskana had lifted it (because he had responded to the 3RR report first). He flatly refused to discuss the matter privately with me - why was that? There is no requirement I make all correspondance public. Also all the other admins who contributed to the discussion on the lifting of my block concurred that they should be used to prevent edit-warring and as the page was locked it was not necessary. So I think he's being rather unfair in alleging Deskana has done anything wrong/acted incorrectly.

As to dispute-resolution, I cannot see how non-binding methods will resolve anything. It would, unfortunately, just be a waste of time. Giovanni and I have tried talking things over - third-parties have also got involved but to no avail. Getting more third-parties involved would be just as pointless. So, as incredible as it seems, I think abritration is required. John Smith's 22:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I do not wish to tell anyone how to suck eggs, I would like to point out that according to WP:DR we have actually tried the previous recommended steps. Under step 4 we had third-party involvement (it doesn't have to be Rfc) and mediation by Deskana was rejected by Giovanni. So WP:DR has been followed. John Smith's 23:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Charles Matthews. How is getting more admins involved going to change anything if they have no ability to impose a resolution? John Smith's 17:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Giovanni33

Without touching upon the nature of the content disputes, or making any accucastions, my position regarding this proposed case and the proposed arbitration offered by Deskana on the talk page to resolve it, echo's El C's statement above. Although I appreciate the efforts of Deskana to attempt to resolve the impasse, binding arbitration is still premature. As I previously commented on the page, arbitration would be the step to seek only after mediation and/or a Rfc was tried and failed. See my comments on this here:[120] These have not been tried yet, and I am in favor of them. I think the dispute resolution process should work, and should be followed, without taking these short cuts in the name of expediency, however tempting. If it comes to this in due course, then I welcome it as a resolution, even if it has to be unfortuanately, forced. Also, when and if it comes to this we will have a lot more evidence to get a clear picture of the nature of the disputes having gone through the other formal steps.Giovanni33 23:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HongQiGong

As I have been actively involved in one of the disputes between Giovanni and John Smith's, I think I am obligated to comment. At some point during the past few weeks I was requested by Giovanni to join the dispute at Mao: The Unknown Story. I agree with Giovanni's edit and disagree with John Smith's, and I have given my reasons in the Talk page. After much edit warring (and I fully admit that I participated), the article is now in permanent protection until the dispute has been resolved. Please note that in the defense of everybody involved in that article, the dispute has become a very black-and-white disagreement (whether or not to make mention of a certain academic according to a source provided) and so there's not much room for compromise.

Now I have been aware ever since I became involved in that dispute that John Smith's and Giovanni are also disputing on Cultural Revolution. But I found out recently that they are also disputing on, as far as I am personally aware, Jung Chang, Theory of everything, and The War Against the Jews. That would make 5 articles, and I don't know if there are more. At this point I don't know if this is still just a content dispute. As I have said, I agree with Giovanni's edit on Mao: The Unknown Story, and I have given my reasons in the Talk page. But at this point, I can't vouch for Giovanni that he's in the dispute for good faith reasons. Of course, the same goes for John Smith's as well.

I don't know how long the two editors have been disputing with each other, if it was before I became involved in the one particular article. But please note that Giovanni has accused John Smith's of wikistalking him. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New comment

Ok, is it just me? Or is the back-and-forth comments between the two editors becoming a bit disruptive? Most of what they're saying doesn't even seem to concern how to edit the articles anymore, but seems to be more about each other. Just my personal observation though. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Xmas1973

Having joined the debate just as it was taking off, I feel equally entitled as HongQiGong to comment on this matter as a third party. Throughout, without being partisan but merely swayed by logic and what I see as the rightful realm of comment by Wikipedia, I have agreed with John Smith's in the edit war on the matter of the Chang and Halliday book. (I have not been involved in the other pages, except some limited discussion on Talk:Jung Chang.) Non-binding resolutions have been strenuously attempted, only to be rejected by Giovanni33 (on a matter of principle, as noted above). A binding resolution therefore seems the only way forward. As HongQiGong has suggested, there is no room for a third way.

Deskana has added utterly properly from my perspective. He has been impartial and fair, and whilst it explicitly does not amount to endorsement of the current page, the protected version favours Giovanni33, so such claims are apparently rootless.

Just to refer to one earlier item, Giovanni33 is a proven sock puppeteer. No such action can be ascribed to John Smith's. It was at one point suggested that he and I were the same person. I can say quite definitively that that is not the case. I cannot comment on the other pages in the alleged personal war - as opposed to content objections - but I do know that where cause has arisen I have agreed in principle and on the facts with John Smith's. Xmas1973 10:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Ngo Dinh Diem

Initiated by --VnTruth at 16:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

I have left messages regarding my arbitration request on both of the other parties' talk pages.[121].[122]
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
I have discussed the matter extensively with Blnguyen and suggested mediation, all to no avail.[123]

Statement by VnTruth

This dispute involves disagreements regarding the portion of the article, titled "Government treatment of Buddhists," regarding Diem's treatment of South Vietnamese Buddhists. The article contains language, much of which has been added by Blnguyen, stating that Diem discriminated in favor of Catholics against Buddhists, who constituted the vast majority of South Vietnam's population. I have added an additional paragraph reiterating the views of several historians that Diem treated Buddhists well, and that Buddhists constituted no more than a large majority of the population. Blnguyen has regularly deleted my edits,[124][125][126][127][128][129][130] to the point that the page was recently locked by another user.[131] Sarvagnya has recently delted my edits as well.[132]

They contend that my edits violate Wikipedia's rule against publicizing fringe opinions.[133](edit summary). In fact, if you review my most recent edit to the article (under "history"), you will see that I have provided more citations in support of my edits than Blnguyen has in support of his.[134] Moreover, one of my sources, Triumph Forsaken, was published by the prestigious Cambridge University Press, and has received praise from such respected persons as Senator (and Vietnam War hero) James Webb and historian Max Boot, both of whom, as you can see, are written up in Wikipedia. The author, Dr. Mark Moyar, graduated summa cum laude at Harvard and earned his Ph.D at Cambridge University in England. He has already written a well-received history of one aspect of the Vietnam War, the Phoenix program. Another source, Our Vietnam Nightmare, was written by Marguerite Higgins, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist also written up in Wikipedia.

Blnguyen's claim that Buddhists constituted 70%-90% of South Vietnam's population was particularly weak. His citations consisted of: Dr. Moyar, who actually says that such claims were made in 1963, but were false; an internet article that says only--in passing and without citation--that Buddhists constituted a majority of the population; and a book by Marvin Gettleman that is 40 years old and so obscure that it lacks a Wikipedia identifying number.[135] The more recent historians do not even claim that Buddhists constituted a majority of the population, much less 70%-90%. For example, Stanley Karnow and Neil Sheehan,widely read and anti-Diem to the core, do not make this claim.

Nonetheless, I am not asking for deletion of Blnguyen's portion (except for his inaccurate citation of Dr. Moyar), but just that all parties be prohibited from deleting my edits.

Supplemental Statement by VnTruth 19:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Since I submitted my request, my edits have been reverted twice by Blnguyen and three times by an administrator with the user name Nishkid64.[136] I will fill in the revert links later. The page is also locked to prevent editing.--VnTruth 19:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Blnguyen

Firstly, I would like to point out that this is a content dispute. Since VnTruth last posted about content issues at User_talk:Blnguyen#Ngo_Dinh_Diem on April 8, I have replied below it and also at Talk:Ngo Dinh Diem multiple times, and more than half a dozen established contributors have voiced their opinions about the content. Since VnTruth's return from a short break, he has reverted seven further times without discussing.

Another point is his username and editing only of the Ngo Dinh Diem page. In Vietnamese language, Vietnam is spelt as Việt Nam, and is commonly abbreviated as VN. I feel that VnTruth's username is symptomatic of the fact that he feels that Wikipedia is a forum for rewriting history or correcting historical mistakes, and this is affecting his editing. He uses a book by Mark Moyar called "Triumph Forsaken", who in his preface notes that he is a revisionist historian, stating


Moyar proudly presents himself as a revisionist, and so do the reviews of his work.eg, "A full-blooded member of what he calls the "revisionist school" of Vietnam War historians, Moyar firmly believes that America's longest and most controversial overseas war was "a worthy but improperly executed enterprise." [137]. In the book. In the book Moyar notes himself that the Pulitzer Prize winners David Halberstam, Stanley Karnow and Neil Sheehan are regarded as the authorities by the academic community. Moyar then spends a lot of the book trying to overturn established historical details such as the existence of shootings, etc and attacking other historians (book review:"disparaging those he disagrees with (calling Sheehan and Halberstam, for example, "indignant," "vengeful," and "self-righteous")"), and trying to establish "counter-fact". This has lead to concerns raised about the usability of this book for "counter-fact" and the disproportionate amount of space given to these, but VnTruth has not responded to these.

User:VnTruth is using his userpage as a workspace for the Diem page. His ideal preferred version almost entirely consists of counter-fact, importing large swathes of revisionist opinion as fact. "Diệm established an authoritarian regime, because he did not believe his backward country was ready for a Western-style democracy. He established a nepotistic regime, because of the lack of loyal, qualified leaders available in South Vietnam at the time." It also contained large tracts of Moyar's attack commentary trying to discredit other historians.

I think it is clear that VnTruth is a very strong supporter of Moyar, and is trying and pushing very hard to put him into the limelight in a disproportionate manner on the article, as is being discussed on the talk page. Wikipedia is supposed to be about "verifiability not truth". VnTruth feels that Moyar is the truth and the academic consensus is wrong, but until Moyar's discredits the others and establishes the "counter-fact", we have to go by the established "facts" about historical events, and include evaluations where appropriate. So this is a content dispute. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bakasuprman

I edited Ngo Dinh Diem as well, and note that this is a content dispute. There is no issue here as both vntruth and blnguyen have been civil and worked under the framework of WP guidelines.Bakaman 17:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Daniel.Bryant

Content dispute? I think it is. Daniel Bryant 00:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by PullToOpen

It seems that the parties are working together amicably on the talk page. Arbitration is not needed. // PTO 00:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Requests for clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process. Place new requests at the top.

Requests for clarification with regard to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Billy_Ego-Sandstein

  1. Category:Fascist Wikipedians has been recreated. This category was mentioned in the finding of fact but there appears to be no remedy requiring it's deletion. Should I delete and salt it? It's gone. --kingboyk 10:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Billy Ego has edited his talk page since the ban, and it is now protected. However, User:Billy Ego appears to remain unprotected. I propose protection but wish to check with ArbCom first. --kingboyk 16:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. A lot of the users don't make sense to be on the sockpuppet list, so I am asking for where the IP logs as evidence for this are and if I can see them. After looking at the banned users list, a lot of these have had very differing opinions and I've ended up arguing against. Especially User: Instantiayion, with whom I had to compromise on the Planned Economy article with (actually, that running debate was about to be solved until he got banned), Anarcho-capitalism here whos position (as much as I can tell ideologically) does not line up with either User: Instantiayion nor User: Billy Ego. I find it hard to believe that even if it were true, that one person would be able to so accurately portray so many personalities and ideologies. This just doesn't seem to line up at all. Fephisto 17:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding #2 - why protect it? Is it being vandalized? Regarding #3, no, you don't get to see the IP logs; they're confidential -- see m:CheckUser policy. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for clarification with regard to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy

I've looked over the case of children's privacy protection, and I feel that there is several ambiguities I'd like to ask for clarification:

  • "When a user self-identifies as a child, especially if they provide personal information, the matter is frequently a subject of discussion among administrators"

What is the definition of a "child" on Wikipedia? Is a seventeen-year-old high school student a child? Where is the precise age to define a "child"?

  • "users who self-identify as children, project a sexually tinged persona, and disclose personal information such as links to sites devoted to social interaction are engaging in disruptive behavior and may be banned."

What is the specific meaning of "sexually tinged persona"? And If a teenage editor post the URL of his blog on Wikipedia that has his real name on it, does it constitute disclosure of personal information?

I hope the ArbCom will give the answers to those points. Regards. WooyiTalk, Editor review 22:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Requests for clarification with regard to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO

Discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Request_for_clarification_on_linking_to_attack_sites due to length

Requests for clarification with regard to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan

Clarification regarding block parole

I’ve got a question with regard to Armenia – Azerbaijan arbcom case. The final decision says: After 5 blocks the maximum block period shall increase to one year.

However many parties to this case have already been blocked during the arbcom case. Do those blocks count as a parole violation or the count starts from 0, as this new section implies: [138] ? This was discussed here: [139], however I believe that we need to make this perfectly clear for everyone to avoid conflicts with regard to interpretation of this decision. Thanks in advance. Regards, Grandmaster 17:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a clarification might be helpful here. During voting on the proposed decision, arbitrator FloNight stated in voting for several revert paroles that she was doing so "[w]ith the reminder that blocks during the case count toward the duration of future blocks." Other arbitrators did not comment on this issue. Absent instructions to the contrary I believe admins enforcing the decision would follow FloNight's interpretation but it is appropriate that the ruling be clear.
Another question that occurs to me is whether the revert paroles apply to articles that the subject editors might edit on any subject, or only to articles relating in some fashion to Armenia and/or Azerbaijan. As written, the parole applies to all articles and I take it this is intended. Newyorkbrad 17:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification regarding Artaxiad and his armada of sockpuppets

User has created two waves of sockpuppets so far using oppen proxies. User is still causing major disuption and due to our privacy policy dealing with it is becoming increasingly difficult. User said "one year is too long same thing as a indef, so I see no point in waiting it out so I will do what I have to do". He currently as 17 known sockpuppets

I was wondering what kind of an additional action would arbcom consider.

-- Cat chi? 03:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

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


Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=125224894"