Revision as of 15:47, 12 June 2011

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

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Requests for arbitration

Political activism

Initiated by — Coren  at 14:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Coren (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Given the large number of peripherally involved editors and administrators, it is probably unwise to make them all involved at this stage. I will notify the two principal venues of the dispute instead.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• The dispute has spread to multiple venues with no end in sight, and RFCs fail to reach anything resembling consensus. Amongst other, the dispute can be viewed on Talk:Santorum (neologism), User talk:Jimbo Wales, Template talk:Sexual slang.

Statement by Coren

We have, I think, a novel problem.

Misplaced Pages is being willfully used as a weapon for political activism against a specific person: there is a concerted effort to manipulate and misuse our policies into giving exposition to a political campaign against an American politician.

There is a campaign by Dan Savage to associate the name of former US Senator Rick Santorum with an unpleasant scatological and sexual meaning. That campaign, and the word "santorum", have indeed received sufficient press coverage that an article on the attack is most certainly justified (albeit the dispute has spread to the naming of that article to give heightened prominence to "santorum" as an insult.

The problem is that many recent editorial acts made by Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and a number of supporters have obviously been designed to support the campaign to attack the reputation of a living person by promoting the use of the pejorative. By promoting Savage himself, adding the attack word to a number of templates in order to increase its visibility all over the course of six days. Add to that the large number of attempts to promote that walled garden to the Main page (GA submission, numerous DYK hooks), and it's self-evident that the objective is the attack on Santorum.

The latter misuse of templates to promote a BLP violation by pretending that the attack is part of genuine sexual slang in any community in particular is so egregious and vicious that I intervened personally to remove it. I was immediately edit warred over the removal and things would have likely escalated without DeltaQuad's protection of both surviving templates.

I'm looking for the Committee here to intervene and declare clearly that BLP overrides local consensus on those templates before protection runs out and things go boom again. Misplaced Pages must not be allowed to become a weapon in the hands of political activists, no matter how savvy they are about our rules.

As a disclosure: I did not know of Santorum's existence before that particular dispute broke out here. I am not an Amercian, but my political leanings would place me as far away from Santorum's politics as possible, if I were.

No opposition to Cirt not being officially involved

While I believe that Cirt has been the precipitating editor, I've no objection, of course, to his not being a specifically named party given his family situation.

Besides, I believe that the issue can be decided without any particular editor being named given that it is mostly about policy interpretation than behavioral issues.

Statement by User:JoshuaZ

I don't think this is ripe for arbitration at this time. This is primarily a content dispute. There's a fair bit of nuance in this situation. For example, I'm an editor who is in favor of retaining the Santorum (neologism) article, but support removing it from the sexual slang template. In that context, I think that Coren is demonstrating an assumption of pretty bad faith in his claims about Cirt and other editors. The basic fact is that Cit frequently produces a large number of articles of extremeley high quality about a narrow subject. It also isn't at all clear that his claim about trying to get things on the main page makes any sense, given that the DYKs in question about about Dan Savage, and don't mention Santorum or santorum. (Incidentally, the claim that those articles constitutes a walled garden is also wrong in so far as they all have many incoming links and are all clearly reliably sourced.) Moreover, it isn't at all clear how inclusion of the term on the template constitutes a BLP problem. Is it making a libelous comment about Rick Santorum? No. Is it making any claim about him? No. So what is it doing other than including a term? The only actual BLP issues are those directly on and Santorum (neologism) and they are getting resolved with reasoned discussion, and are essentially content issues. There's no issue here that the ArbCom needs to intervene in at this time. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Cirt

Personal life issues

• One close family member had major surgery in the hospital in the last week.
• A 2nd close family member then also had to have urgent major surgery in the hospital, also last week.
• I am helping both with recovery at this time, and helping other family members deal with that.
• As you can imagine, this is an incredibly difficult time for my family.
• As of one week ago I had removed myself from any further edits (still ongoing) discussions regarding "Santorum (neologism)", the WP:RFC and its

associated WP:Dispute resolution processes, which are still ongoing with 100 other editors participating.

• I respectfully request the Arbitration Committee not to have me as a party to this case.

Summary of my disengagement from "Santorum (neologism)" and from DYK submissions

1. My last comment to the talk page of the "Santorum (neologism)" article was on 4 June 2011, to say that I will not be editing it or watching it anymore: diff.
2. I also have stopped watching templates {{Sexual slang}} and {{Political neologisms}}.
3. I changed my comment at a deletion discussion for the latter template, requesting it be deleted diff.
4. I commented on the now deleted template's talk page, requesting the term in question be removed from the template diff, I then actually did remove it myself diff.
5. I removed all of my DYK self noms from consideration at DYK diff
6. I stated that I will no longer be watching or nominating to DYK in the future diff
7. I requested that another nom already in the DYK queue be removed from consideration diff
8. I removed my DYK self noms a 2nd time diff
9. I posted to WT:DYK, requesting that all of my DYK self noms that I had just removed, not be considered as candidates, diff
10. The "Santorum (neologism)" issue is currently still undergoing the WP:RFC part of the WP:Dispute resolution process. Over 100 editors have contributed to it (Talk:Santorum_(neologism)#Proposal_to_rename.2C_redirect.2C_and_merge_content). There have been over one thousand edits to the talk page at Talk:Santorum (neologism) since I last edited it, when I said I was no longer going to be contributing to that page — here is a diff of all that has gone on at the article's talk page since I stopped contributing to it over a week ago diff.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom please see statement by Coren

• ArbCom, please see this statement by Coren diff. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by {Party 3}

Clerk notes

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

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

• Accept This is an intriguing question: Does Misplaced Pages bow to or turn a blind eye to external manipulation of reliable sources by partisans in order to meet our inclusion guidelines? Does the fact that the target is a living person make a difference? Does the fact that this particular living person is a controversial politician make a difference? While I agree that this is a content dispute, the fact that it involves BLP in a grey area means it is appropriate for the committee to set how we are to implement the foundation's directives on the matter. Jclemens (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

International Space Station

Initiated by Penyulap _talk at 02:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Involved parties

• penyulap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Ckatz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• username3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• username4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Ckatz&action=history
• Diff. 2

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AInternational_Space_Station&action=historysubmit&diff=432207944&oldid=432203165
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AInternational_Space_Station&action=historysubmit&diff=432040276&oldid=432036083

Statement by Penyulap

There are aspects of this request beyond the scope of a public request for arbitration.

I've been editing the International Space Station (ISS) page for the last few months, mostly adding a lot of new material and sections, cleaning and reorganizing material already there, my work has on the whole been accepted, with of course some objections and concerns which I have been very agreeable about. My spelling is lackluster, and I'm emotional on the subject, which manifests as motivation and new material, rather than any significant behavior inconsistent with policy. Some of my requests for material to be released into the public domain for inclusion on wiki has been successful too.

An administrator who edits the article occasionally and only by deletion and reversion on the whole, Ckatz, has has been expressing subjective opinion unhelpfully using the edit summary instead of the talkpage, despite repeated invitations and requests by myself for him to use the talkpage to outline his concerns.

I have pointed out to him that his behavior, not engaging in conversation in a constructive manner, is unhelpful and demoralizing. He has not responded to this, but has continued to make continued editing impossible for me.

After exhausting all attempts I can manage to rectify the problem I have found myself contributing to projects outside the Misplaced Pages project. I didn't find it as rewarding and now find all my time spent reading endless pages trying to work out how to ask for help in a manner consistent with wiki policy, and I must say I don't, personally, find this to be enjoyable work. I'd rather be editing or finding something else to do altogether. (right now pausing to count words to 500, my ubuntu editor doesn't count automatically) As best I can see with a lot of research it is appropriate for me to request arbitration, with the qualification first mentioned.

Anyhow, for example, a recent draft left on the talk-page for more than a week received suggestions from many editors, which were all taken into account (I concede on all issues as there is simply too much else for me to do). The administrator waited until just after the draft was implemented to make major changes. His general actions and comments appear deliberately inflammatory to the situation.

The article's main contributor of 5 years and 1050 edits, who I have great respect for, invited me to join WikiProject Spaceflight a short time after I began editing this year, 95% of my editing is the ISS page, the rest is connected to it really. I've done 250 edits in the three months since then, with widespread acceptance. Yes, I know it is a feature article, however I treat all articles with respect (except robonaut, even the ISS crew use him for fun) and I do not consider FA to be a destination, there is a lot of work still to be done. After I stopped editing, another editor or editors have marked my unfinished new sections as needing expansion. I agree with them. But I agree with everyone on the whole really. But continued work expanding and updating the article is untenable.

The admin in question, Ckatz, has made about 60 edits, the ones i can see are all by deletion and reverting, with one date edited for format about 3 months ago. I didn't go back to other years. The workload of anti-vandalism for this page is well handled by many editors.

I request to be contacted.

Thank you.

I've confirmed my email address.

I have no real skill in presenting these sort of appeals for help, the links to resolving the issue would simply be the talk-page for the article. I understand that the process has to be rather formal and technical, both for fairness and to reduce workload, but consider how disproportionate the tiny effort this bloke has to put in to wreck things, and what a bloody hard effort it is for me to try to fix it. I want to GIVE UP AND FIND SOMETHING ELSE TO DO He is using the mouse. I'm the one using my keyboard.

(added later)I'm guessing this link may be of use, it's the poll left open for more than a week, editors left comments, I discussed and even persuaded with the editors, but I conceded on every concern raised, wherever a single editor disagrees with me, I always concede defeat. Ckatz did not participate in the discussion at all, but uses the edit summary instead !!

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:International_Space_Station#Lead.2C_poll.2C_whats_good.2C_whats_not..3F

Ckatz uses the talkpage occasionally, but it seems mostly discussing editors, not content. He mentioned spelling and grammar, I agreed, he won't elaborate on anything else despite my wanting and inviting and imploring him to do so. No doubt he probably feels rubbed up the wrong way, like a copper who doesn't like you from the start, and goes to town writing out a gazillion tickets. I'm not exactly easy to take a liking to for some people. I'm so nice sometimes you just want to strangle me, and really, if possible I'd love to let him have the opportunity to do so, he could get it out of his system and we could move on . But I've tried to get past all that,. I want to work with people. Not have them hovering about sabotaging everyone's work. There is plenty of work for everyone to do on wikipedia, and if we can't work together, despite efforts to do so, we should work apart, but there's no point stating the obvious. You blokes know what your working towards, not me.

The core of the problem is Ckatz overturning consensus of multiple editors, reached on the talkpage. I agree it's not about content. Arbitration is no place to discuss material, my appeal to you is to have it recognized that the edit summary is no place to discuss content either.

Response to Ckatz comment, quoting this statement on my userpage:

Although there is an enormous amount of work to be done maintaining and updating the ISS article on an ongoing basis, and indeed, across all of Misplaced Pages Spaceflight Project, I've had difficulties coping with the poor behavior of another person, who should be setting a good example within the Misplaced Pages community, but refuses to use the ISS:Talkpage in a constructive manner. Such demoralizing behavior and lack of co-operation makes my work on the ISS page difficult. So I've shifted some of my efforts to open projects outside the Misplaced Pages community.

"If you throw a stone at a pack of dogs, the one who yelps is the one who got hit" - a wise friend of mine.

Thanks for putting you hand up saying that's you. The statement is clear for all to see as Non-specific, I couldn't be any less less specific. But if you want to make claims that you are that user, who is demoralizing and not co-operating and should be setting an example, then as always, I'll agree.

Note to the committee. Ckatz is one of THE most successful hijackers I have ever dealt with. He's Hijacked every attempt I have made at working together, and God(sorry Luke) he has no content to offer the article whatsoever. He just hijacks attempted discussion and flies off into the land of personal attacks. He is going to Hi-Jack this arbitration committee from the land of overturning consensus of 6 editors and fly it off to the same land of personal attacks. Don't let him into the cockpit. I implore you to look at what is good for the article, who has something to offer it, what is going to benefit the worldwide community as a whole ? I'm new, I'm rough, but I have a lot to offer. I would ask the committee to look at how much material I have added to the project in the last 3 months alone. Wiki is a big place, let the considerable experience of Ckatz be put to good use somewhere else. Win-win. Focus, don't get Hi-Jacked. Multiple editor consensus or the land of red pens and personal attacks.

I can't see this matter reaching any conclusion that benefits Misplaced Pages. The gap in understanding exists which cannot be crossed. On one side, I am unable to articulate my case competently in a system that is overwhelmingly technical for an inexperienced user. I am frustrated by the further workload required on top of the hours of study I have already spent studying the mediation and arbitration process in what I consider may be a fruitless effort. On the other side of the gap is a committee who I feel is intelligent enough to understand some of the simple problems I am facing, but is possibly constrained by the established processes and procedures that have been created, and therefore is unwilling or unable to visualize the problems I am facing, from my viewpoint. The gap itself is provided by a number of factors including a lack of assistance to inexperienced users, to level the 'playing field' between Ckatz who is familiar with the process, and a new user who is not. Other factors, which remain beyond the scope of a public appeal for arbitration prevent minorities of users from being capable of participating equally in the process for appeal. Many buildings have steps and are functional for most people as a result. Penyulap _talk 21:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

No contact has been made between the committee and the filing party to discuss matters beyond the scope of a public request for arbitration, despite stated willingness to do so. Penyulap _talk 18:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Ckatz

While I will certainly defer to the committee's judgement if they feel differently, I must say that I find this filing - and the associated claims listed above - to be highly questionable, and most certainly an unnecessary and excessive escalation of a matter that does not warrant it. Personally - and I'll note that this is my opinion as an individual editor, rather than as an administrator - I feel that Penyulap has completely over-reacted to a minor difference of opinion in content. I will try to refine this later today, but for mow I'll add a few thoughts:

• Penyulap claims that my comments are "demoralizing" and " deliberately inflammatory", yet he/she has made several claims against me that are (in my opinion) far more aggressive and unnecessary, such as claiming a "deliberate demoralizing behavior abusing reverts subjectively" on the article talk page. Thankfully, Penyulap has elected to self-revert that comment following my expression of concern over them.
• Penyulap has claimed that my edits were problematic; I'll list the associated summaries here for review:

  "Actually, Penyulap, your intentions are good but this is a better lead, even if changes are to be made.. Discuss and work from here."

  "Please, per WP:BRD - you made changes, two editors have now removed them. Please allow discussion to resolve this."

  "clean up, turn list into prose, reorder for clarity"

  "fix"

  "rework; no reason to promote one nation over the others here (belongs in related article). Russian statement also unclear as to what they are exactly responsible for."

  "2x caps fixes, per previous"

  "tweak; avoid future look per WP:CRYSTAL"

• Note also that Penyulap has chosen to make this post on his user page, and claim here that the disagreement "make continued editing impossible for me".

It is important to note that we are referring to edits related to the lead section of a featured article, and that my initial revert of his extensive changes was based in part on observing reactions from two other editors:

"Ye gods, what's happened to the lovely elegant lead we had?! The current lead is horrific!"

"Introduction must be rewritten, this is a featured article so everything must be good."

Note also that this disagreement did not dissuade Penyulap from making equally large-scale changes to the rest of the article. To summarize, I cannot help but feel blind-sided by this unwarranted escalation. I am prepared to assume good faith, and that Penyulap - as a newish editor - perhaps does not understand what they have done in bringing this to this level. However, I feel quite strongly that this is a rash and ill-conceived mishandling of the matter. --Ckatz_spy 18:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional comment With respect to Penyulap's comment above regarding consensus, it would be helpful if there was a link to the part of the page that outlines this supposed "consensus" regarding Penyulap's wording. From what I saw - both in reading the comments and in the reactions from other editors - no such consensus existed for the way in which Penyulap had written the material. I am willing to be proven wrong, however, but the comments I've referenced above would tend to support my assertion. --Ckatz_spy 20:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It is also important to note that we are not talking about an edit war; we are not talking about a nasty spat between two editors; we are not examining a nasty dispute. We are looking at a handful of edits in one section of a page, in the midst of dozens of other edits and wildly diverging opinions. I do not see any reason to single out these particular events, nor do I see anything that suggests a leap to this forum is even remotely necessary. --Ckatz_spy 20:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Based on the complainant's posts above, I feel that any further attempts to reply directly to their posts will unfortunately only aggravate the situation. Accordingly, I will no longer reply to their statements except as necessary to note incorrect statements. I would ask that any ArbComm members who may wish to question my role in this unfortunate matter please direct their posts to me either here, on my talk page, or by email. Thank you in advance. --Ckatz_spy 20:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by {Party 3}

Clerk notes

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

• I have left a note with the filing party about the missing information. AGK 17:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/7/0/1)

• Could you please identify the admin in question? John Vandenberg 02:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
• The arbitrators can't really respond to this request on the basis of the limited information available. If there is private information that needs to be supplied to the arbitrators, please e-mail us at the e-mail address provided at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee. From a brief skim of the article history and talkpage, I do not presently see an issue requiring arbitration, but I will remain open-minded pending further explanation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline per other decline comments below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
• Decline; this is a content dispute, and not ripe for arbitration. I'm certain that a generous dose of good faith and the early steps of dispute resolution will suffice to solve the matter. — Coren  18:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
• Decline. As I see it you're effectively requesting that Arbcom rules on the "right" wording for this article, and that's something we'll only do in very extreme circumstances. The allegations of unhelpfulness, deliberately inflammatory comments and so on, don't seem to have been addressed anywhere else first, and Arbcom should very much be the last resort. I appreciate your comment that "there are aspects of this request beyond the scope of a public request for arbitration", and obviously am willing to be persuaded if there really is an issue that can't reasonably be discussed on-wiki; forward the relevant material here. – iridescent 19:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
• Decline ArbCom rules on ConDUCT, not ConTENT. SirFozzie (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
• Decline Jclemens (talk) 03:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• Decline. Iri hits the nail on the head. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 14:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• Decline Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)