| Revision as of 21:54, 7 March 2018 view sourceMkdw (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators33,692 edits comment on delcine← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:58, 7 March 2018 view source L235 (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators27,344 edits →Copyvio and retaliation: removing request for arbitration; declined by the CommitteeTag: ReplacedNext edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| <noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}} | <noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}} | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=45%</noinclude>}} | {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=45%</noinclude>}} | ||
| == Copyvio and retaliation == | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 12:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Involved parties === | |||
| <!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator --> | |||
| *{{admin|Fram}}, ''filing party'' | |||
| *{{admin|Ritchie333}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Dr. Blofeld}} | |||
| ;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request | |||
| <!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. --> | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| ;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] and ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| === Statement by Fram === | |||
| On 1 March 2018 ] discovered a copyright problem with an old article creation by Dr. Blofeld. Some research by me and others revealed not only that this was indeed a copyvio, but also that it wasn't the only one. Considering that Dr. Blofeld is an extremely prolific editor and that CCIs and other copyright investigations often take a long time anyway, I started a ] discussion. | |||
| ====Analysis of Dr. Blofeld's actions==== | |||
| The first reply by Dr. Blofeld immediately contained rather blatant personal attacks: "I know Fram has some deep rooted insecurities, particularly with authority," and otherwise minimizing the problem completely (also in his second reply, ), although he expanded the potential problem articles considerably shortly thereafter. He then (as in his first reply] accused me of trying to get rid of his micro-stubs (thousands of mini-articles on villages), even though I had explicitly stated that these were probably allright in my first post. | |||
| But his next reply again is putting the problem completely in my campAnd when an anon and another user came to share grief stories about me, Dr. Blofeld decided to go a bit further yet and stated "Fram's playing with fire if he thinks I'm the type he can abuse like the others. Anything he gathers on me will be returned with interest, mark my words. Stop being a shithead Fram and move on and I'll do the same, you know you've been far from perfect too." | |||
| His replies at the AN discussion also are heavy on PAs and light on self-reflection or help on the issue at hand.. When called about this by others, he reacts rather vehemently again. | |||
| When that didn't work, he started reversing the table, looking for dirt on me. His next edits accuse me in various ways of "obviously machine translated text" and "Fram clearly didn't write that in his own words. I strongly suspect Fram did this sort of thing for a very long time.". | |||
| ====Analysis of Ritchie333's actions==== | |||
| His first action was to change the section header to "Potential ole copyright problems from Dr Blofeld" , as if the copyright violations were not well proven by then. He then again edits the discussion, again downplaying the issue considerably while at the same time having a dig at me. | |||
| They are not interested to research Dr. Blofeld's copyright violations or to even read the actual discussion which lead to the AN section, but they are more than happy to jump on a statement by Dr. Blofeld about an edit I made and provide us all with Earwig copyvio % counter: "87.3% likelihood of a violation". They later backtrack a bit and claim that that edit was just "The point here is thatchecking for these things is hard.". | |||
| The only result of such edits is poisoning the well, sidetracking the discussion, and giving the impression that the issues are not so clear and obvious as was claimed. None of his edits helped resolving this issue one bit, all they did was create more chaos and bad blood. | |||
| @Ritchie333: thanks, appreciated. ] (]) 21:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ====Introspection==== | |||
| Looking back at the last few days and the last few months, it is in retrospect obvious that I have crossed the boundary of being blunt but fair (which I usually was for the last ten years) to "being right and being a dick at the same time", as it was succinctly put. Not all the time, luckily, but a bit too often. Starting e.g. an AN discussion about the copyvio's had the best intentions (I really wanted to know how best to deal with this situation), but starting it with a sensationalist headline and so on was never going to help. Some others escalated the situation as well, but I didn't recognise my role in it and was way too fast to bring this here (a mistake I already made a few months earlier, I'm apparently a slow learner sometimes). | |||
| I obviously need to dial things back a few notches and rethink some of my approaches. I still think that my underlying motivations were right and my concerns about policy violations generally correct (and e.g. the recent blocks used in the ill-fated desysop attempt at ANI were well-deserved and dealt with in a perfectly normal and appropriate way), but the way I addressed some issues and people was over the top, unnecessarily unfriendly and unconstructive. I'll do my best to work on these things and to again become the "blunt but fair" admin (and editor) I usually was until relatively recently. ] (]) 16:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Ritchie333 === | |||
| Many other editors have covered the ground I wanted to. From my view, I was frustrated an ANI thread on serial copyvios had so few examples and got cross over it. I then disengaged from the conversation as it was clearly not being constructive. I see , and so I will apologise for mine as well. While I have also found Fram to be over-aggressive, I usually agree with what they say or at least see their point of view, and they are correct to say if there is a potentially large corpus of copyvios sitting on the encyclopedia, we need to investigate it. I don't believe this rises to the level of a case. ] ] ] 18:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Fram}} What you've just said is pretty much the optimum outcome from this. From my point of view, I have looked at some comments of mine over the past year and in retrospect found myself being blunt, cocky, annoyed or patronising. Nothing worth getting dragged over ANI for, but I still think I should set a good example and hoping others follow. In particular, and I can't emphasise this enough, it is ''never acceptable'' for an administrator to tell any other editor to (expletive) off - ever. I am not one to bear grudges or vendettas, and if I've yell at someone, it doesn't mean I'm going to put them on an enemy list. For example, I am particularly pleased I did some good work with Coffee in helping him get ] to GA status, and there are a couple of people who I have said "no chance" to passing RfA that I am beginning to change my mind over. ] ] ] 17:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Rschen7754}} I know we haven't always seen eye to eye on stuff, but from my perspective you've got better as an admin and I don't have an issue with anything you do these days - plus you were helpful in getting ] to A-class status, which is a pretty rare achievement on the project. ] ] ] 17:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Dr. Blofeld === | |||
| I'm astounded at the amount of ''time wasting'' this has caused. Incredibly unnecessary and I'm sure arb have better things to do. Had Fram simply acknowledged my retired notice, kindly informed me by email of the vio and asked me if I was aware of any similar vios or issues that might affect articles I've written I would have politely informed him and it could have been resolved quickly and amicably. Instead Fram saw that just ''one'' of my articles was a vio, then took me to ANI with a delibrately antagonizing header and tone inferring that every one of 96,000 articles was a vio and must be deleted "Our most prolific article creator is (or was) a copyright violator". Since Fram has met people who disagree with him and he's responded in a very and proceeded to angrily tell one editor "." and and bickered with numerous editors over a simple thing like the thread title when others tried to reduce the conflict. I stated on my talk page that there may be some issues with my very early work as with anybody's. Rather than move forward constructively Fram continued to try to argue a case against me for creating problematic articles in 2009 so I simply found examples of problems with his own work and pointing out that it is a very common issue. I don't answer to bullies and people who lack basic human empathy and social understanding and I really have better things to do with my time than this. Fram has a long history of chastising editors over their work and I'm of the opinion that he should be desysopped as soon as possible due to his naturally belligerent nature which seems incompatible with adminship. Any decent admin would have approached the situation and resolved it without trouble as I'm actually a pretty easy going person if I'm treated well and calmly.♦ ] 18:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Iridescent === | |||
| Speaking as someone who , Fram's conduct regarding this issue—and other recent disputes with which he's been involved—has been an atrocious mix of unnecessary overpersonalization, extreme defensiveness when challenged, lashing out at anyone he feels isn't sufficiently agreeing with him, and a general attitude that his opinions are invariably correct and it's his duty to bludgeon them through regardless of opposition. (If this case is accepted—or looks like it's going to be accepted—then I'll follow with as many diffs as you feel you need, although I assume you're all familiar with his history.) While there's obviously been a genuine issue with Dr. Blofeld's early edits which Fram has correctly identified, I strongly feel that if any case is accepted it also needs to examine Fram's conduct, as in my opinion his extreme aggressiveness has understandably alienated Dr. Blofeld and consequently made what would have been a relatively straightforward situation to resolve with Dr. Blofeld's cooperation ("When did you start doing this, when did you stop, where did you copy the material from?") into something that will generate a significant amount of unnecessary work. ‑ ] 13:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :@], would you care to provide some, like, evidence if you're going to tell lies about me? No, thought not. ‑ ] 17:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by SN54129=== | |||
| Regarding previous efforts at dispute resolution—specifically, the ANI—it's not entirely accurate to say it's "been attempted" (past participled), as, at this point in time, it's ; I can't really see an arbcom case being practically useful alongside a live discussion which might come to its own conclusions. ]]] 13:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *{{reply|FlyingAce}} Would you mind just double checking your diffs please—they don't seem to be linking to what you want them to (and at least one is to a completely different ANI thread!). Cheers, ]]] 19:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Jayron32 === | |||
| After looking over the discussion at AN, I'm not sure this is an ArbCom problem. There are two unrelated issues here, both of which can probably be worked out at the community level and don't need ArbCom involvement: | |||
| *Issue 1 is the personality conflict between the principals here. These are long-time editors, and if we can get them to stop sniping at each other and let clearer heads work out the other issues, we can go back to normal life. If they cannot, perhaps some sort of IBAN would be in order, but I don't think it will even come to that, if it does, the community can work that out. | |||
| *Issue 2 is the issue with the copyvio problems; admittedly this is a bit messy, but we've dealt with worse before, and come out OK. Most of these copyvio problems are at least 8+ years old, and the user involved is unlikely to remember the details; they have admitted to being fast-and-loose in their early days at Misplaced Pages, but as it's been at least 8 years, I don't see where any sanctions are necessary or useful at this point, they have learned and aren't doing it anymore. The rest is just messy copyvio clean-up, and we've dealt with that before. | |||
| As I said, I don't think either of these problems mandates ArbCom involvement yet; Issue #1 may at some time in the future, but the community hasn't even had a shot at it really yet. --]] 16:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by GRuban === | |||
| Our standards have greatly improved over the last 12 years. As have the standards of individual editors working here that long. Yes, we should clean up the mess, remove any existing instances of copyright violation. But we should not give in to hysteria: | |||
| * we should not personally attack either editors who made well intentioned mistakes 12 years ago, OR those who are now finding them, and just trying to fix those mistakes | |||
| * we do not need to delete all articles the good (evil?) Dr. has ever written that have been substantially rewritten by others | |||
| * and we do not need to go crazy, insisting that everything with a vague resemblance is a copyright violation. "She filed a paternity suit against Cary Grant, claiming that he was the father of her daughter." is NOT a copyright violation of "In 1970, Milosevic's ex-wife, Cynthia Bouron, alias Samantha Lou Bouron, brought a paternity suit against Cary Grant, saying that he was the father of her daughter Stephanie Andrea.". | |||
| * we should remember that we are all on the same side here, and two (or more) highly respected contributors do not need to fling fire and brimstone at each other, there is nothing to be gained from that. | |||
| I thank everyone who found the issue and is involved in the cleanup, it will be a task, partly due to the amazing volume of subsequent ''good'' work from the Dr. | |||
| But I refer the parties to the ruling in ]. Arbitrators, please decline. --] (]) 16:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by SoWhy === | |||
| I agree with Iridescent and Jayron32 that there is no reason for arbitration at this point. Iridescent correctly points out that the filing editor's approach to the issue is problematic itself. For example, when Ritchie333 mentioned that an article Fram mainly contributed to raised alerts in the copyvio tool and wrote "{{xt|(The point here is that since I haven't deleted the article per G12, it means I don't think there's a blatant and obvious copyvio here; '''rather that checking for these things is hard.''')}}" (emphasis added), Fram replied with and . When Ritchie tried to defuse the situation by removing the related posts, Fram . So while Dr. Blofeld and Ritchie could have been friendlier, Fram "helped" escalate the situation as well with his posts instead of focusing on the content problem at hand. As Jayron32 points out, the behavior has not reached a level where ArbCom intervention is necessary (and pointing to a warning as "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried" does not seem sufficient) and the content problems should be solved elsewhere anyway. I recommend declining the request with advice that all parties just keep away from each other for a while. Regards ]] 16:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by Vami_IV=== | |||
| Bias advisory: I was the third-place winner of Blofeld's WiR World Contest and received a sum of money from the WMF via Dr. Blofeld and completed two tasks on his behalf related to The 100,000 Challenge and the World Contest. | |||
| I will be blunt in saying that there is absolutely no need for this case. Dr. Blofeld has had his knife fights with Iridescent, Fram, and I assume others (but who doesn't have spats with others at one time or another), and lost. He has, I hope, taken his hatchet from the post and buried it with his sudden retirement (which, after conferment with other editors on talk pages and in IRC chat, may be finite in length). This case seems to me to be putting the shovel to the metaphorical grave when the adult thing to do would be live and let live, even if the owner of the bones beneath the mound called you mean things. –]] 17:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::<small>Moved from another section.</small>This kind of jumping to conclusions is why we're here in the first place. Your first piece of evidence is Blofeld calling you a "wanker" and that he didn't want to be around with "wankers" like you (real mature, Blofeld). What other assumption could I have come to than that he really didn't like you? It seems quite hypocritical to me that you have a .gif of Allied aircraft attacking grounded Luftwaffe planes captioned "the Arbitration Committee "assuming good faith" with editors"" when you will not do the same for someone you have never spoke to prior. –]] 17:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::Note: This was a reply to Iridescent. –]] 22:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by My name is not dave === | |||
| This case request should be declined . It appears to be a good faith attempt to deal with the spats on that page, but it is not like the AN thread has completely fallen on its feet, and discussion is ongoing about how to deal with these copyright issues in Dr. Blofeld's older articles. | |||
| Nonetheless, Fram's conduct has been substandard. The ability for him to get involved in silly aggravations results in three declined ArbCom case requests in the past six months which have put him as the party. Two of three (including this one) were filed by Fram. So far, there has not been an dispute resolution effort outside of ArbCom for this administrator, whether that's an ANI thread that ends in some kind of "telling off" (e.g. ]) or an informal reminder to consider how other editors are affected by Fram's behaviour. <s>So there is no case there either. We will have to wait and see for the latter.</s> ] 17:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC) Revised: After comments made below, I believe there is enough gravitas for a case on Fram, even if past community actions have not been attempted. The length of poor behaviour, especially recently, is good enough for me. It is up to the Committee to state whether they would support a case about Fram in its current form, or if someone would have to file a new one. ] 20:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| {{ping|Rschen7754}} I would actually support such case but I would predict that it would get declined due to lack of past dispute resolution. ] 20:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Collect === | |||
| There is an old problem on Misplaced Pages called "plagiarism". This is not specific to a single editor who has been a prolific, albeit irascible, contributor. | |||
| Thus any case should deal with the ''actual problem'' - and the fact that some editors with massive CCI cases remain on Misplaced Pages. I am not referring to "single sentences" but those who kidnapped sources ''and did not even cite those sources after the kidnapping.'' | |||
| Thus I would suggest the case seek to provide a ''consistent treatment'' of those who "carefully plagiarize and hide the source" and determine if any particular person falls into that category, while also providing that those who have had ''extensive documented major plagiarism violations'' be added as a group ("Editors 1 through 50", say). | |||
| This would then be a basis for examining CCI cases dealing with a number of current editors, and not just this single case. There is a possibility that removing such editors from the project would be beneficial to Misplaced Pages in the long run. ] (]) 17:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Montanabw === | |||
| ArbCom should decline this case. Ritchie333 has always been a congenial editor and one whom I respect. If he got snippy, it was no doubt the result of frustration, and the target needs to take a serious look at themselves. I also have edited with Blofeld on a number of occasions, notably on the ] FAC as well as other, smaller projects, and have found him to be concerned about quality, careful in his research, and in short, his contributions to Misplaced Pages have been substantial and worth respect. I have been able to work with him even when we have had disagreements. We all know that Blofeld can sometimes be a bit temperamental on occasion, but he cools down when the focus shifts to content. I concur that 10 years ago, Misplaced Pages had fewer review tools to catch issues of close paraphrasing; an example of close paraphrasing from way back is simply a minor problem to be fixed, not a matter for a massive CCI or an ArbCom case. In contrast to Ritchie333 and Blofeld, I have found Fram to be a more confrontational personality who does not collaborate particularly well. On a number of occasions I have observed that Fram has a difficult time not engaging in personal attacks, in short,behaving precisely as we are seeing here. Arbcom needs to decline and suggest that Fram cease making this about personalities and take any legitimate content disputes to appropriate resolutions, including, if needed, requesting revdel of old content that is not in line with current standards. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by FlyingAce === | |||
| The copyright issues certainly need to be looked at. However, statements (not just from Fram, mind you) such as {{tq|I'm glad you're out of here, I guess it is too much to hope that you mean a permanent retirement?}} (]), {{tq|If you aren't prepared to help in that way, just follow your "retirement" exit strategy and go the fuck away.}} (]) , or {{tq|I couldn't give a flying fuck about how I come across.}} (]), are generating more heat than light – no wonder Dr. Blofeld got "snippy" (again, ] the AN thread). Just saying. –]<sup>]</sup> 19:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *{{ping|Serial Number 54129}} D'oh! I linked to the previous diffs instead of the ones I meant to link. They have been fixed now. Thanks for pointing it out! –]<sup>]</sup> 20:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Aiken drum === | |||
| Dr. Blofeld is a long-term, highly productive editor, who I first came across years ago on an AfD about a road, where he turned the article around that I had nominated. I was impressed then and still am in awe of his dedication. He has made mistakes in his early edits, but the way Fram has gone about this, as numerous people have pointed out, is more like a police officer placing someone under arrest and reading out charges, rather than speaking to Blofeld in a manner more suited to a colleague. If this was a current issue, and no evidence has been given to suggest it is, people would be more concerned. As it is, the vios are years old, and the correct approach should have been collaborative, which it wasn’t. Fram responded with comments like “I couldn’t give a flying fuck how I come across”, when his approach was questioned. To be honest, I can’t see what Fram wants ArbCom to do; nothing in his statement seems to suggest what he wants the solution to be, and as others have pointed out, the discussion is ongoing, with several helpful people offering to spot check old edits. I’d urge them to reject this and let the community sort out the issue at hand. ''']''' 19:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC) P.S. Ritchie333 said some angry things, but I think this is a case of pot calling kettle black... ''']''' 19:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Rschen7754 === | |||
| There have been numerous complaints about Fram’s approach to dispute resolution (especially in tech-related matters) and to adminship (for example, this declined ArbCom case request just a month ago: and the Wikidata request .) I do not think that it is premature to consider an ArbCom case examining their battleground conduct (as unbecoming of an administrator), though I suspect I may be an outlier here. | |||
| I cannot say that I am a fan of Ritchie333’s approach to adminship either, but I do not believe that it reaches the same level of concern. --''']]]''' 20:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|My name is not dave}} ArbCom is the only group that can review the administrator status of a user. It's a bit more difficult to have this sort of meaningful dispute resolution nowadays (such as informal admonishing from the community), with RFC/U gone. --''']]]''' 01:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by GreenMeansGo === | |||
| I guess I'm involved in this, since I'm one of the folks on Fram by, I guess... egregiously quoting . I can certainly see how calling someone a can be construed as a personal attack, although as far as I'm aware, truth is still a valid defense against defamation, and I suppose then we may need some finding of fact as to whether the accusation is supported by the available evidence? I'm fine with that. I suspect it may be a productive use of our time to explore the issue, and I've already publicly stated . | |||
| I suppose it's possible that at some critical threshold of acting like a jerk (if such a finding of fact was made), a person may reach a point where they begin to become less effective as an administrator, because discussions about legitimate problems may tend to get sidetracked into discussions about whether they have a sustained history of failing to... for instance... lead by example and behave in a way that is civil and respectful for others or to model appropriate standards of courtesy. I can understand that it may be frustrating to find yourself in a position where others are unwilling to collaborate with you to do things like cleaning up potential copyright violations, because you may have yourself formed a track record of behaving in a way that does not foster collaboration. A good symptom of this might be filing multiple declined ArbCom cases, being party to others, or the occasional ] because you, at some point, apparently forgot how to communicate effectively in a way that makes those things unnecessary. | |||
| As I type this, seven out of the twelve comments appear to address Fram's own behavior. I'd say that's a perfectly fine reason to accept. The current dispute did not arise in a vacuum, but is itself the result of Fram's apparent penchant for finding situations where they are technically correct, and responding in the most tone deaf way possible (see for example ). The thread may likely have not gotten sidetracked at all if there was a popular perception that they had a track record of using the tools with careful judgement, and knowing when it's best to use the tools and when it would be more effective to take other approaches. Since a case has been filed, I'm not sure I buy into the forced choice that it can either be accepted on the filing party's terms, or be declined. I think there's likely a perfectly reasonable rationale for accepting, if the case is seen as the latest symptom of a growing rift between Fram and the community at large, and their own continued tone deaf responses, including the filing of this case itself. ]] 20:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Lugnuts === | |||
| I feel the main issue here is ], esp. the first two bullet points (bad faith and attacks). The initial post by Fram at AN had the heading of . I see that as a straight-out attack at another editor, which could and should have been worded a lot better, regardless of the issue at hand. The personal attacks against Dr. Blofeld continue on Ritchie's talkpage with stating "He was a serial copyright violator". See also ]. There ''could'' be an issue of copyvio issues from a few articles from 10 to 12 years ago, but I'm not sure of what the inital point of posting it at WP:AN was, as the purpose of that page states - "Issues appropriate for this page include general announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices". Was the end game to get Dr Blofeld blocked, or all of his articles deleted? | |||
| Finally, Fram was the subject of in November 2017, with one of the outcomes being "Editors should abide by high standards of user conduct, including remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks". Many editors at AN and in this very case have raised concerns about the conduct by Fram. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 20:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by Legacypac=== | |||
| Case should be accepted but only to consider Fram's behaviour under ] which we can't deal with at ANi. I'm grateful Fram decided not to name me here but from the National Enquirer style heading to the edit warring in the tread and over the top statements the whole thing is troubling. Many normal editors have been blocked or sanctioned for far less. ] (]) 21:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by olive === | |||
| A copy vio error can be dealt with simply without actions that jeopardize an editor. I am aware of another instance where a copy vio error led to an enormous overreaction and eventually the loss of a good editor not because of the error but because of the witch hunt that followed. I would suggest not accepting this case and that we just deal with the errors by contacting the editor and asking him to fix it. Simple, clean and without the mess.(] (]) 21:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)) | |||
| As well there is a big difference between how we deal with copyvio ''errors'' in an experienced editor and a deliberate misuse of sources and content.(] (]) 16:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)) | |||
| ===Statement by Davey2010=== | |||
| As Dr Bloefield notes above a simple email asking them to fix it would've sufficed ..... instead we get a ton of bickering and drama, a hopeless ANI thread ... and now this!, Fram's approach to all of this has been poor to say the least and it seems to only be getting worse!, I would suggest Arbcom decline this case. –]<sup>]</sup> 01:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :<small>Apologies for the language which I've now removed - Unfortunately bad habits die hard. –]<sup>]</sup> 21:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ===Statement by Kurtis=== | |||
| I'm not particularly well-acquainted with either Fram or Dr. Blofeld, although I believe I've interacted with both at some point or another. In Fram's case, I can only recall one exchange from years back, in which he came across as cordial yet frank. My observations both before and since have left me with the impression that he often takes a very heavy-handed approach without necessarily realizing it, as evidenced by his reaction to discovering an old copyvio from Dr. Blofeld's distant past. Instead of raising the issue with Blofeld first and giving him a chance to respond, Fram dragged it straight to ANI calling for a grand inquisition. Other similar situations include an for posting external links to copyright-infringing YouTube videos, the , and filed by Gatoclass regarding a disagreement over a DYK hook (which itself seemed like an overreaction and was understandably turned down by ArbCom, but he did raise some valid points), just to name a few. The problem isn't that Fram is acting outside of policy, it's that he interprets and applies it dogmatically. Whether or not that issue is worthy of a full case, I am of the opinion that this particular request should be declined as both premature and disproportionate to the situation. ] ] 03:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Mendaliv === | |||
| '''Request clerk action''': The case request statement is far beyond the word limit. As of this writing, Fram's original statement is around 1200 words, and including all responses it nears 2000 words. I see no request for the rule to be waived, but based on the content of Fram's original statement, I do not believe waiver is appropriate: Much of the statement consists of matter that should be part of the evidentiary phase of a case, should it be accepted.{{parabr}}I recognize the Committee grants a great deal of leeway on the proper contents of a case request. Nonetheless, permitting the requestor to lard up the request with mere merits evidence, rather than the compelling evidence required to show why a case is necessary, is harmful to the goals of the arbitration procedure. Fram should be required to trim the statement. —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 06:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by power~enwiki === | |||
| The concerns regarding {{u|Dr. Blofeld}} are not yet ripe for arbitration; the phrase "mess with the bull, get the horns" comes to mind regarding Fram's complaints about incivility. The ] concern regarding {{u|Fram}} might be ready for the committee; recent case requests involving Ymblanter and Gatoclass (diffs already included above) suggest that this behavior may be a long-running concern, it is unlikely that ANI could address the issue productively, and a de-sysop for violating ] can only be handled here. That said, it would certainly be unorthodox to accept a case focused largely on Fram's behavior as a result of this request. ] (], ]) 06:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Mr rnddude === | |||
| {{tq|I get the clear message that most people here see very little reason to remove copyvio's.}} | |||
| Obviously you need somebody to deliver the message bluntly and succinctly. The message, Fram, is: | |||
| *(a) If you have an issue, deal with it calmly and without being a hostile dick about it. | |||
| *(b) If that's too complex, then leave it to somebody who has a modicum of respect for others. | |||
| That said, if you're going to string an editor up, do it for their failings. The case filed by Gatoclass was among most fascile I've ever seen. There were calls from within the community to desysop Gatoclass when they filed their case. Though, Fram's attitude here is reminiscent of Gatoclass'. Both strawmanning their opposition and showing disdain for criticism of their behaviour. | |||
| That is all. ] (]) 07:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|Fram}}, your ability to reflect {{endash}} after a moment or two have passed {{endash}} on your behaviour is precisely why I wrote what I did. I'd expressly oppose a desysop case against you. I found it quite surprising that of the four people who thanked me for my comment, two of those were Dr. Blofeld and you. For the information of others, ] such as in the Gatoclass initiated case where Fram was ]. Admitted to overreacting, didn't take full blame, but who would, and self-trouted. Precisely what was needed. Obviously not satisfactory to everyone, but good enough for me considering the calibre of the issue was a heated exchange over a DYK. ] (]) 17:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by RexxS === | |||
| I've had disputes with both Fram and Blofeld over a number of years and I recognise the behaviours reported here. Blofeld and I have had numerous arguments over infoboxes, but I still have a great degree of respect for him as an editor. He is rightly proud of his contributions to Misplaced Pages, and it is understandable that he is defensive when accused of copyright violations. Fram, on the other hand, has been far too quick to "put the knife in", and it is common behaviour on his part to think the worst of other editors (diff available on request) and turn a relatively simple issue into a heated confrontation. If ArbCom wishes to examine the underlying behavioural problems here{{snd}} and I don't advise that they do{{snd}} then one of the outcomes will need to be getting the message across to Fram that it is far more productive to work ''with'' someone you believe has made a mistake, than to play "Gotcha" and attempt to rub their noses in it. Particularly with Blofeld, a sympathetic approach is always going to produce better results than an attack{{snd}} and nobody should be surprised at that. --] (]) 13:56, 6 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Carcharoth === | |||
| A lot of community comment and not much comment from ArbCom yet (only one recusal as of the time of writing). There is a problem here. The problem is the way large cases of potential or actual copyright infringement don't get enough attention. It is also a problem that editors who are told about problems with their past editing when it is raised don't go back and fix the problems. Instead, they chose to work on their current interests and articles. That is a behavioural issue. If ArbCom were to address this (even if only by stating that a case request could be brought again after a set period of time if nothing has been done to address the issues), then that might help change the mindset some people have about their past editing history. ] (]) 14:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement from Beyond My Ken === | |||
| It is most probably perilous for me to wade into the fray here -- since nobody gets out of a full-blown Flame War unscathed -- and I'll probably be labelled as a Pollyanna, but I do have a couple of perhaps relevant thoughts: | |||
| *Maybe others are able to do so, but it's difficult for me to judge the actual scale of the potential copyvio problem while ducking the flying rhetoric coming from all sides. Tamping that down would seem to be the obvious first step to take. | |||
| *To that end, Fram, who should be thanked for bringing a problem to light, might acknowledge that they did so in a way that Blofeld interpreted as a personal attack. | |||
| *Blofeld, who is to be respected for his many contributions to the encyclopedia. seems to realize that some of his earlier work would perhaps not pass muster under the strictest current interpretations of our copyvio policy, and acknowledge that their assistance is one of the best resources available to help solve that problem. | |||
| *Having brought it to the community's attention, Fram could now back away from the situation, and allow Blofeld to work with neutral parties to help identify and correct potential problems. | |||
| *None of these steps require Arbitration, which is just as likely to gum up the works as it is to solve anything. That's through no fault of our Arbitrators, but because of the way the Committee is set up: it does not actually arbitrate, but instead determines sanctions, and I doubt that sanctions are going to help clean up any copyvios. | |||
| *Those who are convinced that there is a problem with Fram's adminning would be advised to file a fresh case laying out a pattern of problems (if there is one) for ArbCom to consider. They're very unlikely to get the case they want by piggybacking on this one specific issue. | |||
| *Finally, the case overall is not ripe for Arbitration, as the community is still dealing with it at WP:AN. I suggest to the Committee that this case request should be rejected until such time as the community has washed its hands of the problem. | |||
| ] (]) 19:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Magioladitis === | |||
| Fram has been to subject of many reports to AN, ANI and now ArbCom. I had many interaction with them. They are very unfriendly in their approach. I think we're unambiguously within ] territory. | |||
| === Statement by Thryduulf === | |||
| {{replyto|Magioladitis}} indeed a case about Fram's behaviour in general and administrative conduct in particular is long overdue and pretty much inevitable. This request though is not the vehicle for that case though, as the dispute at the heart of it is way too fresh and very probably too narrow. ] (]) 15:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by MPS1992 === | |||
| I think it's worth noting that the WP:AN discussion appears to have ended -- no new comments for essentially a couple of days now. And that one or two people at least saw this arbitration request as the place for comments about behavior, but the WP:AN discussion as the place for comments on what to do about potentially problematic very old revisions in articles. So declining on the basis of the AN discussion being "ongoing" might no longer be as strong a reason as it was before. {{ping|RickinBaltimore}} {{ping|Doug Weller}} {{ping|Premeditated Chaos}} {{ping|Mkdw}} Apologies if that's an unnecessary barrage of pinging. ] (]) 19:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by {Non-party} === | |||
| Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information. | |||
| <!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * --> | |||
| === Copyvio and retaliation: Clerk notes === | |||
| :''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' | |||
| *Participants are advised that the Arbitration Committee has directed clerks to enforce word limits and sectioned discussion. Please carefully comply with all requirements listed in the red box toward the top. ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ] '''·'''  ] '''·'''  ]) 18:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *'''recuse''' --] (]) 20:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Copyvio and retaliation: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/9/1> === | |||
| {{anchor|1=Copyvio and retaliation: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)</small> | |||
| *'''Recuse'''. ] (]) 14:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>I am leaning towards</s> '''decline'''. I was hoping {{u|Ritchie333}} would make a statement so we could hear from all the named involved parties. I think the community is rightly to be critical of the way this dispute was initially approached and has since unfolded. I am not convinced that the community has not be able to resolve the issue, but rather only Fram and Dr. Blofeld have not been able to reach an agreement or compromise. There are obvious frustrations with editor conduct here, but I think it would need to be demonstrated that the issue has exhausted attempts to be addressed within the community. ''']''' ] 17:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::The AN discussion and seeming conclusion has , in my opinion, further strengthened the rationale for this case to be declined. The statement from Ritchie333 and the follow up 'introspection' statement from Fram, adequately resolves the outstanding conduct dispute between the involved parties, provided the sentiments endure. The whole dispute between the involved parties was not lengthy enough to have warranted such an escalation to ArbCom so quickly. The one AN discussion would not have necessarily demonstrated the community as having exhausted their options. It was arguably the first instance of the editors actually ''engaging'' in dispute resolution. The expanded examination of editor conduct, which has been cited by a few people here, would have required a separate dispute resolution process to have failed, and separate case request to be filed, in order to be considered. ''']''' ] 21:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Decline''' <s>The AN thread is ongoing and</s> I don’t think this is ripe for us yet. If there’s a case to be made against Fram, someone can bring it, but a boomerang isn’t an option for me here. <span style="color: #9932CC">]<sup>]</sup></span> 18:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Decline''' There still is a discussion on AN, and this as presented is not a matter for Arbcom to take up at this time. ] (]) 18:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Decline''' as this isn't ready for us due to the AN discussion. ] ] 19:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline'''. There is a consensus of the editors commenting above that an arbitration case is not necessary and would not be helpful here, and I agree with them. I urge ] to respond as best he can to any reasonable questions about his early edits, even though he was upset by how the issue was first raised; and I urge ] to carefully consider the feedback he is receiving here and on both AN/ANI threads, and to moderate his approach to raising concerns even when he believes he has identified a significant problem. ] (]) 21:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''', per the above. ♠]♠ ] 21:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''' per Newyorkbrad. -- ] (]) 00:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''', but I hope nobody walks away from this thinking they were in fact behaving well and it's all the other guy's fault. ] (]) 06:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm a bit late to the party and my thoughts largely echo the other arbitrators, no party has behaved exceptionally here. I will say though, with regard to Fram specifically, I would be considering accepting a case, though not in the form of a boomerang. ], this is the third time in just over 4 months that you've been involved in unrelated case requests - to do with behaviour that supposedly the community cannot handle. I advice that some introspection would be useful to stop a fourth time, as it certainly appears that you are the common factor in multiple disputes. '''Decline for now''' ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 14:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''', with a note that both Fram and Ritchie have behaved below the expectations for administrators here. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 15:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:58, 7 March 2018
Shortcut
Requests for arbitration
Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
Open cases| Case name | Links | Evidence due | Prop. Dec. due |
|---|---|---|---|
| Palestine-Israel articles 5 | (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) | 21 Dec 2024 | 11 Jan 2025 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
Arbitrator motions| Motion name | Date posted |
|---|---|
| Arbitrator workflow motions | 1 December 2024 |
| Shortcuts
About this page Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
Guidance on participation and word limits Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.
General guidance
|
lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.