Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:13, 21 March 2011 view sourceJohn Vandenberg (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users68,507 edits Undid revision 419959012 by John Vandenberg (talk): gosh, he isnt banned← Previous edit Latest revision as of 04:54, 26 December 2024 view source MJL (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors42,350 edits →Sabotage of Lindy Li's page: removing case as premature: declinedTag: Manual revert 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{Redirect|WP:ARC|a guide on talk page archiving|H:ARC}}
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks}}</noinclude>
{{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}{{-}}
= <includeonly>]</includeonly> =
</noinclude>
<br clear="all"/>
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header}} <includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for arbitration}}}}</noinclude>
{{NOINDEX}}

{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=auto</noinclude>}}
== Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup ==
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 02:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator -->
*{{userlinks|Aquib american muslim}}, ''filing party''
*{{userlinks|Syncategoremata}}
*{{userlinks|SteveMcCluskey}}
*{{userlinks|Knight1993}}
*{{userlinks|Gun Powder Ma}}
*{{userlinks|Athenean}}
*{{userlinks|David J Wilson}}
*{{userlinks|J8079s}}
*{{userlinks|Spacepotato}}
*{{userlinks|Jagged 85}}
*{{userlinks|Dialectric}}
*{{userlinks|II}}
*{{userlinks|Pjoef}}
*{{userlinks|Johnuniq}}
*{{admin|Ruud Koot}}
*{{userlinks|William M. Connolley}}
*{{userlinks|Yclept:Berr}}
*{{userlinks|CambridgeBayWeather}}
*{{userlinks|Wiqi55}}
*{{userlinks|Salix alba}}
*{{userlinks|Lambiam}}
*{{userlinks|Al-Andalusi}}
*{{userlinks|Bless sins}}

<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. -->

;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. -->
*http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?itle=User_talk:Aquib_american_muslim&diff=prev&oldid=419921490
*http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Syncategoremata&diff=prev&oldid=419919616
*http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:SteveMcCluskey&diff=prev&oldid=419919763
*http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Knight1993&diff=prev&oldid=419919843
*http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Gun_Powder_Ma&diff=prev&oldid=419919934
*http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Athenean&diff=prev&oldid=419920027
*http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:David_J_Wilson&diff=prev&oldid=419920132
*http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:J8079s&diff=prev&oldid=419920245
*http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Spacepotato&diff=prev&oldid=419920373
*http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Jagged_85&diff=prev&oldid=419920451
*http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Dialectric&diff=prev&oldid=419920536
*II delivery confirmed (blocked)
*http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Pjoef&diff=prev&oldid=419920807
*http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Johnuniq&diff=prev&oldid=419920881
*http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Ruud_Koot&diff=prev&oldid=419920966
*http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&diff=prev&oldid=419921136
*http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:WMC&diff=prev&oldid=419921306
*http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Yclept:Berr&diff=prev&oldid=419926843
*http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:CambridgeBayWeather&diff=prev&oldid=419926961
*http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Wiqi55&diff=prev&oldid=419927056
*http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Salix_alba&diff=prev&oldid=419927125
*http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Lambiam&diff=prev&oldid=419927507
*http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Al-Andalusi&diff=prev&oldid=419927728
*http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Bless_sins&diff=prev&oldid=419927847

;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried
<!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration -->
*]
*]
*]
*]

==== Statement by Aquib american muslim ====
An appeal rejecting
#The force and validity of the Jagged 85 RFC/U
#Certain actions taken under its alleged authority
#Policies and procedures emanating from it

hereafter referred to collectively as the Jagged 85 cleanup,

recognizing some parties to the RFC/U may neither be aware of nor condone the actions in question,

asking for neither the exoneration of Jagged 85, nor sanctions against any other individual, but rather that order be imposed upon the Jagged 85 cleanup, as follows

=====Effective immediately, and for the duration of this appeal=====
#The truncations, redirects, movements and renames of articles citing for their reason, or on behalf of, the Jagged 85 cleanup be temporarily reversed or undone by those who initiated these actions
#That all known participants in the Jagged 85 cleanup be disclosed
#That all activities (as in 1 above) to-date be disclosed by all participants in the Jagged 85 cleanup as per the article tracking procedures identified in the Jagged 85 RFC/U
#That cleanup participants be enjoined from citing the Jagged 85 cleanup, including any alleged policies and procedures emanating from it, as either a justification for their actions, or as a manner of compelling other parties to follow procedures other than those of Misplaced Pages
#That due diligence be enforced with regards to the removal of cited material; that expediency, a lack of cleanup resources, and the Jagged 85 cleanup are not valid reasons in themselves

=====And upon deliberation=====
The original Jagged 85 RFC/U be either
#reheard
#modified to incorporate some or all of the above temporary measures
#set aside in order for a novel and more balanced approach to be taken to cleaning up any biased, misleading or erroneous material added by Jagged 85.

=====Claims=====
#An ], as an agreement between a limited number of parties, and applying to the actions of a user, cannot trump Misplaced Pages policies and custom, nor can it be imposed on the community at large.
#The agreement reached under RFC/U has since been repudiated by Jagged 85
#The RFC/U has evolved beyond its original intent and agreed procedures
#It has on occassion been cited as a pretext for abuse
#The scope of the violations commited by Jagged 85 is debatable, unknown and perhaps unknowable
#The RFC/U has been used as a reason to close or preclude debate of issues and ]
#The members of the Jagged 85 cleanup are not addressable as a group; the effort has lost its centralization and cohesion. Effective compromise between the parties is not achievable in this environment.

=====The detrimental effects of which include=====
#]
#The replacement of ] with judgments on validity based on the appearance of plausibility , which can lead to mistakes
#The inadvertent promotion of ]
#Leveraging of the RFC/U by outside parties to advance other legitimate, but equally unbalanced, ]
#The truncation, movement and/or redirection of articles, the content of which is of an ] ,
#A lack of discussion of '''specifics''', through which the normal policies and procedures of the encyclopedia might effectively operate
#The exclusion of ], particularly those of ], from the actual cleanup process
#A lack of attention to WP policies, procedures and guidelines which, if left unchecked, can become more widespread.

====Statement by Syncategoremata====
====Statement by SteveMcCluskey====
====Statement by Knight1993====
====Statement by Gun Powder Ma====
There isn't really much to say other than that Jagged85, who has been one of the 60 most active WP editors until last year, has done over the years a colossal damage to WP with his Islamic ], ], and ], and that this damage has been cleaned-up yet only to a small extent despite the efforts of around half a dozen users or more. To give uninvolved users an idea, just two days ago I stumbled at ] across this piece from Jagged's pen (bold is mine):

<blockquote>
*'''] through ]''': The ] heating system used by the Romans continued to be in use around the Mediterranean region during ] and by the ] caliphate. By the 12th century, Muslim engineers in Syria introduced an '''improved''' central heating system, where heat travelled through underfloor pipes from the furnace room, rather than through a hypocaust. This central heating system was '''widely used''' in bath-houses throughout the ].<ref>{{citation|doi=10.1093/past/106.1.3|last=]|first1=Hugh|title=From Polis To Madina: Urban Change In Late Antique And Early Islamic Syria|journal=Past & Present|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=1985|volume=106|issue=1|pages=3–27 }}</ref>
</blockquote>

When I looked up the reference, however, I found the cited author Hugh N. Kennedy writing something very different:
<blockquote>

In one respect, however, the early Islamic bath had more in common with the classical one than with the later Islamic. Late antique and Umayyad bath builders continued to use the hypocaust, '''though on a reduced scale''', for heating the hot chamber, whereas later Muslim baths used a '''simpler''' system of underfloor pipes from the furnace room.
</blockquote>

So, a simpler system, used on a reduced scale, became in Jagged's interpretation an "improved system widely used"...
That such misinterpretations were rather the rule than the exception and that they all went most predictably in favour of inflating Islamic achievements, can be seen at ] where a group of editors collected a representative sample. It's been 60.000 edits, ''very many like that'', and only a small part of it has been reviewed and reassessed. Many articles where Jagged85 is the main contributor have been tagged for years. These articles need to be stubbed and rewritten such as ] recently was. If this arbitration case should serve a useful purpose, we should discuss and vote on which of the other articles now need to be stubbed. Here a small selection: ]. Regards ] (]) 10:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

:I put my proposal now on the table. Participants of the ongoing aarbitration are invited to take part in ] concerning the clean-up effort in connection with Jagged 85's RFC/U. Regards ] (]) 11:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

====Statement by Athenean====
====Statement by David J Wilson====
====Statement by J8079s====
====Statement by Spacepotato====
====Statement by Jagged 85====
====Statement by Dialectric====
====Statement by II====
====Statement by Pjoef====
====Statement by Johnuniq====
'''Quick introduction''' ] has a summary of the situation, namely that a prolific editor has severely misused sources on hundreds or possibly thousands of articles. Numerous examples are available in the "Further information" links—as an example, one evidence page is ].

I do not think this is the kind of case normally taken by ArbCom, but a possible benefit from a case would be the introduction of other editors to assist with the cleanup. Each time more editors have been asked to comment on the issue, someone has found another egregious misuse of sources. A recent example is the first comment ] ({{oldid|Talk:Mathematics in medieval Islam#Al-Din al-Tusi and derivatives of cubic polynomials|419942327|permalink}}), at 14:33, 18 March 2011 UTC.

ArbCom may wish to comment on the central issue: whether it is better to stub an article, or to leave it unchanged, and then verify each claim. Of course stubbing should only be a last resort, however this case has certain unique features that warrant stubbing in a number of articles. While it is bad to remove good information from an article, it is far worse for Misplaced Pages to present false information as facts—incorrect claims that are mirrored on many sites. Nearly all the claims are accompanied by a plausible and hard-to-access source, but as mentioned, numerous examples have been found which show that the sources ''do not verify'' the claims, and investigation has shown many claims to be exaggerations or blatantly incorrect.

Working through a large unstubbed article to verify/fix each statement may take a very long time. Worse is the fact that such a project is inherently almost impossible to achieve. For example, a favorite incorrect claim is that someone was the first to do something, and it would be relatively easy for an editor to check such redflag claims in an article, leaving verified information, and rewriting or removing incorrect or unverified claims. However, a second editor then has a big problem: how much of the article does the second editor need to check? If the first editor changes one sentence in a paragraph, does that mean the first editor is satisfied with the complete paragraph? Does the second editor need to verify each assertion? What about a third editor? It would be very difficult to coordinate edits, and the only practical approach in some cases would be to stub the article, then have each editor add information <u>provided that editor has personally checked the source</u> (in other words, the editor would take responsibility for the text they added). ] (]) 10:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

====Statement by Ruud Koot====
—'']'' 08:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

====Statement by William M. Connolley====
====Statement by Yclept:Berr====
====Statement by CambridgeBayWeather====
====Statement by Wiqi55====
====Statement by Salix alba====
It is clear that there are many problems with the ] which does require extensive scrutiny. I think the community effort would be better directed to carefully reviewing that article than engage in disputes over process. --] (]): 08:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

====Statement by Misconceptions2====
====Statement by Lambiam====
I think this is primarily a content dispute, and that Arbitration is not the way to handle it. For the rest, I don't think that my involvement rises to the level at which I should be considered an "involved party". My involvement has solely consisted of: giving my opinion in the ] regarding the ] article (note: this is not the ] referred to, in which I have not participated), and three reactions to various comments by three different other users in the stubbing RFC discussion. &nbsp;--] 09:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

====Statement by Al-Andalusi====
====Statement by Bless sins====

===Uninvolved parties===
====Statement by Headbomb====
There's no case to be had. Aquib "lost" (or disagrees with the outcome of) ] ], and several other cases where Islamic contributions are greatly exagerated, or overstated (]), sourced in greatly questionable sources (]), and which pushes fringe points of view (]). Most of this problematic stuff results from the edits of Jagged85.

Editors other than Aquib do a great job of laying a road map to cleanup the Jagged85 mess, with concrete proposals and plan of action (which is usually, stub the articles, then selectively restore the parts which can be verified in reliable sources). Aquib systematically objects to all these efforts, saying the original version should be restored, but never justifying why it should be restored other than "but stuff will be missing", and (as far as I'm aware), never . Editors know stuff will be missing. But editors agree that it's better to have an incomplete and accurate article than an article which covers some things not found in the stub, but which is also littered with misleading, untrue, and otherwise undesirable material. Criticism bystanders will be criticizing bystanders, but they should stop disrupting the editorial process with such abuse of process.

ARBCOM shouldn't waste it's time re-examining old cases because of wikilawyering by people who want to re-open old cases for bureaucratic purposes only. If anything, it should consider topic banning Aquid for being an unproductive time sinker with his constant RfCs/Appeals/re-RfCs/RfCs on RfCs/... (Or maybe an admin will take the initiative and impose a discretionary sanction on Aquid.) <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] / ] / ] / ]}</span> 09:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

=== Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''

=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/1/0/1) ===
*Was supposed to be inactive, but A) Show us that this is a conDUCT dispute and not a ConTENT dispute, and B) Tell us if having this many parties is really absolutely necessary? Right now, I'm looking at the filing party's statement, and what I'm reading from it is "They're wrong, and this is why..." We're not going to handle it if it's that.. ] (]) 09:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
*leaning '''decline''' - complaints appear to revolve solely around content. Individual articles can be discussed at ] or content noticeboard. ] (] '''·''' ]) 11:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

== Henri Coanda defamation - second try ==
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 17:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator -->
*{{userlinks|Lsorin}}, ''filing party''
*{{userlinks|Andy Dingley}}
*{{userlinks|Binksternet}}
<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. -->

;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. -->
*Andy Dingley
*Binksternet

;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried
<!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration -->
*The was not solved.
*This case is refilled, as for two weeks nothing happened on the lower levels to solve the dispute on this case. by ]: ''If the problem has not been resolved in two weeks then the case can be re-filed at that time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)''
*I was by the admin ] to take it to the as low level solutions were tried without success. This can be confirmed by the involved parties, if not I can extend this section with links to those tries from the extensive archive of ] .

=== Statement by LSorin ===

I need help in resolving the issues caused be the behaviour of the {{userlinks|Andy Dingley}} and
{{userlinks|Binksternet}} regarding the usage of the mainstream sources regarding a subject which is controversial in the mind of two aviation historian former colleagues with very doubtful approach on the subject. And to make one more point clear: I am not accusing Andy of anything. I was just listed the fact that his stated that Henri Coanda is a liar. In Romania a public statement ( like Andy's in Misplaced Pages ) is punishable by law, if somebody would bother to take the case to the court.

The main problem is about the introduction of the ] article. Henri Coandă's airplane from 1910 was '''the first jet-propelled aircraft in the world'''.
This statement is supported by the of the sources present today in specialized media.

'''Sources according to ]'''

*'''Secondary Souces'''
**Academic
:- [http://books.google.com/books?ei=Ud_yTM_DF8yWOobw1KoK&ct=result&id=CYpTAAAAMAAJ&dq=coanda-1910+proceedings&q=coanda-1910#search_anchor History of rocketry and astronautics:
proceedings of the twenty-fourth Symposium of the International Academy of Astronautics, Dresden, Germany, 1990]
:- [http://books.google.com/books?ei=Ud_yTM_DF8yWOobw1KoK&ct=result&id=9odTAAAAMAAJ&dq=coanda-1910+proceedings&q=coanda-1910#search_anchor History of rocketry and astronautics:
proceedings of the Seventeenth History Symposium of the International Academy of Astronautics, Budapest, Hungary, 1991]
:-]
:-]
**Scholarship
*** Monographs
****Books
:Dan Antoniu, 2010 Henri Coanda and his technical work during 1906-1918.
:Stine, G. Harry, 1983 The Hopeful Future.
:V.Firoiu, 2002
:Gibbs-Smith, C. 1970 Aviation: an historical survey from its origins to the end of World War II.
(According to the rule Gibbs-Smith can be considered as it was endorsed by Antoniu but caution as it is considered to contain speculations on and using incorrect sources.)
**News organizations
***Magazines
:Sandachi, George-Paul, 2010 , several "Cer Senin" magazines
:Walter J. Boyne, 2006 -The Converging Paths of Whittle and von Ohain, A Concise History of Jet Propulsion
:G. Harry Stine , 1989 - The Rises and Falls of Henri-Marie Coanda
:Gérard Harmann , 2007 - Clément-Bayard, sans peur et sans reproche
:Frank H. Winter , 1980 Ducted fan or the world's first jet plane? The Coanda claim re-examined

As per ] if the secondary sources are conflicting or they give biased positions ( as an example Antoniu vs Gibbs-Smith ) the primary sources can be used.
*'''Primary Sources'''
** 1) articles written by Coanda himself in 50s and 60s is several magazines
** 2) articles,leaflets, books from very close to the event ( newspapers like "Le Temps", "Le Figaro", books Bases et methodes d'etudes aerotechniques - Leon Ventou-Duclaux )
** 3) persons Victor Hoart "L'Histoire de l'aviation recontée à mon fils."
** 4) several museums around the world in Romania, England, France, USA, Germany.
** 5) patents

*'''Tertiary sources'''
Several major encyclopedias: Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation, World Encyclopedia, American Encyclopedia etc
Special events: coins, stamps, exhibitions
Institutions bearing his name with special emphasis on the first jet-propelled aircraft.

==== On the Content ====
Please understand this is not about the content and don't expect any high graded administrator from Misplaced Pages to make assumptions on the content in a pure break of ]. My case is about the usage of mainstream and correct ] of the subject especially in the introduction part of the article.
And if I'm allowed I will make an original synthesis here to stop the discussions related to the content and to concentrate in solving the blockage from parties involved:
If the Coanda 1910 would have not been tested as those two aviation historians have tried to demonstrate in the '''most absurd way''', Henri Coanda would have been the first aircraft designer in world to '''not test''' his invention, eventually just selling as wood for fire or even worse set it himself on fire, to get recognition of Frank Whittle and Von Ohain inventions 50 years later.

=== Statement by Binksternet ===
Nothing has changed since the previous request. At that time, I said:
{{blockquote|This is either a content issue which should not be dealt with here or it is an issue of the continuation of tendentious editing by one unsatisfied user who was unable to achieve consensus with his preferred version.

I'm very proud of my work at ]. It was among the most difficult tasks I have undertaken on Misplaced Pages, more difficult than my two FAs. I made a number of trips to the local university library and I learned a lot about the subject. The article is ... now a ]. Lsorin helped make the article as good as it is, adding important content, but he did not make it easy on other editors. He and some anonymous editors from IP addresses based in Romania kept reverting the constructive work being done by a handful of veteran editors from the Aviation project, which kept tabs on the progress and helped achieve a neutral stance, one that deftly straddles deeply divided expert sources. As a content issue, I consider this matter closed. As a behavior issue, I am willing to expand on my thoughts if the case is accepted.}}

I am still willing to help with the case if it is accepted. ] (]) 18:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by ] ===
Nothing has changed since

This is an editor who has stretched POV-pushing to whole new heights. He's allowed to make comments without redress, and to turn his entire userpage into . How many times are other editors expected to have to defend themselves to ArbCom because this one editor is allowed, and even , to bring the same complaints back over and over again? ] (]) 18:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

=== Comment by uninvolved Fut.Perf. ===
I still can't see why the Arbcom would want to waste their time on this. See my previous ]. There is nothing to resolve here. There is apparently a consensus on the article shared by everybody except one single agenda-pusher. The agenda-pusher was blocked for edit-warring and then warned off to stop editing disruptively. Since then, he has in fact stopped editing, so in the eyes of everybody but himself, the case has been solved. In his own perspective, of course, it hasn't, but that's because ever since that last admin warning he hasn't even tried. Not a single edit addressing the actual dispute (rather than mere procedural matters) since 13 January . So, the choice is all his: either he continues to heed the warning and stays off the article, then all is fine. Or he continues to heed the warning but returns to the article displaying a new, more constructive approach, then all is fine too. Or he returns to his old ways and resumes pushing his agenda, then he will simply be blocked, and everything will be fine again. What more does Arbcom expect to achieve here? ] ] 00:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

=== Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''

=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (10/0/0/0) ===
*'''Accept''', as this matter does not appear to have been resolved; however, Lsorin needs to be aware that the Arbitration Committee will not rule on the content dispute itself, and will examine the behaviour of all parties including himself. ] (]) 20:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Accept'''. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 21:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Accept'''. ]&nbsp;<sup>]]&nbsp;]]</sup> 21:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Accept''' ] (]) 22:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Accept''' <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup><small>(<font color="#ff6600">]</font>)</small></sup> 23:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Accept'''. - ] 13:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Accept'''--] (]) 19:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Accept''', &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 01:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Accept'''. Fut.Perf. may be right that an arbitration case is not absolutely necessary here, but there is a consensus of the arbitrators to proceed, and a case may help to define the border between standing up for one's beliefs and disruptive editing in the face of consensus. Risker's point above should also be noted. This can and should be a relatively short case, duration-wise; all evidence and proposals should be posted within one week from the date the case is opened. The case title, of course, should not include the word "defamation" or anything similar. ] (]) 02:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Accept''' as this looks like the quickest way a resolution can be reached, per Brad's proposal above. ] (] '''·''' ]) 10:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

== Duke53 ==
'''Initiated by ''' ] <sup>/]/</sup> '''at''' 07:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator -->
*{{userlinks|Alanyst}}, ''filing party''
*{{userlinks|Duke53}}
<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. -->

;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
<!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration -->
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]

=== Statement by Alanyst ===
Duke53, an editor of 5+ years, has been a source of disruptive conflict in multiple subject areas for nearly all of his editing history. I ask the committee to examine his behavior.

Duke53 joined Misplaced Pages in late 2005. Spring 2006 saw his , and later conflicts erupted around such subjects as Duke University and its rivals, a natural history museum in New York state, and Mormonism. In each of these topic areas Duke53 holds a strong personal opinion and has treated editors who do not share his opinion, or who obstruct his efforts to make Misplaced Pages a platform for his views, as adversaries to be fought, ridiculed, or bullied. Read his talk page and userpage for a sampling of his behavior.

I am one of several long-time editors in the Mormonism topic area (being a Mormon myself) who has had conflict with Duke53 dating back several years. He has expressed special contempt for Mormons in general, and Mormon editors of Misplaced Pages in particular.

Dispute resolution has been attempted in various venues through the years: ] ], and , and on sundry article and user talk pages. There has not been a recent RfC, and if this request is rejected it will probably be due to that fact. But I feel that arbitration is appropriate because of these factors:
# Experience from the first RfC, which expired without resolution partly because few outside opinions were given, shows it is hard to find neutral editors willing to attempt to resolve disputes involving religious topics or long-term chronic behavior.
# Duke53 rejects criticism of his behavior, so an RfC will not resolve the problem unless it gets enough input from neutral parties to form a consensus for community sanctions. It could end up being a waste of time like the first one.
# Duke53 has asserted that Mormon editors have conspired against editors critical of Mormonism in order to dominate the topic area. This is an effective counter to Mormon editors' complaints about him because sanctioning him would be feared as playing into the hands of the conspiracy. Such claims deserve to be examined by a neutral body so that either the clique be uncovered and dispersed, or else the accusation be refuted as an unmerited slur. An RfC on Duke53 is unlikely to accomplish this.

If this request is accepted, I will provide evidence for problematic behaviors including:
* POV pushing, disruption to make a point, and battleground behavior
* Willingness to violate BLP
* Initiation and exacerbation of conflict
* Vindictiveness
* Biting newcomers
* Refusal to compromise or accept correction
* ] issues
] <sup>/]/</sup> 08:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

'''@Casliber:''' Why now? That's a fair question. This may in fact be long overdue, and I have contemplated whether to bring this to arbitration for a long time now. I held back because (a) arbitration can be a time sink, (b) I kept hoping a neutral party would intervene so it wouldn't just appear as a vendetta by Mormons against an anti-Mormon, and (c) I tried to give him every chance to change his ways. The final straw for me was to see him taunting an editor who has made every effort to respect the opposing POV and deal with him in good faith, to the point that the editor (BFizz) started to lose his cool. (See ] and ].) I felt it was time for the relentless bullying to stop, lest we lose an editor who has tried to reach across the divide. ] <sup>/]/</sup> 14:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC) Also, regarding the evidence: the Wikiquette alert is from December 2010, though confusingly it starts with quoted material (including timestamps) from 2007, making it appear at first glance as a stale dispute. ] <sup>/]/</sup> 18:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

'''Question:''' Jehochman's indefinite block of Duke53 may have mooted this request. Is there any desire by the committee members or interested onlookers for this matter to be continued either here in arbitration or in an RfC/U? I am a little unsettled that neither the community nor the committee has come to a consensus regarding Duke53's behavior, his counter-assertions regarding Mormon editors, or the conditions by which he might be allowed to edit Misplaced Pages in the future. Nothing against Jehochman or his duly exercised admin discretion, but I worry that short-circuiting the process might have the appearance of preventing a fair hearing. On the other hand, I don't wish to press for unnecessary process that will just waste people's time if there is general approval of Jehochman's action. ] <sup>/]/</sup> 15:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by ] ===

I really don't have a whole lot of time to waste on this, but anybody who gets involved in this might take note of Alanyst's posting history. It is very evident that the one thing that is guaranteed to draw him to post at WP anymore is my participation in articles. It's almost as if he has cast himself as a modern day ] of the lds church here at Misplaced Pages. No matter how long his absences here are, if I post at an lds article he's sure to follow.

Next, you will also notice a bunch of familiar faces showing up to bolster his accusations: Bfizz, Routerone, Canadiandy (<I>if he doesn't post under one of his alter egos, which are numerous</i>) and Storm Rider. There is also a newer bunch from byu, who were quick to pick up the habit of meatpuppetry and swarming in their 'debut' at WP. They don't much like it when I mention 'swarming' or 'tag-teaming', but as my Grandmother used to say: "<I>The proof is in the pudding</I>" <font face="raphael" color="green">] | <sup>]</sup></font> 08:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by ] ===

In all my online interactions I have never been singled out, taunted, criticized, and ridiculed by anyone as much as I have been by Duke53. Misplaced Pages behavioral guidelines suggest that we focus on the edit and not on the editor. Duke53 often focuses his fire on editors.

His common method of irritating me is by twisting my words: exaggerating them or applying them to something I obviously did not intend. A few examples:

Applying my reasoning in an absurd fashion

*
*
*

Additionally, rudely parodying my signature

*

Rudely parodying my old signature

*

There are more instances of similar behavior towards me that you can find in his edit history. I understand that sometimes it is appropriate to extend another editor's reasoning to a different domain in order to help them understand why you disagree with them, but if you inspect Duke53's edits, they appear (to me) to be confrontational assertions rather than an attempt to reach understanding.

I am not the only one Duke apparently despises; he appears to consider all 'tbms' as enemies that 'gang up' against him. He has exhibited similar behavior towards editors such as ], ], and newcomers.

I find Duke53's editing at Misplaced Pages to frequently be provocative and counterproductive. I feel that achieving NPOV takes creativity and willingness to compromise; Duke53 rarely exhibits willingness to compromise, and rarely employs his creativity for anything but pushing his particular POV. <small title="Click the F">...comments?</small> ~]'']]'' 16:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

'''Information:''' ] has blocked Duke53 indefinitely, but to post an unblock request explaining the productive editing he wishes to participate in. While I generally feel this a wise course of action, it is an odd one to perform in the middle of an arbitration request. I'll leave it to the wisdom of the committee to decide what to do from here. <small title="Click the F">...comments?</small> ~]'']]'' 16:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

'''Questions for Jclemens and Risker''' - What kind of community process would you recommend? According to "]", RfC/U cannot "impose/enforce involuntary sanctions, blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures." If Duke53 reacts to an RfC/U the same way he has reacted to the various methods of dispute resolution used in the past—ignoring or dismissing the community's concerns—then it will be a fruitless endeavor. Is there a better option? Would we open another arbitration request if such a measure fails to produce results, or would this one be kept open during such a community process? <small title="Click the F">...comments?</small> ~]'']]'' 23:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

===Statement by Storm Rider===
I am not a perfect editor and this particular editor is an easy one for me to go off on, which I have done often. He is wholly and completely dedicated to being unhelpful and disruptive. His entire edit history is one long example of exactly what he as been accused. I know it takes time, but it would be useful to go through all of his 3,772 edits in order to grasp the magnitude of his disruptiveness.

It is true that he is not a very active editor and has never been very active. An editor who begins in 2005 and only has 3,772 edits is evidence that he is not dedicated to this process. However, lack of edits is not a sufficient reason to delay action. His behavior has never changed; he is the same editor he started out as without any improvement. He is spiteful, vindictive, opinionated, and narrow-minded. Worse, he demands that his opinion is the only correct reference, position, context, and tone to use in articles within his interest.

I have long since believed that after a short probationary period to determine the ability of an editor, being a Misplaced Pages editor is a privilege and not a right. Duke should have long since lost this privilege. -<sup>]</sup>] 07:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

===Statement by Jehochman===

Just to note that I have reviewed this matter and will be blocking Duke53 shortly. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

: Filing a request for arbitration, or being named as an involved party, does not exempt any editor from being subject to the standard administrative remedies. Sometimes a problem festers because no administrator has taken the time to investigate the facts. When a request for arbitration is filed, this may draw the attention of experienced administrators, and the matter may be resolved directly without the high cost of arbitration. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

===Statement by Wehwalt===
Just from personal experience , I've found Duke53 a pain to deal with on balance (see ]). I should add that he is sometimes helpful in keeping off the zealots who want to introduce POV to the article, but his approaches are generally counterproductive. Uncertain if arbs should be dealing with this one, I'd hold off and see what goes with Jehochman's block. Arb isn't necessarily the last resort, but it's awfully close, and if admins feel they can deal with him, I'd give them their shot.--] (]) 19:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

=== Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''

=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/4/3/0) ===
*'''Accept''' <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 10:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''<s>Question''' for alanyst - why now? Much of this evidence is old, although the userpage for deletion has just passed (February '11), much of ther material is 2006-07 (and early-mid 2010).</s> <s>'''accept''' - needs a review by us I think to sort this out</s> hold pending Duke53's request to unblock at least. ] (] '''·''' ]) 10:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Recuse''' - I took part in the first MfD and also the RfC. ] (]) 22:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Accept'''. Sounds like this needs sorting out. --] (]) 22:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' Given the age of the RfC/U, I would expect an updated RfC/U before accepting this. The community has a much better recent track record in dealing with single, disruptive editors than it did a few years ago. ] (]) 22:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
**Without specifically commenting on the recent block, I think it best to clarify that by "the community", I was referring to community-enacted sanctions arrived at through open, appropriate, problem-focused discussion at AN/ANI, rather than blocks issued by individual administrators. ] (]) 22:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Decline''', this matter should probably be reviewed by the broader community first, as the community has managed similar situations effectively. Would be willing to reconsider if there is evidence of an ineffective or indecisive community process. ] (]) 13:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Decline''', let the community try and sort it out first. - ] 12:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
* '''Comment''': I see Duke53 hasn't yet posted an unblock request. I suggest we wait and see if he does so (and perhaps also a clerk posts on his talk page asking whether he has any comments to make about this request). &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 02:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' at this time per other decline comments, especially Roger's. On the broader issue presented by Jehochman's block, Jehochman is right that sometimes a request for arbitration will call attention to the fact that a clearly warranted block is long overdue, and in that case an administrator may be justified in blocking. However, caution should be observed in blocking a party to a pending request for arbitration, lest we leave editors fearful of filing or being named in requests; hence, this step should generally be taken only in clear-cut cases. (I'm not opining right now on whether this was a clear-cut case or not.) ] (]) 02:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 04:54, 26 December 2024

"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC. Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

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
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024
Requests for arbitration


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.


File an arbitration request


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.

  • Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
  • In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
  • Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
  • Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-l@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.
    • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
  • Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
  • Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
  • Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
  • Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
  • Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

  • This page is for statements, not discussion.
  • Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, e.g. off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
  • Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
  • Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
  • After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
  • Declined case requests are logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.