Revision as of 10:08, 20 August 2011

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

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Requests for arbitration

NYyankees51

Initiated by Flowingfire (talk) at 08:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Flowingfire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• NYyankees51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• XLR8TION (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MastCell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:NYyankees51#Requesting_Arbitration
• http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:XLR8TION#About_NYYankees51
• http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Binksternet#About_NYYankees51
• http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:MastCell#About_NYYankees51
• http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Roscelese#About_NYYankees51

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Equality_Ride

Statement by Flowingfire

While I would like to believe in NYyankees51's sincere wish to improve Misplaced Pages, I need to address what might actually be going on: The targeting of numerous progressive articles with the purpose of diminishing their content and then deleting them. This strategy appears to destroy/diminish articles of political opposition rather than improve their content, while utilizing Misplaced Pages rules to justify the attrition.

From what I can tell, NYyankees51 (and others) may be targeting progressive pages for deletion and content removal, looking for any reason he can to destroy articles he doesn't like. (With most pages, it's easy to find at least 'something' wrong.) Recently, with the Equality Ride page, he deleted huge portions of content where he claimed references were not cited or where NPOV was off-base in his opinion. This, in itself, is within the rules, and he's perfectly right to do so. Perhaps he was even right about the specifics, and I can be thankful for what was pointed out.

My complaint is not that he broke any rules, but rather that he's destroying the community when he attempts to find any reason he can to delete content or remove pages he doesn't like-- sometimes systematically stripping content away before slating a page for removal. After viewing his history, I saw that he targets progressive pages frequently, and is rather ruthless about it. He seems especially focused against pages having to do with gay marriage or gay rights. This kind of anti-political, anti-civil-rights targeting is completely against the spirit of Misplaced Pages, even while it may be "rule-oriented" or even appear helpful. Used wisely, rules about references and NPOV are good. Used poorly, the same rules can turn into a witch-hunt that impoverishes Misplaced Pages as a whole. Rules can help make articles stronger and encourage better citation; yet, they can also give guys like this the tools to promote a firestorm of anti-political war, wreaking havoc on his perceived political enemies. His little war against progressive pages is destructive to the community, and to the long process of creating strong pages. He weakens them for his political gain rather than building on them.

Just look at this guy's talk page. It is full of disputes about his edits to progressive pages, and he knows how to play the system to diminish any person or page.

Misusing the rules of Misplaced Pages and the stringent letter of the law to destroy pages he doesn't agree with is just not cool. Creating better references and improving content is one thing. Spending his time removing other people's hard work because he found a "rule" to back up his anti-gay political agenda is another. Progressive articles after NYyankees51's edits are left less relevant, deleted, or impoverished for information. In the name of being "cleaned up," Misplaced Pages becomes less of a website for progressives seeking to reference or build upon content. It becomes less relevant for all.

Please end this guy's little war against fledgling articles on gay rights, abortion, and liberalism. Build, don't destroy.

Flowingfire (talk) 09:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by NYyankees51

I filed a COI report on Flowingfire because he is affiliated with Equality Ride and didn't like the edits I made to it. This case was filed hours after I filed the COI report. XLR8TION accused me of "vandalism" after I made an edit he didn't like. I have been engaged in a months-long dispute with Binksternet over the Susan B. Anthony List article. And I did some things I regret to Roscelese, for which I apologized for multiple times via email and I tried to make amends with her. I don't know whether I've done anything to or with MastCell. The point is that I've ticked off these editors in some way (which is unavoidable when you edit political or religious topics), so this case is purely vindictive. If my editing is problematic, by all means I will change it - but only if an uninvolved editor, not editors who are out to get me back, finds legitimate problems. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

In response to Bishonen below, I was the one who requested the closing of the Wikiquette and ANI threads I opened: User talk:NYyankees51#Editing priviliege. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by XLR8TION

User NyYankees51 has clearly stated that he has an "anti" stance on many contemporary social issues such as gay marriage and abortion. He likes to pick and choose what can appear in an article to satisfy his leanings, without having any consideration on the constructive edits of others. If a conflict of interest does exist between the user's beliefs and the article's purpose, then he should not edit it in order to comply with the site's neutrality rules when writing a sound article. What if Mel Gibson's father edited the article on the Holocaust, saying that it was merely a dream or a neo-Nazi edited the article on Anne Frank, saying that she did not die in a concentration camp and now is happily living in West Palm Beach? Do you see my point of view? Either comply with the site's guidelines on editing articles, or leave them alone!--XLR8TION (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Binksternet

NYyankees51 has a known conflict of interest regarding pro-life topics. In his sockpuppet investigation, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/NYyankees51/Archive, it was determined that two of his sockpuppets were 70.21.119.84 and 75.103.237.18, both IPs owned by sba.list.org. That is the Susan B. Anthony List, an organization that targets pro-choice politicians for harsh statements while giving pro-life politicians money and support. He also edited as 173.13.237.237 and 66.160.108.190, IPs owned by Bishop Ireton High School, a school run by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Arlington.

It is clear to me from watching two years of his editing style that NYyankees51 came to Misplaced Pages to put forward a pro-life, pro-Catholic and pro-neoconservative agenda. To that end, he has also worked to diminish or dismiss pro-choice and liberal viewpoints, as well as religious pluralism in Catholicism.

I can list a long string of examples if that is what this venue is looking for. Binksternet (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell

I don't exactly see why I was chosen as an "involved" editor here, and I think that whatever issues may exist are best addressed in the currently open Abortion case, or separately using lower levels of dispute resolution. MastCell  02:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Roscelese

While I agree that NYY's edit history is quite problematic, I'm not sure that RFAR is the appropriate forum and I dislike messy arbitration cases, so my participation here will be minimal. Note to Bishonen though, i-ban = interaction ban. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Diffs from Bishonen

In the context of NYyankees51 targeting progressive topics, note also the targeting of Roscelese, a progressive editor, over several fora by NYyankees51, Haymaker, and JorgePeixoto:

WQA thread

ANI thread

3RR thread

NYyankees51 is the initiator of the WQA and ANI threads, while Haymaker (who states here, at least if I understand his phrasing, that he hopes to accomplish the indefinite banning of Roscelese) was the one who posted the much criticised 3RR complaint..

The above diffs are all very recent. Bishonen | talk 12:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC). P.S., addendum for completeness: follow-up ANI thread initiated by myself. Bishonen | talk 12:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC).

1. I probably misunderstood — I hope so — it strikes me that "i-ban" could as well have meant "interaction ban".

Statement by uninvolved Collect

Really? So a person who has views automatically has a "COI"? The primary use is Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest. Justbecause one asserts a person is "anti-gay" or "anti-progressive" or "pro-gay" or "pro-progressive" has no relevance in determining a "conflict of interest." Employment by a group or company and editing about that group or company? That is a conflict of interest. Only actual, objective conflicts are relevant (looking at COI/N archives confirms this). This case ought to be declined anon. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, the images related to :Equality Ride" were uploaded by Flowingfire with the comment "approved by the organization" suggesting that the COI assertion about Flowingfire might have a basis. There is also a post at soulforce.org indicating that a user named "flowingfire" is an "Equality Rider" for the organization, and participant directly in the ride (also a myspace claim making that direct assertion). In each case, no outing is used by me - the only thing I mention is "flowingfire." I suggest that the committee take note of this material as indicating a slight lack of directness in the complaint. Collect (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/0/4)

• Comment - usually we'd expect a Request for Comment or some more extensive community discussion before coming here. Is there a reason to expect this will fail anyway? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment; I think this is more delicate than first appears. Unless I misunderstand the request, the complaint is that this is an editor who edits within policy but in a matter where it is applied "against" certain political views exclusively? In that case, it's not immediately clear that the committee can do (or, indeed, whether it should do anything). We obviously cannot coerce a volunteer in working on articles they do not choose to, and unless the work they do on the articles they do chose to edit is improper, there is little to be done.

  One of our founding principles is the presumption that every editor comes in with specific interests and biases but that, collectively, the result is good if we all follow the rules on civility, neutrality and verifiability; that things end up good on average as it were. — Coren  14:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - not sure I understand Coren's comment. I believe the complaint is that his editing is improper targeting of whatever it is he objects to, and the editors that write that kind of article also. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Awaiting statements but leaning decline per Cas. Agree with Coren that our job is not to police POV editors who are willing to work collaboratively and collegially. In order for me to accept, I'd need to see evidence of 1) more failed mid-level dispute resolution, and 2) allegations of specific misbehavior rising to the level of ArbCom involvement. Trying to get someone with whom you disagree banned is not a per se bad faith action, although not one most productive editors engage in for any length of time. Jclemens (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline With a couple of clarifications 1) If the primary "victim" does not see an Arbitration case as the best way forward, I give significant weight to that argument. 2) Ideological, political, or religious biases are not conflicts of interest in any meaningful sense unless they include direct or plausible yet indirect financial reward. There's a difference between a fan of a book writing its Misplaced Pages article, and the author or publisher doing so. Likewise, there's a difference between a religious adherent editing relevant Misplaced Pages topics, and a member of the paid organizational hierarchy doing so. We all have our own biases, per what Cas says above, and I prefer only to single out financial gain as actionable per se, else we would be deciding between competing ideologies, and that's not ArbCom's job. Jclemens (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• Question: Would a significant portion of this request be picked up in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion, a case that recently opened and is pending? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Also awaiting further statements; but leaning decline - further to Cas & Jc, would like to see some earlier steps in the DR process, or an explanation as to why that would be insufficient. –xeno 17:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

  Decline at present. –xeno 02:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Decline per those above me. SirFozzie (talk)
• Decline at least for now. If after the abortion case is closed, there are still concerns, we could look again. PhilKnight (talk) 02:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• Decline per PhilKnight. John Vandenberg 10:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)