Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests - 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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thatcher (talk | contribs) at 18:03, 25 February 2007 (→Armenia-Azerbaijan: opening). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:03, 25 February 2007 by Thatcher (talk | contribs) (→Armenia-Azerbaijan: opening)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Weighing scales Arbitration​Committee
Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Misplaced Pages Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Arbitration Committee proceedings 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

Current requests

GordonWatts

Initiated by GordonWatts at 02:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

I, GordonWatts 02:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC), hereby confirm that, upon a successful filing, I shall notified the users listed by mention on their talk page -except that, in the case of the un-named participants, I shall make a note on the related talk page, that is, here: Misplaced Pages:Community_noticeboard#Community_ban_request_on_User:GordonWatts

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • A summary of other steps tried thus far can be found at .

Statement by User:GordonWatts

The situation was so emotional -and involved so many users -that is it unreasonable to assume any other method short of ArbCom will work: I certify that I have alleged several rules violations of policy of Misplaced Pages in this action by other users. You may see the Request for Ban action against me here -and it's talk page here -for documentation of my claims on this point.

Here are specific allegations of violations of policy:

From Misplaced Pages:Community_noticeboard, is this quote: "Weighing up the above, it is clear to me that the community mood is that Gordon Watts should not edit Terry Schiavo articles directly, should not link or suggest links to his own sites, and should restrict himself to making a very small number of brief comments to Talk pages, of the order of one per day. If Gordin is not able to abide by this restriction then a ban will be sought, either through community processes or through ArbCom. Guy (Help!) 13:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)"

I did not get any sleep last night because of a combination of overnight auto trouble and the sudden death of my cousin, Kitty Barnett, which I learned this morning. so I am quite preoccupied with other things, but I see this sudden reply, and the template says that: "Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page," so I shall comport and reply -much to the chagrin of some users, I am sure.

Reply:

  • "should not link ... to his own sites" Although I do admit that many years ago, I added a link to one of my newspapers, after having obtained consensus, and this may have been against current policy, that action many years ago is not being discussed or criticised -plus, I was a new editor back then. This admin here quite clearly shows that I did not add any links to my website: "The dispute seems to have started with this uncivil edit summary from Calton. The material Calton was removing was in the article when I joined Misplaced Pages in April 2005 (before Gordon). The actual link (to a site that Calton objected to, but not Gordon's personal website) was added by Zenger, not by Gordon, although Gordon did revert the person who reverted Zenger.." So, I am innocent of linking to my own site.
  • "should not ... suggest links to his own sites" This requirement by the "mood" is against current Misplaced Pages policy. Observe: Misplaced Pages policy: WP:COI clearly says that "If you feel it necessary to make changes to Misplaced Pages articles despite a real or perceived conflict of interest, we strongly encourage you to submit content for community review on the article's talk page or file a Request for Comment to the wider community, and to let one or more trusted community members judge whether the material belongs in Misplaced Pages," not that I suggest links to my web papers very often. Also, Misplaced Pages:Spam#Canvassing point 6 states that "If your product is truly relevant to an article, others will agree -- try the talk page. We usually recommend that editors be bold in adding directly to articles. But if the above advice makes you concerned that others will regard your contribution as spam, you can find out without taking that risk: Describe your work on the article's talk page, asking other editors if it is relevant."
  • If the editors who suggested this restriction don't like me occasionally suggesting my own websites -for occasions when no other link will do (like when The Register was the only paper to cover one Terri Schiavo Oral Argument hearing in my hometown), then these editors should either change the policy -or leave Misplaced Pages. The rules are the rules.
  • "...should restrict himself to making a very small number of brief comments to Talk pages, of the order of one per day." This is the one possibly valid complaint made against me (I was not guilty of edit-warring or linking my own site, even though one revert did have that net effect). So, a review of the RfBan page for this action will reveal that the editors claimed I was too talkative -and companied about the content of my talk page comments. This editor sums up the community opinion of many (if not most) editors: They felt that I talked too much -and they didn't like what I posted, however to restrict my talk page comments based solely on the content is censorship. Yes, I admit that, on occasion, I sometimes post somewhat lengthy posts -but so did Martin, another user, on the related talk page, as this diff shows, but he is not criticised or restricted. Also, this diff shows my documentation that I did not dominate the talk page, posting far less than half of the comments of the ban page against me, even though no one should have objected had I posted even half: As the accused, I should have been allowed at least half, but I did not use it.
  • So, it appears that my talk page comments (in the Community noticeboard talk page primarily) were rejected because of content, but this is censorship: I never threatened to violate concensus or policy, so the mere fact I held a minority opinion regarding certain links (many of them not my own newspapers) leads me to believe I was censored because of my minority view -and hints others may have been jealous that I have accomplished so much in this case, more than them. I have a right to express my opinion on the talk pages, even if it is a minority opinion.
    • Calton has a very lengthy history of having caused trouble, but he is not guilty of the actions of the other editors; They acted on a matter and made premature conclusions without actually knowing the facts.

OK, did I violate policy -or, rather, did I merely annoy editors, who falsely claimed I had violated policy.--GordonWatts 02:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

REMEDY SOUGHT: Discipline the editors involved, not to harm them, but rather to prevent them from doing this to other editors who annoy them.--GordonWatts 03:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by SVRTVDude

I know the Community Ban discussion was heated and my personal opinion was started by an editor just out to silence someone who had a different opinion then his own. User:Calton made the problem worse by going "back and forth" with Gordon and using incivil language and a rude tone in his posts. This could have been prevented if everyone backed off, took a deep breath, returned and discussed things politely. But I digress....

Nothing I seen of Gordon's edits were disruptive...long, yes, but not disruptive, and I would have liked to have seen Gordon be allowed one post per day on Schiavo-related page and talk pages, but alas that did not happen.

User:Calton took a straw poll of users about the Geocities/AOL links. I think there was a 10-0 against the links. But it was not about the information in those links, just that they were run by him. I have had a similar problem with my media news site. I used it as a reference, but since I did the research, it was not allowed. To my knowledge, no GeoCities/AOL links are allowed. None of the information of his links is false, just a personal website can not be linked by the owner of that site.

I would like to see ArbCom reverse the WP:CN ruling and allow Gordon to post one post per day with a 500 word minimum (that should make everyone happy) on any Schiavo-related page or talk page. But, I would also like to see Gordon expand out from Schiavo-related pages and work on other sections of Misplaced Pages as I think he would do well outside of just Schiavo-related pages.

Just one editors opinion.....SVRTVDude 03:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Minor point of clarification: the ruling as I interpreted it was exactly as SVRTVDude requests, namely that GordonWatts could make a few (around one) post per day to the talk pages. The disruption is caused primarily by the sheer volume of his posts, aggravated by the hopelessly skewed perspective offered by his posts and the links he promotes. SVRTVDude is also in an extended content dispute with Calton, so his comments on Calton's behaviour may be coloured by that. Calton was far from the only editor involved in telling GordonWatts to back down. Guy (Help!) 12:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by ObiterDicta (talk · contribs)

As a participant in the Community Noticeboard discussion mentioned by Gordon above, I suppose I am an involved party. ArbCom is the appropriate place for Gordon to appeal the restrictions placed on him as a result of that discussion and I believe that an appeal would be more-or-less implied by Gordon's call for "discipline" for JzG, Calton and the rest of us. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Mangojuice (talk • contribs)

As a participant in the thread Gordon referred to, I have this to offer. With a strong enough consensus, the users may be banned per WP:BAN, and the extent of agreement to the sort of editing restrictions the discussion ended up with certainly qualifies as strong consensus: there is a little dissent but not a lot. However, per WP:BAN such bans may be appealed to ArbCom, which I think is what this request is all about. A few general comments on the discussion:

  1. Although I think Jzg did a perfectly reasonable job summing up the results of the discussion, it may have been better for someone else to do it, as Jzg endorsed a particular outcome prior to "closing". (I was tempted to sum up similarly but did not, for this reason.)
  2. The call for endorsing of solutions seemed relatively rigid, and didn't seem to provide an easy framework for those who might have opposed taking action to speak. The softest options were probation or referring to ArbCom.
  3. The complaint against Gordon boils down to that certain elements of the community are just really sick of Gordon. "Exhausing the community's patience" fits very well.. but it seems to me that this may need to be linked better to an ongoing violation of some Misplaced Pages policies, because someone abiding by the letter and spirit of the rules should not be banned under the "community patience clause" alone. Gordon may be guilty of an old conflict-of-interest violation, and arguably he ignores WP:CON by continuing discussions after they have been clearly settled.
  4. The complaint about the other users commenting on the ban request is complete hogwash and should be ignored. For the most part, those users were not involved in the conflict and were offering outside opinions. However, those users who were involved in the original conflict have had their behavior questioned by Gordon, and that questioning has largely been ignored (so as to keep the conversation on-topic). However, a consideration of the environment in which Gordon's behavior occurred may be beneficial, and was somewhat missing in the ban discussion.
  5. Although this hasn't been to an RfC yet, the ban discussion was certainly as extensive as most RfCs (and perhaps should have been one in the first place). Nonetheless, it would be needlessly disruptive to have the whole discussion over again: I think ArbCom should either take up the case, or by not doing so, be willing to implicitly endorse the community decision. Mangojuice 05:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:JzG

User:GordonWatts is Gordon Watts, an individual who was active in campaigning over the Terri Schiavo case. His editing of articles related to Terri Schiavo is tendentious and disruptive, to say nothing of obsessive in pushing his highly individual point of view. He is also relentless in pressing for links to his websites, although even he agrees these are not reliable sources.

From the community discussion, here is his edit record:

Total edits: 4210: Avg edits per article: 12.38

  • Mainspace edits: 575 (13.7% of all edits)
  • Total Terri Schiavo related edits: 484 (84.2% of category)
  • Talk Page edits: 1266 (30.1% of all edits)
  • Total Terri Schiavo-related Talk page edits: 1145 (90.4% of category)
  • Misplaced Pages space: 562 (13.3% of all edits)
  • Total Terri Schiavo-FAC page edits: 282 (50.2% of category)
  • Total Adminship request edits: 107 (19.0% of category)
  • User talk page edits: 1412 (33.5% of all edits)
  • User page edits: 134 (3.2% of all edits)
  • Everything else (other articles, Category, Template, Image, etc): 472 (11.2% of all edits)

Minor point: I was not really an involved party, when I started the motion to close I was acting as an admin trying to wrestle the more assertive calls for a permanent ban down to something a bit more appropriate tot he problem in hand, and I closed it in response to a request at the admin noticeboard to stop the ongoing argumentation (any debate with GordonWatts involved appears to spiral out of control very rapidly).

It was the opinion of the community that his editing of Terri Schiavo articles was highly disruptive and should be curtailed or stopped entirely. Numerous editors have spent a lot of time trying to resolve this, but the problem is not resolved because the resolution requires GordonWatts to accept that the consensus is against him and stop agitating for his POV and links to his websites, and he is not willing to do that. No amount of patient explanation persuades him to drop it, getting his POV and especially his links into those articles is the dominant theme of his involvement with the project and a consistent source of friction and wasted time. GordonWatts is responsible for almost all debate on these articles in recent times, and in no case that I can see has he persuaded others of the merits of his case.

Sometimes when a large number of people say you are wrong, it is because you are wrong - GordonWatts is unwilling or unable to accept this simple truth. The fact that GordonWatts has couched this request in terms requesting that everybody else is disciplined shows this as clearly as anyone could want - yet another case where he is told "no", and chooses to escalate or forum-shop instead of accepting it. See also the top of Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo/archive3 - from Gordon in bold red, "The page is nominated based in its own merit, not that of troublemaker-editors. Please close the troublemakers down. We will not let them win on my watch.--GordonWatts 21:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)" The ability to believe that the problem is everybody else, not him, is clearly a hallmark of Watts' involvement, and it has been going on for far too long.

Is the problem Gordon, or everybody who interacts with Gordon? You decide. Please either take this case, and implement a temporary injunction banning Watts form disrupting those articles and talk pages, or speedily endorse the community sanction, which has considerable involvement from a decent number of editors and admins in good standing. Guy (Help!) 12:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:Fredrick day

I first because aware of User:GordonWatts when he appeared on AN/I appealing for help over his links - it was clear from the outset that those links did not match WP:RS and his actions were not in line with WP:COI. Over the period of 12 days of interaction it has become clear to me that Gordon is either unable or unwilling to work within the wikipedia framework. People here have talked about the policy based reasons that he should be restricted/should not be restricted but being a good wikipedian requires more than following policy to the letter, it requires a level of self-awareness and an ability to work with others. Gordon has two problems - first it is clear that he however he spins it, he is still trying to get his links inserted, sure he spins it as a wider concern but the endgame is clear - how do I get my non-notable self-produced links included (Gordon may make reference to running a newspaper - it's actually just a couple of freehosted webpages)? The second problem ties into the spirit of wikipedia, Gordon clearly feels that by a combination of wikilawyering and repeating himself over and over he can talk people around to his side of events - his failed RFA provided a useful snapshot of how Gordon interacted with the community in the past and from my interactions with him, nothing has changed since that time period. Now why is this a problem? It's not that it is an explicit policy breach but rather that Gordon Watt acts as a blackhole sucking all of the associated talkpages into endless debates about his links and his POV. It's that which is disruptive - even after 12 days of interaction, I consider GW a menace (not because of malice) to wikipedia process on those pages - I supported limiting his posts to one a day and I still do. --Fredrick day 10:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

process concern: I have a process concern - Gordon is asking Arbcom to accept this arbitration with an unnamed number of editors being covered by "other editors" and states that hereby confirm that, upon a successful filing, I shall notified the users listed by mention on their talk page -except that, in the case of the un-named participants, I shall make a note on the related talk page, that is, here: Misplaced Pages:Community_noticeboard#Community_ban_request_on_User:GordonWatts surely a) those unnamed editors should be a) named and b) informed of this process before it continues. --Fredrick day 16:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. --jpgordon 17:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:ChazBeckett

I concur with everything presented by JzG, and would like to add a few comments of my own. I've had limited interaction with Gordon, but I've seen first-hand how incredibly frustrating it is to have discussions with him. Gordon doesn't easily fit into any of the typical categories of problem editors. He's not a troll, yet his actions cause considerable disruption. He's not a trouble-maker, yet problems seem to follow him wherever he edits. He's not a spammer, yet he's consistently adding links to his own sites. Basically, Gordon can only be classified as someone who just doesn't get it. The ultimate problem, as JzG points out, is that Gordon strongly believes that it's everyone else that's wrong and the solution is to explain at absurdly great length what's actually correct. His discussion style is to use a huge amount of text for Wikilawyering, making accusations against other editors and repeating arguments ad nauseum. Even some of his edit summaries have these problems . In summary, I believe that editing restriction on Gordon Watts are absolutely necessary because he is either unwilling or unable to edit in a non-disruptive manner. I don't believe that this disruption is intentional, but the effect is still very damaging to the project. I urge the ArbCom to either endorse the remedies discussed by the community or to take the case and investigate Gordon's behavior more extensively. ChazBeckett 14:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

Highway 401

Initiated by RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk at 20:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

All parties are aware.
Mediation by neutral third parties have been attempted. Parties are unable to reach a middle ground

Statement by Ringtailed Fox, on behalf of himself, Gridlock Joe, Snickerdo, Dl2000, and Bacl-presby

  • Ringtailed Fox, backed by Gridlock Joe, Snickerdo, and Bacl-presby have repeatedly asked Sonysnob how the text regarding the upgrades to Highway 401 is a copyright violation of Sonysnob's website, onthighways.com. When asked by Ringtaled Fox, Snickerdo, and Bacl-presby on how it is a violation, the user either refuses to answer, or states that it is from his website, therefore a violation, even after the article was re-worded as he asked, and sourced no less than three times throughout the large article. We revert, feeling there is no violation present, and we have followed the Misplaced Pages copyright system. Ringtailed Fox and Snickerdo have also tried to contact Sonysnob, but the user tends to avoid most of hte time, choosing when and if to respond. Most of the communication is on RingtailedFox's talk page.
  • Sonysnob claims that the section regarding the upgrade of the Oxford county upgrades to Highway 401 is a direct violation of his website, onthighways.com. Sonysnob acts by reverting the article continually, or by deleting the allegedly violating information.

Statement by Dl2000

  • Dl2000 was only involved to the extent of applying 3RR messages to both Ringtailed Fox and Sonysnob to discourage revert warring on the page and to encourage dispute resolution by other means. Dl2000 was not involved in reverting the page, nor initially taking sides in this. Dl2000 15:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Kirill Lokshin

I am currently attempting to impress the fact that copying text from someone's website is, in fact, a copyright violation on the filing parties; unfortunately, it seems that the learning process may require blocks, as some people just don't seem to get it. Kirill Lokshin 04:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

  • One comment moved to correct section. Please include your complete statement in your own section, even if you are summarizing what you understand to be another party's position. Newyorkbrad 22:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

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

ElKevbo

Initiated by John254 at 03:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

They haven't. However, much of the controversy regarding this situation concerns the nature and proper interpretation of checkuser results, the underlying data for which cannot be publicly released to facilitate community-based dispute resolution. The Arbitration Committee, which has the privilege of viewing the exact IP addresses from which ElKevbo has been editing, is best suited to resolving this issue, as explained below.

Statement by John254

On February 20, 2007, there was an edit war on Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006 between LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, various IP addresses, and ElKevbo. Since ElKevbo joined the edit war to revert to the article version favored by the IP addresses, then filed a report on WP:AN3 regarding LegitimateAndEvenCompelling's reversions (most of which were reversions of edits from various IP addresses), I suspected that ElKevbo may have been using the IP addresses as abusive sockpuppets to violate the three-revert rule. Thus, I filed Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/ElKevbo regarding this situation, which yielded a result of "inconclusive". As checkuser results reflect only the degree to which a user's IP addresses are related to the other IP addresses, rather than the totality of evidence as to whether a user has been engaging in abusive sockpuppetry, I filed a report on WP:AN3, which set forth in detail the evidence that ElKevbo had used an IP address as an abusive sockpuppet to violate the three-revert rule, on the basis of the fact that his IP addresses were sufficiently related to the IP in question to warrant an "inconclusive" rather than an "unrelated" checkuser finding, the chronology of the edits by ElKevbo and the IP, and the fact that both ElKevbo and the IP were reverting to identical versions of the article. As a result of this report, Crum375 blocked ElKevbo for one week, then subsequently unblocked ElKevbo after he asserted his innocence. . Of particular interest is the fact that ElKevbo stated that "At least one of the IP addresses that was alleged to my sockpuppet appears to be in or around Chicago whereas I live in (rural) Tennessee" . After ElKevbo's account was unblocked, he requested the unblocking of 24.183.217.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an IP address located in Tullahoma, Tennessee, allegedly to remove an autoblock. By contrast, the IP addresses at issue in Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/ElKevbo, 68.22.204.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 68.22.193.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and 66.158.92.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), are all located in Chicago, Illinois ( ). The distance between these two locations would seem to be consistent with "unrelated" checkuser results, not "inconclusive" as was the case in Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/ElKevbo. As the Arbitration Committee can view the actual checkuser data in this case, it is in the best position to consider the totality of evidence, and to determine whether ElKevbo has engaged in abusive sockpuppetry to violate the three-revert rule on Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006. John254 03:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by ElKevbo

If the ArbCom would like to look into this, they're more then welcome to do so. However, if the only evidence to be considered is IP address information then I'm afraid such an investigation would be inconclusive. I'm sure that we all know that IP addresses can be spoofed, proxies employed, etc. Further, I assert that the editing pattern of the anonymous editors is entirely inconsistent with own editing pattern. As an editor with several thousand edits, there is a large body of such evidence.

If the ArbCom does not take this case, would it be appropriate for you to instruct John to please drop this case and leave me alone? I was mistakenly blocked on very flimsy evidence and the block was subsequently lifted by the administrator involved after several e-mails were exchanged. I'm not sure what more can be done but this entire incident has proved very frustrating and puzzling. I expect to be treated better as an upstanding editor with a clean record of contributions. I also expect to take abuse from the vandals whose edits I continually revert; I do not expect to take such abuse from other upstanding editors. --ElKevbo 03:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Response to Essjay's comment at 06:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC): Ah, ok. If this had been stated to me earlier perhaps I could have cleared up part of this confusion. I did spend a few days traveling last week to two different campuses in two different states. Therefore you probably do see edits from IPs in Indiana, Michigan, and Tennessee (with the vast majority in Tennessee). Note that none of those are in Illinois which to where the anonymous editor(s)' IP addresses map. I believe the timing is also different. If you'd like further information about when and why I was out state, I'd be happy to supply that information, too, if that will allow us to drop this and move on. --ElKevbo 06:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Response to Essjay's comment at 06:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC): That would have been easier if I had been told about the RFCU. But I was never told; I only found out after being blocked. I'm sure you can appreciate the problem with this sequence of events. --ElKevbo 07:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Essjay

On the issue of the inconclusive result in the checkuser case: The IPs listed all resolve to Chicago. The user in question is editing from two universities in two different states, and from IPs that resolve to two additional states. Under those circumstances, I did not feel comfortable calling the result unrelated. I will be happy to provide full results on the mailing list if necessary. As an aside, I was asked about this by the blocking admin via email, and made the same explanation. Essjay (Talk) 06:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Responding to ElKevbo: Our job is not to interrogate users about thier editing patters, and indeed, there is no way to do so while continuing to protect your privacy (I could come out and say "Why were you in Timbuktu on this date? Why are you editing from the University of Katmandu?" but then the stalkers know where you are, don't they?). Our job is to look at the technical evidence and give a report about it. Because you obviously had access to a number of different IPs in a number of different locations, I couldn't rule out that you had access to IPs in Chicago too. On the other hand, you were free to ask on the checkuser case why the result was inconclusive, and you would have been told. Essjay (Talk) 06:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved editor User:GordonWatts

  • I am a long-time editor, with over 4,300 edits: (ironically, using that Essjay's tool link below his comment, as other edit counters have been non-functional lately!). I see this dispute whilst a looking at mine immediately above...
  • My only purpose in commenting is to suggest that Misplaced Pages prevent unregistered users from editing any articles. (AOL and many forums require registration.) The logic behind my objective suggestion is that registration would more-or-less prevent half the problems associated with this: "...the issue of the inconclusive result in the checkuser case: The IPs listed all resolve to Chicago," i.e., trying to identify "anonymous" editors, who use only IP addresses to edit: Users could not imitate one another. As an extrapolation, I would, if I were Jimbo, require editors to post a photo, real name, and contact data, just like editors at the New York Times, and then I would solicit ads to pay these editors. Salary paycheck would help convince editors to devote more time to the project, thus it would increase quality and efficiency. This opinion is a "general" opinion and could apply to the project as a whole, thus I shouldn't need to repeat this anytime soon.--GordonWatts 04:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/1/0)


Instantnood 4

Initiated by SchmuckyTheCat at 20:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

This will be Instantnoods 3rd ArbCom case. Other dispute resolution has already failed.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3, closed March 2006
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 2, closed December 2005

Statement by SchmuckyTheCat

Instantnood has been through ArbCom sanctions two times already. The last put him on permanent probation and said he should be banned if he can't stop revert warring. He has not stopped, whatsoever. He's been article banned repeatedly - that works. He's been put on time based blocks of up to two weeks multiple times and when he returns he just has a larger list of things he needs to revert. The last remedy from the last ArbCom case was an absolute user ban forever. I don't particularly want that outcome.

The nature of the reverts is exactly the same as always. It doesn't really matter whether consensus exists in any of his reverts - he reverts to what he prefers no matter whether talk page discussions agree with him or not. Some reverts are silly (dozens of reverts over the spelling of Macao, insisting it be spelled with an o, rather than a u) and some are absolutely unacceptable POV warring (removing Macau and Hong Kong from the Category of People's Republic of China). Some of the participants in the edit wars are the same, some are new. What's clear is the problem is centered around Instantnood.

In other words, same content and edit wars as before, same violations of polices as before. The existing remedies have not convinced him to change his behavior and the enforcement is lacking in effectiveness to curb it.

Proposed remedy

The remedies from the last case have been ineffective. The only effective remedy has been article bans; so I propose an extension of that. Instantnood should be placed on 0RR. He should never be able to revert an article to a previous version. He should be able to create new content and participate in discussions regarding content and the direction of policies. 1RR would be ineffective as he simply moves the revert war, making the same edit to different articles.

Evidence

Just a cursory examination of his contributions over the last 24 hours (19 February 2007) shows more than 100 reverts out of 200 edits. It's absolutely robotic, nearly mechanical and absolutely overwhelming. He's also making new POV re-organizations of exactly the same sort he was prohibited from doing in the last case.

Procedure

Does this really need a total case opening? It's the exact same case that's been argued twice before, there's no defense to it. I'm simply asking for a new remedy.

Response to statements below.
When Instantnood makes reverts like these he affects close to 1000 articles at a time.
Kirill Lokshin "Instantnood is already under two different probations (as well as some other restrictions); I don't see anything that a further case could reasonably add." Instantnood has been banned uncountable number of times on his existing probations. The remedy does not work. The last remedy from the last case to consider is a permanent ban from Misplaced Pages, which I don't want and neither does any commenter below. This is an attempt to save the editor when it is probably the only other course is permanent removal. What this further case would add is a workable, enforcible remedy.
All of the others below, even those who agree with him in some part, can point out that Instantnood is always on a revert spree against consensus. We need a solution that puts a stop to that but preserves his ability to edit and discuss, or as HongQiGong said, forces him to discuss.

Statement by user Penwhale

My previous involvement is at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2. My stance has not changed much, although this worries me. Most of IN's edits on that page seems to be WP:POINT. And that's not talking about the PRC/ROC edits (which, to be honest, I haven't been looking at lately). My gut is telling me that this time it's not just China/Taiwan related anymore. More than that, I cannot say at this time. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 04:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Deryck C.'s comment below, I agree that most of the mainland china/PRC/etc... is content dispute. The diff I provided above is a whole different case. The mass-revert of Macau to Macao should have been discussed. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 10:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved user Deryck C.

I've been working closely with Instantnood in Hong Kong-related articles since mid-2005 till 2006 when Instantnood was first put on sanction. There were clear evidence that putting aside such revert wars, Instantnood's contribution to Misplaced Pages is certainly beneficial to the spreading of knowledge about Hong Kong.

From the revert wars and arbcom cases that happened so far, I noticed that no party involved in the dispute, especially Huaiwei, sought consensus. The involved parties would only like to kick the opposite opinion out of Misplaced Pages through arbcom sanctions. This violates Misplaced Pages's acceptance of variety.

An example illustrating my abovesaid situation is the article Hong Kong Central Library, in which I, Instantnood and Huaiwei all participated greatly. The main focus of the dispute was that Instantnood and I agreed the inclusion of Category:National libraries, while Huaiwei opposed. Instead of trying to seek a remedy or consensus, an edit war broke out which lasted until Instantnood's first sanction. Afterwards, it is self-explanatory that Huaiwei's version prevailed.

However, this is only part of the situation. During the period when the dispute was in process, I discovered that Huaiwei followed my edits to various articles closely and reverted or further edited many of them. Moreover, personal discussions with Huaiwei did not seem to yield much.

Moreover, even the remedy SchmuckyTheCat suggested was not useful. 0RR is not useful in most content disputes since the party under sanction can alter some wording and put forth the same idea. Categorization and other actions can be appended to another edit so that the rule was not violated.

It looks clear that some involved parties would like to make use of arbcom to terminate a content dispute through banning another user from performing reversion completely. Is this, a content dispute, something the arbcom supposed to decide upon? Seems not. --Deryck C. 06:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Regarding Penwhale's comment on the diff, I reckon that Instantnood's probable misinterpretation of "guidelines" is worrying. However, I still doubt that another arbcom decision will be fruitful above the decisions made in prior cases. --Deryck C. 10:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Regarding Huaiwei's reply, I am delighted to see Huaiwei's effort to seek personal discussion by posting a message on my talk page. I am sorry that I cannot provide direct reference to the situation I described above, but Flag of Hong Kong was likely a case. I cannot provide such references immediately because of my unavailability to access the computer for long time periods. Therefore it is quite impractical and non-beneficial if I check each single edit of mine and of Huaiwei's from early July to late December 2005. In the above statement, I was only describing the situation out of my memory. My apologies if (a double apology if somebody can prove) my memory is actually messed up after being stored in my brain for one and a half years. Anyway, I would like to thank Huaiwei for responding to my accusation directly and positively, making the situation clearer and more open to all parties. --Deryck C. 16:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    Hereby I would like to seek some opinion: Huaiwei suggested that because Misplaced Pages:Verifiability should override Misplaced Pages:Consensus (according to the latter page, this is true as long as the consensus does not decide to reinterpret the rule of verifiability for this special case) he chose to ignore consensus when editing Hong Kong Central Library. However, since categories are just tools for reader navigation instead of article information itself, should the verifiability rule still apply strictly to categorization? Moreover, since the criterion befitting a "national library" itself is not comprehensively defined, I believe the verifiability rule, even if applies to categorization, can be twisted a bit when the consensus is to include the categorization. --Deryck C. 17:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Huaiwei

Before I give the full facts behind my stand, may I respond with regards to User:Deryck Chan's comment above.

If Deryck Chan's comments on my failure to act according to concensus is based on an example like Hong Kong Central Library, then I must point out that in such instances, it is almost always a case of Misplaced Pages:Consensus being pitted against Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. My primary contention is that the contributors to the said article has been unable to cite any reliable, non-self-published source, nor any official government document supporting views as advanced by the "majority", practically all of whom where Hong Kongers and thus with vested interests on the said topic. Not to say local knowledge or community concensus are unimportant, and nor am I comfortable with the idea of pitting one policy against another, but in all past disputes I have been invovled in, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability has always prevailed over Misplaced Pages:Consensus, unless I have interpreted this wrong all along. I hope someone can enlighten me if the later is true.

May I also refer to his suggestion that I was wikistalking his edits. I do hope he may provide some evidence for this allerged behavior.--Huaiwei 15:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by HongQiGong

I have personally been involved in revert-warring with Instantnood, and have had arguments with him. Despite that, I still believe his edits are all in good faith. And when he's not revert-warring, he does add valuable contribution to Hong Kong and Macau-related articles. Let's be honest, revert-warring takes at least two parties. But the difference with Instantnood is that his reverting always seems to be some solo personal crusade, with nearly nobody ever agreeing with him. This points to an unwillingness to work with other editors in a give-and-take situation to build consensus. I don't think the solution is a permanent ban. I would argue that he be prevented from editing article pages, but that he should retain full editing privileges on Talk pages. This will force him to gain consensus for the changes he wants to see on the articles. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Alai

I had, as I expressed at WP:ANI reservations about this going to the committee for a fourth iteration, as it hardly seems the speediest or most delicate way of getting resolution of these 'venerable' issues. However, as that thread has since died a death (perhaps due to this filing, or else general fatigue?), I begin to wonder if it doesn't beat no resolution at all. It's clear to me that enforcement of existing remedies haven't (yet) been successful: even today we're seeing edits with summaries like "Revert POV reorganisation by user:SchmuckyTheCat and user:Huaiwei. Status quo ante". That implies to me that either we accept constant reversion of every article, category and template on which there's no explicit case by case consensus on spelling (Macau vs. Macao) or scoping (PRC vs. Mainland China), where lack of explicit consensus is construed as a licence to revert back to some supposedly presumptively "uncontroversial" pre-edit-war version (in all likelihood simply a "who got there first" version); or more heavy-handed enforcement is employed, meaning in effect longer and longer blocks. (Or else AN/I does its occasional 'mini-arbcom' impersonation, and decides to impose a 'community-supported' sanction, or a "or else we'll block" provision.) I'm also sure there will be protests if anyone who has attempted to help resolve these issues in the past acts in such a manner, on the basis of their being "too involved". So I equally have reservations about seeing this 'declined through want of possible measures'.

Can I suggest that possible remedies would in fact be:

  • 0RR, as suggested in the filing (for anyone found to have acted against the spirit of existing injunctions, not necessarily just IN);
  • a ban from the category space (and category-populating templates), as they pertain to such issues;
  • a requirement that such edits be in line with those in closely-related articles, rather than allowing a style free-for-all;
  • or an explicit requirement to discuss such edits before they're carried out, or at the least before they're repeated.

Any of those would see to me to be preferable to the "all or nothing" options. An ideal resolution would be an explicit cross-wikipedia consensus on style, naming and scoping questions (or failing which, whatever agreement there is on such matters, made explicit), so that these battles don't have to be endlessly refought an article at a time. I hesitate to suggest enforcing any sort of 'binding mediation', since the track record in such areas doesn't seem to be good ("U.S. highways" springs to mind), but this seems as suitable a case as any, if only to draw up a 'ceasefire line', if an actual overall resolution can't be achieved.

To Deryck I would like to say: no, this isn't a content issue, this is a behaviour issue, where the behaviour is manifest in the context of a content dispute (as is very often the case). That other people may have behaved inappropriately is by no means a reason not to look at IN's behaviour (rather, it's a reason to look at theirs, too). It seems to me that a 0RR limitation (of any and all parties) would be extremely useful: it would cause the disruptive behaviour to cease. If by 'not useful', you mean 'cause "the wrong version" to prevail', I'd say that's a second-order issue, and one that other editors can take up -- hopefully in a more moderate fashion. (And I say that without reference to which version might prevail.) I'm also sure that editors already under probation would find it more 'useful' to them than a lengthy block. Further, speculating about the intent of those asking for committee to examine the issues doesn't seem helpful: even if the filer were indeed acting in bad faith, if an issue was correctly identified thereby which it was appropriate to address in this venue, I feel it would not be logical to rule it out on those grounds. (Never mind the whole 'windows into souls' area that gets into.) Alai 20:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

To which list of possible remedies I'd like to add: one could make Instantnood's practice of 'systematic "ante bellum" reversion' binding on all parties to the dispute. I.e. that no-one already under sanction -- or indeed more broadly, no-one at all -- should change these naming/scoping/style choices from that of the original contributor, until such time as there's a consensus to do so. Personally I don't think this is a very good solution, as it rather negates the quaint idea that we're attempting to build an encyclopaedia with common editorial standards, rather than providing a hosting service for a bunch of wiki-linked articles WP:OWNed by their original authors; but again, it would at least solve the behaviour problem(s), without getting into the area of the AC directly determining content. Alai 16:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

Requests for clarification

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

Clarification regarding a self-identified pedophile

A few days ago, Arbitration Committee member Raul654 had written in response to my querry regarding self-idenitifed pedophiles, (in part) that:

If someone is still editing as a self-identified pedophile, that would seem to me to be a violation of our ruling that people should not bring the project into disrepute.

User:Clayboy (Contributions) writes on his user page that "I self-identify as a "boylover"; a pedophile and an ephebophile." My question is: whether it is within my discretion as an administrator to block Clayboy's account indefinitely and direct him to create a new account in which he refrains from self-identifying himself as a pedophile (and by extension, linking himself to his prior account)? El_C 16:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Clarification on Parole violations

Refer to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier

No time limit is given for the Parole violations. Am I correct to assume that this ends when the article ban ends as well? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Parole is generally indefinite unless otherwise stated. However, that decision is oddly worded compared to recent cases. I'd guess that since more than three months have passed, you should make a formal request to lift the revert parole. Thatcher131 22:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It does not appear that any revert paroles were actually passed in this case. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier/Proposed decision#Revert parole. (The majority in this case was 6.) Recent precedent is that an enforcement provision that remains in the decision as an artifact of a remedy proposal that was not passed, but has no adopted remedy to enforce, is to be disregarded. Compare Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Konstable/Proposed decision#Implementation notes. Given the prior difficulties you encountered, you might be well-advised to abide by the proposed parole limitations voluntarily if you intend to resume editing the relevant article. However, if you wish, clarification can be requested from the arbitrators on this issue, or perhaps they will comment here. Newyorkbrad 03:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The revert parole didn't pass, only the mooted enforcement for if it had passed. TDC is on parole from this case: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Depleted_uranium#TDC_placed_on_revert_parole, and that expires May 6, 2007. Dmcdevit·t 03:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I had actually wondered about that. There appears to be a discrepancy in the decision. In the “Proposed Remedies”, there appeared to be no consensus on a Revert Parole , then in the Proposed Enforcement section there is unanimous support for a “Parole violations” . The “Parole violations” also appears in the final decision. So now we have several questions.
1. Why is there a discrepancy between the proposed decision and proposed enforcement?
2. What does this discrepancy mean, if anything.
3. What is the expiration date, if any of the “RV Parole”?
Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
From the Winter Soldier case, a revert parole was proposed but failed. See here. Therefore the enforcement proposal does not take effect, there being nothing to enforce. (It probably should have been left off the page.) There is no revert parole from the Winter Soldier case.
However, a general one-revert parole was approved in the Depleted Uranium case, see here. As stated, you are limited to one content revert per article per day, for a duration of one year from the date the case was closed (6 May 2006). Thatcher131 16:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I am not trying to be obtuse here, but there is a discrepancy, and the final decision does lay out a provision for Rv Patrol, and has a unanimous passing vote. I was confused about this at the time as well. I am seeking clarification because the anonymous user has returned. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah. Well, you can't enforce something that doesn't pass. There were 10 active arbitrators on the Winter Soldier case, so a majority is 6. The proposed 1RR parole on the anonymous editor had a vote of 5-2 here, so it didn't pass. Unfortunately, this mean that now that the one year ban is over, the anonymous editor can revert more than you can, because of your parole in the subsequent DU case. That certainly seems unfair, particularly if the anon editor is continuing to revert war. I can only suggest that you try one of the following; ask for semi-protection at WP:RFPP, try to get some admins to watch the page for you, use RFC to demonstrate that your version has consensus, or file a request to reopen the Winter Soldier case, showing that the anon editor is back and is continuing the same behavior. Good luck. Thatcher131 16:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Thatcher's opinion above: the Winter Soldier revert parole did not pass (to my disappointment), so discussion of its enforcement is nugatory; once the Depleted Uranium revert parole expires, TDC's revert rate is capped only by the 3RR (which is an electric fence, not an entitlement). ➥the Epopt 16:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The anon is back, but has an account now. I filed a checkuser, and it indicated that it was likely that the new user was also the anon. The edits are not taking place on the same article, but a related one. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, there is always the usual dispute resolution process, at the end of which, if the editor is still disruptive, is arbitration. You could try filing an arbitration case now; acceptance would depend on whether the arbitrators agree that the editor's previous pass through arbitration and current behavior are enough to demonstrate the futility of running through the whole DR process from the beginning. Thatcher131 18:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Thatcher and The Epopt. However, one can approach the Arbcom, or even AN/I, if disruptive behaviors that were once under Arbcom sanction recur, and the process for getting those sanctions re-applied or even extended are often much less formal and quicker. Jayjg 16:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


Request for clarification on remedy of the Requests for arbitration/Kosovo

On 21 October 2006 the Kosovo arbcom found that I had been given 96 hours probation for edit warring on the Srebrenica massacre article and based on this (presumably) gave me one years probation and revert parole. I have a couple of questions regarding this remedy.

  • why did the Kosovo arbcom consider my misconduct on the Srebrenica massacre article? Nowehere is the Srebrenica massacre article names as a 'related article'. Nowhere is the reasoning for linking the two articles given.
  • it seems a rather harsh remedy to give me one years probation and revert parole for a 'crime' which I had already served time for (so to say).
  • is it possible to appeal the Kosovo arbcom's decision?

Sincere regards Osli73 10:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this happened. I don't see any edits at all that you made to Kosovo. Fred Bauder 18:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Please also refer to my note on Fred's talk page as well as the conversation on my talk page. El_C 02:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Fred, what is the process I need to go through to appeal the decision of the arbcom? Regards Osli73 09:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC) Oh, I see it has already started.Osli73 09:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


I see that Dmcdevit is arguing not to revoke the decisions. My comments on his reasons for not doing so are:

  1. dmcdevit doesn't answer why I should be 'punished' a second time for a 'crime' which I had already been punished for. If so, could I be 'punished' for the original edit war yet another time?
  2. I don't it mentioned anywhere in the Kosovo arbcom case that edits on the Srebrenica massacre article should be considered. It might be worthy of interest that Asterion already asked Dmcdevit this question (here) to which Dmcdevit answered that "It's reasonably related enough for me". What is the 'jurisdiction' of the Kosovo arbcom? Why were not edits on other articles considered?
  3. It seems somewhat odd that a, in my opinion, wrongfully made decision should be upheld by events which took place after that decision was made. In my opinion, the original arbcom decision should be upheld or revoked based on what took place prior to the original decision. Any subsequent behaviour should be judged on its own merits. I see this process as revoking an incorrect judgment, not as an appeal for 'early release'.

Regards Osli73 10:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


Osli73 has repeatedly violated the terms of his parole. He created a sockpuppet KarlXII with which he created fake conversations between Osli73 and KarlXII in a willful attempt to deceive people. With the sockpuppet KarlXII, he continued the behavior that got him on parole in the first place. What purpose does it serve to lessen (?!) the penalties at a time when he should be facing more restrictions for this behavior?89.146.130.23 22:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
As I have explained before, this inappropriate behavior was due to personal threats (off wikipedia) and harassment (much of it by you, some recent examples ). The identity change was to avoid personal threats, not avoid the remedy (KarlXII existed before the ARBCOM decision). This does not excuse the sockpuppeteering, but it explains it. Regards Osli73 10:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


Motions in prior cases

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

Osli73

On 21 October 2006 the Kosovo arbcom found that I had been given 96 hours probation for edit warring on the Srebrenica massacre article and based on this (presumably) gave me one year's probation and revert parole. I have a couple of questions regarding this remedy.

  • why did the Kosovo arbcom consider my misconduct on the Srebrenica massacre article? Nowehere is the Srebrenica massacre article names as a 'related article'. Nowhere is the reasoning for linking the two articles in the judgement given.
  • it seems a rather harsh remedy to give me one years probation and revert parole for a 'crime' which I had already served time for (so to say).
  • is it possible to appeal the Kosovo arbcom's decision?

Sincere regards Osli73 10:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this happened. I don't see any edits at all that you made to Kosovo. Fred Bauder 18:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Moved that the two remedies applied to Osli73 be revoked. Fred Bauder 18:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. When we look at a case, we certainly may take into account a party's total behavior if it is relevant in coming to a conclusion. In some cases ignoring a wider problem because of concerns about scope is harmful; it's a judgment call. Since the case, Osli has been blocked for violation of his remedies, and using a sockpuppet to evade detection. And I note that Osli has repeatedly been edit warring at Srebrenica massacre for months now; in fact, 30 seconds perusing shows that he violated his revert parole yesterday: , . Lessening the restrictions at this point seems counterproductive. Dmcdevit·t 05:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

Archives

Categories: