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 VinceB (talk | contribs) at 00:02, 5 September 2006 (→[]: +1). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:02, 5 September 2006 by VinceB (talk | contribs) (→[]: +1)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Shortcut
  • ]

A request for Arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. Before requesting Arbitration, please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom).

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
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

The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and (exceptionally) to summarily review new evidence and update the findings and decisions of a previous case. Review is likely to be appropriate if later events indicate the original ruling on scope or enforcement was too limited and does not adequately address the situation, or if new evidence suggests the findings of fact were significantly in error.

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. If your case is accepted for arbitration, the arbitrator or clerk will create an evidence page that you can use to provide more detail. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person against whom you lodge a complaint.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arbitrators' votes to accept/reject/recuse/other. Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after four accept votes are cast. When a case is opened, a notice that includes a link to a newly created evidence page will be posted to each participant's talk page. See the Requests section of the arbitration policy page for details.

This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Please do not open cases; only an Arbitrator or Clerk may do so.

See also


Purge the server cache


How to list cases

Under the Current requests section below:

  • Click the "" tab on the right of the screen appearing above the section break line;
  • Copy the full formatting template (text will be visible in edit mode), omitting the lines which say "BEGIN" and "END TEMPLATE";
  • Paste template text where it says "ADD CASE BELOW";
  • Follow instructions on comments (indented), and fill out the form;
  • Remove the template comments (indented).

Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template

Current requests

User:Juro

  • content POV pusher, pro-slovak, or anti-hungarian, the same.

See his discussion page. Always the same, he only contributes pages, wich are related to these. From slovakizing hungarian names to these.

I suggest banning him from articles, related to Slovakia, or Hungary. - PS: burocracy is so high, i didn't find where to put this kind of thing, so I put it here. Hope this is it. --VinceB 23:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Human Rights in Israel

Initiated by MauroVan at 10:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

Mediation attempts made (check Talk:Israel#NPOV_Tag_for_Human_Rights).

Statement by MauroVan

I think that the section Israel#Human rights should be shorter, refer to the main article and give some links with significant and well-known sources; among those sources, I would list Amnesty International and the United Nations, even though some strongly pro-Israel users don't seem to like those organizations. Some users, especially Humus sapiens, instead of trying to solve this issue on the Talk page, just revert any change. Two external mediators did their best to sort it out, but it was useless since these users refuse to cooperate.

I know that this is not the right place to tell this, so please forgive me for the off-topic but I find it very important for personal and political reasons to clarify that I am a strong opposer (in deeds and not just in words) of any form of anti-Semitism.--MauroVan 10:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Humus sapiens

It seems that I am not the only one unaware of previous mediation attempts: in this content dispute. MauroVan (talk · contribs) is a new user who tries to turn article Israel into a clone of Israeli-Palestinian conflict or Israeli-occupied territories. He was reverted by a number of editors - he called that vandalizing, and branded me a "vandal" (later retracted), requested that you need to be blocked and got increasingly agitated. Ironically, whithout knowing that he was filing this case, I made a compromise (included links to Amnesty Intl and Human Rights Watch, but without MV's huge quotation ), but he still keeps insisting that WP should comply with his POV and his style preferences only: . ←Humus sapiens 22:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Markovich292

Based on the actions of some editors, especially Humus sapiens, I firmly believe that continued discussion on the talk page will not produce an acceptable solution, for either party. The most recent additions to the article as mentioned above do not include a large amount of information that should be contained in a section entitled "Human Rights..." I have observed that MauroVan repeatedly makes attempts to resolve this issue quickly and fairly, but editors that seem to be very supportive of Israel do not constructively address the contributions, much of the time deleting entire portions of it instead. In particular, Humus Sapiens is not adhering to NPOV policy, as he continually rewrites the section to minimalize the human rights issues in Israel. In short, I don't think Humus Sapiens will accept any version of the section that makes more than a passing reference to human rights violations, and as a result the quality of the article is suffering. Markovich292 23:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Blnguyen

At the time of writing, MauroVan has been on Misplaced Pages for three weeks and has some 130 odd posts. The section of dispute resolution is roughly the size of a moderate topic on WP:ANI. I don't see any formal or semi-formal procedures to try and solve the problem prior to this request. There are surely more pressing and otherwise intractable issues that the ArbCom could go before prematurely wading into this case. I think that this is premature and should be dismissed.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 23:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Honda S2000

Initiated by — AKADriver ☎ at 15:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Comments regarding this request for arbitration have been added to:

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • A request for comment was posted approximately two months ago:
  • Mediation was requested from the Cabal:

  • A cabal mediator suggested arbitration upon reviewing the temperament of the parties involved:

The case is a revert war regarding the encyclopedic value of criticism of a sports car.

Statement by AKADriver

My position is that the "Criticism" section of this article is unencyclopedic editorial, and presents a biased POV by only representing negative opinions. Any attempts to alter the content, add positive opinions, shorten the section to improve the flow and readability of the article, add POV-check flags, or remove the section are reverted within hours by SpinyNorman alone. Consensus built by the RFC seems to indicate all editors except for SpinyNorman support shortening or removing the section.

The article's history shows frequent reverts of this nature:

Zunaid condensed the section and removed the offending content following the RFC. This version is acceptable to me, even though there is no precedent for criticism in an automotive article.

Statement by Jsw663 (cabal mediator)

After reviewing the case history, I thought about mediating. However, given that the user SpinyNorman has been imposing his version of his edit repeatedly over some time already, as well as his history being chequered by bans, as well as his statements on the discussion page, suggest that mediation will be useless, especially as others have agreed to compromise (e.g. AKADriver agreed to compromise on a shorter criticsm section, even though he didn't like such a section). Moreover, SpinyNorman is unwilling to participate in any form of mediation or compromise of his written work (see the talk page of the entry concerned). Informal mediation has been tried but has been completely ineffective. I thought that the arb. committee would be in a better place to judge for themselves whether penalties, sanctions and/or just a warning would be most appropriate in this case. (After all, only arbitrators can effect binding decisions and take more serious steps). Thanks. Jsw663 17:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: I realize that the ArbCom primarily resolves interpersonal disputes rather than that over content only, but this has spilled over into a SpinyNorman versus every other editor on the Honda S2000 page. How can content be resolved until the ArbCom decides whether SpinyNorman's persistent and constant edits are fair (ie just defending his views) or unfair (ie going overboard in making the page one essentially written by SpinyNorman instead of a genuinely encyclopaedic page). Jsw663 20:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Statement by SpinyNorman

This case seems to be about the attempt by a handful of disgruntled POV-pushers to censor references to legitimate criticism of the vehicle by the motoring press. Despite repeated attempts to maintain balance in the article that are thwarted by various editors who will tolerate no criticism, they have resorted to escalating this issue in an attempt to get their POV enforced by inducing the arbcom to impose it by some sort of executive fiat. Personally, I would ask the arbcom to reject the case as a waste of their time --SpinyNorman 18:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: Also, the claim that I have been unwilling to compromise is patently absurd. I have accepted many valid concerns about the content of the criticism section and modified considerably - as well as acceppting considerable modification of it by others since it was originally added. It is true that I won't accept the removal of legitimate criticism, but that's not being uncompromising, that's resisting the imposition of bias. To paraphrase Barry Goldwater... compromising with POV-pushers is no virtue and being uncompromising in the defense of objectivity is no vice. --SpinyNorman 19:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


(to address the points made by Jnbwade69): If the S2000 only oversteered with unskilled drivers, then why does the automotive press comment on that characteristic so widely? Do they all send unskilled drivers to test the cars? I think not. That being said, I don't think that the tendency to oversteer is, in and of itself, a problem and I certainly don't understand why you're comparing it to exploding Pintos or rolling Explorers. Oversteer isn't a safety issue and none of the comments in the criticism section say otherwise. But the fact is that the car has a pronounced tendency to oversteer. Speaking from personal experience, I can say that the tendency is far out of proportion to the car's power and design. I have driven cars with far more power and even lighter weight but with less tendency to oversteer. Also, the criticism of the car's power curve, gearing and NVH is perfectly valid. These are valid criticisms of ANY car. How can you justify your apparent desire to censor criticism of the car because you don't agree with it? Honda got a lot of things right with that car, but they did get some things wrong and since this article isn't intended to be a hagiography, it should include the good with the bad. --SpinyNorman 18:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


--

I am going to request that Jayjg recuse himself from the proceedings as he has a history of bias in dealing with me. --SpinyNorman 10:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Jnbwade69

As I said in on the talk page, I am willing to compromise on the criticism section. I would concede to allow a statement on the car's tendency to oversteer if a reference can be found from the mainstream automobile press, or even the mainstream general press. This only seems to be a problem with unskilled drivers. Were not talking about exploding Pintos or rolling Explorers here. There is no widespread social impact to the car being "tail happy". The changes in the car to address daily driver comfort are already found in the Models section. All the stuff about the torque, horsepower and engine noise has to go. This is not valid criticism. Honda's intent was to created a car in the spirit of it's S800 roadster from the sixties. A car with a 0.8 liter engine, 70hp, and an 8000rpm redline BTW. Anyone who test drives an S2000 before buying would know this in about 30 seconds. The very nature of a VTEC engine is that all the torque and horsepower in at the top end. What does he want, for Honda to put another engine in the car. Many bought one because on these characteristics, and do not consider them shortcomings. It is a four wheel superbike, if you will. To address the revert war, I think the only alternative is to revoke SpinyNorman's privilege of editing the article. Evidently he owned one, hated it, and now has some sort of axe to grind. I respect that he has very strong feelings on this, but it seems to have clouded his judgement. He states that he has considered other editors opinions, but the Criticism section gets longer and more convoluted every time he edits it. Please review the article history and the talk page. They speak for themselves. Thank you for your time. --Jnbwade69 11:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


Addendum: Also, I find his repeated use of this review of the car on Pistonheads.com to be disingenuous at best. He is basically picking and choosing certain phrases and quotes to build a negative picture from a very positive review. (4 out of 5 stars) Why? To make a point the reviewer had no intent of making. Not what one would expect from a trustworthy wikipedia editor. --Jnbwade69 23:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Zunaid

Repeated attempts to encourage SpinyNorman to accept the consensus of all editors involved in the article (as is the Misplaced Pages way) have been met with accusations of "censorship". SpinyNorman seems to take any edits to the Criticism section personally and wants to turn what is a purely editorial conflict into a personal one of "me vs them". The initial Criticism section introduced by him was extremely long compared to the rest of the article, did not "flow" neatly with the content, and was filled with extreme POV language. My attempt to summarise it and introduce a consistent writing style, as well as rewrite it in more neutral terms without removing any of the specific criticisms mentioned was summarily reverted as "censorship" and has started a revert war which shows no sign of ending without the intervention of the ArbCom. Zunaid 08:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Outside party Swatjester

It should be noted by the arbitration committee that I recently attempted to mediate a revert/POV pushing attempt by SpinyNorman against SlimVirgin on the Animal Liberation Front page, to no avail. I make no claim to being a party to the dispute over S2000, merely asserting that SpinyNorman has a history of trying to influence articles with his POV through reverts. ⇒ SWATJester Aim Fire! 08:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Outside party JoshuaZ

I would strongly urge the ArbCom to accept this arbitration to focus on SpinyNorman's problems. As a glance at his talk page will show he has been a repeatedly problematic editor. Furthermore, he his blocklog shows four 3RRV blocks since May 22. He has recently engaged in further tendentious and problematic editing, such as at Matthew Shepard where he is edit-warring against the inclusion of Hate crime and similar editing An Inconvenient Truth. JoshuaZ 14:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/0/0/0)

Requests for clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process.

Onefortyone

According to the arbcom results Onefortyone (talk · contribs) was placed on Misplaced Pages:Probation with respect to the biographies of celebrities. He may be banned from any article or talk page relating to a celebrity which he disrupts by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research. He appears to have shifted to inserting such material into album/CD articles . Does this probation extend to such pages as well if they are inappropriately edited? - Mgm| 20:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It is very interesting that a user, who didn't contribute to Presley-related topics in the past, has totally removed my well-sourced contributions from two different Misplaced Pages articles (see and ). This supports my suspicion that there are several sockpuppets at work who are harassing me and seem to be related to multiple hardbanned User:Ted Wilkes alias User:DW. I have discussed this problem elsewhere. See, for instance, . MacGyverMagic has falsely claimed on the Nicholas Turnbull talk page that my contributions are "unreferenced POV stuff" about Elvis. Truth be told, I have quoted from George Plasketes, Images of Elvis Presley in American Culture, 1977-1997: The Mystery Terrain, p.37, and from a university site. What should be wrong with this? Onefortyone 01:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
This edit seems inappropriate. The only problem I see is that sometimes it is not clear what the source is of the material Onefortyone is inserting. Fred Bauder 13:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Highways

Misplaced Pages:State route naming conventions poll may have been set up as a majority-wins poll, but the ArbCom clearly encouraged consensus on the matter. There is a clear lack of consensus on the poll, and yet so far three of the "admin judges" are treating it as a majority-wins poll. --SPUI (T - C) 06:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Your side has 41%, which is definitely not consensus for your side. Also, we have to have some convention. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
There's no consensus, thus no convention. --SPUI (T - C) 06:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Back to self-law. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
This a case which failed, specifically failed to adequately deal with the problem of SPUI's behavior. It should probably be reopened. Fred Bauder 13:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I feel that we've just avoided nuclear war. There is relative peace at highways for now, but if SPUI's behavior does not change, a further arbcom case could be inevitable. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Specific Highways clarification request

I would like to ask the arbcom for clarification. Specifically, I would like explicit endorsement or repudiation of the following principles (which form the basis for how I have been operating since I got involved in trying to shepherd the process along:

  • ArbCom does not normally get involved in content disputes, but chose to in this case to try to get to closure on what had been a source of much contention and ill will.
  • ArbCom in their finding said "consensus is encouraged"... I interpret that as "== consensus is NOT REQUIRED" meaning that if consensus cannot be achieved, othre means should be used. IS this a correct interpretation of ArbCom's wishes in this matter
  • There has been a long process of evaluation of alternatives and after some discussion, a majority vote was held on principles. one principle won, with 59%. It is not our norm to accept majority votes as binding (see Polling is evil).
  • I perceive The majority of participants seem to have arrived at a consensus to accept the majority, this once, without necessarily being happy about it, or thinking that this means we are changing general principles. IS this perception correct? If so, does ArbCom endorse it as a principle in this matter?
    • It is rather clear that the main troublemaker, SPUI, is not of this view and wishes to continue his campaign of disruption. I would focus on those who view failure to achieve consensus as a victory. Fred Bauder 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • There have been a minority of participants who have continued to argue that there is not a normal consensus here and who have ignored the above consensus to accept majority. Their actions have, in my view, been disruptive. DOES arbcom agree that arguing against this principle constitute disruption of the process?
  • The forum participants have developed a process in which everyone votes to determine opinion, and then a set of (admin) judges interprets the vote and decides what the outcome (what principle shall hold) shall be I adjudge consensus for that process. DOES ArbCom agree? Is agitating against the process disruptive?
  • Some participants are saying that any objection by anyone to any judge knocks them out. I view there is not consensus for that viewpoint. DOES ArbCom agree?
  • This discussion has spilled over to many other places. That is not a good thing in my view. In some cases it smacks of forum shopping to me. It would be best if it remained in one place DOES ArbCom agree that it should remain in one place and that bringing it to new places (here and ANI perhaps excluded) is forum shopping and should be viewed as disruptive?

I have made some statements that not everyone agrees with. The following references may be of some use.

I have handed out a block to SPUI in this matter for what I viewed as disruption. It was reduced but not overturned. I feel SPUI returned to his disruptive ways last night but perhaps has settled down today. I would nevertheless welcome review of my actions and I seek clarification in the form of yes/no answers to the questions I pose above. I was counseled by some to let this go, to let someone else implement but i am one of the 6 "judges". Comment on whether I should leave enforcement to a non judge admin welcomed as well. ++Lar: t/c 16:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a split in the Arbitration Committee on this question. Only one arbitrator, me, supports coming down heavy on SPUI. It will take a few more months of disruption before the rest will come around. Fred Bauder 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort, Lar. Please note that the opinions I expressed above are my own, not those of the Committee. Fred Bauder 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

A couple of points in response. First, I think it would be best if I got a unified response from the whole committee, although I value your input! But if I get mixed yes/nos it may not be as helpful as a more definitive answer. Second, I'm not anti SPUI. And I'm not advocating that we "come down heavy on SPUI". Or anyone else. I just want to get to a resolution. Third, to the points raised elsewhere about new spirits of consensus, and does that contravene what I said about more new proposals being not helpful... well if everyone previously blocking working to a solution shifts, and with some compromise, everyone comes to a consensual acceptance of whatever state of affairs works for most everyone... great! That would be awesome, trust me when I say I would love to see that more than anyone. But if this lull goes back to disruptive behaviour, then I will seek to apply remedies. Hence my seeking clarification, even if the lull apparently continues, I don't want to (or whoever shouldn't have to) come back here later because I (or whoever) don't have what is needed. OK that was three things. :) ++Lar: t/c 18:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of the proponents of Principle II in the recent Highway naming poll are trying to comeup with a Manual of Style that addresses most of the concerns of Principle II supporters while keeping in line with the decision by the majorit to use the style of Principle I in the article title. This is being done at WP:USSH. I am under the impression that Lar and a few others think this is disruption. We are trying to gain real consensus by addressing specific problems with the chosen Principle without overturning it. I strongly believe that is not disruption. I hope most of thr ArbCom agrees. --Polaron | Talk 16:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding highway participants' brand-new cooperative spirit

Would it be acceptable to the ArbCom if the members of this entire debate just sat down and had a civil conversation, and reached a virtually unanimous agreement on a compromise? They seem to be on track to do this now, but some are raising concerns about being outside of the process of the naming conventions poll, and that the judges of said poll have already ruled that there is a consensus. Personally, I don't think that matters, because it's always good to have more people agree, so there's no harm in having more discussion. At worst, it's just more incivil discussion and you won't be able to tell it apart from the rest anyway, but it doesn't seem to be heading that way, and is currently being rather productive. What does the ArbCom think? --Rory096 16:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to the ArbCom if the members of this entire debate just sat down and had a civil conversation, and reached a virtually unanimous agreement on a compromise? This is exactly what should happen. It is exactly what should happen for decision making on Misplaced Pages. Sam Korn 16:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Fine with me too Fred Bauder 16:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Specifically, we made a few concessions in exchange for their support of Principle I. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Internal spamming/campaigning

There's an ongoing discussion at WP:SPAM about what constitutes acceptable talk page contact between users regarding discussions, votes, polls, etc. Prior rulings that have been pointed to are this prior ruling and this one. Could you offer any more specific information about what is and is not allowed/discouraged, for example: is it the use of mass userbox messaging that is disallowed (if it is), or is internal spamming/campaigning disallowed only if disruptive? Thanks. IronDuke 17:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine. Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not. The difference lies in the disruption involved. If what is happening is getting everyone upset then it is a problem. Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article. Fred Bauder 16:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


Zeq wikistalking and block count

I've been having a difficult time applying arbitration enforcement for Zeq and feel I have since been targetted by him. For example, after I blocked Kelly Martin for her B-list attack page, Zeq just happens to come along so as to caution me from blocking a user with whom you have a dispute" (what dispute? he fails to mention). Or, after removing and protecting the attack page by Sarasto777, Zeq just happens to come along, again. These are not isolated examples. Then today, Zeq questions my administrative compotence and speaks of an "edit conflict" after I delete his copyvio entry, twice. Many blocks later, how should I proceed with the tendencious edits by the user? Should I implement Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq#Enforcement_by_block next time — it will be the 6th block. Or will it? I am inclined to count article bans as blocks, and am seeking clarification as to this approach, and Zeq's conduct overall as illustrated above. Thanks in advance. El_C 13:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do take the time to examine this request's threaded dialogue (it was removed without an accompanying diff being cited). Thanks. El_C 14:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
To answer your original question: article bans are not considered to count towards the escalating block periods, only vioations of bans. Having said that, if an editor is incorrigible, perhaps a general admin-discretionary block rather than, or in addition to, an arbcom article ban is warranted (by an uninvolved party of course, which I am not sure you are). I'd say take it to ANI, and try to avoid scaring admins awy with long-winded, dead-end discussions like the one that happened here. Dmcdevit·t 00:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Whatever. I plead for minimal respect on Dmcdevit's part. El_C 12:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Dealing with Zeq is difficult; he won't let anything go. Just concentrate on doing the fair thing and expect that if you do, others will back you up. Consultation on ANI won't hurt, but is not mandatory to ban or block under an arbitration decision. Fred Bauder 13:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Moby Dick's article ban - projectspace?

"Moby Dick is banned from editing articles which concern Turkey or Kurdish issues." Does this include Articles for Deletion discussions related to those issues? Cool Cat believes the diff above is part of a pattern of harrassment on AfDs, according to a post of his on the admins' incidents noticeboard. The simplest way to sort this out in my view would be to confirm whether his article ban does or should cover projectspace pages. --Sam Blanning 12:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify my reasoning. While one keep vote does not constitute as stalking, Moby Dick's continuing pattern of behaviour does.
The pattern of behaviour presented in the Arbitration cases evidence page is in my view continuing for one and a half years now. Two arbitration cases have been filed over the issue. Now those arbitration hearings need to be enforced.
--Cat out 14:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the ambiguous term "article" is to cover all namespaces. Sam Korn 22:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed per Sam. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, he needs to just leave the subject alone. Fred Bauder 13:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
To be fair to all parties, I propose that someone alter the decision to read "page" and make an annotation to explain why the change was made (referring to this clarification with a diff). I could not make the change myself because I was an involved party in the case. --Tony Sidaway 01:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

May an administrator take into account prior behavior?

I recently imposed what seemed to me to be a straightforward article ban on an editor who had been disrupting the article over a period of several months. The arbitration remedy is in a case that was closed yesterday and the ban doesn't seem to have been opposed for any substantive reason; only the procedure is questioned.

The case is Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom and the ban is on Karl Meier editing Islamophobia, on which he almost invariably edit wars.

I would like to see the Committee clarify whether it is pertinent for an administrator, in making a decision on whether to impose a restriction under a remedy passed in an arbitration case, may take into account the behavior of the editor prior to the closing of the case. --Tony Sidaway 01:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment by User:Netscott

This WP:AN thread is pertinent to this question. (→Netscott) 03:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say that under most circumstances, the day the case closes is the day the restrictions start and the day the behaviour has to change. Why else do we have injunctions? However, if an editor attempts to get their digs in just before a ban, I suspect the committee will be quite willing to extend a ruling. In this case, I think, Karl will either behave - or not - in which case I'm sure the community will ban him quickly. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not comfortable with the notion of judgements being applied retroactively; if the Committee had wanted to ban Karl Meier from editing an article for 3 months, it certainly could have done so as one of its remedies. Jayjg 02:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I've rescinded the ban. On reflection I think this ban was not acceptable to the community. --Tony Sidaway 01:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, certainly, I think that "justice is blind" is not a useful process to use on Misplaced Pages. Sysops should use their common sense.
James F. (talk) 09:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Karl had not edited on en since 15th, and his only edit since then has been to reply on User talk:Karl Meier that "I don't care. I've lost any serious interest in the project." . He has quit before, though , and came back within the month. --Tony Sidaway 19:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
In reply to James F., I think I agree. There were other issues of fairness here that convinced me that the ban was seen as too aggressive. --Tony Sidaway 19:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed summary of consensus (comment by User:Newyorkbrad)

As Tony indicates, there has been a certain amount of discussion on this issue, which the community might as well profit from rather than just lose when this specific case ages off the page. I think a fair synthesis of the reaction to this general situation would run more-or-less as follows:

1. An admin should not impose a block based exclusively on behavior occurring while (or before) an ArbCom case is pending, because the ArbCom presumably considered all of that behavior in determining the sanctions that ArbCom itself would impose and the user should have a chance to modify his/her behavior in response to the decision.

2. However, in the event of misbehavior after the ArbCom case has closed, an admin would of course take the prior behavior that was the subject of the ArbCom case into account (subject to the strictures of the ArbCom ruling itself).

3. There could be borderline cases where behavior occurred after the outcome of the ArbCom case was clear but before the case was formally closed, but these should be relatively rare and one might want to run the situation by the Arbitrators.

Just my thoughts, FWIW. If anyone wants to discuss this further, perhaps this thread should refactor to the talk page. Newyorkbrad 00:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think it's necessary to formulate this as a policy but I do think we learn from this kind of situation. My concern here was that, knowing that the arbitration committee had decided that his edit warring was problematic, and intended to proscribe his activities, Karl Meier persisted. The enactment simply provided me and other admins with the capacity to act. However this offended the general feeling that arbitration remedies should be applied in a manifestly fair manner. It certainly doesn't do any harm, in this case, to wait for the editor to respond and become accustomed to working with the remedy. --Tony Sidaway 01:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
If a user is brought to arbitration over behavior, which he continues during arbitration, and after arbitration, the remedy addressing the behavior may be immediately applied. This assumes simple continuation of disruptive behavior. Fred Bauder 13:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

A question on "Article Probation"

By what process does an articel get probation ordered on it revoked? I'm assuming it'd have to involve the Committee or member(s) of it, but the exact details don't seem to be specified anywhere. 68.39.174.238 20:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Generally one must make a specific appeal to the ArbCom by way of a further request for arbitration. However, in case of good general behaviour, a probation may be spontaneously revoked, see below for an example. Stifle (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
But it requires a "motion in a proir case", rather then a period of time or descision of one person (Unless explicitly declared as such to begin with)? 68.39.174.238 02:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Either that or a new request for arbitration. Stifle (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
As you know, only arbitrators are empowered to present a "motion in a prior case." I don't know whether the individual arbitrators would appreciate accept user requests to consider making such a motion. Presumably such a request would have to include strong evidence that the problems that led to the user or article being placed on probation have been resolved, and that there is cause to lift the probation (or other restriction) at this time. I don't know whether the ArbCom members would consider dealing with a request to an individual arbitrators to make a motion, to be more or less efficient and/or burdensome than presenting the matter via a whole new Request for Arbitration on this page. Perhaps one of the arbitrators or clerks will express a view on that. Newyorkbrad 14:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Typically, I think the most reasonable thing to do would be for someone to make their appeal right here in the clarifications section. If the appeals strikes a chord with me or any other arbitrators, we will make the necssary motion, otherwise we will reply in the negative. In some cases (though perhaps just one I can think of att the moment), we have initiated a new case if it is complex enough, but in general, that's not necessary. Dmcdevit·t 07:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
So (Getting to the original point), is this a fair summary and update to that page? 68.39.174.238 03:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Article probation is a new remedy for us. We are not sure how to deal with it in a number of ways, including how an article would get off probation. I assume that if the problems which got it on probation are over, it could be removed, should it constitute a problem for the current editors. Realistically I think we would only entertain a motion to remove it if it was causing a disruption in current editing, so I think we generally will not be removing article probations, since so long as there is not pattern of disruption, there should be no basis for intervention. Fred Bauder 13:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Sweet, thanx. This seems to have cleared up the problem. 68.39.174.238 16:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarification of the rejection of the Rainbow Gathering case

Sorry for asking such a seemingly foolish question. I am still rather new to wikipedia and entirely new the arbitration. Does the "reject" decision from the arbcom mean that the "A Gathering of the Tribes" will *not* be allowed on the listing of Annual Gatherings? Thanks for the feedback. Bstone 00:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No, just that the Arbitration Committee will not decide the matter one way or another. Fred Bauder 01:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Fred, for the reply. I wonder what you might suggest in the meantime? Since Lookingheart has entirely rejected mediation and the edit war continues I am wondering what the next step might be? Thanks. Bstone 02:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I, too, have the same question. Will the page remain protected? For how long? You state, "local Rainbow Gatherings don't belong in a list of the national Gatherings" which is my contention. But that hasn't stopped them from being added again and again. You, "suggest an article on local Gatherings." So did Aguerriero during informal mediation. Lookingheart rejected that suggestion. That didn't stop the on-going edit war. What happens if lookingheart adds 10 AGOTT gatherings before next year's National as he said he might in discussion? At the moment I see only 2 options, continue the edit war or let lookingheart post what ever he wants. Oceankat 03:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
How about a nice article about A Gathering of the Tribes (Rainbow Family) explaining what that is all about together with a full listing of meetings? It might be nice to explore some of the issues. Misplaced Pages has no opinion about internal Rainbow Family issues. I have always had a lot more fun at smaller local gatherings myself. Fred Bauder 17:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Has this become a mediation session? If so, I agree with your suggestion as I did during informal mediation when Aguerriero suggested it. Unfortunately I don't know enough about AGOTT to feel competant in writing that article. Perhaps you would like to? The only "internal rainbow family issue" I'm concerned about is whether gatherings that in my opinion are not notable, not verifiable and in the case of the WV AGOTT and most likely the GA AGOTT violate wikipedia's policy concerning the posting of future events are appropiate additions to this article. And whether wikipedia has some means to resolve this issue. Apparantly there is none and since I'm not inclined to waste time in an edit war, I'm content to see anybody add any gathering they like to the list of national gatherings. Oceankat 20:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Oceankat. If this arbcom attempt has turned into a redirect for mediation, we have already done that. How is it possible that the arbcom is forcing us to use a mechanism which simply will not produce a result? Sorry if I seem irritated, but arbcom is supposed to be the final mechanism since all others have failed. I await a response. Bstone 04:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not involved in this dispute, but rather in the next one listed above (Gillberg affair). At present, my request has received two votes to reject (and no other votes), on the ground that it is largely about a debate over content. So nothing is decided yet, but if the final vote is to reject, then I would have the same question as Bstone: if the other party has entirely rejected mediation and the edit war continues, what is recommended as the next step? What mechanism does Misplaced Pages have for dealing with a (hypothetical) situation where some editors are dishonest and unrelenting?  —Daphne A 09:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't mean to leave you hanging. I have unprotected the page for evaluation of the situation. As to the request above, I have been waiting for some response by the other parties. Fred Bauder 09:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This is entirely disheartening. A case is brought before the ArbCom specifically and solely because mediation failed and an edit war would simply continue. Based on the fact that mediation failed entirely because one of the warring parties (Lookingheart) entirely ignored and rejected all attempts at official mediation, I can see no benefit in ArbCom rejecting the case, removing the page protection and "evaluating" the situation. Is there no mechanism in Misplaced Pages to resolve such disputes? Bstone 14:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
If he starts edit warring again I will block him. Any administrator could have done that. That is why the request is being rejected; there is no substantial issue to consider. Fred Bauder 14:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
It appears as though we have reached a resolution of this issue and for that I am grateful. Most likely and hopefully there will be no further edit wars over this as it was never my desire to see anyone blocked or banned from editing this article. Thanks Fred, for your time and your help.Oceankat 03:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Mass changing on style issues (dating)

user:SuperJumbo has been mass changing articles to use the British dating system. The relavant manual of style entry is as follows

"If the topic itself concerns a specific country, editors may choose to use the date format used in that country... For topics concerning the UK, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, most other member states of the Commonwealth of Nations, and most international organizations such as the United Nations, the formatting is usually 17 February 1958 (no comma and no "th"). In the United States, it is most commonly February 17, 1958. Elsewhere, either format is acceptable"

SuperJumbo's edits have been to articles pertaining to a non-Commonwealth nations (such as France and Suriname). The arbitration committee's ruling in the Sortan case (in which Jguk was doing similiar editing with regard to BC-AD/BCE-CE) says

Misplaced Pages does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Misplaced Pages does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Misplaced Pages to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike.

SuperJumbo's editing, however, appers to totally disgard this ruling. He claims that converting articles to the dating system used in those countries justifies per the first line of the MOS entry allows him to make these mass changes, when the more specific statement (3 sentences later) explicitely allows a number of styles. A number of admins, including myself, have objected to the changes he is making. I would like the arbitration committee to inform him that his claim is false, and have him reverse all the changes he made to non-commonwealth nation articles. Raul654 14:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Does revert parole apply to edits of banned users?

User:Leyasu has been indef banned under the terms of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker for persistently violating his paroles with sockpuppets. He appears to be continuing to edit music-related articles from a series of British Telecom IP addresses. Deathrocker has been reverting these edits, frequently also using IP addresses rather than logging in. I know that reverting simple vandalism generally does not fall under the one revert per day limit; what about reverting edits from IP addresses suspected of being a banned editor? (Additional current discussion at Arbitration enforcement. Thatcher131 (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Update I am not at all convinced that the revertions performed by several anon IPs were in fact Deathrocker. However, I still think it would be useful to clarify this issue, even if it is not immediately pressing. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I would let whoever is reverting Leyasu continue. I know I don't want that chore. Fred Bauder 14:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)


Khoikhoi's probation rescinded

Since being placed on Probation for edit warring in the Aucaman case in May, Khoikhoi has demonstrated that the restriction is no longer necessary or warranted. He has been very prolific, invaluable in tracking down banned users Bonaparte and -Inanna-, contributed to at least one recent featured article. Most importantly, I see no signs of the edit warring that caused him to be included in the ruling.

I propose that, in view of good behavior, the probation placed on Khoikhoi (talk · contribs) be lifted so that he is no longer under any Arbitration Committee restrictions.

Archives

Category: