Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Angie Y. (talk | contribs) at 02:12, 25 June 2007 (→‎=[[User:TTN]], [[User:Ned Scott]]: oops). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Weighing scales
Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Ongoing problems surrounding Yasuke   16 September 2024 4/0/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Historical elections 13 Sep 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) Motion (orig. case) 26 July 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) Motion (orig. case) 17 August 2024
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 8 September 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/How-to

Current requests

User:TTN, User:Ned Scott

Involved parties

And many other editors.

Kuban kazak

Initiated by Akhristov at 23:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
User:Kuban kazak
User:Hillock65
User:Ukrained
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
Discussion on talk page, including two protection requests failed due to refusal to compromise
WP:ANI report #1 article protected, protection expired, revert war started again
MedCab Case mediator left; refusal to compromise by Kuban kazak
WP:ANI report #2 article protected, not much done to resolve conflict
Request for comment Kuban kazak refused to participate

Statement by Akhristov

User:Kuban kazak is known for his violations of the WP:3RR policy and revert wars. I feel that if something isn't done about this user's behavior, he will continue violating Wikipedia's policies. I currently filed a request for mediation on this issue. However, the issue is that the user (Kuban kazak) keeps edit warring even though this issue was taken up with MedCab and now with MedCom. I appreciate his contributions; however, I find his POV contributions and edit-warring unacceptable.

Me getting involved in the dispute on this user's behavior started when I created an article (Podilsko-Voskresenska Line). Then, User:DDima expanded the initial stub I started, and added the disputed Russian name for the line. I asked on the talk page about removing the name. DDima said he doesn't mind. Since we were the only two contributors to the article, consensus was reached.

However, about a day later, Kuban kazak made an edit to the article and reintroduced the Russian name, against consensus that was reached on the talk page. I reverted him. It took a few reverts for him to finally make a statement on the talk page and start discussing the issue. However, since consensus was reached on the prior version, I expected him to discuss the change without edit warring. Sadly, I was wrong.

In addition to that, I got reported by him to WP:ANI. I had the article protected to try to resolve the WP:ANI incident. Then, protection expired. I expected Kuban kazak to refrain from introducing the Russian name until the MedCab case was over. Sadly, I was wrong once again, and the case ended up moving up to MedCom. I gave the user a few chances to stop re-adding the Russian name until discussion was over, but my patience was used up and I filed for RfC.

Since I filed for RfC, Kuban kazak refused to participate while insulting the parties involved (in Russian), and threatened to file for arbitation on every single user involved in the dispute.

This is the first major run-in that I've had with this user. However, he also has a history of offending users in Russian and breaking many of Wikipedia's policies, including WP:POINT and WP:POV. He has quieted down a little since I filed the RfC, but will soon be back to his disruptive behavior when he will feel confident about nobody watching him. — Alex(U|C|E) 23:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Bus stop

Initiated by Drumpler at 17:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Involved articles

List of notable converts to Christianity

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Compromise[16]
Mediation[17][18]

Statement by Drumpler

I was initially made aware of the dispute when a request for help was listed at WP:EAR[19] The issue largely revolves around an editor named Bus stop on the List of notable converts to Christianity article. Bus stop continually reverts editor contributions without discussion because of one individual: Bob Dylan.[20][21][22] As can be seen in the diffs, the user continually makes accusations of anti-semitism. It should be noted that Bus stop has had opportunities to participate in votes to determine consensus, but has opted not to do so.[23] If one checks the diffs, reliable sources abound of Dylan's former Christian status. However, instead of actually discussing, Bus stop repeats pretty much everything he's said in the past and makes little to no effort at communication.[24][25][26] However, a compromise was reached by all other editors where the article would be renamed to make clear that this is a list of people who converted to Christianity and that if their status changed, it would be noted in the footnotes.[27] No one, to my knowledge, has ever tried to portray Dylan as a Christian, but has desired to state that he was a Christian convert and believe the article should reflect that. Likewise, this user has demonstrated behaviour unbecoming of an editor to both mediators[28][29] and an admin[30].

Statement by Warlordjohncarter

There are at least a few other substantial issues involved. I am not sure whether assisting us in perhaps resolving this disputes falls within the scope of arbitration or not. However, there is some substantial discussion as to whether individuals who have at least appeared to have left a religion they had earlier converted to should be included in the list of converts to the religion they have apparently since left, what the criteria for determining whether or not a person qualifies as such a subsequent convert are, and how such pages as the List of notable converts to Christianity should be formatted. Many of these issues will often deal with living persons, and thus might qualify under BLP. I suppose it might even (technically) be possible to state that all such lists of converts might be violations of BLP rules, at least for the individuals included. I'm not sure whether ArbCom can assist in these matters, but, if it would be possible to have some opinion on these matters of substance involving this article, I at least would appreciate it. But, like I said, I'm not really sure whether this group has the prerogative to assist in those matters, or whether you believe that you would be the best people to address it. I did, however, think that the issues were important enough to at least be mentioned here. John Carter 18:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Isotope23

My involvement in this dispute has been largely peripheral. I protected the page on May 30th and unprotected it a few days later (as mediation was ongoing) with a reminder not to edit war. I then blocked Bus stop (talk · contribs) for resuming the edit war as soon as the protection was lifted. Another mediation was apparently attempted, but I re-protected the article on June 17 due to continued edit warring over the same disputed text. I then unprotected it today when I became aware that there appeared to be a rough consensus. The edit warring resumed and I suggested WP:ARBCOM as the next logical step. While this started as a simple content dispute, I think this has evolved into a situation that ARBCOM is going to need to sort out as it is apparent that while some editors feel there is a consensus, others feel the consensus is contrived or against policy. It is probably worthwhile to expand this a bit from just considering Bus stop (talk · contribs) and the behavior of this editor. A couple of key points that might need to be considered:

  1. WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF at Talk:List of notable converts to Christianity and the talkpages of some of the involved editors.
  2. The contention that refactoring the name/purpose of the article is a contrivance to allow the inclusion of Bob Dylan
  3. WP:BLP; specifically addressing the claim that even though content is sourced and a group of editors assert the source is reliable, it still may run afoul of our policy on negative, poorly sourced claims.

Statement by Nick Graves

Bus stop has a long history of refusing to work toward consensus or compromise on this article. His input was utterly lacking in the most recent compromise attempt, as well as in the debate over renaming the article in the interest of making it clear that the list includes those who made notable conversions to Christianity, even if they are no longer Christian. His input has largely consisted of repetitively insisting that ex-Christians cannot be included in the list (as if his preferred parameters for the list are the only ones that can legitimately exist), or that Dylan only had a brief flirtation with Christianity (a claim clearly contradicted by multiple reliable sources), or that the people who want to include Dylan have a pro-Christian, antisemitic agenda. His latest reversions excising Dylan from this article, made within 10 minutes of each other, have edit summaries claiming that Dylan is not presently a Christian [31] [32] (irrelevant, according to the agreed-upon parameters of this list, since Dylan did make a conversion), and stating that "antisemitism should be avoided," a thinly veiled accusation which constitutes a personal attack, and which has been repeated by him countless times before. In his latest reversion, Bus stop invites us to "use the Talk page to discuss" the issue of including ex-Christians and Dylan, as if the issue has not already been talked to death for weeks and weeks already. His latest contribution to the talk page includes profanity and the accusation that those who wish to include Dylan are members of a "hate group." [33] While I agreed with Bus stop that former converts should not be listed on lists of converts, it is clear that consensus goes against this preference, and there is no evidence that such consensus is counter to policy. Bus stop's recent reversions to the article constitute disruptive editing, even if he has not technically violated the 3RR. Given Bus stop's long history of reversions and disregarding consensus on this article, I believe intervention is required to prevent interminable and counter-productive dispute. Nick Graves 18:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Moralis

I haven't been terribly involved in the dispute itself, but came into the picture as the second of two mediators. While mediating, any point ceded to the inclusionist side of the debate was responded to by Bus stop with allegations of antisemitism, bias, and contrivance. The first thing I noticed was that he seemed to be repeating himself- he stuck with the same catch phrases and made the same tired point in response to everything anybody else said. It made mediating the discussion frustrating, but we generally just kept talking around him. Eventually, I dropped the mediation, because it seemed that all of the users involved had come to something of a compromise, save for Bus stop and Cleo123. Bus stop's input seemed to be a filibuster, which left Cleo as the only dissenting editor who could be taken seriously.

Since then, the editors involved have taken it upon themselves to set up a series of straw polls and demonstrate consensus. It was only during the last poll that I became an actual party to the discussion: having dropped the mediation, and in the interests of ending the debate, I cast a vote.

So that's my involvement. Most of it's just frustration with the user. I'm not really sure what can be asked of ArbCom in this case, but I'll gladly help in any way I can.

It should be noted, in case it hasn't already, that the result of the final poll (which narrowed it down to two options) was (if I recall) 9 to 4 in favor of moving the page, including the disputed persons on the list, and utilizing footnotes to explain their situation. Of the four users voting for the other option, three have agreed to respect consensus, as it's been clearly established. Neither Bus stop nor Cleo voted.

I think the biggest issue here is Bus stop's apparent obsession with this dispute, and his refusal to budge even so far as to choose new wording for his oft-repeated "rebuttals." It's just gotten out of hand. --Moralis (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:T. Anthony

I am going to try to give up Wikipedia, but as my presence was requested I'll say a few things here. As long as it is understood that this will likely be the limit of my involvement.

Most of my involvement with him was on the List of notable converts to Christianity. In some areas I have similar criticisms on conversion lists as User:Bus stop. There is a tendency to add names of people whose conversions were simply rumored or were of a brief and questionable nature. I think this dilutes the lists' purposes and I think can be avoided. However he is obviously coming from a very different perspective in other ways.

I think he has core principles that might be admirable in other situations, but they apparently made it almost impossible for him to compromise or discuss matters on lists like these. I found him generally unresponsive and unwilling to get involved in the process of trying to build a consensus. Instead his principles and understanding of logic remained absolute and unbending. I am not entirely unsympathetic with a person like that, but it apparently means he just can not abide by the consensus reached on that article for moral or other reasons. Judging by his most recent actions not getting his way has also made him increasingly strident, insulting, and disruptive. I am not going to say what kind of editor or person he is on the whole, he might be a fine one overall, but for this article I think he has become disruptive and unwilling to obey policy. Whatever is decided I hope he stops editing the list as I intend to do the same. (Probably not the kind of response wanted, but that's my statement)

Statement by User:Sefringle

First, I would like to say the problem here doesn't seem to be so much with User:Bus stop so much as it is with the fact that we cannot come to a consensus to whether or not to include former converts on the article List of notable converts to Christianity. My personal opinion is that we need to be consistent with all other "list of converts to religion X" articles, where only the Christianity one has former christians on it. As most of the editors on the article are Christians, I believe they want to turn the article into pro-Christian ad-populum religous propaganda by making the list longer, and they have outnumbered the opposition; the straw polls show that, and because of that, they have self-declared victory, by saying there is a rough consensus to include former Christians on the list. It is not consensus to simply outnumber us.

As for User:Bus stop. My experience with him/her as an editor goes as far as this article. He is on my side over this issue. I came in between mediations 1 and 2, after Bus Stop put the article up for an Afd. While I am opposed to the deletion of the article, I still see many of the things done to the article as pro-Christian propaganda. Prehaps this case to try to remove User:Bus Stop from wikipedia is to tilt the balance in their favor. He has long attempted to argue this point, as have I and User:Cleo123. There have been everything from accusations of antisemitism to questioning what a "Christian" is and what a "convert" is. Much of this occured while I was on wikibreak or was busy editing other articles, so I have taken a back seat to the mediation. In my doing so, it was assumed by one editor that I made consensus to agree to allow former Christians on the list. There doesn't seem to be much compromise on either side. So my opinion is that Bus Stop hasn't done anything wrong; that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not to include former christians on the article List of notable converts to Christianity.--SefringleTalk 04:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by User:Tendancer

The List of notable converts to Christianity is at least the second time I have witnessed Bus Stop committing disruptive behavior. The first time was on the Michael Richards page, where he likewise continuously made edits over the objections of other editors. His m.o. back then was always saying "use talk page" and revert other people's edits, then ignore everyone else's discussion on the talk page even if e.g. it was 5 vs 1 against him--in short, it seems like "use talk page" was just being used as a shield/weapon to revert other users' contributions back to his changes, which often are the very definition of original research. We had content conflicts back then, and he continuously accused me as a sockpuppet including in edit summaries: [34], and WP:STALKed me to another page I frequently edit to revert my changes (in the process reverting a spam link) again using "use talk page" as a false reason: [35].

I participated on the List of notable converts to Christianity after noticing he got blocked twice for 3RR violations on Bob Dylan. [36]. His disruptive behavior seems to have gotten worse, especially now as User:Cleo123 (another disruptive editor whose m.o. is accusing others of "libel" in a very disrespectful tone) whom he befriended from the Michael Richards days) was often prodding and encouraging him, including advising him to refuse moderation and twice attacking mediators ad hominem. His m.o. now seems to have changed from "use talk page" to "anti-semitic" as his reason for discrediting all other's input whom he disagrees with.

In my opinion, Bus Stop is a disruptive editor who fits all criteria in WP:DE to a tee. I do believe he edits in "good faith"--in the sense that he probably doesn't consider himself disruptive and thinks he is making positive contributions to articles--however over the past 6 months his behavior has not changed: he continues to be unable to listen to and work with others, he continues to ignore sources (unless they support his opinions) and insist on committing original research, he does not care about how WP works and treats all articles as a blog for him to voice his own opinions (alarmingly even rhetoric-ed rules should be ignored and it's opinions that matters [37], and when others disagree with his opinions then basically he'll stay there to disrupt--for months if necessary, come hell or high water. I had been thinking that with time, his conduct would become more civil and less original research/soapboxing as there had been occasions where he made positivie contributions on other pages; however consider the rarity of those occasions and the sheer disruption he caused on the Michael Richards and especially List of notable converts to Christianity: we're talking months and hours/day at least half a dozen editors having to address his edits, till eventually even more editors and mediators had to be pulled in...I have to say I think this user may just be irredeemable--he will never believe in WP policies, he'll never believe that WP is for replicating what verifiable sources say and not for him to treat as his blog of his views on the world, and he's better off not editing wikipedia. He just needs his own blog.

I also want to note: Cleo123 and Bus Stop talks to each other offline [38], where I suspect they've been devising strategy on how to filibuster the page. Everytime Cleo is noted an RFC/admin notice is to be submitted against him, he disappears (last time for a week) till the RFC/admin incident fizzles because the user in question seems to have left wikipedia. I wouldn't be surprised is Bus Stop is committing the same ploy on Cleo's advise currently--and even if not he seems to have made sure he shot off several last WP:NPA-violating salvos. [39] I believe whether he's still here or not, wikipedia is better off making sure editors like this cannot ever disrupt and personally attack other users again. Tendancer 15:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/2/0/0)

  • Reject. ArbCom is not going to decide the content dispute; it's the community's job, not ours, to decide the absolutely mission-critical question of whether or not one individual qualifies for membership on one particular list. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. The community should be able to handle this dispute, both the content dispute and problematic editor conduct. There are simpler and faster ways to deal with this problem than an ArbCom case. FloNight 15:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CharlotteWebb

Initiated by Kamryn Matika at 19:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[40] [41]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Not really appropriate here.

Statement by Kamryn Matika

As I'm sure you're aware, on June 15 Jayjg revealed on CharlotteWeb's RfA that she edits via TOR proxies.[42] This caused a pile-on of oppose votes at her RfA and has led to much discussion on-wiki and on the mailing lists as to whether Jayjg's actions were appropriate and within the limits of the privacy policy. On 17 June CharlotteWebb posted a message to her talkpage[43] that claimed that another checkuser had systematically blocked all the IPs she had used in the past three months, TOR proxies or no. This would indicate that there has been an abuse of checkuser privileges. There have been many accusations of checkuser abuse here from Charlotte's supporters and ArbCom is the only place that has the power to issue a finding one way or the other. Kamryn Matika 19:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sean William

The Ombudsman commission is that way. Sean William @ 20:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John254

Despite claims to the contrary, the Arbitration Committee does have jurisdiction over allegations of improper disclosure of checkuser information. Per the checkuser policy, "Suspicion of abuses of checkuser should be discussed on each local wiki. On wikis with an arbcom, the arbcom can decide on the removal of access."[44]. That being said, Jayjg's disclosure of checkuser information at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CharlotteWebb did not violate the checkuser privacy policy, which restricts only the disclosure of "personally identifiable data". A statement that a user is editing through TOR exit nodes, without providing specific IP addresses, clearly does not constitute "personally identifiable data". Moreover, since editing through open proxies is a clear policy violation, disclosure of such information does not otherwise violate the checkuser policy. Therefore, insofar as this request for arbitration relates to Jayjg's actions, I would suggest that it be rejected. However, the claim that another user with checkuser access has been blocking every IP used by CharlotteWebb, even those that aren't open proxies, may merit investigation by the Arbitration Committee. John254 21:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Swatjester

As said by Sean William, this is outside the scope of the Arbitration committee, given the existence and directive of the ombudsman commission. If you have ethical complaints (not legal, or violation of process complaints), then you'll need to submit them through proper dispute resolution procedures: however given no policy violation exists, it's really a request of the ArbCom to legislate ethics; this is really IMHO the realm of the board. Swatjester 00:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tony Sidaway

Pretty sure only the Ombudsman's office has the resources and powers to investigate the properly and take appropriate action. Abuse of checkuser is a foundation issue. --Tony Sidaway 00:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Chacor

"Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried" - "Not really appropriate here." That's because thie isn't an Arbitration case. As unpleased as I am over what Jay did and his continued refusal to at least accept any responsibility, this is outside the ArbCom's purview. The Ombudsman Commission awaits, though. Should the ArbCom decide to accept this I believe the focus of this case needs to be changed - not on how Jayjg used Checkuser, but rather his conduct in that RFA, and after that, both here and on the mailing list. – Chacor 03:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding Carcharoth's statement

I think that it would not be appropriate for the ArbCom to handle this case if an additional CheckUser - who could well be a sitting ArbCom member, or who at any rate would have access to the mailing list where this would be discussed in "private" - is involved. Unfortunately my trust does not stretch so far as to believe that the ArbCom will act neutrally in such a case. – Chacor 14:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved kaypoh

Kamryn said that dispute resolution is "not really appropriate here", but ArbCom said this case is "premature". I don't know what the Ombusman thing is, but it sounds even higher than ArbCom. We should not bother Ombusman people if ArbCom can handle this, or maybe ArbCom and Ombusman can work together to deal with this. If ArbCom does not take this case, what should we do? We can't just leave this hanging there.

I think the ArbCom needs to look at five things:

1. Jayjg's telling everyone that CharlotteWeb used Tor

2. Jayjg's conduct after telling everyone that CharlotteWeb used Tor

3. CharlotteWebb's conduct after Jayjg told everyone that she used Tor

4. The blocking of all of CharlotteWebb's IPs - who did it, what can we do about it

5. The policy about open proxies - whether it needs to be changed or cancelled

Statement by uninvolved Navou

I am a little disturbed by the entire incident. I would encourage the Arbitration Committee to look into this as a big picture, examining the user conduct of all involved. More focused, was the checkuser information incidental, and released because of its accidental discovery? Was the Requests for Adminship forum the proper place to release this information? Is there a rationale behind CharlotteWeb not receiving a warning prior to the information being released on the forum? Could the proxy machines be blocked without associating this editor with the proxy machine, absent any record of abusive editing? Is this acceptable user conduct all around? Navou 19:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by UninvitedCompany on the role of the ombudsman commission

Editors and committee members should be aware that the role of the WMF Checkuser Ombudsman Commission is limited to reporting to the WMF Board of Trustees regarding alleged violations of the WMF privacy policy. The Ombudsman Commission does not interpret local checkuser policy on individual projects nor does the commission consider other allegations of misuse that do not involve a violation of the privacy policy. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ElC

The question isn't about this being within the Committee's scope, UninvitedCompany is incorrect about that in his un-focused statement above, and therefore, acceptence below. The Committee can oversea this, but the case should be rejected due to pointlessness. Jay did what he is mandated to do, and the result, as dramatic as it may be precieved and, indeed, propogated by some, isn't worth the Committee's time & effort. El_C 19:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved ChrisO

It seems to me that there are essentially two distinct but closely related issues here. There's clearly a general policy question that needs to be resolved, which I would frame as something along the lines of "is it appropriate to disclose CheckUser data for the purposes of a RfA?". However, I can also see a conduct question, namely: was Jay's conduct appropriate in this particular case, in this particular way and at this particular time, given the predictably explosive effect it had on the RfA?

Regarding the question of jurisdiction, as John254 points out, the CheckUser policy does clearly state that "Suspicion of abuses of checkuser should be discussed on each local wiki. On wikis with an arbcom, the arbcom can decide on the removal of access." This might at first sight be seen to conflict with the remit of the Ombudsman Commission. However, the Ombudsman Commission's role is explicitly stated to be to "mediate between the complainant and the respondent." If CharlotteWebb doesn't make a formal complaint - as far as I'm aware there hasn't been one - I assume the Commission can't act, as I doubt it would accept a complaint from a third party without the explicit consent of the injured party. So this is likely to end up in the lap of the ArbCom anyway. I would suggest to the arbitrators that they accept the case provisionally, on the basis of investigating suspicions of an abuse of CheckUser, but defer to the Ombudsman if a formal complaint is made. -- ChrisO 19:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additional comment. Re JzG's statement, it appears from CharlotteWebb's comments on her talk page that her IP addresses have been systematically indef-blocked based on CheckUser data, though the named account isn't blocked. I honestly can't think of any precedent for blocking in such a way. I've certainly never come across a comparable example in nearly three years as an admin. -- ChrisO 23:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to UninvitedCompany by uninvolved Rory096 regarding the scope of both ArbCom and the Ombudsmen

Jayjg violated both the privacy policy and the checkuser policy. In the privacy policy, Jayjg's conduct likely violates "Policy on release of data derived from page logs"; though 5 might be used to justify his actions, I personally doubt it applies (it could also be said that revealing Tor usage doesn't count as private data, but again, I disagree). He also violated the checkuser policy, especially section "Use of the tool," particularly "The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to check a user. Note that alternative accounts are not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of the policies (for example, to double-vote or to increase the apparent support for any given position)." ArbCom jurisdiction is established in the checkuser policy, "Suspicion of abuses of checkuser should be discussed on each local wiki. On wikis with an arbcom, the arbcom can decide on the removal of access," though it also allows for the Ombudsmen Committee to make a decision, "Complaints of abuse of checkuser or privacy policy breaches may also be brought to the Ombudsman committee." The ArbCom certainly can decide to take the case, though it can also decide to forward the violation of the checkuser policy to the Ombudsmen Committee. Either way, the Ombudsmen should decide on the violation of the privacy policy. --Rory096 21:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved JzG

Christ. RFA fails for using TOR against policy, fair enough - silly, come back in six months, no big deal. Hard-banning a productive user with absolutely no suggestion of evil, using tools provided to root out vandalism? That sucks. Really sucks. Arbs, please take this even if it means you have to escalate it, because I have to say I am extremely uncomfortable about this, even as one who feels that a lot of privacy concerns and checkuser paranoia are overblown. This looks petty and vindictive, even if it isn't, and I believe it is a serious error of judgement. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Dtobias

By strict (if unwritten) Wikipedia policy, members in good standing of the Ruling Clique are not allowed to be criticized, held accountable for their behavior, or otherwise subjected to statements or actions of any sort that are unpleasant to them. Peons who attempt such actions against them, on the other hand, deserve the worst possible treatment. Hence, the proper outcome is to award an entire page full of barnstars to User:Jayjg, and give a permaban to User:KamrynMatika. *Dan T.* 00:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Penwhale

According to what CharlotteWebb wrote on talk page, CW is unable to contribute at this point in time. I suggest accepting this case due to the fact that the change in Tor policy effectively prevents a huge amount of editors from editing. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 01:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Query from uninvolved Geogre

  1. If a checkuser is supposed to reveal when there is editing through open proxies, and this is a thing Jayg did, and
  2. It was someone other than Jayg who blocked CharlotteWebb's proxies,

Then

  1. Is this an arbitration on this absolutely unnamed second checkuser for performing a block without warning?
  2. Is it an arbitration on the unnamed second checkuser for acting on a checkuser without a checkuser request?

I'm unclear about the targets, methods, and questions of the arbitration. If it is "Jayg revealed the proxy editing," then there is certainly potential impropriety in that he did not discuss or warn, if he knew this before, but not really that he revealed the policy violation of a person up for RFA. If it is "the user was innocent and blocked," then admittedly policy doesn't have a space in it for "editing through open proxies is wrong, but some people can if...." Perhaps there should be an "if."

As much of a hair trigger as I am about revealing checkuser data, I see really bad form but no revelation of which ISP (for example) or IP numbers used, and editing through open proxies is against policy because it hides identities. I.e. anyone editing through open proxies can't have private data revealed by checkuser, unless checkuser is much mightier than I think it is. Geogre 11:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Carcharoth

As John254 said: "...the claim that another user with checkuser access has been blocking every IP used by CharlotteWebb, even those that aren't open proxies, may merit investigation by the Arbitration Committee." See Charlotte's comments here. This blocking of IP addresses that are not open proxies may well be an abuse of the privacy policy. I would ask that the allegations be investigated in private by the ArbCom, and a statement issued clarifying what has taken place here. Carcharoth 14:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Chacor's comment to Carcharoth's statement
I was thinking more along the lines that if there has been a mistake or abuse, then the ArbCom should have an opportunity to make a statement that might clear things up, before those unhappy with what happened take things any further. Carcharoth 15:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved PinchasC

CharlotteWebb has posted on Wikipedia Review that she has contacted the Ombudsman commission. This would make this case completely unnecessary and would be beyond the scope of the Arbitration Committee. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Salaskan

CheckUser is a very confidential status. The fact that Jay revealed very sensitive CheckUser information in the middle of an RfA which was likely to succeed without any valid reasons of doing so, is of my concern. Thusfar he denied any responsibility at all on the mailing lists. Also, the proxy policy is very confusing right now, and it'd be good if the ArbCom could establish some things about this. The current controversy about CharlotteWebb's RfA seems like enough reason to accept this case to me. SalaSkan 17:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Quadell

Greetings. I believe ArbCom should decline to hear this case for the following reasons.

  1. Mootness. One of the two parties in the dispute seems to have left Wikipedia for good. (Her account was not blocked. She claims her non-TOR IPs were blocked, but if true, she can request to have these unblocked. So far as I know, she has not. I strongly suspect that the account-holder has no further interest in editing as CharlotteWeb because the account was designed solely to be a sockpuppet admin. Her defensiveness and evasiveness are telling.)
  2. Lack of prior steps taken. This is mainly due to point #1, above.
  3. Lack of jurisdiction. As explained by others, checkuser is a foundation issue.
  4. Lack of evidence of wrongdoing. Some have accused Jayjg of violating checkuser policy, but a cursory look at the (only) diff in question shows that no personally-identifiable information was revealed. Others have accused Jayjg of blocking CW's IPs out-of-process, but the only reason for thinking that anyone has done so is CW's accusation, for which she has chosen to provide no evidence. There is also no evidence that Jayjg was involved in such a block if it occurred, and I don't believe he would make such a block.

In all likelihood, Jayjg's actions prevented another sockpuppet-admin, like User:Runcorn. Even if CW was not an attempted sock-admin, Jayjg's action gave the community useful information to help them decide whether CW should be an admin. He should be commended. If his action had revealed sensitive personal information, that would be one thing, but they only revealed that CW was routinely violating policy for reasons she has refused to explain. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional statement by John254

Raul654 has recently confirmed "that someone went on a spree and blocked all of... [CharlotteWebb's] IPs, even non-Tor ones". Given that this negligent blocking of IPs involved the misuse of administrative, as well as checkuser, privileges, and in light of the fact that ordinary administrative misconduct is clearly outside the purview of the WMF Checkuser Ombudsman Commission, the portion of this case which relates to the actions of a certain administrator who indiscriminately blocked all of CharlotteWebb's IP addresses should not be rejected on the grounds of preemption by the Ombudsman Commission. Note that prior dispute resolution concerning the negligent blocking of CharlotteWebb's IP addresses is impossible, since, in the interest of protecting CharlotteWebb's privacy, the administrator who is responsible for the IP blocks cannot be named publicly. However, should this case be accepted, I can present substantial evidence of prior misconduct by the administrator who performed the IP blocks to the Arbitration Committee via email. Furthermore, I would find rejection of any of this case on preemption grounds to be rather odd, as a member of the very Ombudsman Commission to whose judgment the case supposedly needs to be deferred has voted to accept this request for arbitration. John254 02:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Georgewilliamherbert

This case raises several novel and serious problems for Wikipedia, which have not been solved by discussion here or on wikien-L. I believe these issues are serious and deserve a hearing via Arbcom.

Some have argued against Arbcom taking the case given CharoletteWebb's apparent departure from the project. I object; the principles at odds here are of interest to the entire english Wikipedia community. We do not have to have an active participant on the one party for there to be a valid and important issue to arbitrate. It may be convenient as an out, but leaves several now-known incindiary policy disagreements simmering along, and lack of clarity on those will blow up in our faces again sooner or later.

The issues requiring attention are:

  1. Whether release of otherwise non-public, but not personally identifying information by a CU constitutes an abuse of community trust. While events appear to have met the letter of the policy, many (including myself) feel that a breach of the spirit of the policy has occurred due to JayJGs initial actions.
  2. Whether project members with special rights or powers are held to a higher standard for sensitivity and propriety in discussions. Discussions on Wikien-L following the initial incident raised a secondary question here in that JayJGs' responses were inflamatory and showed lack of concern for "spirit of the rules" issues.
  3. Whether a range of IP addresses were blocked (by unspecified others) soley because CW used them, in an abuse of both WP:BLOCK and CU policy.

The ultimate issue requiring Arbcom action is whether the community's trust in a CU user has been violated. It brings me no joy to raise the issue here - Jay is a longstanding highly respected contributor trusted at high levels in the Foundation and project. As pointed out on Wikien-L, the risks of legitimate admins using Tor are real, as are the risks of trojan admins brought up in subsequent discussions. But those do not excuse or outweigh the initial action's consequences or impact. I now question whether it is appropriate to continue his CU access. These questions have to be asked and examined and answered.

There is some contradictory jurisdiction in play, but it is reasonable to assert that the Foundation is unprepared to deal with issues which fall below clear breaches of Foundation CU privacy policy but above normal accepted CU actions, where they may or may not be abuses of the community. That is pretty much the role intended for project-specific Arbcoms or the equivalent. Meta's CU policy explicitly says:

On a wiki with a (Wikimedia-approved) Arbitration Committee (ArbCom), only editors approved by the Arbitrators may have CheckUser status.

If there is an issue here, and many feel there is, you must be the right people to take the issues on, and cannot and should not shirk that responsibility. Georgewilliamherbert 06:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Amarkov

The ombudsman committee is for dealing with privacy policy concerns. Revealing use of TOR is almost certainly not a violation of it, but it may cause a lack of community trust. Thus, we need someone else to accept the case. -Amarkov moo! 13:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Seraphimblade

The Meta checkuser policy states, in part, that:

"The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to one or several of Wikimedia projects. The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors..."

In this case, the tool was used to apply pressure on an editor (namely, to apply pressure not to use TOR). There was no indication that CharlotteWebb was engaging in any activity otherwise prohibited, such as vandalism, sockpuppetry, or other disruption. The release of such information, whether found deliberately or incidentally, at a time calculated to cause significant disruption (during an RfA), is of significant concern, especially absent any evidence of wrongdoing. I would urge the Committee to accept this case, to examine whether such a release of information is an appropriate use of privileged Checkuser information. Whether or not information gained through use of the Checkuser tool serves to personally identify an editor, it should be considered clear that such information is privileged and confidential, and should only be released when absolutely necessary. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Commenters above should remember that statements should be on why the ArbCom should, or should not, accept this case. Picaroon (Talk) 00:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC), rescinded "opinion," at the behest of El C (talk · contribs), at 16:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recuse from any clerk work at this time due to possible conflict of interest. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 17:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/3/0/0)


Certain satellites of Saturn

Initiated by Rebjon21 at 1704, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Another user (Dicuya) and I have discussed this matter on the talk pages related to three of Saturn's satellites (Pallene, Methone, and Polydeuces), requesting that the user "Med" refrain from altering the pages. S/he has ignored all of these requests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pallene_%28moon%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Methone_%28moon%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polydeuces_%28moon%29

Statement by Rebjon21

A user ("Med") insists on changing the name of the discoverer of three of Saturn's satellites (Pallene, Methone, and Polydeuces). He is obviously ignorant of the way in which scientific credit is given in such matters, and he is violating the protocol of the International Astronomical Union for the discovery of astronomical bodies.

(see http://planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov/append7.html)

Med cites both a NASA press release and a BBC news article as official sources for the discoveries when in fact only the IAU circulars that first reported the discoveries, authored by 'C.C. Porco and the Cassini Imaging Team' are the official sources. (The BBC article has been incorrectly written and they have been notified of their mistake.) Even NASA's 'official page' is nothing more than a press release which, in the presence of the official IAU circular that came out at the same time as the press release, is NOT an official statement of discovery.

The official attribution for discoveries of new moons or rings made by the Cassini imaging scientists in Cassini images goes to the Cassini Imaging Team. And that team is led by Carolyn Porco. The statements should read either 'discovered by the Cassini Imaging Team, led by Carolyn Porco' or `discovered by Carolyn Porco and the Cassini Imaging Team'.

Multiple attempts to resolve this dispute have been made by more than one user (Dicuya and myself) but Med, and to some degree another user named Syntaxis, continue to ignore all reasonable arguments to correct the erroneous amendments. Furthermore, it would appear he has an 'issue' with Carolyn Porco, claiming she is being abusive when in fact, she is following standard scientific ethical practices. Or alternatively, since it is obvious that Med is British, by use of the word 'dogsbodies', it may be that s/he has an issue with an American 'standing in the way' of non-Americans getting credit for 'their' discoveries.

Either way, Med's position is at best misguided and otherwise completely erroneous, and his/her revisions need to be permanently stopped.

In the interest of planetary science, can this matter please be resolved once and for all? In addition, can the entries for these satellites on other language versions of Wikipedia be changed as they are also incorrect?

Thank you.

Statement by Med

Rebjon21 is right on only one point, I insist in changing the name of the discoverer on those three satellites as they have not been discovered by Carolyn Porco as Rebjon21 and a few others (which i believe to be sock puppets) seem to believe erroneously. She is the leader of the Cassini Imaging Team though. Anyone involved in research knows that the leader of the team is never creditted for all discoveries made by the searchers within the team. Therefore the attribution of the discoveries to Carolyn Porco is at best a mistake ... [clerk note: BLP violation redacted] as a contributor involved in this edit war claims to be Carolyn Porco representative, but i am sure it can only be a misunderstanding.... Actually Polydeuces has been discovered by Carl Murray and Methone and Pallene by Sébastien Charnoz. Due to the systematic reverts by Rebjon21 and Dicuya, I have tried to improve the version citing both the discoverer and Carolyn Porco as the team leader. However this version has been systematically reverted also. We have discussed about this problem with Syntaxis and hqb on Polydeuces talk page reaching a consensus: citing both the discoverer and Carolyn Porco as I was already doing actually. Unfortunately Rebjon21 and Dicuya hava kept removing of the discoverer name and adding Porco's one, taking no account of the consensus. On Polydeuces talk page, Syntaxis has also explained very clearly the IAU rules and why the individuals having discovered have not been named in the communication. An IAU communication is not an attribution. I have no issue with Carolyn Porco, i don't know her. I will just not accept that she sends people on Wikipedia (claiming to be her representative) to make her credited for discoveries made by searchers in her team without crediting them too. This would be a manipulation of Wikipedia. I will not answer on my nationality, this is clearly ridiculous. Finally i ask Rebjon21 and Dicuya to talk with Syntaxis, hbq and I on Polydeuces talk page and not force their own erroneous version. Med 18:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

I have redacted a sentence from one of the statements which, although submitted in good faith, appears to constitute a potential BLP violation. Newyorkbrad 05:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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


Appeal of His excellency

Initiated by Thatcher131 at 16:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC) as Arbitration Clerk, following receipt of e-mail from H.E.[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

N/A

Relevant links

Statement by His Excellency

Hello. My ID is "His Excellency". I was banned from Wikipedia following a conflict with several editors whom I felt pushed an anti-Muslim POV. The block was supposed to have been for 6 months. Because of sockpuppeting, it was extended to a year.

Several arguments I would make in this regards.

Firstly, my edits have largely been productive ones. Adding sources, removing bias, etc.

Secondly, the terms of the arbcom finding proposed increased sanctions, a maximum up to a year, if I were to engage in language offensive to a particular ethnic group (nevermind I was engaging in a tit-for-tat against one who had constantly been attacking Muslims, as evidenced in my arbcom case). A permanent ban was never in question. Given my offenses that lead to a permanent ban drew from my productive editing to correct for another editor's bias, who was also already banned, the permanent ban is excessive.

Given the permanent ban goes against the ruling of arbcom, and that it was the decision of a single admin whose actions have long been considered by Wikipedia's Pakistani muslim community (I am neither Pakistani, nor a practicing Muslim btw), it can hardly be expected that an editor would willingly abide by such a decision as a permanent ban.

What is particularly bothersome to me is the rise of general allegations against other users that they are my sockpuppet, followed by their banning. User:Ibn Shah has been banned as my sockpuppet. Admin DmcDevit apparently 'confirmed' he is me, which I can say is not the case. Admin jpgordon did a checkuser and found Ibn Shah's info did not coincide with that of several of my known sockpuppets. It is therefore impossible that Ibn Shah could be me, since my IP range hadn't changed since I joined WP. For a while, User:BhaiSaab was accused of being me as well, and Dmcdevit similarly found us to be the same, although a myriad of editors (ask User:Netscott) argued that we had both been editing for a long time and that we had very different personalities and editing patterns. My fear is that all Muslim editors from the east coast of the US (or however far this dynamic IP range extends) who exibit defiance to anti-islamic editing, will find themselves banned with the pretext for it being that they are me.

What I'd like is for a fixed term to be set which I could wait out, after which I could participate on Wikipedia again. 4 months, 6 months, whatever. After that, I can edit and be held fully accountable for my actions. It doesn't benefit me to have to edit under a mask. It doesn't benefit you to have an editor on wikipedia who is made to feel he cannot be himself and edit within the community's system and therefore has to operate outside it.

Re: "Community Ban" : A look at the community discussion (link above) shows there was never a conclusion to that discussion. Members of the Islam pages dispute (mentioned in my first Arbcom case) including Merzbow, Tom Harrison, tried to persuade the community that I should be banned. User:Ben repeatedly pointed out that my original ban was expired. User:Durova ended the discussion acknowleging that there was much more going on behind the scenes and that he/she could not make a conclusion yet. The few who did support a ban were those who habitually edited Criticism of Islam or other such pages to push the anti-Muslim POV. My point is, the community ban discussion ended with no straightforward conclusion. Rama's Arrow placed his indefinite block regardless of that discussion. The arbcom case "Hkelkar 2" shows he is in the process of being desyopsed (sic?) because of his lopsided use of the block to silence users across one side of a content dispute while barely warning the other. From the Community Ban discussion: It appears there were no objections to the motion to close. BhaiSaab (talk • contribs) ban is reset 1 year, His excellency (talk • contribs) ban is reset 6 months. The banning administrators are asked to log actions executed at applicable locations to include the list of community bans and and applicable ArbCom enforcement logs. v/r Navou banter / contribs 09:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC). The indef ban was the action of a single controversial admin, not Arbcom and not the Community.72.68.192.91 15:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Merzbow

The sockpuppets, incivility, and POV-pushing have continued unabated, beginning days after his ArbCom ban was imposed last September (first sock was Shams2006 (talk · contribs)). See Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_His_excellency and Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_His_excellency. This editor has been the source of more drama and disruption that perhaps anyone except for Hkelkar (talk · contribs). In case anyone has forgotten what we left behind when his original ban was imposed, please refer back to this list of edits (presented in the ArbCom case) to which his targets (and they were many) were subjected to for months. (Recent examples: Tom is a racist, see WP:Fuckoff.)

There was nothing improper about the block extensions for socking, and about the community ban. The biggest issue here is that he has never apologized or even admitted responsibility for his disruption. In fact, he continues to peddle the nonsense that he's being ganged-up as a result of others' anti-Muslim prejudices, and that he's the hero. Tell me, what heroes make statements like this: "The Jews took note, and have taken every measure to stop me. They're an active bunch of snots...", and this: <Name redacted>, you're nothing but a traitor to your religion, siding with the people who ridicule your parents' religion. Don't post here."

Any condition of a return should involve nothing less than a complete apology, directly by name to the editors he's insulted and driven away, and at least a year away from the project with no evidence of socking. But there is no reason for ArbCom to take this appeal, the community can handle this quite properly, since there is now a community ban in place.

If H.E. wants to dispute CheckUser results, I believe there is a separate appeals process for that, at meta. But the editing patterns were similar enough that CheckUser was never really necessary (as several editors, including admin Tom harrison (talk · contribs), agreed). - Merzbow 23:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that "It doesn't benefit me to have to edit under a mask" is a direct threat to continue sockpuppeting. Curiously he says this while simultaneously denying allegations of socking. - Merzbow 00:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben was simply wrong, H.E.'s 6-month ArbCom ban was repeatedly extended before expiration because of sockpuppetry, by multiple admins, which a cursory glance at his block log will reveal. That dispenses with the argument that his ban had "expired". And claiming that these extensions are "invalid" because they weren't logged at the ArbCom page at the time of block (they were all logged back in March) is the worst sort of wikilawyering. The way out is simple. Stay away from Wikipedia for a long period of time, don't sock, apologize for past disruption, and the community will consider unblocking. - Merzbow 23:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further clarification of the community ban discussion, for the record. Navou's closing statement was incorrect in that Rama's Arrow had executed an indefinite block prior to closing—not a 6-month reset. The indef was widely supported and not reversed. The discussion was indeed confusing because of the simultaneous discussion about BhaiSaab, but the facts are clear. Even if had been just another 6-month reset, the billions of sockpuppets H.E. created in the ensuing 6 months would have certainly led to a community-endorsed indef. - Merzbow 01:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The festivities continue, under more abusive sockpuppets: [45] - Merzbow 02:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Navou

An editor executing an indef block prior to my closing summary of a community discussion, and the fact that no admin will undo that indef block speaks volumes. Nothing inappropriate about the community ban here. Navou 02:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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


Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

Initiated by Hajji Piruz at 15:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC), merged with Hajji Piruz and his meatpuppets edit war on Iranian Azerbaijan related pages initiated by Dacy69 on 18 June 2007 merged by Clerk Picaroon at 16:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

AlexanderPar Pejman47 Alborz Fallah Behmod Parishan Grandmaster Houshyar Ariana310 Batabat Ehud Lesar Aynabend Pam55 MarshallBagramyan Hetoum I VartanM Elsanaturk Fedayee Zondi

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Hajji Piruz

Due to persistent personal attacks, canvassing, false accusations, harassment, attempts at splitting Wikipedia up along national lines, telling users what to and what not to edit, and abuse of Wikipedia’s rules, I’ve had enough. Atabek’s behavior is highly disruptive, especially towards me. He even rejected a peace proposal I had put forth, which I had done in an attempt to end the dispute. The only way to solve this issue is for Atabek and I, just the two of us, without any outside interference, post our evidence and let the third party neutral administrators decide what action to take. I can prove my innocence against Atabeks false accusations, I can prove everything I have just said about Atabek, and I can show his general disruptive behavior on Wikipedia. Atabek has never brought up a single piece of evidence supporting any of his calims against me, yet he persists, and the last couple of days took the last straw for me, I’m sick of being continuously harassed and having to waste hours of my time defending myself against things I didn’t do, when I could be making even more contributions to Wikipedia than I am now. I will post all of my evidence when the arbcom is opened, as I do not want to take up anyones time here. Thank you.

  • You can speak to several admins, such as Tariqabjotu, who can confirm that the other users Atabek wants involved in this arbcom have nothing to do with our dispute. I dont know why he is getting into un-related issues, but there are also several suggestions of other users to include relating to other articles that I could also add, but again, this dispute isnt about any articles or any content, its about user behavior. This is a personal issue between Atabek and I. I'd appreciate it if Tariqabjotu can come here and confirm this, as he knows what this dispute is about better than anyone else except for Atabek and I. Including other users will not solve the problems that Atabek and I have with each other, they will worsen them. I just wanted to clear that up.
    • I thought this would be Atabek and I only, but I guess since other users have been involved by Atabek and the entire Armenia-Azerbaijan arbcom is being re-opened, we might as well deal with the other involved parties as well. I added the User:Grandmaster, User:Parishan, and User:Dacy69, as they are also involved parties as much as Pejman, Alborz, etc...
      • One last statement. Atabek, Dacy69, and Grandmaster are all making comments here blatantly making false accusations with false diffs (the diff's they are showing are completely different then how they describe them) in an attempt to manipulate the administrators into having a negative opinion of me before the arbcom has even started. The directions clearly said to make a short 500 word summary, I could have posted a ton of evidence myself. Statements so far, such as Girlandjo's clearly show that there is already a bias based on the false accusations of these three users.

Statement by Atabek

I have indicated to the User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani earlier as I do now, that I have no interest in wasting community's time on this issue. User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani did not completely try other methods of dispute resolution such as assuming good faith, CEM, seeking content mediation, or simply discussing on talk pages without emotion. Given these facts, I don't see a reason for his initial request for ArbCom attention at this point, as all he had to do is to WP:AGF as advised by a 3rd party [51]. Nevertheless, here are some facts to ArbCom's attention:

  • 2. User:Hajji Piruz then started his first personal attack upon myself in the form of editing my user page [53] without permission. As you can clearly see, the purpose of the edit was intimidation and provocation, and that objective was clearly spelled out by User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani here [54]. Note that at the same diff the user goes as far as charging administrators and ArbCom judges with corruption.
  • 4. Bothered by the attacks of User:Hajji Piruz upon myself on discussion pages in support of socks, I have asked him to assume good faith [59], yet the user has clearly responded that he "does not need to AGF" with regards to myself [60].
  • 6. Pursuing an endless discussion thread at User:Tariqabjotu's talk page and accusing me of canvassing, User:Hajji Piruz has managed to pursuade the former to support his campaign. User:Hajji Piruz was first advised to open a CEM case, and when I simply asked a 3rd party user for advise [64], User:Hajji Piruz immediately backtracked from CEM idea and further accused me on canvassing. He clearly chose not try this avenue of dispute resolution which I never rejected.
  • 7. Continuing on, User:Hajji Piruz then convinced User:Tariqabjotu to file an RfC against myself [65], an effort which nevertheless failed to yield sufficient public support. Even some 3rd party users have noted that User:Hajji Piruz was clearly intimidating me and provoking a conflict [66]. User:Hajji Piruz has even requested an RfC comment about myself from a sock for whom he made the talk page [67] and even made comment generalizing along national lines [68]. He stated his RfC desired outcome as [69] banning myself from Wikipedia, which was his "approach" to dispute resolution, again no good faith.
  • 8. User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani is now trying to continue on with his goal in ArbCom, wasting the committee's valuable time. Instead of advised WP:AGF, he goes on revert warring and even clearly Wikistalking myself on the articles that he has never touched before me, sometimes minutes after I edit them [70], [71].
  • 9. Demonstrates disturbingly radical forms of ethnic slander [72].

I think User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani needs to be explained that he needs to WP:AGF and try various avenues of dispute resolution, before simply claiming those as failed. In my case, I am simply forced to defend myself against blackmail, wikistalking, intimidation, revert warring, and provocation by User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani.

I prefer the path of disengagement, dispute resolution and path of ceasing to waste community's time. As I told User:Hajji Piruz already, after my one-way attempts to AGF, I shall simply ignore his comments [73], because I don't like to engage with people who are clearly in Wikipedia for non-encyclopedic purposes and battling along national lines [74] and [75].

  • I agree with Dacy69 and Grandmaster, that this case is not Armenia-Azerbaijan related. And as User:Ghirlandajo properly noted, this waste of ArbCom's time is based on a single User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani, who is unable to assume good faith and engages in edit warring and wikistalking on various pages related to Azerbaijan, Armenia and Iran. I believe the dispute can be resolved simply by convincing the source of the problem about WP:AGF. Atabek 23:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Houshyar is currently involved in Wikistalking and just reverting me without explanations.
  • User:Hajji Piruz joined sockpuppet and sockpuppeteer User:Pam55 and User:Behmod in revert warring [76] and here [77] with a difference of 4 minutes [78]. Both accounts were blocked [79] based on CheckUser.
  • User:AlexanderPar is just involved in revert warring on the pages along with User:Hajji Piruz and others, most of the time without any explanation or discussion on the talk page. Particularly notable are his attempts to renounce Amnesty International reports and upholding Iranian POV and OR sources.
  • Both User:Vartanm and User:MarshallBagramyan have escaped the previous ArbCom yet engaged in revert warring at Varoujan Garabedian, ASALA, and several other pages on Azerbaijan-Armenia topics. They should be in ArbCom.
  • User:Alex Bakharev unblocked confirmed sockpuppets of User:Behmod and User:Pam55 citing that they're at the same university based on private emails to him. This unilateral decision has been discussed at WP:ANI - [80].
  • User:Hajji Piruz unable to assume good faith again and using the same form of personalization [81] despite my obvious attempts to provide references and constructively discuss them at Talk:Qajar dynasty.

Statement by User:Grandmaster

The problems on Iran - Azerbaijan related pages are mostly caused by one person - User:Hajji Piruz. This person has been edit warring almost on every Azerbaijan related article, making controversial edits and enlisting other Iranian users to support his edits. Hajji Piruz was wikistalking User:Atabek for quite some time, and editing Atabek’s personal page by Piruz and adding Atabek to the category of sockpuppeteers was a culmination of this campaign. [82] User:Hajji Piruz clearly stated the desired outcome in the RfC he started on Atabek, which is getting Atabek permanently banned. [83]

Behavior of User:AlexanderPar also deserves special attention of the admins. This user is deleting any quotes that do not match the official position of Iranian government, accusing those who tries to add such information of “soapboxing”. For instance, he deleted the quotes from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International a number of times, even when they were added by such perfectly neutral members of wiki community as User:Francis Tyers (who is neither Azeri nor Iranian). Francis explained many times that those sources are reliable, [84] but his edit was reverted nonetheless with the same accusation of soapboxing: [85] Moreover, AlexanderPar even reverted along the way the edit by the admin User:Alex Bakharev, who tried to present the different positions in a more balanced form. In its current form Iran newspaper cockroach cartoon controversy article is pretty far from WP:NPOV standards, as it suppresses the info about ethnic tensions in Iran and presents them as nothing but foreign conspiracy. As of now, AlexanderPar keeps deleting HRW quotes from other articles under various pretexts. [86] As one can see, this user violates WP:NPOV, WP:AGF and WP:NPA.

Since this case is titled Armenia – Azerbaijan, I would also like to draw the attention of the arbitrators to User:Hetoum I, User:MarshallBagramyan and User:VartanM. Hetoum I is known for being engaged in vandalism of my user page about one year ago. At that time he was using the name of User:Hetoum. Overall, Hetoum vandalized my user page 18 (!) times. The fact was established by the admin User:Nlu, who placed multiple sockpuppeteer tags on Hetoum's user page [87] [88] and left this message: [89] Nlu removed the tags only on a condition that Hetoum would stop edit warring and vandalizing: [90] I think admins Nlu and User:Khoikhoi can provide additional info about this. It was not really difficult to establish that Hetoum was the puppeteer since he was using the same IP to vandalize my page and edit his own: [91] [92]

But soon after the Armenia – Azerbaijan arbcom case Hetoum (who changed his name to User:Hetoum I) returned to editing pages related to this topic in his usual style, edit warring and making personal attacks on other users, contributing under both his registered name and anon IP: [93] [94]

As result, the page Church of Kish got protected. I raised the issue at WP:ANI: [95] Hetoum has an active support of User:VartanM, who keeps reverting the same page to Hetoum's version. When the page was unprotected, Hetoum and VartanM resumed edit warring, each breaking the 3RR rule, [96] [97] and the page got protected again. As for User:MarshallBagramyan, this user has been actively edit warring on a number Armenia - Azerbaijan related pages. On Khachkar destruction in Nakhchivan he was removing sources that contradicted his claim that deportation of Persian shah Abbas affected only Armenian population, until the admin Khoikhoi restored those sources. Only then Marshall stopped edit warring. On Armenian Revolutionary Federation Marshall was removing the sources about involvement of ARF in ethnic massacres and assassination of Russian officials in the beginning of the 20th century. Only when admin User:Thatcher131 evaluated the sources and confirmed that Marshall should not be removing verifiable info Marshall stopped his edit warring: [98] The same behavior continues on other articles this user is involved in, he even removes the tags that are attached to indicate that the contents of the article are disputed. [99] I think it was a mistake to place some users on parole and let others go, as those not on parole instantly took advantage of the situation and resumed edit warring. I would propose as a better solution placing all topic related pages on parole, that would be a more effective measure.

I would like to ask the arbitrators to review the situation with the account of User:Pam55. Checkuser proved that Pam55 was a sock of User:Behmod: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pam55. Subsequently, both Pam55 and Behmod were banned indefinitely by admin User:Alison. However, later admin Alex Bakharev unblocked both accounts, stating that they belong to the students in the same university. [100] The account of User:Pam55 was used to make reverts to controversial articles like Azerbaijani people, History of the name Azerbaijan or 300 (film). It is highly improbable that a new user would accidentally become aware of the disputes on those articles and appeared right in time to rv in favor of a certain POV. I raised the issue at WP:ANI: [101] I think that unblocking Pam55 was a mistake, it is either a sock or meatpuppet and as such should be banned. Grandmaster 06:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by user:Dacy69

I would like to draw attention to user:Hajji Piruz (formerly known user:Azerbaijani disruptive activity in Wikipedia where he drew several meatpuppets like user:AlexanderPar, user:Pejman47, user:Alborz Fallah and others to launch edit war on page Iranian Azerbaijan, Azeri cartoon controversy in the Iran newspaper, Ethnic minorities in Iran.

  • Meatpuppets are appearing usually after user:Hajji Piruz starts edit war and make reverts for user:Hajji Piruz since he is on revert parole without any substantial comments on talkpages. Some of them only lately were involved in talkpages after some appeals to discuss issues before making edits. As soon as I touch the article user:Hajji Piruz and his meatpuppets remove referenced info.
  • The dispute started on page Iranian Azerbaijan on the relevancy my multisourced edit [102]. After dispute started I opened RfC, and accepted RfC initial proposal made by admin user:Alex Bakharev but other editors did not. Later dispute also arose on other related pages.
  • Another important issue needs to be resolved is the use of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and similar sources. Some editors like user:AlexanderPar keep removing them, arguing that they are not neutral and can not be used in Wikipedia. As a result of user:Hajji Piruz and his meatpuppets activity certain Wikipedia pages are hijacked by Iranian government POV. Thus, integrity and neutrality of Wikipedia at some points is disrupted.
user:AlexanderPar has placed misleading comments on his comment section. He is still continue edit warring, removes neutral sources from several pages (see for example Ethnic Minorities in Iran and claims that he do nothing and shoudn't be here.
  • user:Alborz Fallah made comment along the ethnic line and in spirit of battleground [103] and this quite insulting about Azerbaijani literature [[104]]. It is interesting to mention that this article [105] appeared during the dispute though I don’t have problem with its content and assume good faith.
  • Activity of user:Hajji Piruz should be thoroughly investigated. This is the only case where I can’t assume good faith. Having taken name “Azerbaijani” he was involved in edit war (that case was considered in previous Arbitration where I was involved too) and supported Armenian editors vs. Azerbaijani. Now he is waging edit war on many Azerbaijani related pages, making insults, e.g. [106], can’t work towards compromise, making false reports on ANI. He has history of backing banned user:Tajik and his socks, forging images, placing POV comments and violation of copyrights.
  • I am fully aware that my own behavior will be investigated since I am on Arbcom parole. I admit that 2 times I was provoked and involved in edit war and got blocked for that.

Summary of request:

  • Edit on page Iranian Azerbaijan and other abovementioned pages
  • Use of sources like Amnesty International
  • Name of the page related to anti-Azeri cartoon in Iran newspaper
  • Edit war on the part of above-mentioned users.

NOTE on the title of the case I don't agree with a new title of the case. It is not only about Armenia-Azerbaijan. It should be also focused on Iranian editors. There is linkage - user:Hajji Piruz was involved in previous one on the side of Armenian editors and now he is attacking Azerbaijan related pages with a group of Persian editors. It is pity we should distingiush editors by ethnic affiliation but that is important to understand the nature of the problem. --Dacy69 18:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • New Users - some new users was added to this case. I think this new insertion is fully justifiable. For example, editor user:Hetoum I was involved in edit war on page Church of Kish, POV pushing by using non-neutral sources and incivility. This is his insult which I reported 2 times to ANI but without any reaction from admins [107]

REQUEST for Temporary Injunction While consideration of this case is pending I request urgent action with regard to user:AlexanderPar. He continues edit warring and removes multisourced information without any discussion on the talkpage [108]

Statement by user:Alborz Fallah

  • Well , I think all of this is because misinterpretation ! About the "spirit of battleground " [109] I did discussed it for two times that it was only a logical comparison between similar cases to help the opposite party to understand the case and that was not an invitation for retaliation."insult about Azerbaijani literature"[110] is also from the same kind : I'm an Iranian-Azeri myself and when Atabek criticized about my Azeri illiteracy[111] , I wanted to mention that until only 100 years ago , Azeri has not been a written language and changing it's script from Cyrillic to Latin alphabet also has made it a new written language then it can't be considered as "insulting about Azerbaijani literature "--Alborz Fallah 17:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by non-involved Ghirla

Despite the ArbCom's efforts to defuse the situation, the Armenian-Azerbaijani-Turkish-Iranian articles are still a mess of never-ending revert-warring. When I wrote the page Third Perso-Turkic War and made a few edits to Church of Kish, I unexpectedly found myself in the middle of some massive hostilities whose purpose escapes me. I don't know which side of the dispute is right (if any), but I feel that even the most harmless edits on the Armenian-Azerbaijani-Turkish-Iranian articles are now perceived as a deliberate offense. The situation is not good, since it makes editing a large swath of articles rather stressful, therefore I urge the Arbitrators to investigate the case. It appears to me that the newest drama hinges on the person of Hajji Piruz, but I may be mistaken. Now a more general observation. ArbCom's decisions concerning the "hot spots" of Eastern Europe do not appear to work as they were probably intended. Once some folks are banned, new revert warriors instantly take their place in the ranks. For crying out loud, Occupation of Latvia 1940–1945 is currently subjected to intense revert warring which may (or may not) involve sockpuppetry. --Ghirla-трёп- 17:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by non-involved VartanM

This argument between Iranians and Azeris has nothing to do with me or any other user from Wikiproject Armenia. I herby request that the name of this case be changed and my name taken off this arbcom case. VartanM 06:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by non-involved Hetoum I

I second VartanM. This has nothing to do with Armenians. I request my name off as well.Hetoum I 06:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alex Bakharev

I do not know if I am involved or not, I have learnt that my name was on the original list but it is not now (obviously I am ready to explain my edits if needed). One of the sources of the problems is that most of active Azaeri and Armenian editors are either banned or on probation. As a result there is a balanced peace in Armenian-Azeri conflicts but disbalance in other perennial conflicts like Armenian-Turkish and Azeri-Iranian. It looks like one revert per week make impossible even the normal WP:BRD cycle. I (and probably other users) was contacted from the both sides asking to make edits (reasonably founded) on their behalf as they afraid that by doing it themselves the edits maybe considered a partial revert. There are also many throw-away accounts that look like socks. It is not good amd make people nervous.

The immediate reason for the conflict was the content dispute over Iran newspaper cockroach cartoon controversy. I think the editing was sort of hot but the article is in good shape, went to WP:DYK and reasonably neutral as it is now.

I would think that maybe we can lift the 1RR parole for the involved users from the articles outside the Armenian-Azeri conflict, e.g. Armenian-Turkish and Azeri-Iranian may improve things. Alex Bakharev 06:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by non-involved Marshal Bagramyan

I'm at complete odds as to why I am supposed to be here. I'm currently on vacation, I have been for almost a week. I do not even what this dispute is even about.--Marshal Bagramyan 06:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AlexanderPar

I have no idea how I can be considered a "party" to this ArbCom request. Evidently, User:Dacy69 simply added me to this ArbCom request as a retaliatory measure, since I reported [112] him for a 3RR violation a few days ago. Otherwise, and I have never edited any Azerbaijan Republic or Armenian pages (expect for one article I created myself), I have a clean block log, and if there is anything wrong with my editing, from what I understand there should be a RFC filled against me first. User:Dacy69 has also added a bunch of other people to the list of parties who are either uninvolved, or have minimal involvement in this dispute. I suspect that User:Dacy69 is doing this to make this ArbCom case unworkable, and deflect attention away from himself and others who were involved in the previous ArbCom.

I first encountered User:Dacy69 on Iranian Azerbaijan, responding to a RFC filled by User:Dacy69 [113]. After expressing my opinion about the dispute, I immediately became a target of personal attacks, threats, and accusations [114] by User:Dacy69 and User:Atabek. From the discussions there, I found my way into two other articles involving these two users. I soon noticed that User:Dacy69 is on some sort of ethnic/political crusade to turn Wikipedia into a soapbox. Always aided by User:Atabek and User:Grandmaster, he kept copy-pasting some poorly-sourced human rights reports on multiple articles, even geography articles, in an activist mode, which looked like blatant soapboxing, I raised the issue on admin's board [115] [116], and an admin confirmed that human rights/political websites are not reliable sources. [117] But User:Dacy69 not only did not stop soapboxing, but actually he along with User:Atabek and User:Grandmaster, broadened the scope of the dispute into new Iranian pages, in a deliberate attempt to provoke.

My own observation is that User:Dacy69, User:Atabek and User:Grandmaster appearer to be extremely disruptive editors who deliberately provoke edit-wars by soapboxing, ethnic activism, and gaming their revert parole. I also believe that the previous ArbCom did not fully examine their disruptive behavior. For example, as noted by an admin [118], it's astonishing that despite User:Dacy69's revert parole restrictions imposed by ArbCom, he still manages to violate 3RR on a page by making 4 reverts in less than a day.AlexanderPar 08:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Behmod

In my case, user Atabek or User:Dacy69 did not try any of dispute resolution steps. They did not even contact me for one time. I might have my point of view, but it's not necessary the same with all the users here. I have been added in a retaliatory measure, by Dacy69 because I once reported Atabek for breaking 1rr. If these users have any problem with my POVs, I opnly welcome them to start the discussion toward solving the problem. I am kindly requesting admins’ opinions. Should I be involved in this arbcom at this stage or should Atabek and Dacy69 try other steps of dispute resolution with me first? In case that admins confirm that I am involved in this arbcom, I would provide supportive evidence.--behmod talk 01:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aynabend

I honestly do not understand what was the purpose and need for this arbitration, why Hajji Piruz who is of an Iranian descent is initiating arbcom naming it "Azerbaijan-Armenia" and not "Azerbaijan-Iran"? Is the plan to make users contributing to Azerbaijan and Armenia related articles to fight all the time? I have only contributed to Wiki with original, third party sources and maps in the articles related to Azerbaijan/Armenia. Trying to cover and drown as many as possible who do not agree with you must be the aim of this evil initiative. I hope such a destructive users will be unsuccessful in their attempts. --Aynabend 20:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Tariqabjotu

Unfortunately, I don't think there is a whole lot the arbitration committee can do about the seemingly interminable issues that surround articles on Western Asia. This is an issue that goes beyond Hajji Piruz, Atabek, et, al. and (of course) beyond Wikipedia. Ultimately, from what I have witnessed, the issues here seem to come from persistent assumptions of bad faith. Instead of merely talking calmly to other editors, there is a tendency to ascribe issues to their nationality or personality. Someone has to bring up alleged ulterior motives. And alleged cabals of [insert common trait here] editors. This should never have arrived at this point, but alas there are some who just cannot see a trivial matter for what it is – trivial. Unfortunate indeed. -- tariqabjotu 19:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

The four votes to open the case are noted. I have requested instructions from the arbitrators concerning the scope of the case (review vs. full new case) and whether there should be any change in the list of parties before opening. Newyorkbrad 19:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

MEMRI

Initiated by Jgui at 15:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

article:

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Above parties have all been notified: Armon Isarig Quaiqu Humus sapiens

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Attempts at resolving this dispute have all failed. Talking to the other editors has been attempted - every edit that I have made to the MEMRI page (including reversions) has been accompanied with a statement in the Talk page describing my changes and why I have made it. I have repeatedly invited these editors to discuss and modify the text that I have added that they disagree with instead of completely deleting every modification I make (e.g. here and here and here and here). I have also attempted to resolve these disputes by disengaging; e.g. see here and here. Informal mediation was attempted for one of these changes, which led Armon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to promise to rewrite a paragraph that he considered an acceptable compromise (“I still haven't come up with one, but I'll give it a shot ASAP” Feb.28, 07). But he has never contributed that paragraph and the informal mediation collapsed here; afterwards he has continued to remove any version of this paragraph including an earlier version that he had written himself. In a final attempt to reach resolution I have invited the editors to appear before the Mediation Cabal in the MEMRI Talk page (e.g. here and here), and put notices on Armon’s here and Isarig’s here user talk pages, but they have completely ignored my requests, effectively refusing Mediation.

Statement by Jgui

Editors Armon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Isarig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (and renamed editor Quaiqu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – formerly Elizmr) are enforcing WP:OWN of the MEMRI page and preventing other editors from contributing NPOV properly-cited text. They feel free to make major edits without any discussion either before or after they make their edits (e.g. here or here or here, all of which have no contemporaneous Talk page discussion), but insist that other editors must pre-submit all proposed edits for prior consensus approval on the Talk page (e.g. here). Attempts to insert text without this approval (which is virtually never given) are immediately deleted often with no notice in the Talk page. This has been occurring for six months (e.g. see my comments here and here and here and here and here).

Further evidence of WP:OWN is the pattern of statements made by these editors on Talk pages in recent months: “You've been editing WP all of 2 days, may I suggest that a little humility is on order” (Isarig here); “Then I suggest you acquaint yourself with the subject matter before editing WP.” (Isarig here); “Y'know, I think you picked a lousy page to begin with on WP -I say this from experience.” (Armon here); “If you want to quote Hoffman in the article, you must show ... Hop to it.” (Isarig here); “If you're being ignored, it's only because I'm not interested in reading yet another filibuster about how hard done by you are." (Armon here); “You will either get consensus for your requested changes here (and so far you have failed to do so), or these changes will stay out of the article.” (Isarig here). “If there's consensus that it is NPOV and relevant we will add it.” (Isarig here).

These editors are applying a far different standard for their own edits than they are enforcing for other editors. Although they make their own edits without bothering to even note it on the Talk page, they block changes by other editors by completely reverting out their edits even when these changes are described in the Talk pages and even after they have been modified to address specific concerns. If pressed to justify their wholesale deletions these editors frequently make empty unsubstantiated claims (such as “POV”) until they are finally forced to fall back on “no consensus has been achieved” – by which they simply mean that THEY have not agreed (e.g. see the end of the discussion in the “No Response” section here).

The net effect of their efforts has been to freeze out many other editors. In the time period that I have been editing, I have observed these editors remove all traces of edits that were attempted by approximately twenty different named editors, plus several anon IP editors. In the process they have even caused editors to publicly give up in frustration, (e.g. here).

In a related matter, the admins Humus_sapiens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Jayjg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) may be aiding these editors in their endeavor to WP:OWN this page by protecting these editors and their edits. I do not know WP policy well enough to know whether the actions of these admins are prohibited or not, but their involvement on the MEMRI page has caused me to list them as involved parties so that this can be considered.

The abuses of these editors Armon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Isarig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Quaiqu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has brought meaningful edits of the MEMRI page by other editors to a halt. Furthermore, their actions have wasted many hours of time by sincere good-faith editors, and have caused some editors to give up entirely. I believe action by the Arbitration Committee is necessary to resolve this situation.

Thank you, Jgui 15:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments to comments

Isarig evidently wants this to be dismissed as a simple content dispute. I would be happy to respond to Isarig’s claim that I have been making flagrantly POV edits if he would provide actual examples to support his allegation, which he has not done. His accusations against me are notable for their lack of supporting evidence (for example his claim that my first edit was made without “prior discussion”, is refuted by the fact that my first edit to the MEMRI page was accompanied by a statement in the MEMRI Talk page here). Furthermore I realize that it is not the purpose of the Arbitration Committee to sort through claims and counter-claims of POV. The important issue here is not that there is a content dispute on this page. Clearly many (if not most) WP pages have had content disputes on them. The important issue is instead how editors behave when a content dispute occurs. And it is clear to me from the evidence above that these editors have responded to a content dispute by acting abusively as WP:OWN of the MEMRI page and disallowing edits that they do not like. The tone of their statements to other editors (which I included and cited above) read almost exactly like the examples of WP:OWN here. The fact that I included a Talk page discussion for each of my changes and that they have still reverted my changes without making any responses to my discussion points makes this clear (some examples cited above – I can provide many more if requested). The fact that they have COMPLETELY reverted out ALL edits by more than twenty editors in the last few months makes this clearer (I would be happy to provide a list of these editors including two that Isarig falsely claimed that he "had no problem with"). And the fact that they have made major changes to the article without ANY discussion in the Talk pages (some samples noted above) while at the same time emphatically stating and enforcing their ad-hoc rule that all other editors must pre-submit changes for discussion before they can be even be considered for inclusion on the page (e.g. here or here) makes this plainly obvious.

I think it is clear from the lengthy statements below that the situation on this page has created a great deal of frustration and hostility. I believe that the inability of a large number of editors to make any contributions to this page has been responsible for causing this frustration, and that consideration of this situation by the Arbitration Committee is the only way to resolve it. My question is that if this is not a clear case of WP:OWN, then what possibly could be? Thank you, Jgui 22:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved User:Jayjg

I'm not sure what this case is all about, but I'm not an editor of the MEMRI page, nor am I involved on its talk page. I protected the article once, in early March, after the article had been reverted 21 times in 3 days. In early May I reverted an IP editor who had inserted a WP:BLP violation. That is the extent of my involvement in the article in the past 2 years. I have no idea what the specific disputes on this article are about, nor do I care to learn. I've removed myself from the list of involved parties.

Regarding User:Nagle's dubious and irrelevant claims below, I'm also not an editor of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America page, am certainly not involved in the edit war there, and have no "position I favor" on it. I've also barely edited the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article (9 out of the last 1,000 edits), and on the others I've mostly been involved in trying to keep Nagle's original research out of articles he has apparently claimed as his WP:OWN. What is rather disappointing is that Nagle's comment is a typical example of editors using this venue as a platform upon which to piggyback their own private and unrelated beefs, in attempts to win content disputes. Expect a fair bit more of it over the next week or so. Jayjg (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Nagle

Although I've certainly had disagreements with Jayjg (talk · contribs), he doesn't seem to have been involved with the MEMRI article. In recent months he's been involved with other activity which might be characterized as WP:OWN in Jewish Lobby (ongoing multiparty edit war for last several months), Allegations of Israeli Apartheid (subject of a previous arbitration), Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (used admin privileges to lock article in a state favoring his position), and StandWithUs (just wierd). But none of this rises to the level of something that needs a full arbitration, like the one last year. Mediation, maybe. --John Nagle 16:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Commodore Sloat

I fully agree with Jgui that User:Armon and User:Isarig have ownership problems with this page (as well as several others that deal with Middle East issues). There was an attempt at Community-enforceable mediation on the Juan Cole page that resulted from similar issues. They exercise ownership over those pages and then protect their ownership vehemently, often personally attacking anyone who tries to make changes. They revert and delete without comment, and they only comment in talk after being pressed several times, usually to say that they've already discussed their changes (referring vaguely to discussions that were months old). When they are shown to be wrong over and over about something, they ultimately concede a minor change, but they continue to engage in mass reversions, disrupting the process of coming to any kind of consensus. In the ongoing dispute with Jgui, Isarig continued to revert entire blocks of text even while conceding in talk that some of the text was acceptable to him.

Regarding Jayjg, it is notable that one of his edits on the page, which he characterized as reverting a BLP violation, also changed "West Bank (occupied territories)" to "Judea and Samaria" -- a politically contentious change that could have used at least a bit of explanation. I'm not saying it was a bad edit, only that it is false to characterize his edit as simply protecting BLP. And it's also notable that when he protects a page involving these editors, it is always in the version one of these editors preferred. That was the case on his protection of the MEMRI page; it was also the case on the Juan Cole page. It is also notable that Jayjg has rushed to the defense of Armon in the Juan Cole mediation attempt, and became very abusive to me in that process. I think there is a larger behavioral issue at work here that transcends any specific focus on the MEMRI page. Looking at Armon's talk page, I notice that other users have commented on this problem. Armon deleted the comment as "trolling," but he never bothered to respond to it. Personally I doubt that Armon is a meatpuppet of Jayjg as some users suggested, but I do think that Jayjg is not a neutral admin when it comes to Armon (and Isarig). csloat 20:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Isarig's comments below, he is mistaken about my concern with Jayjg. I never said Jayjg used a misleading edit summary. I said that his statement above was misleading (it is above where he said it was a BLP-related edit). I'm not sure why it's a significant point for Isarig to take up. He is misreading me as attacking Jayjg for POV editing -- that wasn't my point at all. I simply was pointing out that he was not a neutral admin on these issues, and he appears to march lockstep with Armon and Isarig on every issue I have seen the three of them involved in. And at least a couple of other editors have noted that on Armon's talk page; Armon's removal of such notices as "trolling" certainly raises eyebrows.

Isarig's claims about my editing are, of course, wholly false. I have not engaged in disruptive editing and have attempted over and over again to mediate in good faith. The most recent mediation was closed after being stalled completely by User:Armon; Armon was arguing tooth and nail over a few words, and then he suddenly dropped out of the argument. After several days of not responding to the discussion, the mediator announced that he would give Armon a few more days to say something before closing the mediation. After that, I asked about the consequences of refusing mediation. After another week of silence, Isarig jumped in out of the blue (having totally ignored the substantive discussion in the mediation), attacking me over and over and over again, making the empty claim that I am "disruptive" in ever more histrionic (and personally attacking) tones. When I suggested mediation rather than continued personal attacks, he simply laughed it off as a "colossal waste of time." Another uninvolved editor was inspired at this point to note that it was Isarig who was wasting time. Isarig immediately attacked her and continued to attack her and threaten her (as well as me) in another heated exchange. Within a couple of days the entire page was filled with bickering between Isarig, myself, and the other user that had gone far astray of the actual attempt to mediate. His actions on the mediation page, in short, were the very definition of disruptive editing, and his actions in many many interactions I've had with him have been the same. csloat 07:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry - one last comment in response to Isarig below. He falsely stated that "several administrators commented on his behavior as being indicative of not wanting to actually resolve problems." This is totally false. Only one admin made such a comment -- guess who? User:Jayjg. He made this comment after what I saw as a series of unprovoked attacks against me on the mediation page, which finished with an unfair ultimatum. Jayjg then left the mediation, telling me that "You don't want to solve the problem," which was a totally unfair aspersion against my motives (and it is an aspersion which my actions clearly showed to be false). Again, it all points to the fact that Jayjg is not neutral when it comes to Armon. I'm not sure what the implications of that are, but it may suggest that he prematurely removed his name from the list of involved parties to this arbitration request. csloat 07:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A comment about Humus Sapiens - I agree with him that his participation on the page was minimal. However, his minimal participation was used frequently by User:Isarig as evidence of an alleged consensus against Jgui's version (when the reality was there were 4 or 5 editors in favor of Jgui's version and only two arguing actively against it, Armon and Isarig). Isarig several times claimed there was a consensus the other way around, indicating that he was counting Humus' edits as votes of support. csloat 22:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Isarig

Underlying this request is a content dispute that dates back to December 23, 2006. On that date, as his very first set of edits to WP, Jgui , without any prior discussion, inserted several POV edits to the article, which have never gained consensus of other editors. These changes included material sourced to a blog which is not a reliable source, original research he performed on an archived version of MEMRI’s web site, and a highly POV and unsourced characterization of a controversy MEMRI has been involved in. These changes were reverted later that day by Quaiqu, who explained why - citing the blog issue in her edit summary and discussing the changes Jgui made on the Talk page of the article. Since then, a pattern has emerged: Jgui re-inserts the same POV, OR and non-RS material, while falsely alleging that no one is discussing his changes on Talk. Numerous editors (all 4 of those named in the above) revert the changes, after extensive discussion on the Talk page citing their reasons, Jgui then disappears for 3-4 weeks, and then re-appears, making the same POV edits, and repeating the same false claim that no one has been willing to discuss his changes with him. The editors repeat their reason for removal on the Talk page, and highlight the false nature of the “no discussion claims” (the archive has an entire section titled ‘Recent edits alleging "no response on Talk"’ – which repeated, again, many of the objections to the non-consensus edits) I don’t expect ArbCom (should it elect to hear this case) to make a decision regarding the actual content dispute, but the disruptive behavior of Jgui (and csloat) should be addressed.

I have been accused by Jgui of trying to own the article. That claim is far from the truth. Other than Jgui’s repeated re-insertion of the POV material, the only substantive recent change was the addition of a new controversy involving MEMRI. This material, suggested by JoshuaZ on the talk page was added to the article by RolandR. I edited the material to make it more accurately reflect the controversy, and in it’s current form, having been further edited by Abnn and Hnassif (two other editors who have a different POV about MEMRI than mine)- I have no problem with it being included in the article, despite the fact that it was not suggested or added by me, and despite the fact that it is highly critical of MEMRI. I have no objection to properly sourced, relevant material presented in a NPOV way. I object to Jgui’s edits because they do no to conform to WP policies- as I have explained at length on the Talk page.

Regarding csloat: His disruptive editing style has been the topic of several mediation attempts, all of which ended with no resolution, after several administrators commented on his behavior as being indicative of not wanting to actually resolve problems. This style is clearly demonstrated by his comments in his statement below. In an attempt to discredit Jayjg (who is not even a party to this ArbCom request), he accuses Jayjg of using a misleading edit summary – cloats alleges that Jayjg reverted something claiming it was a BLP violation in the edit summary , while also making a POV edit in the same revert. A casual inspection of the diffs provided shows this is invented out of whole cloth. Jayjg did not characterize his edit as a revert of a BLP violation – he simply wrote he was reverting edits by an anon IP editor – which he did. One of the POV edits by the anon editor was changing the official title of an Israeli executive to a POV one, and that change, among others, was reverted by Jayjg. Csloat misrepresents what Jayjg wrote in the edit summary, and further accuses him of some POV edit – never mentioning that this was a POV edit made by an anon editor that got reverted.

Statement by User:Humus sapiens

I don't see how I am involved in this, having made total of 5 edits out of the last 1,000 (that's going back to March 2006) including usual anti-vandalism, copyedits, etc., and I do not see how I "may be aiding these editors in their endeavor to WP:OWN this page by protecting these editors and their edits." ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/2/0/0)

Requests for clarification

Place requests for clarification on matters related to the Arbitration process in this section. Place new requests at the top.


Tobias Conradi

See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Tobias_Conradi#Post-closing_clarification.2C_May_2007 and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tobias Conradi (2nd nomination) as it appears there still is some confusion about what is or isn't a laundry list, and whether listing bare diffs is listing grievances. ++Lar: t/c 18:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification or at least comment would be sincerely appreciated. The MfD decision ("blank") is now at DRV... --Iamunknown 16:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to repeat here, the reason for the blanking was that the consensus in the MFD was to keep the page, but I was hesitant to invoke IAR and delete the page anyway because it appeared to be a violation of the ruling, so I blanked it instead. --Coredesat 22:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In simple terms, is this a "laundry list of grievances" such as the user was prohibited from making? Given that the page discusses exactly one grievance, Tobias's belief that criticism of Wikipedia admin behaviour is censored, I find this 'interpretation' of the ruling to essentially recast it as 'Tobias Conradi is prohibited from criticizing anything about Wikipedia'... which ironically rather proves his point. If we want to have an open community that recognizes and adapts to problems we should bend over backwards to be tolerant criticism to ourselves and the project... not look for any pretext on which to ban and punish it. --CBD 14:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

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


Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=140427327"