Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dreamy Jazz (talk | contribs) at 20:59, 18 August 2022 (→‎Amhara Genocide: removed as premature per clerk-l). 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
"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC.

Shortcut

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Conduct on Portal:Current Events   14 August 2022 0/7/0
[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.

Conduct on Portal:Current Events

Initiated by Carter00000 (talk) at 10:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1105#User:Alsoriano97_(Long_Term_Violations_of_Edit_Warring,_WP:CIVIL_&_Tedentious_Editing)
  2. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive441#User:Alsoriano97 reported by User:Araesmojo (Result: No action)
  3. Portal_talk:Current_events/Archive_12#Multi-Revert_Issue_with_Alsoriano97
  4. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Use the summary box before making an edit!
  5. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Warning
  6. User_talk:Alsoriano97#May 2021
  7. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Your use of the word "Domestic"
  8. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Revert of Current Events
  9. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Your revert about Dwayne Haskins
  10. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Matt Gaetz

Numerous other attempts at resolution can be found at Alsoriano97's [Talk Page] and [Contribtutions to Portal Name Space].

Statement by Carter00000

I file this RFAR to request an examination of the conduct of an editor (Alsoriano97) and three administrators (Black Kite, Dennis Brown and Deb).

Alsoriano97 has engaged in persistent edit warring (including WP:3RR) and tendentious editing, accompanied by gross incivility, over the past few years. Resolution on talk pages and ANI have failed to resolve the issue. At ANI, Alsoriano97 expressed no remorse for his actions [x, x], shifting the blame onto other editors [x, x]. Consensus on Alsoriano97's disruptiveness and need for sanctions were reached at ANI [x, x, x, x]. During and after ANI, Alsoriano97 has continued his actions. Alsoriano97 has expressed contempt for conduct related proceedings [x, x].  

Alsoriano97 frequently edits at Portal:Current Events, removing content on Anglophone countries, with emphasis on USA. Removals are often news widely reported globally in RS's, challenged by many editors. Alsoriano97 enforces of his opinions through disruptive reverting of items, frequently violating 3RR. When challenged, Alsoriano97 uses uncivil language and refuses to address the issue. Alsoriano97 is aware of WP:3RR, previously being blocked for 24h [x], and has cited 3RR to other editors. Alsoriano97 frequently expresses his view that Anglophone countries are overrepresented.

I opened an ANI to resolve these issues, but felt that there were issues with the conduct of some participating administrators.

BlackKite: Prior to ANI, BlackKite commented on a talkpage where I noted that Alsoriano97 had broken 3RR, taking no action, instead backing Alsoriano97 on the content issue [x]. BlackKite claimed his inaction was because the content was unnotable [x], despite content disputes not falling under WP:3RRNO, opining enforcement would be “rewarding” me [x]. He further made suggestions which bordered on WP:GAMING [x] at ANI. BlackKite later opened a section to question my legitimacy [x], after being questioned on his actions, implying I was a sockpuppet/LTA, despite being aware of my account history. Throughout ANI, BlackKite refused to acknowledge consensus, minimizing and dismissing testimony of Alsoriano97’s actions [x, x, x], and being called out on such dismissals [x, x]. Blackkite also removed a comment questioning his actions [x]. BlackKite improperly requested closure of ANI [x] claiming no consensus for further action. BlackKite was previously admonished by ArbCom [x].

DennisBrown: DennisBrown commented on BlackKite’s allegations on my legitimacy, defending his actions [x]. When I requested his rationale, DennisBrown refused to answer, resorting to personal attacks [x, x,x]. DennisBrown later assumed the role of administrator handling the ANI [x], despite being warned that he was WP:INVOLVED [x], given his comments at previous RAFR [x] and ANI [x]. DennisBrown issued a “gag order” [x] when challenged. DennisBrown focused primarily on civility issues [x], and archived the ANI without resolution [x].

Deb: Deb replied to a comment, incorrectly citing WP:3RRNO [x]. Later, Deb characterized Alsoriano97’s issues as only civility issues [x, x], resorting to ad-hominem attacks and pulling rank when challenged [x].

I request Arbcom examine if the ANI was compromised by the prejudices of the above administrators, and for any relevant misconduct.

  • @Alsoriano97,

Noting that the scope of the ANI was not limited to WP:3RR & WP: CIVIL, but also your general pattern of edit warring and tendentious editing.

Further noting that after ANI, you have continued to edit war on Portal:Current Events (albeit not violating WP3RR), ((A) [1] [2], (B) [3] [4]) and have continued your pattern of tendentious removal of US news ( [5] [6] [7]), two ([8] [9]) of which was made hours after you posted at ANI. Carter00000 (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alsoriano97

How far do you want to go, Carter? I don't understand your intentions. In ANI we could all talk about the problems of my edits, where I committed myself not to be uncivil and not to break the 3RR rule again. You know that no action was taken in the end for whatever reason, so there must be a reason. I also don't understand why you decide to confront other users here. I don't think that's the way to solve this issue, frankly. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carter00000 has just appeared in combat again. It's sad to see that you haven't understood anything at all, nor how the problem-solving mechanisms work on Wikipedia. It's good to listen more to others. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

This is the second time that, in their 487 edits (of which only 55 are to mainspace), Carter00000 has opened an ANI, been unhappy with the result, and then opened an ArbCom case. I can refute all the accusations if necessary, but Carter00000 may want to remove the one that shows me removing "a comment questioning my actions", as one click would have shown them that it was made by a checkuser blocked sock. I think it is unfortunate that Carter00000 didn't take the advice given in their last case filing [10]. Black Kite (talk) 10:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dennis Brown

I stand by my comments in Carter's previous Arb case, a couple of weeks ago. [12] Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deb

This is a pretty easy one. As to the diffs cited:

  1. "incorrectly citing WP:3RRNO" - the diff shows that I cited it, which is true, as I wanted to bring it to the attention of Carter00000. I did not express any opinion as to whether it was appropriate in this case, I merely pointed it out as it might have been used as an argument counter to his/her own.
  2. "Deb characterized Alsoriano97’s issues as only civility issues". One of these diffs does not relate to me. The other, even as paraphrased by Carter00000, seems to me a reasonable comment in the context.
  3. "resorting to ad-hominem attacks and pulling rank when challenged" Perhaps the strangest accusation of all. Carter00000 has not specified the supposed ad hominem attack I am supposed to have made, and until s/he does so I am unable to respond. The statement "Administrators have a lot of experience in dealing with such cases" was relevant since the matter was being discussed at the Administrators' noticeboard, and was made in the "Remedies" section, referring to the fact that Carter00000 was suggesting remedies for a matter where s/he could not take any of the suggested actions in person but was badgering administrators to agree that these were the correct remedies, implying that s/he knew better than the admins s/he was addressing. Deb (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cryptic

I agree that we don't need arbitration yet (and probably won't ever). Alsoriano97's incivility is understandable, largely minor, and can be explained away as being a non-native speaker in the cases where it wasn't minor. In particular, the filer's accusations against the three admins are preposterous.

The daily current events pages, though, really do need more admins watching them - A97 has breached 3RR on them many, many times. List including false positives here - as it says, not all of those are 3RR infringements, but the majority are. And while "the observing admin agrees with the content change" isn't in WP:3RRNO, I'm at least as guilty of looking the other way for that reason as anyone. Behavioral change is definitely needed. —Cryptic 00:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston

I must be named here due to my 3RR closure at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive441#User:Alsoriano97 reported by User:Araesmojo (Result: No action). This closure happened in October 2021. At the time I did not perceive that Alsoriano97 had violated 3RR in any 24-hour period so the case was closed with no action. Back then I was not familiar with the work of any of the parties so did not incorporate any previous behavior into my thinking. EdJohnston (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Elijahandskip

This is getting old now. The AN/I ended in no result, which is actually for the best because I would have changed my suggested result to be just a warning to Alsoriano97. I originally suggested a 24-hour block due to the number of 3RR violations discovered, but after their reply to a questions, I would have changed it from that to just a warning. Honestly, I sort of want Carter00000 blocked for constantly trying to get Alsoriano97 blocked. AN/I, started by Carter00000 ended in no result, so they instantly came here instead of dropping the subject??? Like how is that not WP:HOUND. This probably won’t be accepted, so my suggested remedy is to put a 6-month 1-way interaction block between Carter00000 and Alsoriano97 (Carter cannot do the interactions). That should allow the community to actually see if Alsoriano97 was telling the truth at AN/I and to help stop this stupid WP:HOUNDING. Elijahandskip (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: - Understood. Also, no one requested sanctions because this ArbCom case filing had not happened yet, so there was no clear WP:HOUNDING until now. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question for anyone that knows: How many decline votes is needed to just be an automatic decline? At the top it says 4 to accept or a majority, and as of now, there is 6 decline votes, so I am slightly confused. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GWA88

Statement by Araesmojo

Original opener of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive441#User:Alsoriano97 reported by User:Araesmojo (Result: No action). Obviously have issues with Alsoriano97 conduct. Generally agree with most of Carter00000's grievances. Have similar issue with Admin behavior, since it diverged relatively quickly into ad hominem attacks. Based on repeated issues, don't believe this will get a satisfactory result. Appears to have been swiftly declined. Already stopped editing Current Events except for minor changes because of these reasons. Effectively no longer contribute to that page. Araesmojo (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AuguMaugu

Sorry for being late to this, but the ANI ended and I think this should be discussed later, unless the user takes the any inappropriate actions seeing as they were ANI’d.  Augu  Maugu ♨ 16:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, I view most of CE from my work place (which doesn’t allow me to edit WP) and I don’t typically log in from my phone unless necessary. This was happenstance that I found the notification on my account today.  Augu  Maugu ♨ 16:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FrederalBacon

My only comments related to this were in an ANI where I actually defended the possibility that Carter is not a sock. I stated, and still believe, that because competence is required, a new editor who appears to understand our systems here shouldn't automatically be suspected as a sock (which is a key component of Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet). I also inquired as to whether or not there was behavioral evidence of socking, stating that the ANI would be a quick close if an SPI found Carter to be a sock (which is obviously true). I made no statement to fact as to whether or not I believed Carter was a sock, nor do I really have an opinion.FrederalBacon (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WaltCip

Swift decline, not ripe for arbitration. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deepfriedokra

Statement by RoySmith

@Primefac: when you said, "I could potentially see a ban from posting here", did you mean arbcom could impose a ban, or that the community could impose a ban? Does the community have the authority to ban somebody from filing an arbcom case? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

The kangaroo wasn't there, so the boomerang is returning. The idea of Primefac and Barkeep49 is a good idea for exactly what the boomerang should do. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment on Current Events

It has been said that there may be a problem at Portal:Current Events. There may be a problem, but there hasn't been a problem that spent a lot of time and words at WP:ANI, and a conduct issue doesn't require arbitration unless WP:ANI has failed to handle it. Not having discussed at WP:ANI doesn't count as a failure. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MarioJump83

As someone who has been involved in this area, I have seen some increase of disruptive editing, insertion of non-significant items and occasional vandalism as well in recent years. That should be a "red flag" for an eventual ARBCOM case just like what happened at WP:ARBDEL. However the problem isn't really that serious yet and could be handled quite easily by the community. MarioJump83 (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Conduct on Portal:Current Events: Clerk notes

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

Conduct on Portal:Current Events: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/7/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • Decline as premature. There is a lot to parse here, but in my initial two reads I am seeing nothing more than normal editing disputes, and potentially a large amount of misinterpretation or misunderstanding about comments left for the filer. I think L235's comment from just under two months ago at this very board summarises my opinions on the matter, so I will save some server kittens by not restating the entire argument. Primefac (talk) 11:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As an additional thought, my statement from the previous request (linked above) still stands: I do not see us blocking Carter00000 simply because of this filing (though I could potentially see a ban from posting here). ANI appears to have had multiple opportunities to make that motion and has yet to do so, meaning we have not reached the point of ArbCom-level sanctions. Primefac (talk) 11:34, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    RoySmith, I meant the former, but something along the lines of what Barkeep49 proposed below could also work. Primefac (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per Primefac. Further, I would be in favor of a motion to require Carter to submit any ARC to the Committtee via email and have 2 arbs agree it's an appropriate request before it's posted. This should still give them a place for recourse, the bar to it being posted is deliberately low - only 2 arbs - so the community would not lose its right to weigh in but also wouldn't have its time wasted on requests that go nowhere. Importantly the 2 arbs wouldn't have to support any action or acceptance, only that the request itself is appropriate. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @BDD: I take the opposite tact - only ArbCom should cut off access to the ArbCom process. I did suggest some limiting might be appropriate in this case but I do not think he should be cut-off. However, as L235 notes a block for disruptive editing would be another appropriate way of responding should there be future spurious requests from this editor. That could be done either as an individual admin action as appropriate under policy or as a community action. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline While I'm not exactly thrilled about Alsoriano97, I think his edits are mostly just harmless expressions of frustration, which we Wikipedians are no strangers to. I don't think ArbCom has any role to play here. If we did accept, I would probably seek to boomerang Carter. For someone with less than 500 edits, Carter has managed to be at the center of a lot of drama. I think Carter needs to pull back and just focus on writing some content. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:48, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline It looks like there are problems with editing at the Portal:Current Events, but this request for a case is premature. - Donald Albury 20:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't read enough to cast a formal vote but I am deeply disappointed that we are here again. I made an effort to assume good faith last time and I don't think my trust was rewarded. I don't think a formal restriction as suggested by Barkeep49 will be necessary – seems like a bad idea to spend the time to create a new restriction like this unless we also create a mechanism for frivolous/premature filers to be automatically subject to this restriction going forward, which might be a direction to go in. If we don't do that, I hope that this will suffice: I assure the filer that they will be indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing should they again file a case request that is declined as premature. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline as premature. Carter, last time I gave you a sporting metaphor; this time it's an obscure word and concept, barratry. Each premature filing for a case erodes your credibility just a little more. Cabayi (talk) 09:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per others, especially Primefac. Any restriction on the filer should come from the community; I would probably oppose such a restriction coming from ArbCom, since I don't think we should do that at all. And I would suggest that even a community restriction should come with overwhelming consensus, as cutting someone off from the ArbCom process is an extreme solution. --BDD (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline Maxim(talk) 12:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=1105158237"