Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
<insert the case name here> did not seem like a particularly helpful title
Line 13: Line 13:
*{{userlinks|Mackan79}}
*{{userlinks|Mackan79}}
*{{userlinks|Ratel}}
*{{userlinks|Ratel}}
*{{userlinks|Lar}}
*{{userlinks|Short Brigade Harvester Boris}}, co-filing party

<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. -->
<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. -->


Revision as of 01:32, 17 March 2010

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Enforcement of Climate Change discretionary sanctions   17 March 2010 {{{votes}}}
A Nobody Motions 14 March 2010 {{{votes}}}
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Historical elections (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Aug 2024 03 Sep 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) none none 26 July 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration


Enforcement of Climate Change discretionary sanctions

Initiated by Cla68 (talk) at 00:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • I don't see where Stephan has been notified of the Climate Change probation, but he has notified many others of it. Here are just a few: [1] [2] [3] [4]. Request for him to recuse as an involved admin: (thread)

Statement by Cla68

User:Stephan Schulz is an editor heavily involved in AGW articles. He is also an admin. As far as I know, he has not used his admin tools related to those articles, except perhaps to block Scibaby accounts after sockpuppet investigations. I believe he crossed the line today during a climate change probation enforcement request. The enforcement request concerned Ratel in an AGW article that Stephan is also involved in [5] [6]. During the enforcement request, and after Ratel notified him (among a few others) of the request, Stephan commented in the admin-only, "results" section of the request, where admin actions, including possible sanctions, are discussed concerning the parties to the enforcement request. Note that only admins are allowed to comment in that section. This means that Stephan was acting as an enforcing admin in an action in which he was definitely involved. I request ArbCom review.

Re:Short Brigade's statement below...if he has a concern with Lar, I suggest he open a separate request for review. Cla68 (talk) 01:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

I share Cla68's concern about the integrity of the probationary sanctions. Admins enforcing sanctions should not only be uninvolved in a narrow, technical sense but must have the community's confidence that they are truly uninvolved and impartial.

In this regard the conduct of User:Lar while taking part in enforcing the sanctions also raises concern. He has referred to a group of editors involved in the sanctions area as a "science cabal" and "socially inept,"[7] which may not violate the narrow legalistic definition of "uninvolved" but but does not inspire confidence that sanctions will be administered impartially. Of perhaps greater concern, User:dave souza opposed Lar's recent steward reconfirmation on Meta.[8] Lar then threw these words back in his face on the probation enforcement page.[9] Editors should be free to express their opinions in one venue without fearing retaliation in a different, unrelated venue.

We all have an interest in the probationary sanctions being effective. Sanctions work best if those administering them are clearly seen to be fair, impartial, and uninvolved. I request that the committee lay down crystal-clear rules for "uninvolved" administrators to avoid future episodes of the kind that Cla68 and I have noted.

Statement by {Party 3}

Clerk notes

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

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

A Nobody

Initiated by Flatscan (talk) at 05:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

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

Statement by Flatscan

A Nobody has persisted in making copying edits that introduce attribution dependencies and interfere with the deletion process. Considering that AN continued with the similar merging during active AfDs until both the WT:AFD discussion and his RfC, Arbitration appears to be the only remaining venue.

Recent activity:

If this case's scope is confined to the copying issue, I would be satisfied by a motion that restricts A Nobody from any copying. While I have only tried to resolve the copying issue, I agree that it is merely one of a number of problematic behaviors and that a full case may be appropriate. Flatscan (talk) 05:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support an accept/defer motion as described in others' comments. Dispute resolution is a long process, but the ball shouldn't roll back. Flatscan (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
General clarification of already resolved issues

Both attribution (WP:Copying within Wikipedia, a guideline) and merging during AfD (WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion, fifth/last bullet) have been resolved. {{Copied}} is transcluded on around 1000 pages. Flatscan (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Hersfold

A Nobody's problematic edits form a long pattern with minor variations. For example, one type of edit that he has used is a faux copy: contribute nearly identical new content to multiple articles, but label the later edit(s) as merges. After the restriction on merging during AfD was strengthened, he continued these edits, only not during AfDs, an evasion of the letter of the restriction (raised 8 November 2009, in list above). The "Bulletproof" item is another instance of this with a minor wording change, "expanded using some information from Baldwin P. "Bulletproof" Vess".

WP:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Hendrix, April 2009, listed in the RfC

I can expand on the other recent items if necessary. Flatscan (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding whether issues will remain (to Steve Smith)

I have not seen any other editor use similar types of edits. I have seen merges done during AfDs occasionally, but nothing like an extended pattern. Flatscan (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Party 2}

Comment by Fran Rogers

For well over a year now, A Nobody (formerly "Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles") has been evading any and all attempts to discuss or scrutinize his behavior or start the dispute resolution process, by claiming convenient reasons to disappear as soon as an AN/I discussion or RfC on his behavior is attempted. For example:

A Nobody has consistently gone out of his way to make dispute resolution with him impossible. I urge the Committee to accept this case. Fran Rogers❇ 07:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum, after I posted this comment A Nobody posted a long "farewell" message in his userspace confirming that he does have a sick dog, had diverticulitis, etc.; taking potshots at myself and some other users; and also claiming that stalkers trashed his car (whether this was supposed to be connected to the time he vanished claiming real-world harassment and returned with a sockpuppet, I don't know.) Since he directly criticized me in the message, I felt compelled to respond:
Missing the point

Whether you're actually sick, have a sick dog, are busy in real life, isn't the issue: it's that you continuously cite real-world issues to tug at the community's heartstrings and avoid scrutiny. Since you still have the time to participate in Wikipedia's bureaucratic morass, be involved at AfD, and snipe at other users who you consider to have wronged you, clearly you should also have time to respond to criticism and dispute resolution requests. Yet every time you've taken an absence due to real-world concerns right after a discussion come up - even if, by sheer coincidence, you honestly couldn't participate in Wikipedia when they came up - you've consistently made no effort to address those concerns or participate in those discussions upon your return. The community can be very empathetic to real-world concerns, but to abuse that empathy on multiple occasions to escape scrutiny is wholly inappropriate.

On a personal level I've also had quite enough of the sniping you've been taking at me recently, both on this page and when you tried to request I be desysopped without notifying me. Yes, as I'd locked myself out of my account at the time, when I was concerned that you were claiming false credentials, I had to do so as an IP address. And I thought a user whose activities closely paralleled your sockpuppet Elisabeth Rogan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was you, too. I was mistaken in both instances. That doesn't mean you can just cite those as reasons I'm a Bad Person who should be ignored - and the same is true for the other editors you've kept lists of "bad" acts for and taken potshots at, as detailed in the RfC you ignored and the new request for arbitration.

If you would just accept scrutiny and criticism of your actions instead of avoiding discussion and disappearing at convenient times, we could all get back to that goal of building an encyclopedia. Fran Rogers❇ 18:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, instead of responding to my message, he requested the talk page be deleted altogether. Fran Rogers❇ 19:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dream Focus

  • The first complaint is that he copied all the information from the Caprica characters to an article list all of them, at the same time at least one of them were up for delete, with a high probability others would soon follow, that usually how these things work out. You can't copy the information over after the AFD is over, if something is deleted! The Zoe AFD ended in Keep. If an article ended in Keep, there would be no reason to put a redirect there, obviously, so that complaint seems rather ridiculous to me. Note that the AFD ended at 16:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC) and his action for starting at 16:37, 21 February 2010. Did he noticed it had been closed before copying the information over with all the rest? Was this discussed anywhere at all before bringing it here? Could've easily been a simple mistake. I see no rule violation here.
7 March 2010: Shortly after commenting at WP:Articles for deletion/Baldwin P. "Bulletproof" Vess, AN adds reception to Baldwin P. "Bulletproof" Vess, then copies it to Big Boss (C.O.P.S.) (contribs). I clarify that the content was all contributed by A Nobody.
  • The complaint is that he found something to put in a reference section of a character, and since it mentioned two characters in it, copied it over to the article of the other character mentioned as well. Once again, what is the complaint here?
  • In response to the next item, about Tron. He removed a prod, which is every editor's right to do, and no one else trying to delete the article since then. He then copied a small bit from that to the film article, thinking the characters in the film would do well to have that information mentioned along with them. Once again, is there any valid complaint here?
  • I didn't bother looking at the rest. I don't see any reason why the arbitrators should waste their time with this case. And many people don't bother reading the constant messages posted by deletionists on their talk pages. After awhile, the same familiar names keep showing up, and you just start to ignore them. Dream Focus 09:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Iridescent

While I generally support what A Nobody is doing – I strongly believe that a lot of Wikipedia's problems are caused by the project being overwhelmed by short poor-quality unexpandable and unwatched stubs, and it's far more useful both for readers and editors to have one bulleted list, instead of either 20 free-standing stubs or deletion altogether – I'd nonetheless ask Arbcom to accept this. The issues of what is and isn't appropriate action when it comes to merging before, during and after AFD is a long-running argument (I was caught up in an identical incident three years ago, and nothing seems to have changed). Given Arbcom's metamorphosis into the Wikipedia Supreme Court, this is exactly the sort of thing you should be issuing rulings on rather than leaving to "the community" to sort out when it's clear that the community is never going to come to agreement. We also need to sort out what is and isn't appropriate attribution when moving content from separate articles into a parent article. – iridescent 09:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Reyk

I will confirm Fran Rogers's summary of A Nobody as an editor who dodges and refuses to acknowledge all criticism of his behaviour. Much of which is deeply problematic, as a careful view of the RfC he's pretending doesn't exist will show. His response to the concerns of half a dozen editors (that he is performing merges, not for any naviational or content reasons, but just to create attribution dependencies in order to undermine AfD) has been to make it magically disappear in a ham-fisted "archive" scheme, and to characterize editors who question his actions as disruptive trolls that he can ignore. I know it is allowed for editors to remove comments from their talk page, but I feel the unwillingness to address legitimate concerns speaks volumes- as does the frankly deceitful way it was done.

Then there's the repeated demands to closing admins to overturn consensus at AfD.

Also worrying is the instence on using ANI and WQA as vehicles of retribution:

  • User:Dwanyewest makes a fair few good-faith AfD nominations and gets hauled to ANI.
  • Same user then accused of being a sock puppeteer (and the only user name mentioned in the SPI that A Nobody did not notify of the case).
  • User:Lar suggests very strongly that A Nobody address his own RfC before criticizing others- A Nobody immediately goes running to ANI about things Lar had done on his talk page weeks earlier and which had nothing to do with A Nobody.
  • User:Pablo X questions A Nobody's bizarre merging and redirecting- A Nobody goes running to WQA with some contrived flim-flam about swear words.

A Nobody's RfC shows a history of deceitful and problematic behaviour for the whole time he has been here. He hasn't acknowledged any of the community's concerns and has stated quite unequivocally that he has no intention to. The diffs I and others have shown here demonstrate that the same poor behaviour is continuing apace. He won't listen to people and won't change his disruptive actions on his own, so it's high time he was pulled into line. Reyk YO! 12:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Deor

I urge the arbitrators to take this case to examine, not just the limited issue raised by Flatscan in his request, but all the long-term disruptive behavior outlined in the opening summary of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/A Nobody. As Flatscan and Reyk have shown above (and as other instances that could be cited show as well), this behavior has continued to the present. A Nobody now claims to have retired, so the committee may be tempted to reject this RfAr as moot. I do not think he has retired—though he may have chosen to retire this particular account—and I think the time has come for an examination of his activities by the committee, as no other attempts at resolution have had any effect. Deor (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Cenarium

I urge arbitrators to decline the case, for now at least. From what I see, there's not enough recent activity from A Nobody which is considered problematic, and the extent of the problem is not clear at all. Thus I would suggest users to discuss the specific issues raised here, about the appropriateness of some types of merges/copyings, on the content noticeboard, for example. This is up to the community to determine the propriety or impropriety of those, not to ArbCom. When this is cleared up, if actions determined to be problematic then occur, ArbCom would be able to consider them - though I hope this won't come to that. Furthermore, I'm afraid such a case would become political, since there's not enough recent behavioural issues to support it, and the deletionism vs inclusionism debate would become a focal point, matter with which ArbCom should not to interfere. Cenarium (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Stifle

I will offer evidence if the case is accepted. I have had many frustrating interactions with A Nobody, whose contributions seem focused on circumventing consensus and policy when it suits him but insisting on them when they are on his side, wikilawyering, and presenting faits accomplis to frustrate editors from cleaning up after him. He is, as mentioned above, well-known for stonewalling and vanishing when called on his behaviour (he made no contribution whatsoever to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/A Nobody) and I would not believe his retirement for one second — he will be back in a month or two, either on his current account or through a sock. I urge acceptance. Stifle (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Steve Smith and SirFozzie: Would you be open to something to the effect of "accept but defer", whereby it is accepted that a case should be held, but hold off on opening it until A Nobody returns? We've gone around the circle several times of A Nobody slowly increasing his disruption level, then disappearing when hit with dispute resolution, and I can see it continuing — he'll be back and quiet for a while before starting up the same behaviour. Under this suggestion, either the case would be opened to address A Nobody's behaviour when he returns, or he will stay away. Either would, I think, deal with the disruption. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MBisanz

I would urge the committee to accept this case based on the longstanding and divisive nature of this editor's behavior that has frequently proved unresolvable by the community. This is at least the third time he has left in the face of behavioral review. Failing that, could I suggest a motion that if and at the time he returns, a case is automatically opened. This is similar to what the committee did in regard to Aitias and seems to work well to prevent gaming while still respecting the possibility of real life issues. Also, I bring to attention that at least the photo of the alleged car attack appears to be a scan of another document and is oddly missing meta-data, which does lead me to question the veracity of the claims. MBisanz talk 14:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Beeblebrox

A Nobody pulled this same routine during the RFC/U on him, claiming to be ill while it was ongoing. If you're not going to make a full case may I suggest that there be some sort of motion to restrict his editing should he return, and to rapidly re-open this case in that all to likely event, otherwise he'll just keep dodging the issue every time the heat is on, and coming back after it dies down.A Nobody has clearly exhausted most users ability to take such claims at face value, it's just too convenient that he has some personal tragedy every single time he is under public scrutiny. This is a classic example of his behavior, he thinks more in tactical terms than most Wikipedians, trying to "win" every AFD whether the article merits inclusion or not, changing his arguments when they are refuted, badgering those who he does not agree with through long winded rambling posts that serve mostly to cloud the real issues, and retreating every time it comes down to a situation like this. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mazca

I would strongly urge the committee to consider a motion akin to some of the motions at Aitias's RfAr, wherein this case is "left hanging" until he resumes editing, and he is directed not to edit under any other account until this is resolved. I've been sympathetic to A Nobody in the past, but yet another convenient illness and retirement to avoid scrutiny starts to strain credibility. This situation sorely needs to be resolved in one way or another, and if this RfAr fizzles due to his absence then this ridiculous cycle is left open to continue upon his likely return.

As I feel is amply demonstrated by some of the comments above, no individual incident in this situation is particularly sanctionable on its own. But the pattern of editing demonstrated here is strongly unhelpful and I feel binding arbitration of some sort is the only way it's going to be satisfactorily resolved at this point. ~ mazca talk 23:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by mostly retired Protonk

If the committee or individual members wish to extend an abundance of good faith, they are free to do so. But AN's past history (under all account names) has shown that in the face of scrutiny, he develops a medical problem. In case you want to take me to task for being glib, please take as evidence AN's miraculous recovery from his illness/work issue (which started precisely when his RFC began) at the moment Kww's 3rd RfA needed some mendacious commentary.

I don't think you guys are in the habit of trying 'cases' in absentia and I think an informal suggestion that the committee take up the case when he makes a nuisance of himself again is unfair to both AN and the rest of us. Edit to be more clear One of the following solutions would be best:

  1. Begin the case without AN
  2. Make a motion to resume the case when AN gets back (not conditional on some subjective behavior)
  3. Decline the case on its merits.

Mazca's assessment of the likely outcome should you do nothing seems accurate.

As for the merits of the case at hand, I can only sigh deeply. Either you see the long term disruption or you won't. A bit tautological to be sure, but that's honestly the only true statement left. Protonk (talk) 06:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Lankiveil

I strongly urge the ArbCom to accept this case, whether or not A Nobody shows up to defend it or not. While I believe that A Nobody's intentions are most likely good, his conduct around the areas of article deletion has been continually disruptive for years now, and he has thus far been able to avoid serious sanction by conveniently having some sort of misfortune befall him whenever he is about to be called to account. I believe the diffs and commentary above illustrate clearly the need for a case to be opened, but if you do not feel comfortable opening it when he is not here, then I would at least urge you to open it on an "Accept but Defer" basis so that we can move forward quickly if and when he returns. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment by Lar

Per everyone else. Do not decline with a vague "we might take it up if he returns". Accept it, and hold it in abeyance until he returns (he will, I'm 99% sure). Meanwhile enforce by block a prohibition on using other accounts for any reason. He has abused right to vanish enough that he needs to be held to this account and no other. When he returns, and the case gets underway, stay focused on his disruption, not on side issues raised by others. ++Lar: t/c 14:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Kww

Don't let him duck again. There isn't enough good faith in the universe to believe in his miraculously timed recoveries and his bravely continuing to edit despite the grave personal danger that forced him to subvert "right to vanish" and continue editing. It's obvious that he feigns problems to avoid dispute resolution, and we can't allow such tactics to succeed.—Kww(talk) 00:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/2/0/1)

  • Waiting for a comment from A Nobody (which it seems may be some time in coming), but I do have a question. To Flatscan, nothing in the cases you mention in your statement was deleted, and it appears as though A Nobody was diligent about linking to the source page titles in his edits, as is required when doing "smerges". So what exactly is the problem? I do see the lack of communication as an issue; while we cannot confirm medical issues and must respect user's privacy in this regard, the timing of those instances is admittedly odd. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Decline for now, to be looked at again if A Nobody returns. Several of the statements made here are concerning, but it is entirely impractical to attempt to hold an arbitration case with a main party unable and unwilling to participate. Should A Nobody return, I would also like this looked at again, and unless the situation changes considerably I'd likely move to accept the case. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As A Nobody has left Wikipedia, my initial inclination would be to decline this with the understanding that if he returns to Wikipedia, in this guise or another, we can look at opening a case then. Iridescent's comments give me some pause, though; while I don't think ArbCom's competent to rule on the requirements of CC-BY-SA, if the merging-during-AFDs thing is an issue likely to remain live even after A Nobody's departure there might be something for us to do here. Would welcome further statements speaking to this issue. Steve Smith (talk) 04:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline with caveats While I would generally be suspicious of any user who has the history of disappearing whenever something involving advanced stages of dispute resolution is proposed against them doing so, I have to take the statement of A Nobody on his talk page of medical issues, etcetera at face value. However, I do not want this to be seen as carte blanche.. if and when he returns, I would like to see this resume if there is a problem, and I'd ask the committee to take this prior history into their decision to accept or decline any case (and not claim that the evidence is too old or what have you). SirFozzie (talk) 04:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motion

This case is accepted, but will not be opened unless and until A Nobody (talk · contribs) returns to Wikipedia. If A Nobody does so under any account, he/she is required to notify the Committee.

Support
  1. Proposed. Steve Smith (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SirFozzie (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=350319251"