Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Current requests: Tobias Conradi added
Line 27: Line 27:
----
----
// END TEMPLATE - copy text above, but not this line // -->
// END TEMPLATE - copy text above, but not this line // -->
=== Tobias Conradi ===
: '''Initiated by ''' [[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] '''at''' 15:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

==== Involved parties ====
*{{userlinks|Tobias Conradi}}
*{{userlinks|Tony Sidaway}}
*numerous other editors

; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

; Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried

==== Statement by [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] ====
Tobias Conradi is apparently an experienced editor whose content contributions are well regarded. However his conduct, particularly his interactions with administrators has excited much controversy for some time, and recently it came to a head. His user page was listed for deletion and speedied during the course of the discussion. A proposal for a community ban was taken to [[Wikipedia:Community Sanction Noticeboard]] but the result has been inconclusive. As something of an outsider in this my approach is that it is for the resolution of this kind of conflict that we turn to arbitration.

==== Statement by {party 2} ====

==== Clerk notes ====
: (This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)
==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0) ====
*

----


=== [[User:John Smith's|John Smith's]] and [[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ===
=== [[User:John Smith's|John Smith's]] and [[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ===

Revision as of 15:09, 18 April 2007

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

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[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) Motion none 26 July 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) none none 17 August 2024
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 8 September 2024
Amendment request: Pseudoscience none (orig. case) 9 September 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/How-to

Current requests

Tobias Conradi

Initiated by Tony Sidaway at 15:09, 18 April 2007 (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 Tony Sidaway

Tobias Conradi is apparently an experienced editor whose content contributions are well regarded. However his conduct, particularly his interactions with administrators has excited much controversy for some time, and recently it came to a head. His user page was listed for deletion and speedied during the course of the discussion. A proposal for a community ban was taken to Wikipedia:Community Sanction Noticeboard but the result has been inconclusive. As something of an outsider in this my approach is that it is for the resolution of this kind of conflict that we turn to arbitration.

Statement by {party 2}

Clerk notes

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

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

John Smith's and Giovanni33

Initiated by Deskana (fry that thing!) at 22:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • I attempted my own form of dispute resolution, detailed at Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story#Let's try something. I would only have implimented this had every party in the article agreed, as attempting to enforce an agreed version when they didn't agree to the decision process would have been a very bad idea. John Smith's agreed to the mediation, but Giovanni33 has so far not said either way, but said he is tempted to reject it on principle, though he appreciates the effort at dispute resolution.
  • I do not believe an RfC or formal mediation request will lead to any results between the two, thus my request.

Statement by Deskana

Both John Smith's and Giovanni33 have been disagreeing with each other on a lot of articles, including, but not limited to, Mao: The Unknown Story, Theory of everything and The War Against the Jews. Both users blame each other for the arguments [1] [2]. They have also both had requests for checkuser filed against them (see this and this) because both accused each other of using sockpuppets, although it is worthwhile noting that both accusations were backed with evidence on the RFCU pages. Giovanni33 has used sockpuppets abusively in the past. Both users (and others) have discussed an issue regarding Mao: The Unknown Story at great depth at Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story#All change without any sense of a final decision being made. The discussion (including comments by other users) now totals at 9479 words including signatures and timestamps. I believe there is very little chance that the users will ever agree on anything at all, and the constant accusations and off-topic remarks about each other. Both have violated 3RR before, and been blocked for it [3] [4]. I am attempting this RfAr not only to attempt to see some resolution of the conflict between them, but also to seek guidance on their history of edit warring across multiple articles, even when neither of them are involved. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 22:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ElC

At a glance, it dosen't appear that Deskana is being even-handed in this case. I voiced similar concerns when John Smith was reported for 3RR and Deskana did not impose a block and instead opted to protect the page on his version. I'm open for corrections, but it does not appear the full lengths of dispute resolution were attempted, and, as such, I provisionally recommend that the Committee decline these content disputes. El_C 22:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not claim Deskana is partisan, and any lack of even-handedness may well be inadvartant (I have no reason to believe otherwise). In my email response to John Smith, I requested he submit an accounts on my talk page (with diffs), but he argued against it. So I let it go. El_C 23:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Smith's

I think it is unfair for El C to make allegations about Deskana being partisan. If you look at the Mao: The Unknown Story page it was locked to the version that Giovanni supported - and Deskana overruled another admin to make it into a permanent lock until the matter was resolved. So in all fairness he has shown complete impartiality when it has come to locking the page.

If anything, I do not believe El C is being even-handed. I e-mailed him about your block even though Deskana had lifted it (because he had responded to the 3RR report first). He flatly refused to discuss the matter privately with me - why was that? There is no requirement I make all correspondance public. Also all the other admins who contributed to the discussion on the lifting of my block concurred that they should be used to prevent edit-warring and as the page was locked it was not necessary. So I think he's being rather unfair in alleging Deskana has done anything wrong/acted incorrectly.

As to dispute-resolution, I cannot see how non-binding methods will resolve anything. It would, unfortunately, just be a waste of time. Giovanni and I have tried talking things over - third-parties have also got involved but to no avail. Getting more third-parties involved would be just as pointless. So, as incredible as it seems, I think abritration is required. John Smith's 22:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I do not wish to tell anyone how to suck eggs, I would like to point out that according to WP:DR we have actually tried the previous recommended steps. Under step 4 we had third-party involvement (it doesn't have to be Rfc) and mediation by Deskana was rejected by Giovanni. So WP:DR has been followed. John Smith's 23:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Giovanni33

Without touching upon the nature of the content disputes, or making any accucastions, my position regarding this proposed case and the proposed arbitration offered by Deskana on the talk page to resolve it, echo's El C's statement above. Although I appreciate the efforts of Deskana to attempt to resolve the impasse, binding arbitration is still premature. As I previously commented on the page, arbitration would be the step to seek only after mediation and/or a Rfc was tried and failed. See my comments on this here:[5] These have not been tried yet, and I am in favor of them. I think the dispute resolution process should work, and should be followed, without taking these short cuts in the name of expediency, however tempting. If it comes to this in due course, then I welcome it as a resolution, even if it has to be unfortuanately, forced. Also, when and if it comes to this we will have a lot more evidence to get a clear picture of the nature of the disputes having gone through the other formal steps.Giovanni33 23:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HongQiGong

As I have been actively involved in one of the disputes between Giovanni and John Smith's, I think I am obligated to comment. At some point during the past few weeks I was requested by Giovanni to join the dispute at Mao: The Unknown Story. I agree with Giovanni's edit and disagree with John Smith's, and I have given my reasons in the Talk page. After much edit warring (and I fully admit that I participated), the article is now in permanent protection until the dispute has been resolved. Please note that in the defense of everybody involved in that article, the dispute has become a very black-and-white disagreement (whether or not to make mention of a certain academic according to a source provided) and so there's not much room for compromise.

Now I have been aware ever since I became involved in that dispute that John Smith's and Giovanni are also disputing on Cultural Revolution. But I found out recently that they are also disputing on, as far as I am personally aware, Jung Chang, Theory of everything, and The War Against the Jews. That would make 5 articles, and I don't know if there are more. At this point I don't know if this is still just a content dispute. As I have said, I agree with Giovanni's edit on Mao: The Unknown Story, and I have given my reasons in the Talk page. But at this point, I can't vouch for Giovanni that he's in the dispute for good faith reasons. Of course, the same goes for John Smith's as well.

I don't know how long the two editors have been disputing with each other, if it was before I became involved in the one particular article. But please note that Giovanni has accused John Smith's of wikistalking him. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Xmas1973

Having joined the debate just as it was taking off, I feel equally entitled as HongQiGong to comment on this matter as a third party. Throughout, without being partisan but merely swayed by logic and what I see as the rightful realm of comment by Wikipedia, I have agreed with John Smith's in the edit war on the matter of the Chang and Halliday book. (I have not been involved in the other pages, except some limited discussion on Talk:Jung Chang.) Non-binding resolutions have been strenuously attempted, only to be rejected by Giovanni33 (on a matter of principle, as noted above). A binding resolution therefore seems the only way forward. As HongQiGong has suggested, there is no room for a third way.

Deskana has added utterly properly from my perspective. He has been impartial and fair, and whilst it explicitly does not amount to endorsement of the current page, the protected version favours Giovanni33, so such claims are apparently rootless.

Just to refer to one earlier item, Giovanni33 is a proven sock puppeteer. No such action can be ascribed to John Smith's. It was at one point suggested that he and I were the same person. I can say quite definitively that that is not the case. I cannot comment on the other pages in the alleged personal war - as opposed to content objections - but I do know that where cause has arisen I have agreed in principle and on the facts with John Smith's. Xmas1973 10:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Transnistria

Initiated by WooyiTalk, Editor review at 02:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

I have notified both parties here and here.
The previous dispute resolution attempts all failed, and I have provided those links below in statement of Wooyi (my statement).

Statement by Wooyi

Although I am personally not involved in this case, but today I spotted it on WP:CN on Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard#Proposed community ban for sockpupeteer William Mauco. It was stalled and ended in no consensus. The administrators on that page have made the recommendation to bring this here for arbitration. As of the time I am writing this statement, however, no action has been done since then. So I bring it here for procedural reasons.

Event links:

Statement by Alex Bakharev

I would suggest to wait until the 2 month block on William Mauco will expire. While he is blocked he can not represent his part of the story and the investigation will be bound to be one sided. Furthermore, according to my experience most of the tendentious editors fall for sockpuppeting if blocked for more than one month. If he will go the same path he would be caught and permabanned - no arbcom is necessary. If he will honestly wait until the end of the block without attempt to circumvent, then there are chances that his feud with MariusM would not restart - two months is almost an infinity on wiki. If the feud would start then Arbcom might be a solution Alex Bakharev 04:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Irpen

I urge the committee to heed to Alex Bakahrev's proposal to which I would like to add the following. I emailed Mauco when he was banned for socking advising him to sit out a well-deserved two months-block and once he is allowed to edit to alter his ways, that is to cut on edit warring and to not use socking ever again. Realistically, I don't think he will be able to not ever edit war (the fault in this is not just his but some of his opponents too, who are quite vicious POV pushers) but I am optimistic about socking. He emailed back to me and he sounded quite apologetic and forthcoming. He admitted his wrongdoing, swore to never resort to socks again and agreed to some sort of probation (immediate permaban if he is ever caught socking which he swears not to do.) I elaborated more on this in my posts to WP:CSN: [6], [7]., and specifically about the possibility of arbcom: [8]. So, the case may not be needed. Let the community handle it and wait to see whether Mauco will fulfill his promise of change. --Irpen 06:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dmcdevit

As William Mauco's blocking admin, I largely agree with Irpen here (who is not an involved party, despite Marius' attempts to add him) regarding William Mauco. He was discovered, with CheckUser, to have been running multiple very complex personas more than one having more than a thousand edits, for many months, each in support of the other. For this, I blocked Mauco for 2 months, and I see no reason, especially considering his repentance, to change the current block to a ban for no new misbehavior. Of course, he can be easily unblocked and restricted to editing the case pages, if a case is accepted, so that isn't a problem.

However, if there is any lack of resolve on the matter from the community, I would urge the ArbCom to accept a case for MariusM (talk · contribs). MariusM is a long term edit warrior who has carried on a feud wih William Mauco. He has five individual blocks for edit warring [9]. Furthermore, Transnistria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), currently reprotected after almost a hundred edits and rapidfire revers in less than two days since I unprotected it, has one of the longest protection logs I've seen, due to persistant edit warring by a small core of devoted editors, including EvilAlex (talk · contribs) (with five blocks for edit warring himself [10]), Domitius (talk · contribs), Alaexis (talk · contribs), and Buffadren (talk · contribs). A glance at the troubled history of Transnistria shows that this is a dispute that has developed into a raging edit war with no end in sight due to the conduct of a few editors (and it has continued unabated after William Mauco's block). I would ask the Arbitration Committee to open a case related to Transnistria to look into potential bans for MariusM and EvilAlex, and to consider William Mauco's block, as well as to consider parole-like remedies for Domitius and Alaexis. Dmcdevit·t 08:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MariusM

While I would not fully agree with Wooyi's statement that no consensus existed at my request to permaban User:William Mauco (there were 15 persons who endorsed the ban, 4 who opposed and one who proposed a ban for both me and Mauco), I agreed imediatelly with the idea of letting him to defend himself [11] and a conditional unblock (only for editing this page, if he is caught editing other pages to be imediatelly permabanned) is a good idea. I consider Irpen an involved part and I added him at the list. Alex Bakharev was also involved a little bit in the "war" between me and Mauco, he forgived Mauco twice for 3RR breaching, in this way fueling the edit-war between us, and I reported this situation at Administrators Noticeboard Wikipedia double standards?, however I would let Bakharev to decide himself if he want to be listed as "involved part". What I expect from this arbitration is not only a permanent ban of vicious sockpuppeteer William Mauco, but also a cleaning of my wikipedia reputation, as I received a lot of entries in my block log as result of disputes with this bad faith hypocrite editor and I want a arbcom decision stating that my previous blocks were undeserved. I don't consider relevant the apologetic email submitted by Mauco to Irpen, as there were never disputes between Irpen and Mauco. I didn't receive an apologetic e-mail from Mauco, while I am the main person who should receive such an e-mail.--MariusM 09:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments to Dmcdevit's statement: I wonder which is my NEW misbehaviour to merit a permaban? Maybe this report, where I protested against Dmcdevit's abuse of his checkuser privileges? Considering that in above debate Domitius expressed opinion that likely Dmcdevit abused his checkuser privileges, I am not wondering why Dmcdevit want a punishment for Domitius also. I would advice everybody involved in this case: Don't add personal feelings here because, to quote a famous NPOV sensor in Transnistria-related articles in Wikipedia, this is leading to Dark Side and ulcers.--MariusM 11:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal to the Comitee: I am herebly asking the comitee to keep User:Irpen status of involved part. I notified him [12]. I mention that the only prove that Mauco expressed regret for his behaviour (which Dmcdevit is taking at face value) is Irpen's claim. The initiator listed also the possibility of "other editors" to be involved in the dispute, I saw the clerk removed also the "other editors" line.--MariusM 12:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Moreschi

After a fairly lengthy discussion at WP:CSN, the - entirely reasonable - conclusion was arrived at that this was overly complicated for community sanctions and that the arbitrators had best have a look at this. I would urge that this case be accepted in order that this miserable mess can be sorted out. This kind of conduct should not be tolerated on-wiki: we just don't need the disruption. People are meant to work together, not war. Especially not with extensive puppet shows and attempts to out the real-life identities of fellow editors. If the case is accepted, William Mauco should, naturally, be unblocked for him to participate in it. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 09:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EvilAlex

Hello. I would like to add some. I have been in Wkipedia since 2001. As far as I remember, Transnistrian article was nice tidy and quiet at that time. And then one day Mauco arrived. The black become white and the false become true. In the following few month article started to change from what I know the real Transnistria to the Mauco’s Transnistria. I came to wiki because I wanted to write about my country, I wanted to write the truth but it is impossible when Mauco is around: he uses socks to advance and push his POV, he uses socks for braking 3RR, and he uses socks for voting. All previous attempts to return article to NPOV have been failed. As a result of Mauro’s POV pushing activities article lost all of its reality (just compare what says Britannica and what says Wkipedia). As a result of Mauco behaviour I have been unjustly punished (3RR – I just tried to revert the vandalism, but with some many socks around it is impossible). I would support indefinite ban for Mauco. Mauco have done great wrong to Wkipedia, to co contributors. I consider the 2 month block is a slap on a face of Wikipedian community.
Re: User:Irpen said that Mauco apologized but he should apologize to me – I am the one who is deeply offended by his puppet show. He didn’t apologize to me. EvilAlex 19:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Injunctional statement by ElC

Dmcdevit just informed me that soon after I unprtoected the page, revert warring continued. At this point, I am inclined to seek an immediate injunction (as well as undertaking additional steps) against certain parties involved in this. The last revert is dated 8:38, 17 April 2007 and if others are to follow, I will note it here. I am also provisionally of the opinion that Ploutarchos (aka Domitius) be added as a party to the case. El_C 16:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

I removed Irpen as an involved party; I really think that it should be up to the initiator or the Committee, which MariusM can appeal to for that. El_C 11:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ngo Dinh Diem

Initiated by --VnTruth at 16:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

I have left messages regarding my arbitration request on both of the other parties' talk pages.[13].[14]
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
I have discussed the matter extensively with Blnguyen and suggested mediation, all to no avail.[15]

Statement by VnTruth

This dispute involves disagreements regarding the portion of the article, titled "Government treatment of Buddhists," regarding Diem's treatment of South Vietnamese Buddhists. The article contains language, much of which has been added by Blnguyen, stating that Diem discriminated in favor of Catholics against Buddhists, who constituted the vast majority of South Vietnam's population. I have added an additional paragraph reiterating the views of several historians that Diem treated Buddhists well, and that Buddhists constituted no more than a large majority of the population. Blnguyen has regularly deleted my edits,[16][17][18][19][20][21][22] to the point that the page was recently locked by another user.[23] Sarvagnya has recently delted my edits as well.[24]

They contend that my edits violate Wikipedia's rule against publicizing fringe opinions.[25](edit summary). In fact, if you review my most recent edit to the article (under "history"), you will see that I have provided more citations in support of my edits than Blnguyen has in support of his.[26] Moreover, one of my sources, Triumph Forsaken, was published by the prestigious Cambridge University Press, and has received praise from such respected persons as Senator (and Vietnam War hero) James Webb and historian Max Boot, both of whom, as you can see, are written up in Wikipedia. The author, Dr. Mark Moyar, graduated summa cum laude at Harvard and earned his Ph.D at Cambridge University in England. He has already written a well-received history of one aspect of the Vietnam War, the Phoenix program. Another source, Our Vietnam Nightmare, was written by Marguerite Higgins, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist also written up in Wikipedia.

Blnguyen's claim that Buddhists constituted 70%-90% of South Vietnam's population was particularly weak. His citations consisted of: Dr. Moyar, who actually says that such claims were made in 1963, but were false; an internet article that says only--in passing and without citation--that Buddhists constituted a majority of the population; and a book by Marvin Gettleman that is 40 years old and so obscure that it lacks a Wikipedia identifying number.[27] The more recent historians do not even claim that Buddhists constituted a majority of the population, much less 70%-90%. For example, Stanley Karnow and Neil Sheehan,widely read and anti-Diem to the core, do not make this claim.

Nonetheless, I am not asking for deletion of Blnguyen's portion (except for his inaccurate citation of Dr. Moyar), but just that all parties be prohibited from deleting my edits.

Supplemental Statement by VnTruth 19:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Since I submitted my request, my edits have been reverted twice by Blnguyen and three times by an administrator with the user name Nishkid64.[28] I will fill in the revert links later. The page is also locked to prevent editing.--VnTruth 19:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Blnguyen

Firstly, I would like to point out that this is a content dispute. Since VnTruth last posted about content issues at User_talk:Blnguyen#Ngo_Dinh_Diem on April 8, I have replied below it and also at Talk:Ngo Dinh Diem multiple times, and more than half a dozen established contributors have voiced their opinions about the content. Since VnTruth's return from a short break, he has reverted seven further times without discussing.

Another point is his username and editing only of the Ngo Dinh Diem page. In Vietnmese language, Vietnam is spelt as Việt Nam, and is commonly abbreviated as VN. I feel that VnTruth's username is symptomatic of the fact that he feels that Wikipedia is a forum for rewriting history or correcting historical mistakes, and this is affecting his editing. He uses a book by Mark Moyar called "Triumph Forsaken", who in his preface notes that he is a revisionist historian, stating


Moyar proudly presents himself as a revisionist, and so do the reviews of his work.eg, "A full-blooded member of what he calls the "revisionist school" of Vietnam War historians, Moyar firmly believes that America's longest and most controversial overseas war was "a worthy but improperly executed enterprise." [29]. In the book. In the book Moyar notes himself that the Pulitzer Prize winners David Halberstam, Stanley Karnow and Neil Sheehan are regarded as the authorities by the academic community. Moyar then spends a lot of the book trying to overturn established historical details such as the existence of shootings, etc and attacking other historians (book review:"disparaging those he disagrees with (calling Sheehan and Halberstam, for example, "indignant," "vengeful," and "self-righteous")"), and trying to establish "counter-fact". This has lead to concerns raised about the usability of this book for "counter-fact" and the disproportionate amount of space given to these, but VnTruth has not responded to these.

User:VnTruth is using his userpage as a workspace for the Diem page. His ideal preferred version almost entirely consists of counter-fact, importing large swathes of revisionist opinion as fact. "Diệm established an authoritarian regime, because he did not believe his backward country was ready for a Western-style democracy. He established a nepotistic regime, because of the lack of loyal, qualified leaders available in South Vietnam at the time." It also contained large tracts of Moyar's attack commentary trying to discredit other historians.

I think it is clear that VnTruth is a very strong supporter of Moyar, and is trying and pushing very hard to put him into the limelight in a disproportionate manner on the article, as is being discussed on the talk page. Wikipedia is supposed to be about "verifiability not truth". VnTruth feels that Moyar is the truth and the academic consensus is wrong, but until Moyar's discredits the others and establishes the "counter-fact", we have to go by the established "facts" about historical events, and include evaluations where appropriate. So this is a content dispute. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bakasuprman

I edited Ngo Dinh Diem as well, and note that this is a content dispute. There is no issue here as both vntruth and blnguyen have been civil and worked under the framework of WP guidelines.Bakaman 17:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Daniel.Bryant

Content dispute? I think it is. Daniel Bryant 00:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by PullToOpen

It seems that the parties are working together amicably on the talk page. Arbitration is not needed. // PTO 00:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/3/0/0)

Requests for clarification

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

Requests for clarification with regard to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy

I've looked over the case of children's privacy protection, and I feel that there is several ambiguities I'd like to ask for clarification:

  • "When a user self-identifies as a child, especially if they provide personal information, the matter is frequently a subject of discussion among administrators"

What is the definition of a "child" on Wikipedia? Is a seventeen-year-old high school student a child? Where is the precise age to define a "child"?

  • "users who self-identify as children, project a sexually tinged persona, and disclose personal information such as links to sites devoted to social interaction are engaging in disruptive behavior and may be banned."

What is the specific meaning of "sexually tinged persona"? And If a teenage editor post the URL of his blog on Wikipedia that has his real name on it, does it constitute disclosure of personal information?

I hope the ArbCom will give the answers to those points. Regards. WooyiTalk, Editor review 22:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Requests for clarification with regard to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO

Discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Request_for_clarification_on_linking_to_attack_sites due to length

Requests for clarification with regard to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan

I’ve got a question with regard to Armenia – Azerbaijan arbcom case. The final decision says: After 5 blocks the maximum block period shall increase to one year.

However many parties to this case have already been blocked during the arbcom case. Do those blocks count as a parole violation or the count starts from 0, as this new section implies: [30] ? This was discussed here: [31], however I believe that we need to make this perfectly clear for everyone to avoid conflicts with regard to interpretation of this decision. Thanks in advance. Regards, Grandmaster 17:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a clarification might be helpful here. During voting on the proposed decision, arbitrator FloNight stated in voting for several revert paroles that she was doing so "[w]ith the reminder that blocks during the case count toward the duration of future blocks." Other arbitrators did not comment on this issue. Absent instructions to the contrary I believe admins enforcing the decision would follow FloNight's interpretation but it is appropriate that the ruling be clear.
Another question that occurs to me is whether the revert paroles apply to articles that the subject editors might edit on any subject, or only to articles relating in some fashion to Armenia and/or Azerbaijan. As written, the parole applies to all articles and I take it this is intended. Newyorkbrad 17:35, 11 April 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=123822819"