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
request in the WORKFORALL case
Request in the WORKFORALL case
Line 52: Line 52:
:::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Advocates_For_Free_Speech&diff=132799349&oldid=132721521 See more evidence in this case here ]
:::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Advocates_For_Free_Speech&diff=132799349&oldid=132721521 See more evidence in this case here ]


====statement by other parties====






=== 59.144.161.143 ===
=== 59.144.161.143 ===

Revision as of 11:53, 15 June 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
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area   6 November 2024 0/5/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Yasuke 13 Nov 2024

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/How-to

Current requests

WORKFORALL.NET versus REQUESTION

Original request initiated by WorkForAll on June 8, 2007 Request vandalised and erased form this page before an arbiter could give his advise.

Involved parties

-User:Bully-Buster-007 and their solicitors User:The-Advocates-For-Free-Speech representing the think tank “Work and wealth for all” in Brussels (Belgium)
versus
-User:Requestion and his conspirers User:BozMo, User:Femco, User:A. B. all members of a group of self-declared spam fighters

WorkForAll comments being systematically blanked on their talk pages, other parties in the dispute were not yet informed of this request.

Statement by WorkForAll.net

Workforall.net is a respected think tank in Brussels, involving economists, entrepreneurs and philosophers. They publish scientific research as well as economic essays for a wider public. WorkForAll regularly contributed to Wikipedia since 2005 with articles and links under economic titles covered by their research. WWFA staff operate from different IP's in Belgium. During present discussion they created an account Bully Buster 007.

-

End April spam project member User:Requestion systematically blanked WWFA contributions and links without gaining consent. Early Mai WWFA complained and opened a thread "Please stop indiscriminate mass destruction" on Requestion's talk page. Early in the debate WWFA agreed that contributions by different staff members had not been coordinated, and that some links were disputable. They excused, and proposed six times to reach consensus where the contributions were appropriate and where not. Although unsolicited third parties requested reversal of blankings, Requestion dismissed a consensus, providing as sole justification for giving all WWFA contributions the qualification "spam" the mere number of their contributions.

-

During the debate WWFA did not attempt to add new contributions, nor committed deliberate “offences" other than disputing Requestion's blankings. Still WorkForAll got blocked and blacklisted during the debate obviously as punitive and not as preventive measures. Being wrongfully blocked, WorkForAll appointed The-Advocates-For-Free-Speech to defend their interests. They were also blocked, and since then Requestion and his conspirers made further debate impossible by systematically blanking and blocking WorkForAll comments.

-

WorkForAll requests reversal of the blocking and blacklisting because blocking and blacklisting were based on disputable accusations of spam and because the modus operandi of Requestion and the spam project's are illegitimate:

  • Requestion fails to provide justification for his massive blankings. According to a universal judicial principle of supremacy of conflicting rules the spam squad should not be interpreting a general and suggestive WP:EL rule "You should AVOID linking to a website that you own" as an absolute prohibition when a much more concrete WP:EL instruction "What to link:" is most explicit, affirmative and absolute in inviting to link the source in case the source is relevant and reliable, but cannot be summarized in an article.
  • their editing procedure constitutes qualified vandalism as they systematically blank established and amended content without gaining consent .
  • Some spam project members being self declared communists selectively censor content contrary to their ideology and disturb neutrality.
  • Their qualified intimidation is incompatible with 5 Pilars and cause grief to many bona fide contributors. Some of their methods constitute qualified criminal behavior as to common law:
  • Spreading viruses through the Sandbox
  • Deliberate misconduct to inflict maximal damage to the reputation of other users: After repeated formal warnings they continue to spread (disputable) accusations over Wikipedia, with the deliberate intent to fool search engines, spreading flase accusations over the internet and to ruin their victim's reputation.
  • Disclosure of WP user's name and address with the sole purpose of intimidating opponents and to have their victim’s name associated worldwide with spamming or wrongful activities constitutes a qualified assault on WP user's privacy
See more evidence in this case here

statement by other parties

59.144.161.143

Initiated by Wibbble at 22:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

[2] [3]

Statement by wibbble

During a dispute over userguide-type content in HTC Wizard, 59.144.161.143 added more and more content to the article such as a great many external links. ([4]) Any attempts to discuss this have been like extracting teeth - 59.144.161.143 will only engage in any kind of discussion when pushed and pushed. I've gone to great lengths to try and reach consensus on an appropriate direction for the article, but 59.144.161.143 will only insist that deleting anything from wikipedia is wrong ([5], [6]). 59.144.161.143 has vandalised other articles ([7], [8], [9], [10]) in 'retaliation' for my edits to HTC Wizard, and refused to agree to mediation when I asked ([11]). They refuse to acknowledge wikipedia policy and guidelines such as WP:EL and WP:NOT, and attempts to reach compromises such as moving content to other articles has largely been ignored. At this point, I do not feel that 59.144.161.143 wishes to follow established wikipedia behaviour and shows no interest in truly reaching or following consensus.


Statement by 59.144.161.143

Clerk notes

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

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

Atabek-Hajji Piruz

Initiated by Hajji Piruz at 15:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Atabek - I (Hajji Piruz) requested the arbcom, so I'm aware also

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.

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. Moreover, 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 request for ArbCom attention at this point, as all he has to do is to assume good faith as advised [16]. Nevertheless, I would like to bring 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 [18] 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 [19]. 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 [24], yet the user has clearly responded that he "does not need to AGF" with regards to myself [25].
  • 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 [29], 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 [30], 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 [31]. User:Hajji Piruz has even requested an RfC comment about myself from a sock for whom he made the talk page [32] and even made comment generalizing along national lines [33]. He stated his RfC desired outcome as [34] banning myself from Wikipedia, which was his "approach" to dispute resolution, again no good faith.
  • 8. Seeing the futileness of his efforts, User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani is now trying to continue on with his goal in ArbCom, wasting the committee's valuable time. Instead of assuming good faith, as he has been told here [35], he goes on revert warring and even clearly Wikistalking myself on the articles that he has never touched before [36] as soon as I start editing.

Overall, I ask for help with explaining User:Hajji Piruz that he has to assume good faith and try other avenues if he has personal disputes. As my history shows, I contribute to lots of different articles and have no interest in endless time-consuming reports and responses which have no use for encyclopedia. But I am forced to defend myself against this blackmail, wikistalking, intimidation, revert warring, and provocation by User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani.

If nevertheless, ArbCom approves the case, I shall note that I would like to include User:Houshyar and User:Ariana310 for revert warring and dispute engagement along with User:Hajji Piruz. But again, I prefer the path of disengagement, dispute resolution and path of ceasing to waste community's time. As I told him already, after my one-way attempts to AGF, I shall simply ignore his comments [37], because I don't like to engage with people who are clearly in Wikipedia for non-encyclopedic purposes and battling along national lines [38] and [39]. Thanks. Atabek 17:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved User:Grandmaster

This is another step in the campaign of harassment of User:Atabek by User:Hajji Piruz. Hajji Piruz was wikistalking 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. [40] User:Hajji Piruz clearly stated the desired outcome in the RfC he started on Atabek, which is getting Atabek permanently banned. [41]

From what I can see, Hajji Piruz sees Arbcom as a tool for achievement of his goal. Hajji Piruz has been aggressively editing Azerbaijan related article for quite some time, which is why he ended up being a party to Armenia-Azerbaijan arbcom case. However, it did not stop him from continuing the same disruptive editing of the articles on the same topic. He was making controversial edits without consensus with other involved editors, which led to new conflicts. Now he tries to get rid of any opposition by eliminating users who happen to disagree with him. I don’t see how Atabek was disruptive and why Hajji Piruz, the person who was following Atabek to almost every page he contributed too and even made provocative edits to his personal page is not. I urge arbcom to consider behavior of Hajji Piruz and also a number of other users, who do nothing but revert pages in support of Hajji Piruz, which looks extremely suspicious. Grandmaster 20:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

The parties here were both parties to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan and were sanctioned in the final decision in that case. Conducting a review of subsequent behavior under the heading of that case, rather than opening a whole new case, is an option. Newyorkbrad 15:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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]

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 in the past year, 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 this 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]

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 (0/0/0/0)

Pak21

Initiated by Dm2ortiz at 00:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

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

Statement by Dm2ortiz

User Dm2ortiz is being harassed by user Pak21. The incident started over a dispute started over page naming. This dispute is currently being mediated by a consensus of the Dungeons & Dragons Wikipedia project. Since the start of this dispute user Pak21 as constantly harassed me DM2ortiz about every single one of my postings. He has not commented on any other users in the group but has focused his full attention on me I have repeatedly asked him not to contact me but he ignores this and continues to harass. Dm2ortiz 00:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC) all of Pax comments were worded in such a way to bait me into negative responses. He showed he chooses his words carefully as to prevent it looking like harassment but it comes down to what someone asks to be left alone this should be respected. His behavior has been very juvenile the last few days attempting to find any and every reason in a way it's to get me in trouble rather than doing anything constructive. A quick look at the contributions list will show over the past few days Pax has done absolutely nothing on Wikipedia others then watch and harass. The question is why is he so concerned with what I am doing? why is he so concerned with me following the rules when he does a follow them himself? Answer a simple personal vendetta. Dm2ortiz 12:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pak21

There's no way the ArbCom is going to take this one on, but just for reference: my first knowledge of Dm2ortiz was when he moved a large number of Dungeons & Dragons adventures from "<title>" to "<title> (module)" with the edit summary "WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons". Given the edit summary, I brought this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons#Module naming where it rapidly became apparent both that Dm2ortiz had not discussed with the project, and that his understanding of the naming policy was at best flawed. A clear consensus was rapidly reached, and I reverted Dm2ortiz's moves. He then reverted these moves again, claiming there was no consensus. I brought this up at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Pre-emptive disambiguation of Dungeons & Dragons articles, where an uninvolved editor agreed there was a consensus. In the meantime, Dm2ortiz spammed the talk page of every listed member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons and create an entirely unnecessary "poll", again demonstrating his misunderstanding of policy with the comment that "I don't tink (sic) it's settled until everyone has a say". In any case, I proposed waiting a week and then reverting the changes.

The above dispute made me look at Dm2ortiz's contributions; I noticed that he had uploaded a large number of fair-use images, none of which had a fair-use rationale and many of which were much too big to be valid fair use claims. I brought this up on his talk page, but no action was forthcoming. Therefore, I tagged the images with {{nrd}}, which Dm2ortiz began reverting as "vandalism,". At this stage, I brought this up at WP:ANI#Removal of image tags where another uninvolved editor reverted Dm2ortiz's changes and cautioned him not to remove image tags without solving the problem. Dm2ortiz then started adding some very poor rationales to images, none of which mentioned the specific page on which they were used or why 800 pixel wide images were needed. I again tagged the pages and explained this to him, but this was simply met with more "vandalism" reverts and a response from Dm2ortiz of {{User DGAF}}. Following the advice at AN/I, I then tagged the images with {{ifd}}, where Dm2ortiz again demonstrated his lack of understanding of fair-use image policy by claiming that "Wikipedia policies states that high-rez images should be used when ever possible.", and then, to cap it all off, making a blatant WP:POINT nomination of Image:Ultramarines_Dreadnought.jpg, faking my signature along the way.

I think it's clear that there is one editor here who is acting disruptively, and it's not me. --Pak21 07:22, 14 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)

Zacheus-jkb

Initiated by -jkb- at 15:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

alternatively s:cs:User:-jkb-
and all other accounts with different names here and other projects of wikimedia
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • see User:V. Z. (he was renamed to this, Zacheus is something not to be defined)
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • here I could give you links to about one dozens of thousands of pages on meta, en.wiki, cs.wiki etc., please do not press me to this

Statement by -jkb-

I request an arbitration decision against the User:V. Z. as well as User:Zacheus as well as other obscure accounts of this user. User:V. Z. is a account of a former user, who was renamed here and who is banned on the Czech Wikiopedia since May 2006 (reopened yesterday).

I do this because:

  • the user with several names published or enabled to publish my personal data on Wikimedia projects (and more over in several sites in internet as well)
  • although he was banned for it on Czech Wikipedia and although he denied this on his blog one year ago he continued to claim that I was collaborting with a communist secret police and thus he dangered my family members still living in a former East European country

Some remarks to the first point:

  • he published my real name and my domicile several times here and in internet
  • on April 4th 2007 he threatened me on the Slovak Wikipedia that he will publish in internet a photo of mine which he made for this purpose [42] (see OTRS Ticket#: 2007061010005551)
  • on April 12th 2007 was this photo published in internet [43] by his former blog colleague, here then User:Ross.Hedvicek (see also User talk:Ross.Hedvicek)
  • on May 15th could therefore User:Semenač (another banned user from Czech Wikipedia) could upload the photo to Commons ([44]) and to use this in several harrassing pages
  • further, he anounced legal threats against one of my colleague

All statements given here, all reasons, all articles etc. given here can be sourced on request.

I request to ban this user from Wikipedia at all. His trolling has been mentioned here several times, he destroys not only different projects but is trolling on meta (requesting there the removal of rights for stewards, check users etc., see also Cswiki issues as one example), has been warned several times ([45] by User:Thatcher131) not to import his problems in other domains, he describes on his blog stewards and the english wikipedia admins as fascists (some stewards will remember) etc.

Thanks for understanding and patience, -jkb- 15:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zacheus

I am a former bureaucrat on cs: (from 9 March 2004 to 4 August 2005). I was desyssoped after -jkb-'s private request. (At first he denied it, then he had to admitted it.) On 10 September 2005 -jkb- blocked me there for the infinite time (not in May 2006 as he lied). Reason was: "I would appreciate if the community would shake off this element. " = speaking about me "I intentionally don't indicate examples of <my real name>'s bestiality, I don't have stomach to this." "Voting is not allowed to comment."

After that I transfered my activity on en:, but I soon began to be harassed by -jkb- again. He even established his own page where he tried to mix me up with vandals, although repeated user's checks proved I have nothing in common with them. That's why I dropped my long term account with my real name which I used since 23 December 2003. But -jkb- has spied my new account (Zacheus) and underage steward Datrio has confirmed to him that this is my new account.

That's why I asked for renaming and established 3rd account. I have no other account, although -jkb- frequently claims opposite even he knows pretty well he is lying. I succeeded in hiding of my 3rd account to -jkb- (I stopped editting most topics I liked and which -jkb- knew I liked.) Were it needy, I am ready to provide its name if it remains hidden to -jkb-. But -jkb- did not stop writing my real name under any possible occassion.

In that time (5 December 2006) I tried to reply to -jkb-'s cronies from cs: at my user page. Thatcher131 censured me for doing this and I have expressed my deep regret for doing that and never repeated that. After -jkb- continued to harass me with revealing of my real name I seeked a mediation. This was rejected since -jkb- refused to agree with it, although I notificated it to him. On contrary, -jkb- failed to place a notice on my talk page when he lodged this complaint.

Problem with -jkb- is, that he speaks non-understandable language, for instance: "Zacheus is something not to be defined". It is not only problem of his English, he is equally non-understandable in Czech. I don't know what -jkb- has meant by "User:V. Z. is a account of a former user". V. Z. is my account (he knows it) and I am not a former user.

Concerning -jkb-'s accusations:

  1. I never published -jkb-'s personal data on any Wikimedia project, nor his real name, nor his domicile.
  2. I never said -jkb- was a Communist secret police agent.
  3. I never threatened him on the Slovak part of the Wikipedia. The whole story there was quite different: I published there a list of nicks I met in real life, one of them being -jkb-. He denied he met me. I wrote that I had done and that I was able to prove it by a photo. Then -jkb- confirmed he knew me, but never explained why he had lied at first.
  4. I am not responsible for other people's actions (Mr Hedvíček or Semenáč), although -jkb- always tried to mix me up with vandals or other people – his favourite practice.
  5. I never made any legal threat.
  6. I never troll here or there. I admit I seek justice in cs: on Meta, but this has nothing in common with en: as Thatcher131 explained to me.
  7. I stopped importing the problems of other projects after Thatcher131 explained to me that this is a bad behaviour. On contrary, -jkb- continued that practice, as recently as on 11 June 2007. He does not acknowledge any authority and he told us he was even disappointed by Jimbo's behaviour. In my view he refuses to cohabitate here with me peacefully, that's why he should be punished.

—Zacheus Talk • Contributions • Edit counter 06:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction by Zacheus to Thatcher

I wish to thank Thatcher131 for his excellent summary of the case. Since the whole case is very complicated I wish to bring some additional clarifications.

I was not blocked as late as in May 2006, but already in September 2005, being labelled as the "element" or the "beast".

Decision of the Czech ArbCom is useless. It was made by two (rarely by three) anonymous arbitrators only (both easily identifiable as RuM & Wikimol), both having harsh disputes with me before. I asked many times for their recuses, but to no avail. Their finding that I "published the names of Czech editors" was not based by any evidence.

Concerning accusation of -jkb- that he was a communist collaborator, situation is much more difficult. First of all, I never wrote that statement to any Wikimedia project. Second, -jkb- is in real life a rather famous person. I wrote about him on my blog (which concentrates on media, politics, and history), but only truth.

My petition to change my account to V. Z. was not rejected, but only suspended. User Cynik accused me to be an anti-Semite, although he knew very well that I was punished for pushing pro-Israeli POV. I was so deeply injured that I stopped any further negotiation until this shameful personal attack is removed. But all the Czech sysops refused to do that.

I don't think that I have engaged in fight on meta or have much ill will there. I asked only for renaming and -jkb- to stop using my real name.

As to the article Reconcilee, I established it on 30 January 2006, because it describes the important phenomenon of the Czech Communist past. I was inspired by the cs: article from 26 January 2006. The fact that -jkb- was the reconcilee has been already included there[46]. I deny that I established the article Jan Koukal.

I think that -jkb- at first unintentionally, but after my notice intentionally, mixed me with a vandal. I hoped that multiple user's checks would prevent him mix me with a vandal again. But to no avail.

I never posted -jkb-'s photograph to Commons. I agree that unintentional mentioning of my real name (for example in citing my earlier post to talk pages) is not is not a privacy violation per se. But I hold that both repeated and intentional doing this constitutes harassment.

I would like to add that the account V. Z. has 888 edits and my third account has 318 edits. To sum up I have totally 1440 useful edits on en: only, plus more than 6000 on cs:.

—Zacheus Talk • Contributions • Edit counter 15:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Matthew

Wait a minute... you're both accusing each other of stalking one another? Matthew 15:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thatcher131

Pretty bold of jkb to file a case against V.Z. for revealing personal information when jkb has done exactly the same thing as recently as today. I'll have to check my e-mail archives to refresh my memory of this incident, but as it seems that neither V.Z. nor jkb can leave this incident alone, some form of banning is required. I have half a mind to simply ban V.Z. outright since he is the one who brought this dispute from cs wikipedia to en in the first place, but jkb's conduct is not above examination. Additional response possibly to follow. Thatcher131 15:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Background

Zacheus (former account V.Z. which was renamed from V______ Z______ his real name) was banned from the Czech wikipedia after an arbitration case there [47]. The case included allegations that Zacheus published the names of Czech editors and that he accused -jkb- of being a communist collaborator [48]. In the aftermath of the case, Zacheus attempted to change the name of his account on cs from his real name to V.Z. and was rejected there; there was a big fight on meta and much ill will on all sides, apparently.

After being banned on cs.wikipedia, Zacheus posted some material to his en user page (now deleted) in which he responded to discussion of himself that was occuring on the cs admins' noticeboard (see User_talk:Thatcher131/Archive7#User_talk:Zacheus for explanation and partial translation, see also here). I asked Zacheus to delete his user page and to stop bringing the cs drama to en [49] and he did so.

In the past, Zacheus and -jkb- have made multiple accusations that each is trying to "out" the other's real identity. It appears that Zacheus has at least once created an attack article on en.wiki against a person he believes to be -jkb- [50] [51] [52] — although Zacheus has never explicitly stated on en.wiki that so-in-so is the real name of editor -jkb-. (See generally User:-jkb-/Vandalism and impostors.) Zacheus has also accused -jkb- of wikistalking and trying to "out" him. There is also a persistent Czech vandal with a pattern of racist vandalism and attacks on -jkb-, although Checkuser established that the vandal was unrelated to Zacheus.

Zacheus (talk · contribs) has just over 200 edits. -jkb- (talk · contribs) has just over 500 edits.

What's new

It appears that the current complaint began with an editing dispute over 2006 Gdansk school suicide incident, an article with deep BLP problems, about the suicide of a 14 year old girl following an alleged sexual assault. Zacheus added the words "alleged" [53] which -jkb- reverted with the edit summary rv of a quite insulting edit. Eventually jkb reverted and moved the article after admin Thebainer had blanked and redirected it; jkb's action was reversed by Jimbo Wales [54]. See Talk:2006 Gdansk school suicide incident for more. -jkb- complained to Jimbo (very negative experience for me) and including Zacheus' real name, bringing up the events on cs, and arguing that by deleting the article, Jimbo was supporting the efforts of vandals. Zacheus' reply.

Earlier in the dispute, [55] -jkb- attempted to undermine Zacheus' position by referencing his banning on cs. This is the earliest direct conflict between them that I can find since December.

There is nothing in Zacheus' en.wiki contributions (after December 2006) to indicate that he is harassing or threatening to expose -jkb- or that he is in any way a disruptive editor. I do not know whether Zacheus is involved in the publication of a photo of -jkb- as alleged, but if so, it occured off-wiki and involved multiple editors. Based only on en.wiki contributions, -jkb- is the one who won't let this long-simmering dispute rest, although there may be more going on beneath the surface or on other language wikipedias. Thatcher131 16:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final followup?
  • See also the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive153#Breaching_of_my_privacy.
  • Checkuser confirms that slovak user V. Z. is the same as User:Zacheus [56]. I find it an unlikely coincidence that after threatening to publish -jkb-'s photo on the slovak wikipedia, that other users would just happen to post the photo to meta, unless there was some coordination.
  • -jkb-'s repeated posting of Zacheus's name is not a privacy violation per se as his name is the former account name of V.Z., and there is ample evidence and discussion of this fact on wiki; however it does seem rude to keep bringing it up.

Statement by uninvolved Newyorkbrad

Thatcher131 has looked into this carefully and unless one of the parties refutes his findings with specific diffs showing additional, recent problematic behavior, I think we can take his statement as a fair summary of the situation, at least insofar as it is reflected on En-Wiki. If that is the case, it seems clear that both parties need to be strongly admonished to stay away from each other and enjoined that under no circumstances are they to discuss each other's real identities, off-wiki political activities, and the like, or to bring the very troublesome disputes from other projects here. Hopefully, at least one of the parties has already gotten that message, but it could stand repeating to both. Strong sanctions should then be imposed on either of the parties (or anyone else) if they were to engage in any further behavior of this kind.

Although these admonitions and instructions need to be given, I am not at all sure that the best vehicle for doing so is through a formal arbitration case. Opening a case will provide a vehicle for the parties to lambaste one another for both their on- and off-wiki activites and to continue importing here their disputes from other projects, and in fact would almost require them to continue criticizing each other on high-profile arbitration pages, while what is really desired is precisely for them to disengage from each other. Opening a case would also prolong consideration of a dispute that, if the parties abide by the instructions they are given, should be resolvable relatively quickly, and add to the committee's caseload at a time when it is busy with other pressing business.

Accordingly, I suggest that the case be declined, but with appropriate language in the arbitrators' comments advising both parties to immediately discontinue the types of behavior noted, and that administrators then follow up to make sure that the admonition is being heeded. This would of course be without prejudice to sanctions by either admins or ArbCom if this proves necessary due to future problems, which hopefully it would not. Newyorkbrad 14:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

JK Rowling

Initiated by Serendipodous 18:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC) at 18:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

It was made by both I and Aula on JK Rowling's talk page, and Libertycookies has responded to it.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

User:T-dot and User:Fbv65edel have already played the role of third party mediator.

Statement by Serendipodous

Libertycookies is a socialist/anarchist who is convinced that JK Rowling is an anarchist "change agent" and that her latest book Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows and the latest film, "Order of the Phoenix are "mind bombs" meant to incite the young to rebellion. For the last ten days or so he has engaged in a conserted attempt, with no direct evidence whatsoever to support his claims, to have his view expressed on various "Harry Potter"-related articles. His most recent edit to JK Rowling's page is a typical example of his edits. He has already had one page Politics and influences of JK Rowling deleted for being entirely original research, but refuses to acknowledge that his opinion is anything less than established fact and resorts to ad hominem attacks in respose to explanations of Wikipedia's rules. See JK Rowling's talk page, My talk page and his talk page for more information. Serendipodous 18:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AulaTPN

I have to agree with Serendipodous, hereafter referred to as Seren. I had hoped that Libertycookies', hereafter referred to as Liberty, edits were merely the over-keen contributions of a user who was unfamiliar with the rules but I can't honestly see it that way any more. Both Seren and I have done the whole welcome to wiki spiel for Liberty many times. We've then left multiple warnings for Liberty along with clear links to all the relevant wiki policies but Liberty has engaged in a concerted campaign of edits across many Harry Potter related articles in an attempt to assert that J. K. Rowling is an outspoken Socialist, Anarchist, Anti-establishmentist and even to suggest that she is actively trying to foment a rebellion amongst her younger readers. While some of the edits Liberty has made have been based on a small kernel of truth they are always embellished with multiple layers of unsupported original research. Five things trouble me greatly about Liberty's actions:

  1. Liberty repeatedly makes these unfounded assertations but then attempts to prop them up with references to irrelevant statements in certain articles, or to other notable figures, making a quantum leap of original research to bridge the gap between the cited quotes and Liberty's inferred meaning. Good examples of this are:
    1. An attempt to state that, because JK admired Jessica Mitford as an author and for her steadfast adherence to her beliefs despite tremendous adversity, she idolised her for her socialist values and is, therefore, an outspoken socialist herself.
    2. An attempt to state that, because JK named Dumbledore's pet phoenix after Guy Fawkes, she was highlighting her own anarchistic beliefs and desire to subvert the establishment.
  2. Liberty attempts to justify edits and warnings by resorting a personal attacks, most notably against Seren.
  3. As can be seen from certain comments on the J. K. Rowling talk page, Liberty seems to feel that, rather than being a repository for clearly established facts, Wikipedia should be obliged to provide a forum for anyone to disseminate any theory, however unfounded, they have pertaining to a given article/topic.
  4. Certain editors, especially Seren, have been going above and beyond in order to bring many of the Harry Potter articles up to featured article standard and Liberty's edits represent a serious threat to that process.
  5. Finally, the Harry Potter articles are an enormous honeypot for random acts of vandalism - 10s of reversions per article per day. Semi-protecting certain articles have eradicated most incidents but Liberty's actions are entailing increasing amounts of time to clear up.

We have attempted many times to resolve this fairly and impartially to the extent of involving disinterested third-parties and admins but Liberty continues to post his/her original research to these articles and then post unpleasantness to the talk-pages when they get removed.

For examples see here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here

Sorry if I've gone a bit Rainman with the links.

Statement by Libertycookies

Prior to my entries on wikipedia, there was no acknowledgement that J.K. Rowling might have political values or influences. Seren has continously tried to delete this section, and also has said he would delete everything related to Jessica Mitford despite the multiple times that Rowling has mentioned her admiration for Mitford. When T-dot had made a request for both of us to add drafts of the material that we would like to include, Seren did not participate. When I requested that he add certain parts of the Politics and Influences of J.K. Rowling, he again refused in an aggressive and hostile manner.

Seren continues to libel my name and attempts to define my personal politics as Socialist/Anarchist (originally he called me a Right Wing Libertarian) despite the fact that I am merely posting information on J.K. Rowling that has been widely published and are verifiable direct quotes. His latest complaint is against a Warner Brothers promotional poster for Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix which includes the phrase "the rebellion begins," Rather than asking for citations or clarification his first act is to delete and his second is to call for arbitration.

This is typical of Seren's behaviour to delete that which does not fit his personal standard, and he has been deleting my entries for many weeks prior to his calling known friendly third parties to "back him up" in his "edit war." At no point was a 'Request for Comment' or 'Request for Mediation' put on the J.K. Rowling page calling for neutral third parties.

Regards to the characterization of: "An attempt to state that, because JK admired Jessica Mitford as an author and for her steadfast adherence to her beliefs despite tremendous adversity, she idolised her for her socialist values and is, therefore, an outspoken socialist herself."

I have never attempted to make the leap that JK idolized Mitford for her socialist values or that she is an outspoken socialist herself. I however assert that the choice of Mitford as a heroine belongs in the Politics (originally Politics and influences), since Mitford was a political person and her entire life revolved around her socialist beliefs.

An attempt to state that, because JK named Dumbledore's pet phoenix after Guy Fawkes, she was highlighting her own anarchistic beliefs and desire to subvert the establishment.

When Seren and Aula commented on their personal views of Rowling's politics in the Talk section I told them my own beliefs that she was a change agent and mentioned her links to to a sympathetic figure of Guy Fawkes, from her influences by Morrissey, Alan Moore and his V for Vendetta graphic novels, and members of SPEW (the Socialist Party of England and Wales) which I conceded did not have enough evidence for a wiki-pedia entry.

Regards to the characterization of "a concerted campaign of edits across many Harry Potter related articles in an attempt to assert that J. K. Rowling is an outspoken Socialist, Anarchist, Anti-establishmentist and even to suggest that she is actively trying to foment a rebellion amongst her younger readers."

Again, I have not asserted any of these beliefs in a wiki-article. I have placed quotes from conservatives, liberals, and Rowling herself that are related to her personal philosophy, and I have invited Seren to add any additional content to balance the record in case I have missed material. These are not quotes from my personal POV, but they are the only relevent quotes to be found. Indeed, even the marketing department at Warner Brothers has noted the major theme of rebellion in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix and has included the line in both a trailer and the movie poster, "the rebellion begins." It is difficult to comprehend how Seren finds this to be an unacceptable source.

I am not sure what Seren expects to gain from the Arbitration process, but I hope that a new editor will be assigned to monitor the Politics section of J.K. Rowling that is open to expanding the section on a politically conscientious person whose amazingly best selling books clearly have some sort of moral or political message (according to verifiable commentators of all stripes). Libertycookies 00:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Ral315

Is this anything that a simple "stop doing this or you will get blocked" won't solve? It looks like there aren't any credible sources in this case. If that's true, then all such statements can be speedily reverted, and the user blocked for further disruption. I've warned the user, and if he continues adding unsourced statements, I'd be happy to administer the cluestick. Ral315 » 00:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Soumyasch

I just happenned to stumble across this, and decided to take a look. From what I can see, the additions by LibertyCookies were generally unsourced and reflected opinions and not facts. Plus a lot of those could be classified original research. So, in enforcement of BLP, I endorse their speedy removal. And LibertyCookies, could you please provide some diffs regarding the content removal, so that we can evaluate the merits of those as well? --soum talk 15:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Kwsn

I saw this too. Libertycookies has now sourced some of the additions, but I'm not going to remove out of not knowing what would be wrong to remove, and what would be right. However, LibertyCookies seems to be a single purpose account focused on Harry Potter related articles. Kwsn(Ni!) 02:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Discussion to talk, please. Picaroon (Talk) 19:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chittisinghpura massacre

Initiated by Khanra (talk · contribs) at 20:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Article:

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Khanra opened it, so he is aware. Vivin was notified here

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Confirmation requested

Statement by Khanra

In the Chittisinghpura massacre section, Vivin, an administrator, continuosly removes any information which i poste pertaining to the situation, deeming it to be a violation of neutrality. A quick glance at the page, as he has reverted it back to, shows just how one-sided the webpage already is in favor of India, no opposing information is allowed on the website. I have provided sources (Indian sources at that), and have presented the information in a neutral tone in line with wikipedias standards on the issue of the aftermath of the massacre. However, it was quickly removed, and Vivin quickly threatened to block my privelages if I were to post again on the website.

Statement by Vivin

Ok. Firstly, I am not an administrator, and secondly, this is a content dispute. I have already informed this user why his edits are wrong. The talk page for the article also discusses this. Khanra would appear to be a sock of Fauj. I have not verified this through checkuser, but the edits seem to be quite similar (see this and this). Both edits use the same seven-year old Amnesty International article. This user seems to have a clear anti-Indian agenda. I am not the only one who has warned this user. MaximvsDecimvs has also warned this user more than once. Without going into too much detail about the content dispute, I will say that the user does not want to acknowledge clear facts. He wants the article to read like some sort of conspiracy theory where the Indian government was apparently involved in the murder of Sikhs. This is not the case. It has been proven beyond doubt, and President Clinton retracted his statement and acknowledged the error of his previous statement where he blamed Hindu Nationalists. Additionally, this user's edits resemble OR. He draws his own conclusions from the facts. He claims (providing a reference) that the murder of five innocent locals is proof that the Indian Government was involved in some sort of cover-up. However, the article itself shows it to be a criminal conspiracy involving a group of service-members, acting independently. This request for arbitration is without merit. --vi5in[talk] 23:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Khanra refers to Vivin as an administrator; this would not appear to be correct. Picaroon (Talk) 20:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Certified.Gangsta 2

Initiated by Ideogram at 08:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[57]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Ideogram (talk · contribs)

Gangsta is continuing his tendentious editing, pushing the POV that Taiwan is not related to China. Replaces the WPJAPAN tag on Talk:Culture of Taiwan that was the focus of a lengthy edit-war. Calls a replacement of the term "Taiwanese" pov pushing. Replaces "Republic of China" with "Taiwan" and accuses another editor of pov pushing and making racist attacks. Replaces "Chinese "with "Taiwanese". Removes "Republic of China" while accusing another editor of being a sock with no evidence. Removes a singer from the "Chinese singers" category. Replaces "Chinese" with "Taiwanese", removes article from Chinese related categories. Removes "Republic of China", replaces "Chinese" with "Taiwanese", in an edit labelled "cleanup". Replaces "Republic of China" with "Taiwan", removes article from Chinese singers category. Replaces "Republic of China" with "Taiwan". Replaces "Republic of China" with "Taiwan", removes article from Chinese rappers category.

It seems clear to me that Gangsta is intent on violating the spirit if not the letter of the ArbCom sanctions against him, just as he was always capable of reverting up to the third time and then stopping. Since the goal of the ArbCom sanctions is supposedly to prevent "revert-warring" I hope the arbitrators will take note of the nature of the problem here and take appropriate action. If they feel that Gangsta is already violating the adopted remedy and it only needs to be enforced I would appreciate clarification here. --Ideogram 08:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note regarding additional evidence: the evidence I have listed above is pretty much the only new evidence. I hope that this process can be abbreviated and the problem can be "nipped in the bud". --Ideogram 21:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comment by Sean William

As Ideogram pointed out, Certified.Gangsta has been neatly dodging his 1RR sanction by reverting randomly on various Taiwan related articles. An extra remedy might be in order, but I don't believe that a full case would be the most efficient way of solving this. Sean William @ 13:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Wizardman

Hmm... I'd say we need to add in another remedy, something on a maximum number of total reverts in a day or week period, as opposed to "per article". It probabyl doesn't need to be reopened if something can be decided on this page.--Wizardman 15:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by HongQiGong

I've been requested to comment on this request. To my recollection, I have not been involved in any of the articles that Ideogram has listed above. But Certified.Gangsta does revert on List of Chinese Americans, which I've edited before. While I am neutral to the content that he keeps reverting, I do notice that he is making no more attempts at discussion in the Talk page of the article before he reverts. But he does stay within the boundaries of 1 revert per week on the article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Wl219

I've been asked to comment on this request. My only run in with Certified.Gangsta was on Double Ten Day, which resulted in a RfC here. I opened that RfC after he made a baseless accusation of "pov-pushing" against me and reverted my edit twice. He did not respond on the RfC, which in the end reached a consensus in support of my edit. Wl219 04:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Related case, closed about one month ago: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 08:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Certified.gangsta is currently blocked for one week based on an administrator's finding of multiple violations of the revert parole. Newyorkbrad 16:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Indefinite block of User:Rbj

Initiated by r b-j at 01:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

I have agreed to edit nowhere else to be unblocked to make this RfAr. someone else will have to do that for me. (thanks)

That would have been OK. Fred Bauder 19:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i believe you, Fred, but i have less trust of others and of the system as a whole and i cannot take any assumption of reasonableness for granted. for all's i know, someone (not necessarily you) would have clobbered me for editing the usertalk pages in notifying them of this, since i agree to edit nowhere else. r b-j 22:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other parties have been notified. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Killerchihuahua: [58] Orangemarlin: [59]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Rbj (talk · contribs)

(please refer to block log.)

at 18:17, 11 May 2007 KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs) blocked Rbj (talk · contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Incessant NPA violations, was repeatedly asked, warned, etc.)

after the 24 hours expired i made this single and last talk page edit , i would like to know what is so bad about that edit, and indeed no one has said anything bad about that edit that i know of.

then at 00:13, 15 May 2007 EVula (talk · contribs) blocked Rbj (talk · contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (We're fed up with your abusive attitude. Go troll somewhere else.)

but within 2 minutes "recanted" that block. what justification EVula had to do that is beyond me, but he/she changed his/her mind before it made any difference to me, so i mind less than i am curious.

so now i'm thinking, "i'm gonna take a Wikipedia vacation and not edit at all." every couple of days i might go there and check something out (Wikipedia is still mostly quite good for technical articles, there are few controversial issues in Calculus or Classical Physics). NO EDITING FOR 2 WEEKS.

then at 21:26, 27 May 2007 KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs) blocked Rbj (talk · contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Attempting to harass other users: Using IPs after Last Chance decided on AN/I.. Restoring Indef block)

and there is this AN/I at [60] .

i do not know the specific edit or edits that are ascribed to me (as an anonymous IP) but i believe that it is clear that this frakus originated with User:Orangemarlin because of this [61]. both Killer and Orange have yet to justify their association of whatever edit or edits (they used to call for or justify such action) to me or to my WP account.

i used no anonymous IP to attack anyone at any time ever. i have used an "anonymous" IP once (twice with a trival correction) to contact an admin User:NicholasTurnbull over a year ago. otherwise i have never used an anonymous IP to edit Wikipedia.

User:Fred Bauder took a look (i assume with check_user or whatever it is called) and said that it produced "no useful results" (that cannot be construed to say that check_user had confirmed or implicated me in some attack edits). indeed admin User:Sandstein said in the AN/I: "Lacking that, I can't fairly determine whether it is sufficiently probable that Rbj is behind the IP attacks that have triggered the contested block."

how can they do this? how can they take non-evidence and use that as justification for an indefinite block? indeed User:Mangojuice's response to Sandstein's reservation was more scurrilous allegation with no evidence: "They might be meatpuppets rather than Rbj editing anonymously," Where did he come up with that?

i've been asked by the unblocking admin to "not continue the debate which precipitated this incident". that is fine by me. this is about the indefinite block and the explicit justification behind it. and my position is that i did nothing to motivate such a block after such "Last Chance" (because i did nothing at all, no edits whatsoever), indeed i did nothing to motivate any block after the last 24 hour block which was annoying but i wasn't contesting it (since EVula reversed it immediately). but there is nothing other than talk amongst themselves that hyped the defcon up to "Indefinite Block" when i cannot see anything i did after that (pre-"Last Chance") block expired to call for any block at all. and nothing other than sit around to justify the Last Chance threat to begin with.

point of clarification (regarding Orangemarlin's statement below)

i am not aware of any community ban discussion regarding me. but there are all sorts of discussions that i have not been pointed to, so i would appreciate it if anyone would point me to an official communinity ban discussion and decision regarding me. as for having no involvement with this particular indefinite block, i believe this AN/I is the place where this was discussed (with no participation from me since i was blocked) and in that discussion Orange makes this statement which was interpreted by User:Fred Bauder (in an email to me) as the seminal complaint that User:KillerChihuahua used as an excuse for the indefinite block. Killer has to be clear what are cited offending edits (i will disclaim responsibility for them, because i hadn't been editing at all in that 2 week period) and if they are unrelated to Orange, then i agree with Orange, he is not a party to this action. but if the reasons for this indefinite block are a result of a complaint that Orange made to any admins, then it is clear that Orange is a party to this. the frustration i have is that it is not clear to me at all what are the specific offending edits that Killer is referring to. but, to me, it doesn't matter because whatever they are, if they are in that 2 week period when i was not editing, any such offending edits have nothing to do with me. r b-j 17:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

regarding KillerChihuahua's statement below

we need to be clear about the meaning of "24 hours" of Killer's last 24-hour block of me and how such 24 hours was processed to become indefinite. was that due to anything i said or did, or was it due to discussion (with no knowledge from me) by other persons? evidently after that discussion, a decision was made by EVula to threaten me with a "Last Chance" (the motivation for such based on my actions subsequent to Killer's block needs to be examined, or is retroactive retaliation acceptable at Wikipedia?). we need to examine the meaning of that "Last Chance". does one threaten "Last Chance" to another and then just shoot them anyway? is that what "Last Chance" means?

i believe the key issue is this from Killer:

"A series of anonymous attacks on Orangemarlin which bear striking resemblance to the earlier attacks by Rbj ensued. Their similarity was so striking I concluded that Rbj was "playing possum" and while "not editing" was continuing his attacks anonymously."

the justification of such reasoning and evidence behind it is really the only salient issue here, unless we do as Fred has asked me not to do, which is to "continue the debate which precipitated this incident".

if i do not do that (as Fred has asked) then it hardly seems consistent that others are allowed to bring such content into this RFAr. the same rules should apply to both or all sides. if we do not continue the debate which precipitated this incident, then it is solely an issue of the justification and evidence that Killer uses to impose this indefinite block and we should not confuse or mingle the other discussion which i had no opportunity to participate in either because i was blocked, or it was during a time i was not editing Wikipedia and did not know of and was not paying attention to (yet another) AN/I someone drummed up to bitch about User:Rbj. r b-j 22:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this statement from Killer needs to be examined for its veracity:

"At the time of his block by EVula, consensus had been reached on AN/I(long, scroll to end of section) for a community ban,..."

where is that consensus? i am reading (after scrolling to the end of section) words like: "EVula has already told him that this is the very last chance. It would be inappropriate to ban him right now before he squanders that last chance..." and similar. BTW, 30 minutes ago was the first i became aware of this AN/I and during the time of that AN/I i was doing what? i would invite people to take a look at my activity. was it i that was whipping up the flames or was it other persons? r b-j 22:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

an additional response to KillerChihuahua's statement

this deserves a separate section. as i investigate previous discussions regarding me, that i was not appraised of and only now learned of, i must take issue with Killer's characterization of "anti-semitic edits against Orangemarlin". indeed in the very discussion that Killer refers to, i read (from User:Avraham):

As an Orthodox Jew, I also usually write the word as "G-d", and tend to type it that way on computer screens, even though there is a debate if the legal religious reasons for the tradition are applicable to computer screens. ... In this particular situation, I don't think that adding the middle "o" is ipso facto antisemitic, but the incivilties that arose from the issues do need to be addressed; on both sides. ... Avi 16:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC) (emphasis mine)[reply]

just because Orangemarlin conveniently claims something is "anti-semitic" or Killer thinks something is "anti-semitic" does not make it so. this charge was made several times (with no justification) and User:Filll and Orangemarlin made a lot of hay out of it. i utterly deny the characterization of anti-semitism and Killer and/or Orangemarlin have no right to throw such charge around as if it is uncontested fact.

now, i know i agreed with Fred to "not continue the debate which precipitated this incident", but this is unfair. Killer cannot, in these pages, accuse me of anti-semitism (which is akin to racism, AFAIK) uncontested and unexamined, and, at the same time, i cannot say a word about it in my defense. that Orange brought it up in the first place is utter crap. that Filll and Killer assume that such is the case with no examination of the veracity of such, and continue to repeat it, as if it's an established fact is even more crap.

to revert back to "not continue the debate which precipitated this incident" is fine with me. then this whole sub-section and Killer's unsubstantiated charge should both be deleted. this "anti-semitic" stuff is crap and i am convinced that Orangemarlin knows it and that Killer knows it, but they find it convenient to throw at me. r b-j 23:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Orangemarlin

I should not be a party to this action. I was not involved in any of the steps that led to his community ban, save for participating in the discussion at his AN/I, but numerous other editors were there too. Orangemarlin 14:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. I did not participate in any way in the Indefinite Block, which is the reason for this Request for arbitration. I only participated in the original discussions regarding ban, but so did numerous individuals who weighed-in. Orangemarlin 19:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment on anti-semitism. Irrelevant to this case, it is a matter of personal opinion. Orangemarlin 19:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KillerChihuahua

Rbj has been a contentious, not to say combative, editor since I have first encountered him, and doubtless before. His personal attacks are a matter of clear and overwhelming record. His anti-semitic edits against Orangemarlin were discussed at length and led to a block.[62] -and incidentally, led also to his statement that the blocking admin was "full of crap" and "an abusive admin"[63] At the time of his block by EVula, consensus had been reached on AN/I(long, scroll to end of section) for a community ban, due to his complete and utter lack of any concern of how his actions disrupted and wounded the community, of any indication that he intended to modify his insulting and vicious treatment of other editors. I alone voiced a concern that perhaps we should give Rbj a Last Chance, a moment of charity and lack of firmness which I have since regretted. As a direct result of that post of mine, EVula (quite correctly) presumed there was sufficient doubt as to the support for a community ban and rescinded his block of Rbj. A series of anonymous attacks on Orangemarlin which bear striking resemblance to the earlier attacks by Rbj ensued. Their similarity was so striking I concluded that Rbj was "playing possum" and while "not editing" was continuing his attacks anonymously. I therefore enacted the community ban which a moment of my compassion and charity for this divisive and rude editor had delayed, and posted on AN[64] for review.

If accepted by the Arbitrators, I would appreciate clarification from ArbCom as to whether they will be considering the indef block I enacted, which would focus on the post-EVula block activity only, or if they are examining the original community ban as well. In the first instance, there is no reason for Orangemarlin to be a party to the case, and in the second, any evidence will necessarily be more comprehensive and extensive.

Statement by Wooyi

I urge arbitrator to look into the case and review it. The indefinite block is disturbingly unjustified, since it was issued after the editor had already stopped editing Wikipedia, which would constitute punitive action. Not a single evidence conclusively corroborate that the anon IP attacks were from Rbj, and a checkuser was run, proving IPs and Rbj are in different regions. If arbitrators decline the case, the punitive injustice is going to continue. 71.169.17.145 23:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

Heh, if you have to label my IP as SPA, I have to disclose, that I made that statement. WooyiTalk to me? 23:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/4/0/0)

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]

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=138335057"