Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Arbitration​Committee

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:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

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).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	Motion	none	26 July 2024
Clarification request: Appeal methods for Lima Bean Farmer topic ban	none	none	12 August 2024
Amendment request: German war effort	Motion	(orig. case)	13 August 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	none	none	17 August 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures

Initiated by cfrito (talk) at 04:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

• cfrito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Marvin_Shilmer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• 04:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Mediation talk page
• Mediation sandbox page

Statement by cfrito

There exists an ongoing and increasingly acrimonious debate over certain content for the NWT article. At issue is the inclusion of the names of the translators of this Bible edition. The publisher has reported several times since its initial publication that these names are confidential at the behest of the translators themselves, even after their deaths. Two ex-Jehovah's Witnesses of some importance published similar but different lists after they left the JW organization and began a career of anti-writing. Many other anti-writers have perpetuated these lists. There is no documentation other than the representation of these two anti-writers, and what they wrote was from recollections and published in their own memoirs. The apparent relevance to the Article is that critics have claimed inability to assess the veracity of the translated work without being able to assess the translators' backgrounds. Thus the accuracy of the names as presented is key to being relevant to the Article. There is sufficient doubt about the reliability of the source material since it tests the limits of reliable sources criteria. Editor Marvin_Shilmer has commenced a battle of discrediting me and others editors which sets the stage for increasing acrimony. Shilmer has tested the WP:3RR rule many times when any editor dares oppose him. When ultimately my original edits were acknowledged positively by the mediators, Shilmer took credit. I exposed the issue. It should be noted that the alleged names in question had been marked as speculation for quite some time and were only recently elevated to "apparent fact" which is supported by Marvin_Shilmer. I respectfully request that a review of the use these alleged translators' names use in the article be examined along with how they are presented, and also the actions of editor Marvin_Shilmer in dealing with the issues I raised.

Statement by Marvin Shilmer

I am glad this situation will finally reach some formal level. The madness needs to end. The article New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures is a broad subject covering the version’s history, characteristics, criticisms and publishing. At issue is the articles inclusion of names of translators that various sources have put forth. The article has a long history of including this information. Editor Cfrito deleted these names from the article's main text were they have been published for a long time. As a compromise I relegated the information (“the names”) to footnotes in the reference section. I also removed one name entirely because it was unverified by sources. Editor Cfrito rejected this compromise edit and persisted in deleting the information (the names).

The information Cfrito objects to comes from multiple primary and secondary sources. A brief overview of these sources is available on a sandbox page I set up for continuing to work on this article throughout the current dispute. Information about the authors of these sources is available on the same talk page. You will also find on the same page a concise address of specific complaints made by Cfrito on this issue.

My presentation of this information (the names) is to offer it as the word of the men who published the information in the first place. Arbitrators can view how I have presented this information on my NWT sandbox article. Along with this information readers will also see where I present the views of the version’s publisher.

Specifically, Cfrito is wrong when he asserts that the relevance of the disputed information arises because “critics have claimed inability to assess the veracity of the translated work without being able to assess the translators' backgrounds”. Critics have various reasons for their criticisms on this issue, but chief among these is that when the publisher released the information it expressed that its translators were competent biblical scholars. Critics doubt this claim and have tried to verify it, with a result that the identities and credentials of the version's translators became a point of issue. Notwithstanding their reasons, secondary source on top of secondary source demonstrates that when it comes to this Bible version the issue of who translated it is one of several priority points of criticism.

Cfrito has also asserted on several occasions that information about the names of this version’s translators leaked to the public from only two sources. This claim is unproven by Cfrito, and evidence (particularly from author Tony Wills) disputes it. Arbitrators can read all about this in fairly concise form on my sandbox talk page for this article. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 05:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

---

Ukrainian Insurgent Army

Initiated by Jo0doe (talk) at 16:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Jo0doe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Initiating party
• Faustian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bobanni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• User:Bobanni, notified 16:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• User:Faustian, notified 16:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

[1] [2]

• assume good faith [3]
• attempt to use the talk page to discuss matters

[4] [5] [6] [7] • post NPOV tag and Neutrality tag to invite help

Statement by Joe0Doe

I’ve noted what WP article Ukrainian Insurgent Army used for propaganda of one of the nationalistic movement (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalist under Bandera) - one sided visions and POV structure of article – push the “action against German” first but ethnic cleaning of Poles to bottom. Moreover I’ve noted an deliberate actions of Faustian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to include not WP:V sources in order to condom disputed by other users data [8]. By using a demagogy approach such tactic was successful. But while checking the most mentioned by Faustian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) source – book by Yuriy Tys- Krokhmaluk, UPA Warfare in Ukraine. New York, N.Y. Society of Veterans of Ukrainian Insurgent Army Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 72-80823 [9] I’ve found what many of referenced from this book facts by Faustian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) does not exist in it (while whole book - it’s a propagandistic pamphlet with myths about UIA bravery). Moreover, when I proposed to him use more wider world of sources – I’ve got as a reply again falsification and misinterpretation of provided sources [10] and non civility accusations. Moreover hiding deleting and redistributing the important and well referenced facts continued [11]. Clarification: WP is not soapbox and right place to practice in historical falcification and propaganda distribution As regards Bobanni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – aims same as with Faustian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but more “civil” approach [12] – delete or replace important info under “Strategy for improvement” – usage of nonspecific to article facts but delete important to mislead a visitors- if “Ukrainian Insurgent Army” is no more “Ukrainian military formation” – it’s easily to put a statement like” UPA's war against Germany” assuming what UPA is army. Clarification: NPOV facts should not be excluded from article, and in same time there no reasons to put extensive info not about article topic, especially from POV source.

Statement by {party 2}

Actually I have devoted considerable time cleaning up Party 1's POV on this article. I have stated that most of his sources are legitimate but have shown that his pattern of quoting from them is selective, including parts that fit his non-nuetral POV while ignoring those that do not. Party 1's POV is that the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) had minimal conflicts with Germans. In his direct words, "UPA participation the Genocide of Polish community (it was only (and sole) large scale military action by UPA in 1943-44)". This has been refuted in numerous sources statements throughout the article.

An example (of many) of his approach to facts and sources, serving his POV follows:

When making an edit to the article, he took one quote from chapter 14 of the following source [13], from page 189, in which Koch, German administrator ofUkraine, stated in November 13th that there was little anti-German activity from UPA. This one quote probably served Jo0does's POV-pushing by painting the picture that UPA wasn't really fighting the Germans. But from the same source, page 187, it was mentioned that the Germans were heavily attacking UPA with planes and tanks. On 188, it stated that in fall 1943 UPA had 47 battles with the Hitlerites and 125 incidents with self-defence bush groups. During these conflicts in Fall 1943, UPA lost 414 men while the Germans lost 1500 soldiers. Page 188 also stated that the Germans failed to destroy UPA and that indeed its numbers continued to grow. However, they did succeed in bringing down UPA's activity level vs. the Germans. Last paragraph of page 188 stated that both Germans and UPA saw no need to continue the fight against each other, and UPA's actions against the Germans largely ceased. That's the full story. But he just pulled that one quote out of context, that in November 1943 the Ukrainians were quiet.

Party 1 sees no problem with doing this with sources, because what he included was indeed a fact (as if lying by omission is acceptable, because every statement in itself is true). That being said, I have retained most of Party 1's edits but have added to them often by using information taken from the same source he did, but ignored.

The only statements that I hid (not deleted) were those that used by a nonacademic website and I requested that he find information from academic website so we can unhide them.

Party 1 claims that I use a source that is not good. I then showed him the citations of numerous historians that use that same source, and mention it as worth reading. Party 1 dismisses my action as "demogogy". I do not conduct original research on sources, I merely follow the lead of established historians. Party 1 tried to use original research to debunk what that source said, and to litter the article (not talk page) with this work.

Party 1 multiple times claims that I am pushing the POV of OUN(B) organization, which is false and disproven by my edits on the OUN where I documented their fascist ideology, political murders and condemnation by a noted Ukrainian religious leader. I have also made constructive contributions on the related article Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and have received praise for my work there. But it's a good way of shifting attention from his own misbehavior.

I am only seeking to make this article on a controversial topic as nuetral and objective as possible, something that Party 1 seems to be opposed to doing. Faustian (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by {party 3}

Made a number of changes to improve readability - signaled intent in "TALK" section.

• 1) Removed concept of military formation based on [Military formation] which redirects to Military organization. At this point it is redundant data - concept of ARMY is a military organization.
• 2) This article contains many abbreviations OUN, NKVD, SS, OUN(B), OUN(M). From a readability perspective it alway is a good idea to explain the abbreviation when it is first encountered in the article. Description of SS taken for wiki article [SS].
• 3) Some paragraph structures are so complex that some data was moved around. Using the concept of introductory general paragraphs followed by more detailed ones.
• 4) From a readability perspective the term WAR is better that STRUGGLE for titles. Note the perspective World War II and military organizations hence WAR.

This article describes at a very complex time (first half of the twentieth century) in Eastern Europe. Allies become adversaries. Western Ukrainians are controlled by Austrians, Poles, Imperial Russians, Soviets and Germans - with brief periods of an independent Ukraine.
Multiple wars are fought in the region:

• World War 1
• Polish Ukrainian War
• Polish Soviet War
• Russian Revolution
• World War II including
  • Soviet invasion of Poland (1939)
  • German Invasion of Soviet Union

it is in this context that UPA and OUN were formed - that article in it current state does not describe this it assumes the reader has a good grasp of Eastern European history. Wikipedia articles are suppose to stand on their own. Bobanni (talk) 08:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• The parties listed to this case were not notified of this Arbitration by the filer; they have now been advised to that end, and the relevant diff. links listed under "confirmation of parties' awareness". Anthøny 16:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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

• Has any form of mediation been attempted, such as Mediation Cabal or Mediation Committee? Can a party please answer this question immediately underneath this comment. --Deskana (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  Not that I know of.Faustian (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  None that I am aware of. Bobanni (talk) 09:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Decline as premature. Please try other forms of dispute resolution first. Paul August ☎ 21:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Decline at this time as premature per above. Please note that this does not mean we do not believe there is an issue that needs to be addressed, but only that other means to try to address it should be used before coming to arbitration. There are some good suggestions above for other methods that can be used to try to resolve this dispute. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Reject. --Deskana (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Reject. Get assistance from other members of the Community to help resolve the dispute. Arbitration case are the last step in the dispute resolution process on Wikipedia. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Plain English Campaign

Initiated by Angela Harms (talk) at 18:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Angela Harms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 172.143.202.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

I have placed a message on the anonymous editor’s talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:172.143.202.37

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plain_English_Campaign&action=history I have done the following:

• assume good faith
• attempt to use the talk page to discuss matters
• post NPOV tag and Neutrality tag to invite help
• post request for comment on talk page

Statement by Angela Harms

The anonymous editor has been undoing my changes since January 2. I have repeatedly asked the user to use the talk page to discuss changes rather than undoing. The user has deleted NPOV tags, and even deleted a request for comment from the talk page. I have tried to be patient and communicative, and the user has not been willing to enter into a discussion since beginning to undo my changes, on January 2.

Other people on the talk page have noted problems with neutrality, and with having their attempts to improve the page undone.

The anonymous editor's deletion of tags and especially of the request for comment make me think that there aren't other avenues to solve this.

Clarification: it has clearly been multiple IPs, not just the one I mentioned. Sorry about that.

Statement by uninvolved User:Jossi

Clearly a new user needing some help. I will contact the user and lend a hand. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

There is actually quite a history of edits and reversions from multiple IPs, all AOL Europe. Someone should look at the contributions of Martinoscomp (talk · contribs) as well. I agree this can be handled by ordinary admin action. Thatcher 20:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/7/0/0)

• Decline. It is still premature. The IP has no more than 4 edits including 2 on the talk page, all were made today. Please follow the dispute resolution process as the arbitration is the last step of any dispute resolution. You can try to contact any administrator or a mediator. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Decline; premature. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Decline per above. Please note that this does not mean that the arbitrators don't agree there's a problem here, just that arbitration is premature as the means of solving it. Per the Clerk note, I trust that an administrator will take a close look at the situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Reject per above comments. (Thank you Jossi for offering to help.) FloNight♥♥♥ 22:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Reject as above. The anon IP looks like a problematic new editor rather than an impossible edit warrior. I hope and believe Jossi's assistance will solve the problem. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Reject. Deskana (talk) 08:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Decline. Paul August ☎ 03:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

---

ABCCL deletion

Initiated by pkapsales

Involved parties

• pkapsales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• KrakatoaKatie (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

The following is a cut and past of the notice I pasted on the admin's talk page. Notice of Arbitration Please note I submitted a notice for arbitration due to your abuse of power from the inappropriate deletion of a submission and failure to respond to multiple inquiries for your reason.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KrakatoaKatie"

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by pkapsales

I have posted two messages on talk for the admin and she refuses to respond even though she responds to other messages posted on the same date.

It is my opinion this editor is not qualified to edit that subject area and also is not qualified to be an editor since she does not respond to inquiries. She is simply involved in a power play where she enjoys using Wiki to arbitrarily force her opinions, whether ignorant or not, upon the Wiki audience.

The original page I entered on the ABCCL was deleted twice. It was simply an information entry with nothing controversial. As an executive board member of the ABCCL, I have the authority and right to make such entries. This editor has no business wasting my time playing games with deletions.

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/8/0/0)

• Decline. Insofar as appears, this is a routine deletion on notability grounds. There has been no DRV nor any other form of dispute resolution (nor am I saying that there is a real dispute to resolve). I would appreciate if an uninvolved administrator or experienced editor could take a few minutes to explain to the filing party our relevant standards and procedures. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Reject. Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process, not the first. Consider talking it over with the deleting administrator, or requesting a deletion review. --bainer (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Reject as above. You really need deletion review for this. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Decline per bainer. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Decline. There's nothing to arbitrate; you don't get to use Wikipedia to promote your league. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Reject per the above comments. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Reject. Deskana (talk) 08:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Decline Paul August ☎ 03:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Appeals and requests for clarification

Place appeals and requests for clarification on matters related to past Arbitration cases in this section. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at Arbitration enforcement. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the Talk page. Place new requests at the top.

DreamGuy

Enforcing the remedy in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2 as well as having any idea when DreamGuy is editing and who he is, which is important in light of his past behavior, is becoming increasingly difficult because of his decision to edit anonymously much of the time. As CheckUser, this puts me in an awkward situation because I don't want to have to be the one to carry out all the enforcement for DreamGuy, but at the same time, I don't want to have to out someone's IP unless there had actually been a violation (which another admin should decide, but which would be a waste of time if it's not him...). I would ask that ArbCom pass a motion requiring him to edit using only his DreamGuy account. Thanks. (See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DreamGuy, [14], Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dreamguy 2, Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/DreamGuy_2#Elonka.27s_DreamGuy_report, etc. for evidence of the issue.) Dmcdevit·t 21:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If Dmcdevit feels it has come to that, then I am lifting my prior objections. DG is free to present his case, however. I will drop him a note. El_C 22:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never made an edit while anonymous that wasn't obviously me. It seems odd that I would be accused of being deceptive when it's pretty rapidly determined who's who. The simple answer when people continuously file check user claims is to tell them to stop wasting your time with bogus reports. You asked them to point out some alleged wrongdoing that would justify a checkuser, they refused to do so, instead assuming bad faith. I can't guarantee that I will always be signed on, but I can guarantee that I will never deny it's me when it isso there can be no question of any alleged deception. If Wikipedia can come up with a way to make it so I get automatically signed in even if my cookie runs out or the ISP switches my IP address, fine, but I think it's ridiculous and impractical to insist I be signed on when no good reason is given for it. It's just people desperate to come up with anything they can as an alleged sign of wrongdoing. But a better way to solve this is to tell people falsely filing sockpuppet accusations to knock it off. DreamGuy (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a concern that Elonka has still failed to cite the diffs promised, and that continues to reflect poorly on her. Still, I notice you often don't use edit summaries; why not always use edit summaries, and check after every edit to see if you were logged in or not, if not, add another minor edit and sign it as DG in the edit summary. Simple enough, no? El_C 22:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Some days ago I requested an RfCU on Dreamguy as I suspected that he was using a sockpuppet to edit again after having been warned previously on several occasions not to (see here [15]). Indeed, because of his refusal to log on when editing he was blocked for 72 hours [16]. It is my belief that Dreamguy is using an anon IP to edit again, hence my RfCU. The Checkuser request seems to have stalled. Can an admin take a look at my request please? My concern is that Dreamguy has edited the same articles (eg Jack the Ripper and The Whitechapel Murders (1888-91),etc) using several anon accounts, all of them supporting edits made by Dreamguy and/or each other, giving the appearance of consensus from several different editors when in fact it is possibly only one, using what appear to be a variety of sockpuppets (see see this [17] and this [18] and this [19] and this [20] and this [21] in support). Jack1956 (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Dmcdevit's request seems reasonable to me. --Deskana (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I find this particular comment by DG...odd: "It seems odd that I would be accused of being deceptive when it's pretty rapidly determined who's who". Actually, it isn't, and that's part of the problem. In October of last year, it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Dreamguy violated 3RR and acted uncivilly, and because these violations occurred through his usage of his primary account and a back-up anon, the connection wasn't immediately uncovered and reported until after the 3RR and complaints grew stale (El_C and Dmcdevit declined to pursue on these grounds, and the RfCU was stalled while awaiting arbcom/an/i discussions stall). To date, Dreamguy has evaded any and all questions about his activitiies under that (or any, really) anon IP, even when specifically questioned about such by DickLyon.

This wacky excuse of Greamguy's - not knowing he's been signed out - could be true the first time it comes up, might be true the second time, and could remotely be true the third time, but by the fourth such complaint by unconnected editors, its time to for the editor in question to either voluntarily adjust their behavior, or to have it adjusted for them. That the user has refused to admit when questioned as to his anon status seems a clear indication that he is aware that he is doing wrong, and knows that his admission would be damning. Succinctly, any claim of 'oops, I didn't know' rings false.

Because of the ArbCom enforcement complaint in October, I have grown to mistrust DG's motives for editing anonymously. Clearly, he feels that he should be able to enjoy the same freedom to enjoy anonymously that El-C, Dmcdevit or most other users enjoy. Unfortunately, Dreamguy is under behavioral restrictions, which require monitoring for incidents of uncivil behavior. To me, this would seem to lessen (if not eliminate) that freedom to edit anonymously - especially those articles he contributes to under his primary account.

I think that El_C's suggestion that Dreamguy police his own awareness of his IP to be unrealistically optimistic. If Dreamguy were at all inclined to do so, he would have taken these steps the first four times the subject was broached (with at least two of them administrative-level complaints). Unfortunately, Dmdevit's request for ArbCom to pass a motion (requiring Dreamguy to edit using only his primary account) is the proportionate and proper course of action. This would act as a strong incentive for DG to police his online status more vigorously, as a failure to do so would result in a loss of editing privileges. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Everyking 3

When I made my previous appeal request a month ago, I was told to wait until February because at that point the arbitrators would have to look at whether or not to permanently lift my article parole, and that it would be more convenient for them to also review my other restrictions at the same time. I am unsure whether it is necessary to make a request about this; I was told by an arbitrator that the ArbCom intended to look at the matter regardless, but that it would still be helpful if I mentioned the appeal here. Everyking (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Could you also please post a link to the prior decision(s) and restriction(s) that you would like to have lifted, since there has been a lot of turnover on the committee since the earlier cases. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I had assumed the ArbCom already knew this, but the case in question is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3. According to former arb Raul, remedies 5 and X from the original case and remedy 4 from the amended ruling are still in effect. As I have explained previously, I do not believe that the remedies as they are written provide for these restrictions to continue after Nov. 2007, but Raul did not agree with me, so I have to rely on the ArbCom to decide whether A) they have already expired, B) they are still in effect but should be lifted now, or C) they should remain in place indefinitely or until some specified later point in time. Additionally, the suspension of my parole on pop music articles in November 2007 will expire this month, so it is necessary for the ArbCom to decide whether to drop the parole permanently or reimpose it. Everyking (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, ArbCom will review and clarify as we previously stated we would address this in Feb. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Everyking, we are starting to review it. I'll try to keep you updated. Poke me if you don't hear something by the middle of next week, okay. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer that the case be reviewed publicly, or at least semi-publicly, and that there be some kind of dialogue with me. Everyking (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Putting your request here, with Newyorkbrad and me replying here, is the first step in making the review public. ;-) FloNight♥♥♥ 12:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez

Matt Sanchez was recently banned for a period of one year, however he was today (06 Feb 2008) caught editing whilst using a self identifying sockpuppet, apparently with the express purpose of dealing with the article we hold on him, and in particular, a photo which could facilitate identity theft, according to Matt.

Blocking the account and saying the user is banned doesn't make this problem go away however, Wikipedia has an article on the editor in question and it must comply with all the policies that are applicable to the page, WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NPOV etc. It is not unreasonable for this user to expect that he can communicate with Wikipedia and ensure that the article is compliant with our policies.

In an ideal world, such communication would be through the m:OTRS system, however there are numerous backlogs and even in an ideal world, OTRS often takes time to deal with tickets, so problems often go unresolved for a few hours. This being the case, there really needs to be an appropriate clause in Matt's ban here which permits him to comment on the article on-wiki, in order that any changes can be made, as necessary. The article in question is reasonably popular, with around 200 edits last month (January), and it's an article that does tend to require protection occasionally, there are edit wars over the article and it does tend to stray from complying with our policies on occasion.

I'm hoping that the Committee will look at permitting Matt the ability to edit, perhaps just his talk page, and we could then transclude that onto a subpage of the article's talk page, in order that his concerns can be addressed and acted upon if necessary. Nick (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The arbitration case has only just closed and I think it is a bit too soon to go changing the finding. Matt Sanchez had his editing privileges withdrawn because he misused them in attacking other users, and there is no indication so far that he has undergone an epiphany. In any case, of his three known accounts, only one has its talk page protected, so he is able to use the others to communicate. With OTRS, the simpler factual corrections are normally the quickest to be made. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

We also don't know who that is, anyone could have registered that username. Regardless of the provocation, Sanchez' behavior was pretty foul, and while rehabilitation is not impossible, it is certainly too soon. It will be important to demonstrate (for example) that he can work civilly and productively with the OTRS volunteers. Thatcher 20:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I know normally OTRS would be the way to go, and I've asked that in future he's nudged towards us, but there's pretty big backlogs at the moment we're trying to deal with, it could be a while before we get to his message, he knows how to edit Wikipedia, surely we can ask that he raises concerns on-wiki so that they may be addressed. I'm not talking about genuine editing privileges, simply the ability to comment on his own biography as necessary. Nick (talk) 10:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Jay*Jay (talk · contribs) has started a similar discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#BLP_concerns_and_ArbCom-banned_editors. As far as I know, the Bluemarine account is compromised/hacked/doing-very-strange-things, so unprotecting that talk page is not useful until that has been addressed. John Vandenberg (talk) 10:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)