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
Ted Wilkes (talk | contribs)
18,934 edits
Line 451: Line 451:


====Statement by party 1====
====Statement by party 1====
Please be advised that I formally protest this Arbitration proceeding and reserve all rights to the recourses available without exclusion as prescribed at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration policy#Scope]]. Take note that on 02:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC), [[User:Kelly Martin|Arbitration Committee member Kelly Martin]] blocked me for one week, said block expiring 21:36, 23 November 2005. The decisions by [[User:Fred Bauder|Arbitration Committee member Fred Bauder]], [[User:Jdforrester|Arbitration Committee member User:Jdforrester]], [[User:Kelly Martin|Arbitration Committee member Kelly Martin]], and [[User: Mindspillage|Arbitration Committee member Mindspillage]] to hear this case were knowingly rendered while I was under block. This action constituted a full denial of my right to a rebuttal statement while at the same time prejudicing my position by having accepted statements from others including an inaccurate 699 word Statement by [[User:Onefortyone|party 3]], said party 3 on [[Wikipedia:Probation]]. Rendering a judgment while I was under block and unable to exercise my right to [[due process]] was discriminatory and violated a precept essential to an impartial arbitration and elemental to the principle stated in Rule # 3 of [[Wikipedia:Arbitration policy#Rules]]. In accordance with [[Wikipedia:Arbitration policy#Requests]] which states "''Individual Arbitrators will provide a rationale for their vote if so moved, or if specifically requested''," as my first step in this initial stage of the Arbitration Committee process I hereby exercise the right to specifically request that the four Individual Arbitrators named herein provide a rationale for their vote on the Request that denied me the right to due process. - [[User:Ted Wilkes|Ted Wilkes]] 15:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
(Please limit your statement to 500 words)


====Statement by party 2====
====Statement by party 2====

Revision as of 15:39, 24 November 2005

Shortcut

Request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. Before requesting arbitration, please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee.

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Anachronist   16 June 2024 0/0/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads none none 4 June 2024
Amendment request: India-Pakistan none (orig. case) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions none none 10 June 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person you lodge a complaint against.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arb Com member votes to accept/ reject/ recuse/ other.

This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

How to list cases

Under the below Current requests section:

  • Click "[edit]";
  • Copy the full formatting template (text will be visible in edit mode), ommitting the lines which say "BEGIN" and "END TEMPLATE";
  • Paste template text where it says "ADD CASE BELOW";
  • Follow instructions on comments (indented), and fill out the form;
  • Remove the template comments (indented).

Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template


Current requests

Community vs. User:AndriyK

Involved parties


This arbitration request by users Irpen, Ezhiki and other Wikipedians that co-signed above is against user AndriyK, who on numerous occasions engaged in extreme POV pushing, disruptive behavior, personal attacks on and off Wikipedia, copyright violations, and effective vote falsification by using outside forums to recruit followers and sockpuppets for voting and assistance in revert warring to circumvent the 3RR policy. User also engaged in bad faith moves and redirect creations in multiple steps making them hard to undo (thus abusing the features of wikisoftware). The user also refuses to cooperatively work on issues with which parties are in disagreement and shows lack of civility when attempts for constructive discussions are made.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Involved parties have been notified:

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • User’s talk page extensively documents other users’ negotiation attempts. The results of negotiations are usually that the user refuses to accept any reasoning except that matching his POV, cites sources, which often do not support his reasoning, and refuses to accept counter-sources cited by others.
  • The user was contacted multiple times by many editors, some attempting to mediate. In fact, the number of comments he received from the large number of users exceeds the usual feedback generated by an RfC. Thus, a full equivalent of RfC has been tried with no effect.
  • Considering the extent of user’s actions, his disruptive behavior, general lack of civility, and unwillingness/inability to consider points of view other than his own we do not believe that trying an RfC before arbitration would have a desired effect.

Statement by party 1 (User:Ezhiki)

On October 27, 2005, AndriyK unilaterally moved the articles Mikhail of Chernigov and Oleg of Chernigov to new titles ([1], [2]). Later this day, User:Mzajac posted requests to have the articles moved back ([3], [4]). Because the first votes cast were overwhelmingly in support of the move, AndriyK posted a message on an outside Ukrainian forum ([5]), which not only called for all interested Ukrainians to register Wikipedia accounts and vote regarding the articles’ moves, but also classified opposing parties as "Russian mafia" (http://www2.maidan.org.ua/n/free/1130025302). English translations of the posts are available here and here. The result of the posts was an inflow of Ukrainian voters—enough to create an illusion of greater opposition than it otherwise would be—whose only goal was to support AndriyK’s POV. As per Wikipedia:Sock puppet, "these newly created accounts... may be friends of a Wikipedian, or may be related in some way to the subject of an article under discussion. These accounts are not actually sockpuppets, but they are difficult to distinguish from real sockpuppets and are treated similarly." We are, therefore, requesting that the results of the votes are reconsidered and appropriate measures are applied to AndriyK so this kind of behavior does not repeat in future. The following is a list of possible sockpuppets (or accounts that can be treated as such per Wikipedia:Sock puppet definition above) used to skew the vote results:

On Mikhail of Chernihiv:

The official result of the vote was: "support"—14, "oppose"—20. Adjusted for possible sockpuppets, the result is: "support"—14, "oppose"—10.

On Oleg of Chernihiv:

The official result of the vote was: "support"—15, "oppose"—17. Adjusted for possible sockpuppets, the result is: "support"—15, "oppose"—8.

As per results of the vote, the move was not completed. At this point of time, despite the fact that the vote was only in regards the title of the article, AndriyK is engaged in revert wars that change all internal article references from "Chernigov" to "Chernihiv". Other editors feel that this is a completely separate issue which should be dealt separately. AndriyK disagrees, and uses his "allotment" of three reverts per article almost on the daily basis (see [6] and [7] for examples). The user had been previously blocked for 3RR violations ([8]), and is now extremely cautious not to overstep the technical limits of this policy, while definitely breaking its spirit.

  • I am a real Wikipedia user, just a newbie. I currently work on my first article on Ukrainian Wikipedia. Please remove me from these lists. -- Yalovets 02:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Would like to add to this, that the statement of User:Ezhiki is nothing but a personal attack against other editors. The people who contributed to the vote should not be judged in bad faith. Many of them don't even know that they are being badmouthed in absentia. User:Ezhiki has not tried to contact these users prior to posting their names. There was not even an attepmt to confirm the accusation of sock puppetting. This seems like a general disregard of the rules of Wikipedia. --Andrew Alexander 04:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2 (User:Irpen)

Additionally to the vote fraud listed in the statement by Ezhiki, these two moves have another peculiar feature that they share with more than a dozen of other page moves made by the user. When moving articles, AndriyK uses a sneaky trick making use of the features of Wikisoftware to make a reversal of his moves burdensome, thus requiring an WP:RM vote, which he thinks he will be able to falsify using the above tactics.

ALL of his moves starting from October 24, 2005 ([[Severyn Nalivaiko]] → Severyn Nalyvaiko) are done in the following bad faith three steps procedure: (1) Move the article, (2) Go to a redirect with an older name and damage it by adding a typo, (3) Correct a typo back. Thus, the redirect now has its own history and the article cannot be moved back without WP:RM votes that he expects to flood with sockpuppets and/or followers recruited from internet forums.

This is the list of articles moved in such fashion: (1) Nalyvayko, (2) Bohun, (3) Southern Buh, (4) a subway line, (5) another subway line, (6) yet another subway line, (7) Oleg of Chernigov followed by a VOTE FRAUD (note discussion and number of red link voters or 2-3 edit voters), (8) Mikhail of Chernigov followed by another VOTE FRAUD, (9) Vsevolod Svyatoslavich (moved further later and his harm thus corrected), (10) Mongol invasion of Russia (sensible move but still in same bad faith manner), (11) Igor Svyatoslavich with deletion log caused by an admin cleaning it up on his own, (12) Russian architecture (restored by an admin who cleaned it up on his own initiative [9], note move time Oct 28, 8:09 and check deleted log for three edits by AndriyK at 8:09-8:10), (13) Petro Mohyla, (14) Trubezh river, (15) Battle of the Stugna River.

Please note an identical pattern in all these moves.

His earlier fraud included multiple moving by cut and paste: (1) Russkaya pravda [10], repeated here, and here, (2) Siverians was cut and pasted twice, see history.

Also, when he creates an article he smartly creates the redirects from the name he might think others might move it and not only creates redirects from those names, but creates them in the same subtle way (in two steps: a wrong redirect + correction). Now, that a redirect has a history, the move over redirect cannot be made. An example is Severian Principality entry created as a redirect to Siverian Principality he was writing but again, in two steps to prevent the move to a name he dislikes [11]. Similar redirects were created in all other Russian names and all in two steps to make sure a redirect has a history and cannot be moved over: (1) Principality of Severia, (2) Novgorod Severskiy Principality, (3) Novgorod-Severskiy Principality, (4) Novgorod Seversky Principality, (5) Principality of Novgorod Severskiy, (6) Principality of Novgorod Seversky, (7) Principality of Novgorod-Seversky, (8) Principality of Novgorod-Severskiy

Interesting was to see his reaction when I noticed the Peter Mogila's move first and mentioned it at his talk, hoping to shame him or just to check whether he would admit or pretend that it was an "innocent" mistake (I was not sure at the time that it was a bad-faith redirect as much as I am now when I saw an entire pattern). When talking to him, I brought up that I was considering moving Polkovnyk he created to a Ukrainian colonel but I did not do that unilaterally because it is just a courtesy to warn the interested parties of any moves so that they can voice any disagreements. Interestingly, his reaction was (as I assumed it would be) an immediate creation of two redirects Ukrainian Colonel and Ukrainian colonel and BOTH were created in a similar fashion, in two steps, to make a move there impossible. Please see these histories and check them step by step: [12] and [13]. This time he "forgot" the bracket in the first attempt and "corrected" that in the second one.

As for his response, he could not deny it (like he couldn't deny vote fraud earlier, always ignoring my pointing it out many times to him). One time our dialog turned especially amusing when he turned that on me and said that he learned these tricks from me (he had nothing more to say being embarrassed). Check this dialog:

To see this hypocrisy right after your "respect your colleagues" call is rather amusing. --Irpen

I learned it from you: to use different rules in different cases. As you mentioned above, I do learn fast. ;)--AndriyK

...You left me speechless hear. Not only you cheat but you take pride in that. --Irpen

You don't like of other people bahave like you? Why? :)--AndriyK

See this for complete context.

Also, interesting was how he was responding to these issues earlier. When I wrote to him long time ago that "Moving articles should be done with care in cases where you may expect disagreement since it it much more difficult to undo", he responded cynically: "I just follow Wikipedia Guidelines, so I do not expect any disagreement.". See this.

The main conclusion is that he is not a short-tempered but possibly productive fellow, but he is a cynical and experienced POV pusher and no wonder: he came from another language wikipedia, well experienced and he knew exactly what he was doing.

To summarize his behaviour shown above, it includes:

  1. bad faith potentially disagreeable moves with no discussion or in spite of discussion where other people seemed ambivalent to impose their vision on article names and kept discussing on what to do;
  2. abuse of the Wikisoftware features to avoid move reversion to make sure his moves prevail;
  3. abuse of Wikisoftware features to avoid his article moved for the same reason;
  4. Moves by cut and paste when he could not get it his way by "Move articles" and calling those who reverted him "Vandals".

As for the revert warring, this question from him at the help-desk speaks much. Here he is looking for the info on how to get on everyone's nerves without getting himself in trouble.

The most typical of his sockpuppets or just recruited blind followers is user:Dovbush. One can see from his contributions what a productive account this is.

I respectfully request the ArbCom to consider the following remedies in addition or in place of whatever ban is appropriate:

  1. administrative reversal of all his article moves done in 3 steps (including those where WP:RM voting was falsified) so that the proposals to move could be discussed by everyone without the threat of bullying
  2. limiting him to 1 revert per 24 h instead of 3 (he is permanently just one step under 3 RR at several articles),
  3. personal attacks probation,
  4. possibly, ban from several articles and/or topics altogether (for some time).

--Irpen 21:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment of statement by party 2 (User:Irpen)

It must be added that User Irpen has engaged on multiple occasions in personal attacks as well as attacks against Ukrainian related articles. For instance, he has reverted multiple times the article Holodomor, trying to erase the words "Ukrainian genocide" and the references to the findings of the US Government Commission on the Ukrainian Famine. His desire to limit other side's editing priveleges seems nothing but another step in his revert war with the people that don't share his political views. This arbitration setup alone shows this. Instead of inviting both sides of the dispute in equal proportion, he invites almost exclusively a few allies of the revert wars here to "punish" one of his opponenta. So the people not sharing the "correct" political agenda must find out about this only by accident. A fare vote and consultations must be held prior to making any decisions in this case. Otherwise, a small group of editors will limit the neutral point of view.--Andrew Alexander 04:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 3 (User:Ghirlandajo)

In my experience, AndriyK is a highly skilled, determined, and cold-blooded revert warrior. His edits consist of little in the way of constructive editing. As he was repeatedly blocked for 3RR violatiion in the past, he evolved several sophisticated tricks to eschew the rule. Most notably, he recruited ua.wiki supporters whose only contribution to this project has been endless reverting. For example, when AndriyK is close to violating 3RR, there appears a certain user:Dovbush (his name was red-linked yesterday, but Andriy added a comment to his user page to eliminate red-linking) who assaults exactly the same pages and makes exactly the same edits as Andriy did: cf. Dovbuzh's contributions with Andriy's.

It is worth noting that AndriyK seems to prefer to assault those pages that were written by me and/or Irpen. One instructive example is Russian architecture, which it took me infinite pains to write almost single-handedly, from the first line to the last. AndriyK, despite having been informed about a need to consult other editors about such decisive moves, did move the article on architectural traditions of Kievan Rus, Muscovy, Imperial Russia and Soviet Union to Architecture of Rus. I fail to see any rationale behind such controversial and inflammatory actions other than deliberately stirring discord. As a result of his actions, there had been two completely identical articles - Russian architecture and Architecture of Rus - until an admin reverted his move back to normalcy. Thereupon AndriyK and his crony User:Andrew Alexander attempted to delete some sections from the article without contributing as much as one new line. Neither did they heed an advise to write a separate article on Ukrainian architecture. As a result, the article was protected by an admin from further disruptive editing by deletionists.

What turns AndriyK's edits to a nightmare for other editors is a wide extent of his disruptive editing. He is capable of reverting from 60 to 80 articles in an hour (example), which takes efforts of many users and quite some time to undo. Endless revert wars instigated by Andriy effectively ruined history records of many pages started or written by me and/or Irpen (e.g., Oleg of Chernihiv, Mikhail of Chernihiv, Chernihiv).

As AndriyK has devised several strategies to avoid violating 3RR, I second Irpen's request for the following remedies to be applied in this case:

  • administrative reversal of all his article moves done in 3 steps (including those where WP:RM voting was falsified) so that the proposals to move could be discussed by everyone without the threat of bullying
  • limiting him to 1 revert per 24 h instead of 3 (he is permanently just one step under 3 RR at several articles),
  • personal attacks probation,
  • possibly, ban from several articles and/or topics altogether (for some time). --Ghirlandajo 08:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A few "spicy" comments by "unbiased" User:Ghirlandajo.
16:30, 11 November 2005 Ghirlandajo m (restored deletions by a racist)
16:16, 11 November 2005 Ghirlandajo (rv vandalism: if you continue messing the article with its talk page, you will be reported!)
07:47, 11 November 2005 Ghirlandajo m (huh, lost your medkit again?)
22:11, 21 November 2005 Ghirlandajo m (rvv another revert warrior) -- that warrior wasn't as strong. User:Ghirlandajo performed an astonishing number of reverts, beating many, many people.--Andrew Alexander 09:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 4 (User:Gnomz007)

Since his entry AndriyK has demonstrated a pattern of distrust towards other users, instead of discussing his concerns about Ukrainian topics, he just went ahead and made mass-moves, and other potentially disagreeable edits.

While I do not have enough confidence in my knowledge of Ukrainian language to put it on my user page, I can pretty much understand the content of his messages on Maidan.org, he accused many editors of being part of something "very much like a teenager gang".

In one message, where he scrutinised the edits of other users [14] with quite offensive comments, he said that he reckons than he has no other choice but to use the methods of his perceived gang on Wikipedia.

He continually bullied several other users, motivating it by what he considers spreading of anti-Ukrainian propaganda by them.

No editing can happen in such an atmosphere. –Gnomz007(?) 23:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 5 (User:Halibutt)

(Please limit your statement to 500 words)

Statement by party 6 (User:Kuban kazak)

To be fair I am really dissapointed with AndriyK. Numerous times I was working on articles when AndriK would barge in and change everything without prior discussion. The strory with Kiev Metro is such when even though I asked him to refrain from further changes in transliteration, he nevertheless changed them. Now writing templates is an impossible task since he somehow locked the original spelling to avoid its revert. Also is his taste for ommition of facts that do not coincide with his nationalistic tastes. Such example is St. Vladimir's Cathedral where for nearly two weeks he spent deleting all the relevant articles, and without prior agreement at discussions. A similar situation can be found in the Cossack article where he kept on deleting my addtions. The Holodomor is also such a case where distputable sources were included before an agreement was reached. I have numerously tried to incourage AndriyK to actually start writing articles (which he on numerous occasions claimed was his reason for coming here). My suggestion of having something simple was met with profound rudeness (and hidden behind it - lasiness) as it can be witnessed in the Drogobych and Izmail Oblast heading at his talk page. I have also reminded him that such actions could negatively skew experienced wikipedia authors and editors to develop a negative, stereotypical attitude towards Ukraine and Ukrainians. Considering that the people who he brings from Maidan forum are a marginal group of people who do not represent the Ukrainian nation as a whole.

Could the Ukrainian nation be left alone at least? The article Holodomor has been edited by you with multiple violations of the rules of Wikipedia. You have engaged in revert wars, doctoring and erasing quotes from reputable sources on multiple occasions. Profound rudeness is to accuse editors of "laziness" while slashing and destroying valuable references.--Andrew Alexander 05:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 7 (User:Sashazlv)

As a native Ukrainian speaker, I had a chance to closely follow User:AndriyK's remarks about Wikipedia users and articles that he posted on maidanua forum. Some of the remarks were also cross-posted on pravda.com.ua forum, one of the most popular fora among the Ukrainian Internet community.

Overall, I found his remarks humiliating, at best. For instance, in describing his "rivals", User:AndriyK used such derogatory expressions as "Russian mafia", "teenage gang", "cunning troll", "insufficiently educated", etc. At worst, the intention was to disrupt the regular process of expansion and improvement of Ukraine-related articles. The pool of Wikipedia users who can effectively contribute to such articles is tiny and this provocation has diverted effort and immensely drained scarce time.

I tried to reason with User:AndriyK and analyzed some of his comments ([15]). My primary conclusion was that his comments were not justified. Part of the reply I got from User:AndriyK was on the verge of personal offence. From that point on I deliberately abstained from direct confrontation.

Hopefully, the Arbitration Committee will find a way to insulate conscientious users from the disgraceful attack. Sashazlv 02:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 8 (User:Alex Bakharev)

I find that User:AndriyK has a quite annoying habit of working for Wikipedia not by adding new articles or new information to the existing articles but by blanking information, changing the names of the geographical locations according to his POV and most importantly by initiating the revert wars.

Let us look for a few examples:

Ivan Kotlyarevsky

The history starts with AndreyK's friend User:Andrew Alexander put a blatant copyvio from the site http://wumag.kiev.ua , without any acknowledgements of somebody else's authorship. I had to put a copyvio notice on the article. I also asked for somebody to help Andrew Alexander on the Ukrainian notice board Portal:Ukraine/New article announcements#October 2005. Irpen wrote a stub and was willing to continue to work on the article. Meanwhile, Irpen, I and many other users were trying our best to explain the Wikipedia copyright requirements to Andrew Alexander (see Talk:Ivan Kotlyarevsky who kept reverting to copyvio version, then decided for some reason to plagiarize Brittanica instead of wumag.kiev.ua. Finally, Andrew and his seemed to stop interfere with the article. It was probably a good time to start to work on the article, then come User:AndriyK and restored the copyvio version again [16]. The article was protected and everybody seems to lost interest to improvement of the article. If the same effort that was put into the talk page and the revert war had been put into the article it will be a good article. Thus, the article about the man who considered to be the pioneer of Ukrainian literature is a stub, mostly due to the destructive actions of User:AndriyK and his friend.

"Unbiased" User:Alex Bakharev "forgot" to mention that User:Andrew Alexander mentioned to have performed a negotiation with the author of the article to pulblish it in Wikipedia.--Andrew Alexander 09:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the arbitrage is not about your behavior but about AndriyK's. Since I had limitation on the length of my statement I was trying not to dwell on your behavior (unless you suggest, that you and AndriyK are sockpupets of each other). I can believe that your first plagiarizing was an honest mistake (You sincerely thought that you can submit any text on a free web site as your own. Communists taught their school boys that plagiarizing is a small sin, etc.). I can believe the first of your reverts was an honest mistake. I have doubts that plagiarizing Britannica was an honest mistake. As for the other five reverts of you, one of your sockpupet and one of AndriyK, they were malicious actions with a single purpose to stop productive work on the article. Since we are discussing AndreyK now; I am more interested with the AndiyK's revert. BTW I am not a judge, I am a plaintiff here, I do not have to be unbiased. abakharev 10:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
St Volodymyr's Cathedral

This is an article about a pearl of Kievan barocco architecture. Lets look into the history of the article [17] . The article was started on June 7, 2005 by User:Ghirlandajo. It robustly grew by the efforts of User:Irpen, User:Mzajac, User:Kuban kazak and others. Everybody was adding new important information. Then on October 23, 2005 came User:AndriyK, who started by blanking info added by other users. The revert war continues to the present time (600 something edits) - many potentially productive people were involved. The article is almost in the same shape as it was on the tenth edit.

BTW, looking throw all these 600 edits, trying to find a positive contribution by AndriyK, I have found only a copyvio so far [18]. Together with his pushing for Copyvios in Ivan Kotlyarevsky articles it shows a kind of a sinister pattern, but lets hope it is just a coincidence.

Silly Chernihiv/Chernigov war

A Ukraine city usually has two English names: the older one, based on Russian (or old Slavonic) spelling and the newer one based on the modern Ukraine spelling. Usually the older names are still has wider usage in English (as supported by Googling), but wikipedia promotes the newer name for the modern events and the older ones for the history (especially for historical event that happen before the introducing of the modern Ukraine spelling). On October 23d User:AndriyK without consulting community changed the names of Chernigov (that happens to be the older name of the city) to Chernihiv in sixty-something articles. He wrote none of these article in almost all of them the name change was his only contribution. In all of these articles Chernigov name was used for the historical events, strictly according to the convention. He did not stopped with this WP:Point action - he started a revert war that continues up to the present time, having about 500 reverts for each of the "edited" articles. Assuming for a moment that there is a merit in using anachronistic names, Wikipedia has a policy of keeping all the ambiguous things consistent with the original author.

Resume

This only a part of the pattern of destructive behavior demonstrated by User:AndiyK, but I do not have more space in the 500 words limit. I am not aware of any new articles contributed by the user and only of a very few positive contributions by him. Currently his behavior significantly decreases quality of the Ukrainian segment of Wikipedia. Productive people avoid contributing articles on Ukrainian themes, AndriyK and his friends do not contribute much either spending most of their time on the revert wars. I think AndriyK should be banned from editing by reverting, blanking and changing names. Instead he should be encouraged to write new article and contribute new information to the present articles. abakharev 08:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 9 (User:Mzajac)

AndriyK has come to English-language Wikipedia with a political agenda, and expends great energy in pursuing it. Based on his own statements here and at the Maidan forums, I think that he feels that en.wikipedia is saturated with the "Russian mafia's" point of view, and he intends to fix this, mostly by the mass changing of names from Russian to Ukrainian versions. He sees this as an us-against-them war. He'll do it wherever he thinks he can get away with it, by any means possible, and whether it's appropriate or not. He shows little respect for the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia or for other editors' feelings. His actions have wasted an enormous amount of energy and productivity, inflamed the community of editors of Ukrainian-related articles, and brought out the worst in many others including AndriyK's "foes" and "allies", to the point of being very destructive.

I honestly wish he'd pitch in and apply his copious energy otherwise. He's counselled others that neutral point of view can be restored to many articles by adding balancing encyclopedic material, but sadly, he's applied himself this way in a very few cases. —Michael Z. 2005-11-23 22:30 Z

Statement by party 10 (User:Introvert)

(Please limit your statement to 500 words)


Statement by party (User:AndriyK)

(Please limit your statement to 500 words)

Statement by party (User:Ashapochka)

Well, eleven against one, using phraseology like “sock puppets and blind followers” on every single Wikipedian who happens to support AndriyK’s standpoint, is not easy to stomach. Luckily this same fact hints us some of the dear community-members-speaking-against-AndriyK might just be in for suppression and ostracism of this Wikipedian, who has different (and nevertheless well founded on facts) views on the Ukraine-related encyclopedic knowledge from theirs, rather than on the quest for the truth and understanding. For example User:Ezhiki calls me a “possible sock puppet of AndriyK”. He never contacted me to see if that was the case, he could verify that my Wikipedia account is old enough to make such a statement sound silly, he could check it out I am an active contributor to the Ukrainian Wikipedia and some of my articles were chosen “Articles of the week” out there. But he preferred not to check his facts for some reason and go right for the offence. I would not be surprised if some of the other so called “sock puppets” turned to be normal, responsible for their votes wikipedians. For his information I had never been contacted by AndriyK before I came and expressed my mind (based on facts) on the matter of Ukrainian-Latin transliteration here and explicitly pointed to it from my “Chernihiv” votes.

They further argue, AndriyK goes for support to the Ukrainian Wikipedia and Maidan. Ok, tell me please where else can you expect to find an authoritative opinion on the Ukrainian language and transliteration of the Ukrainian names if not among English speaking Ukrainian wikipedians? Let us note the fact, he cannot make wikipedians vote to his benefit, they are always free to express their opinions.

I do not believe the arbitration arguments against him based on his renaming activities hold any water. The official guide to transliteration can be seen here, and while it is true not everyone in the world sticks to it, you must produce some really hard stats numbers to prove it must not be used in the Wikipedia despite the fact it is official in Ukraine and as such is used by the country’s Government, commercial companies, educational institutions, etc. See also the Lviv University lections on translation theory and practice for the future diplomats [19] (in Ukrainian). As for the historical tradition, the Russian variants of Ukrainian names are without doubt preferred by Russian speaking people. But does one attempt to transliterate Polish or Finnish (former parts of the Russian Empire) names from their Russian spellings? And even those speaking against AndriyK readily recognize that as a rule he made a provision for the folks comfortable with the Russian-style transliteration only creating the corresponding automatic redirects.

I am approaching my word limit for the comment, but I hope the outmost weakness of the arguments against AndriyK was shown clearly even in these 500 words (against the total of several thousands by his opponents) --ashapochka 14:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Conduct of User:Reddi with respect to other editors

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Evidence that User:Reddi will not even engage me when I point out this Request for arbitrartion

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  1. Attempt to get response on QSS page
  2. Attempt by Joshuaschroeder to get response on Plasma cosmology talk page
  3. Attempt by Art Carlson to get response on Plasma cosmology talk page
  4. Attempt to get a response from user directly by Joshuaschroeder
  5. Attempt to get a response from user directly by Art Carlson
  6. Attempt to get a response on Ultimate fate of the universe talk page
  7. RfC started: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Reddi

Evidence that User:Reddi absolutely refuses to engage me as an editor and further that he will not respond to other attempts at mediation: [20]

Statement by party 1

I have been involved in a number of articles concerning how to report on non-standard cosmology here on Wikipedia. User:Reddi has determined that my work is trollish and he has made it clear that he will not engage me but instead will simply revert every edit I make on the articles listed in the RfC. He has struck-through my comments on his talkpage asking for him to respond to me claiming that he doesn't deal with trolls. I have no other place to turn to at this moment as he refuses to engage me on the talkpages or on the RfC and seems content to continue his inappropriate actions here at Wikipedia.

--Joshuaschroeder 18:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2

 (Please limit your statement to 500 words)

Statement by admin that protected the article (≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @)

I protected the Plasma cosmology article on November 5, due to editwarring, personal attacks and lack of civility in the discussions at the talk page. After a new editor, a subject expert matter joined the editing process (Eric Lerner User:Elerner), and after what I perceived to be a show of good faith by participating editors, I unprotected the article on November 6. Notwithstanding User:Reddi's behavior in not responding to questions by a fellow editor, as a neutral observer I am surprised this interpersonal problem between User:Joshuaschroeder and other editors has arrived to the ArbCom without exploring other avenues for dispute resolution. I received personal email from some one of the editors involved, stating that he is giving up contributing to this article (and probably others) due to the relentless involvement of User:Joshuaschroeder in the editing process. We need passionate editors that care, but sometimes too much passion may elicit the wrong type of response from editors that otherwise are quite happy to engage and collaborate in the editing process with others. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 00:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also note RfC's by User:Joshuaschroeder and User:Joke137 dated Nov 21st against two editors involved in this dispute:
Why do we need arbitration two days after a user's RfCs against User:Reddi has been posted by User:Joshuaschroeder? Let these run their course, and then seek mediation if still unsastisfied. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 03:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I escalated this to the RfA status so soon is because User:Reddi refused to engage me on the RfC (he struckthrough my comments about both that and this RfC) while continuing to edit articles. Subsequently, Reddi has been banned for Wikipedia:3RR and has continued to refuse to address me directly. He has gone as far as to change my posts on talkpages to say something completely different [21]. What evidence is there that he will engage me? He has explicitly claimed that he wouldn't. Joshuaschroeder 05:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Read Wikipedia's dispute resolution official policy and note that Arbitration is the last resort. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 06:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Informal Mediation
  2. Discuss with third parties (e.g. RfC)
  3. Mediation
  4. Requesting an advocate
  5. Last resort: Arbitration
Maybe you should read the evidence I presented that User:Reddi has out-and-out refused to talk and continues to revert and edit articles without using the talkpages. Arbitration is a last resort when there is evidence that other dispute resolution processes won't work. You haven't addressed the evidence I've laid out above. In fact, you've been fairly unresponsive to evidence I've laid out during this entire fiasco. --Joshuaschroeder 17:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your perceived unresponsiveness to your evidence on my part is based on the fact that nontwithstanding the lack of response by User:Reddi, you have (a) yet to wait to see if the RfC yields changes in attitude; (b) you can explore mediation if the RfC fails to produce such change ; and (c) you can request the assistance of an advocate. Only then, if all three dispute resolution processes fail to produce satisfactory results, you can submit the case to Arbitration. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 19:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have evidence that User:Reddi was not responsive to the RfC as he continued to edit articles in the same fashion. He then proceded to cross-out every attempt that I made to communicate with him. I already have other people trying to help me (one of whom User:Joke137 has decided to stop editting due to the interminable conflicts). This has been ongoing for some time, and it isn't the first time that User:Reddi's conduct has been pointed out to this body. There is plenty of evidence above showing why I resorted to this since informal advocacy seems to be getting us nowhere (see the work of Art Carlson and your half-hearted attempt at moderation) did not engage Reddi's reticence. Therefore The RfArb is what is left to appeal to. --Joshuaschroeder 20:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have said all I could in my statement above and in responding tou your comments.. Now it is up to the ArbCom to decide if to hear this case or not. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 21:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request to re-opening Climate change dispute

[ Moved from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute James F. (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC) ][reply]

I move to reopen this case. In my opinion, User:William M. Connolley's revert parole has been imposed more out of a perceived sense of "fairness" ("Hey, it is a bad edit conflict - let's punish all!") than any real need. It does not serve any useful purpose, but instead is used by some users (in particular User:SEWilco, who has a long history of conflict with WMC) to stalk WMC and to claim "violations" even on uncontroversial and trivial edits (e.g. Kyoto protocol). See the dicussions on the Administrators Noticeboard. Let me also point out that 6 month is a very long time nowadays - I've seen people go from newbie to admin in less than 6 month, and I have seen admins being considered for bueraucrats after 5 month as admin. As far as I can tell, few of these people have contributed nearly as much as WMC.
Yes, I know this is against procedure. Yes, I know this might make me part of the case. Let it be so. --Stephan Schulz 10:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to second this appeal to lift William M. Connolley's parole. El_C 12:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are some additional people involved, particularly those affected by the remedies and those involved in implementing and enforcing the remedies.
—(SEWilco 04:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Or, you know, they could be sane. Phil Sandifer 04:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see SEW's recent behaviour examined: he has been malicious. I would also like my parole clarified (well actually I'd like it revoked). SEW's attempt to make the process so wide as to be unmanageable is absurd, and rather typical of his behaviour. William M. Connolley 22:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]
So you'd rather attack me personally than figure out why your parole was not being enforced? The process has to be wide enough to include the people who did not enforce your parole, as for some reason my aid in enforcing the ArbComm decision is being questioned. (SEWilco 05:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

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


Regarding the 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy

Involved parties

Most prominantly User:Kevin baas, although others are involved.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

On his talk page.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
 (If not, then explain why that would be fruitless)

This dispute has been ongoing for well over a year, and is a dispute of wilful POV pushing and revert warring. Among the contributors is Kevin Baas, who narrowly escaped a previous arbcom case. The issue has appeared on the mailing list, and numerous editors have already weighed in.

Statement by Snowspinner

2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and its associated sub-articles have been drowning in original research, POV, and edit warring since their creation. So far an astonishing 50,000 words have been written on the matter, all meticulously sourced. However, the sourcing is overwhelmingly towards nonnotable and POV sources, and the articles have been tightly controlled by their creators so as to stifle any attempts at dissent, including addition of NPOV and original research tags. The result has been to keep mostrously bad work on Wikipedia that stands in violation of numerous policies. Most flagrant in this has been User:Kevin baas, who has added copyvio material to the article and persistantly refused to acknowledge the existence of an NPOV dispute, defending all sources, including things such as treating Ben Cohen, the founder of Ben and Jerry's, as a notable source on election fraud, the use of partisan blogs as a major source, and the production of original research through novel aggregation of facts. Simply put, the articles have grown unmanagably bad, and none of the tools offered to editors are making a significant effort in fixing them - I ask for the arbcom to put some rules on articles that will allow editors invested in NPOV to do the gut-editing these articles need without sparking yet another revert war. Phil Sandifer 18:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ammendment

I would think that [22], Several of [23], [24], [25] (Particularly the second), and some variation on the "cite sources" policy, although none of the listed principles apply.

Particular tactics of stonewalling and edit warring that seem to me greivously offensive are the removal of NPOV tags despite a well-stated dispute (I did not revert war this point) as with [26]. (Note that a list of every problematic citation has been on the talk page for quite a while now). Also problematic is the insistence on leaving bad information in place until it is fixed instead of removing badly sourced and POV material and reconstructing the article from there - in other words, an insistence on leaving the article in its POV and bad form until the task of creating a "perfect" article is finished. Examples of this mentality are at [27] and [28]. Further problematic is the usage of a GAO report as direct source material for the article - paragraphs were copied wholesale into the article. This is not copyvio (The GAO report is public domain), but it's still the importation of original research, and the entire thing was quoted to a Wired Magazine article instead of directly to the report.

Aggressively reverting all attempts to tag an article with a dispute tag or to remove material that is sourced to extremist blogs and ice cream moguls is a violation of policies. Since it's a dispute with quite a few editors, an article content RfC would be most appropriate, which consists of a link to the article - two VfDs on the entire block of articles and a mailing list post have clearly directed enough outside editors. As is usually the case with situations like this, the outside editors made a noble effort, got reverted, and wandered off to do other things.

That enough specific evidence of policy issues? Phil Sandifer 16:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Fred

I do not think it is primarily a content dispute - the case it most resembles is the first Lyndon LaRouche case - in fact, the central issue with the provided sources (Reliance on mutually self-referential sources from a minor and extremist point of view) is identical in both cases. But it is, to my mind, a dispute over the application of several policies - NPOV, NOR, as well as article ownership. It's certainly nothing that hasn't been dealt with by the arbcom before - see [29] [30] [31] [32] and [33] for examples of cases that have similar relationships to content. Phil Sandifer 17:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The question of the reliability of sources remains unsettled. Unreliable sources may not be used, reliable sources may be, but the location of the dividing line is uncertain. It may depend on context. Fred Bauder 19:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at [34] - at least my first post in that thread, in which I go over all 68 of the sources. Among the things being used are Green Party press releases, geocities pages, webforum threads, blog posts, and several citations to Michael Moore, all made without crediting the claims in any sort of "Michael Moore alledges" way. Phil Sandifer 20:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carbonite

The main problem with these articles (see Template:2004 U.S. presidential election controversy see also for a mostly complete list) is that they grew extremely fast and were quickly considered "owned" by a tiny group of editors. Attempts to remove even the most trivial of information are usually met with reverts and demands to justify all changes. I strongly urge the ArbCom to accept arbitration on this matter. Carbonite | Talk 19:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Recuse. Raul654 22:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. The Committee is not your mother. There is not enough substance to this. James F. (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject, without prejudice. Come back when you have a better statement of what conduct is violating what policy. Conclusive pleadings will not be accepted. May I suggest a RfC? Kelly Martin (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject, as per Kelly. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My feeling is that you are asking us to engage in a policy debate Fred Bauder 16:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept, based on lack of reliable sources Fred Bauder 03:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Wilkes, Wyss, and Onefortyone

Involved parties

I request a merge to the previous case on Onefortyone seeking an addendum stating that Wyss and Ted Wilkes lay off 141. In my personal opinion they have been harassing him, and I've seen them go out of their way to revert him. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Well, this very step has been tried by Ted Wilkes it seems. He has tried to RfAr Fred Bauder over this all. I would like to get a wiki-restraining order between Onefortyone and the two others. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 1

Please be advised that I formally protest this Arbitration proceeding and reserve all rights to the recourses available without exclusion as prescribed at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy#Scope. Take note that on 02:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC), Arbitration Committee member Kelly Martin blocked me for one week, said block expiring 21:36, 23 November 2005. The decisions by Arbitration Committee member Fred Bauder, Arbitration Committee member User:Jdforrester, Arbitration Committee member Kelly Martin, and Arbitration Committee member Mindspillage to hear this case were knowingly rendered while I was under block. This action constituted a full denial of my right to a rebuttal statement while at the same time prejudicing my position by having accepted statements from others including an inaccurate 699 word Statement by party 3, said party 3 on Wikipedia:Probation. Rendering a judgment while I was under block and unable to exercise my right to due process was discriminatory and violated a precept essential to an impartial arbitration and elemental to the principle stated in Rule # 3 of Wikipedia:Arbitration policy#Rules. In accordance with Wikipedia:Arbitration policy#Requests which states "Individual Arbitrators will provide a rationale for their vote if so moved, or if specifically requested," as my first step in this initial stage of the Arbitration Committee process I hereby exercise the right to specifically request that the four Individual Arbitrators named herein provide a rationale for their vote on the Request that denied me the right to due process. - Ted Wilkes 15:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2

The filer of this RfAr has taken no steps towards any sort of dispute resolution or mediation and contrary to the template instructions, has declined to explain why he thinks such efforts would be presumably fruitless. Meanwhile, 141 is currently on probation for abusive editing practices and tactics. I was mistaken in my initial impression that he'd been prohibited from editing celebrity articles because I misinterpreted some related edit summaries before before being contacted by Fred Bauder and reading the arbcom decision for myself. After I was contacted by Fred Bauder that single time, I never touched the articles again. Aside from Fred Bauder, nobody has ever meaningfully contacted me about my behaviour towards 141 in the past. I think it's because few really care about the inclusion of unsupported gossip in celebrity articles... it is rather boring, truth be told. Anyway I'm always open to helpful suggestions in these efforts to stabilize the articles involved.

Arbcom members are respectfully requested not to conflate past issues concerning 141 with my recent attempts to explain Ted Wilkes' long and extremely unpopular RfAr against Fred Bauder on the project talk page. Given the timing of this RfAr, I'm convinced that the filer has included me in it as backhanded punishment for my commentary concerning Ted Wilkes' above-mentioned RfAr. I have informed the filer that this is a blatant, abusive breach of WP policy and that I am deeply unhappy about it. This RfAr is not necessary since any active admin or bureaucrat can contact me on my talk page and politely ask me to desist from any given behaviour and I more than likely will.

As for User:Calton, with whom I cannot remember having had any contact in the past, readers will please note that I began using metaphors (which he cites below) only after he and others had begun directing sarcasm at me on this project's talk page. I was trying to lightheartedly diffuse that by repeating back their metaphors myself in my replies. For example, Calton was the first to use the signal-to-noise-ratio metaphor, as a reference to wordiness. Later, he posted the following note to me, which I think speaks for itself.

I write short words. You not grasp sense, but throw dirt in its place. But you ask Fred and others to grasp very long words by Ted. This make no sense. This called "double standard." You use long words wrong (like "vandalism") even when people tell you it is wrong. You call people "trolls" for when they say you are wrong. This called "bad faith."
I write short words. You not grasp sense, but throw dirt in its place. I say I will write with big letters and short words. I say I will send to you so you can grasp sense. You still not grasp sense but throw more dirt, so I make more clear now. See?
Where can I mail notes to you? I will use as many stamps as I need. --Calton | Talk 04:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia's applied sourcing methodologies are not at academic levels across the encyclopedia I will no longer be participating in this project. Wyss 16:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 3

User:Ted Wilkes falsely accused me of spamdexing and childish vandalism. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone/Evidence#Spamdexing_and_Vandalism_BY_Onefortyone.7CANON_80.141 and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone/Evidence#Reply_by_Onefortyone. Significantly, user Wyss and Ted Wilkes are frequently accusing me of being a spammer, a vandal, a liar, a troll, of fabricating texts, etc. See Talk:Nick_Adams/Archive_1#Discussion_of_sources, [35], etc. etc. Ted Wilkes has repeatedly deleted paragraphs from talk and article pages. See [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]. He deleted a new paragraph written by me on Elvis's consumption of drugs calling this paragraph a "continued diatribe" and a "mass of personal opinions, snide or derogatory allusions", though he himself had suggested this section. See [41] and [42]. He even falsely claimed to have moved content from the Talk:Elvis Presley/Homosexuality page to the Talk:Elvis Presley/Sexuality page, but the content has been totally deleted by him. See [43]. Wyss accused administrator Mel Etitis of being a troll. See [44] and [45]. Both Ted Wilkes and Wyss are denigrating all books and articles I have used for my Wikipedia contributions. They are constantly reverting my edits, which are supported by several independent, and published, sources, presumably because these sources are not in line with their personal view. For instance, they have repeatedly called reputed biographer Gavin Lambert, which was one of my sources, a gossip book writer, referring to a positive Guardian review which actually said "For bitchy, witty and perceptive high-class gossip about Hollywood, there was no better source than the critic, screenwriter, novelist and biographer Gavin Lambert." See also Talk:Gavin_Lambert#Lambert_the_insightful_chronicler_of_Hollywood. Ted Wilkes repeatedly violated the 3RR in the past and was blocked for doing so. See User_talk:Ted_Wilkes#3RR_Violation. Significantly, another user stated on the Talk:Elvis Presley page: "what I find weird is that whenever someone writes something 'bad' about Elvis ( be it drug abuse, derogatory nicknames, sexual orientation or the way he died ), somehow the 'system' prevents those things from staying there for too long." See [46]. There are similar deleting tactics by User:Wyss. See [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55]. For a discussion of Wyss's deleting tactics, see Talk:Nick_Adams/Archive_1#Discussion_of_edits. The blanket reversions continue. Recently, contributions by administrator FCYTravis were also reverted by Wyss and Ted Wilkes. See [56], [57], [58] and User_talk:Ted_Wilkes#Blanket_reversions. Onefortyone 04:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am now providing diffs that show both Wyss and Wilkes of harrassing Onefortyone after arbitration closed on 3 November 2005:

  • On 6 November, Ted Wilkes falsely claimed that I had violated probation. He says, "I removed your improper edit regarding the Memphis Mafia. Your actions here and fabrication at User talk:Fred Bauder are unacceptable. See Talk:Elvis_Presley#Violation_of_probation_by_User:Onefortyone.
  • Since 8 November, Ted Wilkes and Wyss repeatedly reverted my contributions to the Gavin Lambert article referring to the Arbitration Committee ruling. See [59], [60], [61], [62]. Wyss was even asking in his edit summary, "why hasn't this user been blocked as per the arbcom ruling?" Administrator FCYTravis reinstated most parts of my edits (see [63]), but his contributions were also repeatedly reverted by Ted Wilkes. See [64] and User_talk:Ted_Wilkes#Blanket_reversions.
  • Since 7 November, there were also numerous reverts by Ted Wilkes and Wyss of my contributions to the Nick Adams page. See [65], [66], [67]. Wyss falsely claimed in his edit summary that he was reverting "edits by user who has been banned from editing celebrity articles". See [68]. Ted Wilkes even removed the version by administrator FCYTravis. See [69], [70].
  • Since 8 November, both Ted Wilkes and Wyss were reverting my contributions to the James Dean article. See [71], [72], [73], [74]. Wilkes also reverted the version by administrator FCYTravis. See [75], [76]

Here are some diffs that show anyone attempting good faith efforts to resolve these cases of harrassment after they occurred:

On 18 November 2005, User:Wyss still accused me on his talk page of having used the rumours section of an article "as a wedge from which to seed Elvis Presley with Google-friendly keywords which would lead to tabloid books by David Brent." See [86]. Such an absurd accusation clearly shows that Wyss is not really willing to put an end to the edit war with me. Onefortyone 21:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Calton

I find Wyss' statement that he'll knock off his misapplication of Onefortyone's probation if asked by an admin to be more than a little disingenuous, considering

  • that he HAS been notified by an admin, Fred Bauder. [87]
  • that he is being notified of his misapprehension of the probation by one of the people who actually crafted it, so therefore might be expected to have first-hand knowledge of what it means.
  • that he falsely characterizes Fred Bauder's post as a threat of ArbCom, since what it actually says is I think [Onefortyone's] complaints are justified. If he took you to arbitration over this I would vote to accept the case, which is a (in my opinion accurate) characterization of Wyss's behavior and its potential consequences.

--Calton | Talk 04:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Addendum: I'll note that Wyss's addition doesn't respond to s single one of the points I raised, in addition to throwing in an out-of-context quote. He left off the preceding posts, whereby he, despite claiming that the ArbCom members are expected to plow through all 3,000 words of Ted Wilkes' request below and sift for the nuggets of meaning...

And petitioners who can't take the time to read that their statements should be 500 words in length and at least arrive in the ballpark of that should be rejected out of hand. If there's a complaint, phrase it coherently - don't expect the arbcom to be psychic. Phil Sandifer 00:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure psychic powers are part of the required skill set for reading, but maybe Ted Wilkes can edit it down when he has a chance. Wyss 00:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...he then, in groundlessly questioning my qualification to comment (...have you familiarized yourself with the background on this or are you only guessing?), he professes to not understand my simple 92-word answer (Could you please be more specific about the background materials you've checked into? Your own signal-to-noise ratio got rather high in that last post) AND its bullet-pointed follow-up.

In other words, he's being disingenuous and evasive, and it appears to be his normal operating mode. He certainly lacks any standing to complain about sarcasm, given his liberal use of it. --Calton | Talk 06:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:FuelWagon re wyss wilkes and onefortyone

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone closed on 3 November 2005. Please provide diffs that show both Wyss and Wilkes of "harrassing" onefortyone after arbitration closed. (A brief look at the statement by onefortyone shows that most diffs of alleged bad behaviour occur in September or October.) Then please provide diffs that show anyone attempting good faith efforts to resolve these alleged cases of harrassment after they occurred. No, a request for arbitration by Wyss or Wilkes against Fred Bauder does not satisfy either an example of harrassment against onefortyone or an attempt to resolve said harrassment.

Furthermore, FredBauder is far too involved with these editors to accept or reject this request for arbitration against Wyss and Wilkes. Fred should have recused himself from Wilkes's RFA against him, and he should clearly recuse himself from this one. That he accepted this RFA against Wilkes and Wyss without a single diff showing either editor actually harassing onefortyone or a single diff showing anyone actually trying to resolve the alleged behaviour is telling.

This whole thing has gotten out of hand, to the point that numerous editors have gotten emotionally involved. And I mean "numerous". And I don't mean "everyone you percieve to be the enemy here". Given a complete lack of evidence of misbehaviour, a complete lack evidence of any real attempt to resolve the alleged misbehaviour, and the acceptance by a member of arbcom who has a clear conflict of interest, I call a time out and a cooling off period. Everyone gets to go to their respective corners and chill out for a while. Because this is looking far more like someone is getting railroaded than any sort of legitimate attempt to resolve a real dispute. FuelWagon 06:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(update) user onefortyone has provided some diffs that have occurred since the arbcom case has closed. All the dates for the diffs occur in November, so I'm just going to provide the diffs with just the date of the month in them. This is what it looks like when laid out sequentially.

evidence of disputed behaviour: 88899910101012121213

attempts to resove dispute: 11 1113131313131313131313 16

So, pretty much all the diffs of disputed behaviour occurred before anyone attempted to resolve the dispute. The two attempts to resolve on the 11th [88] [89] were both by the same person, JackofOz, which doesn't meet the RfC requrement and they're fairly indirect attempts. Assuming you count those attempts, you're looking at a total of four diffs of alleged harrassment that occurred on or after the 11th 12121213. I don't know how much of a stickler arbcom is, but four edits doesn't seem to warrant their attention. The serious attempts to resolve the dispute seem to have occurred on teh 13th, when Kelly Martin weighs in and clarifies an arbcom ruling 13 (Wyss or Wilkes or both cited the arbcom ruling in some of their edits that are cited as alleged harrassment. I don't know what the ruling was, but it would seem that whatever Kelly told them, plus multiple attempts to resolve the issue, cleared things up and resolved whatever problem existed). There are no diffs of alleged harrassment provided that occur after the 13th. Personally, I would declare that the attempts to resolve the dispute on the 13th, did in fact, resolve the dispute. Can we move on now? FuelWagon 22:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

EffK, formerly known as Famekeeper

Involved parties

This editor has been engaging in an extended effort to use Wikipedia to present a theory of Roman Catholic Church complicity in and active support of Adolf Hitler. This effort has involved personal attacks on other editors, accusations of bad faith (including that other editors are acting as agents of the Vatican), and using article talk pages as a soapbox.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Defendant's response shows that he is aware of the request. Robert McClenon 12:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

A user conduct Request for Comments was posted in July 2005. The link has been deleted from the user conduct RfC page, but the RfC itself is available at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Famekeeper. The RfC summarizes the previous steps that were taken prior to posting the RfC.

Statement by party 1

The RfC contains a summary of the conduct in question.

Also see the following diff of a frivolous request by the editor in question to ban another editor: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=27989592&oldid=27748413

Statement by party 2

Concurrent to this RfA I posted [[90]] my sole disputant,[[91]],[92]][[93]], [[94]],[[95]] .[[96]] ,[[97]],[[98]] ,[[99]],[[100]] ,[[101]] ,User:Str1977 ,[[102]] - [[103]],[[104]],[[105]], and to Robert Mcclenon ( talk )(false mediator [[106]] ,[[107]],[[108]] , [[109]] ,[[110]] ,[[111]] , [[112]]. See :[[113]] , updated talk at [[114]]

McClenon does not understand ,[[115]],[[116]][[117]],[[118]], [[119]],[[120]],[[121]][[122]],[[123]][[124]],[[125]],[[126]][[127]], [[128]] the sources [[129]] of my bulk contributions [[130]][[131]],[[132]],[[133]],[[134]],http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Weimar_Republic&action=edit&section=2,[[135]], and WP corrections , [[136]] ,[[137]][[138]], [[139]] , nor my real disputant : [[140]][[141]],[[142]] ,[[143]][[144]]([[145]] ,, McC thinks or pretends that I represent a vandalous attacker upon the church, when I bring only published source [[146]],[[147]]

I have never wanted to give an email to WP , and so cookie-loss means I changed name variations.

As to Str1977 , pages Reichskonkordat, Weimar Republic and Centre Party Germany for today 17 November 2005 , will show that an anon & Str1977 , after a 3/4 year edit-war cf: [[148]] ,[[149]], has accepted the gist of my sources [[150]] ,and NPOV [[151]]. I believe that WP has finally/or never enabled me to correct the Str1977 ,and , after irksome discourse (filibustering to McClenon) I repaired some serious fault in WP .

Str1977 by present allowance of my edits which he consistently removed (in provocative manner [[152]] ,[[153]] ,[[154]],[[155]], [[156]]) over 12 months , the same day that Mcclenon starts this RfA , proves the RfA a form of ad hominem ,illustrating the WP faith problem[[157]] better than my supposed crime.

This is McClenon's second case against me (RfC) & I signed , a day late an RfC against him as lying bully . I take no pleasure here [[158]],[[159]] , nor enjoy intellectual provocation and denial of source by means solely of the two users' interpretation [[160]] .

I believe this RfA is last ditch attempt to remove the accusations made by the world [[161]] at large [[162]], [[163]] , [[164]] from Wikipedia , following from my demands that [[165]] ,the opposition ( my good friend nevertheless [[166]], [[167]], Str1977 ]] put up or shut up . The new allowance of my edits to remain within the above articles , is the result.

My blocker ,[[168]],[[169]],[[170]],[[171]]/[[172]][[173]],[[174]],[[175]] has always been Str1977, who hopefully has stopped the denialism [[176]][[177]] [[178]] . I was suggested by Jimbo to leave , I did for 2 months, WP deteriorated as I proved and I came back because three users , one Str1977 started posting "FK research" , my location by country , and shared accusatory condemnation of me in WP, calling me a paranoid schizophrenic conspiracy theorist with writing disability [[179]].

All these users should be admonished .

This [[180]] [[181]] , thorniest historical issue is defended here by actual 'denialism [[182]][[183]],[[184]], [[185]] ,[[186]] , of source [[187]][[188]],[[189]] something [[190]][[191]] reflected in greater cyberspace [[192]] . I openly claimed recently there is not one political error I have made so far[[193]] . I unknowingly concurrently of this RfA sought an apology from McClenon and congratulated Str1977 on final good sense in accepting my NPOV [[194]],[[195]]. Links may follow. EffK 01:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Caveat

At the moment let me just note

  • that EffK's statement about our agreement are wrong. Some things he has posted I have never disputed, while other things I continue to dispute. To say we have reached an agreement or that I have accepted the gist is untrue, unless he has suddenly withdrawn his theories. Hence I place doubt upon the congratulations.
  • that EffK is far from having made no error (I don't know what "political" means here
  • that I was not EffK/Famekeeper's sole disputant, though the main one. Other editor, e.g. John Kenney were involved with him as well.
  • that I meant no harm in posting "FK Research" - it was basically a reaction to his inquisitiveness about personal details of other editors (Robert McClenon in particular), his own seclusiveness in that matter and his insistence on being a native speaker.

I don't know whether this is the right place to post this. If it isn't, please drop me a line and show where I should place this. Str1977 10:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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


Requests for Clarification

Instantnood

This is still not closed, but I'm wanting the ArbComs input on course of action. It's been my assertion that Instantnood is a POV warrior for Hong Kong independence. It's mostly the ArbComs deference to not rule on content. In the current case, Fred Bauder initially proposed a fact that Instantnood's edits sometimes questioned the soveriegnty of the People's Republic of China over Hong Kong - then he removed himself from that same fact. In our latest fracas, List of road-rail bridges, I have placed Hong Kong as a subsection of China. Instantnood reverts it, wanting Hong Kong to appear as an independent country. The last two edit summaries make it clear:

Me: (rv instantnoods insistence on Hong Kong as an independent country is POV.) [196]
'Nood: (a section ≠ it is an independent sovereign state) [197]

What's that say about Hong Kong? it is an independent sovereign state

Now, judging stricly by behavior, I may be seen as edit warring as much as 'Nood. Fine, and I'll take my lumps of being on probation with him. Clearly though, something must be done about his POV editing about Hong Kong. Some statement must be made that Hong Kong is not an independent country and it is appropriately listed as part of China, the country to which it belongs. SchmuckyTheCat 16:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I said in the edit summary "a section ≠ it is an independent sovereign state". The fact is that Hong Kong and Macao are not and have never been independent sovereign states. Nobody involved in the dispute has ever advocated their independence or secession. What is disputed and debatable is how to acknowledge their special status. I believe with several months of exchanges SchmuckyTheCat is pretty familiar with what is disputed and my position. I'd like to invite members of the ArbCom to take his deliberate inaccurate presentation of information and misinterpretation of my position into consideration. Thank you. — Instantnood 17:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zen-master race and intelligence ban clarification/justification question

The admin Ryan Delaney has banned me (I am on probation) from the race and intelligence article for adding the {npov} template to a highly and fundamentally disputed article (and area of research). A quick look at the talk page will show the article and area of research have been accused (with citations) of unscientific and racism inducing methodologies. It also has as its foundation IQ testing which is itself highly disputed on numerous points.

Another admin has already poitned out to Ryan that (from Wikipedia:Probation) "A ban may be imposed only for good cause which shall be documented in a section set aside for that purpose in the arbitration case. Banning without good cause or in bad faith shall be grounds for censure, restriction, or removal of administrative access". The only explanation Ryan offered was in a check in summary which labeled my action as a "disruption", I challenge Ryan or anyone to show exactly how adding an {npov} template to an article that is (fundamentally) disputed in good faith is a "disruption"? For recent discussion of this see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zen-master#Impositions_of_a_ban_under_the_probation_remedy. There seems to be a highly coordinated effort to censor, mischaracterize or lessen fundamental criticisms of "race" and "intelligence" "research". zen master T 18:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have a history of disruptively adding permanent {npov} templates to articles until you get your way. This is part of a pattern. Jayjg (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A quick look at the talk page will show other editors agree with me that the race and intelligence article is fundamentally disputed. Please assume good faith and investigate this issue. The criteria here is not about me getting my "way", the issue is Ryan Delaney and other admins repeatedly trying to deny the existence of criticisms of what appears to be a racism inducing article, aren't you at all concerned about that possibility? How can adding {npov} be "disruptive" if an in good faith dispute exists? zen master T 19:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While there are legitimate issues with respect to the framing of the issues, your way of struggling regarding the framing of issues has been found to be disruptive, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zen-master#Disruptive_edits. Fred Bauder 20:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maoririder and the current Motion to Close

I looked on the /Proposed Decision page for Maoririder, and it seems odd to me that there is a MtC when there is currently nothing (only templates) in the "Proposed remedies" and "Proposed enforcement" sections. Can someone explain this?

It started that way but now Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Maoririder/Proposed_decision#Mentorship has been added. Fred Bauder 20:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=29140203"