Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:36, 3 November 2009

Request name	Initiated	Votes
Skipsievert	3 November 2009	{{{votes}}}
Rcool35	1 November 2009	{{{votes}}}
Silent Films and Wildhartlivie	31 October 2009	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	10 Oct 2024	24 Oct 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: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	17 August 2024
Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy, et al	none	(orig. case)	7 November 2024
Clarification request: Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee	none	none	7 November 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

Skipsievert

Initiated by The Four Deuces (talk) at 19:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

The Four Deuces (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Lawrencekhoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Cretog8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
CRGreathouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Dmcq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Fifelfoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
John Quiggin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Morphh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Protonk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Skipsievert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
SlamDiego (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Vision Thing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Johnfos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Xavexgoem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Geronimo20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Rd232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
ImperfectlyInformed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Carolmooredc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Bali ultimate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sunray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Llywrch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Datheisen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Travelplanner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Beagel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Bwilkins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

WP:ANI#Attacks at AfD
WP:WQA#User:Skipsievert_talk_page_postings
WP:Requests for mediation/WikiProject Economics Guidelines
WP:Requests for comment/Skipsievert
ANI Archive571: [1]
ANI Archive523: [2]
ANI Archive467: [3]
ANI Archive264 [4]
ANI Archive261: [5]
ANI Archive256: [6]

Statement by The Four Deuces

Skipsievert has come into conflict with other editors on articles relating to Economics and Technocracy. Technocracy is a movement that combines political theory, economics and philosophy and has organizations that support it. Editors have complained that Skipseivert edits Economics articles to give undue weight to Technocracy and edits Technocracy articles to insert a POV, and that his comments directed against other editors are inappropriate. Skipsievert has said that his edits are NPOV and accuses other editors of "tandem editing". RfC, RfM, ANI and WQA have all been attempted to resolve conflict but have been unsuccessful. Skipseivert is currently under discussion at both ANI and WQA. I am notifying all editors who participated in the current ANI and WQA and the recent RfM.

Statement by Protonk

Larger statement to follow. I think the list of parties can be trimmed a bit, but since there are more than one topic areas it will necessarily always be large. I reluctantly urge the committee to accept this case. Whether you accept it as a traditional "arbitration" where a finding is imposed on an unwilling party or as a broader conduct issue is up to you. Fodder exists for both approaches. Protonk (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by llywrch

I agree with Protonk: this list of involved parties can be trimmed. My involvement in this matter is limited to being little more than a spectator: I offered my opinion & a gentle nudge, but have had no other relevant interaction with Skip Sievert or articles related to economics. AFAIK, the same could be said about Bali ultimate, whose relationship has been limited to posting to the WP:AN/I thread. All of that being said, based the visible frustration I've seen about this matter I recommend the ArbCom to take up this case in order to bring it to a speedy resolution.

Statement by Bali ultimate

Don't really see myself as a party to this - I just made a few comments in the latest AN/I thread on skip to the effect that i'm convinced that restrictions for Skip appear long past due (based on a 15 minute look at his behavior and his method of engaging content disputes). It's my opinion that he's a net negative to the project at the moment (whatever my opinion is worth). But I'm not involved in editing in the area that led to the dispute at all, and so have nothing more to offer here.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CRGreathouse

I don't feel that I have wronged or been wronged by skip seivert. (Looking through his Talk page and my history, most of our interactions seemed positive or at least not particularly bad.) There does seem to be a need for an outside party or parties to address the issue, though; bad blood seems to run deep. CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Datheisen

I've been little more than an observer as well, but given how saddening the entire situation is and I'm incredibly frustrated that it won't go away I don't at all mind a statement. At no point have I contributed to nor edited nor reverted a single thing on any of the pages where these conflicts seem refined to. I have no interest in the knowledge contained in them, and don't care what direction the articles take. Also, at no point have I socialized with any of the other parties listed. The first time I ran into Skipsievert was here[7], in an AfD where I came in and asked a pretty basic question. The end result was my being bitten to death, even though (ironically) I didn't side against Skipsievert in the AfD outcome. I saw some odd thigns on the talk page of another user in that discussion[8][9] and then realized I had no place deciding what solicitation/canvassing was. That ended in one of the ANIs here[10] where I very literally apologized for stepping in and commenting, but I had evidence I wanted to submit. I then walked away. Since then I've read a lot, and I question words spoken and actions taken by both "sides" in the past few weeks. My comments are always regarding a piece of evidence or a diff, and/or tying things into a guideline/policy. I can't imagine much in my posting history that would say otherwise. Since I have no idea how long these statements are supposed to be, I'll stop now versus go on for several hours. This needs to be addressed and no other venue has come up with anything, for the sake of all the passion and efforts of all contributors and tens of hours of research strange third-party observers such as myself have spent on these cases in a desperate attempt to try to help. After feeling like a gnome running around blowing a whistle trying to get people to calm down I'll do whatever I can do to help see it done. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SlamDiego

Given the statement by The Four Deuces (the filing party) of the nature of this dispute to be Arbitrated, I am not sure that I should be listed as an involved party. I have done little or no editing of the two articles that he mentions, and have not much observed the behavior of Skipsievert in editing any articles. My involvement with the dispute is indirect, as it has spilled onto efforts by some parties to add guidelines at WikiProject Economics, which efforts have often been de facto attempts to extend or otherwise to rewrite actual Wikipedia policy. —21:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by {next party}

Clerk notes

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

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

Rcool35

Initiated by Taylor Karras (talk) at 18:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Taylor Karras (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Explicit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
JpGrB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Taylor Karras

The first time I encountered him was on the Roc-A-Fella Records article where he was changing details, I thought it was someone harmless but this is where the bad part comes in, he keeps adding [11] and citing websites which have a questionable amount of notability. Primarily he has vandalized the article Nas and his albums. He has also been found to bump the album's rating by .5 and has also directly copied text from copyrighted sources. When he was banned, he created sockpuppets to evade his ban and he is now using his dynamic IP to evade his ban and also make him unbannable (since the IP's are numerous) The user's attitude is even worse. In my attempts of resolution, he kept bragging on about how he's a man and has pecks and how I'm just a guy in a mother's basement (I'm not). Even when I provided him links to Wikipedia policies and ways he can get himself unbanned, he just replied with a smirky remark. While he has promise, he is uncivil and ignorant and he is not fit to be a Wikipedian unless he changes his ways.

Statement by Explicit

Statement by JpGrB

Clerk notes

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

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

Decline. I understand the filing party's level of exasperation with this user's misbehavior and sockpuppetry. However, as the statement correctly notes, Rcool35 was blocked indefinitely a few months ago, and for the reasons stated above, is unlikely to be unblocked anytime soon. Because the user is blocked indefinitely, any new accounts or IPs that he uses should also be blocked, especially if they continue engaging in the same misconduct that led to his being blocked in the first place. Because there doesn't appear to be any dispute that Rcool35 is unwelcome on Wikipedia and will stay blocked, I don't see what further meaningful action the Arbitration Committee could take, and therefore I don't think that there is an actual dispute for us to arbitrate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. While I agree with your stance, none of the community has taken any action on him. I've made multiple requests on WP:ANI all of them ending with that he cannot be blocked, I've even posted his IP on WP:AIV and it went by unnoticed. While I have most of the pages he vandalizes on my watchlist, his IP changes daily and I don't have time to place every single IP he uses on WP:AIV. I'm just wondering if Wikipedia will do something about this. Taylor Karras (talk) 01:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - What do you suggest we should do? If any checkusers with rangeblock expertise are reading here, please feel free to take a look into this situation and see if we can implement that without too much collateral damage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have drawn this discussion to the attention of one of the checkusers and asked him/her to review the information in this request to determine if preventative action may be appropriate. Risker (talk) 03:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

99.147.216.0/22 and 76.197.240.0/20 can be anon blocked without too much collateral. Those ranges should take cover the majority of the IPs the user has access to on their home connection. Brandon (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So can it be done as soon as possible? Taylor Karras (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline - Concur with Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline Wizardman 00:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Films and Wildhartlivie

Initiated by Maggiedane (talk) at 14:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

maggiedane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
User-multi error: "Wildhartlivie" is not a valid project or language code (help).

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Diff. 1
Diff. 2

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

There have been a few but I no longer have the links

Statement by Maggiedane

I have had it up to hear with user Wildhartlivie. It is a bully and seems to use policies at whim to its tastes. It has added two sites I work with forgetthetalkies.com and rudolphvalentino.org to a spam list and I am unsure how to undo this, Im not good with Wikipedia issues. I am particularly writing about rudolphvalentino.org which is not just MY site, but a site I do a lot with, others are involved. If the Louise Brooks Society or Buster Keaton Society should be allowed to link on wikipedia why not us? This is a relevant topic as they are in charge of The Film Festival in his name which is taking place at The Egyptian in Hollywood this May.

But its not just my sites this user is after. Sites they used to leave on silent film related articles (including goldensilents.com and silentladies/gents) they've begun to delete. These are not self publish/edit sites like they allege. Most of these (including the ones I am involved with) are done by people very knowledgeable and respected on the topic at hand. For example I tried to link to articles by Vilma Banky's biographer and Karl Dane's biographer on the rudolphvalentino.org and Livie ruled that as 'spam'. These are by published biographers who are not myself! Wikipedia is the real loser as these sites contain valuable info relevant to the articles found no where else. To boot Livie has had it so out for me that it has gone on reverting my edits immediately, even when using SOURCED book references complete with page numbers (this happened numerous times on the Hollywood Babylon article with which we've fought over many times and I was finally able to prove my case through other sources.) Thats the first one that comes to mind, but they've done it several other times as well. If you look at its edits you'll see a revert with even other members asking 'why did you do that?' It has never given an answer.

I would like to see a fair ruling, which Im skeptical about as I've found most people like to apply policies to their own tastes, and not by the set rules (such as being able to include links relevant to the topic but not able to put in the article).

Statement by Wildhartlivie

First of all, this is the second filing by this editor within a 12 hour period - Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rudolph Valentino was rejected by MedCab because no other steps in the dispute resolution process has been attempted, and this is the second request that the editor has failed to inform me about. There has been no third opinion sought, although others have also supported problems with the sites. There has been no request for comments sought, nor has there been an accepted request for informal mediation. This is premature and unwarranted. And for the record, I do not appreciate being referred to as "it" or "they". Nor do I appreciate personal attacks such as this one posted at Talk:Rudolph Valentino in which maggiedane declared that "Wildhartlivie needs to be done away with. I am not done fighting this as it is just sickening. You have a real problem dear." Yes, my problem is that I am weary of constantly having to remove her blog from articles. Forgetthetalkies.com is blatantly a blog.

Secondly, this is solely about sites that violate WP:EL. forgetthetalkies.com is a blog site operated by Maggiedane, who has also edited on Wikipedia under the username thegingerone, which is still registered and last used in July for editing. It was taken to WP:NOR/N and the response was that her self-published blog was considered original research and therefore inappropriate. It was taken to WP:RS/N here where the response was that the site does not meet WP:RS criteria. It violates WP:ELNO, #11: Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies). To my knowledge, and at no time have I read anything to the contrary, maggiedane is not a recognized authority on the topic of silent films or anything related to them.

Thirdly, whether rudolphvalentino.org is operated solely by maggiedane or a group of people, there is still no evidence that the site meets criteria for WP:RS or for WP:EL that is any different from forgetthetalkies.com. It is still a privately published fansite by definition. That I also removed other sites that meet this same criteria for removal is beside the point, unless this person is involved as well with their operation. I removed the Louise Brooks Society based on the same rationale. (Late addition: That both website domains are registered and owned by the same person can be verified if necessary, but I won't post those links openly as they appear to give not only the name of the same owner, but the mailing address as well. I'd be happy to provide these links to an ArbCom or oversight member for verification Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC) for date and signature of late addition).[reply]

Fourthly, maggiedane has repeatedly used her own website to source articles contrary to WP:RS policy. Thus the links were removed per policy. If she is linking to copies of articles written by others and posted to her site, that brings up copyright issues, if those posts are copyrighted elsewhere.

Because this editor wants these websites used on Wikipedia does not mean they meet policy or guidelines for use. They do not meet criteria for use per WP:RS nor do they meet criteria for external links per WP:EL. Because this editor has steadfastly re-added these links despite having been told they don't meet criteria is an issue, but not one for ArbCom unless ArbCom sees an issue with using multiple accounts and ignoring decisions reached at the relevant noticeboards regarding their appropriateness for use. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Party 3}

Clerk notes

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

Maggiedane, could you provide some confirmation that Wildhartlivie is aware of this request? Thank you. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a courtesy I have now notified Wildhartlivie of this case request. I also advised Maggiedane to try and adhere to proper procedure in future. Manning (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/0/0)

Comment Awaiting more statements. But at first glance this request seems premature and likely earlier steps in dispute resolution will address the matter. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Decline. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 15:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline, even Medcom, which comes before us, said this was premature. Wizardman 02:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline, per Wiz — Rlevse • Talk • 03:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline as premature. If there is a pattern of problems, then that can be laid out at a request for comments on user conduct. But first you will have to convince at least one other person that there is a problem here. From what I can see here, the request for comment should be made on Maggiedane and her edits, but that needs actual further discussion by the community of editors on these articles, and then the wider community if needed. Carcharoth (talk) 14:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline - Premature, as there doesn't seem to have been a solid attempt at finding resolution short of arbitration. Perhaps someone could assist Maggiedane in identifying better where to take this; for example, spam blacklist discussions to the spam blacklist, etc. Risker (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline at this time per other arbitrators' comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]