Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:28, 10 June 2015

Requests for arbitration

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Technical 13		25 May 2015	{{{votes}}}
Greco-Turk Middle East Dispute		10 June 2015	{{{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)

Case name	Closed
Historical elections	13 Sep 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	17 August 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Technical 13

Initiated by PHANTOMTECH (talk) at 00:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

PhantomTech (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Technical 13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Technical 13

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by PhantomTech

Technical 13 has a history of permission removals and temporary blocks resulting from problematic behavior. Continued problematic behavior indicates that past remedies have not been effective and that more severe remedies are required. The most recent AN/I thread resulted in no action with almost all who opposed claiming that the problems brought up were not serious or that T13's work makes up for the problems, these users made up about half of those who responded while the other half encouraged the situation to be looked into but did not seem to want to get too involved. This lack of a willingness to get involved that many editors, for whatever reason, seem to have is why I think the arbitration committee should get involved in this investigation of T13's behavior. Some example of past behavior include inappropriate attempts to sway the opinions of editors [1] [2] and failure to admit fault or change behavior pointed out to him [3]. Pointing out problems to T13 seems to be useless as several instances, that I'm aware of, of problematic behavior have occurred in the 3 weeks since the most recent AN/I thread was posted:

A personal attack against editors, calling them "project dictators"
Here T13 claims to have had no knowledge of the job queue issues while making the contested changes but that he should not revert those changes because he is now aware of the job queue issues and here he proves that he knew about the issue before making the contested changes changes to that template
Here T13 violates canvassing policy by modifying his script to notify its users of a discussion where they would have a bias.
Here, in part of a longer interaction with a specific IP filled with more WP:IPHUMAN issues, T13 claims he cannot start a discussion on an IPs talk page unless they register an account
In another breach of canvassing policy and a disruption to recent changes patrol, T13 began sending out what would have been well over a thousand posts to notify people of a discussion on a humor page until eventually stopping after a talk page message, only to claim he did nothing wrong while quoting the exact part of the policy he violated
In another reply to the above, he claims that the hudreds of messages he sent were not "too many", wikilawyers saying that he is not a bot which is technically true but at 20+ edits per minute with AWB is effectively no different and, finally, in what appears to be pointy behavior, he implies that what he did was better than an RfC since any notices from an RfC would have been posted by a bot

PHANTOMTECH (talk) 00:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request to ArbCom

Considering T13 planned to be here on Monday, can more information be provided as to why he is unable to comment? Also curious as to how the case will be affected. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 03:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note the date and type of deletion [4] PHANTOMTECH (talk) 06:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Euryalus

@Euryalus: Very few who opposed brought up the age of evidence. With a quick look back at the "Recent issues" section numbers 1 and 3 are the only issues I can find that are more than a few days before the posting date, April 30th, with the oldest of all the "recent issues" points being less than a month old. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 00:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Technical 13

Statement by Rschen7754

If this case is accepted, I plan to provide crosswiki evidence with the intent of allowing for "The Committee [to] take notice of conduct outside its jurisdiction when making decisions about conduct on the English Wikipedia if such outside conduct impacts or has the potential to impact adversely upon the English Wikipedia or its editors," such as applying for a global right to be able to edit all protected and interface pages (including on this wiki) after losing the templateeditor right on this wiki. [5] --Rs chen 7754 04:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I handed in my Meta admin flag with my steward flag, but I have been told by a Meta admin that there was no onwiki request for deletion of m:User:Technical 13, ~~meaning that the request must have been over IRC or email (or some other offwiki medium). That being said: I find it interesting that Technical 13 has requested deletion of their Meta userpage, as~~ their activity on Meta relates to the evidence I plan to present. --Rs chen 7754 01:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also noting the past ArbCom filing by Technical 13: [6] In that filing, they again claimed to be busy in outside life. --Rs chen 7754 02:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: I remember something about that restoration of rights, but would have to do some research to remember what exactly, unfortunately. --Rs chen 7754 02:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Technical 13's userpage was undeleted by the same admin with the following summary: [7] While this raises some obvious questions, they are not within the scope of this case. --Rs chen 7754 04:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DeltaQuad: I assume that others can present the evidence on the English Wikipedia better than I can, so I probably won't touch that. My evidence would probably relate to 1) applying for a global right on Meta to be able to have the same abilities to edit protected and interface pages on the English Wikipedia that admins do (even when their template editor permissions were removed, thus ignoring the principle of community trust/evading our local policies), and 2) providing additional diffs from other WMF sites to give additional perspective as to their attitude/manner of collaboration locally. --Rs chen 7754 16:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by L235

There was previously a pseudo-clerking section here; Callanecc's now done all the needed. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I'm already breaching my enforced Wikibreak by using my alternate account. Anyways:

Having read through every ANI referenced by PhantomTech and other evidence provided, I believe that the Committee should accept this case to look into what appear to be very longstanding conduct issues, unresolvable in other venues.
I agree with the points made by Floq and Iridescent. I consider myself to have a working relationship with T13- that is, we sometimes help each other to some degree on IRC about technical issues, etc.- and I agree with the characterization of him as a "mixed blessing". At times, he can be extremely stubborn and unwilling to compromise or change.
Also, in response to Euryalus's point, I don't think PhantomTech could have opened another ANI without reasonable fear of accusations of forum-shopping.

Thanks, --L235 (alt / t / c / ping in reply) 03:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Euryalus: I agree with you completely in that PhantomTech would not be forum shopping, but I'm sure you know that, unfortunately, you have to be really careful when bringing established users before ANI, especially when you're much less experienced on Wikipedia, and I personally couldn't fault PhantomTech for coming to ArbCom in the circumstances. Unfortunately, (without assuming bad faith on the part of any specific editor- I have the highest respect for T13) meatball:VestedContributors are a thing. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 17:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to suggest that the Committee accept the case but not open it until T13 gets back, since there's no time pressure here. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 17:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kharkiv07

Technical 13 also constantly marks semi-protected edit request as " Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format." or " Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template." where he puts very little to no attention to look at the requests; many of his responses are preventing users trying to be productive from editing semi-protected articles.

All of his responses: [8]
Examples of marking clear requests as not clear: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]
Requests that clearly don't require consensus being marked as "no-consensus": [14], [15]
Marking "having sufficient rights" when user did not: [16]

Kharkiv07 (T) 19:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheMesquito

The Committee should hear this request due to the fact that anytime T13 behavior is called into question, nothing is done due to the excuse "he does good work" and then he continues to violate policy because he knows he can without punishment. Just because a user does "great work" does not excuse the fact that they are not following policy. TheMesquito^buzz 15:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@B: I disagree with your first point, as that was a most definitely a personal attack on the editors of AFC, it was not .snarky, it was rude and was uncalled for, and was done out of spite since T13 was told he should stay away from AFC. Your second point is valid, I did not see the problem there, and as for the Canvassing accusations, it was most certainly canvassing as the policy states "Do not send messages to to many users" and the mere fact that T13 is being so standoffish about it is worrying. TheMesquito^buzz 02:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Spartaz

If I may, this feels very similar to the problems we had with Betacommand - another user with good intentions, strong technical skills and a hopeless way of responding to feedback. We all know how badly that ended. While I note that T13 isn't editing right now the committee needs to get a grip on the situation to save us all from the disruptive potential time sink this could become. How we deal with it I don't know but I'm sure leaving this to fester isn't the answer. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with NYB. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Robert McClenon

I am not making a statement as to whether the ArbCom should accept this case at this time. I will comment only on details. First, the statement that User:Technical 13 is taking a short Wikibreak is incorrect. That statement has been on his en.wiki page since at least 29 January 2015. Second, his Meta user page was deleted at his request on 26 May 2015. His en.wiki page is still up, with the incorrect Wikibreak banner. Third, he hasn't edited since the ArbCom notice was posted on 25 May (so maybe the banner is now correct after all). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask the ArbCom not to decline this case only because the subject has not made a statement. As other editors have noted, it is too common for controversial editors to take long Wiki-breaks when their conduct is questioned. Any arbitrators who think that a case is not justified at this time may decline for that reason. A Request for Arbitration can be kept open for a long time or suspended. I ask any arbitrators who want to hear from the subject first to leave this request open (or suspended) rather than declining it due to the lack of a statement. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Floq

I've always considered T13 a mixed blessing; sometimes useful, sometimes mistake-prone, sometimes flexible, more often inflexible, always a little over-enthusiastic and over-confident in his infallibility. I would normally be ambivalent about a case and not post here, especially since now it means the clerks are going to notify me about the progress of a case 4-5 times. But I am sick to death of people suddenly "not being able to comment for a couple weeks" the second something serious happens. This may not be the best acceptance rationale, but I'd suggest accepting the case pour encourager les autres not to tell this fable when a case is looming/in progress. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iridescent

What Floq says. While I haven't been monitoring him since then, from all I see little seems to have changed since I declined an unblock request from T13 two years ago. While I don't have any reason to doubt his good faith or desire to help, this seems to be another Betacommand, Mattisse or Merridew who is so convinced that he's an overwhelming force for good that he genuinely believes any criticism of his actions to be itself disruptive. I also endorse Floq's "pour encourager les autres" point unless T13 has provided a very convincing reason for his absence; my patience towards those who contract "ANI Flu" whenever their actions are challenged is not high, particularly given that the last few iterations of Arbcom quite often let people get away with the "been gone for a month and now the complaint is stale so we're not going to take any action" stunt whilst dishing out harsh penalties to participants who had the integrity to turn up and try to explain their actions. – iridescent 19:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newyorkbrad

Floquenbeam and Iridescent both make good points. I think they should both run for ArbCom. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by B

I don't hugely care one way or the other, but just from reading the diffs in the original request, I disagree with four of PhantomTech's characterizations:

A personal attack against editors, calling them "project dictators" - that's hardly a personal attack - it's at most mildly snarky.
Here T13 claims to have had no knowledge of the job queue issues while making the contested changes but that he should not revert those changes because he is now aware of the job queue issues and here he proves that he knew about the issue before making the contested changes changes to that template - actually, from reading this, I believe the changes he is referring to are the ones he made on the 6th and 7th - before his ANI post. He said, "I wasn't aware of the job queue issues until after the changes made here" (emphasis mine).
Here T13 violates canvassing policy by modifying his script to notify its users of a discussion where they would have a bias. - I'm not clear on what the problem here is - he is inviting people who use a script to join a discussion about improving the script? Am I missing the problem?
Here, in part of a longer interaction with a specific IP filled with more WP:IPHUMAN issues, T13 claims he cannot start a discussion on an IPs talk page unless they register an account - this is taking what he says out of context - he neither says nor implies that it is not possible to communicate with an IP user, rather, he says that he prefers not to have discussions on IP talk pages because they get fragmented when the IP changes. He is not at all unwilling to talk to the person and specifically invites the person to continue the conversation on T13's talk page. Your claim of what he said is patently unrelated to what he actually said.

(As to the other two, concerning the notifications about the discussion of the Wikipediaholism test, regardless of whether it technically (no pun intended) violates a policy, it is at least a bad idea to do such a pointless exercise. I don't think it was a canvassing violation since he didn't pick and choose which side ... and he marked the edits as minor to minimize the RC disruption ... but whatever it is, it's a pointless waste of time.)

I'm not sure there is anything here for arbcom to arbitrate. A simple "please don't do it again" should suffice on the notifications and the rest of it ranges from extremely minor to patent mischaracterizations of what he said. --B (talk) 02:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OccultZone

@Rschen7754: In the wake of this decline, after 10 hours, T13's template right was restored.[17] What do you think? There was no discussion before restoring the right. I was also involved in the extended discussion from July 2014,[18] I wonder if the right had to be restored without significant discussion, since there were problems with closing template edit requests.[19]

I also remember that Technical 13 had made reasonable amount of protest on ARC,[20] AN,[21] concerning the events that led to the removal of template-editor user right. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kurtis

I have no strong opinion either way. If an ArbCom case is what it takes to settle things, then so be it.

@Newyorkbrad: Touché. Kurtis ^(talk) 15:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Salvidrim

Without commenting on whether the case should be approved or not, I'm just noting down something here so that I am notified if it is accepted, because I intend to submit some (very small) piece of evidence privately, concerning the restoration of T13's TE user right in Dec. 2014. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

I like Technical13. Nevertheless, when people make the effort to pursue dispute resolution, they deserve a result, even when one of the parties is unavailable to participate. Unless there is evidence that the filing was done vexatiously, timed to annoy or inconvenience, the case should be heard now, preferably with the input of Technical13, or without if participation is not possible. Jehochman ^Talk 14:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Recuse. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 00:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Technical 13: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <3/1/0/7>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

Awaiting T13's. I am strongly leaning in the direction of accepting this. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Accept per Floq, Iridescent et al. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting for response from Technical 13. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting to see what Technical 13 has to say. Courcelles (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that we have received communication indicating that Technical 13 will not be able to comment for a couple weeks. Courcelles (talk) 03:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In light of [22], Accept. Courcelles (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rschen7754:, you are correct. I can confirm that the Meta userpage was not tagged for deletion, in fact, it had not been edited since January. Technical 13's last edit on Meta (live or otherwise) was on 11 May 2015. Courcelles (talk) 01:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minded to accept, but I'll await Technical13's statement before arriving at a final decision. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has to present the less popular view, it may as well be me. Leaning decline, subject to any reason why the following is invalid: from the evidence present, it appears all previous steps in dispute resolution have not been tried, because the bulk of the evidence submitted here post-dates the May 5 ANI. I agree the evidence from the past three weeks shows problematic conduct, especially the notification spam. However the May 5 ANI went nowhere because too much of the evidence was considered too old. If it was relodged with this more recent evidence as submitted here, I suspect it may get a different result. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PhantomTech: I suppose I'm suggesting you've provided excellent evidence of disruptive conduct over the last three weeks, but this evidence doesn't seem to have previously been presented at ANI. The May 5 ANI didn't show any great enthusiasm for action, perhaps a new ANI would if this additional material was presented. Or perhaps not, in which case all previous dispute resolution having been exhausted, I'd change my view here re a case on the topic. This is of course just my view - the consensus currently seems to lean the other way so this may all be moot. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@L236:Personally, I wouldn't think it was forum shopping to open a new ANI with significantly different evidence from edits made subsequent to the previous ANI closing. An assessment of forum-shopping really depends on whether the new request is in evident good faith, or is just hounding someone over something already resolved. In my view this would be the former. But disagreement welcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still want to wait. I'm not going to release personal information but the reason he gave made sense to me, given the time of year, so I'm going to AgF and accept it. I've been wrong before, but there's no time pressure right now since he's not editing. If I were to vote right now, which I'm not doing, it would be to decline as I agree with Euryalus. Doug Weller (talk) 09:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: We aren't talking about a long wikibreak. He tells me he'll be back next weekend and I have no reason to disbelieve him. So I see no need to vote or even a suspend motion right now. Doug Weller 20:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accept, sine this will need to be dealt with eventually. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would really prefer to see T13 comment before I add anything. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: I personally would not dismiss this case because of no comment. I would be preferred to do a suspend motion than to outright decline. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rschen7754: Can you define a little more of the scope of the evidence you would be presenting so that Arbitrators can be aware of the general issues that are surrounding this. It would help us make a more informed decision. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rschen7754: Noted, thank you. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I am very much leaning towards accepting this case, I would like to see Technical13's comments first. I have seen the reason he has provided to the committee for not being around for a couple of weeks, and it is both credible and convincing. If he doesn't turn up and participate within a few days of when he says he will, I will be prepared to hear a case in absentia, but I do not believe at the present time that this is a case of "ANI flu". Thryduulf (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greco-Turk Middle East Dispute

Initiated by XELO at 22:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Involved parties

Xelophate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Athenean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
NeilN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[diff of notification Athenean]
[diff of notification NeilN]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Xelophate

I have given many sources and no one is responding to them. I have edited the page and told Athenean to visit the talk page so it can be resolved but he keeps reverting it. I cannot get this resolved without help from a third-party. please look at Link 1 and look at Link 2 at Atheneans responses

Statement by Athenean

Statement by NeilN

Suggest quick decline. Content dispute with filer teetering on WP:3RR. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Greco-Turk Middle East Dispute: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

@@ Line 176: / Line 176: @@
 === Statement by NeilN ===
+Suggest quick decline. Content dispute with filer teetering on [[WP:3RR]]. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 22:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 === Statement by {Non-party} ===
 Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.