Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:25, 4 April 2016

Requests for arbitration

Request name	Initiated	Votes
Wikicology	3 April 2016	{{{votes}}}
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Infobox for Jamalul Kiram III, Ismael Kiram II, Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram\|Infobox for Jamalul Kiram III, Ismael Kiram II, Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram]]	3 April 2016	{{{votes}}}
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Dispute between User:HENDAWG229, User:Fruitloop11, User:76.107.252.227\|Dispute between User:HENDAWG229, User:Fruitloop11, User:76.107.252.227]]	4 April 2016	{{{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

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Wikicology

Initiated by Andreas JN466 at 05:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Jayen466 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Wikicology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Jayen466

The current discussion at AN/I has been ongoing for close to a week, following much the same pattern as a previous discussion that took place in 2014. Pretty much everybody who has commented in the current thread, including Wikicology himself, seems to agree that there is a significant issue, involving a number of different perceived problems, from mis-stated credentials, self-promotion and past sockpuppeting to copyright infringements (due to unattributed copying within Wikipedia), made-up references that do not back up the article content (and at times seem to have been chosen completely at random), and basic competence to create reliable content. What is less clear is what should be done about it. Wikicology is a member of the Wikimedia movement's Individual Engagement Grants committee and plays a leading role in Wikimedia PR and outreach work in Nigeria, including the country's Wikimedia User Group and Wikipedia Education Program. An indefinite block/community ban proposal currently stands at 14 supports vs. 9 opposes; an additional, narrow topic ban proposal stands at 4 supports vs. 2 opposes. Mentoring has been offered. Given the scale and diverse nature of the perceived issues, I believe a formal investigation by the Arbitration Committee is warranted in order to gain a clear idea of the magnitude of the problem and devise appropriate remedies concerning both Wikicology himself and the Wikipedia content created by him. The AN/I process appears to lack clear consensus at this time and is too unstructured to address these issues properly.

Statement by Wikicology

Can the ongoing ANI be closed, or can this ARBCOM case be closed until that other discussion is concluded. It seems a bit unusual or even difficult to expect (or ask) that an editor should defend himself on two fronts at the same time. Thank you, Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Note - My credentials provided is not to support a claim of "Academic or Lecturer" but to support a claim of biochemist and a medical lab scientist. Just as I've earlier stated at the ANI, I was not directly employed by the university as at the time I lectured the students. My earlier thought was that an "academic or lecturer" is anyone who lectures a university students weather he was directly employed by the university or not. Now I see, this is awfully wrong which means I must have misinterpreted the true meaning of "academic and lecturer".

Statement by Mendaliv

This is a case of friendly disruption.

Wikicology has been engaged in disruption, whether deliberate or negligent, for at least two years. However, because much of the misconduct has been difficult to see, and because Wikicology has been gifted with the ability to apologize well, the problem has not been resolved satisfactorily.

Wikicology has created pages on himself over fourteen times; is an admitted sockpuppeteer (M1, M2); has added a great deal of content on BLPs, biomedical articles and articles of social importance with citations to non-existent references and references which do not support the claim (M3, M4); has engaged in puffery regarding his own qualifications and credentials in his own userspace, and failed to timely correct others' false statements/impressions about him that were based on that puffery (e.g., the nom for his own RfA: M5); has apparently hosted editing events, but appears to have allowed overstatement of the levels of participation (e.g., many of these listed accounts don't exist: M6). This is all illustrated by the past and ongoing ANI threads and Jayen466's statement, and will be proven by the materials to be submitted during the evidentiary portion of this case (the links attached to this statement are not intended as the sole evidence).

This matter falls within WP:ARBPOL#Scope as the community has been unable to resolve it, and moreover involves matters of such serious import that it is unlikely that any resolution at ANI will be satisfactory. While some conduct claimed here takes place on other WMF sites, there is no credible argument that said conduct's connection to enwiki is insufficient to confer jurisdiction.

ArbCom should look past Wikicology's outward friendliness and move towards resolving the disruption by accepting this case. A botched resolution at ANI will wreak a great deal of damage, and the seriousness of the accusations demand a fair and impartial hearing for Wikicology. Even the discussants at ANI who support summary action by and large prefer arbitration because of how serious this has become. The community is not comfortable with resolving this matter itself.

Thank you for your time and trouble in considering this request, and thanks to Jayen466 for bringing this matter here.

ADDENDUM

In light of the confidential information at OTRS, these have become matters that cannot be evaluated at ANI. Specifically, there needs to be answers on whether Wikicology's failure to correct the Community's detrimental reliance (e.g., in his RfA) is a culpable omission, and more generally whether the Community has an interest in editors who claim positions of authority in public.

In response to the arbs wishing to wait for ANI to close, I would respectfully argue that the discussion there is moribund. A large number of participants are asking for arbitration, and many !votes on various sanctions involve substantial departures from the actual sanction requested. The discussion is not ordered or progressing, but is in fact devolving at a breakneck pace.

Please, accept this case to review these critical issues.

Statement by Coffee Crumbs

I urge the committee to accept this case. This situation is such a craggy mess that there needs to be a systematic investigation of the circumstances in order to untangle all the various threads. Given how many parallel issues appear to be involved here, ANI has struggled to cohesively deal with this situation. In this matter, ArbCom, as imperfect as it is, ought to step in and take its role as the "decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve."

@TheWolfChild: While I wouldn't be against mentorship in principle, given the length of the behavior and how broad the issues are, I don't think mentorship is appropriate without these issues being fully investigated. The user's long-term history of pleading ignorance every time they ignore policy, including while *requesting adminship* make me less sympathetic.

Statement by BethNaught

This matter involves so many threads that ANI will never give it a proper investigation. It needs to structured investigation provided by a case. As an example of the problems with article creation and sourcing, Wikicology created Nitrogen dioxide poisoning. Recently redirected after User:Peter Damian/investigation showed very close paraphrasing from certain sources which were in fact about other types of poisoning, and other sources did not actually support the content. Other editors at the ANI, including Fram, have stated that this is a recurrent problem with Wikicology's articles. In an example of his credential puffery, here he admits describing a picture of him as being in his university office despite him not actually having a university office; and he thinks this is inconsequential. It is clear to me that Wikicology's ability to apologise means that the good faith of certain ANI contributors will prevent the full, dispassionate investigation into these serious issues which is needed.

Statement by Peter Damian

I ask the committee to accept the case. It is complex, and the ANI discussion is split, and unstructured. The committee needs to decide on whether there is underlying issue, and propose appropriate remedies. As Mendaliv suggests above, a botched resolution at ANI as the potential to cause great damage to the project, both internally and externally.

Statement by MPS1992

There is currently a Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal - indef block open, which has received substantial support also including some calls for a site ban. It is unclear to me why the community could not deal with this editor in this way without the delay of an arbitration committee case. Delays are not useful because the editor is still causing problems in article space as recently as yesterday.

The aspects of the behavior which would not be dealt with by a site ban, for example the alleged misrepresentation on projects other than English Wikipedia, and the WMF-funded outreach work by this editor, are not within the purview of the English Wikipedia arbitration committee anyway. Similarly, the required clean-up work on English Wikipedia cannot be mandated by the arbitration committee, but needs to be undertaken by the community.

Addition: Given the actions taken to close down the ANI proposal for an indefinite block, actions taken in large part by those who have supported Wikicology's continued editing, I would suggest the arbitration committee should consider beginning with a motion to remove Wikicology's remaining user rights. This could be done swiftly. MPS1992 (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alanscottwalker

There are two resolutions the ANI is currently considering. If the block does not occur, it will be because not only has the user apologized but they have agreed to a mentorship that has been offered by and agreed to by Cullen, and they have agreed to not create any more articles and only work on clean-up of past editing. And if they fail, they have agreed to a site ban. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chesnaught: The NLT - threat was redacted during the discussion of it, as were the self-claims on the user page - those are just not the acts of someone who does not respond to the community. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree with Jehochman, preserving the subject's dignity (and English Wikipedia's) - it is unfortunately already said in the ANI discussion that he should be blocked or banned because he is a "Nigerian . . .". That just cannot and should not be allowed to pass. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Big Bad Wolfowitz

An important, perhaps essential component of this case deals with the editor's real-life credentials and identity. Community discussion is particularly unsuited for assessing the veracity of the editor's claims and handling essentially private information. Given the Committee's resolute unwillingness to afford public discussion over identity issues in the Scalhotrod case (even though the relevant evidence there dealt primarily, probably entirely, with publicly posted information (by the editor at issue), it would seem clear that the committee has already established that matters like this should be resolved by ArbComm, not by community discussion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

There is no suggestion that this is a conflict that the community can't handle.
ArbCom is welcome to take on a separate inquisitorial role, if time lies heavy on their hands. But that is neither what ArbCom was designed and appointed for, nor what they traditionally do.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by Thewolfchild

I don't see a need for Arbcom here. It's not as if the arbitrators are going to clean this mess up, and there is one hell of a mess here. 550 articles and counting. I think Wikicology should be made to clean it up himself. He can do so under the mentorship of Cullen328 and with the assistance of Irondome and any others willing to pitch in. In the meantime, Wikicology is not to create any more articles and not make changes to any articles, other than the ones he created and is fixing. Should he fail in this in any way, then ban him. Simple.

As for his credentials, he has advised (here) that he has forwarded them to OTRS. They can vet them and report back. Let the WMF determine his future with them and WMF-Nigeria. - ^theWOLFchild 16:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a new proposal at the ANI in line with my comments here. The hope being that we can finally come to some consensus on something and finally close that thread and move forward. - ^theWOLFchild 16:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think people need to stop throwing around phrases like "false credentials". We should wait to hear back from OTRS on this. If there was indeed some deception here, then all the more reason to ban. But, if his credentials are in fact what he said they were, some people will need to start striking comments and posting apologies. - ^theWOLFchild 17:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to OTRS, it appears the credentials were legitimate. Looks like some people need to start back-peddling. There are multiple, baseless accusations that need to be retracted and some apologies issued. If indeed ArbCom gets involved, then this certainly needs to be addressed. The lynch mob mentality here is appalling. This is the telephone-game gone bad. And on another note, there are several people calling for a site ban, but I don't see any of them putting forward any suggestions on how to clean up all the articles. (and I certainly don't see any of them volunteering to do it themselves... ) - ^theWOLFchild 23:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Time for ArbCom to step in

I have to agree with the majority here. The ANI is clearly going no where, and to leave it open any longer is only a waste of time and resources. It's in a downward spiral as is and will only get nastier. As I said there however, I hope that ArbCom takes notice of the offer put forward by Cullen and Irondome to help clean the mess up. - ^theWOLFchild 16:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Irondome

I completely agree with Thewolfchild here. On the understanding that if Wc makes any further missteps, he is banned. I confirm that I am ready to assist with mentoring. Wc has also notified me in the same manner as Twc regarding credentials, and I believe that to be a very positive step. I have begun dialogue with Wikicology regarding his ideas for priority areas to be addressed in cleaning this up, and on terms for mentoring. WF has provided a complete list of articles he has worked on in addition, which is a great help in navigating this clean up. I do not believe that this is a case for Arbcom if the above steps are taken. A note on cultural differences. I would also ask the committee to bear in mind that many of the behaviours we are seeing are possibly due to the environment in which Wc operates. A culture where status "gets things done" and you are not listened to if you do not make perhaps (to an Anglo-American) mindset exaggerated efforts to gain status, and therefore executive authority. I know this is a sensitive area, but it would account for many of Wc's perceived behavioural patterns. We should examine this aspect of the case with empathy and insight. I see nothing that cannot be fixed with guidance. I note that this aspect has been completely neglected by the current ANI discussion, with the exception of a rather foul personal attack.Irondome (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(in response to Jehochman) That is not strictly accurate Jm. There are some in the community who are prepared to positively handle elements of this. The bottom line is that if Wc stays or goes, there will still be a mess to clean up. Whatever the outcome, I will help in the cleanup. Apart from perhaps three of us, I am not seeing much constructive comment or offers of assistance from what is fast turning into a lynch - mob frankly. Irondome (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chesnaught

I ask that the Arbitration Committee accept this case. Olatunde Isaac's actions have merited sanctions up to and including a site ban. His disingenuous use of false credentials and sockpuppetry are highly concerning, and I would personally question his competence when it comes to editing the English Wikipedia. He recently made a legal threat which is usually grounds for an indefinite block until the threat is redacted - why was he not blocked for this? Consensus at AN/I determined that Isaac was making a clear legal threat. I simply think we cannot accept apologies from somebody who keeps making the same mistakes - no matter how sincere they are. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 16:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carrite

Since this matter is still under consideration at AN/I, where a solution might be crafted, it is not ready for ArbCom at this time. If anything less than a site ban comes out of that discussion, however, this case needs to be heard. There will be extensive article cleanup required, in all likelihood, starting with a full scale investigation of contributions. The 14 efforts at creating a COI autobiography and socking and false identity claims are the portion of the iceberg we can see. Carrite (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cullen328

I will express no opinion at this time as to whether or not ArbCom should accept this case, and in no way do I want to minimize the seriousness of the issues around Wikicology's editing. I simply want to reiterate my willingness to mentor Wikicology, with assistance from Irondome, and I would hope, a third experienced editor. I see this as a one year project to review all the articles this editor has created, for the purpose of getting him to improve his articles on notable topics and deleting the articles on non-notable topics. I believe this is the most beneficial outcome for the encyclopedia but recognize that many editors I respect are in complete disagreement. I have no interest in debating with anyone about this, although I am always willing to respond to questions. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EvergreenFir

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. To Doug and other committee members suggesting they wait until the ANI is closed, it seems unlikely that any productive close will occur any time soon. The only thing that seems to have a chance of passing is a topic ban. I'd urge the arb com to close the ANI discussion themselves and open this case. There seems to be little reason to wait for nothing to come out of the ANI. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel: Fair enough. Just been watching ANI recently and that thread. I think your use of "frustration" is exactly right. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mz7

I've been watching the proceedings with interest but have not commented until now. The main issue with the ANI thread is that there is a very, very wide breadth of issues, and for community members just now coming in, it can be tedious to ascertain exactly what they are and if they are substantiated. There's so much being said that a lot of us are inclined to just force Wikicology out and be done with it, while others are looking for more open-minded solutions. If no consensus results at ANI, I see arbitration as the logical next step. Essentially, this is such a large dispute that the structured, formal process of arbitration is necessary to "break the back" of it, and accepting the case does not mean that solutions like mentorship will be automatically disregarded. Mz7 (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

Please close the ANI discussion and hear the case. There are issues related to editor's real life identity and sock puppetry. The remedy needs to be thorough and final. ArbCom is the most appropriate way to deal with this while preserving the subject's dignity. Jehochman ^Talk 21:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The OTRS thing being handled in the open like this is not best practice. I urge ArbCom to take the case and review the confidential info, to separate the valid complaints from the invalid, and to determine the best way out of this mess. ANI is not competent to handle these matters. It is not necessary to wait for the community to attempt to handle a matter that it clearly isn't prepared to handle. Jehochman ^Talk 22:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cirt

I agree here with Jehochman. Unfortunately, the issues appear to be much too complex for ANI to handle on its own. — Cirt (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OTRS volunteer

Wikicology has submitted VRTS ticket # 2016040310006004 in which he provides scanned copies of the following documents:

Interim Bachelor of Science degree certificate (explaining that it is "interim" because it can take 3-5 years to retrieve the original from Nigerian universities)
NYSC certificate, which is awarded to university and polytechnic graduates
Current employment appointment letter
Employment identity card
Postgraduate application form

I confess I have not been following this or the ANI thread, I came across it due to a mention on a user talk page that happens to be on my watch list, but to the extent that this information is relevant, well, there it is. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(in response to Jehochman)The information I provided from the OTRS case was stripped of personal information. Wikicology requested that the verification of information provided be published in the various threads, but I do not see the need to do this at ANI. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request by DHeyward

Given past sock puppeting and the current ongoing process, it seems prudent that Wikicology user rights be suspended until either or both bodies reach a decision. Currently having both an ArbCom and ANI request open has paralyzed any action. I cannot see that using any of the following rights would be beneficial to the community while this is going on. (account creator, autopatrolled, pending changes reviewer, rollbacker)

--DHeyward (talk) 09:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Xeno

I concur with DHeyward that autopatrolled and pending changes reviewer are not userrights the user should be holding given the present concerns and have removed them. I'm less convinced that rollback and account creator need to be removed absent evidence of misuse, but would not object if someone feels they need to be relinquished as well. –xeno^talk 09:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MPS1992: could you point to any misuse of the rollback or account creator facilities or otherwise explain why they cannot continue to be held by the editor? Removing them would seek punitive otherwise. –xeno^talk 23:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by jps

I strongly encourage the committee to take this case. I hold a very dim opinion of the arbitration system at Wikipedia generally, but if anything should be discussed in an arbcomm case it is a matter such as this which involves further issues related to WMF funding, what WP:EXPERT means at Wikipedia in light of WP:Honesty, and how the massive amount of damage that may have been done to articles should be fixed (the work done to fix previous problems similar to this one have still not finished, years later). jps (talk) 12:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by QEDK

This is a very complex case and it'd be preferable if the ArbCom were to accept this. It's veered out of control already. Going through the user's edits, I can only draw the conclusion that they are in the wrong and mostly commit a lot of mistakes. I say we do give him some more rope (as I believe he has a good nature), with withdrawal of their rights and an indefinite restriction from all their areas of COI. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 13:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Davey2010

As I said on the ANI report way too much damage has been done and as the ANI case is way to complex to handle I think the case here should be accepted and the ANI thread closed. –Davey2010^Talk 15:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mike1901

Overwhelming consensus at WP:ANI to close the case there, allowing the arbitrators to start an investigation here should they wish to do so. Posting this as an uninvolved editor who has closed the ANI discussion. Mike1901 (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GAB

The ANI is a twisted tangle of many different and tangentially-related issues, all of which comprise a vast body of evidence which is difficult for anyone to fully grasp (me included!). As Softlavender pointed out, the issues include source falsification, questions of misrepresentation, accusations of incompetence, sockpuppetry, self-promotion, copyvios, legal threats, etc. Probably any one of these individually would be potential grounds for sanctions, but the sheer number and breadth of issues raised is startling. Even now, more discussion over potentially game-changing evidence (OTRS) is taking place on this very page, and it seems like there is no abatement of all this. In short, I urge the arbitrators to accept the case to break the back of this dispute and settle the very serious allegations in a structured, comprehensive and definitive way. I say this as an uninvolved editor whose jaw dropped at the sight of the gigantic ANI thread. GAB^Hello! 21:22, 4 April 2016 (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).

@Irondome and Amatulic: Please comment in your own section, and only your own section. Kharkiv07 (T) 23:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to the community and the committee. Irondome (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicology: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/6>

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

Andreas, I was hoping you'd summarize the entire ANI thread in one sentence. I have not yet read that thread as attentively as I should before speaking out on whether we should accept this, but I thank you for bringing it here since there certainly is a lot going on. Drmies (talk) 05:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My initial impression is that accepting this would be prudent due to the scope and long term nature of this. I'll take a look at the thread...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to wait until a decision is reached at ANI. If that fails I'll vote to accept. Doug Weller talk 13:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Conur with Doug Weller. Gamaliel (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: We understand the importance of this matter and the frustration of those who want us to act. But it is important that we allow the community to try to address the situation. A few days won't make a difference here if they don't find an appropriate solution at ANI. Gamaliel (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Doug --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Inclined to accept this. I think the issues raised are complex enough that they are better suited to a more structured investigation, but the procedurally correct and consistent thing to do is to wait for a result at ANI. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox for Jamalul Kiram III, Ismael Kiram II, Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram

Initiated by Shhhhwwww!! (talk) at 16:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Shhhhwwww!! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Molecule Extraction (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[diff of notification Molecular Extraction]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Shhhhwwww!!

The are issues with the articles above specifically the infoboxes. Instead of reporting each other (like this one here) that may result in blocks this is a better solution.

Statement by Molecule Extraction

Please be noted that this discussion can be read from here. Funny that Shhhhwwww!! just brought the case to here. Molecule Extraction (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2016 (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).

Infobox for Jamalul Kiram III, Ismael Kiram II, Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/7/0/0>

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

Decline An RFC was just started today. Please let the RFC run its course first. Gamaliel (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Decline this is a) premature, and b) a content dispute. RfC is the right venue at this stage, and one was just started, so I'd encourage all participants to focus their efforts there. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Decline for the reasons above. Doug Weller talk 19:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Decline, as per above. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per Opabinia. Keilana (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Decline for reasons my fellow arbs have already stated --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per above. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 13:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute between User:HENDAWG229, User:Fruitloop11, User:76.107.252.227

Initiated by HENDAWG229 (talk) at 03:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

HENDAWG229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Fruitloop11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
76.107.252.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[diff of notification Fruitloop11]
[diff of notification 76.107.252.227]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by HENDAWG229

The two above users continue to enter information into a WP article that is not factual or true. Even after being told that the only problem with their edits is that it is entered into the wrong section of the chart that is on the article's page, they continue to place statements into the chart where it is not true. I also believe the above two editors are in fact the same editor because they are both arguing about one edit but individually call them "my edits." Even after I said I had nothing else to say about the issue and told User:Fruitloop11 to consult an administrator with any of his concerns, he stalks my edits on this one page just to revert them in a feeble attempt to, I assume, start an argument with me. I have now told him to stay off my talk page and to discuss any edits of mine that he disputes on the article's talk page.

Every edit I reverted on this page was to insure that the content in the article was factual and true. The individuals above would revert my edits back to their incorrect information just because they both say, "they have a right to contribute" (I think they both have made that same quote). Every contribution and edits that the two editors above have made in the last month have been just to revert the truthful and factual information I have made in this one article back to "my edit" or to talk about my edits or reverts on this one article's page. Never just placing the information into the chart where it has been explained to both of them that their edit should go to make it truthful, just constantly warring.HENDAWG229 (talk) 09:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page discussion here. And I never "argue"... I've been discussin the issue while other editors seem to be taking it personal. Thank you. HENDAWG229 (talk) 10:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fruitloop11

Let me tell you and the admins looking at this what's wrong here.

(a. You messed with the edit I made to the article without giving a reason why you did so, which is like the 11th you've removed a edit I have made from the article

(b. You keep accusing me of Harassment, Vandalism, Making Death Threats, etc. Basically trying to get me in trouble or have people side with you or bring in Meat Puppets.

(c. You said on my talk page you would start ignoring from now on, Which isn't very civil. We can't come to a resolution if you ignore me and refuse to talk.

(d. You refuse to take it to the articles talk page. User:Ultraexactzz told you on at least two different occasions to take it to the articles talk page, instead you want to move the discussion from my talk page to his than back to mine

(e. You have already been blocked by the admin above, so why do you still wanna press your luck with edit warring?--Fruitloop11 (talk) 09:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

edit. I am still open to a discussion over the content of the article If the user is willing to take it to the article's talk page here [2], Which is a better idea for him to do instead of arguing about it on this page every time I give my say on this.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 10:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 76.107.252.227

Statement by JzG

This belongs at WP:ANI, given that the concern is edit-warring over addition of unsourced content. Clerks, the absence of any form of prior DR means this is a no-hoper here, could you port it over to ANI directly please, and save everyone's time? Alternatively I will copy it and a clerk can close this. Either is good. Guy (Help!) 11:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ultraexactzz

I blocked the filing party here for 24 hours due to edit warring at the article in question, some weeks ago. Now I see that they've edit warred a few times more on slightly different variations of the same trivial fact at issue. This is not ripe for Arbcom, and can absolutely be shuffled over to User talk:HENDAWG229, where Hendawg is about to explain where they got the idea that a talk page discussion started hours after filing an Arbcom case is sufficient dispute resolution. Sorry to add to your Monday paperwork, guys. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me also add, for the viewing audience, that a talk page discussion started 6 full minutes before it was linked here is not a good faith effort at dispute resolution. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:32, 4 April 2016 (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).

Very brief and neutral name describing the topic of the dispute: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/4/0/0>

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

Decline. The purpose of the Arbitration Committee is to settle disputes once all other measures have failed. The very first thing editors need to do is talk to one another on the talk page, but even this basic step hasn't happened yet. The talk page for this article is completely blank. All three of you please have a civil discussion about this at Talk:List of 2016 box office number-one films in the United States. I've protected the article for a week to prevent anyone from editing. If I don't see any discussion there at the end of the week I'll protect it again. Gamaliel (talk) 04:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Decline based on a lack of preliminary dispute resolution prior to requesting arbitration. Fruitloop11 if you are going to accuse people of making death threats, you are going to have to support that serious accusation with a diff of the evidence. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per Gamaliel. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 13:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Decline death threats can be dealt with by the community. Doug Weller talk 16:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 145: / Line 145: @@
 === Statement by Xeno ===
 I concur with {{u|DHeyward}} that autopatrolled and pending changes reviewer are not userrights the user should be holding given the present concerns and have removed them. I'm less convinced that rollback and account creator need to be removed absent evidence of misuse, but would not object if someone feels they need to be relinquished as well. –[[User:xeno|<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b>]][[user talk:xeno|<sup style="color:#000">talk</sup>]] 09:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
+*{{u|MPS1992}}: could you point to any misuse of the rollback or account creator facilities or otherwise explain why they cannot continue to be held by the editor? Removing them would seek punitive otherwise. –[[User:xeno|<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b>]][[user talk:xeno|<sup style="color:#000">talk</sup>]] 23:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 === Statement by jps ===