Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Ihardlythinkso		11 March 2014	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[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: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland	Motion	(orig. case)	21 June 2024
Amendment request: Extended confirmed restriction	none	none	25 July 2024
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	none	none	26 July 2024

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Historical elections	21 July 2024

Ihardlythinkso

Initiated by Northern Antarctica (talk) at 16:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Northern Antarctica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Ihardlythinkso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kevin Gorman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SummerPhD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Drmies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Ihardlythinkso
• Kevin Gorman
• SummerPhD
• Drmies

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• ANI Thread "Attacks on Kevin Gorman"
• Attempt to end argument

Statement by Northern Antarctica

I have no problem with users who disagree with me, but in recent discussions, Ihardlythinkso has gone beyond disagreeing and has instead resorted to degrading me. I don't appreciate having my intelligence attacked and being dismissed as a troll. Aside from this one statement that was a bit unkind, my biggest crime has been to hold opinions that Ihardlythinkso disagrees with.

This isn't the first time that this user has demonstrated combative behavior (he recently made similar attacks on Kevin Gorman's intelligence) and such conduct is not likely to encourage a healthy editing environment. Therefore, I would request that the committee examine his behavior, some of which is evidenced below, in greater detail.

Attacking Kevin Gorman's intelligence, Attacking SummerPhD behind his back, Implies that I am "unable to think", among other things, calls me a troll, calls me a troll in edit summary, Tells me I have "no sense", drags up old dispute in order to attack me further, ridicules Drmies, more attacking, implies that supporting me might equate to bad judgment

Re Leaky: Nothing is likely to happen at either ANI or RfC/U. This is the right place. Northern Antarctica (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Re Cube lurker: I think I have demonstrated why that comment is accurate. Keep in mind that most of the hostility I've noted came prior to that remark and supports its validity. Northern Antarctica (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Re Cube lurker: Yes, but his feeling that way doesn't permit him to treat me like an animal. Northern Antarctica (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Re Drmies: I listed you as a party because I mentioned you by name in one of the evidence diffs. Also, this doesn't simply revolve around the Kaldari case. I made a response to an RfA vote by Ihardlythinkso, who went berserk over my comment and then dragged the Kaldari/Eric situation into it by ridiculing my take on that. Northern Antarctica (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Leaky Caldron

Seriously ASO, this is not the right place for this. Leaky Caldron 16:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Drmies

Floq's red link is first and foremost; it in itself is enough reason for the Arbs to decline this. ANI is of course not the proper venue; besides, Ihardlythinkso doesn't believe in it, though I don't understand why they felt the need to comment there--diff above, "ridicule". Having said that I understand the plaintiff's exasperation, at least to some extent. The badgering of Summer and the snark at ANI and other venues addressed at me, it makes for an unpleasant working environment (I echo and endorse NYB's old-fashioned jeremiad).

By the same token, NA (whom I used to know better as Automatic Strikeout) doesn't come here with clean hands, especially if this is supposed to revolve around the Kaldari case. My take: NA is of the "hate Eric" camp and Ihardly is of the "love Eric" camp. (Most editors I know, indeed most editors who know of the various issues, aren't in either camp, I think. If it weren't for what seems to be this anti-Eric crusade on NA's part I'd get along with them just fine.) Ihardly was pissed at me because I opposed a block on Kaldari, NA is probably pissed because Kaldari was admonished pretty broadly, including by me. But that's neither here nor there.

To cut a long story short, arbitration is not yet the way to go; an RfC/U is. I find that both editors have a habit of getting real personal real quick and of harboring grudges; from my point of view I am most bothered by Ihardlythinkso's behavior, but, as NYB says, arbitration is simply too blunt a tool. There is another blunt tool in the arsenal, of course: a severe form of an IBAN--if the one has commented in a thread on a drama board or a user talk page, or on any article talk page, the other may not comment there. Let's exempt my talk page, and NYB's. Just a thought, and probably not a really useful one.

One last thing: a few angry remarks from Ihardlythinkso aimed at me isn't enough, IMO, to make me a party in an arbitration case. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement from an uninvolved Konveyor Belt

I recommend this case be declined, as there are other steps of dispute resolution that can be tried before bringing it here. An RfC/U would be a good start, as it allows the community to give feedback on his actions. This is a little premature. KonveyorBelt 16:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Cube Lurker

This is not one sided. If you post this[1], don't you expect a hostile response? There's things on both sides that probably would have been best left unsaid, but this seems far below what would require a Case, or frankly IMHO even an RFCU.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@Northern Antarctica And no doubt he feels his comments were accurate and justified. That's always the way of things when people clash.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Kevin Gorman

I believe this case should be declined, and I also believe that a redlinked RFCU is not at all a good reason by itself to decline this case. I don't believe that any reasonable person can with a straight face argue that something good would come out of an RFCU on IHTS, and I don't think that processes that nothing good will come from should be encouraged - process wonkery isn't a good thing, and NOTBURO should apply w/r/t arbcom accepting cases as much as it should apply elsewhere. (If anyone does believe an RFCU would be beneficial, I suspect they've not watched an RFCU play out in the recent past.) However, the 'nothing good will come out of this' is an equally valid reason to reject this as an arbcom case.

I do want to speak to what NYB brought up, though. Although this isn't the case to accept to deal with this set of issues, if they aren't eventually dealt with, it will pose a severe risk to the longterm health of the project as a whole. When they are dealt with, it will be messy. It will probably involve a decent number of contributors either leaving or being banned. But, given the threat they pose to the project if not dealt with, that's not at all an adequate reason to put off dealing with them for longer than is necessary. (Besides the threat they pose to our editing community and editor retention issues in general, they also pose one hell of a threat to GLAM collaborations and to Wikipedia's increasing acceptance among different sectors and demographics than our current editor base plays to.)

I would highly encourage arbcom to pay close attention to upcoming issues, and purposefully accept as a full case a situation that is as well suited to deal with this set of issues as will reasonably occur, and I'd highly encourage them not to wait longer than is necessary. It's going to be a pain in the ass for everyone involved, but long term inaction is going to have a worse effect on the project's health than the outcome of any case will, and given the level of entrenchedness, arbcom is the only body on ENWP that can reasonably try to address the situation. Long term inaction in the face of the facts equates to action in and of itself, and I hope that arbcom realizes that fact. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement from an uninvolved Liz

On the surface, this looks like a case about incivility, the underlying reasons of which I'm not sure are relevant. I haven't seen any ARBCOM cases that rested solely on incivility, it's usually considered as a mitigating factor when discussing remedies and an editor who has been uncivil will often receive a harsher outcome.

That said, complaints about verbal abuse like this rarely get a satisfying resolution at AN/I unless the offender is a new user and then they are quickly blocked. But among experienced editors? Many admins pointedly say that this is a grey area and, short of death threats, they are reluctant to even hand out a limited block.

Kevin Gorman says that nothing "good would come out of an RFCU" and that is the long-term problem. Rude behavior or verbal abuse is not penalized and goes unsanctioned. While hardy, long-time editors can handle themselves in this atmosphere, for new users who look at Wikipedia as a scholarly resource, it's indicative of a very hostile, immature, contentious environment. It can become toxic and I agree that ARBCOM should at some point rule on this issue. I'm just not sure that this is the case to do that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement from Go Phightins!

This is a case involving two editors whose encyclopedic contributions (i.e. what the readers see and what we should strive to focus on) both can be improved, as they seem to spend the majority of their time formulating, promulgating, or continuing drama at AN/I or other associated venues, both often violating our policy on civility. I couldn't agree more with Northern Antarctica that civility is important, but he does not exhibit it very much, specifically not in this instance, either. I agree that, in theory, before a case originates here, there should be an RFC/U, but if anyone can find an RFC/U within the last, say, two years that has come to a fruitful resolution, or frankly that was not a waste of everyone's time, I would be unaware that it existed. As such, I frankly would support the arbitration committee taking on a case like this, however Northern Antarctica should know that his conduct has been less than exemplary, so taking this case opens him up to potential repercussions as well.

Whether or not the arbitration committee decides to take this case, it seems to me that both Northern Antarctica and Ihardlythinkso, particularly Northern Antarctica, as at least IHTS does write a fair amount, should spend more time "building a free encyclopedia", and less time griping at each other's manners or lack thereof including baiting contributors into "uncivil behavior" (Northern Antarctica) and needlessly perpetuating and stirring what admittedly could be considered a "cesspool" at AN/I (Ihardlythinkso). Moreover, it is high time we acknowledge that the perpetual "civility controversy" that Northern Antarctica/Automatic Strikeout decries predominantly stems from discontent over the civility of a completely different contributor, one who at least writes, and is needlessly promulgated in completely unrelated discussions, such as the one in which "incivility" manifested itself this time, causing these proceedings. Go improve an article; that helps the readers whom we supposedly try to serve ... this does not. Go Phightins! 00:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement from SummerPhD

As I often have trouble deciding the appropriate venue for an issue, I wish to make it clear that I have absolutely no opinion if this belongs here or somewhere else. That said, I feel quite strongly that this issue has been around for a while and demands some attention. If this is not the proper venue, please suggest the appropriate one.

Other than the opening description, I have not read others' statements. I have, however, seen interaction between IHTS and a couple of the editors listed as "involved" here. I do not wish to speak for any of them, but expect their experiences have been similar to mine.

My interaction with IHTS (most of it here), precipitated by this comment among others, was frustrating, annoying, unproductive and seemed to be less of a discussion than a my statements threaded with IHTS's tactics. In my estimation, IHTS believes:

• Their personal attacks are justified and the only appropriate responses to what they feel are personal attacks directed at them.
• Their personal attacks are not personal attacks.
• Personal attacks do not matter.
• I have no business warning anyone for NPI unless and until I can warn absolutely everyone involved (that I have unfairly singled them out).
• Warning them about personal attacks and incivility is a form of personal attack.
• AN/I is broken and best ignored.
• They are unable to use escalating warnings leading to AN/I for fear of boomerang.

In short, the message I got was: "I've done nothing wrong. You are wrong to state otherwise. Now fuck off." (For the record, of the numerous attacks in that prolonged exchange, repeatedly questioning whether I was a human being seemed particularly low.)

If anyone does not see (or wishes to see but doesn't want to search for it) any of the issues, ping me and I'll add a link. Otherwise, unless anyone has direct questions for me, I see enough unpleasantness already and will be ignoring this thread. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement from Gerda Arendt

I talked to Northern Antarctica, it was archived with a question open. I see in the first diff provided that Ihardlythinkso said "learn to read and write". Assuming good faith, that is an advice to improve skills, but above it is described as "Attacking Kevin Gorman's intelligence". I hardly think so, having no way of even remotely interpreting it that way (or even as a personal attack): intelligence has nothing to do with reading skills. My advice is to simply improve communication between editors. I don't see how arbitration would help in this case. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• Recuse. --Rschen7754 17:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
• Recuse → Call me Hahc21 16:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/3/0/2>

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

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ihardlythinkso. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
• I haven't reviewed this case yet, but I am concerned that overall, the level of civility and decorum across the wiki seems to be declining. This is a risk to the long-term health of the project, a fact I wish contributors would bear in mind when choosing the tone of their comments in both everyday and contentious situations. Civility and collegialiy don't mean kindergarten norms of behavior or the enforcement of a phony-baloney artificial politesse, but neither do they contemplate the levels of snark, condescension, name-calling, and rudeness that we've all grown used to on too many pages. That being said, civility blocks and arbitration cases have often proved to be too blunt an instrument to be helpful with this problem, and I'm at a loss what to do to try to solve it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
• I tend to think that when the "conformation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried" consist of an ANI thread and talk page discussion, both from within the last 48 hours, the matter is probably not ripe for arbitration. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
• Decline per Go Phightins! Liz, no amount of ArbCom rulings will make people play nice together. For a community as diverse and large as Wikipedia's to have a healthy level of civility and amicable yet intellectually honest discourse is difficult. It is something that is in a perpetual state of dynamic tension, and one that we all help maintain by trying not to antagonise others, and trying to understand each other. Some care less for that than others, some are less able to empathise with others, but if enough are willing to lead by example and help smooth out rough patches before things get out of hand, then things should be mostly OK. Carcharoth (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
• It's very difficult to define what "civility" means; while some behaviours are quite obviously uncivil (personal attacks for instance), a lot of the incivility editors come across on Wikipedia is more sneaky and sometimes even widely accepted. There is an example I love making, which in my opinion clearly exemplifies this: sometimes, while discussing the actions of an editor, people will glibly make references to WP:NOTTHERAPY – which is something I find deeply offensive, much more so than, say, calling an editor a troll. And I admit I have occasionally been guilty of using WP:CIR to explain why I though an editor should be blocked, which isn't much better. Also, Wikipedia encourages a passive-aggressive approach which many find infuriating, which leads to outbursts which are then sanctioned whereas the original "provocation" is ignored.

  Ok, it would be wonderful if everyone could always be on their best behaviour, unfailingly using a professional tone and generally being kind to one another, but we are humans and sometimes we are just cranky, other times we are deeply invested in an article and may lose our patience with someone who doesn't seem to understand he's making bad edits (cf. WP:RANDY). In short, people do get angry and will sometimes be uncivil. In my opinion, when you have so many different people from so many different cultures working together, this can't be avoided and, yes, I think it should be accepted; what should not be accepted, however, is a pattern of incivility (with the term "incivility" referring to all kinds of uncivil behaviour, not just the "he was mean to me, block him" variety I sometimes see reported on ANI). Then again, how to deal with incivility is another matter entirely: policy and past experience suggest that blocks are not a good way to tackle the problem, dropping warnings written for new users on the talk page of experienced editors is liable to cause frustration (and more incivility) and arbitration cases, as we've seen, are not the answer either. I don't know what a possible working solution would be and think there should probably be an RFC asking the community for input and guidance. But this is something for another time. For now, this dispute is not ripe for arbitration; so I vote to decline the request. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• Decline. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)