Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:11, 23 June 2009

Request name	Initiated	Votes
Eastern Europe	19 June 2009	{{{votes}}}
telaviv1: "trial" resulting from sockpuppetryaccusation	18 June 2009	{{{votes}}}
IPod Touch Criticisms Section	16 June 2009	{{{votes}}}
St. John's University (NY) Article	10 June 2009	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	7 June 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads	none	none	4 June 2024
Amendment request: India-Pakistan	none	(orig. case)	7 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions	none	none	10 June 2024
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland	none	(orig. case)	21 June 2024

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Block of Rp2006	21 June 2024

Requests for arbitration

Shortcuts

Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority).

Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests.

Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace.

To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

File an arbitration request

This page is for statements, not discussion.

If you must reply to another user's statement, do so in your own section (more information).
Your section must not contain more than 500 words (Word Count Tool; internal gadget). This includes your replies to other users. To request an extension, either make the request in your statement section or email the clerks email list.
Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, eg off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
Declined case requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

Eastern Europe

Initiated by Jehochman ^Talk at 19:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
Digwuren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Offliner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Piotrus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Martintg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Colchicum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sander Säde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Vecrumba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
PasswordUsername (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Russavia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hiberniantears (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Beatle Fab Four (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Igny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

I have notified Digwuren, Biophys, Offliner, Sandstein, and Piotrus
Martintg[1], Colchicum[2], Vecrumba[3], Sander Säde[4], PasswordUsername[5], Russavia[6], Hiberniantears[7] notified. Offliner (talk) 01:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added Beatle Fab Four (must be brought here) and Igny and notified the former [8]. The latter is aware of the case, as seen below. Colchicum (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Jehochman

We have an ongoing situation with battleground behavior over East European nationalism topics. The famous Digwuren case resulted in discretionary sanctions. Regrettably, much like the Scientology case, it is hard to apply discretionary sanctions at WP:AE due to multiple and retaliatory threads being filed, groups of editors who support each others' editing toward a common point of view, and lack of consensus among administrators about what to do. This time I hope the committee will look at the evidence, decide who's been naughty and who's been nice, and make decisions. Please do not send hard issues back to the Community when we have already failed to resolve them.

The most recent threads were here and here and here occupying Pabout 50% of the discussion on that noticeboard.

The named parties are those who are most familiar with the recent threads, not necessarily those who have misbehaved. Additional parties probably need to be added. I am open to input from other parties about who should be included. Jehochman ^Talk 19:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why we need a case

WP:AE is useful to investigate incidents, put it is a poor venue for evaluating long term behavior problems, such as civil POV pushing and use of blocs to subvert consensus. We need a case to look at the editing by several vested contributors, to determine whether they are on balance helping the encyclopedia by improving content, or hurting the encyclopedia by promoting a battlezone atmosphere. Once those determinations are made, appropriate restrictions can be applied. I do not feel comfortable making such detailed investigations and nuanced decisions at the WP:AE venue. We need arbitration. Just because the Committee has failed in past efforts does not mean we should fail to keep trying. Jehochman ^Talk 19:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Stephen Bain

Stephen, I'd like the committee to look at the long term patterns of behavior evident through the many AE threads (see list in Prior Steps section). I believe there are one or more groups of editors with problematic behavior. Each group works toward its own POV, protects its members, and tramples any editors or administrators who get in their way. These groups have been described as tag teams or clubs. I think of them as gangs. When we look at any one incident, the behavior of the individual gang members often does not seem sanctionable, yet if we could look at the entire pattern of behavior, spanning multiple incidents, I think it would become clear which editors are here to help Wikipedia and which ones are not. This sort of analysis is not suitable for AE 1/ due to space constraints, and 2/ because the "gang" members protect each other. I know that quality content contributors have been driven off by this situation, and I think we must firmly put an end to it. Jehochman ^Talk 02:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Status update

We have taken steps to improve the performance of WP:AE, per feedback from the arbitrators who have said a case is not needed. There are two threads that remain open there. If those threads achieve consensus, I believe this request may be moot. If those threads cannot be resolved, then a case may be needed. Jehochman ^Talk 14:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Status update June 23

It seems like the majority of issues have been resolved by Shell Kinney and Thatcher at WP:AE. See User:Shell Kinney/EEreportsreview. Jehochman ^Talk 05:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

I agree generally with Jehochman's assessment that the Eastern Europe-related threads that he and I have recently closed on WP:AE are indicative of battleground-like mentality between groups of editors whose points of view seem to be polarized around various political issues related to Russia. It might be worth a try for the Committee to resolve this slow-motion multiparty conflict by means of a case. Although I closed the AE threads as not actionable in part because much of the conduct objected to was already stale, the Committee – which has more time and resources for examining the conduct of the involved parties – might come to a different conclusion.

On the other hand, because wide-ranging discretionary sanctions are already available, the most that a case could provide in terms of remedies are likely to be topic bans, revert restrictions and the like, which can already be imposed with less bureaucracy through WP:AE should it become more evident who is currently in need of them. A "pox on both their houses" all-around topic ban might be more readily accepted coming from the Committee, but I am not sure whether we are already at a stage where we need it. What could be helpful, though, would be the (explicit) authority to impose discretionary restrictions with respect to articles or groups of articles, not only with respect to individual users.

As a procedural matter, I'm not sure whether I should remain listed as an involved party, because my involvement here is limited to participating in arbitration enforcement proceedings as an administrator. Sandstein 20:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Kirill Lokshin

I understand your statement to mean that you disagree with the recent "no action" closures of WP:AE threads by myself and possibly others. If so, I'd appreciate your input (and that of other arbitrators) on WT:AE and in discussions related to any later requests with respect to the action that you recommend to take in such cases. Speaking for myself, I have no problem if another administrator decides to take enforcement action in cases where I do not, so as far as I am concerned, you are of course also free to issue any sanctions you deem necessary in these cases. Sandstein 05:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Digwuren

So, another battleground. Will this never end? Дигвурен Дигвурович_Аллё? 21:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Offliner

This is long dispute over articles on Eastern European topics, characterised by sustained edit warring[9][10], tendentious editing, tag teaming, personal attacks[11] and assumptions of bad faith[12][13]. Aspects of this dispute have been discussed in countless threads on WP:AN [14],WP:AN/I [15],WP:AN/EW [16][17][18] and WP:AE [19][20][21][22][23]. An example of recent disruption is the following edit warring by Digwuren (4 reverts in 24 hours on 10-11 June): [24][25][26][27]. I am convinced that the disruptive behaviour will not stop without ArbCom help. The admins have been reluctant to do anything about the disruptive behaviour when the cases been reported individually (probably because they are afraid to take action without taking a look at the wider issue.) Many warnings have already been given with no effect. I truly think arbitration is the only way to solve this.

An overview of the front lines and evidence of tag teaming can be seen in these AfD discussions:[28][29][30]. Note how (from the editors listed in this case) the same editors who voted "delete" at [31] consistently voted "keep" at[32]. Editors belonging to a team are consistently supporting each other in edit warring, votes and discussion. As an example of why such tag teaming is disruptive, see this [33] template deletion discussion. Everyone else voted "delete" as the template was deemed offensive and disruptive - except the said team, who all voted "keep".

Here are some quotes that characterise the situation well: [34][35].

The scale of the dispute should be evident from these diffs, and it should be easy to see that every possible venue except arbitration has been exhausted. Offliner (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, it should be clear from the diffs (some of which are very recent) that the issue is not stale: disruptive behaviour such as edit warring, POV-pushing and tagteaming is ongoing and there is no indication that it is going to stop. The best solution would be to let the ArbCom examine all the evidence in a centralized manner and then make some hard decisions. Offliner (talk) 02:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Vecrumba: there is a lot more evidence, which has not been examined at WP:AE or anywhere. For example the following recent edit warring by Martintg: [36][37][38][39][40][41]. It is impossible to get this really looked at on WP:AE. For example, I cannot present any evidence without being immediately accused of block shopping by several editors who wish to shoot the messenger instead of focusing on the diffs itself. Reports with crystal clear evidence of edit warring are being dismissed with no action taken because of who is filing the report (instead of the evidence itself) and because the admins feel they cannot take action without examining the larger dispute. The idea of taking this to ArbCom is that the arbitrators will be able to look at the whole issue and all the evidence in a centralized manner, and because they have the authority to make hard decisions, as pointed out by the two admins above. Offliner (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, being mindful of WP:AGF, one still has to seriously consider the possibility, that the aim of several users here may be to prevent the evidence of their misbehaviour being looked at. This seems evident from the threads at WP:AE etc., where a team of editors immediately arrives to support their member if a report against one is filed. They will then attempt to muddy the waters and distract attention away from the evidence in various ways, for example by shooting the messenger, as pointed out by PasswordUsername below. Offliner (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Martintg

I'm confused, no sooner than we had Jehochman closing an AE request with the following comment: "If you have content disputes, mediation and the noticeboards are available. If there is a behavior problem, I suggest you ask an uninvolved, experienced editor to review the matter and give you feedback before posting here. (If they think your gripe is legitimate, they can file the request or provide a supporting comment.) It is too easy to see what you want to see in the midst of a heated dispute" he files an ArbCom request before people can digest and take stock. It is evident from Offliner's statement above that some have an appetite for battlegrounds and wikidramu in order to get the upper hand in what is essentially a content dispute, but I don't. I think at least some opportunity should be given to implement Jehochman's advice on content dispute resolution before coming here.

As Sandstein stated, wide-ranging discretionary sanctions are already available, the most that a new ArbCom case could provide in terms of remedies are likely to be topic bans, revert restrictions and the like, which can already be imposed with less bureaucracy through WP:AE. I don't understand why Jehochman believes AE is failing to resolve these issues, he had the authority to apply discretionary sanctions, but instead chose to reject this AE case as having no merit. Sandstein recently completed a case resulting in a 3 month topic ban and a 6 month 1RR parole, while two cases involving Offliner and Biophys resulted in case dismissed. Seems to me AE is working adequately well and admins like Sandstein are exercising good judgment in these AE cases. One only has to look at the Log of blocks and bans to see that it is working. That is why I am perplexed by this request. I don't know why Jehochman listed all those who commented in these two AE cases as participants here, including himself and Sandstein. Perhaps he is unhappy in the way Sandstein conducted these recent AE cases and wants ArbCom to review them? It is not clear what he is actually seeking here.

In regard to Sandstein's suggestion of additional explicit authority to impose discretionary restrictions with respect to articles or groups of articles, not only with respect to individual users, this is a good suggestion and I would support it. However this can be done via a "Request to amend a prior case" rather than a full blown ArbCom case. --Martintg (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Clerks: renaming is premature at this stage. There is a view forming that the original "Digwuren" case should be renamed "Northern Europe", due to the fact the main participants and the central disputed topics in that case are from that region. There is a precedent in this with the "Piotrus 2" case renamed to "Eastern Europe". Unfortunately the existing "Digwuren" case name has unnecessarily stigmatized Digwuren making difficult for him to integrate back into the community as he has become somewhat of a visible target. --Martintg (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HibernianTears' comments seem to suggest that placing 1RR restrictions to articles would be more effective than on editors. This is what Sandstein seems to be suggesting too. It is certainly a less stressful approach for everyone. It seems to me that Kirill is implying that discretionary sanctions does permit this approach. Nor do I see how article level 1RR restriction (which was Sandstein's idea) would favour the larger party, as suggested by PasswordUsername, since it would impact both parties equally regardless of size. However 1RR restrictions on individuals clearly would favour the larger party as simple arithmetic would show and wouldn't solve the issue of new socks popping out of the wood work after one has been hit with the ban hammer. --Martintg (talk) 03:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some people here seem to be questioning Sandstein's decision in closing two recent cases on AE. The issue for me isn't that Sandstein closed the cases with no action, I trust his judgment and he has certainly shown by his record he not timid in imposing sanctions. The issue for me is that Jehochman closed an AE case without action stating it was content related, then back flips and appears to blame Sandstein as the reason for Jehochman closing his case and subsequently bringing it here to ArbCom after one of the complainants Offliner engaging in what Jehochman calls "nasty wikilawyering" on Jehochman's talk page. --Martintg (talk) 05:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am gobsmacked to read Deacon's characterization of editors here as "gangsters" and his "Polono-Baltic faction" conspiracy theory. Is this Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes all over again? Were not these very same issues addressed in that case and was not one of the principles in that case about casting aspersions? It is truly ironic that Deacon should come here complaining about the Eastern European case being "usurped" by other disputes, then writes how this case is actually related to the "Polish faction" and thus should be expanded to look at the "Polono-Baltic faction". --Martintg (talk) 10:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept this case

Initially I was opposed to this case as I believed it was simply a content dispute. However I'd like the ArbCom to look problems concerning the AE board, as evidenced by Jehochman's mini-wheel war we have just witnessed. This view among admins like Deacon and Jehochman of long term Baltic editors being "gangsters" has poisoned that atmosphere to the degree that it is impossible for long term editors to get admin assistance via boards like AE against disruptive editors, in this case PasswordUsername and Offliner, who misuse Wikipedia through blatant BPL violations, WP:SOAPBOXing and WP:POINT to paint Estonia as country where government ministers wear Nazi regalia, often molest children, unduly use opinions of the neo-Nazi Risto Teinonen [42],[43],[44],[45],[46],[47] to give the impression that Estonian authorities criminally repress citizens or that Estonia systematically discriminate against ethnic minorities. I have no issue about articles that show warts and all, but one soon gets the sense that these editors aren't really working for the benefit of the project and discussion isn't really that effective due to WP:IDONTHEARYOU.

Jehochman has raised the wikidrama even further by reopening three AE reports closed by Sandstein. No sooner had I suggested that I had evidence to post concerning Offliner's combative forum shopping to gain the upper hand in content disputes and Shelly Kinney suggestion that I post it to Offliner's reopened AE thread she is currently investigating, Jehochman closes off the thread ending any further investigation, then implies I am a "tendentious editor" in need of repelling. And yet Jehochman encourages Offliner to continue posting evidence to Digwuren's thread[48]. This is not the first time Jehochman has intervened to close threads with "No action" for users engaging in egregious conduct against the "Baltic gangsters"[49],[50], yet he reopens other threads about these "Baltic gangsters" closed by other admins and ignores additional admins that urge closure without action. Apparently if the egregious conduct is against the "Baltic gangsters" he will turn a blind eye to the evidence and admonish those "gangsters" for bringing the case in the first place. But if the thread is about the "Baltic gangsters" then he will create sufficient wikidrama to get the result he wants.

This hysteria about "Nationalist blocs" is being exploited by certain admins to crush reasonable experienced editors to the detriment of the project. If the ArbCom is of a mind to open this case, then I welcome it. I hope that the ArbCom thoroughly examine the role of totally uninformed and belligerent admins such as Jehochman jumping in over blowing a simple AE requests that was dealt fairly and quickly and turning it into a ugly BATTLEGROUND. Let's have some analysis of these claims that admins like Jehochman make in order to justify the antics that we are presently seeing at AE. Let's have some accountability here. --Martintg (talk) 01:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Biophys

Three cases have been completed at AE. They resulted in "no action". I do not think ArbCom should waste time for reconsidering them again. Technically, there is little beyond edit warring, which can be addressed by individual administrators using the existing discretionary sanctions. How many new EE cases do we need?

What we need is improvement of WP:AE. It is enough to review each case by two administrators to properly handle cases like this, which I believe was not properly handled.

As about the groups of editors (the "gangs"), yes, such groups are all over WP, and EE sector is not an exception. These groups contribute a lot of content but collectively own many articles. This is called WP:Consensus. There is little we can do about it.

Statement by Vecrumba

I am sorry, Jehochman, "most familiar with the threads but have not necessarily misbehaved" is an inappropriate means of listing editors as parties to an arbitration. We already have an Arbitration which concluded with an enforcement mechanism. That has worked sufficiently well. What is the

objective here?
purpose here?

other than, frankly, whether intended or not, creating yet another sinkhole of editorial effort better spent creating articles which are based on reputable sources fairly and accurately represented. I have no intention of wasting my weekend here defending myself and likely other editors against a new set of voluminous diffs accessorized with editor-bashing and endless innuendo. Jehochman, you wish input? Close this action, which will be little but an attack platform, monitor whatever editors you wish, and please enforce the sanctioning mechanism already available.
I am sorry for the suggestion of "Digwuren 2" below, more than anything that reflects how easily we smear editors without even thinking about it or realizing that's what we are doing.
As for a pox on all, that should not be required as we already have an enforcement mechanism that works well enough. Vecrumba TALK 02:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest Offliner do better on evidence, first two are his own accusations, with the following results:

first one - Offliner initiated, closed no action
second one - Offliner initated, closed and characterized as an attempt by Offliner to win a content dispute by arbitration

It's inappropriate to point to evidence one has submitted, and for which rulings have closed, as evidence. Double, triple, quadruple, quintuple,... jeopardy?
With all the new participants here (Offliner, PasswordUsername, Russavia,...) I don't see how the Digwuren arbitration can be listed as a "prior" attempt at resolution which, by its being listed here, is implied as having failed. It works fine. Enforce it. Vecrumba TALK 03:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PasswordUsername's eloquent denunciation below makes it appear they are not one of the current (and fresh and energetic) chief instigators of conflict, from POV pushing on articles which have been stable for more than half a year to making accusations against editors on user talk pages, behind their backs.
To Hiberniantears, you and others may well believe this is simply two warring camps. So, I ask you to apply the WP litmus test. When Hiberniantears was "duped" (his word) into this conflict, which "side" was it that duped him by wailing and gnashing their teeth over evil editors obstructing content and which "side" posted links to reputable references on Hiberniantears' talk page for him to read to familiarize himself with the topic so he could be an informed participant? I am tired of being painted as just another recalcitrant "nationalist"—where love of heritage and a genuine and honest desire for the world to know more about that heritage and its history is some sort of affliction to be stamped out.
As for his example of the Human rights in the United States RfC I have had lengthy discourse with Hiberniantears and in fact Viriditas over allegations of following edits, supporting cabals, and all. There are valid reasons for significant overlaps of interests in certain groups of editors. With the human rights violation accusations in the Baltics, I can guarantee every Baltic editor has read up on that topic in detail. And I explained how I look to see what editors are doing outside the conflict zone. Viriditas took dissent as an attack (he has been "protecting" in the--I want to make this clear--positive words of another editor) the page for some time. What I posted in the RfC had nothing to do with supporting anyone and was purely my editorial opinion. It is editors such as PasswordUsername with their spinning of events that sow the seeds of distrust and "always assume bad faith first." I refuse to have perceptions of my conduct be held hostage to such purveyors of bad faith. Vecrumba TALK 14:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PasswordUsername's protestations of "entanglement" cannot be taken seriously. Let's examine his edit on Jaak Aaviksoo, an article which hadn't been touched in half a year (except for a couple of category edits and a typo fix), inserting a blatant attack statement—later professing to have somehow "misread" a source—writing in his biography article that the Estonian minister of defense paraded around dressed in Nazi paraphenalia. PasswordUsername's intentions regarding Estonian topics have been quite clear for some time (my perception, of course). Inserting this sort of blaspheming content in an article which has been stable for months and months is clearly not the act of an ensnared innocent.
As to protestations he is an "American" and is not part of some "Russian" editing group, no one has claimed this is an ethnic conflict. (Well, no, I've been called a hateful Russophobe more than once.) This conflict is about fair and reputable representation of history and events in Eastern Europe and the Baltics. Articles should be:

reputably sourced content
"POV" #1 and reputable support for that POV
"POV" #2 and reputable support for that POV...

and not, in the name of "balance":

"POV" #1 = #1's "version" of history
"POV" #2 = #2's "version" of history

all versions valid, it's all just a matter of "opinion."
I hope this clarifies for those who are not a party to this conflict. Vecrumba TALK 17:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Hiberniantears

Somewhat more in retrospect I appreciated Hiberniantears effort, although at the time it exacerbated the issues involved as an article was split (I felt) along a historically inappropriate (both by Baltic and Soviet accounts) divide. But to the larger issue: the conflict will not resolve itself until the time when (if ever) the Russian Federation formally acknowledges Soviet acts including the occupation of the Baltic states. Scholars of international law support occupation based on gross violations of numerous treaties and of the constitutions of the Baltics. Vladimir Putin declared that even as a "drunken student" he knew the Baltics weren't "occupied." The Russian Duma passes a resolution that Latvia joined the USSR "legally according to international law," for which declaration not one iota of support has ever been produced. The conflict on WP only reflects the world at large. To expect or demand otherwise is simply naive. As I've indicated, there is already a mechanism to deal with disruptive editors—which should start with editors who spend more time accusing other editors than discussing and creating content. Vecrumba TALK 05:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Deacon

I have to disagree with your characterization of:

Polono-Baltic faction have been at wikipedia as long as most of the users they edit-war with (most older opponents, have been driven away because of their frustration with the area).

One of those editors "driven" away, with whom I had mostly a guardedly cordial relationship with occasional flare-ups, once inserted conclusions based on his own reading of a source into an article which differed from the authors' very own conclusions in the self-same source to suit their POV. Many more reputable and extremely knowledgeable "Polono-Baltic" editors have been driven away because of the endless slurs and attacks.
To my point above as to who contends what outside of content, that is, who comes to new participants with accusations and who comes to new participants with sources, I think that litmus test is clear. The reason I am still here is because there is never any reason for me to reduce the "conflict" to "opposing POVs" as I have reputable--including NON-Balto-Polonic--sources. The reason editors from the "other" side disappear is because they tire of the conflict they themselves create. Ultimately, I am here for the content, and that is why I have longevity. PasswordUsername will eventually depart citing the evil cabal of Balto-Polonic editors, and there will be those such as Deacon who will perhaps give that some credence, but that departure will be because, in the end, their mission in reducing history to nothing but who says what (my perception) will have failed.
I regret Deacon believes I and other editors are here to inflict our Polono-Baltic POV and to drive reputable editors with differing opinions away. For example, I don't always agree with editor Illythr, but they keep their discussion on what sources say, and for that reason we can discuss opposing sources constructively. It is not possible to discuss opposing opinions—absent of sources—constructively. Vecrumba TALK 14:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Balto-Polonic or Polono-Baltic is an artificial construct. There are many more countries that are in the geopolitical sphere of editorial interest where motivated knowledgeable editors contribute to lifting the veil of half a century of Soviet obfuscation. De-obfuscation is not WP crime, nor is a fair representation to just label it as another POV. For those that push neo-Nazis as reputable sources [51][52][53][54][55][56] (Tienonen has been stripped of past awards for, among other things, republishing translated Nazi propaganda in Estonian) or represent quotes out of context as open support of discrimination, [57] (first insert) [58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74] (the issue was "Apartheid is a normal thing" being WP:OR interpreted as meaning WP:BLP-violating "openly supporting apartheid") we already have remedies enough. Vecrumba TALK 20:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Jehochman

As it is Offliner who has the issue in this "space," I fail to understand why you filed the arbitration in his stead (with Offliner thanking you afterwards). I am concerned that the current situation:

obscures Offliner's role here, making this appear to be initiated by an admin independent of Offliner's actions, and
(my perception) resembles the kind of "duping" Hiberniantears spoke of that has already caused me to be attacked as a SPA.

I respectfully request you be de-listed as the originator of this request and that Offliner be appropriately listed instead. Until Offliner enlisted your assistance and I received Offliner's notice of my being a "party" to this affair, I had never heard of you. Whatever the circumstances leading to the current situation, I must WP:AGF that you are as genuinely concerned about the state of affairs in EE/Baltic articles as you say you are. You must therefore WP:AGF on your part when I let you know that--having gone through many of these before--this looks like arbitration by proxy on the part of Offliner. Vecrumba TALK 23:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent actions, as documented by Martintg's expression of concerns above, are not dispelling my initial fears as expressed directly above, that you are effectively sponsoring Offliner's actions and are not impartial in this. I am heartened by your most recent comment as to your objectivity, and I hope it affords you the opportunity to appreciate appearances from my perspective and understand that this statement (and I suspect Martintg's above) is not meant as an attack. Vecrumba TALK 16:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to admins

I won't comment on current side activities except to suggest considering containing the drama to this one arbitration request until opened to be heard or closed. I would also please ask admins to approach their duties and responsibilities with humility and respect for their position. I've (my perception) observed some lecturing lately, some deserved but some not. WP:AGF, don't shoot the messenger. Thanks in advance. Vecrumba TALK 15:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some random thoughts I started on some time ago—October, 2008— based on my involvement in Holodomor and how these proceedings might better be handled, that also being a case of content warring through abuse of arbitration, at "Presentation of evidence". Perhaps this can be of some use in considering future reforms. Vecrumba TALK 17:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hiberniantears

Second the views of Jehochman. But I honestly think this is a hopeless effort. I got duped into trying to use the mop on a few articles relating to the Baltics a few months ago and it was nothing but a waste of time. I washed my hands of it and walked away. I found the two sides to be ruthlessly antagonistic toward each other, and entirely unwilling to work together. They are literally fighting the last 100 years of history, from both the Russian perspective, and that of the countries Russia controlled. Unless ArbCom wants to establish a way to rule on content by judging not what belongs in an article, but what clearly does not belong, then no amount of sanctions in the world will work. We don't have enough admins to just sit idly by and hand out sanctions to the next incarnation of the same group of skilled POV-pushing editors who emerge a few months down the road, and any admin who makes the mistake of trying to help simply has circles run around them by the skilled POV-pushers and leaves that area with a bitter taste in their mouth.

That said, we all know you won't rule on content. We also know that topic bans will be suggested. This will take care of the problem, but also create a new problem by banning the one or two editors who may actually know what they're talking about, but just happen to be emotionally wrapped up in one of the cliques. Admins can't really police these articles without inadvertently getting "involved" since they get swarmed by the actual involved editors on every talk page and noticeboard they can find on Wikipedia, so even if you issue sanctions, we admins would have to be insane to try and enforce them on your behalf. I certainly wouldn't, knowing full well that it could lead to my losing the mop for trying to help, and that any banned or blocked editors will just come back as socks. The only thing I would be willing to go near as an admin would be a clearly posted 1RR restriction on any problem article. Then, when the edit wars inevitably start up, I could just block anyone doing it, rather then get dragged into trying to figure out which version of the article should be reverted to and protected (when dealing with cases where protecting could simply lock in a version of an article which is hateful or malicious, without being obvious vandalism).

That's my 2 cents. We all know the problem lies in the content. We can block and ban people for bad behavior all we want, but we'll just be back here in a few months discussing exactly the same problems. Hiberniantears (talk) 03:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update Comment Deacon of Pndapetzim's comments below are a considerably more coherent expression of my sentiments on this issue. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At Kirill While I appreciate your recognition that ArbCom can't make a further difference here, I do think it is important to recognize the role that ArbCom has in perpetuating the problem. I'm sure that many admins would love to help out at WP:AE, but we also see what happens to admins who find they are left to fend for themselves when maintaining the constant attention that is required to filter the incredible amount of noise that we encounter when trying to perform so much as a proof read on any of these articles. For you to say "all that is required is an administrator that will actually use them as we have instructed instead of closing enforcement requests without action" entirely dismisses the role you and ArbCom are playing in creating a view among admins that we involve ourselves in complex problems here entirely at our own risk. You're telling us to take action in an area where we know you won't support us if things go sideways. Admirably, both Sandstein and Jehochman have both erred on the side of caution, rather than over ride each other, or accidentally apply sanctions in a contradictory fashion. Would you have preferred they acted boldly, so that we could instead now have another ArbCom case on admin abuse? Hiberniantears (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Igny

I am not an expert in WP bureaucracy, so I can not make a judgment on whether the ArbCom is the right way to go or if the other methods have failed. However I do have a few comments on the issue under consideration here. Most of the following is my personal opinion and it is not aimed at particular editors and I do not want to provide diffs of concrete examples to prove my point. However I do wish to make Wikipedia better by somehow resolving these issues. I understand that there may be no way to resolve any of them. I may blow things out of proportion.

Blocs of editors do exist on Wikipedia. In some cases two or more blocs participate in a number of edit wars, easily avoiding 3RR violations. The 3RR rule therefore fails to stop the edit wars. The bloc voting is also quite common on AfDs, RfCs and other voting places.

The way the blocs are organized and participation of a specific editor in actions of his/her blocs may vary, but in many cases the blocs are easily identifiable. In some cases an editor may be actually in a denial about his participation or organization of a bloc, or may justify his/her actions as helping the greater good. In some cases an editor may feel s/he is not a part of a bloc, however his/her opinions quite often coincide 100% with opinions of a certain bloc.

Nearly all blocs claim that their edits make articles more neutral, or less POV. "We are always good and help build encyclopedia, and you are bad and want to destroy our quality work" is a typical argument. And in some cases indeed the article comes to a somewhat semi-stable version, sometimes called the status quo version, which is really hard to change by individual editors because of resistance of one of the sides.

Incivility is typically not an issue here as it is usually actionable offense, but even in cases of obviously bad behavior, one could notice attempts of the blocs to defend their own. Ad hominem attacks to defeat certain arguments are nonetheless abound. Many editors are armed with WP:ALPHABETSOUP which they quite often frivolously throw around to help their cause.

The issue at hand here is two opposite and easily identifiable blocs and possibly a handful of relatively independent editors which participate in Eastern Europe battleground here on Wikipedia. The battles rage over a wide range of controversial topics, all somehow connected to the Soviet and post-Soviet history of Eastern Europe. The methods/actions include creating and defending POV-titled and POV-filled articles (lots of AfDs failed due to no-consensus), pushing or removing a POV against the resistance of the opposite bloc, attempts to discredit editors from the opposite blocs. In some of the conflicts where I participated, I noticed the quid-pro-quo character of the battles, actions which can be considered as attacks followed by what can be called retaliations.

Having said all that, I have no obvious solution. There was a suggestion to create a WikiProject to deal with just EE Battleground issues, but that would not solve the bloc problem. A topic ban has to be certainly out of question here. Regardless of the edit wars both sides make valuable contributions to the EE topics. The fact that these topics are often controversial is the main cause for the extreme polarity of the opinions.

I wonder if the rejection of the case by itself would acknowledge the existence of the problem as well as absence of acceptable remedies as well as lack of will to resolve the raised issues. (Igny (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by PasswordUsername

I would like to see ArbCom rule here, because every other step in the enforcement hierarchy has so far failed. In my two-point-five months of experience here as a registered user, I have seen complete disregard of Wikipedia policy. Eastern European topics are swamped with POV, soapboxing, advocacy, and bloc-generated revert wars. As said before, administrators are unwilling to intervene (or intervene against a certain party), whether this is at WP:AN/WP:ANI, WP:AE, in response to requests made at administrator talk pages, or any other venue appropriate for reporting abuse. Even when previously sanctioned editors obviously violate past sanctions and WP:BLP, no action is taken, as evident from the evidence provided at the just-closed discussions at WP:AE.

Like the other users whose statements are above mine, I cannot make any concrete recommendations for ArbCom, but I would encourage it to at least instruct administrators on how to handle self-evident breaches of policy - even when reports get out-and-out trolled to death by members of the opposing team.

If administrators continue to turn a blind eye to abuse by editors instead of acting firmly to stop inappropriate behavior for reasons that it would be perceived as too unpopular or politically incorrect from the perspective a certain bloc, no action at all is taken. This, unfortunately, has not been the exception, but the rule. In such conditions, editors become radicalized, POV across the board escalates as editors retaliate against the opposing team by deliberately mishandling the neutral point of view on other articles in an attempt to troll against the other party, and blocs whose routine activity consists in following one another around invade other articles (as recently seen at the RfC for Human rights in the United States) and recruit allies from other battlefields. For obvious reasons, this is untenable. PasswordUsername (talk) 04:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Martintg: 1RR restrictions on articles would simply favor the largest party, rather than Wikipedia's policy of NPOV. Hence I find Martintg's suggestion simple and ineffective in actually patching up the content dispute situation he identifies as the issue here. (On the other hand, things like this [75][76] (the first diff is culled from a four-edits-in-24-hours violations train by Digwuren; many more are elsewhere but are, as usual, dismissed) are simply not content disputes, but issues of wholesale violations of procedural and behavioral norms. They are nothing but abuse that no one is willing to deal with.) PasswordUsername (talk) 04:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Vecrumba - with the comments from Deacon of Pndapetzim elaborated on from my perspective: Everything I wrote at the time on Hiberniantears' page was in fact true (and largely still is). As a result of the behavior described by Deacon of Pndapetzim (below), I found myself entangled. I had no contact with Offliner before May 11, just after I was attacked as an editor in various assorted ways by members of what Deacon has identified as the Baltic group in response to my nomination of a category for deletion, finding myself stalked, attacked by Biophys, Digwuren, and a few other allies as a sock-puppet of someone else, and so forth. I am not a Russian nationalist, though I feel that Wikipedia is clearly biased on subjects such as Russia in certain ways which cater to anti-Russian and other nationalist points of view. I did allow my judgment to slip, and a sense of retaliation did then get the better of me. As you can see from my edit history (but don't stalk me, please) I did not even contribute anything to any Baltic articles until that point, and I still largely stay away from things dealing with Russian politics. To disclose a bit more, since I'm not an ethnic Russian, I think I'm disqualified from becoming a Russian nationalist: the construct, as all European nationalisms, is an ethnic rather than a political one. (I'm also based in the United States.) Ethnic wars by nationalists have the much-noted polarizing effect on those who are not and cannot be, since those who do not appreciate polarizing nationalist editors can either join a party or get the heck out. And in response to your charges, I'll say that as they certainly constitute the smaller bloc, the Russian side hasn't pushed POV as much as their opponents (nor had the chance to do it, although their Baltic opponents will naturally deny it. One only has to look at the long-term survival of obvious POV forks like Evidence of FSB involvement in the Russian apartment bombings - I'm still waiting for an Evidence of CIA involvement in the September 11 attacks to have a point of contrast with... The much more better sourced Discrimination against ethnic minorities in Estonia (history) redirects to another page...)

On the same note, I also disagree with Deacon in that I don't think the "Russian side" - while far from stellar in many ways - has been the more incivil one here. Sticking to proper Wikipedia procedure is actually more important for the smaller bloc, since, as Deacon says, it's always the Baltic side (+ several Polish editors, Biophys + Colchicum) that dominates the noticeboards through superiority in numbers (and is accordingly better equipped to troll away at administrators in unfamiliar territory in response to out-and-out violations by members of their supporting team). A Digwuren will more than likely get 5 people, including the more productive Baltic contributors such as yourself, defending him. That's about as many people as the Russian side can get on a very good day. What we could do is simply compare the transgressions of Shotlandiya and Digwuren in recent WP:AE threads and compare the results.

Either standing policy for everyone gets enforced for both sides by administrators (perhaps only with actual prodding from the Arbitration Committee), or ArbCom makes a decision on its own. Or Wikipedia suffers. The buck can be passed around indefinitely.

PasswordUsername (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Vecrumba's further comments: To keept his short, I'll emphasize that there certainly aren't any innocents in either bloc. At the same time, the history I presented above is freely available for anyone to review. I did not mention you in my initial statement, and I'd rather stay away from further tit-for-tat retorting, which will only serve to muddle and muddle things needlessly. Vague accusations and counter accusations make poor substitutes for facts, which require diffs and contexts. I will provide as many of these as required by the committee or any administrators if this case makes it to ArbCom.

PasswordUsername (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Piotrus

How am I involved in that dramu? Why is Sandstein included in this? And - nothing personal - who is Jehochman? I don't recall I had the pleasure of interacting with Jehochman on any article, or in any other discussion.

Puzzlement from me being listed as a party by Jehochman aside, yes, there is an ongoing series of problems involving the Baltics and Russian issues (which don't correspond to a much wider territory defined as Eastern Europe - I'd suggest renaming the case from "Eastern Europe" to "Baltics") and editors. I have made a few occasional comments in related discussions, when they popped out on my watchlists with names/issues I recognized, making maybe a comment a week, and that's the extent of my involvement. That said, I do think that the problems, involving editors mostly listed above, are serious, and may merit arbcom consideration, although I also trust Sandstein's judgement that perhaps we can deal with is more expediently on AE without the need for another lengthy ArbCom case. In either case, I may offer a few comments as an outside party somewhat familiar with some editors and content issues here, time permitting.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved?) Miacek

I suggest rejecting this request, as per Kirill Lokshin. I see no merit in wasting a few months in wikilawyering: what has been possible to achieve, has already been achieved with previous cases (named after Digwuren, Piotrus). What we need, is to carry out the policies agreed on by reasonable, as neutral as possible sysops, who at the same time are really aware of the scope of those eastern European discussions. Miacek (t) 11:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Deacon of Pndapetzim

Comments about AE threads

AE threads should be admin-only, with the mostly tendentious comments of involved parties confined to talk pages. This would require each AE thread getting its own subpage. Alternatively, like ArbCom workshops, there could be a separate section for admins. The reason admin-status should be used, is because 1) they are the only users who can close AE threads and 2) there is no objective way of verifying a user's level of tendentiousness, but this as a rule of thumb will keep almost all such noise out of the discussion. At the moment, even the most experienced AE admins can't tell who's involved and who's not, although often it becomes obvious. This makes AE not only attractive for tendentious commentary, but furthermore the users involved may often feel they are unsafe unless they do comment. And as each side will probably feel like this, we get what Jehochman is complaining about.

Connections between Digwuren and Piotrus 2

This Digwuren area is not intrinsically connected with the case formerly called Piotrus 2, now known as Eastern European disputes (which geographically would embrace everything from the Macedonia stuff to the Baltic stuff here). When I launched the case to examine the behaviour of Piotrus and Alden Jones, the case was "usurped" by other disputes, such as the Irpen v. Baltic users (+ Biophys) and Irpen v. Piotrus. But nevertheless, at the end, Piotrus 2 involved Polish-Lithuanian disputes and more vaguely, Polish-German and Polish-Russian disputes. The connections are as follows:

1) The discretionary sanctions in the Digwuren case has allowed AE threads to be filed against editors totally uninvolved in the Digwuren matter, mainly coming from the "Polish group" against Lithuanian and German users
2) The "Baltic group" (Estonian and Latvian users) is "allied" to the "Polish group", mostly because of historical ties between members of each going back to common hostilities with users like Ghirlandajo and (mainly) Irpen, who no longer participate on wikipedia.

The Baltic-Poland faction is overwhelmingly superior in numbers (though they will claim the opposite is true, it is proven false by looking at any AE thread). But it is my opinion that this alliance goes through Piotrus only, and will in the long-run collapse because the elimination of Irpen and Ghirla give them little reason to co-operate in the longer-term. And when it is just Baltic nationalists v. Russian nationalists the numbers are more equal, though the former still predominate.

I think it should be said however that very few of the opponents of the Polono-Baltic faction have been at wikipedia as long as most of the users they edit-war with (most older opponents, have been driven away because of their frustration with the area). Additionally, much if not most editing arrangements are conducted offline, probably by both sides, but the connections of the Russian camp are certainly less because of a higher turnover. It is thus the case that the Polono-Baltic camp atm (though probably not in the long-term, as I said) rarely have reason to resolve disputes by on talk pages and such, as they usually have more incentive to resolve disputes by force of numbers. Because they are more organised and more disciplined, discretionary sanctions on matters of civility and editing restrictions will probably continue to favour this faction.

Solution

ArbCom's problem is that the members really don't know what can be done, and neither do I. A solution I'm dodgy about is to introduce 1rr, apply generously, and reclassify for such purpose multiple editors as one editor. I hear that some CUs use software to map out editing patterns of various users; I'm sure ArbCom'd be very interested to see such results, for both sides, in this area, as it may make clearer which editors are doing most to disrupt the normal wikipedia editing routine.

Urge rejection

But I urge ArbCom to reject this case, as in my opinion they've mishandled most of the previous cases and will likely only empower these cabals further by creating more gameable number-favouring remedies. Bad action is worse than no action. Arbcom remedies, as with wikipedia policies, will continue to be used for what is essentially gangsterism. This gangsterism is the main reason hostilities in the area are perpetuated. Editors faced with the collective power of such gangs have no choice but to form their own ad hoc alliances or leave wikipedia. Editors faced with their collective power also have less incentive to obey wikipedia's rules, as they know these rules favour superior numbers and thus they will lose out whether they behave or not. It is also well established among psychologists and anthropologists (and zoologists) that aggressive posturing (such as incivility), among individuals and groups, is a reflection of an inner sense of weakness/insecurity (part of normal and rational survival strategy for dealing with this position). But in fairness, as such gangs are the accidental product of multiple person activity for which no person can be held responsible, it is unfair to continually subject such users to these cases. ArbCom expect users to devote lots of time compiling diffs, which is no fun activity, nor is it fun for either side to see each other's names dragged through the mud. Yes, there is a problem, but ArbCom offers few solutions, so don't ask users to waste their time on process for its own sake. And don't expect any bridges to be built by making these users go through another round of disputes.

List of AE threads

I've already posted this on his talk page, but in response to John Vandenberg's request, here is a page I composed from AE and AE archives, now updated User:Deacon_of_Pndapetzim/North-East_Europe_AE_threads. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Colchicum

There are clear attemps in the Eastern European sector to use Wikipedia as a political battleground (it is not really nationalist, as there have been Russians, Finns, Romanians, Australians, Dutchmen and Americans of different "camps"). The battleground should be addressed, here or elsewhere. Unfortunately, very few admins are like Moreschi, and after Macedonia 2 we will hardly get more of them to work. Colchicum (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could the Arbcom please call for certain uninvolved and experienced administrators (for that purpose neither Sandstein and Piotrus nor Jehochman and Deacon of Pndapetzim really count as uninvolved, as any quick search through AN shows.) to investigate the battleground and apply discretionary sanctions. Then the administrators would be resonably neutral and feel safe enough to carry out their duties. Colchicum (talk) 09:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved jd2718

EE, or Moreschi's plague, or nationalist battles remain a problem and a challenge. Has there been something new in the Eastern Europe area in particular? I don't think so. Are there new remedies from, for example, Macedonia or Israel/Palestine (JS) that might be brought to bear here? Again, I don't think so. In which case, using the current remedies is the best we've got. If an administrator is no longer able to continue with the frustration at AE, that is understandable. Better one administrator withdraw than a full, and presumably massive case with no clear prospect of beneficial outcome. Jd2718 (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Stifle

If I were an arbitrator, I would be asking the filing party what he hopes would be accomplished from this case. The main issue seems to be sysops (and I count myself among the culpable) being unwilling to take definitive action at WP:AE. Stifle (talk) 10:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Should the title be "Eastern European disputes 2" or "Digwuren 2"? MBisanz ^talk 23:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/3/0/2)

Accept to look at the conduct side only. Ugh, another battleground. Wizardman 22:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. The fact that certain administrators appear to be unable or unwilling to carry out their duties properly is not sufficient reason for us to rehear the Eastern European case yet another time. The existing discretionary sanctions already allow for any reasonable sanction to be imposed for any reasonable cause; all that is required is an administrator that will actually use them as we have instructed instead of closing enforcement requests without action. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can we have a list of the last 10 or 20 AE threads please? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reject Agree with Kirill. If more people are needed to perform AE patrol then that can be addressed without starting another case. FloNight♥♥♥ 10:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jehochman, the point of Discretionary Sanctions and AE is to do exactly the type of work that you are describing. Only if there is significant disagreement between admins doing the enforcement, would ArbCom need to become involved. Admins can and do look into an users problematic editing and give topic ban, 1RR, or Community site bans. It is impractical for the Committee to monitor these articles and continuously sort out the problems. FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Jehochman, what exactly is the issue or issues you think a case should be concerned with? If the problem is deadlock at arbitration enforcement, then I agree with Kirill and Flo. I get the sense from your statement and from the recent enforcement threads that you mentioned that you have a different problem in mind, concerning a perception that there are long-term or highly complex conduct issues at play that are unsuitable for resolution at arbitration enforcement. Which is it? If it is the latter, what precisely are the conduct issues? --bainer (talk) 02:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Warning: long.
It would appear that this disputed area is, fundamentally, a content issue that repeatedly degenerates to battlefield because the facts at issue are both contentious in real life and extraordinarily polarizing. Accordingly, editors on both "sides" of the root issues end up replaying the conflict on Wikipedia with the certitude of being "right" and of preventing what they believe to be an unfair distortion of the truth. In the absence of a body on Wikipedia that can rule on contents by fiat (and Arbcom cannot be that body given its current mandate), perhaps new avenues of resolution should be sought in cases such as this one (other nationalist or philosophical disputes come to mind as being similarly constructed).
How about something like this: (a) ArbCom opens and monitors an RfC on the underlying content issue (b) community hashes out the issues, offer viewpoints (c) ArbCom closes RfC and evaluates where the consensus lies, publishes results; then (d) said results become binding and enforceable for some period of time (1 year?) to avoid repeatedly rehashing the same issues over and over. New issues (like: "Is source X reliable?") can be brought to that RfC anytime later, and decided in the same way by the community with the result being just as binding under ArbCom authority.
I think this might be a reasonable attempt at having the cake and eating it. ArbCom doesn't decide contents, but helps ending the dispute by giving the consensus teeth. How do people here feel about this?
As a note: this is a suggestion that comes from me alone at this time, and has not been discussed by the Committee. If everyone agrees that it's completely insane, don't blame them — blame me. — Coren ^(talk) 17:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline, with many thanks to Shell Kinney and Thatcher for taking steps to resolve the situation without ArbCom intervention and in general to the admins who take up the difficult task of arbitration enforcement. --Vassyana (talk) 05:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per Vassyana and Kirill. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

telaviv1: "trial" resulting from sockpuppetryaccusation

Initiated by Telaviv1 (talk) at 14:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

telaviv1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Icestorm815 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Rd232 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (also known as Disembrangler)
Boatduty177177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

User_talk:Disembrangler#telaviv1 (Disembrangler is a "sockpuppet" for Rd232)

User_talk:Icestorm815#Telaviv1_.28talk.29_17:23.2C_17_June_2009_.28UTC.29_sock_puppetry

User_talk:Boatduty177177#You_have_been_blocked_for_false_reasons As this user is blocked he may not be able to access the notification

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

I pointed out that I was not notifed of the accusataions until after being found "guilty" (the process was improper and inappropriate for a democratic community) and that the evidence was very flimsy (absurdly so), however the case was archived and my comments ignored. So much for Kafkapedia.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Telaviv1/Archive

See also my comments on the user page of "Judge Dredd icestorm" User_talk:Icestorm815#Telaviv1_.28talk.29_17:23.2C_17_June_2009_.28UTC.29_sock_puppetry

Statement by telaviv1

The evidence: Boatduty177177's second edit reverted to an edit of mine (on self-hating jews) and his 6th edit reverted to an edit of mine (on zionism). He made about 25 edits the rest of which were on articles I have never edited. We may have similar opinions or he simply likes my editing. The two subjects are both Zionism related. Note that most of my edits are on historical subjects while his are all current affairs. Two edits hardly constitute a pattern but for someone who denies the validity of my opinions it may be hard to accept that others think like me. A simple IP check would have verified the issue.

The accuser (slanderer!) (Rd232) previously made the following comment about me:

So we're discussing things here, and suddenly User:Telaviv1 (hello, wonder what their political perspective is?) swoops in and radically changes meaning and content of the lede: [2]. I don't think so. Discuss first. Note also that the lede is supposed to merely be a summary of the body, and Telaviv1's changes were radical enough that that was certainly no longer the case. Rd232 talk 11:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

^[1]

I was offended by what I took to be a comment about my user name (I live in telaviv). Such a comment is inappropriate on any page but particularly so on a page dealing with antisemitism. We then crossed again later see Talk:Self-hating_Jew#Proposal:_Rename_the_article_.22Jewish_self-hatred.22

I accept that my editing may not have been appropriate (this is not relevant to the case) but found the attitude of Rd232 irritating and, what's more important consider a blanket denial of the existence of anti-semitic Jews to be denial of racism. I moved the article back because nothing was happening with the Jewish self-hatred page. Clearly my position has support but Malik Shabazz and Rd232 combine to prevent any other opinion being expressed on this issue. If the page was edited appropriataely, other viewpoints would be given expression. The issue is sensitive and the editing involved heavy handed denial of other opinions (resulting in edit wars).

It was after this that Rd232, using a sockpuppet, accused me of using a sockpuppet (accusing me of his practices!) resulting in both my user and Boatduty177177 being banned. He has thus effectively removed two users who were annoying him.

What was particularaly galling was the failure to allow me to express my opinion (eg to defend myself) and the naked injustice. I am using the arbitration procedure to restore my "good name". I also want an apology from the administrators involved.

I suggest you check the IP addresses for the two users (feel free to publicize mine) and the attached e-mail accounts (don't publicize this). If you wish to talk to me in person my phone number is REMOVED Telaviv1 (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Boatduty177177

Thank you for unblocking me. I was hoping to contribute positively to Wikipedia, but the behaviour I have encountered here makes me sad that such a good place is put to ruins by some anti-Israeli users who are clearly biased and unfair. I will stop editing on Wikipedia and I will return to edit with my IP address from time to time if necessary. This place is not worth it after all of this. But I hope one day it will become a better and more more fair place for everyone. Thank you. --Boatduty177177 (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rd232/Disembrangler

It wasn't my decision to close the Sockpuppet Investigation on the basis of my evidence alone. If CheckUser now says the accounts are unrelated, fine - I thought it was very unlikely. I trust this is an end of it; I have no wish to fisk old discussions. I will remark that I have never before seen a user put either a country or city name in as their username, and doing so seemed to me a political statement, though perhaps the type of edit the user made to the page with that type of subject influenced my thinking. I'd not have drawn such conclusions from a userpage statement of being from Tel Aviv. No stereotypes or racism here, thank you. Bygones. Rd232/Disembrangler (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Checkuser shows the accounts are unrelated. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Telaviv1 was apparently closed without checkuser, on the basis of behavior. Thatcher 19:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Decline. Based on the checkuser finding of unrelatedness, Icestorm815 has unblocked. A notation should be made on the suspected sockpuppets page that the finding of socking has been reversed. I am sure that being blocked early in one's wiki-career is a traumatic and unfortunate experience, but the situation has been rectified, and everyone involved should proceed with editing to the extent they wish to do so. In connection with that future editing, incivilities such as referring to an administrator as "Judge Dredd" should be avoided, even if that administrator may potentially have made a mistake. Meanwhile, in the absence of reason to believe that this is anything other than an isolated potential error, quickly corrected, there is no live dispute for us to arbitrate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. As far as I can tell, ArbCom involvement is not needed at this time. If, I'm mistaken, please explain why. FloNight ♥♥♥ 11:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline Per NYB and FloNight. Roger Davies ^talk 11:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline Wizardman 22:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline, this issue is resolved. Hopefully measures are taken to reduce the chance of similar occurrences. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline, per Brad, Flo, and John. --Vassyana (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IPod Touch Criticisms Section

Initiated by [ Dario D. ] at 20:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Dario D. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Atama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
HereToHelp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Groink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Amatulic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

(I posted the "subst:arbcom notice|IPod Touch Criticisms Section" tag on everyone's userpage. 'In a big rush, and don't have time to get links - use above ones to see userpages)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Talk:IPhone#Request_for_Comment, listed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Maths,_science,_and_technology; received one commenter, who didn't comment on the issue.
third opinion. Received one opinion with a neutral conclusion.

There's no time to wait for the MedCabal, because the IPod Touch's new OS update comes out TOMORROW, and a new IPhone was just announced (reader interest is linked between the two), so the page will be hit with probably the most traffic of the year. (in other words, time is of the essence - this needs a firm resolution today)

Statement by Dario D.

The issue is quite simple, but broken into 2 sections. 1) Some users are (and have been for a long time - some going back over a year) putting up a stonewall against allowing any Criticisms section from being posted on the IPod Touch and IPhone pages. (even see here, the FAQ at the top of the page, saying Crit sections are no-no's. The same FAQ is posted on the IPhone page)... 2) I posted a detailed, pristine Criticisms section on the IPod Touch page, only to have to axed, then mixed into the article after I contested it. (you can see it here) The entire debate about this has actually taken place on the IPhone's discussion page (this section, and going all the way down to "HereToHelp defends his edits", and is actually quite simple. (you can get the entire gist of it by reading just a few posts in there) Simply put, I think Crit sections are allowed by policy (see below), and demanded by the readers for Product articles (I mean, these are stinking PRODUCTS - well-cited, weighty Criticisms are part of the life-blood of what reading product articles is all about, so if Crits don't have their own section, there's a severe weight issue... especially in a 10-mile long. Hiding massive, gaping Crits in other sections is like saying, "This isn't significant", even if 95% of all technology websites/newspapers/magazines/etc CAPITALIZE on these criticisms). Even though Wikipedia:CRIT is just a guideline page (not a policy page), the opposing editors cited it as their main justification, and so here's what said to them (about that Crits page): "Aside from ONLY stating the contrary, it says: "Evaluations in a "Criticism" section: A dedicated section can make dealing with criticism easier by keeping these aspects compartmentalized, as criticisms may be similar and can be combined in a fashion that will reduce repetition." Even Jimbo Wales is quoted saying they're legit and needed." (Btw, this whole thing even prompted me to propose a further clarifying ammendment for to the Wikipedia Criticisms article, because it leaves the playing-field WIDE-open for ALL "should-there-be-a-crit-section" disputes) And thus, as this has essentially boiled down to the interpretation of policy (or in this case, guidelines) the issue has stalled entirely, and we're just repeating the same stuff we've been saying since day one (this has been a LONG dispute). My last comment is just an observation that these guys are RUTHLESS about keeping the IPod Touch / IPhone articles free of defamation of ANY kind (which is why I speculated (just speculated) that they might've been Apple investors hawking the article. Stock value hangs in the balance if a nice, well-overdue Crit section goes up on either page, actually giving readers a balanced sense of what the flaws are, without having to read 10 miles of trivia on how the plastic base screw was first envisioned). Look at this timeline. This was when I posted a small Crit section on the IPHONE page, about the battery (I was going to add more stuff later).

Here's the original Crit section I posted. You have JD Power (as reliable as anything), and MocoNews, an actual news company. I didn't bother digging up all 5,000 other sources saying the exact same thing, because I didn't think anyone would care (or NEED anything more).
Then here we have HereToHelp moving it to the bottom of the Battery section. For some reason, he thinks "battery kit" packaging materials and needed tools (such as screwdriver and soldering iron) are of greater importance than the fact that the entire PREMISE of the battery received 2 stars from JD Power. (start noticing how the wording changes with each trimming of the paragraph)
He then decides to axe the whole thing, because "I could find nothing on JD Power's site about the battery," and suddenly MocoNews becomes "One blogger is not a notable critic." So I put it back up, with replenished citations.
Another user further butchers the section down to a single line, and when I revert it, Atama reverts my edit, and we're back to the discussion page to argue about MocoNews (which has a full staff of writers (7 of them), and is run by this news company).
And finally, this is how the battery paragraph looks now. Notice the complete restructuring of how the whole thing is pitched (it's like some corporate marketing seminar did a field day on this). It doesn't even say what the rating IS. (edit by user AlistairMcMillan)

That's my take on this. I think this is just an issue of making clear what policy allows, and since the policy/guidelines ARE in fact painfully subjective (as far as I can tell) the proposed amendments that I'm pitching for the Criticisms page will (hopefully) make clear when exactly Crit sections are indisputable... because at the moment, any editor can come up with ANY conclusion about whether or not Crit sections are to be kept, or scattered into articles. (and in this case, gradually butchered till there's just nothing left)

Follow-Up Statement by Dario D.

(this is the message I just posted on Vassyana's user page, after seeing the "Declined" vote below. Thought I'd put it here too) You mentioned that Arbitration can take a couple weeks. Is that because of the policy-amendment issues I mentioned? (I've filed for Arbitration before, and I'm pretty sure it took no more than a day). This is incredibly frustrating for me, because it takes an entire afternoon EVERY time I file for any kind of intervention (done it three times just for this one issue already) as well as EVERY time I have to sit down and do war with these people (with as much absolutely useless circle-running now as on the very first day). I've done nothing at all on the issue for the last 3 days, just because of how time-consuming and draining it is, so I needed a break. Thanks for your efforts, but can something be done about this? I will remind you also that one week of "request for comment" resulted in 0 commenters, so I'm just drowning in article-hawks that I'm certain (for myself) are biased. (if nothing else can be done, at least an official comment on Crit-section policy on the ArbCom listing would help a huge deal). Thanks again.
Oh, and... Atama and Groink, as always, I enjoy how your arguments strengthen my case more than anything else. ;) --[ Dario D. ] 00:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Atama

I'll try to keep my statement short because this is a fairly simple issue. I'll put my points here.

1) Nobody has stated that criticism sections are not allowed in Wikipedia. They are simply not preferred, as can be seen in WP:STRUCTURE. My opinion is that they are a necessary evil at best; when notable, referenced criticisms or other content that reflect negatively on an article's subject are lacking in an article it is a quick and easy way to add them.

2) Criticisms are present in the article. For quite some time a number of editors (including myself) have worked to include criticisms naturally in the article. For example, the iPhone lacked certain Bluetooth profiles, this information was located in the section on Bluetooth. So the inclusion of a criticism section is not necessary.

3) Dario D. is the sole editor proposing this change to the article. At least a half-dozen editors have opposed this change. Accusations of bias,[77][78] threats,[79] and suggestions that those who disagree with him are Apple investors have been seen in his arguments,[80] as well as assertions that he will attempt to make the changes he wants regardless of discussion.[81]

4) Dario D. has stated that there is a need for people to see what is "wrong" with the iPhone, and that is the motivation for the changes he wants to make.[82] This is clearly in opposition to WP:NPOV policy.

This is simply a case of a single editor attempting to push his own personal agenda on the article, in an uncivil manner, in opposition to every other editor who has gotten involved in this discussion, both established editors of the article and outsiders who have commented.

Statement by Groink

Here's the issues I have with Dario... I've dealt with the likes him several times through the years I've edited Wikipedia. And all of them can easily be summarized the following way: One-issue advocate. Doesn't have a deep history of editing on either the subject matter at-hand or in any articles that are part of the related WikiProject itself. Will grasp words like "discouraged" and will kick it up a few notches in order to mean something much more extreme, and work to the advantage of his cause. Will attempt to change the policies and idealogy so that they work in his favor, rather than to work under the guidelines and the spirit of the WikiProject. Will take WP:BOLD to the extreme level, and not work within the WikiProject. And, is usually screwed somehow by either the product or company, which is why he is so passionate about the issue. I believe Dario either purchased the iPod touch, or know of someone close to him who did, and later found out first-hand his problem with the battery. I think he's treating Wikipedia as a soap box, which BTW WP:NOT does not allow.

Even if Dario was right, his people skills deserves an "F-minus". I cannot believe that he claims to be a web page designer, because the content design concepts he keeps spewing out are totally wrong. He's basically treating Wikipedia articles like a tabloid web page he wants people to read and get out within just a few seconds; bring up the web page, read only the bad things about a product, and then walk away without actually understanding anything else about the product. As he claims that an article about a product should be different, let me remind everyone that even Consumer Reports does not write in the style he's pushing - and I'm a subscriber to that publication.

The type of people who come to a web site looking for the bad stuff are those who have an agenda, such as an extreme right-winger looking at the Barack Obama article for only the negative stuff, or an Apple fanboy looking at a Microsoft Windows article and walk away thinking only about the security flaws. The spirit behind WP:CRIT is not to allow Wikipedia become a source of propaganda material. Wikipedia does not exist in order to feed the kind of researcher that is only looking for the negative information. If the researcher must read through the entire article in order to look for the criticism, he is doing the right thing, because he's reading both sides to each criticism point. The many blogs Dario keeps citing - those are the places people will go to seek the criticisms about a product - NOT Wikipedia. Let the blogs spread the propaganda, and leave Wikipedia out of it.

As long as he keeps incorrectly believing how people read and use Wikipedia articles, this problem will not be solved. I feel this one issue is the butt of the problem. groink 23:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, man.... We have a monetary interest in Apple? That is REALLY pushing the envelope. Not only is it false, but it further demonstrates my earlier argument that Dario's primary inspiration for his edits is soap boxing. That's all it really is! Just look at his edit history. I've been working on dozens of other articles since this editor came out from literally nowhere. Again, this editor is a one-issue advocate! He has absolutely no interest in practicing basic rules of essay writing. I've written dozens of college term papers, scoring A's in all of them, and I continue to practice these writing rules. As for my interest in Apple, I do not own either the iPod touch nor the iPhone. I don't own shares in Apple. I'm a happy user of a Motorola Razr, and even purchased a Windows-based netbook w/wireless broadband over a smartphone. My only interests in these two articles are the multi-touch technology, and maintaining good essay writing skills. Again, separating the criticisms from the rest of the article, and creating its own section is lazy! It means that the editor has no clue how to embed the criticism into the writing, and possibly balance it with supportive information that counters the claims. The length of the article has no play in this - whether it is a long article or a short article, proper essay writing does not encourage the separation of criticisms. We're not editing Wikipedia for the sake of the lazy editors and readers.

groink 02:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HereToHelp

Most of what can be said, has been said, and the arbitrators seem disinterested (as well they should be). But I will briefly summarize my interaction with Dario D. on two levels: firstly, on the policy side of including criticism, and secondly, on his nature of editing and communicating.

Wikipedia requires criticism, if well-sourced and legitimate, but not criticism sections. The section that Dario added focused exclusively on the battery, which is why I moved it to the battery section. Including it elsewhere would violate NPOV because it would be possible for users to read the criticism out of context, or Apple's battery life estimates (optimistic at best) without input from third parties, effectively an unsubstantiated claim. However, it makes sense to put Apple's numbers first, because they are building an argument. I explained all of my reasons for reverting him on the talk page; Dario did not. We (all parties except Dario) decided that, while Moconews was a legitimate company, the article in question was not.

Dario's insistence on the prominence of criticism is POV-pushing. He has claimed that he can find "5,000" sources but yet gives us none. His arguments are unsubstantial rants; I indentified eleven logical fallacies in one of his posts. Per groink, he has a misconception of what readers want from Wikipedia; per me, he has a misconception about how the Wikipedia editing process works. It is not disruptive but rather evolutionary over an extended period of time, building on each others' work. His demand for an ArbCom ruling in a day demonstrates the antithesis of WP:NODEADLINE. I also feel that he has rushed the dispute resolution process and that ArbCom is not necessary. In years of editing, I have never been involved in an ArbCom case (that's how extenuating the circumstances must be), but from what I hear in the Signpost, both sides must have done something extremely dickish. That is not the case here; this is an isolated but very persistent POV-pusher. Please do not feed the troll and decline the case. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Amatulic

There is not much I can say beyond my initial response and followup responses to the request for a third opinion. A well-sourced criticism section would be acceptable in the article, but poorly-sourced criticism doesn't belong there, and single-issue criticism should reside in an appropriate subsection. I agree with other statements above that no valid arguments have been presented as to why a criticism section in this particular article will be of greater benefit than incorporating criticism into appropriate sections. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Dario wants to do is pull all the criticism out of the existing sections, and then pack them all into its own criticism section. Even if the entire criticism section is properly sourced, it is better writing style to, for example, mention all matters regarding the battery in just one section, than to force the reader to hop from section to section attempting to read everything there is to do with the battery. His argument is that the length of the article will play into whether or not a separate criticism section is warranted. This logic is baloney because, again, it would force the reader to move up and down within the article. The best method of writing, regardless of the media used to write the article, is to allow the reader to read the entire article top-to-bottom, and without having to move back up or hop around. I understand that, with the invention of linking and such, it allows for this style of lazy writing IMHO. And web designers like Dario has grasped this idiotic method of writing because the technology like hyperlinking allow him to do so. But at the same time, this practice is comparable to using GOTO statements in structured computer programming. It is bad writing style - simple as that. Arguments of inclusion (i.e. everyone else is doing it) doesn't do it for me.

groink 23:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/7/0/0)

Decline. An arbitration case would take a couple of weeks, so the timing concern is not relevant. This is a matter for dispute resolution and potentially administrator intervention to address conduct issues. Regardless, there is no pressing reason to accept this request instead of allowing the dispute resolution procedures and community to resolve this matter. --Vassyana (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per Vassayana. Although normally I would wait for additional statements before casting a vote, in this instance the issues that Vassyana mentions (particularly regarding the timing) are dispositive of this request and not going to change. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per Vassyana and Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per Vassyana. FloNight ♥♥♥ 23:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. Wizardman 01:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per Vassyana. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per Vassyana. Roger Davies ^talk 11:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per Vassyana. How criticisms are presented in these articles is a content issue, and Arbcom is not intended to fix content issues, especially not within in a few days before a product launch. I've left some development ideas over on Dario D.'s talk page. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. John's University (NY) Article

Initiated by Newyorkborn (talk) at 14:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

newyorkborn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
208.120.47.96 (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

For the past two years, a "contributor" (IP Address 208.120.47.96) has repeatedly prevented other contributors, including myself, from making minor edits to the St. John's University, NY, page that eliminate irrelevant and biased language. By viewing the Discussion Page for St. John's University, you will see that the user in question (IP Address 208.120.47.96) has continuously reversed edits by many contributors who have questioned the information 208.120.47.96 has inserted. By looking at his/her Talk Page, you will see that this user has been blocked in the past for "edit wars." My current request follows my efforts, over the past few days, to add neutral, factual edits about campus housing and to revise a negative reference to a 43-year-old magazine quote that adds nothing to the topic (about a faculty strike in 1966). The contributor reversed by edits again this morning and threatened me with being blocked if I tried another edit. Please help.

Statement by Newyorkborn

For the past two years, a "contributor" (IP Address 208.120.47.96) has seemed to exercise illegal "ownership" over the page for St. John's University, NY, preventing myself and others from making minor edits that eliminate irrelevant and biased language. As the Discussion Page for St. John's University shows, the user in question (IP Address 208.120.47.96) has continuously reversed edits by varied contributors who have questioned the information 208.120.47.96 has inserted. As the user in question's Talk Page shows, he/she has been blocked in the past for "edit wars." This current arbitration request follows my recent efforts to add minor, neutral, factual edits about campus housing and to revise a negative reference to a 43-year-old magazine quote that adds nothing to the topic (a 1966 faculty strike). The contributor reversed my edits again this morning and warned that I'd be blocked if I tried another edit. Please help.

Statement by {Party 2}

Statement by {Party 3}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/7/0/2)

Comment - I have just protected the article due to edit warring between the two purported parties here. I would ask that more experienced editors please review this content dispute and assist in sorting out the basic facts, perhaps with an RFC or third opinion. This does not appear to be ripe for arbitration, but does need some community assistance to sort out. Risker (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline, though acknowledging that community intervention is definitely needed as stated above. Wizardman 20:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Requesting assistance from an administrator here per Risker. On hold for now, though I hope this can be resolved well short of arbitration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per Wiz, Risker etc. Definitely other steps to be taken before coming here Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. Not a case for arbitration. Please follow Risker's suggestions. FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reject per the above. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. Please follow the advice for dispute resolution provided here. --Vassyana (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline; this is still well within the community's reach. — Coren ^(talk) 12:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline Roger Davies ^talk 16:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^ Talk:Self-hating_Jew#Progress

[1] Talk:Self-hating_Jew#Progress

[1]

@@ Line 344: / Line 344: @@
 *Checkuser shows the accounts are unrelated. [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Telaviv1]] was apparently closed without checkuser, on the basis of behavior. [[User talk:Thatcher|Thatcher]] 19:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
-=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/0/0) ===
+=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/0/0) ===
 *'''Decline'''. Based on the checkuser finding of unrelatedness, Icestorm815 has unblocked. A notation should be made on the suspected sockpuppets page that the finding of socking has been reversed. I am sure that being blocked early in one's wiki-career is a traumatic and unfortunate experience, but the situation has been rectified, and everyone involved should proceed with editing to the extent they wish to do so. In connection with that future editing, incivilities such as referring to an administrator as "Judge Dredd" should be avoided, even if that administrator may potentially have made a mistake. Meanwhile, in the absence of reason to believe that this is anything other than an isolated potential error, quickly corrected, there is no live dispute for us to arbitrate. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 21:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * '''Decline'''. As far as I can tell, ArbCom involvement is not needed at this time. If, I'm mistaken, please explain why. [[User:FloNight|FloNight]][[User talk:FloNight|&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;]] 11:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)