Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by David Gerard (talk | contribs) at 23:14, 22 April 2005 (→Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (3/4/0/0): reject). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 10 Oct 2024 24 Oct 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Historical elections 13 Sep 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) Motion (orig. case) 17 August 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

The last step of dispute resolution is a request for arbitration. Please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee.

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person you lodge a complaint against.

This is not a page for discussion, and arbitrators may summarily remove discussion without comment.

Current requests

User:STP

Statement by party 1

Personal attacks, abusiveness, POV pushing, general obnoxiousness. [1] [2] [3] [4] to start. I may move this to requests of clarification as I look into some talk I've heard that he's a sockpuppet of Alberuni. Snowspinner 23:47, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC

Sockpuppet evidence

This is adapted from an e-mail sent to me privately. I will note that the sender has had great success identifying Alberuni sockpuppets in the past:

First of all, it's clear STP's a sockpuppet. His third edit on Wikipedia refers (correctly) to "original research", something no newbie is aware of. [5]

Next, look at STP's telling edits on Muhmmad al-Durrah and Anne Frank; immediately upon noticing Muhammad al-Durrah has been added to Category:Hoaxes, he removes the Category[6] and adds it to Anne Frank instead[7], echoing the analogy Alberuni had made between the two months earlier.[8]

Now lets look at STP's editing pattern. As with Alberuni's other sockpuppets, he starts by editing unrelated (likely random) articles, but quickly zeros in on articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. As well, his edits, when not pushing his POV or pretending to be a non-native English speaker, are high quality copyedits; e.g. [9] [10] [11] [12]

Now compare STP's edits: [13] [14] [15]

Finally, his comments in Talk: and on his edit summaries match Alberuni style. Snowspinner 01:47, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

I was against having this arbitration, simply because I felt it was better to have Alberuni in plain view, rather than using anonymous IPs and creating new sockpuppets (as he has gone back to doing). As it is, since he has been outed, he has currently abandoned this particular sockpuppet. However, since the case has been started, and complaints have been made that the evidence isn't good enough, here are a few examples of the problematic edits:

I trust that's enough evidence to get the ball rolling. Jayjg (talk) 03:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments by Third Parties

How can the Arb Comm decide whether to accept this case on the basis of these four pieces of evidence? The first two represent one incident, similar edit summaries ("delete POV whining") made on two reversions of an edit. The third is the reversion of an edit made to a Section title on a Talk page. The section title in question accused "editors" of bigotry for removing an NPOV tag in the article. This was not a personal attack but a general comment about "editors", and in any case, STP did not make it originally, but only reverted the removal of it. The fourth example is STP objecting on her Talk page to SlimVirgin accusing him of vandalism and characterizing the accusation as trying to "censor everything you disagree with by calling it vandalism". This last statement can't be evaluated without looking at the accusations of vandalism to which he was responding. So, an accusation of "POV whining" -- not the most egregious personal attack to be found on the Wikipedia, and two other less clear episodes. Maybe this case is justified, and everybody knows it, but this isn't a kangaroo court, and Snowspinner should do his homework and present evidence, especially when the complaint is so comprehensive as "personal attacks, abusiveness, POV pushing, general obnoxiousness". --BM 12:01, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, if "everybody knows it", including you, who STP has referred to as a "Zionist racist censor", why don't you add to the evidence? Jayjg (talk) 18:31, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Because I'm not the person bringing the Arb Comm case; Snowspinner is, and he hasn't done his homework, apparently expecting the Arb Comm to just go along with him because STP has made a lot of enemies. Besides, I don't care that much about personal attacks against me. As far as I'm concerned, even people who call me a "Zionist racist censor" deserve to be treated with procedural correctness. Or, if this is all just a charade, and the Arb Comm is here basically just to whack people whom "everybody knows" deserve to be whacked, then let them dispense summary justice and skip the window dressing. It would be a lot more honest, not to mention, efficient. --BM 18:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Four diffs, a reccomendation from an arbitrator that they might want to look at this, and a sockpuppet accusation seemed to me to be enough to list. Not to convict, but to list. If any arbitrators want more, though, please ask. Snowspinner 18:59, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

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

  • For the moment, I'd be amazed if Alberuni was silly enough to act detectably. But I'll ask the devs for info. The edits (and particularly the personal attacks) look remarkably similar in style to me. I'd like to hear in more (a lot more) detail from those who've dealt closely with both STP and Alberuni. If STP is a sock, he would of course be blockable immediately - David Gerard 08:40, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I asked Tim Starling on IRC and he said the login data from Dec/Jan is largely gone, but I've asked them to look at other things for correlations. In the meantime, amassing a pile of edit evidence will probably help convince people on WP:AN/I, even given the querulous - David Gerard 15:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Holding off on voting until we hear back on a possible sockpuppet connection. If a link is confirmed, view this as a "reject" vote with advice to shoot the sockpuppet. If a link is explicitly nonexistent, view this as an "accept" vote. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 14:33, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC) Accept, due to lack of technical evidence of sockpuppetry; we'll need to make that decision on other forms of evidence. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 19:08, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC) Reject, in light of contributions no longer coming from this account. As there's significant consensus to simply block the account as a sockpuppet, I'd suggest you do so. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 20:40, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
  • Accept, based on [22] Fred Bauder 14:40, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept as is, since sock can't be proven technically. The diff Fred cites is a perfect example - David Gerard 03:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept ➥the Epopt 16:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Reject as Grunt

User:Fadix vs User:Coolcat

Involved parties


Statement by party 1, Coolcat

I kept a polite attitude, I asked him to stop multiple times. Asked User:Tony Sidaway to help me out, he told me to follow various ways. It is imposible to discuss things when you are accused of , hidden agendas, being a troll, being a revisionsist, being type here. User is ignoring the "No Personal Attacks" policy. My discussion with him is clear in Talk:Armenian Genocide as well as in archives. User did not vandalise my user page or anything but it is stull quite irritating. At this point I am not sure what else I can do aside from showing up here. Just as I was typing this I was asked on my user page: "Mr. Coolcat, for the interest of the entire Wikipedian community, why have you lied about you." --Cool Cat My Talk 00:12, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Please advise me on any issue that requires my attendance. Thanks. --Cool Cat My Talk 00:12, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Point is the personal attacks are unacceptable, we are not discussing what is pov or not. You do not have the right to asign me things like hidden agenda accusations. Mulltiple users turned bad, which makes the situation worse. You are required to have a civil and polite tone. --Cool Cat My Talk 01:29, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Just because one claims something is accepted by the majority doesn't make it factual. I need sources I can rely on, preferably not devoted to the issue to minimise propoganda material. --Cool Cat My Talk 03:24, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In regarding out side interference: I do not think Personal Attacks are tolerated in wikipedia. Fadix cannot stop it. I suggest you stop it as I couldnt. Oh btw no matter what you do do not THREATEN me. This is not about an article, this is people not following Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. --Cool Cat My Talk 01:38, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Here is what I currently think. Following users are ANNOYING me and I fail to reason with them, I am been acused of things not just in articles but here as well.
Solution: SHOOT ME or HELP ME. Thanks.

Please check user contributions by:

  • Stereotek
  • Davenbelle

Now tell me what you see is common with my contributions. Any addition I made to articles remotely related to Turkey or Kurds or Armenia, have been removed in a join effort by these two parties. Their latest edits are devoted to private comunication or removing my edits. This is a verriy serious problem, I am nt having a confortable stay on wikipedia due to these two users while fadix is just insulting. --Cool Cat My Talk 01:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I asked for arbitration due to the level of personal attacks I dealt with and still dealing. Some users are trying to change the subject. --Cool Cat My Talk 05:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is what I think
This section was originally under the "precis" section, which is for brief summaries

--Cool Cat My Talk 00:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Davenbelle, Stereotek revert the majority of my edits, they neither tell me what is POV nor are they knowlegable of the issues at all. They have been reverting almost all of my edits. They started their everts since they met me in Armenian Genocide. Check their contributions, what percentage contributes to wikipedia, what percentage reverts my eidts. I will not deal with this kind of behaviour. Wikipedia:Wikiquette violations:
    • Don't make people debate positions you don't really hold.
    • Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible, and stay within the three-revert rule except in cases of clear vandalism. Explain reversions in the edit summary box
    • They come to articles I just start editing, they try to destroy my credibility as they atempted on Greko-Turkish Relations article.
    • I am in wikipedia to contribute, my intentions are not POV. I explain myself in detail in talk pages no one quite reads them, they simply revert, thet never tell me what is wrong either.
    • They intercept all my communications to admins immidiately respond, they follow my every action. By annoying me I personaly believe they are ither punishing me for my views in Armenian Genocide as we dont share the same views or they want to annoy me off of wikipedia to pass their thing. I assumed good failth long enough this is being stupid. I take steps backword, I apologise, I stay polite, they change at all? NADA! They just declare anything that remotely related to Turkey. I play with numbers on certain articles in such a way that the numbers reflect factuality. Articles related to Kurds have had recent increase in populution and other data. I do not think Kurds have a fertility rate of mice. The higest numbers I know regarding kurds them being 20% according to cia factbook. Encyclopedia of America,I believe, registers 3%Kurds. Turkish goverment takes all ethnic minorites and races as the majority, so 0% everyone 100% Turkic. If you declare the edit of an annon (w/o resources) as not POV and my edit with sources as POV you will not be doing wikipedia any good.
    • They have for instance no understanding of Kurds, if they did they would see their edits beeing nothing more than Kurdish propoganda. I waited for a mediation over a month, I have been dealing with these people forever. I got no help aside from advice from Tony, which in my opinion was feasable. I tried hard to work together, they chose working against me. This must stop. I do not hunt them down. I do not revert their edits and declare random stuff POV. I can exolain why I made my edits, when a user does not read talk there is no point. I am not declaring myself an arch angel, I make errors, I correct them when told in a civil manner. Not all my edits that apear as POV is not necesarily POV. The topic Kurd is one of the most complex on wikipedia. I posted an article which gives an objective aproach on Kurdish people it explains kurds in detail. Kurds are generaly nice, not all kurds are nice. I lived in the region and had my share of violence. I had an asignment working on the GAP Project I was there, I am not Turkish. I do not care if they believe it or not. I wouldnt be less credible if I were a Turk. I would love to know what is Turkish POV when declaring Armenian Genocide as disputed, well it is disputed. Neutrality suggest it being a dispute. I do believe matter is washed with significant propoganda. I want to be carefull.
    • The entier Kurds issue has a dimention never covered in western media. The "freedom to Kurds" is declared as the best idea agreed by all kurds. My experience with them is different. I can justify my edits, if I cant...I may acknowlege it as pov. Some stuff are a given. I expect the oposing party to know who Albert Einstein is when talking about his theories. Users consider neutral statements as pov. like "Armenian Genocide is disputed" is POV by some users. I havent grown beyond a few Turkey related articles as I want to contribute to wikipedia and my contributions stay there. Kurdish POV or Armenian POV is not OK. Them trying to, deliberately or not, push Kurdish POV/Propoganda is not alongside with NPOV.
    • Find me one instance that users agreed on somethng with me regarding a revert of theirs.
    • Their outragious rally against me is unacceptable, I do not want to tollerate any more of them hunting my "sins". I do not mind them neutralising my, sometimes harsh, comments on articles, I do mind when they reverse the meaning. I will not try to dig up history, just check their contribs, which articles have they edited? I will not defend myself further. This is what I feel. I may clarify points.
      • If I am indeed a POV-Pusher end my miserable wiki experience, permanantly. I am harming wiki if thats the case.
      • If I am been mistreated, keep them away from me, in a sense they dont annoy me, and/or they work WITH me. They have no problem asking for a 3rr while they have been violating the same thing. And why am I reverting, because they reverted without bothering to tell me whats wrong with it or without atempting to reword.
    • I do not want to deal with this childish "dog-fighting"
    • Mediation did not happen, unlikely to fix the situation. Users dont bother reading talk.

Note that I have not mentioned Fadix once. I am still trying to work with him.

I take that back. From Fadix talk:

"I don't get why you are loading my user page. Stop repeating, you are ignored. Reffering to Wikipedia policies won't make your cases stronger, when you are misusing them and trying to fit your behavour in accordance with them. Now, could you please stop loading my user page with irrelevency? User:Fadix 18:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)"

I do not have a need to elaborate my conduct on Chinnese-Japaneese dispute. I do urge a read of the "POV" category in talk. I was going to remove fadixes comments but then again, I will not. I think he is beeing silly but he destroyed my mediation attempt on a topic, Talk:Nanjing_Massacre, he never contributed. Nor have I begun mediating. Just a little line from talk: while I normaly ignore such insults as they are quite childish, this is beginning to be very boring. They are not even creative with insults.

"...Wikipedia is not the place for war crimes denials and revisionists like you. Call this personal attack, I don't care..." Fadix 22:37, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Users did same on Greco-Turkish_relations, althugh a mediation was not quite necesary they did destroy my request. Comments are avalible in archive. I am not sure what they are trying to achieve. I dont like it.

Since you guys wont help me, I hereby leave wikipedia. If you do get these pests away from me you may get me back. I have a finite patince and they crossed it, you allowed it. --Cool Cat My Talk 00:02, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Let me ammend that. I will not edit wikipedia at all aside from an ongoing project Ranks and Insignia of NATO on the sole fact that problems exeed limits of wikipedia. I will not contribute anywhere else until I am relieved from the people (Stereotek, Davenbelle, Fadix). Stop them or me. I am not the type that holds grudge or enjoys seeing others punished. I am however the type who does not like been tortured. --Cool Cat My Talk 07:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Statement by party 2, Fadix

(Coppied from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee --Cool Cat My Talk 00:12, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC))
Coolcat was not accused of hidden agenda by only me, but as well, by various other members and he knows it. He got involved himself in every articles directly or indirectly involving Turkey, editing them with his POV by claiming to neutralize them. He came in with the Armenian Genocide entry and did the same thing. I have proposed everything and he has refused any propositions. I have proposed to present the Western version, the Turkish government version etc. and the critics for each according to the Academia and researchers in the field. He has refused, he wanted to dump every versions and merge them, edit etc. and get the entire article as the Turkish government version. I asked mediation, I made many concessions, but he has ignored. He has edited the World War I entry reference to the Armenian cases, a Holocaust entry because it got the Armenian cases, Genocide history entry, editing the Armenian cases. He got involved in many such articles, and now he is proposing himself to mediate Karabagh entry. A historian has told him to stop in the Greek Turkish relation entry... and many other people in other entries. I have tried everything, nothing worked. I have enough of this anti-elitist position. I wanted to participate in the genocide entry, because I know a lot about it, while Coolcat is trying to color with his nationalist aim, any entries directly or indirectly involving Turkey. I have enough of making concessions, and his ignoring of those concessions... I just want him officialy out of the Armenian genocide entry, as others want him out from other enteries. I advances the cases, that for one to be respected, that person must respect you, Coolcat has only harmed Wikipedia, and I admit that I just can't smell him anymore and that he does not worth my respect. And I believe that many will come here after being warned of Coolcat new attempt, and support my position. Fadix 00:29, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Follow up. I would first like to point out, that I really don't appreciate my post from the talk page being presented as my case here; this was a unilateral action by Coolcat, that he notified me of after the fact. Had I known of his intention, I would have objected and would have written a statement specific to the arbitration. Secondly, Coolcat has presented this case as a case against me. It is Coolcat who has done everything to place me in a corner, knowing full well that in a proper forum he would have no position to defend.
I would also like to comment on Grunt's suggestion of mediation. I did ask for mediation, without any answer. This is beyond a content dispute, well beyond. While I will be focusing the evidence I present on what was done in the Armenian Genocide entry, there are many, many POV pushing edits by Coolcat elsewhere in Wikipedia. I have reviewed his edit history, and frankly, it goes beyond content. Coolcat is here with an aim... he tries to hide this by working on unrelated issues, most particularly when accused, and then, he will resume doing the same thing. Just recently he did the same in the Turkey article.
I admit to not being completely innocent and blameless. I have attacked another user, Torque, and have admitted it to an administrator, but I am confident that reading our exchanges, it will be apparent that Torque's abrasiveness (who Tony has already characterised as a problematic user) has no place in Wikipedia. What I reject though is the notion that I have attacked Coolcat; I contend that I have accused him, not attacked him. For me, there is a clear distinction between attacking and accusing someone. I also admit that when I first came here, I did not understood NPOV well, primarily during my early edits in the “Armenian quote” entry regarding Hitler, and later in Armenian genocide. But I have corrected myself, and once I better understood Wikipedia's neutrality policy, I accepted it. I have to thank Stereotek here, for his efforts to neutralize the Armenian Genocide article I was working on.
I know now what neutrality is all about, I have worked on a very neutral article, Ottoman Armenian Population, with sources from every side, and will be doing the same with my upcoming entry regarding Ottoman Armenian Casualties. I think I have conformed to Wikipedia's rules. What I contend though, is that Coolcat has NOT. And I have fresh evidence concerning it; evidence that should not be ignored. In fact, Coolcat has shown no change in behaviour indicating that he will be conforming to Wikipedia policies. Had this been only a content dispute, we could perhaps hope that a mediator might correct the situation. I have asked for mediation for the genocide entry, which was an issue over content; what this case is about is beyond that. Coolcat's approach is against NPOV entirely, it is not just a simple case of POV pushing. Fadix 00:29, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 3, Tony Sidaway

If this goes any further I guess I'll end up giving evidence, so I may as well have a say upfront. Coolcat and Fadix are opinionated but not malicious editors with radically different points of view. I have found both to be fairly responsive to reason and highly appreciative of good faith intervention. Both have attracted some extreme personal attacks as well as a fair amount of legitimate criticism, and both have produced excellent work that is a credit to Wikipedia. While it is true that they seem to have had what could become a feud, it hasn't really been that nasty given the extremely contentious ground upon which they encounter one another (Armenia/Turkey). I am on reasonably good terms with both, and I don't think the behavior of either is yet beyond the reach of normal dispute resolution. I ask the arbitrators to reject this case unless evidence of gross abuse by either of them comes to light. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:19, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 4, Davenbelle re User:Coolcat

I request that the Arbitration Committee accept the case regarding User:Coolcat. I have encountered this user on many pages and found him to be a flagrant POV-pusher. User devotes much time and energy to hunting down all references to Kurdish issues and Armenian Genocide and edits the articles to advance his point of view. User has listed numerous articles for deletion (unsuccessfully), deleted factual material, has been reverted by many, many users (including Tony Sidaway), and has consistently returned to seek a new way to advance POV. User has attempted to dominate discussion on talk pages and quotes absurd interpretations of Wikipedia policies there and in edit summaries. User edits at warp speed running up an editcount of almost over 4,000 4,500 edits in 2.2 months.

I have already compiled an extensive evidence page and only await an official evidence page upon which to post it. In the course of reviewing User:Coolcat's 'contributions' I have found numerous examples of other users' conflicts with User:Coolcat, many of whom might well present further statements and evidence. I have posted a very small example of my collected evidence on my user page (earlier example here); my talk page also makes for interesting reading.

I will post further examples here given the slightest indication that it is welcome and appropriate.

Sincerely, Davenbelle 18:47, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

re Grunt's 'Reject' – A request for mediation has already been filed re Coolcat and Fadix; I was not party to it and can only say that it does not appear to have worked. — Davenbelle 19:23, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

This is about more than POV-Pushing; the root of the matter is behavior that is harmful to Wikipedia. User:Coolcat's. not-so-hidden agenda is a process of finding and 'neutralizing' (in a pejorative sense) content on Wikipedia that relates to Kurds and Armenian Genocide, and to a somewhat lesser extent, Cyprus and Greco-Turkish relations. User:Coolcat asserts that all of his edits have been reverted; this is far from the case. User:Coolcat conducts his crusade against the 'offending' content at a furious pace and has removed much content and structure that many editors have built-up over the life of the project. The editors who have noticed his actions have managed to limit the damage to a degree, but the goal here is a Death by a thousand cuts; for every bit of content or structure that has been saved by a revert or a subsequent edit, another has slipped through and may be irretrievably lost. Sure, they're all here, but are they ever going to all be reviewed and reasonable remediation performed? There are thousands.

As you'll have noticed, User:Coolcat reacted hotly to the statements made here yesterday. Twelve minutes before the first of his above comments dated 01:38 thru 01:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC). He made this edit to Kurdistan with the edit summary "Link is related to the Kurdish people, not the region. Already avalible [sic] in Kurdish People article" which removed the link to Kurdish music. This is just one small cut, to one article. But an article entitled 'Kurdistan' should have links to most, if not all, of the other articles related to Kurds, including to the article about their music, as, of course, should the 'Kurdish people' article. This is fundamental, and to relentlessly conduct a systematic campaign of extermination against any specific content and structure is harmful to the project. And if User:Coolcat gets away with it, others will follow in his footsteps and more harm will befall this great project.

It is no coincidence that my argument here against User:Coolcat's agenda echoes my statement to him on my talk page (diff) excoriating his efforts to deny the Armenian Genocide. The issue is the same: that harmful actions motivated by animus towards a culture are abhorrent and that failure to oppose such actions encourages more of the same and incurs a responsibility for the next such action.

Sincerely, Davenbelle 12:08, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Apr 10, 2005
  • 02:44, Apr 10, 2005
    • Complains at User talk:Tony Sidaway that "Stereotek and Davenbelle, are still reverting my edits", to which Tony replies: "Well I looked at what you're doing on Kurdistan Workers Party and I'm not surprised. If I were editing that page I'd do the same myself, because you're removing external links for bogus reasons..." && " I don't think you yet fully understand NPOV" (for full reply see diff).

I would be happy to provide diffs; the above are two relevant recent exchanges. Due to real life time constraints, I will need a few days to finish sorting through the various histories and diffs. I have posted my working evidence document at User:Davenbelle/Evidence re User:Coolcat and will be updating it periodically.

Sincerely, Davenbelle 23:04, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Ignores Consensus

I expect that the ArbCom members have noticed User:Coolcat's Wikipedia:WikiProject Rankings/old (talk); note the '/old', where he has proposed that everybody be 'ranked' by some metric and be assigned Star Trek ranks and 'Badges'. This proposal, which originated in his user space and also spent some time as a pump and barnstar proposal, has been widely opposed and rejected in an informal vote of 32 to 1 (see: vote). The opposition was to the very idea of ranking, not just the Trekcruft.

The page has now been moved to the '/old' subpage and a new iteration begun at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Rankings (talk).

Sincerely, Davenbelle 07:53, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

More Denial

Talk:Nanjing Massacre#POV (diffs: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]). User:Coolcat has now added {{POV}} to Nanjing Massacre and offered to 'mediate' the 'dispute'. Admits 'I know nothing regarding the topic' in 1st diff above, but removes it in second. Tag has already aroused much indignation on talk page.

Sincerely, Davenbelle 17:15, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Deletes some of Fadix's comments on Talk:Nanjing Massacre: [28], [29] and then reverts himself a couple of minutes later.

Sincerely, Davenbelle 08:03, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

UserCoolcat edits other user's comments again

In this edit UserCoolcat removes portions of comments by RaffiKojian citing wikipedia:No Personal Attacks yet the removed text contained no personal attacks:

I once again would like to recommend we completely ignore Cool Cat. He has served as an absolutely massive distraction from anything of substance... (and more, see diff).

— Davenbelle 09:08, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

True Colours

UserCoolcat shows his true colours: "denalisim" [sic] is a valid point of view.

More editing and deletion of talk by others.

— Davenbelle 00:00, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Other issues

Copyvio problems re: Diagnosis: Murder (Wikipedia:Copyright problems#April 14) and GAP Project (Wikipedia:Copyright problems#April 22).

Extensive inappropriate use of Templates: Ranks and Insignia of NATO, Ranks and Insignia of Starfleet, and, just in the last hour, Ages of Popes (see also: Template:Ages of Popes).

Continued serious disruption of the Nanjing Massacre article and Talk:Nanjing Massacre (and, of course, Talk:Armenian Genocide).

— Davenbelle 17:37, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

User:Davenbelle/Evidence re User:Coolcat

Page updated, still far from comprehensive; Davenbelle 23:06, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

See also: User:Fadix/Evidence, User:Blankfaze/CoolcatDAO.

Statement by party 5, Stereotek

I request that the arbitrators accept the case, Fadix vs. Coolcat.

Coolcat has continuously disrupted Wikipedia by promoting a pro-Turkish government POV in highly unusual ways, and has among other thing insisted on 'mediating' in various Turkey-related articles, despite his obvious non-neutral views, and a clearly expressed wish from other involved editors not to make use of his 'mediation' (See: Talk:Greco-Turkish relations). In connection with his 'mediation' efforts Coolcat has been utilizing a highly unusual 'mediation template', and insisted that other users should follow the color scheme included in this template when commenting on the talk page. (See: Talk:Armenian Genocide). With POV edits confronted, Coolcat has made allegations about his opponents using sockpuppets to "overwhelm" him in discussions. Another reaction from Coolcat in connection with content disagreements has been numerous personal attacks against several users, that have resisted his ways. Coolcat's response to suggested compromises has been extremely disappointing. In connection with a lost vote on the discussion page, Coolcat repeatedly changed the Abdullah Öcalan into a PKK redirect, despite clear consensus on articles talk page not to merge it with the PKK article. Other violations by Coolcat include personal attacks against named Wikipedians on the users private user page. If the case is accepted, I will contribute to the evidence, which in Coolcat's case will include several hundreds of examples, of violations of Wikipedias policies. -- Stereotek 19:04, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Precis

Please all parties edit this precis but keep it very brief
  • Coolcat accuses Fadix of engaging in personal attacks and accuses various others of behaving a manner that causes him distress
  • Various other parties accuse Coolcat of
  • Systematic removal of information over a wide range of articles related to Turkish politics and history
(specifically: Anti-Kurd deletions, Armenian Genocide denial. – Davenbelle, Refdoc)
  • Injecting a pro-Turkish point of view into articles – Refdoc
  • Behaving in a threatening manner
(Bizarre statements: [30] && [31] – Davenbelle)
  • Using Wikipedia in a manner that causes them distress
  • Aggressive attempts to dictate format of talk – Davenbelle
  • Turkish government POV pushing. – Fadix, Refdoc
  • Extensive use of personal attacks. -- Stereotek
  • Violations of Wikipedias policies regarding civility. -- Stereotek, Refdoc
(See Davenbelle's temporary evidence page re Coolcat for examples of violations regarding civility and personal attacks. -- Stereotek)
  • Ignores consensus. Davenbelle 07:55, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Tony Sidaway says it seems to be a bit of a storm in a teacup and well within normal dispute resolution because there is no evidence of malice, although the parties are frustrated with one another, feel rubbed up the wrong way, and are unsure how to proceed.
In a nutshell by Coolcat

David Gerard:

  1. Coolcat accuses Fadix of POV pushing, not following NPOV, and not following Wikiquette.
Check out the number of reverts, nature of reverts (ie excuse), and the material removed in revert, by Fadix in Armenian Genocide, please also check the level of personal attacks. In Talk: Armenian Genocide/Archive 1 as well as actual talk. See how neutral article is.
  1. Coolcat accuses Stereotek, Davenbelle of beeing obssesed with Coolcat.
Check out how many entries Stereotek appeared at after I, Coolcat, started working on them.
Please check the last 500 or more contributions by Davenbelle, how often is it related to me, Coolcat?
  1. Fadix,Stereotek accuses Coolcat of POV pushing and not following NPOV.
  2. Davenbelle accuses Coolcat of POV pushing and not following NPOV. Gathered some information regarding the issue.

Precis endorsed by:

  1. Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) (This does not imply that I endorse the charges, only that this accurately reflects the allegations made by the parties)
  2. Davenbelle, Talk; all annotations; thank you, Tony. 00:58, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
           (excepting User:Coolcat's non-brief 'This is what I think'; and I expect this is the case for others)
  3. Fadix 16:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Stereotek, Talk; as annotated.
  5. Refdoc 22:40, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC); as annotated

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (3/5/0/0)

  • Accept. Ambi 01:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Reject; this is a case mostly related to content which could probably be solved by methods that are not as extreme as arbitration requests. This is merely one battle in an ongoing war regarding Turkish points of view and their statement as fact; I've seen numerous other instances in which conflict has been based on this underlying cause and have seen mediation etc. be successful. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 19:11, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
    Also please don't use a template to hold this case. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 19:11, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
  • Accept. I spent a great deal of time reading the talk page and page histories of Armenian genocide. Both parties seem to have violated minor policies and to have an uncivil tone. No clear pattern emerges of major policy violations. If you think otherwise please point to specific edits, not in a general way to all pages which concern Kurds and Armenians. Fred Bauder 16:39, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC) I have spent additional time looking at the very few diffs which have been provided. I believe there is a problem but the failure to provide evidence at this stage bods ill for later stages. Fred Bauder 11:13, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept ➥the Epopt 16:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • No vote as yet, because I can't work out what the hell's going on here. Could someone do a really nice precis that the involved parties would agree with? - David Gerard 12:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Reject - Try earlier steps in dispute resolution first. An RFC would be very nice. --mav 16:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Reject - agree with Mav. →Raul654 20:57, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Reject as Raul and mav -- sannse (talk) 23:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Reject, per Raul and Mav. If it should end up back here, anything in bringing the case will probably get cut off at the 500th word - David Gerard 23:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Requests for Clarification

If you need to clarify the precise meaning of a previous decision of the Arbitration Committee, your request should go here.

User:GRider/Schoolwatch

For the purposes of the injunction against GRider (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/GRider), is User:GRider/Schoolwatch a "deletion related page"?

See also WP:AN/I#User:GRider.

Thryduulf 08:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments from arbitrators

  • I've been considering this carefully, and I'm afraid I have to say that I believe we need to pass this back to the community. This hinges on the question of how much autonomy users are given in their user space - something that we have traditionally been quite flexible about. As an contributor and admin my opinion is that we should not worry about this page - unless the use of the page is actively causing a problem, then we should allow GRider to edit it as he likes. The page is not related to our deletion process, even if it refers to deletion pages - it can be easily ignored in all respects. As an arbitrator, I say that this is an administrator and community decision - as the ruling says: "Determining what is "deletion-related" is left to the discretion of the blocking administrator". -- sannse (talk) 10:47, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I fear I have to agree with Sannse: it's for administrators to decide, though I'm glad to see it's being actively discussed on WP:AN/I and a block/unblock war hasn't ensued. The wording could be reasonably interpreted to include such, though as an editor and an admin I'd really not worry about it. Probably we should have made it clear at the time and we'll have to clarify this in future - David Gerard 11:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd personally prioritise user space over the concept of a deletion-related page; after all, we never said he can't edit discussion pages related to deletion - just the pages themselves. Since this user space page isn't a page that directly impacts deletion decisions, I would say leave it. However, as DG and sannse have said, this is best a decision for the community. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 20:45, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

Other comments

  • I don't think it is reasonable for the arbitration committee to make an insufficiently precise ruling and then duck responsibility by saying "you guys figure it out". I think the committee has an obligation to clarify rulings when it becomes necessary. The fact that there is a long discussion on this point proves that it is necessary now. --Zero 13:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, yeah. At least I admit I haven't a clue as yet. My Magic 8 Ball is still saying "Reply hazy, ask again later." The AC is not supposed to make rulings that outrage the interpretation of community norms, so the question is whether this one has done so in the case of user pages. I must admit the question of user space had not occurred to me during the vote. I swear to God we're still trying to find a sensible way to resolve this one and aren't just punting it back to the sensible, sober and reasoned discussion forum of WP:AN/I ... - David Gerard 15:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Archive

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=12683681"