Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AlexandrDmitri (talk | contribs) at 08:09, 22 March 2011 (→‎Henri Coanda defamation - second try: Remove - case opened). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup   21 March 2011 {{{votes}}}
Duke53   16 March 2011 {{{votes}}}
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 none (orig. case) 13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 13 May 2024
Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction none none 25 May 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration


Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup

Initiated by Aquib (talk) at 02:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Aquib american muslim

An appeal rejecting

  1. The force and validity of the Jagged 85 RFC/U
  2. Certain actions taken under its alleged authority
  3. Policies and procedures emanating from it

hereafter referred to collectively as the Jagged 85 cleanup,

recognizing some parties to the RFC/U may neither be aware of nor condone the actions in question,

asking for neither the exoneration of Jagged 85, nor sanctions against any other individual, but rather that order be imposed upon the Jagged 85 cleanup, as follows

Effective immediately, and for the duration of this appeal
  1. The truncations, redirects, movements and renames of articles citing for their reason, or on behalf of, the Jagged 85 cleanup be temporarily reversed or undone by those who initiated these actions
  2. That all known participants in the Jagged 85 cleanup be disclosed
  3. That all activities (as in 1 above) to-date be disclosed by all participants in the Jagged 85 cleanup as per the article tracking procedures identified in the Jagged 85 RFC/U
  4. That cleanup participants be enjoined from citing the Jagged 85 cleanup, including any alleged policies and procedures emanating from it, as either a justification for their actions, or as a manner of compelling other parties to follow procedures other than those of Wikipedia
  5. That due diligence be enforced with regards to the removal of cited material; that expediency, a lack of cleanup resources, and the Jagged 85 cleanup are not valid reasons in themselves
And upon deliberation

The original Jagged 85 RFC/U be either

  1. reheard
  2. modified to incorporate some or all of the above temporary measures
  3. set aside in order for a novel and more balanced approach to be taken to cleaning up any biased, misleading or erroneous material added by Jagged 85.
Claims
  1. An RFC/U, as an agreement between a limited number of parties, and applying to the actions of a user, cannot trump Wikipedia policies and custom, nor can it be imposed on the community at large.
  2. The agreement reached under RFC/U has since been repudiated by Jagged 85 [1][2]
  3. The RFC/U has evolved beyond its original intent and agreed procedures [3]
  4. It has on occassion been cited as a pretext for abuse [4]
  5. The scope of the violations commited by Jagged 85 is debatable, unknown and perhaps unknowable [5]
  6. The RFC/U has been used as a reason to close or preclude debate of issues and control other's editing [6]
  7. The members of the Jagged 85 cleanup are not addressable as a group; the effort has lost its centralization and cohesion. Effective compromise between the parties is not achievable in this environment.
The detrimental effects of which include
  1. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater
  2. The replacement of verifiability with judgments on validity based on the appearance of plausibility [7], which can lead to mistakes [8]
  3. The inadvertent promotion of sneaky vandalism [9]
  4. Leveraging of the RFC/U by outside parties to advance other legitimate, but equally unbalanced, points of view [10]
  5. The truncation, movement and/or redirection of articles, the content of which is of an unknown quality [11] [12],[13] [14]
  6. A lack of discussion of specifics, through which the normal policies and procedures of the encyclopedia might effectively operate [15]
  7. The exclusion of other points of view, particularly those of disinterested third parties, from the actual cleanup process
  8. A lack of attention to WP policies, procedures and guidelines which, if left unchecked, can become more widespread.

Statement by Syncategoremata

Statement by SteveMcCluskey

Statement by Knight1993

Statement by Gun Powder Ma

There isn't really much to say other than that Jagged85, who has been one of the 60 most active WP editors until last year, has done over the years a colossal damage to WP with his Islamic WP:POV, WP:OR, and WP:SYN, and that this damage has been cleaned-up yet only to a small extent despite the efforts of around half a dozen users or more. To give uninvolved users an idea, just two days ago I stumbled at List of inventions in medieval Islam across this piece from Jagged's pen (bold is mine):

  • Central heating through underfloor pipes: The hypocaust heating system used by the Romans continued to be in use around the Mediterranean region during late Antiquity and by the Umayyad caliphate. By the 12th century, Muslim engineers in Syria introduced an improved central heating system, where heat travelled through underfloor pipes from the furnace room, rather than through a hypocaust. This central heating system was widely used in bath-houses throughout the medieval Islamic world.[1]

When I looked up the reference, however, I found the cited author Hugh N. Kennedy writing something very different:

In one respect, however, the early Islamic bath had more in common with the classical one than with the later Islamic. Late antique and Umayyad bath builders continued to use the hypocaust, though on a reduced scale, for heating the hot chamber, whereas later Muslim baths used a simpler system of underfloor pipes from the furnace room.

So, a simpler system, used on a reduced scale, became in Jagged's interpretation an "improved system widely used"... That such misinterpretations were rather the rule than the exception and that they all went most predictably in favour of inflating Islamic achievements, can be seen at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Evidence where a group of editors collected a representative sample. It's been 60.000 edits, very many like that, and only a small part of it has been reviewed and reassessed. Many articles where Jagged85 is the main contributor have been tagged for years. These articles need to be stubbed and rewritten such as Mathematics in medieval Islam recently was. If this arbitration case should serve a useful purpose, we should discuss and vote on which of the other articles now need to be stubbed. Here a small selection: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Evidence#Top contributor on tagged articles. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I put my proposal now on the table. Participants of the ongoing aarbitration are invited to take part in this vote concerning the clean-up effort in connection with Jagged 85's RFC/U. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Athenean

Statement by David J Wilson

Statement by J8079s

Unless Jagged85 wishes to be investigated further this request should be declined. The policy of BRD is working but very slowly.J8079s (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Spacepotato

I: Jagged's editing and the RfC

History.

  1. Other editors and I found a large number of edits by Jagged 85 that misrepresented sources dealing with the history of science, technology, etc., in various ways: for example, Jagged misquoted a source as saying that the p-n junction was invented by Isamu Akasaki in 1989 (an absurd claim, it's been around for over half a century.) As a result, an RfC was filed on Jagged 85.
  2. After some discussion, visible at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85, the issue was resolved by mutual agreement of all parties involved, including Jagged. Jagged would correct his problematic edits, and refrain from editing articles relating to Islamic civilization or to the history of medicine, science and technology until this had been done. This was in April 2010.
  3. Unfortunately, after the agreement, Jagged did not endeavor to correct his mistakes. Also, he continued to make sporadic edits relating to the history of science, etc., through September 2010, using the IP editors 93.97.55.135 and 193.164.132.6, as well as his usual account.
  4. Following this, Jagged took a new tack, and, starting in December 2010, he has confined himself mostly to editing video game-related articles. This is why his present editing is passing without comment.

Jagged's problematic edits are not confined to Islamic civilization.

I gave the example of Isamu Akasaki above; some other misrepresentations by Jagged of Japanese inventions can be found in User:Spacepotato/Examples_of_original_research_in_Wikipedia. I mention this point because I think this issue has for some become a clash of civilizations, a point of view which I think is unproductive.

Jagged's problematic edits are not rare among his nontrivial, relevant, edits.

Jagged has advanced the view that the bulk of his edits were unproblematic and that the bad examples were cherry-picked. To address this issue, I took a random sample of 100 of Jagged's edits, using a computer program to select them out of all his edits to date. Most of these 100 were trivial, such as spelling corrections, fiddling with punctuation, headers, wikilinks, and so forth, or did not deal with the history of mathematics, medicine, philosophy, science, or technology. Out of the 13 relevant and nontrivial edits, though, a majority (at least 7) had problems of one sort or another, such as exaggerating the source claim; one bad edit added a claim having nothing whatever to do with what was in the source. I give more details on this study in Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85#Study_of_Jagged.27s_edits.

II: events prompting this RfAr

History.

  1. Because of perceived problems with the Physics in medieval Islam article introduced by Jagged, it was stubified on 18 July 2010 [16].
  2. Because of perceived problems with the Science in medieval Islam article, it was drastically cut back on 4 Oct 2010 [17].
  3. Most recently, the Mathematics in medieval Islam article was stubified on 15 Feb 2011 [18].
  4. These events provoked a great deal of discussion by User:Aquib american muslim and others, and eventually this request for arbitration.

Comments.

  1. One contributing factor to these truncations may be the failure by Jagged 85 to remediate his own edits, as he agreed to do.
  2. Removing unverifiable or inaccurate material is an editorial decision. Likewise, any editor is free to take the (drastic) step of stubifying or redirecting an article if he feels that its problems are severe enough to warrant this. The legitimacy of these actions does not depend on the RfC on Jagged 85 (which was about his actions.) Neither are they a departure from the normal policies of Wikipedia.
  3. There is no cleanup group. Any editor is free to edit an article to remove problems introduced by Jagged, or any other editor, at any time.
Spacepotato (talk) 05:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jagged 85

Aquib has already posted my stance on the issue above, here and here. There's not really much more I can add to it other than that I still firmly believe that the so-called "severe misuse of sources" (attributed to me by several of the users here) has been blown way out of proportion beyond any reasonable doubt. The claim that I've been "severely misusing sources" is based on a handful of cherry-picked examples of the worst possible edits I've ever made over the past five years and then these examples are presented as if they are the norm rather than the exception, despite the fact that these cherry-picked examples only represent a very tiny percentage of the edits I've made over the years. I admitted in the "Jagged 85 RfC" that I did make careless mistakes in a small percentage of my edits, but some of these same users assume this to mean as if I was admitting to their allegations of "misusing sources". They've since blown the issue way out of proportion and continue to copy-and-paste claims that I've been misusing sources all over Wikipedia in a desperate attempt to convince the entire Wiki community of my apparent ill-intentions and "severe misuse of sources" (i.e. if you repeat a lie enough times, it becomes the truth). Several of these users have gone as far as blanking out a bunch of Islamic science-related articles using the "Jagged 85 RfC" as an excuse without ever attempting to do any actual fact-checking or even attempting to gain any consensus (completely ignoring any opposing opinions) before doing so.

If we were to cherry-pick the worst possible edits by any random user, I have no doubt they'd have a similarly small percentage of mistakes as I did. What's worse is that if I had specialized in European science instead of Islamic science, I have no doubt my edits would never have provoked the same reactions they did. It's the fact that I continuously challenged the Eurocentric norms of Wikipedia that made me stand out more than others, which is what led to an extensive attempt at discrediting my credibility, thus making it easier to undo all my "undue promotion of Islamic and/or non-European science". In response to all the deleting and stubbing that has been done using the "Jagged 85 RfC" excuse (and usually, that is the only reason ever given for these extreme measures), some users (including Aquib, Pjoef, Yclept:Berr, Bless Sins, etc.) looked beyond the distorted claims and did their own fact-checking only to realize that most of my edits (or at least most of the ones they did fact-checking for) are in fact good edits that do not misrepresent sources in any way, completely contradicting the often-repeated claims about my apparent "misuse of sources". Whenever these users express disagreement over the issue (both the stubbing of entire articles and the "Jagged 85 RfC" excuse used for it), their views are nearly always ignored and some have even received personal insults in response. In other words, I don't blame Aquib at all for seeking arbritration.

Either way, considering that over half the users here were involved in the RfC, I'm pretty sure they'll win the majority vote on this issue again, like what happened at Talk:Mathematics in medieval Islam, and continue to stub/blank out plenty more articles using the same "Jagged 85 RfC" excuse, even though Wikipedia is not a democracy. Personally though, it would'nt make much difference to me if a bunch of Islamic science articles were stubbed or even deleted (despite the same old flimsy excuse used for doing so), and I wouldn't even be commenting here if I wasn't requested to do so, but it clearly does make a difference for the users who do have honest intentions of actually improving the articles instead of lazily deleting/stubbing them. Regardless of the outcome (and it probably won't be a good one), I guess the least I can do is at least show some support. Jagged 85 (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dialectric

I would ask that the arbcom focus here on Jagged_85, as his edits were and are the source of this conflict.

For me, the core issue here is that the Jagged_85 edits and their cleanup were already contentious, and that Jagged_85's apparent disavowal of his earlier agreement, after several months of non-participation in the cleanup effort, has made cleanup much more contentious, and slower, than it it would otherwise have been.

The evidence that Jagged_85's misinterpretation of sources was and is an extensive problem is linked in Johnuniq's entry on this page.Dialectric (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by II

Statement by Pjoef

This is the first (and hope the last) time I've been involved in RFC, ArbCom or similar things, and I know very little about these procedures.

Regarding the "Jagged 85's clenup" I'm still rather confused. I have not had time to investigate this fully, but from what I've read, and in my humble opinion, "Jagged 85 (talk · contribs)" should be rewarded, praised and thanked by all of our Community for about all of his countless efforts and contributions to Wikipedia. When and if there are mistakes, and they are a little part of the total, then they are made ​​in good faith.

I can give you an account of my edits, and my opinions and intentions regarding Mathematics in medieval Islam:

  • I started editing that article on the 14th of February 2011 at 11:19 (UTC) as part of the February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive effort, and by placing the {{Under construction}} template on top of the page; and wrote: "I will try to "wikify" it in the next few days..." in the edit summary of my first edit on it.
  • I edited that page nineteen times consecutively, from 11:42 (UTC) to 13:44 when William M. Connolley corrected "placedby" in the under construction template.
  • Then, I made other twelve edits when, at 16:17, I started using the tools, Reflinks, Checklinks and Dab solver, to edit and repair bare references, external and ambiguous links, and complete my work of "wikification" on that article. I saw the Jagged 85 cleanup template, which was placed on top of the page by Ruud Koot, and I decided to do that job too. I wrote to Ruud that it was my intention to solve that problem and I started grouping notes and citations in order to make easier the identification and correction of all the issues of the article (both in its text and sources.) My plan was to standardize all the sources used within the article (I completed about 5-10% of this task), and then it was my intention to check all statements and citations one by one, to tag all of its issues with the proper template and, hopefully, and at the end to control all the edits made ​​by Jagged 85, just to solve the problem. After other twelve edits, Ruud stubbed the article and I reported him somewhere in the help desk section for his action. An administrator recommended me to let them go and to discuss with Ruud. I followed his advice, I apologized for the incident, and I asked him if I could finish the job on that article. At that point, Ruud has decided that I was neither able nor competent in that task. So, he "fired me" and I could not finish the job. From that moment on I stopped editing the article and I proposed to ask for help to the involved WikiProjects, Mathematics and Middle Ages. As a result, readers of Wikipedia are now deprived of an article that was rated B-Class by the aforementioned WikiProjects. I really think that with a little effort it could be easily lead to Good Article/A-Class. This does not seem to be a good result for us all.

If the situation in other articles is as bad as it is in Mathematics in medieval Islam, then I think we're all in bad shape. Now, it has been asked "to stub all those articles heavily edited by Jagged85 which are beyond repair". In my humble opinion, we are taking the wrong path. Sincerelly. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 19:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

Quick introduction WP:Jagged 85 cleanup has a summary of the situation, namely that a prolific editor has severely misused sources on hundreds or possibly thousands of articles. Numerous examples are available in the "Further information" links—as an example, one evidence page is here.

I do not think this is the kind of case normally taken by ArbCom, but a possible benefit from a case would be the introduction of other editors to assist with the cleanup. Each time more editors have been asked to comment on the issue, someone has found another egregious misuse of sources. A recent example is the first comment here (permalink), at 14:33, 18 March 2011 UTC.

ArbCom may wish to comment on the central issue: whether it is better to stub an article, or to leave it unchanged, and then verify each claim. Of course stubbing should only be a last resort, however this case has certain unique features that warrant stubbing in a number of articles. While it is bad to remove good information from an article, it is far worse for Wikipedia to present false information as facts—incorrect claims that are mirrored on many sites. Nearly all the claims are accompanied by a plausible and hard-to-access source, but as mentioned, numerous examples have been found which show that the sources do not verify the claims, and investigation has shown many claims to be exaggerations or blatantly incorrect.

Working through a large unstubbed article to verify/fix each statement may take a very long time. Worse is the fact that such a project is inherently almost impossible to achieve. For example, a favorite incorrect claim is that someone was the first to do something, and it would be relatively easy for an editor to check such redflag claims in an article, leaving verified information, and rewriting or removing incorrect or unverified claims. However, a second editor then has a big problem: how much of the article does the second editor need to check? If the first editor changes one sentence in a paragraph, does that mean the first editor is satisfied with the complete paragraph? Does the second editor need to verify each assertion? What about a third editor? It would be very difficult to coordinate edits, and the only practical approach in some cases would be to stub the article, then have each editor add information provided that editor has personally checked the source (in other words, the editor would take responsibility for the text they added). Johnuniq (talk) 10:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ruud Koot

[19] —Ruud 08:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by William M. Connolley

Statement by Yclept:Berr

Statement by CambridgeBayWeather

Statement by Wiqi55

I started verifying sources in articles about Islamic scientists before knowing about the Jagged 85 cleanup. So from my perspective, I'm not sure why that RFC/U is relevant or needed. I would also like to add that reliable sources do make claims that some scientist was the first to do something. But one implication of this RFC/U is causing some editors to blindly remove "first of" claims without examining the cited sources.[20] In this regard, I agree with some of the points presented in this request, and I believe that the enforcement of WP:RS and WP:V (and other content policies) should be more than enough to "clean" articles.

As for the stubbing, I have previously suggested another alternative that uses inline tags. It's one way to verify sources and insure that no useful or valid content is lost. The use of inline tags would also allow us to track progress, warn readers not to believe anything in heavily tagged paragraphs, and ask for help from other editors/readers not aware of the cleanup process (which is direly needed in light traffic articles). Most of the sources I've seen were readily available online, so interested editors can still do the verification. I also can't help but think that this stubbing action have set a bad precedent where now it's OK to delete content out of suspicion alone without examining the cited sources.

I would also like to note that the issue of misrepresentation of sources goes beyond the Jagged 85 edits. In articles of Islamic scientists, I've seen some other editors misrepresent sources to promote their own ethnicity and ideological views. I would say that verifying each and every citation is needed anyway, regardless of whether Jagged was involved or not. -- Wiqi55 (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Salix alba

It is clear that there are many problems with the Mathematics in medieval Islam which does require extensive scrutiny. I think the community effort would be better directed to carefully reviewing that article than engage in disputes over process. --Salix (talk): 08:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC) The problem for me is that stubification process does not seem to have been followed by much attempt to recreate the articles. Physics in medieval Islam still remains in a stubified state since July last year. For all its problems the Jagged version is closer to the truth than a blank sheet of paper. Some of the editors mentioned here perhaps seem more intent on removing every word in Jagged related articles than in improving the encylopedia.--Salix (talk): 07:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Misconceptions2

Statement by Lambiam

I think this is primarily a content dispute, and that Arbitration is not the way to handle it. For the rest, I don't think that my involvement rises to the level at which I should be considered an "involved party". My involvement has solely consisted of: giving my opinion in the stubbing RFC regarding the Mathematics in medieval Islam article[21] (note: this is not the Jagged 85 RFC/U referred to, in which I have not participated), and three reactions to various comments by three different other users in the stubbing RFC discussion.[22][23][24]  --Lambiam 09:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Al-Andalusi

Statement by Bless sins

Uninvolved parties

Statement by Headbomb

There's no case to be had. Aquib "lost" (or disagrees with the outcome of) RfC on the stubbification Mathematics in medieval Islam, and several other cases where Islamic contributions are greatly exagerated, or overstated (WP:UNDUE), sourced in greatly questionable sources (WP:RS), and which pushes fringe points of view (WP:NPOV). Most of this problematic stuff results from the edits of Jagged85.

Editors other than Aquib do a great job of laying a road map to cleanup the Jagged85 mess, with concrete proposals and plan of action (which is usually, stub the articles, then selectively restore the parts which can be verified in reliable sources). Aquib systematically objects to all these efforts, saying the original version should be restored, but never justifying why it should be restored other than "but stuff will be missing", and (as far as I'm aware), never edits the articles. Editors know stuff will be missing. But editors agree that it's better to have an incomplete and accurate article than an article which covers some things not found in the stub, but which is also littered with misleading, untrue, and otherwise undesirable material. Criticism bystanders will be criticizing bystanders, but they should stop disrupting the editorial process with such abuse of process.

ARBCOM shouldn't waste it's time re-examining old cases because of wikilawyering by people who want to re-open old cases for bureaucratic purposes only. If anything, it should consider topic banning Aquid for being an unproductive time sinker with his constant RfCs/Appeals/re-RfCs/RfCs on RfCs/... (Or maybe an admin will take the initiative and impose a discretionary sanction on Aquid.) Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Was supposed to be inactive, but A) Show us that this is a conDUCT dispute and not a ConTENT dispute, and B) Tell us if having this many parties is really absolutely necessary? Right now, I'm looking at the filing party's statement, and what I'm reading from it is "They're wrong, and this is why..." We're not going to handle it if it's that.. SirFozzie (talk) 09:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your questions and comments. I will be more direct. The renaming of Mathematics in medieval Islam into a work space by Ruud Koot occurred as described by Pjoef. Material was blatantly mischaracterized by William M. Connolley in the process. It was an instance of recklessness and abuse. While my discovery of this incident was the reason for an RFC, I have yet to receive an explanation or justification other than general characterizations of Jagged's work.
  • I also have new information. In preparation for this appeal, it has come to my attention that some of the principals in the Jagged 85 RFC/U were aware of Jagged 85's edits as early as February of 2008. If his edits are really that bad, perhaps they will explain why they waited 2 years to try to stop him? -Aquib (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list of participants includes the members of the original Jagged 85 RFC/U, and parties from both sides who have expressed opinions on the talk pages of truncated articles. I am certainly open to editing the list as needed. Thanks -Aquib (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • leaning decline - complaints appear to revolve solely around content. Individual articles can be discussed at reliable sources or content noticeboard. accept given there's been an RfC, I can't understand (as NYB points out) how this has come about - either there is a massive problem and Jagged 85 needs to be sanctioned for misusing sources or...what? I note Jagged 85's comment above and agree this needs determination one way or the other. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse - I believe I took some part in this cleanup --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awaiting additional statements. I would particularly like to hear from Jagged 85, who is alleged to have introduced enough incorrect information into articles to require a massive and ongoing cleanup campaign, yet is still editing without any attention to his current edits. Perhaps, indeed probably, the situation is more complicated than that, but I don't see where it's been addressed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duke53

Initiated by alanyst /talk/ at 07:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Alanyst

Duke53, an editor of 5+ years, has been a source of disruptive conflict in multiple subject areas for nearly all of his editing history. I ask the committee to examine his behavior.

Duke53 joined Wikipedia in late 2005. Spring 2006 saw his first conflict with an editor, and later conflicts erupted around such subjects as Duke University and its rivals, a natural history museum in New York state, and Mormonism. In each of these topic areas Duke53 holds a strong personal opinion and has treated editors who do not share his opinion, or who obstruct his efforts to make Wikipedia a platform for his views, as adversaries to be fought, ridiculed, or bullied. Read his talk page and userpage for a sampling of his behavior.

I am one of several long-time editors in the Mormonism topic area (being a Mormon myself) who has had conflict with Duke53 dating back several years. He has expressed special contempt for Mormons in general, and Mormon editors of Wikipedia in particular.

Dispute resolution has been attempted in various venues through the years: RfC twice, AN and similar noticeboards several times, and on sundry article and user talk pages. There has not been a recent RfC, and if this request is rejected it will probably be due to that fact. But I feel that arbitration is appropriate because of these factors:

  1. Experience from the first RfC, which expired without resolution partly because few outside opinions were given, shows it is hard to find neutral editors willing to attempt to resolve disputes involving religious topics or long-term chronic behavior.
  2. Duke53 rejects criticism of his behavior, so an RfC will not resolve the problem unless it gets enough input from neutral parties to form a consensus for community sanctions. It could end up being a waste of time like the first one.
  3. Duke53 has asserted that Mormon editors have conspired against editors critical of Mormonism in order to dominate the topic area. This is an effective counter to Mormon editors' complaints about him because sanctioning him would be feared as playing into the hands of the conspiracy. Such claims deserve to be examined by a neutral body so that either the clique be uncovered and dispersed, or else the accusation be refuted as an unmerited slur. An RfC on Duke53 is unlikely to accomplish this.

If this request is accepted, I will provide evidence for problematic behaviors including:

  • POV pushing, disruption to make a point, and battleground behavior
  • Willingness to violate BLP
  • Initiation and exacerbation of conflict
  • Vindictiveness
  • Biting newcomers
  • Refusal to compromise or accept correction
  • WP:COMPETENCE issues

alanyst /talk/ 08:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Why now? That's a fair question. This may in fact be long overdue, and I have contemplated whether to bring this to arbitration for a long time now. I held back because (a) arbitration can be a time sink, (b) I kept hoping a neutral party would intervene so it wouldn't just appear as a vendetta by Mormons against an anti-Mormon, and (c) I tried to give him every chance to change his ways. The final straw for me was to see him taunting an editor who has made every effort to respect the opposing POV and deal with him in good faith, to the point that the editor (BFizz) started to lose his cool. (See Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr.#Emma Hale Smith caption and Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr.#Joseph Smith and adultery.) I felt it was time for the relentless bullying to stop, lest we lose an editor who has tried to reach across the divide. alanyst /talk/ 14:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC) Also, regarding the evidence: the Wikiquette alert is from December 2010, though confusingly it starts with quoted material (including timestamps) from 2007, making it appear at first glance as a stale dispute. alanyst /talk/ 18:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Jehochman's indefinite block of Duke53 may have mooted this request. Is there any desire by the committee members or interested onlookers for this matter to be continued either here in arbitration or in an RfC/U? I am a little unsettled that neither the community nor the committee has come to a consensus regarding Duke53's behavior, his counter-assertions regarding Mormon editors, or the conditions by which he might be allowed to edit Wikipedia in the future. Nothing against Jehochman or his duly exercised admin discretion, but I worry that short-circuiting the process might have the appearance of preventing a fair hearing. On the other hand, I don't wish to press for unnecessary process that will just waste people's time if there is general approval of Jehochman's action. alanyst /talk/ 15:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Duke53

I really don't have a whole lot of time to waste on this, but anybody who gets involved in this might take note of Alanyst's posting history. It is very evident that the one thing that is guaranteed to draw him to post at WP anymore is my participation in articles. It's almost as if he has cast himself as a modern day defender of the lds church here at Wikipedia. No matter how long his absences here are, if I post at an lds article he's sure to follow.

Next, you will also notice a bunch of familiar faces showing up to bolster his accusations: Bfizz, Routerone, Canadiandy (if he doesn't post under one of his alter egos, which are numerous) and Storm Rider. There is also a newer bunch from byu, who were quick to pick up the habit of meatpuppetry and swarming in their 'debut' at WP. They don't much like it when I mention 'swarming' or 'tag-teaming', but as my Grandmother used to say: "The proof is in the pudding" Duke53 | Talk 08:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by B Fizz

In all my online interactions I have never been singled out, taunted, criticized, and ridiculed by anyone as much as I have been by Duke53. Wikipedia behavioral guidelines suggest that we focus on the edit and not on the editor. Duke53 often focuses his fire on editors.

His common method of irritating me is by twisting my words: exaggerating them or applying them to something I obviously did not intend. A few examples:

Applying my reasoning in an absurd fashion

Additionally, rudely parodying my signature

Rudely parodying my old signature

There are more instances of similar behavior towards me that you can find in his edit history. I understand that sometimes it is appropriate to extend another editor's reasoning to a different domain in order to help them understand why you disagree with them, but if you inspect Duke53's edits, they appear (to me) to be confrontational assertions rather than an attempt to reach understanding.

I am not the only one Duke apparently despises; he appears to consider all 'tbms' as enemies that 'gang up' against him. He has exhibited similar behavior towards editors such as Canadiandy1, Routerone, and newcomers.

I find Duke53's editing at Wikipedia to frequently be provocative and counterproductive. I feel that achieving NPOV takes creativity and willingness to compromise; Duke53 rarely exhibits willingness to compromise, and rarely employs his creativity for anything but pushing his particular POV. ...comments? ~BFizz 16:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Information: User:Jehochman has blocked Duke53 indefinitely, but invited him to post an unblock request explaining the productive editing he wishes to participate in. While I generally feel this a wise course of action, it is an odd one to perform in the middle of an arbitration request. I'll leave it to the wisdom of the committee to decide what to do from here. ...comments? ~BFizz 16:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for Jclemens and Risker - What kind of community process would you recommend? According to "the nature of RfC/U", RfC/U cannot "impose/enforce involuntary sanctions, blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures." If Duke53 reacts to an RfC/U the same way he has reacted to the various methods of dispute resolution used in the past—ignoring or dismissing the community's concerns—then it will be a fruitless endeavor. Is there a better option? Would we open another arbitration request if such a measure fails to produce results, or would this one be kept open during such a community process? ...comments? ~BFizz 23:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Storm Rider

I am not a perfect editor and this particular editor is an easy one for me to go off on, which I have done often. He is wholly and completely dedicated to being unhelpful and disruptive. His entire edit history is one long example of exactly what he as been accused. I know it takes time, but it would be useful to go through all of his 3,772 edits in order to grasp the magnitude of his disruptiveness.

It is true that he is not a very active editor and has never been very active. An editor who begins in 2005 and only has 3,772 edits is evidence that he is not dedicated to this process. However, lack of edits is not a sufficient reason to delay action. His behavior has never changed; he is the same editor he started out as without any improvement. He is spiteful, vindictive, opinionated, and narrow-minded. Worse, he demands that his opinion is the only correct reference, position, context, and tone to use in articles within his interest.

I have long since believed that after a short probationary period to determine the ability of an editor, being a Wikipedia editor is a privilege and not a right. Duke should have long since lost this privilege. -StormRider 07:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

Just to note that I have reviewed this matter and will be blocking Duke53 shortly. Jehochman Talk 12:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Filing a request for arbitration, or being named as an involved party, does not exempt any editor from being subject to the standard administrative remedies. Sometimes a problem festers because no administrator has taken the time to investigate the facts. When a request for arbitration is filed, this may draw the attention of experienced administrators, and the matter may be resolved directly without the high cost of arbitration. Jehochman Talk 19:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This edit strongly suggests a user who's not here to collaboratively write an encyclopedia. A swastika on the home page is about as clearcut as it gets. Jehochman Talk 15:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wehwalt

Just from personal experience , I've found Duke53 a pain to deal with on balance (see Duke lacrosse case). I should add that he is sometimes helpful in keeping off the zealots who want to introduce POV to the article, but his approaches are generally counterproductive. Uncertain if arbs should be dealing with this one, I'd hold off and see what goes with Jehochman's block. Arb isn't necessarily the last resort, but it's awfully close, and if admins feel they can deal with him, I'd give them their shot.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/4/3/0)

  • Accept John Vandenberg (chat) 10:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for alanyst - why now? Much of this evidence is old, although the userpage for deletion has just passed (February '11), much of ther material is 2006-07 (and early-mid 2010). accept - needs a review by us I think to sort this out hold pending Duke53's request to unblock at least. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse - I took part in the first MfD and also the RfC. PhilKnight (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Sounds like this needs sorting out. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline Given the age of the RfC/U, I would expect an updated RfC/U before accepting this. The community has a much better recent track record in dealing with single, disruptive editors than it did a few years ago. Jclemens (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Without specifically commenting on the recent block, I think it best to clarify that by "the community", I was referring to community-enacted sanctions arrived at through open, appropriate, problem-focused discussion at AN/ANI, rather than blocks issued by individual administrators. Jclemens (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline, this matter should probably be reviewed by the broader community first, as the community has managed similar situations effectively. Would be willing to reconsider if there is evidence of an ineffective or indecisive community process. Risker (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline, let the community try and sort it out first. - Mailer Diablo 12:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I see Duke53 hasn't yet posted an unblock request. I suggest we wait and see if he does so (and perhaps also a clerk posts on his talk page asking whether he has any comments to make about this request).  Roger talk 02:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline at this time per other decline comments, especially Roger's. On the broader issue presented by Jehochman's block, Jehochman is right that sometimes a request for arbitration will call attention to the fact that a clearly warranted block is long overdue, and in that case an administrator may be justified in blocking. However, caution should be observed in blocking a party to a pending request for arbitration, lest we leave editors fearful of filing or being named in requests; hence, this step should generally be taken only in clear-cut cases. (I'm not opining right now on whether this was a clear-cut case or not.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Hugh N. Kennedy, Hugh (1985), "From Polis To Madina: Urban Change In Late Antique And Early Islamic Syria", Past & Present, 106 (1), Oxford University Press: 3–27 [10–1], doi:10.1093/past/106.1.3
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=420112514"