Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 205.188.116.80 (talk) at 23:18, 9 July 2004. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

The last step of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is Arbitration, (see arbitration for a general overview of the topic). If, and only 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.


See Wikipedia:Arbitration policy, Wikipedia:Arbitrators, /Admin enforcement requested

Earlier Steps

Please review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for other avenues you should take before requesting arbitration. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request for arbitration will be rejected.

Current requests

The procedure for accepting requests is described at arbitration policy. Be brief - put a quick list of the nature of the complaints. Link to detailed evidence elsewhere if you need to.


Requests for arbitration

User:Guanaco versus User:Lir

Regardless of the whole debate around Lir..., I think that User:Guanaco did things that are not really okay. Lir tried to raise a comment page on it, but naturally, due to her own situation, no one commented and the page was deleted. I spent a couple of hours deciphering the situation, and my opinion is that indeed, Guanaco was borderline as a sysop. (I also think the guidelines regarding sockpuppetry handling are not clear, but even then, I think he was too heavy). In spite of my attempts, no one wishes to discuss light abuse.

I must insist that Guanaco was very helpful and willing to discuss all this peacefull, and I *really* appreciated that.

However, it bugs me a bit that it seems to be considered just "okay" that some sysops make small errors here and there and get out of it without even a comment. On a larger picture, I think it is now so much a habit that sysop are extremely rarely issued warnings or extremely rarely punished (168 might be one of these few exceptions), that when it happens, it tends to degenerate into meaningless battles. I think that if we came to see errors as human, it would benefit the way sysops are perceived, and it would make it easier to assume when small errors are done.

Hence my request that this case is studied. Since "comments to the community" lead nowhere, I come to give work to you ;-).

Note : if this is really not the right place, just tell me, but I would appreciate that this is not buried as so often it is. That means I do not think it is meant to become a one line topic for everyone to vote on (because, just naturally, people will see "Lir" and vote in a certain direction. They will tend to vote with their heart rather than mind I fear :-)). Lir considers she was abused. Discussion doesnot seem to have solved the issue. And I do not think the MC went to go any further in this. Note as well, that I do not put this request as a mediator, but as an editor buggued to see how small errors are handled.


Am I right in thinking that the block we're talking about is this one (excerpted from the block log, so more recent entries are at the top):

  • 05:40, 28 Jun 2004 Guanaco unblocked "Lir" (blocked because of mistaken identity)
...
  • 05:08, 28 Jun 2004 Guanaco blocked "Lir" with an expiry time of 24 hours (use of multiple sockpuppets to edit war)
Yes. ant

Is the following excerpt from the block log at all relevant?:

  • 19:22, 3 Jul 2004 Guanaco unblocked "Lir" (clearly a violation of policy)
  • 19:14, 3 Jul 2004 Hcheney blocked "Lir" with an expiry time of 30 days (reinstating Hephaestos' block)
  • 19:03, 3 Jul 2004 MyRedDice unblocked "Lir" (not unilateral any more then)
  • 18:56, 3 Jul 2004 Hcheney blocked "Lir" with an expiry time of 30 days (reverting Guanaco's unblocking of Lir, reinstating Hephaestos' block of 30 days - Guanaco please stop acting unilaterally)
  • 18:21, 3 Jul 2004 Guanaco unblocked "Lir" (Lir didn't actually admit to trolling. He just said "Trolling is not a valid reason to oppose sysophood". )
  • 05:22, 3 Jul 2004 Hephaestos blocked "Lir" with an expiry time of 30 days (Admitting to trolling)

Camembert 12:33, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

this, no. ant

On the 27th or 28th, Guanaco blocked Lir. The reason he did so was for using sockpuppets in an edit war. Guanaco thought Lir was User:YES, User:Yuna, User:Yuna's Revenge. He blocked YES and others for being sockpuppets, then he blocked Lir, because he thought Lir was using sockpuppets. He said using sockpuppets is illegal on Wikipedia. The decision for blocking was done without any quickpoll. Lir was not banned at that time.

Yes et al later were said to be Michael sockpuppets.

Guanaco unblocked Lir after he was told the sockpuppets were not Lir.

Lir comment : Guanaco banned me, accusing me of sockpuppetry. He provided no evidence of this, he unilaterally banned me without quickpoll, discussing the issue with me, or following any of the various dispute processes. An examination of this page's history, shows that Guanaco has repeatedly violated the procedures for banning. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Guanaco comment with regard to Lir opinion is "i understand it, but i feel that what i did was correct based on what i thought to be true at the time"

Lir said "what im looking for is not so much punishment of Guanaco, but a renewed emphasis on "rule of law" and such things as rights and what have you" "not to mention more of an effort at resolving edit disputes in a less totalitarian fashion"


Anthere : Guanaco, do you agree that you banned Lir, because of some sock puppet issue ?

Guanaco : yes

Anthere why ?

Guanaco i thought it was a illegitimate sockpuppet of lir

Anthere Guanaco: what made you think YES was Lir ?

Guanaco the fact that lir had used ESH before, and YES's actions, editing saddam hussein, and the fact Lir has already used sockpuppets before

Anthere did you ask other people opinion on that suspicion ? did you ask a developer to do an ip check ?

Guanaco answered no on a private channel

Anthere what is illegitimate sockpuppetry Guanaco ?

sannse As far as I know there is no rule against multiple accounts - there may be in using them to vote twice or to add several coments to the same discussion (making it appear this is more support)
Guanaco ant: illegitimate sockpuppetry would be using multiple sockpuppets to get around the three revert limit in edit wars and making sockpuppet votes

Anthere "did you apology for your mistake to Lir" ?

Guanaco 1. no, i didn't, and i should have, but i was frustrated by the RfC

Anthere "do you think you were being right when you did it, ie, following a rule" (and not realising you were not) ?

Guanaco 2. at the time i thought i was, because it seemed to be a clear abuse of sockpuppets, but it was actually one of michael's mind games

Anthere "do you think you will do it again, because you think it should be the correct way " ?

Guanaco 3. i may do it again, depending on the circumstances, if IP and other evidence shows that the accounts are the same person

See User:Anthere/Guanaco and Lir for full public discussion. Private log was not kept.

Some links are *http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment&action=edit&section=4

What is a problem to me is

  • the blocking was done unilaterally, with no community opinion asked.
  • there was no check for evidence
  • Lir was not banned then, so blocking him for the reason he might be using sockpuppets seems to me to be a very poor argument. It is certainly not a case listed for blocking
  • Sockpuppets are not illegal. Voting with socks is certainly problematic, but requires quiet check and cancelling of votes, not blocking
  • No apology for the mistake was provided.


if the ban was on socks alone (with no vandalism from the main account or the socks) then were is the authority to ban?

SweetLittleFluffyThing 17:03, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comments and votes by arbitrators

  1. Accept Fred Bauder 12:06, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

User:68.36.175.254

Anonymous User:68.36.175.254 has continued to make personal attacks and edit messages in an inappropriate manner in inappropriate places, such as articles and user pages. More recently anonymous has begin to make personal legal threats and legal threats against wikipedia. Example:

Posted by user:Guanaco, I believe. Martin 23:54, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, only the link to meta was. The bulk of the complaint was posted by Hyacinth in this diff. Guanaco 05:58, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[1] Guanaco 07:14, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User is now vandalizing my user page and has made a death threat using the address 205.188.116.12 [2]. Also listed me on Recent deaths using 172.140.154.253 [3]. I'm requesting expedited action. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:42, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree that 205.188.116.12 should be banned immediately -- can you tie that address to 68.36.175.254? --the Epopt 19:30, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well, they're at least claiming to be the same person. Snowspinner 19:35, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

It's me, yup...I have nothing to hide! I can support everything I say, unlike the rest of melodramatic loons! Go ahead, try to accuse me of doing something--anything--that was a "blockable" violation of "Wiki standards". It cannot be done! Remove Guanaco's privileges now! It is he that must be permanaently banned in order to uphold this project's sanctity!172.143.124.11 01:57, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Definitively, no. However, see the Requests for comment talk page. There's a clear continuity of style as he changes from one address to another, largely consisting of threats to file lawsuits in Trenton, New Jersey. The vandalism and threats began after I blocked his use of 205.188.116.11 for excessive personal threats on the talk page there. He is now claiming that criminal charges have been filed against me in New Jersey. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:47, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I, like Starr Jones, am a lawyer--so sue me!172.143.124.11 01:57, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See also:

BCorr|Брайен 16:43, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Response

LIES, as usual! I NEVER threatened to sue Wikipedia itself. However, if Wikipedia were committing treason by, for example, using coercion, extortion, or otherwise making people afraid--due to some form of threat--to exercise their legal right to press charges against those at this site who would victimize them (which Wikipedia has attempted with me), a court would most likely find Wikipedia guilty of removing people's Constitutional rights and deem it a terror organization because of its disregard for American law and its placing its own law above that of the nation this project is under jurisdiction of. Wikipedia's scare tactics, in order to give its "administrators" Unconstitutional power and control over others, in manipulating and preventing those others from exercising their Constitutional rights, is a form of treason. I would not have to "sue" Wikipedia at all. I'm just letting them know how one of their administrators' "defense" would hold up in court, if the administrator were to explain that I was banned from this site for doing nothing more than practising my American rights, as per the Constitution. Thus, the administrator, in attempting to defend himself for a crime which is indefensible, would screw Wikipedia over. Is it, or is it not, Wikipedia's policy to use scare tactics to removes people's Constitutional right to defend themselves in a court of law? Answer this question. If the answer's "yes", which I'm sure is not the case, then Wikipedia is committing treason. If the answer's "no", which it likely is, then Guanaco's reason for banning me was self-created, and he deserves to be punished for misreprenting Wikipedia, as well as his litany of other crimes and abuses of his "administrative" priveleges! Guanaco is the =Saddam Hussein= of the Wikipedia Universe!68.36.175.254 16:57, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Notice, no one has any comment. Check my edits--go 'head! They're all justifiable and on-topic. Hyacinth complains above that I "edit messages...such as articles...in an inappropriate manner and in inappropriate places". What does this mean? Explain. How can an article be edited "inappropriately" unless the information being placed into it is untrue or off-topic vandalism? Comments, please, from someone as intelligent and open-minded (and with as thorough an understanding of the law) as I. If there are no comments about these ludicrous accusations about me, I shall proceed to remove this section from this page. Consider that a warning so that my deletion of this shit cannot be used in the future as an "example" of some "crime" I've committed. If no one legitimate in the Wikipedia community has anything to say about this, it is obviously over, at least regarding the fraudlent accusations against me. The trial of my harassers and libelers, however, is just beginning.68.36.175.254 16:57, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please note that legal threats are a violation of the rule against personal attacks. This does not mean you do not have the right to sue - merely that you may not use Wikipedia to threaten people with lawsuits. Snowspinner 17:22, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough--I "threaten" no one. I merely inform them of what I will do as a last resort. When you're on the john taking a dump, and you notice a little blood in your shit, you ignore it. If it happens again the next day, you might become a little more concerned. If your shit's red diarrhea after weeks or months, you may decide, as a last resort, to take your shit to a doctor in order to ultimately solve the problem. You shit should not be bloody diarrhea--if it is, it could be a sign that you've got some cancer, which would need to be removed. So, what do you do? Do you "threaten" your bowels that if they do not stop bleeding you will have to "threaten" them by making use of a doctor against them? No! You go to a doctor because dealing with (lit) shit is what we, as a society, are paying them to do. As a society, we are paying me and my associates to uphold the American system of justice and to assure that all Americans are granted their God-given rights. So, how dare you tell me that speaking of or making use of my profession is "threatening" to anyone! I have successfully defended those whom ignorant, mainstream America has deemed things such as "corrupt C.E.O.'s", "street thugs", "mafiosi", "criminals", "Bloods", "Crips", and loads of other simply untrue and slanderous statements! It is the ignorant and stupid members of society who would judge these people based on stereotypes! Without my help, these innocents would have been condemned by people like you, who think you have the right to judge them based on their alleged "actions" that you know nothing about! So, who, exactly is being "threatened" by my defending of innocents? If anything, it is the true criminals and law-breakers, not my clients, who are afraid of the American legal system, because they know they will, some day, be caught. You perceive my comments regarding my profession as "threats"; do you have some skeletons in your closet? Is there some reason why you would be afraid of seeing justice be served? There usually is....172.143.124.11 01:57, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Discussion and votes by arbitrators

  1. Accept case as Guanaco vs Anon - looking at complaints of both parties. Martin 00:05, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  2. Accept --the Epopt 00:55, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  3. Accept for both parties. James F. (talk) 01:02, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    ... except that, if the anonymous user has indeed made death-threats, I don't see any case in investigating, as it's an automatic banning action, and Arbitration would be a waste of time. James F. (talk) 02:38, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have? Where?! I threaten no one with death, not even Nazis! I mean, you think I'd wanna go to jail for killing someone?! Pah! None of those immoral pieces of scum are worth my freedom! On the contrary, I am waging war against them for my freedom and for the freedom of all those oppressed by them?! You wanna take Guanaco's side?! What the hell do I care? Ya think it'd surprise me that you'd be as corrupt as the rest of your loser friends here?!172.141.115.22 03:15, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

WikiUser

WikiUser 18:40, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC) - I'd like some action taken on the following. I read Wikipedia for about 9 months and after reading the guidelines and advice pages for many days decided to contribute. I politely added a perfectly thorough note on my first edit of a factual error- although of course this is not required. I'd decided to do so though rather than not- I needn't have bothered. I found of course that Wikipedia is just like any other chatboard and have just been since I joined targetted for abuse everywhere I "go" on Wikipedia, by a group of people.

I'm well aware of the nature of Wikipedia as I said above - I've read the guides, however I want whoever runs it to take what action they can to prevent the abusive nature of using the system of the people concerned.

The relevant data is at England and if you follow the dated entries you will see that:

A clique of users have decided that the England page can not be changed fom their views and that they own it. The creator of Wikipedia was warned that this would happen and should have put in a better way of dealing with it. Please don't waste my time with nonsense about earlier steps. View the material and you'll see what I mean.

The AC should note that WikiUser has rejected an offer to discuss or mediate as "vandalism" and "abuse", misrepresented the dispute at the Help Desk, ignored evidence presented at Talk:England, and been abusive to at least one person there. If anyone should request arbitration (and it is far too premature to do so), it is those WikiUser has abused and misrepresented publically. Jwrosenzweig 19:18, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

WikiUser 20:24, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC) - Anyone -the owners of Wikipedia, the big donators, Wikipedia's ISP etc. - know how to stop this person from following me around with lies like this? Everything he said is a lie as the records show. These people will have to be blocked. I recieve more abusive messages than I can keep up with from these people and people joining in with them, seconds after I do anything on wikipedia. I just edited my talk page to remove 2 abusive messages and add a polite note asking people to stop "spam abusing" me and MY edit was cancelled but the abuser's stayed-despite the claim there can be no edit conflict on Wikipedia. They hacking now then?

I repeat- I'm unable to use Wikipedia- I spend all my time deleting their abusive messages to me.

Note: User:Wikiuser (talk) seems to be under some misapprehensions about the abilities of sysops. On hir talk page s/he accuses someone of "cancelling" hir edits to hir own talk page. -- BCorr|Брайен 20:45, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wikiuser seems to be under the impression that s/he is the only one allowed to edit his/her talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:WikiUser&diff=4374819&oldid=4373995 illustrates the "abusive messages" that s/he is complaining about - any reasonably sane user would interpret this as an attempt by other users to help. To be blunt about it, WikiUser is just wasting people's time with this complaint. -- ChrisO 21:15, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
In his defense, I probably shouldn't have guessed at what the AC would decide, since I'm not on the AC. But I bet I'm right, all the same. Snowspinner 21:19, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
I'd bet so, too. :-) I was amused to see that s/he's posted to User talk:WikiUser: "You people are now even interfering with my computer's connection to The Wikipedia!" A candidate for BJAODN, surely? -- ChrisO 21:24, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To Fred Bauder WikiUser 20:14, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC) - I don't know why you want me to "rephrase my complaint". It seems to be in clear normal English to me. Why must I? I won't be on-line (probably) for a while due to work commitments- and don't have time to list the "defendents"! But as you know you can see what happened and who said what -as much as the record allows- from comparing edits. Which would be necessary anyway. Good luck.


Here's the relevant pages: England: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England

and talk:england: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:England

My "my talk" page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WikiUser

and help page with URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#How_do_I_request_arbitration.3F

Here's my "my contributions" page if you need it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=WikiUser

-Also any donors, big or small, out there who are contributing to the $100,000 that the Wikipedia owners are asking for I'd be interested to hear from you! You can use my "my talk" page and I'll get back to you when I can. (Assuming all records aren't deleted by the Arbitration people.

Comments and Votes by Arbitrators

  • Wikiuser, please rephrase your complaint and name the defendents. Please state more explicitly what they have done also. Fred Bauder 21:25, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • If, Wikiuser, you, 'don't have time to list the "defendents"!', don't expect us to dig though that stuff and try to decide who did what and when. Fred Bauder 21:21, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade

I would like the arbitration committee to look into the issue of Sam Spade. He has a long history of inserting POV into articles under the guise of NPOV (see Talk:Gay bathhouse and the histories of Racial hygiene and Adolf Hitler for further examples), and this may be a test case of the scope of NPOV really means. Does Wikipedia have a responsibility to present every view? Before answering quickly, think whether we have to present a defense of Nazism or a justification of the Matthew Shephard murder just to ensure neutrality. Is this an encyclopedia, or is it a soapbox where every Internet kook and extremist can make their statements under a veneer of legitimacy--after all, it's in the encyclopedia? I hope you choose to take up this case. Danny 10:31, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade (talk · contribs)

Sam [Spade] 11:20, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'd request that this case be heard - not necessarily with any eye towards sanctions against Sam (I'm neutral at best on that subject), but with an eye towards the questions regarding NPOV that Danny brings up. NPOV is a tremendously elusive policy, and could use clarification. Particular points of clarification that I'd like to see include whether every view needs to be represented, and on what pages opposing views need to be represented. (My usual example is that creationism is mentioned on Evolution but not on Punctuated equilibrium). So I think a lot could be done with this. As for the Gay bathhouse article, though I disagree with Sam on this article, I think that it hasn't gone through enough of the dispute resolution process as of yet. Maybe there's something to be said for a case against Sam in general, across a number of articles. But I'm agnostic on that. I just want NPOV clarified. :) Snowspinner 15:37, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)
See also Talk:Gay bathhouse, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/Gay bathhouse, User talk:Exploding Boy and User talk:OwenBlacker. — OwenBlacker 11:58, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)
Question - has there been a RfC? or formal mediation? Is Danny saying that Sam Spade is "an internet kook and extremist" because if he is not then I object the the AC getting involved. Content issues should be decided by the community and not the AC. A RfC would let the community have a voice, which may well sort out the problems.theresa knott 12:30, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The issue regarding Gay bathhouse has been listed on RfC and Peer review for around 10 days now and all attempts at mediation have failed. No formal mediation has been taken (and I mooted doing that within the last 24 hours), but I don't actually think it'd help, as I don't believe it'd have any different effect to the less formal mediation — the differences appear to be too intractable. — OwenBlacker 13:28, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)
But what about a a RfC on Sam Spade's "inserting POV into articles under the guise of NPOV"? It is Sam Spade who is being referred to the AC not the Gay bathhouse article.theresa knott 13:41, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I think that's perfectly reasonable. OwenBlacker 13:44, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

It seems the next step would be a poll, followed by mediation (begging the question again, between whom?) and then arbitration. The current request is too vague and hasn't followed the clearly delineated guidelines, and much as I admit I'm secretly happy to see Sam get in trouble (because I'm 5 years old...), it's not fair if the proper procedure is not followed, so I reluctantly object to this request. Exploding Boy 13:37, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

I would, however, support a Request For Comment. Exploding Boy 13:46, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)
I'm happy to see the Gay bathhouse issue go to formal mediation rather than arbitration, but I'm not sure a poll is worthwhile, given the lack of interest from people not already involved in the discussion resulting from the listings on RfC and Peer review. I'm relatively easy, tbh, as long as it's something more than the repetitive arguments we've been having for the last coupla weeks. OwenBlacker 13:44, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

It seems Peer Review and RFC never produce any results, but we've got to follow the procedure, right? Besides, yet again, who would this mediation be between? Exploding Boy 13:47, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

Fair point. I would assume, in the context of Danny's complaint, it would have to be between the two individuals; in the context of Gay bathhouse, I'd guess an advocate for the article becoming FA (you? me?) and Sam. OwenBlacker 13:50, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

It's not so much about the article being FA, though I really believe that Sam's motivation, in part, was to prevent that. It's about adding a NPOV dispute message to a page with no good reason and then basically leaving that page in limbo. Exploding Boy 14:08, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the two in combination, as one would assume that anyone advocating the article being FA would also want the NPOV dispute resolved. OwenBlacker 14:18, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

Personally I'd be happy to forget the whole thing if he just removed his dispute and left that article alone. Exploding Boy 14:27, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

Official policy states, "Where a dispute has not gone through mediation, the arbitrators may refer the dispute to the mediation committee if it believes mediation is likely to help." Mediation is not a prerequisite; the Committee need ask for it only if it is likely to produce results—they need not do so merely for the sake of form. It would appear, based on the above comments, that mediation is unlikely to help. Therefore, I find myself in support of the request for arbitration. -- Emsworth 17:32, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)


Comments and votes by Arbitrators

Accept:
  1. mav 23:36, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC) I would like to explore the NPOV issue - esp the aspect where a single user can unilaterally put a dispute notice on a page. I don't think that is useful. Nor do I think that including every POV in an article is at all desirable. Consensus should drive the process, not unilateral action (which is currently supported by at least one interpretation of policy - I think we really need to clarify this issue).
  2. Fred Bauder 03:55, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
Refuse:
Abstain or other:
  1. I'm not sure. It seems to be, really, a combination of an inter-personal disupute (that I think hasn't escalated to the point where we're needed or would really be all that helpful) and a lack-of-policy point (i.e., exactly how much dissent is required for 'consensus' to be broken and NPOV declared un-reached); we aren't here to write policy, merely judge it, and I don't think that there's sufficient ground-work for us to make a judgment that is likely to be a fair reflection of the overall community's opinion. Perhaps we should form a semi-formal Polcy Committee, and refer this to that? James F. (talk) 01:15, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  2. Like James, I'm not sure. Mav above suggests that we should rule to change current practice regards NPOV disputes - I don't think we're allowed to do that: rather wikipedia talk:NPOV dispute should be used. Ditto the inclusion of extreme views to wikipedia talk:neutral point of view. We're allowed to rule on the status quo, but I doubt that's what Danny desires. Not sure about the personal element, though. Martin 22:25, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

User:JRR Trollkien

Evidence of sock-puppetry presented by various users moved to User talk:JRR Trollkien. Martin 00:47, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Complaint by UninvitedCompany

This user appears to be the same user who was previously banned as:

and who was believed to be, in real life, Craig Hubley (website).

In accordance with Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, I have tried to discuss these matters on the user's talk page, as has another user. My concerns have gone unanswered despite User:JRR Trollkien making continued edits elsewhere. I have also asked User:JRR Trollkien to confirm or deny having edited previously under one of the three identities listed above, on a related arbitration page, and he neither confirmed nor denied having made such edits. I do not believe that mediation is appropriate in this case, both because of User:JRR Trollkien's refusal to discuss any edits on any talk page, and because of the existing ban. However, if the committee should conclude that mediation would somehow be beneficial, I would be happy to participate.

Requested relief

If the committee can satisfy itself that this is the same user banned previously, I request that the existing ban be reaffirmed and enforced. I believe this is important, notwithstanding the quality of any current edits, to preserve the integrity and effectiveness of user bans and the right of the community to choose its members.

If the committee believes that this user is unrelated to any previously banned user, I request that the committee ask User:JRR Trollkien to quit adding content written by previously banned users and since removed through the consensus editing process.

Respectfully, UninvitedCompany 23:10, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)


there is something I find a bit problematic here UC. It is simply that some of these edits you mention here, have been done while the previous user was not banned *yet* (for example 24). Besides, the user mentionned has not been banned because of the content provided, but because of an behavior considered inapropriate by the community standards. You are basing a good deal of your argument on the fact trollkien is reintroducing content provided before the ban and not object of the ban.
While I understand very well your concern, I am also worried that what you are asking will set a couple of precedents that could be unwelcome. Right now, it is not current practice to remove edits made by banned users previously to the banning. And I would add that we punish users being bad with the community by punishing them, not deleting contents. What you are now suggesting is that we change this entirely, and use from now on a new law. From a legal perspective, when a law is changed, it is not fair that it is applied by anteriority on people.
So, I'd say, the committee should only feel concerned by one question : if this user is a banned user, the ban should be enforced. If not, this user should not be bothered. In all cases, what this user is doing is irrelevant and the type of edit he is making is only to be used to make the relationship betwen previously banned user. Content made while the editor could edit should not be taken into account directly.
Between you and I, I think you should try to loosen this unhealthy obsession :-) But well... friendly yours. Ant
The original ban of 24 was due to a refusal to work cooperatively with other editors, because 24 engaged in exactly the sort of constant re-insertion of his material that is going on here. 142, as I recall, was chiefly banned as a "reincarnation," and the stated reason for EofT's ban concerned the contents of a specific edit.
Nope. 142 was not banned for being a reincarnation. He was banned for making threats. I think that whatever the reason of the ban, and whatever its validity, it is important to say that the reasons of the 3 bannings were not content itself, but behavior. It would be nice that over time, the reason why people are banned are not distorted. I think it is important. If only to remind and insist that people are banned because of behavioral issues, and not for content issues. If reinsertion of content added by a user who has been banned *after* the edition is motive to ban people, then we admit that we ban people for issues of "content". While if we ban people for being reincarnation of ban user, we inforce banning, but we ban over behavioral issue, not content issue. I am in agreement to enforce ban, I am not in agreement to ban people on issues of content. And I do think that the argument you are giving above is borderline in that context. I'd say it is okay to try to make a link between people using the argument of reinsertion, but it is not okay to ban them because they are reinserting content that did not justify the ban in the first place. I am not sure I am explaining myself clearly enough here Steve, but I hope you will see the slight difference in approach that I suggest. Enforce banning over sockpuppet if you wish. But please, do not put a ban on someone because of an issue of content properly. I think that would be a very serious slippery slope to do so. Do you understand what I mean ?
Several users have counseled me to provde evidence that the user is indeed the same as the ones previously banned. Since there is no technical means to provide such evidence (since we don't try to verify identity and since we haven't saved logs from a year ago to use to compare HTTP headers), I can only point to the editing pattern, which is what I've done. I have already pointed out User:JRR Trollkien's refusal to deny authorship of the 24/142/EofT material, which, IMO, speaks volumes.
The edits being reinstated by User:JRR Trollkien are ones that were removed one at a time, through the course of careful editing by a wide varity of users. None of them were removed by me, and only one was removed due to authorship alone, and that after the ban. By re-adding this content, verbatim, paragraphs at a time, to a fairly wide range of articles, User:JRR Trollkien is undoing the careful work of many people who reworded it or rewrote the articles to make them better in the intervening time, well over a year in some cases. I think that's unfair, regardless of the true identity of the people involved.
Well, that is a wiki, and everyone is free to participate I'd say. Since you consider that readding content removed over a year by 2 or 3 people is unfair, I take it you consider that the opinion of 2 or 3 people only is more important that the opinion of just 1 person. That means that you agree to follow the opinion of the majority then, and that you lend all power to only 2 or 3 people. I think that is also a dangerous direction. It is perhaps interesting to see in the view of current political dispute involving 172. Imagine that WP is providing a very antiisraelite view. And that one user comes around and add his pro-israel view. Then leave for a while. During a year, 2 or 3 people against israel view come along and carefully, quietly remove the pro-israel view. Then the initial user comes back and tries to reinsert his pro-israel view. Would you say that this is vandalism and unfair ? I'd say that it is not; and if you reacted by excluding this guy, you would perhaps be on the slope of censorship and majority of pov promoting. I think I can say that fairly. I have seen work done on antifrench articles. I tried to improve them a year ago. Over a year, a good deal of what I added was removed quietly by anti french people. Would it be unfair that I add it again ? Just because more people removed it ? Arenot we not bordering something bad here ? I agree that some of the work done is perhaps best than what was done previously, but I also wonder if there is not a risk of "paralysing" the life of articles when a set of users decide that "this version" is the good one, and should not receive again input in another anterior direction. This is something I fear a bit for Wikipedia : the organisation of team who will protect some articles and prevent growth. Overprotection. Hmmmmm.... just think about it please, when you are over your hunting energy. Please, do think about it... from a woman working as well on a younger wikipedia, and who can see the protective forces at work. Do not forget that they are cases which could be dangerous to set. That is all I mean, and I wish you see beneath that precise case to think about that. Okay ? :-) SweetLittleFluffyThing 19:22, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
As to whether this is an unhealthy obsession, I disagree and would be happy to discuss the reasons why at some more suitable location if you're interested.
UninvitedCompany 17:23, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I think I already know your arguments. But perhaps it is too important to you. I think you consider you have been trapped at some point, and want to compensate now. Well.... no big deal. I still object, but I have other things to do in my life. I think I enough said my opinion. If you understand what I try to say, so much the best, otherwise, it is not worth I go on :-)

User:JRR Trollkien should be permanently banned asap. If WP does not have a mechanism for making such a ban effective, we should really sit down and figure one out. User:JRR Trollkien is a time wasting moron -- get rid of him immediately. BTW I think it's beside the point whether User:JRR Trollkien is the same as some other troll. Same or not, just ban him. Thanks. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:30, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I ask the arbitration committee not to ban JRR Trollkien, but to recognize that he and EntmootsOfTrolls are the same person. There is no need for a new ban to be implemented, if it is shown that JRR Trollkien is already banned. Guanaco 08:08, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hephaestos blocked JRR Trollkien and Leo Trollstoy for thirty days. Later on 10 Jun 2004, Mark Richards unblocked, asking (here) "Has the committee already ruled? On both users? If I've missed something here please let me know".

Votes and discussion by arbitrators

  1. Accept Fred Bauder. There is strong evidence based on his earliest posts that this user was not a new user when he entered Wikipedia, See [4] 12:57, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Recuse - Comments by 142.177 to me were the main reason why that user was banned.[5] [6] --mav 09:13, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  3. Accept; if he is, indeed, shown to be a reincarnation, this will be a short case. James F. (talk) 09:56, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC) This looks like it will be unnecessary, as JRR is currently deemed by popular acclaim to be a reincarnation, as said; however, also accept for purposes of reviewing sysop behaviour in relation to this account &c. James F. (talk) 01:02, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC).
  4. Accept. My current belief is that under current banning policy, JRR may already be blocked for being an obvious reincarnation, without even needing an arbitration ruling. As of now, reject. Now that JRR has been blocked as an obvious reincarnation, we only need to consider this case if Mark, Heph, and the community in general are unable to resolve any difference of opinion regards whether the reincarnation is sufficiently "obvious" (in which case, accept). Martin 02:57, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

172 and VeryVerily

requests - minus conversation, minus 172's withdrawn request. Remainder of content moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/172 vs VeryVerily. 172 requested arbitration solely on the Augusto Pinochet content, not on behaviour (either his own or VeryVerily's, and subsequently withdrew that request. Martin 20:58, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Snow: I [...] ask the arbitration committee to consider [...] the long-running interpersonal dispute between 172 and VeryVerily, which has led to three quickpolls and revert wars on many different articles. [...] the personal conflict between 172 and VeryVerily is wasting an incredible amount of other people's energy and interfering with the progress of numerous articles.

There have been several attempts to resolve this dispute by other methods. As stated, there have been three quickpolls involving these two users, one of which was for a request for mediation. At the time, the community rejected the idea of "forcing" the parties into mediation, and other efforts to encourage 172 and VeryVerily to use the mediation process have not been successful. A previous attempt to use Wikipedia:Requests for comment simply led to a revert war and had to be abandoned. At this point, I feel that the dispute is ripe for the use of arbitration as a last resort. If the Arbitration Committee would like to see additional information about the dispute to decide whether it warrants their attention, I plan to start collecting evidence of that, but this will take considerable time. --Michael Snow 16:28, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just make clear [...] I am requesting arbitration regarding both 172 and VeryVerily, not just one or the other. I had been considering making this request for some time, as their dispute has a lengthy history, and given both parties indication of this. I was finally prompted to make this request by 172's initial request, as well as their recent revert war on Augusto Pinochet and History of the Soviet Union (1927-1953).

I maintain this request, and I consider it independent of any requests that 172 and VeryVerily may or may not be making. I am fully satisfied that so far, in considering whether to accept this case, the arbitrators have clearly understood the nature of this request. --Michael Snow 20:43, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Snowspinner: I would like to chime in stressing the importance of arbitration here. RfC pages have been started about each of them, and, at least from the outset, it looks like the community is polarizing and picking sides, and trying to argue that this case deserved the 50-reversions that either VV or 172 gave it, because the other is just too incompitent to edit, etc, etc, etc. I would not support mediation on article content here, but on user conduct - to clarify whether there is ever a situation where 50 reversions of the same text in a half an hour is acceptable behavior, for an admin, for a user, or for anyone. Snowspinner 13:08, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to reiterate that I would still like to see this matter arbitrated, so as to determine the acceptability of these particular editing practices. Snowspinner 04:04, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, this behavior is still going on, with revert wars on Mai Lai Massacre and History of Chile, as well as another flareup on Augusto Pinochet. RfC pages have been totally ineffective, with 172 calling for people to lobby the RfC pages as well as the arbitration committee. This situation is, astonishingly, deteriorating. If the remaining members of the Arbitration committee could make their decisions on whether to hear this, it would be a very good thing. Snowspinner 14:27, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Spade: I request that the conduct of 172 be reviewed by the arbitrators, with his lengthy history and large number of edits with the project being ample evidence and reason for reflection on him, and the best way for him to interact with the community. Because he is an administrator, it seems to me that it is important for him to meet minimum standards of conduct. I see him as being indicative of a wider tendency for quality editors to become rude, unable to accept when they are wrong (or POV), and behave in a manner that is generally unbecoming. This is in my eyes a meta-issue whose arbitration presents the opportunity for significant improvement in obedience of Wikipedia:Civility/Wikipedia:Wikiquette, as much as Wikipedia:Revert. I think that there is a need for clarifying these policies and the enforcement suitable for them thru means other than arbitration as well, but arbitrating this matter may help greatly in setting precedent. Sam [Spade] 04:21, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

VeryVerily: [...] I would like to [request] arbitration vis-a-vis 172's conduct on Augusto Pinochet. Those that were present during the bulk of it - me, Cadr, Cantus, Eloquence, AstroNomer, and perhaps Ed Poor and Michael Snow - have all witnessed his belligerent, rude, intransigent, bullying, and dishonest behavior and his repeated failure to discuss content issues. This continues unabated as of this writing. VV 04:55, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Brockert: [...] It seems like issues need to be resolved in some fashion. --Ben Brockert (:talk:) 21:45, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

Withdrawal of request

Since a quickpoll on 11 June, VeryVerily and 172 have communicated privately and seem to have reached an agreement to end their dispute, or at least call a truce. In any case, they have managed to continue their edits without further acrimony, and also resumed communicating civilly with each other. They have even participated constructively together on the same article and talk page (Saddam Hussein and Talk:Saddam Hussein). I commend them for their efforts to resolve this dispute and take a more positive approach.

As a result, I think it is now time to withdraw my request for arbitration, in hope that the dispute will not reoccur. I believe we should all try to put this incident behind us. I hope that the others who have commented above will support me in this. In particular, I ask the members of the Arbitration Committee listed below to withdraw their votes to accept this case, and clear it from their docket. --Michael Snow 03:44, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think that, given a sincere step towards reconcilliation, this request should indeed be withdrawn. Should the issue flare up again, obviously the past history would come into play as well, but for now, why stir the pot. Snowspinner 03:57, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)
I'm happy if everyone else is happy. --Ben Brockert 22:57, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

As per Michael Snow's suggestion, I too would like to withdraw my request supra on the grounds that the conflict has subsided. VV 20:02, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Discussion and votes by arbitrators

On Michael Snow's request:

  1. I'm going to provisionally accept Michael Snow's request that the committee investigate "the long-running interpersonal dispute between 172 and VeryVerily, which has led to three quickpolls and revert wars on many different articles", as emphasised by Snowspinner. I say provisionally accept, because if 172 and VeryVerily do not wish this matter to go into arbitration, they can seek mediation instead, which would likely be more productive. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/VeryVerily, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/172. The comments of Michael Snow and VV give me some confidence that the matter is resolved. Reject.Martin 23:31, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I accept as well. But since I've been involved with trying to resolve some of these conflicts before (such as at Congo Free State) in a non-partisan way I will recuse myself if either 172 or VV asks me to. --mav 14:49, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Accept on the grounds that VV and 172 seem unwilling to go to Mediation; if they so wish to do so, reject. James F. (talk) 10:19, 24 May 2004 (UTC) Am now satisfied that there is not currently a case, as per the withdrawl of request &c. James F. (talk) 04:40, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Recuse Fred Bauder 11:19, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

Matters currently in Arbitration

  • /JRR Trollkien - Accepted for arbitration with four votes, on April 20, 2004. Evidence to /JRR Trollkien/Evidence please. For discussion and voting on this matter see /JRR Trollkien. Note that this case is accepted solely to determine whether, under existing Wikipedia policy, it is acceptable for sysops to ban obvious trolls.
  • /ChrisO and Levzur Accepted for arbitration with three votes (there were 3 recusals) on May 2, 2004. Evidence to /ChrisO and Levzur/Evidence please. For discussion and voting on this matter see /ChrisO and Levzur.
  • /Cantus - Accepted for arbitration with four votes, on 25 May 2004.
  • /Lir - Accepted for arbitration with four votes, on 6 July, 2004. Evidence to /Lir/Evidence please. For discussion and voting on this matter see /Lir.
  • /Lyndon LaRouche (Herschelkrustofsky, Adam_Carr, John_Kenney, and AndyL) - Accepted for arbitration with four votes on 6 July 2004. Evidence to /Lyndon LaRouche/Evidence.

Rejected requests

  • Avala vs various users - Rejected - try other forms of dispute resolution first, please. Discussion moved to User talk:Avala
  • Wheeler vs 172 - Rejected - please try mediation first. Discussion moved to user talk:WHEELER
  • Cheng v. Anonymous and others - Rejected - refer to wikipedia:username for name change policy. For content dispute, try other forms of dispute resolution first, please. Discussion moved to User talk:Nathan w cheng.

Completed requests

  • /Theresa knott vs. Mr-Natural-Health - Decided on 11th Februry 2004 that Mr-Natural-Health would be banned from editing for 30 days (i.e., until 12 Mar 2004). The vote was 6-2 in favor of banning, with 2 explicit and 1 de-facto abstention.
  • /Plautus satire vs Raul654 - Decided on 11th March 2004 that Plautus satire is to be banned for one year, up to and including March 11 2005. The vote was unanimous with 8 votes in favour and 1 de-facto abstention; a further vote in favour of extending the ban indefinitely was held but not met.
  • /Wik - Decided on 15th March 2004 that Wik would have a three month probation during which he may be temp-banned in certain circumstances. There were six votes in favour, three opposed, and one de-facto abstention. Further decisions and minority opinions can be read at /Wik.
  • /Anthony DiPierro - Decided on 25th April 2004 to instruct Anthony with regards to his VfD edits, and refer other issues to mediation. The vote was unanimous with 6 votes in favour and 4 de-facto abstentions. Note that the case was accepted solely to investigate use of VfD.
  • /Mav v. 168 - Closed on 03 July 2004 with an open verdict.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=4536501"