Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Essjay (talk | contribs) at 05:46, 8 July 2006 (→‎Statement for the Mediation Committee). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

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

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Historical elections (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Aug 2024 03 Sep 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) none none 26 July 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and (exceptionally) to summarily review new evidence and update the findings and decisions of a previous case. Review is likely to be appropriate if later events indicate the original ruling on scope or enforcement was too limited and does not adequately address the situation, or if new evidence suggests the findings of fact were significantly in error.

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. If your case is accepted for arbitration, the arbitrator or clerk will create an evidence page that you can use to provide more detail. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person against whom you lodge a complaint.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arbitrators' votes to accept/reject/recuse/other. Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after four accept votes are cast. When a case is opened, a notice that includes a link to a newly created evidence page will be posted to each participant's talk page. See the Requests section of the arbitration policy page for details.

This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Please do not open cases; only an Arbitrator or clerk may do so.

See also



How to list cases

Under the Current requests section below:

  • Click the "[edit]" tab on the right of the screen appearing above the section break line;
  • Copy the full formatting template (text will be visible in edit mode), omitting the lines which say "BEGIN" and "END TEMPLATE";
  • Paste template text where it says "ADD CASE BELOW";
  • Follow instructions on comments (indented), and fill out the form;
  • Remove the template comments (indented).

Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template

Current requests

GoldToeMarionette (talk · contribs) vs Jayjg (talk · contribs) and Hall Monitor (talk · contribs)

Involved parties

GoldToeMarionette (talk · contribs)

Jayjg (talk · contribs)

Hall Monitor (talk · contribs)

GoldToeMarionette (talk · contribs) had a WP:RFCU inappropriately completed on their account by Jayjg (talk · contribs) and Hall Monitor (talk · contribs) blocked the account after it was identified as a multiple account despite their being no violation of Wikipedia policy by GoldToeMarionette.
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Jayjg (talk · contribs) [1]
Hall Monitor (talk · contribs) [2]


Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
Comments on RFCU itself [3]
Other Admins contacted [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]
Hall Monitor was emailed with no reply
Posts on GoldToeMarionette's User and Talk Pages seeking assistance until the talk page was protected. User:GoldToeMarionette User_talk:GoldToeMarionette

Statement by BlackKneeHighMarionette (talk · contribs)

GoldToeMarionette notified article contributors that illustrative examples were subject to an AfD. The account strictly followed the WP:SPAM#Internal_spamming guideline. The AfD was without controversy. GoldToeMarionette did not participate in the vote. HereToCleanup removed the posts following the AfD in accord with the Wikipedia Guideline Wikipedia:Spam#Internal_spamming that states "Clean up your mess. For example, after engaging in cross-posting to promote some election, be sure to remove those cross-posts after the election is complete." [9]

Since GoldToeMarionette was strictly following Wikipedia Policy, there should not have been a Check User completed by Jayjg. Hall Monitor only blocked the account because it was labeled as a sockpuppet by Jayjg's completed Check User. Absent policy violation it should not have been processed in RFCU or been blocked. This Request for Arbitration is sought to confirm that policy was not violated, administrative action should not have been taken, and request that the administrative action be reversed by unblocking GoldToeMarionette and unprotecting the talk page. An apology would be nice, but not necessary. BlackKneeHighMarionette 05:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Jayjg (talk · contribs)

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Statement by Hall Monitor (talk · contribs)

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

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



Move and revert warring at Israeli Apartheid

Involved parties

Ongoing political controversy which has escalated to out of policy moves, move wars, revert wars, and to some extent a wheel war over move protection.

Note about involved parties

  • There are more involved parties not listed above. Some of those who have been deeply involved in this issue are no 'washing their hands" as if they are not involved. ArbCom should first make a rulling on the question:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  1. 00:39, 5 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Humus sapiens (Israeli Apartheid arbitration) (top)diff
  2. 00:35, 5 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Nagle (Israeli Apartheid arbitration) (top)diff
  3. 00:34, 5 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:ChrisO (Israeli Apartheid arbitration) (top)diff
  4. 00:33, 5 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:6SJ7 (Israeli Apartheid arbitration) (top)diff
  5. 00:32, 5 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Homeontherange (Israeli Apartheid arbitration) (top)diff
  6. 00:31, 5 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Bibigon (Israeli Apartheid arbitration) (top)diff
  7. 00:30, 5 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Jayjg (Israeli Apartheid arbitration) (top)diff
  8. 00:28, 5 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:SlimVirgin (Israeli Apartheid arbitration) (top)diff

Nagle (starter) and KimvdLinde (added herself) are aware.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

At various times, the page has been protected, and one user has been banned from editing the article. There is a formal "request for move poll" in progress. There is a discussion page for disputes. I think mediation was tried at one point.

Extensive and dragged out discussions at various talk pages.
Banning of editors for editing the pages in question under previous ArbCom decisions.
RFC diff]
Informal mediation by KimvdLinde failed (sources at various pages).

Statement by Nagle (talk · contribs)

We have a problem with Israeli Apartheid again. As some may recall, activity on this article has generated considerable controversy. A few weeks ago, the page had to be locked for a time, and one user is currently banned from editing it.
One of the several controversial issues pending is whether the article should be moved to Allegations of Israeli apartheid. There's a formal request for move poll in progress on this at Wikipedia talk:Central discussions/Apartheid#Poll: Rename "Apartheid outside of South Africa" article to "Allegations of apartheid outside South Africa" with a start date of 26 June 2006. The poll hasn't yet been closed, and no consensus has emerged.
Today, we have this action: 20:11, 4 July 2006 Humus sapiens (talk · contribs) (moved Israeli apartheid to Allegations of Israeli apartheid: NPOV title). This is a unilateral move while a vote on the move is in progress. That is arguably vandalism. Discussion of the matter can be found at Wikipedia:Central discussions/Apartheid.
This began a move war, with four more renames back and forth. There may have been a wheel war in there, with page protection being turned on and off. (Some of the involved parties are admins). This was then followed by a revert war in the now-renamed article.
This nonsense has to stop. Or be stopped. I would like to ask that the involved users be carefully examined, and where appropriate, banned from editing the article.
Note: Zeq (talk · contribs) was not listed as a party to the arbitration because he is banned from editing the article. He has expressed opinions on it in other places, including here. --John Nagle 04:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Note: Homeontherange (talk · contribs) was listed as a party to the arbitration simply because he had been actively involved in editing during the period of dispute. He was not involved in the move war. --John Nagle 06:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Bibigon (talk · contribs) was listed as a party to the arbitration simply because he had been actively involved in editing during the period of dispute. He was not involved in the move war. --John Nagle 06:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Some edit warring is still going on in the article, the out-of-policy move is still in effect, and the text of the article is being edited to be consistent with the out-of-policy move. Some protection until arbitration is concluded may be appropriate. --John Nagle 17:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KimvdLinde

I feel the need to add my opinion to this case as I tried unsuccesfully to mediate between the various parties. The case has escalated to revert, move, edit and wheel warring, and is unlikely to stop. Pages have been protected for extended periods, pretty much every possible policy and guideline has been violated, including but not limited to: WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, WP:DISAMBIG, WP:TITLE, WP:LEAD, WP:CON, WP:ISNOT, WP:AGF, WP:SOCK, and who know which more..... And this included editors pro and contra the article in question.
In my opinion, the page is unmediatable, as various editors are just not willing to see anything different than their own opinion, which is either that it is a very valid term, and deserves its own article, or that it is just allegations that either need a corresponding title, or that the article needs to be deleted alltogether.
To a degree, this is a good example of a content dispute that is not resolvable through normal wikipedia policies, and could serve as a perfect example for the need of a Content ArbCom. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To add, if the focus will be narrow to the last move war, this problem does not get resolved, and as such, I urge the ArbCom to consider the wider context of the dragged out edit/move/revert/wheel war dealing with all involved editors, which actually might result in adding several more editors. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The large influx of voters on the polls are due to posting at Wikipedia:Islam and Judaism controversies noticeboard and Wikipedia:Notice board for Palestine-related topics, which might selectively attracked editors. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Three out of the four page moves I conducted within the scope of this ArbCom case where as the informal mediator. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think all parties mentioned in the mediation case should be included in this arbitration case as well. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ChrisO

(This is going to go a bit over the word limit as I'm providing a chronology with diffs for the ArbComm. Apologies in advance.)
I have previously been involved in a minor way in editing this article ([10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16], [17],[18],[19],[20]) and have been keeping an eye on it in case of major trouble breaking out. After Nagle posted a message about the article's move on WP:AN/I ([21]), I reviewed Humus sapiens' actions and found that there had been no consensus in the move poll (a 16-12 vote at that point), nor was the poll closed. I reverted the move ([22]) and left a note about it at the article talk page ([23]) and AN/I ([24]). SlimVirgin and Jayjg subsequently moved the article again, once each ([25] & [26]), and I moved it back again on each occasion ([27] & [28]), reaching the 3RR limit. On the third reversion, I move-protected the page to encourage the movers to discuss rather than move-war. Humus sapiens presumably un-move-protected it and moved it to the new title again ([29]).
There's no dispute that the move took place without consensus. As Nagle notes, the ongoing poll had neither been closed nor resulted in consensus. In deciding to move the page, Humus sapiens acted unilaterally, as he acknowledged here [30]. The subsequent discussion made it clear that he was acting in the personal belief that "we are not going to get [a consensus]" and that he was opposed to "an offensive political slogan". He also claimed that "The polls only served as a magnet for certain editors eager to besmirch Israel. No consensus was possible and no compromise was acceptable." ([31]) This is about as plain a statement of POV as you can get.
In subsequently re-moving the article, SlimVirgin gave no explanation in her edit summary ([32]), and Jayjg stated inaccurately in his summary that "there's good enough consensus" ([33]). An unclosed 16-12 vote is not a consensus by any description and the discussion elsewhere clearly shows that the move didn't enjoy a consensus.
Some additional comments:
1) I had earlier voted to oppose the move as being inconsistent with the way that we treat pejorative political terms and political slogans. This didn't influence my decision to revert the out-of-process move. If the article had been moved without consensus from the title preferred by Humus et al, I would still have reverted the move. My primary concern here is the process (or lack of it in this case).
2) I'm not involved in editing Middle Eastern articles and I don't consider myself a partisan of either side. From my outsider's perspective, there appears to be a very strong POV element to the motives of Humus, SlimVirgin and Jayjg in moving the article. They appear to regard the slogan "Israeli apartheid" as so outrageous that it can't be allowed to stand. However, we have plenty of articles on controversial political slogans and epithets (e.g. "Culture of life", "RINO", "arbeit macht frei"), indeed an entire category of them). Similarly we have articles on would-be or actual political entities which substantial groups of people regard as affronts (e.g. Republic of Macedonia, Turkish Kurdistan). Nonetheless, WP:NPOV enables - and requires - us to describe neutrally the terms and concepts, as well as who uses them, why, where and when. We're not here to pass judgment on their worth.
3) Humus, SlimVirgin and Jayjg have argued that the term "Israeli apartheid" is not used in "reputable sources" and is therefore "unencyclopedic". This is incorrect, as a search on Google News or Lexis-Nexis demonstrates. It's been used thousands of times in the world press and can be traced as far back as the late 1960s. It demonstrably has widespread usage, is well-established and is cited in many respectable outlets. This clearly meets our criteria of notability.
4) I've also seen claims that the article was created for malicious reasons by Homey. However, as an outsider I believe that there is an ongoing POV-based feud between Homey and Humus/SlimVirgin/Jayjg, as this exchange on AN/I indicates. I've not been involved in it, nor do I want to be. Homey's motives in creating the article are irrelevant; the only substantive issues are whether the subject is notable, verifiable, reliably sourced and treated neutrally.
5) Tag-team move reverting is unacceptable, period.
6) In my view, actively short-circuiting an ongoing move poll is unacceptable, especially when it's done to impose a personal POV (as Humus has made clear). I personally don't particularly care where the article ends up. However, as administrators we're effectively in a position of trust. I believe that overriding consensus-building and imposing personal POVs is a betrayal of the trust that we're supposed to enjoy as administrators and the values of community, consensus and neutrality that we're supposed to be promoting. -- ChrisO 02:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bibigon

I'm not quite sure why I'm being brought before the arbitration committee on this, given that I have not engaged in any edit warring on this issue. There have been some contentious edits that I've been involved in with Israeli Apartheid, but none of them had to do with moving the article or anything of the sort. I've posted my thoughts on the matter in the discussion page, but I hadn't done any actual editing on the matter. The contentious edits I've been involved in there have since largely been settled. Homeontherange and I were having a disagreement about the placement of OR tags, but I believe we have made sufficient progress that we will be able to clear that up through talk.

With regards to the dispute ongoing here, this article specifically deals with 'Allegations of Israeli Apartheid.' Nothing more, nothing less. It introduces the idea of Israeli Apartheid, describes the allegations that Israel practices apartheid, and describes the defenses mounted against that allegation. It is not an article on a pejorative term, similar to Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys, quite the contrary, it goes into great detail the merits of the apartheid accusation. Articles on pejorative terms do not deal with the substance of the accusations -- there is no discussion on the Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys page for example as to whether the French are actually what the term claims them to be – pejorative term articles only give a description of the usage of the term, the origins, etc... That is not what this article does.
As a result, I believe perhaps there should be two separate pages. The first to deal with ‘Israeli Apartheid’ the term, which would do no more than detail the term. The second to deal with ‘Allegations of Israeli Apartheid’, which would deal with the substance behind these allegations, and present the various arguments on both sides of this issue.
While I personally did not engage in any movement of the article, I believe that Humus sapiens, Jayjg, and Slimvirgin acted properly in their doing so. There was what I perceived to be a lack of good faith amongst many of the editors opposed to the proposed move, as the case against the move was exceptionally weak, and these are experienced editors and admins involved here. Furthermore, some of the debate on the talk page by the editors opposed similarly suggested a lack of good faith in their edits regarding POV matters and OR matters. Given that, and given the severity of the NPOV violation, as well as the fact that a majority (but perhaps not a consensus), existed to move the article, I believe that all three editors who moved the article were acting in good faith to improve the quality of Wikipedia’s content, and were not merely engaging in edit wars to push their own POV. Bibigon 05:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Humus sapiens

The current flareup began when Homey (who admitted that he "used to be an anti-apartheid activist") did not get his way in whitewashing New anti-semitism. As a WP:POINT on May 28 he created article under offensive title Israeli apartheid. Since then, it has been a subject to failed polls, protections, mediations, etc. I'll be the first one to acknowledge that Process is Important. I think we all agree that in this case, the process failed - we can go into deeper details how and why. I think it was stalled in order to preserve the status quo. For those who favor consensus: that status quo never had any, as a matter of fact despite all the activism it is supported by a minority. I invite ArbCom to read the article and take into consideration that Allegations of Israeli apartheid is a compromise title, while Israeli apartheid is offensively pejorative. Heated discussions about this went on for weeks at Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid, its archives, Wikipedia:Central discussions/Apartheid, its talk, etc. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that Homey is removing himself from this case. That would be very unfortunate because he is the main offender (or one of, if you prefer) and his activity should be in the scope of this case. It was Homey's political activism and obsession with apartheid that inflamed numerous pages across WP. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Humus sapiens by Homeontherange

I am not a party to this ArbComm case as I am not a participant in the edit war in question, however as Humus has seen fit to personally attack me I think a response to this alone is in order. Humus makes the point that I "used to be an anti-apartheid activist". Note: I used to be an activist against South African apartheid. Nevertheless, Humus is arguing that my motivation comes from some failure the debate in New anti-Semitism but he also thinks it relevent to point out that I used to be an anti-(South African) apartheid activist. The latter suggests that my motivation in creating the articles is, in fact, an interest in the concept of apartheid, not the NAS article. His assertion that I "did not get my way" in NAS is also incorrect. In fact, I am quite satisfied with the outcome of mediation there. Given the incongruance between Humus' argument and reality (and the internal contradictions in his claims) it's clear that his submission is little more than a personal attack. Homey 06:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for what happened and why, I suggest editors and arbitrators look at this exchange in which Humus announces his decision to arbitrarily move the article despite there being no consensus to do so. It's unfortunate that rather than use his submission above to explain this action he has tried to distract from it by launching into a personal attack on me. Homey 15:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SlimVirgin

I would ask the Committee not to accept the case at this time. ChrisO and I have been in touch by e-mail since just before the RfAr was posted, exchanging ideas for a solution, and we are making some progress. The situation was started a few weeks by a series of apartheid-related articles, not just this one, started by User:Homeontherange. Since then, there have been disagreements on various pages about titles, with Israeli apartheid as the biggest stumbling block, and with multiple polls on several pages until everyone's head was spinning. What is needed is some coordination of the dispute and some sensible proposals, and I think we're about to get those organized. I was also planning today to discuss with ChrisO whether a Request for Mediation would be appropriate. It would therefore be helpful if the Committee could either reject this request, or put it on ice for a few days to allow these other avenues to be explored first. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jayjg

This appears to be a tempest in a teapot. A half dozen page moves (of which I made exactly one), and no formal attempts at mediation, does not make an Arbitration case. It's not even (contrary to some claims) a "wheel-war", since any editor (not just admins) can move a page. I haven’t been overly involved in User:Homeontherange’s “Israeli apartheid” article itself (a couple dozen edits out of almost 800, many of them fairly minor in nature), but it appears to me that the issue here is mostly about content anyway; one group of editors feels the term is merely a political epithet, and feels the subject should be dealt with briefly, as that, and another group feels the article should be a rather lengthy examination of whether or not Israel does indeed practice “apartheid”. The number of polls about this and related articles were confusing and seemingly endless, but at least a large majority of editors (42 to 16 at last count) approved the move to a more neutral name, as a compromise between the positions. Indeed, this seemed to me a reasonable way of defusing a situation where one side essentially felt the article shouldn’t exist, while the other side felt it should be a lengthy examination of Israel’s actions and policies. Jayjg (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Avillia

Short summarization:

  • At the time of the move, there were 16 for a move to "Allegations", and 12 against. Not a supermajority, not consensus.
  • Numerous administrators have acted, regardless of intentions or supporting policies, in a wheel-war over the location of this article without seeking mediation.
  • From viewing the limited discussion at WP:ANI, taking the case to the MedCom was suggested by both uninvolved and (I think) involved parties. For the purposes of evaluation, it should be assumed that mediation was declined.
  • This entire situation has caused considerable friction in the community and has resulted in over five pages of controversial discussion at WP:ANI.
  • A member of the ArbCom has been active in the discussion and the wheel-warring of this article.
  • Almost all parties involved have made what could be seen as incivil commentary to other parties. Some of this commentary could be seen as a personal attack.

Unless a request for mediation is quickly filed and all parties consent, the case should be accepted. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 23:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bhouston

My statement is pretty simple. I think the article Israeli Apartheid, alternatively renamed as Allegations of Israeli apartheid is strong enough to stand on its own. I have mostly contributed by creating solid (at least in my mind) contextual articles such as John Dugard, Crime of apartheid and Uri Davis -- these contributions have been of themselves non-controversial -- and I do believe they helped clarify a lot of confusion with regards to warring parties. In particular, many individuals (for example Jayjg) initially did not believe that there was a crime of apartheid but after my article on the topic this misconception disappeared from the debate. Many individuals, such as Humus Sapiens and KimvdLinde, have referred to my contribution of the crime of apartheid article as good. My position is pro-human rights and thus I view documentation of the credible sources of allegations as useful -- lets present the reputable information on both sides and ensure the reader is informed of the contents of the debate. I am for accurate articles, even if they are about contentious subjects. --Ben Houston 23:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO above mentions that SlimVirgin/Jayjg/Humus sapiens are a team. I recently ran into this team (on July 4th) and got banned for 24hrs for adding sourced information. Tag-teamed by SlimVirgin and Jayjg (I still do not know how Jayjg so conviently arrived on the scene to help SlimVirgin out once she ran out of reverts), reported by SlimVirgin and banned by Humus Sapiens. First ban since joining wikipedia a year ago and banned for adding non-biased sourced information at that -- see here: User:Bhouston\3RRReportBySlimVirgin. I view their actions in this particular situation as straightforward bullying. Is the solution for me, as an independent, to stoop to this level and begin running around Wikipedia in teams coordinated via intra-team ICQ/MSN/email messages? --Ben Houston 14:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Szvest

This is not the first time this article goes through this [34]. I had contacted User:IZAK regarding that move and received this answer which was explicative but not conveincing. Now we are facing the same issue (though titles are different) and witnessing unilateral moves w/o any kind of consensus. I've commented to contributors in Islamofascism about a similar move but it went in vain! I am asking about any guideline or policy to be established to sprt put this dilemma. Cheers -- Szvest 23:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;[reply]

Additional information from SlimVirgin

In case it's helpful, here is the information from the move log about how many times this page was moved between May 29 (when it was created) and July 4.

And number of moves per editor:

It's because there are so many opinions and a large number of editors involved (and there are others not mentioned here), that it would be particularly helpful if we could find a good mediator, so I'm going to start looking for one. I hope the Committee won't feel it's inappropriate to do that now that an RfAr has been posted. If you do, please let me know and I'll stop. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 6SJ7

This statement is limited to the subject of whether this arbitration should be accepted, and if so, what the scope of it should be. I agree with portions of the statements of KimvdLinde, Humus sapiens, Jayjg, SlimVirgin and Zeq. That is, I think there are two reasonable choices: One is to have an arbitration that deals with the entire history of the "Israeli apartheid" and other "apartheid" articles since the articles in question were created by Homey in late May, and certainly including his particular role in what has become an ugly and thus-far intractable situation. I believe that such an arbitration would have to include the issue of content, for the reasons stated by Kim. It would also have to include, in my opinion, the questions of improper use of administrators' tools, misstatements of the policies of Wikipedia by administrators who are involved in edit wars, actions taken or recommended by at least one administrator against persons involved in disputes regarding the same article, and personal attacks by at least one administrator. All of that is a pretty big subject, but I don't see how it can fairly be divided up. The other option is to not have this arbitration at all. However, what has been proposed here -- essentially just looking at one aspect of this controversy over a period of a couple of days, out of context with what has occurred before, and with the prime culprit potentially able to evade involvement in the arbitration -- is plainly wrong and unfair. If this picture is going to be analyzed by the Arbitration Committee, it should be the entire picture, including all of the artists, and not a tiny corner of the picture involving only a few selected painters. In the latter case, given the number of editors and articles involved, and the fact that the central issue here really is article content, it would be better to try a formal mediation first, rather than an arbitration. 6SJ7 00:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Homeontherange

This particular article aside, I think some investigation is warranted in the "tag-team" activities of SlimVirgin, Jayjg and Humus Sapiens not only in this article but in a swath of articles which touch upon Israel. They behave in a highly factional manner that seems to be co-ordinated and the fact that they are all admins and one is an ArbComm member only adds to the problem. There also seems to be some coordination and vote-stacking occuring, possibly via email or IRC - it's curious for instance that within 90 minutes 6 editors turn up in a row to support a proposal by Jayjg [35] and in the matter of a poll on the name of the Israeli apartheid article, following SV, Humus and Jay being criticised for acting (again in a coordinated manner) to change the name of an article when there is no consensus in the vote to do so, a dozen people suddenly show up in a row to vote to change the article, a number of whom have never edited the article before. (see this poll from 17:18, 5 July 2006 on_). Jay and Humus had acted several months ago to remove all references linking Israel and apartheid from wikipedia after a highly complex and coordinated edit war at the former Apartheid article that saw the Israeli material initially moved to another article and then gradually whittled down until nothing was left. The new article Apartheid outside of South Africa was ultimately redirected to Racial segregation (an article with no material at all on Israel) but was suddenly revived by Jay the day Isreali apartheid's AFD ended without the article being deleted. He then proposed merging Israeli apartheid with his recreated article - a suggestion he had not made during the AFD and, I suspect, an attempt to repeat the earlier trick to accomplish the eventual deletion of all material linking Israel and apartheid despite the AFD having failed. Homey 15:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As to SlimVirgin's "additional information" above her chart is misleading as it does not indicate dates. In fact, as the mover of the RFA has said, I was not involved in this move war. I believe I did move the article about a month ago when either Humus or Jay previously attemtped to arbitrarily rename the article but not since then so I do not see how I am a party to this particular complaint.

As a temporary injuction, I would suggest a ban on editing all articles relating to Israel and Zionism. Homey 15:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitrator recusal

I think that if I am going to be considered a party in this case User:Fred Bauder has to recuse himself. He has made several negative comments about me in the past as well as comments about "the left" that create a perception of bias in this case. I can dig up the diffs if I need to but for the time being I'll just ask Fred to take my suggestion to heart and recuse himself voluntarily.

For thing Fred told Zeq "I wish you could consider me your friend and supporter"[36] on 21 Feb 06. If Zeq is a party to this dispute then anyone who is a "friend and supporter" needs to recuse. Homey 23:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, he has written the following (to Zeq) in regards to the article at issue:

"I think you made some very good points on the talk page. I don't like that article. Apartheid really should be used only in the South African context. (Not that the Palestinians don't have legitimate complaints)."[37]

Given Fred's stated bias against the article at issue he needs to recuse himself as his statement puts him on one side of the issue and it would be reasonable to conclude that it also puts his sympathies with one of the two sides in this dispute.Homey 23:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you review the grounds for recusal Homey. Merely having a point of view on an article is not grounds for recusal, if it were, then just about every member of the committee would be forced to recuse themselves, given that everyone has a point of view, and that point of view is often going to favor one side or another. The threshhold needed for recusal is a great deal higher than that. Traditionally, recusal is reserved in such instances when there is a determination made by the committee member that he or she cannot rule impartially on the matter. I don't know the details of Fred Bauder's involvement on this matter, but that quote you presented there doesn't make a strong case for recusal by itself. Bibigon 02:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion as someone who agrees with Fred's statement. I suspect those who are neutral on the matter would have a different opinion as would those who disagree with Fred's statement. Homey 05:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request re Jayjg's relationship with the ArbComm

I also think that if this RFA is accepted, Jay will have to either resign or take a leave of absence from the ArbComm. I don't see how ArbComm members can be expected to evaluate and judge Jayjg's actions while also deliberating with him in other ArbComm cases - also it would put ArbComm members in a difficult position to expect them to discipline someone they may have to hear cases with in the future. Since his term ends in a few months anyway perhaps he can just vacate his position early and surrender any extra permissions he has.Homey 23:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are going way too far. We are never going to throw the Jews off the Arbitration Committee simply because we must deal with Zionist issues. Fred Bauder 12:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Being Jewish is irrelevent (I'm Jewish as well, Fred), it's the fact that Jay is both an ArbComm member and the subject of a complaint before the ArbComm that puts him in a conflict. He could be Presbyterian for all the relevence one's religious affilations has. It's not a matter of dealing with Zionist issues, it's a matter of being both an adjudicator who other adjudicators have to work with and an alleged offender. If Jay didn't want to put himself into a conflict of interest he shouldn't have engaged in an edit war whether it be over Zionism, Chaos Theory or the history of pottery in the 13th century. Homey 13:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was just a monkey wrench since jayjg is a party to the RfA anyhow and thus clearly would have recuse himslef. Zeq 12:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is ArbComm members have to adjudicate over someone they are likely to deliberate with in the future in other ArbComm cases by virtue of his being an ArbComm member. Thus, he not only has to recuse himself from this case (oddly he has not done that yet) but also from all ArbComm cases. How can someone reasonably be expected to consider disciplining Jay on Tuesday when they might have to work with him on another ArbComm case Jay is hearing on Wednesday?Homey 13:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have done just that on several occasions. You are barking up the wrong tree on several fronts. Fred Bauder 14:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You raised Jay being Jewish as a complete red herring (and as an inflamatory one at that)- it had no relationship with the issue I was raising which was not Jay's bias related to the articles (of course he's expected to recuse himself here) but his relationship with the rest of ArbComm and the problem that causes. Homey 14:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I have done just that on several occasions"

That doesn't mean that you should have and it doesn't mean it's not a problem. It is essential that any process both be fair and impartial and appear to be so. You may feel that you or your colleagues have a superhuman capacity to separate to not be impacted by conflicts of interest. Perhaps you feel that just because you have an investment in a company you would also, if you were a city councillor, be able to objectively write laws that impact on that company without letting your pecuniary interest interfere. Perhaps you could, but in a transparent system that is both fair and seen to be fair such an action would not be allowed. You seem to be taking this personally when there is no inference here that you are a bad person or have done anything wrong - just that you (in regards to my requst that you recuse yourself) are in a position where you are reasonably perceived to be biased and in a conflict of inerest and that Jay (in this case) is reasonably perceived to be putting other ArbComm members in a conflict if he remains on ArbComm. Homey 14:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homey, you raise an interesting point; I would imagine it is a bit awkward for arbcom members to be put in a position of having to judge each other. However, requiring that an arbcom member resign just because an RfAr has been filed would be an invitation to abuse. For example, let's say I left hideously abusive messages on User:EvilArbitrator's talk page, then opened an RfAr against him when he deleted them. Arbcom might well decide to accept the case with the intention of cautioning/punishing me. While User:EvilArbitrator would recuse from that case, requiring him to resign would be encouraging abusive and resentful editors to target arbcom members in the hopes that they could force them off the committee. I'm guessing being an arbcom member and meting out frequent punishment to editors tends to make them troll magnets. IronDuke 17:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This may be an intractable problem. Perhaps there needs to be a code of conduct for ArbComm members so that they avoid putting themselves in conflictual situations. I don't think the hypothetical situation you raise, IronDuke, would be a problem as that would be a case of a personal attack and there would be no serious or objective view that the ArbComm member had seriously violated policy but this situation, one where an ArbComm member helps fuel an ongoing edit war, is not as clearcut as the one you raise. Perhaps there should be a requirement that ArbComm members not join in on edit wars at all and not engage in controversial actions such as conducting contested moves without mediation, reviving articles against consensus, attempting to merge an article without consensus etc. Homey 19:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jayjg's relationship with current serving arbcom members is unlikely to change if he resigns from the arbcom temporarily or permanently. We all still know him and have worked with him extensively. Thus, quite apart from any other reason, there seems little point in doing so.
I believe, as well, that part of what the arbitration committee are trusted with is to know when they are not able to be fair, and to recuse themselves. If any member of the arbcom feels that they cannot ajudicate fairly in a case then they should recuse. If they do not, they do not consider themselves to be in such a situation. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Jayjg issue aside I can think of no judicial or quasijudicial system in which recusal can only occur when its voluntary. One hopes that an adjudicator will step aside whenever there is an actual or perceived conflict of interest but it would be foolish for us to declare that if an arbitrator decides he or she is not in conflict then there can be no conflict. Homey 20:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfM

I've filed an RfM regarding all the articles involved in this dispute. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#Apartheid (disambiguation). SlimVirgin (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement for the Mediation Committee

Having looked over the mediation request, and in particular, the enormous amount of arguing that has been done over the request itself, I've rejected it as simply un-mediate-able and am hereby making formal referral to arbitration. Several individuals identified as major parties refuse to participate, which requires automatic rejection per the Mediation Committee's mandate: We can only mediate cases where all the (major) parties are in agreement to mediate.

With that said, if the Committee would like to appoint someone from the Arbitration Committee to handle a binding mediation of the matter, and sanction anyone who refuses to participate or exercise good faith, then that might be a workable attempt at mediation. However, voluntary mediation is simply not going to work for this one. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(For anyone who would like to review the mediation request, please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Rejected_7#Apartheid_.28disambiguation.29, as all rejected requests are archived immediately. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Clerk notes

Extensive threaded dialog has been removed. Please feel free to restore the information in a named section, in non-dialog form. --Tony Sidaway 08:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from moving sectioned statements from this application for arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 23:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bakunin NPOV

Involved parties

IronDuke; Paki.tv; IlluSionS667; Max rspt; Harrypotter; anonymous. Inclusion of anti-semitic writings in Bakunin entry.
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
I indicated on the discussion page that I would be seeking arbitration. No one has posted a response. I have also posted notices on their Talk boards or sent them emails.
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

This debate over the inclusion of alleged anti-semitic writings of Bakunin in the Bakunin entry has been going on for well over a year. Despite the objections from myself and others over the inclusion of these comments, some people insist on reposting them.

Statement by Robgraham 20:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

To maintain the NPOV status of the Bakunin entry, his anti-semitic comments should not be given the undue prominence that certain people keep insisting on giving them. It is sufficient to note that Bakunin made anti-semitic comments, and then to provide a link to an acceptable original or NPOV secondary source. The current quotations are taken from anti-semitic websites and are of dubious provenance. The first quote (allegedly calling Jews an "exploiting sect," a "people of leeches," etc.) is taken from an "essay" posted on an anti-semitic website: http://library.flawlesslogic.com/jtr_01.htm. This is not an acceptable NPOV secondary source. The second quote is just a lengthier version of the first quote, and is supposedly from an essay attributed to Bakunin entitled "Polemique contre les Juifs." There is no link or other information given that would enable anyone to verify the authenticity of this alleged quotation or the essay it is supposed to be taken from. If you search for it on the internet, it shows up only on anti-semitic websites. I have yet to find a reference to this alleged essay in any library catalog or in any collection of Bakunin's writings. When I posted a "citation needed" note to this second quotation, the Iron Duke simply deleted that, claiming the current citation was adequate. Thus, I object to the inclusion of these particular quotations because they have not been properly authenticated. I also object to more than passing reference to Bakunin's anti-semitism because these lengthy quotations, even if authentic, exaggerate the importance of Bakunin's anti-semitic writings, which formed only a miniscule part of his voluminous literary output (the Archives Bakounine project published 7 large volumes of his writings, and that was not a complete collection; the International Institute for Social History in Amsterdam has since published his complete works on CD ROM. It contains thousands of pages of material).

Statement by Harrypotter 19:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The question of Bakunin's anti-semitism should not be in doubt by anyone who has familiarised themselves with his career. Google Bakunin and anti-semitism and you will get plenty of websites to read and ponder about (this or this. Whilst it is true that Robgraham does not want the reference removed, we have been faced with a series of naive anarchist militants whose political education falls far short of their enthusiam, and thanks to the intellectual dishonesty which is rife amongst anarchist circles (see however this and this for interesting articles on an anarchist sites), imagine that reference to his anti-semitism and nationalism constitute slanders! On the one hand they ask for proof, but when chapter and verse is quoted, they say it gives the issue to much prominence. I can't help feeling that Robgraham is being disengenuous. Yes it would be much better give references to sites which are not anti-semitic, e.g. The Non-Jewish Question quotes from the Historia Judaica 1952, and does not go to the original sources. So and go and find those other references, go do the work. For instance, google "Polemique contre les juifs" and you well get mostly anti-semitic sources, and a confusion of the dates (1869 or 1872). But you will also find references to une étude sur les juifs allemands, google that and you'll find Profession de foi d’un démocrate socialiste russe précédé d’une étude sur les juifs allemands (Lettre au Le Réveil, Paris, 1869) in a Bakunin Bibliography.

I am fed up with having to put with the ideological assaults of a various anarchists seeking to turn certain pages into blatant propaganda (see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-01-07 Anarchism). Clearly the emergence of anarchism, through Bakunin and Proudhon in particular, is linked to their nationalism, anti-semitism and eurocentrism. Yet any attempt to deal with these issues is met by attempts to censure the issue. Sometimes, for instance the removal of all links to Lala Hardayal from the anarchism page simply smacked of white supremacism. But do not fear: I shall not allow the racist sentiments of a few unreflective anarchists put me off from helping to develop wikipedia as a NPOV encyclopedia. Rather it is a case of slowly and methodologically moving through the material. Sometimes it is necessary to step back from the fray, as has happened with Lala hardayal, until a book I have ordered is shipped from abroad arrives. The repressive deletions of authoritarian "anarchist" editors attempting to stamp out any critical comments about their cherished faith will eventually give way to reasoned argument and cited sources. Of course it is somewhat depressing having to deal with the continual racist attacks, but, hey, that's the norm living in a world dominated by European cultural values - and I have long outworn any sense of suprise that anarchists are any different from other polticians.Harrypotter 19:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 3

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

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

SCZenz

Involved parties

(Provide links to the user page of each party and to all accounts they have edited with. Briefly summarize case. No details.)

SCZenz violated Wikipedia's block policy by banning Stanfordandson over a content dispute.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
(Provide diffs showing where parties other than the initiating parties have been informed about the request for arbitration.)
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

(If not, then explain why that would be fruitless)

I believe going through mediation would be pointless, as the mediators are not able to officially sanction or censure administrators.

Statement by Stanfordandson

There isn't much to say here. SCZenz was involved in a content dispute with me. I am now convinced that the content I was adding and arguing for was inappropriate for Wikipedia, but it was not the vandalism SCZenz claimed it to be when he banned me because of our dispute. Stanfordandson 01:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SCZenz

Reviewing Special:Contributions/Stanfordandson and User_talk:Stanfordandson should make the actual situation quite clear. These blocks were reviwed by other admins, and upheld in each case. I would have posted to WP:AN/I if I thought there was any chance these (relatively lenient) blocks would be controversial, and that is the more appropriate place to discuss the issue in any case.

Given his history, I intend to continue keeping an eye on Stanfordandson's contributions. If his behavior continues as it has, I intend to continue blocking him for increasing lengths of time in accordance with policy. As always, I will reconsider my actions and/or open them up to community review if I receive comments from another admin who thinks they may have been inappropriate.

Subsequently added:

I fear the situation may not be so clear as I had thought, so let me explain. Stanfordandson is a user who makes deliberately disruptive edits, which are sometimes subtle, and uses a very substantial familiarity with Wikipedia policy to make it more difficult to deal with the disruption. His first dubious edit was his third, where he insists on a misleading caption of a GNAA image (the image, since deleted, was an image from GNAA depicting young people of apparently African descent, and so typical of trolling by the GNAA, whose rubbish I think we can agree is inappropriate to repeat on Wikipedia, especially with the original caption). He repeated his defense of this caption [38], became involved in a messsy dispute on an AfD [39] [40], and was blocked by JzG—all on his first day! He repeated his ridiculous claim that the image was appropriately captioned as "future GNAA members" twice more [41] [42] shortly after his block expired, trying to pass it off as a consensus version, and continued to do so for some time.

My first interaction with him was on June 22, when I removed the image entirely and he responded by claiming to revert vandalism [43]. I explained politely that I had legitimately removed the content and explained my reasons; I was unaware of the full extent of his previous edits, so at the time I thought WP:AGF required this. However I was suspicious (having read some of the top of his talk page), and so I checked subsequently to make sure his edits weren't continuing in this vein. You can see on his talk page that by this time other editors had reached the same conclusions about him.

On June 25, he added an image of a man with a sign saying "gay black men are not hard to reach," which had been uploaded as a "gnaa corporate image" to the article on protest. [44] Since GNAA images of this sort are almost certainly faked in some way, in light of his previous contributions on GNAA I thought it was reasonable to view the edit as deliberate disruption, and I warned him [45]. He re-added the image, so I blocked him. [46]

On June 29, he added an inappropriate and nonsensical race-related comment (with a misleading edit summary) here. I warned him [47], and then blocked him, which I think was appropriate given his history.

In summary, I do not believe there is any content dispute between me and Stanfordandson. I thought this would be clearer from the contribution histories, which was a mistake on my part, but I hope it is clearer now that this is routine handling of a user who makes many, many disruptive edits despite repeated warnings. Blocks for disruption, to my understanding, are quite appropriate within blocking policy; I had not the slightest inkling I had made any errors in this case, and if I am so far wrong then I certainly welcome review and criticism in any forum. -- SCZenz 15:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved user Stifle

Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution procedure, not the first. I recommend arbitrators remand the matter to Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Stifle (talk) 10:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

  • Sample of a disputed edit
  • 18:00, 27 June 2006 SCZenz blocked Stanfordandson with an expiry time of 31 hours (disruption, repeated addition of GNAA image to other pages, despite warning)
  • 06:59, 1 July 2006 SCZenz blocked Stanfordandson with an expiry time of 31 hours (repeated trolling and vandalism)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/4/0/0)

Christianity

Involved parties

(Provide links to the user page of each party and to all accounts they have edited with. Briefly summarize case. No details.)
User:King_Vegita
User:Str1977
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
(Provide diffs showing where parties other than the initiating parties have been informed about the request for arbitration.)

[48] [49]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

(If not, then explain why that would be fruitless)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-15 Christianity
Talk:Christianity/Archive_27#Heresy_coming_from_Orthodoxy_or_vice_versa
Talk:Christianity/Archive_30#Orthodoxy_and_Heresy
Talk:Christianity/Archive_31#New_version_of_orthodoxy_and_heresy

Statement by

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)
Str has a long history in Christianity and other pages of refusal to compromise in the least, being uncivil, and pushing a sanitized view of Christianity as a whole, removing just about anything that doesn't put it in the light that he sees it from. This is about the paragraph which was in mediation, where Str refused to make any compromises on his work and also refused to forge any compromise version when prompted by the mediator. Despite his unwillingness to compromise and my various concessions in the interest of compromise, his stance is that I am being uncompromising because I dropped out of mediation on June 6th[50] after finding the three week long ordeal completely fruitless. An edit war over the two paragraphs is waging in Christianity right now. My feelings, as outlined in mediation, are that his reverts [51], [52] are in violation of WP:NPOV for whitewashing the history and being an attempt to demonize the "heretics" with clever wordplay that will give the effect of demonizing them while being able to be claimed as NPOV, as discussed in mediation, in violation of WP:V for not being verifiable was cited by citations from PhDs in history and anthropology, and in violation of WP:NOR because he states facts which he refuses to verify, but still states that mine are incorrect despite no contradicting source. These are the three overriding principles of Wikipedia, and are stated to overrule any other policies and even editor consensus.

Statement by party 2

In contrast to what KingVegita says, I have a long history of cooperating and compromising with many editors, and of staying civil in quite heated discussions. However, I am not flawless. My aim was always to protect historical accuracy against revisionists. KV also misrepresents the mediation, where I toiled towards a compromise, while he made only bogus concessions (along the line .. but some believe differently) and didn't reply to the issues I raised (structure, style, POV) In fact I was the last to offer a basis for a compromise, which was greeted by weeks of silence on KV's part. I have to point out that it was he that made massive changes to a long-standing version that was the result of compromise between many editors from many POVs. The accusation of "demonizing" the heretics is just plain silly, given that that heretics were only an issue regarding giving a definition (I yielded in this) and in placing a list already included in a chronologically absurd spot. The one thing I grant KV is that he has references (although before he tried to use pseudo-scholarship as a source). I have no reference at hand, at least not books in English. However, most of my objection were matters of style and of the pre-existant structure of the article (violated by KV) and of the wisdom behind including detailed accounts of single events in an overview section spanning 2000 years of history. No reference can solve these issues for us. I also have tried to include his sources, but he insisted on changing the structure. Finally, I want to add that KV tends to push fringe positions. He also gave an award to a notorious POV warrior [53], which might be indicative of his approach to WP. Str1977 (smile back) 17:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

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

SPUI probation appeal

Involved parties

SPUI was placed on probation in the Pedophilia userbox wheel war, and requests an appeal.

Statement by SPUI

I have been banned twice under the terms of the probation, both times for non-disruptive actions. Both bans were undone before their scheduled expiration, but not before a significant length of time. This effectively creates a situation in which any admin can block me for about a day for any action they label as disruptive. --SPUI (T - C) 11:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I request that Fred Bauder be recused. In the present arbitration involving me, he has arbitrarily chosen to consider my view as "wrong". He recently said that he "certainly wouldn't lift a finger" if I am blocked under probation, no matter what the reason given by the blocking admin. He has managed to take a side in the conflict, and is thus an involved party. --SPUI (T - C) 03:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by brenneman

I agree that the terms of this probation should be adjusted. In the last instance, it appears very little attempt was made to either understand the history of the page, to investigate the ongoing discussion of the page, or to communicate with SPUI in any way. I haven't seen SPUI do anything so toxic that it had to be killed right now, so is there some reason he doesn't need to be warned before he's blocked? - brenneman {L} 12:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tony Sidaway

Recusing both because I advised SPUI to appeal his probation if he found it too onerous, and because I intervened and imposed the first ban (actually a series of temporary article bans to last for seven days) he discusses after he had reacted in a characteristically defiant and provocative fashion [54] [55] to intervention by another administrator about a spate of many inclusions of the word "fuck" in article edit summaries [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] .

The bans were terminated by me after another administrator had, with my permission, "gone the extra mile" for SPUI, while warning him that he would not intervene in the case of a repetition of provocative or disruptive behavior. [65] --Tony Sidaway 12:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that this application might be dealt with in any of the following ways:
  • a clarification of the intent of the injunction in the pedophilia userbox case;
  • a new motion in that case;
  • merge with the highways case;
  • rejection comments giving brief guidance on the handling of this kind of case;
  • a new arbitration case.
--Tony Sidaway 22:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Physchim62

Support hearing the appeal in order to modify the terms of SPUI's probation. There are disagreements among admins as to how the probation should be interpreted and enforced, and as to what penalties SPUIs behaviour should attract. Clarification would be welcome. Physchim62 (talk) 14:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/1/0)

  • Recuse. I must admit I have lost my patience. Fred Bauder 13:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. I'm not currently of the opinion that the probation itself is inappropriate—the trouble seems to be over enforcement, which short of spelling out every possible case of blockable behavior and the appropriate block length for each I don't think more action by arbcom will solve. (Clarifying note: dear gods, no, I'm not going to try to spell out all the possible blockable offenses.) Disputes over the appropriateness of blocks for specific incidents should probably go to WP:AN/I instead. FWIW, probation is not a "get your whacks in free" card for SPUI's opponents, use your judgment and good sense and warn him first even if you don't have to, and don't dismiss his opinion just because he gets on your nerves. And as for SPUI, don't deliberately test our patience or I won't have any sympathy when you're blocked again. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject, and second everything Mindspillage wrote. - SimonP 12:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. The reason that probation came out of the pedophilia case was because we can't be expected to predict what SPUI will get involved in. However, we do of course expect admins to use proper judgment and interpret disruption according to community norms, subject to review at WP:ANI. There doesn't appear to be a better alternative; removing the probation certainly isn't that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmcdevit (talk • contribs)
  • Reject per Mindspillage, encourage restraint by all. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process.

Highways

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways#Enforcement of moves without consensus states that "If any participant to this dispute moves a state highway page to their preferred convention before a formal policy has been reached, he or she may be blocked for a short time of up to a week for repeated offenses." Say Route 69 is renumbered to Route 31. (This type of whole-route renumbering occurs occasionally.) Is this measure intended to make the obvious move blockable? Or should "from another convention" be added after "to their preferred convention"?

I also note that it specifically mentions state highways. Is Canada fair game, as long as I'm not disruptive? --SPUI (T - C) 19:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also I'd like to know what the duration of the probation is as no set limit was established in the Arbcom. Is this probation indefinite? Or can we appeal it after 3 months? JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An appeal is likely to do little. --SPUI (T - C) 12:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probation is indefinite. Fred Bauder 12:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can it be appealled in the future or as SPUI says are we pretty much SOL? JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AI

Last September, this user was banned indefinitely by the ArbCom for legal threats. He made one edit to his talk page in October, which was subsequently reverted. However, this past May, he has re-emerged, and now seems to be dominating his talk page. In addition, someone placed a one-year block on top of his indefinite block. Has he resolved his legal threats? If not, should his indefinite block stick and/or his talk page protected? Editor88 03:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an enforcement issue. As a Wikipedia administrator I've blanked and protected his user talk page. He remains banned and should not edit. On this occasion I won't reset the ban but any socking will result in a reset. --Tony Sidaway 14:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EffK

This past February, this user was banned one year by the ArbCom. His talk page was protected and then unprotected, and he has used it to engage in dialog with Musical Linguist and Str1977. Is that allowed? If not, should his talk page be reprotected? Editor88 03:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, I don't care if EffK continues to post on his talk page so long as he does not otherwise try to edit. If he becomes disruptive on his talk page, any admin may reprotect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Wikipedia:Banning policy, if I understand it correctly, banned users are not allowed to edit at all and from any account, and all their edits may (should?) be reverted without discussion or analysis. But if it isn't hurting anyone, I don't see the point in enforcing this. --Ryan Delaney talk 13:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dyslexic Agnostic

Is the ArbCom probation restricted to article/project pages, or does it extend to talk pages as well? Titoxd(?!?) 05:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any appropriate page at all, talk pages included. Dmcdevit·t 07:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


PoolGuy

"User PoolGuy shall use one user account. That user account may be PoolGuy or a new account which he may create in order to get a fresh start. Should he create a new account he need not disclose its name." [66]

If he's allowed to create a new account without telling anyone, doesn't that make probation rather difficult to enforce? --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing: PG is continuing to request the unblock/unprotection of one of his other accounts, GoldToeMarionette, claiming that no policy violations were cited. Can someone clarify to him that the most important clause of the decision is "...shall use one user account"? 15:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
If he choses to create a new account, and continues with the same problematic behavior we will have no difficulty in identifying him for enforcement of probation. Fred Bauder 20:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently having a conversation with him in which I'm making it clear that "restricted to one account" means he can have one unblocked account, and I don't care which one it is (see User talk:PoolGuy). It's not sinking in as far as I can tell, but that's been his problem all along. --ajn (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In light of his behavior after the RfAr closed, it is my opinion (and I hope an ArbCom member will do this) that the RfAr should be reopened to impose further sanctions. --Nlu (talk) 04:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is making people think I am using more than one account or trying to use more than one account? I just want the original problem that GoldToeMarionette should not of been blocked be remedied. ArbCom would have included the violation in the findings of fact had there been one. There wasn't, the account should be unblocked. I can't believe after all of this, that this is still somehow hard to understand.
Nlu, I am still disappointed in your attack mentality. I am sorry for you that I don't put up with it, but it is extremely unbecoming in an Admin. I still don't understand why ArbCom did not penalize you for your role, especially since I was right in what I posted. How the world would be different if you would remedy rather than attack. PoolGuy 04:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have chosen to use the account "PoolGuy". There is no sense unblocking an account you can't use unless you wish to no longer use "PoolGuy". We are not going back and hashing over a stale matter. Fred Bauder 11:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, it does matter. There are now users out there that think I did something wrong. Unblocking the account will demonstrate that I in fact did not. By leaving the account blocked, users like Nlu will think that they were justified in their treatment of me. What you view as stale, I view as central to why I challenged the block. Some Admins out there think I created multiple accounts to violate Wikipedia policy.
Let me traslate it to the real world. It is like a judge saying, "Since you are now out of jail, we will not complete that DNA test to prove you were in fact not the perpetrator of the crime. Why should you care, you aren't in jail any more."
I do not like that Administrators get to liberally use an iron fist, and despite it being inappropriate, their behavior is encouraged by the opinion of ArbCom. PoolGuy 13:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm concerned: that account is staying blocked, and you were behaving against the spirit of policy by behaving as you did, whether or not you were technically in violation of its words. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on this:

--Tony Sidaway 11:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)


Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=62683503"