Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Editor88 (talk | contribs) at 21:24, 9 August 2006 (→‎Statement by [[User:Azskeptic]]). 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

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

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

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

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

St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Article Talk Page User Talks: [1] [2][3]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Leuko

During the course of the past few weeks, a number of issues on the St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine have come up which we were not able to resolve using the other steps in the dispute resolution process. They are:

  • ParalelUni is of the opinion that a website published by a state government agency (the Oregon Office of Degree Assessment) is not a reliable source for inclusion and citation under WP:RS and WP:V. Users Leuko, Azskeptic as well as the user providing the Third Opinion all agree that a government website qualifies under WP:RS and should be included. However, ParalelUni refuses to abide by the consensus and the WP:3O, and states that he will only submit to an administrative opinion.diff.
  • Vtak has introduced material into the article which is factually questionable. Leuko requested a citation of the material, but Vtak deleted the request, which lead to this debate. Under WP:V, I don't feel this material is appropriate unless it can be verified.

Those are the major issues to be decided, as well as one minor issue:

  • ParalelUni has placed the article into 6 categories. 3 of these categories are subcategories of each other, and others are marginally related at best. I feel a single category: Medical Schools in England would be most appropriate.

--Leuko 19:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Azskeptic

I believe that placing SCIMD in the category of Medical Schools in England is false advertising. The school is a Senegal chartered school that is squatting in the UK and not recognized. Also we have no proof that SCIMD is indeed related to the original SC and thus it isn't recognized in the same way SC was and wasn't. Numerous states won't accept SC diplomas and yet the website has been setup on wikipedia to act like it is widely accepted Azskeptic 19:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2

Clerk notes

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

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

Deletion of WP:EL-compliant links and images from 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

Deletion of WP:EL-compliant links to Israeli and Lebanese online journals, blogs, and news service photographs in the article 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.

Involved parties

Complainant

Pro-deletion

Other parties arguing against deletion

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • I am aware of the request, but remain only an interested party. I seek guidance from the admins as to what my role is, if any.--Cerejota 04:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by AdamKesher

Both links to Israeli and Lebanese online journals, blogs, and news service photographs compliant with Wikipedia's policies WP:EL and others are being repeatedly deleted from the article 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. I will simply use the mediator's language from second mediation attempt, after Barberio accused without justification the first mediator of mistakes:

"The links under question are:
  • closely related to the article itself
  • argued to be of a high standard (web collectives of writers, compendiums of news agency photos, etc.)
  • providing a unique resource of frontline observations beyond what the article can provide"

Furthermore, tasc insists on deleting WP:EL-complant links to online journals, blogs and news service photographs from article 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict without resorting to any talk page or mediation process. AdamKesher 16:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, my proposed solution to this dispute centered on a limited number of links:
BEGIN
Frontline blogs
Israeli blogs
Lebanese blogs
Frontline photographs
Warning: Extremely graphic wartime imagery
END
None of the other parties ever responded or explained about why specifically any one of these links does not satisfy WP:EL. AdamKesher 21:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In response to what Barberio has to say below, I simply note that this action was initiated after tasc repeatedly deleted links while ignoring the entire process and Barberio declared this process to be "stalled." Also, the language above was used both by me and the moderator to accurately represent the pro- position. Finally, I note that the content of Barberio's proposed compromise is the inclusion of a template, {{Unverifiable-external-links}}, that is proposed for deletion and has been used by Barberio himself to label these links "dubious", and to declare that the presence of this template means that the links should be "replaced":

"The template has had language added that makes it clear that these links should be replaced."

The effect of tasc's and Barberio's words and actions—either delete the links without discussion, or add a template that says that they should be replaced—hardly appear to represent a compromise position. Instead of replying to this reasonable response on the mediation page, Barberio declared the process "stalled" and now expresses bemusement now that it has been taken to the next level beyond mediation. The links either satisfy the exceptions of WP:EL or they don't. If there are other avenues that could resolve this dispute under these circumstances, I am certainly open to them. AdamKesher 15:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
References
  1. ^ Tom Zeller Jr. (2006-07-24). "Anne Frank 2006: War Diaries Online". The New York Times. Retrieved 2006-07-28. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ "ISRAELI AIR ATTACK KILLS CIVILIANS". CNN. 2006-07-30. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Statement by party User:Barberio

This issue was brought to the mediation cabal after Adam entered into an edit war (that I was not involved in), to repetedly add Blog site links to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict article. (Including links to sites containing collections of unlicensed copyrighted materials.)

During mediation, I had attempted to explain that these links did not meet the WP:EL exceptions on the ban on blog links. (I would also like to note Adam's misleading statement above. The quoted text is his own, not the Mediators.) Following some errors made on behalf of the initial mediator, and after discussing this with the Mediation Cabal on IRC, I asked for him to be recused. Mediation had then continued normaly under a new Mediator.

I was fully engaged into trying to offer a limited compromise, and have even reached agreement with Iorek85 on a proposed compromise. However, Adam and Cerejota described my failure to accept their positions vertabim as 'Ill Will' and 'Mockery of the Mediation Process', and declined to offer any compromise or progress on the issue.

At the moment I am bordering on, but not quite yet considering these actions a personal attack. And I am mostly bemused that Adam has quickly accelerated this issue to arbitration. --Barberio 17:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up statement. The request for CP/M to be recused from mediation was handled as politely as it could be, and ultimately the decision was in the hands of the Mediation Cabal and CP/M. I'm unsure why this issue has been raised in this arbitration, instead of raising it first with the Mediation Cabal. This appears to be muddying the waters.

Right now I'm simply confused as to what exactly the charges are, and who is being accused of wrong doing? As far as I can see, asking the Mediation Cabal for a recusion is not a wrong doing. If CP/M feels I've personaly attacked him, I'd apologise if he asked me, since I was only doing what I thought best to keep the mediation process fair. But I'm not sure why this is being brought into the arbitration. I'd like to ask Adam and Cerejota to clearly state who they belive is at fault in this issue, and exactly what they did wrong, and to keep these charges seperated instead of as an omnibus argument. --Barberio 09:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved admin JzG

It would probably help if the complaint was reworded in neutral language - the word censorship lights up the POV-pusher radar like nothing else and as presented this is more an example of begging the question than of a substantive and fixable dispute. Given that, it came as no surprise at all to discover that the "WP:EL compliant sources" turn out to include such patently uncompliant sources as blogs, and the images turn out to be unfree. Just zis Guy you know? 18:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iorek85

I agree these links should be in the article. They add a unique and important source (though NOT reference) for the war. However, I can see the use in the changes proposed by Barberio. Without knowing what blogs you consider reliable, is this what you are asking for?;

Conflict blogs

Template:Unverifiable-external-links

Israeli blogs
Lebanese blogs
Frontline photographs
Warning: Extremely graphic wartime imagery
END

Statement by informal mediator Keitei

The issue here seems to be that certain parties are refusing mediation. The issue of how many links and whether to have links could be easily mediated, but parties are refusing to have anything to do with it, etc. I don't think that ArbCom is the solution to this debate, but if the involved parties want an official ruling on how this should be done, so be it. If the case isn't accepted, mediation can continue as long as it is wanted. --Keitei (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keitei -- First, thank you for volunteering the time to mediate this. I do not necessarily want to drive this to an official solution, especially if you and other's believe that there are alternatives that might reasonabily be expected to yield a solution. You have suggested a poll, and I am open to this, but this was already refused. Which alternatives would you suggest, and how might they be expected to work when, as you say, certain parties are refusing mediation? AdamKesher 22:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a matter of determining what the links' purposes are, which links fulfill that purpose, and then how many there should be. If there really is no purpose for the links to be there, they're removed. If there is a good reason, one goes through and finds the ones that exemplify it. It's a matter of what is best for the article and the article reader. However, it is indeed very hard to come up with a solution when people refuse to participate, so perhaps this is the best route.
It's not specifically an ArbCom issue because it's a content dispute; this ArbCom case, should it be accepted, will probably be about the behavior of certain parties throughout this disagreement. In any case, it's up to you and all the involved parties; should you still require mediation at any point, I'll gladly take the case. --Keitei (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cerejota

First, from the start of the mediation process I established that while I believed the links should stay, this was an edit dispute and hence I thought the more appropiate place for this was the talk page of the article. However, I do agree that editor tasc consistently and in other articles refused to engage in reasoned community debate, prefering to just edit, usually with some vague explanation but sometimes with no explanation at all. So I understand Adam's frustation, yet I am not fully convinced this process (ie moderation and arbcom) are the way to go, even when I expressed that the moderation was not possible and that escalation might be in order. I am being ambivalent, but that is my honest position on this proceeding. If a consensus of admisn is that this proceeding has no merits, I can accept that, but I wasn't who raised it.

Now, Barbeiro raises some serious concerns, including feeling like he was personally attacked, which deserve, in my opinion, a serious reply.

I believe Barbeiro has indeed made a mockery of the moderation process because:

  1. A compromise was offered which included links with a caveat template, which is a huge compromise as the links are both relevant and WP:EL and in some cases WP:RS compliant. This compromise was ignored in discussion. Shows a tendency to simply want the elemination of WP:EL rather than reach a compromise on NPOV. This refusal to either prove the links as not compliant to policy in a convincing way or accept the huge compromise presented mocks the moderation process.
  2. Instead of discussing his problems with how the process was being carried out within the wiki, with its accountable diff system, community involvement and ability for asynchronous communication, he choose, by his own admission, to chat in IRC with unindentified moderators, with no accountability and no reliable record. I believe extrordinary things like a mediation process require one be extra careful, and not even give the impression of wrongdoing. By engaging in off-wiki, non-accountable discussions which didn't involve other people in the moderation process, Barbeiro possibly demonstrated bad faith, lack of respect and dishonesty towards those in the process, including myself. These discussions also give the appearance of wrondoing on the part of other moderators and definitely show that Barbeiro didn't belive in the good faith of others in the process enough to raise and discuss his concerns publicly. I feel personally insulted and mocked by this very action of not being honest and expressing his concerns in an accountable fashion that engages the community. It is a personal attack on all of us, including those who share his views. It also mocked the Moderation Cabal itself, putting its neutrality and questioning its usefulness. This back-handedness and lack of trust and collegiality mocks the moderation process.
  3. His accusations against the moderator in this case are only substantiated with the correct view that the moderator expressed active support that the compromise solution was a good one (a limited set of bias-balanced links with a caveat template). Moderators do this all the time in the moderating process, without them coming under attack. As a matter of fact, I am involved in a moderation process myself where I feel the moderators have commented disfavorably against me, yet I don't mock the process by questioning the good faith of the moderators. If I raised a moderation, it is to move things to where uninterested parties can inform the debate, not to win. Barbeiro demonstrated that he could only accept as result of moderation having his position win. That mocks the entire process and makes impossible, by definition, reaching a compromise.
  4. He could have refrained from what I view as launching a personal attack against the moderator in question (which should be invited into this process to hear him out, maybe he disagrees with my characterization of what was said as a personal attack) and asked civily and with respect to all of those in the process for the moderator to recusse himself. The illwill evident in his comments mocks the moderation process.

I have no personal ill will to Barbeiro, which I don't know, nor do I belive this to be a generalized behaivior on his part. But I cannot take part in a moderation process where one of the participants chooses to use backchannels, off-wiki conversations, and other unaccountable methods to difame a moderator, and in turn, predispose any substitute moderator to take up his position, lest he or she face his wrath.

Perhaps this is not what Barbeiro intended, but the immanent (in my opinion) Law of unintended consequences supports the view that his intention is irrelevant, what counts are the consequences, which was paving the way for this ArbCom proceeding to happen, by not trusting his fellow wikipedians, and mocking them by speaking behind their backs instead that in front of them.--Cerejota 04:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reread Barbeiro's statement and two things become obvious:
  1. I will strike item one of my response to his statement, as he is saying he is willing to reach a compromise. I apologize as I was under this impression.
  2. He accuses me incorrectly of this: [described] my failure to accept their positions vertabim as 'Ill Will' and 'Mockery of the Mediation Process. I did no such thing. I was barely involved in the process and only jumped in when Barbeiro did the hings I go into detail above. I don't think our different views on something are "ill-willed" as I have stated before that edit conflicts are the secret recipe that makes wikipedia fingerlickin' good. From our disagreement, an agreement to disagree emerges with the consequence of a better encyclopedia than one written only with our respective views.
I state without reservation that I only see "ill will" and "mockery" in his actions and words against the moderator in the moderation process, and have rather extensively listed the reasons why above. Period.
His other opinions, while I do disagree with them, I belive to have been relatively civil and good willed.--Cerejota 05:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note by Kim Bruning

Note that it is quite alright to take things off-wiki for a bit, especially in sensitive situations like mediation where a wrong word in the wrong place can have unintended consequences. This is why mediation has often traditionally been discrete, and things were taken off-wiki rather quickly when tempers got a little heated. At least, that's what I learned when I started.

I want to make clear that I don't think off-wiki communication of wiki affair is bad in general, just that it was used unjudiciously by Barbeiro. While disagreements where strong in the Mediation, they where not generally heated or uncivil, which is why I didn't participate actively, as I felt they would run their course. My reaction to Barbeiro was entirely motivated by the surprise and hurt ant his disproportionate and surprising response.--Cerejota 06:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
:-) Kim Bruning 08:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note by JNC

I don't know whether this is highly relevant, but I stopped working on Wikipedia because Barberio was so impossible to collaborate with; he's stubborn, and simply will not compromise. It's his way, or the high-way. This attribute of his (his inability to co-operate in a collegial fashion) may be at work here too. If anyone wants more, please email me - I don't read my talk page here, and only dropped by to fix an error I noticed in Lotus 38. Noel (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Pat8722

Involved parties

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

Statement by party 1 (BorgHunter)

Though I would have liked very much to avoid it, I see the Arbitration Committee as the only viable solution to the problem we have brewing here. User Pat8722 has had a history of tendentious editing, starting with Libertarianism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and includes more recently Water_fluoridation_controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Temporomandibular_joint_disorder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), all three of which he has disrupted with regular edit warring. He is aware of the three revert rule, but has claimed on many occasions that he is within his rights to revert these articles three times per day, despite being corrected on this point repeatedly and by numerous admins. He responds to the corrections by repeating his claim that he is entitled to three reverts, and characterizing my first block of him (for 4 reverts in 24 and a half hours) as out-of-policy. He also has stated his desire, on numerous occasions, to de-sysop a number of admins because of their, as he characterizes them, "out-of-policy" blocks. Because of this constant disruption, he was for a short time indef-blocked by Knewledge Seeker, but that block was reversed by the community as being too much, too soon. After being unblocked, I observed more incivility and edit warring, and blocked him for two weeks (after previous blocks by me of 24 and 31 hours). This block, still in effect, has not deterred him from his behavior, as he engages in the same incivility as before, though now it is limited to his talk page. He has not expressed contrition for his behavior at all, or any understand of Wikipedia policy, though he frequently touts Wikipedia:Voting is evil, for some reason. He has repeated his desire to edit war, claiming that his opponents are vandals, despite evidence to the contrary and frequent urging to read WP:FAITH. Consensus is usually against him in these edit wars. Finally, he has ignored his RfC (in which no one came to his defense and all who edited the page made comments against his behavior), except to (somewhat paradoxically) refer to it as a document in defense of his edits to Libertarianism. I think the situation has reached the point where all attempts that could be made at reasoning with him have been made, and only a binding decision could deter him from his behavior. —BorgHunter (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Tony's statement below, I'd like to note that I believe the only course which will prevent an eventual indef block of Pat8722 is arbitration, as the ArbCom is the only authority Pat8722 really seems to recognize. The community is handling the situation, yes, but because of Pat8722's stubbornness, I fear that leaving the situation to the community will ultimately lead to his indef block rather than his reformation into the very model of a modern Wikipedian. I think an arbitration case, though it may on the surface appear to be unnecessary, is the route that would best help Wikipedia. —BorgHunter (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2 (CBDunkerson)

As noted by Tony below, my involvement here was reviewing an unblock request and providing some suggestions for resolving disagreements. Overall my impression is that the user wants to help improve the encyclopedia, but very much has his own ways of doing things - which sometimes conflict with standards or the opinions of others and bring him into disputes. He has, I believe, some legitimate grounds for complaint in a few cases, but has conflated these beyond their merits and was not himself wholly blameless in any of the situations.
I don't know if an ArbCom case would help to 'get through to him' as BorgHunter suggests or not. I do agree that his current ideas about how things on Wikipedia are/should be run seem inconsistent and likely to lead to continuing conflict and eventually an indefinite block. However, I don't see ArbCom or any other particular course as being clearly more likely to prompt him to re-examine those views at this point.
Finally, please note that he is currently still blocked for the remainder of the week and thus unable to reply to this ArbCom motion on his own behalf. --CBD 11:37, 9 August 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

It appears that this is a case where an editor, and he alone, disagrees with the eventual outcome of administrator action taken to deal with his behavior. The matter has been repeatedly reviewed, there is agreement on this user's problematic behavior, and the latest block by BorgHunter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been reviewed and explicitly endorsed by Deckiller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), [8], and Kbdank71 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [9]. CBDunkerson (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) reviewed in depth and promised to unblock if the editor agreed to make an effort to take on board legitimate criticism of his behavior [10]. Saxifrage (talk · contribs) has also made constructive comments and has helped to have the block reviewed. The matter has also been raised by User:Pat8722 on the "unblock-en-l" mailing list, in which he characterized such blocks as "frivolous and malicious" and accused the blocking administrators of acting from political motivations.
The community seems to be quite capably dealing with this case without further intervention. --Tony Sidaway 13:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Internment camps: Israel/Gaza

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_concentration_and_internment_camps#Gaza_Strip

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

A third party is filing this request because the principals have discussed the matter extensively (see above) and appear beyond mediation.

--Joe 00:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my request for arbitration was premature. Aside from being still relatively new (and untutored) in Wikipedia and associated procedures, I was doubtful of the possibility of mediation and the like because one side of this issue wasn't even a User (was just an IP). I infer from the characterization of my request by at least one administrator that one is to undertake the preliminary methods despite such a fact.

Other administrators seem to have joined in this matter with votes and article-locking. I don't know (yet) whether this fact provides any support to my having requested arbitration when I did, but in any case I judge things at this point have moved far enough along that it wouldn't be worthwhile to try to reverse the process, so I guess I'll just let it proceed.

Despite my having voiced a preliminary viewpoint in the dispute, I do not consider myself enough of an authority to contribute information toward settling the dispute, and similarly, I am innocent enough of knowledge of Wikipedia procedures that I hope to be able to just sit back, watch the process, and learn both about the dispute and about appropriate measures for dispute resolution.

--Joe 00:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carbonate

This is a politically charged dispute that involves sensitive religious issues (I'm not sure there is a worse situation). My contention is simple- The Gaza Strip is a concentration camp because it is

  • The (sixth) most concentrated population in the world
  • A prison (the people in it are not free to leave)
  • Governed by a hostile and aggressive state
  • A squalid place deprived of water, food and medicine

I consider this to be satisfactory to meet the conditions of a concentration camp. The parties that oppose this view are well organised and seek to suppress any condemnation of their policies.

Carbonate 04:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted sources for this material in the discussions which I have not copied here. I was under the impression this was supposed to be very brief and not the place to begin throwing evidence around...

Carbonate 19:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why people keep saying this is original research.

These sources were assembled by myself in to a paragraph that flowed with the rest of the article. There is no original ideas added.

Carbonate 00:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it also important to note that these sources span decades. Pope Pius XII made his observations in 1949 while the UN special reporter on the right of food came to the same conclusions recently. These don't seem like marginal people pushing some agenda (them being Popes and senior professors at the university of geneva). They also seem like people in a position to know (them being Popes and UN special reporters for the right of food).

Carbonate 01:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

I have been a party in this dispute. The claim is original research, a novel synthesis from published sources of varying reliability. It has been made abundantly clear to Carbonate that he will not get this included unless and until he can provide citations from reliable secondary sources and known authorities which explicitly identify this as an internment camp. This, he has yet to do - in fact, I see little if any evidence that anybody has yet been convinced by Carbonate's arguments who was not already a believer. That said, it's a content dispute and not ArbCom material. Just zis Guy you know? 18:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum following Carbonate's additions: from one of those sources, The United Nations denounced on Thursday a human rights investigator for calling the Gaza Strip "an immense concentration camp" and referring to Israeli soldiers as guards. As I said above, this is a novel synthesis, and in any case a content dispute. This is a claim which has no apparent currency beyond Jean Ziegler, is rightly covered in his article, and to add it to other articles would be to give undue weight to a view which is clearly not widely shared, as evidence the need to extrapolate from sources which simply do not identify the Gaza Strip as an internment camp. Just zis Guy you know? 06:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Jayjg, PinchasC & FloNight

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Jayjg.

Note, after this note was left, it was removed by the same user that posted it see this diff and then blanked this case as well see this diff then readded by an ip see this diff. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See my response to Jayjg below, I removed the notice after I removed this RFA[11] and intended to restore the notice when I decided to proceed with the RFA with the edit note "this seems to be necessary", the same comment I made when I restored this RFA[12] however, since there was an intervening edit by Flo which I didn't see I misfired and a) reverted to the wrong prior edit (the one that followed my notice) and b) accidentally removed Flo's edit. Ex-Homey 17:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot leave a message at User talk:PinchasC as that page is semi-protected, I have sent him an email instead. And he has responded.
  • FloNight is already aware of this RFA
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

[13] [14] As first party, you may feel tempted to add a summary here. If you do, make it a single sentence of not more than twenty words. Please make your case in your statement.

Statement by User:Ex-Homey

I was formerly User:Homeontherange. My former account was never banned, rather, I abandoned the account for various reasons, partly frustration at wikipedia and partly the suspicion that it had been compromised. I no longer have the account's password and thus cannot edit from that account, additionally it has been blocked and desysopped on my request. While there was an RFA against that account at the time that I left it was for a review of admin permissions and did not extend beyond that.

I have been in the process of withdrawing from wikipedia however I have continued to edit under single purpose accounts which with one exception I have tended to use only for a day or so.

Today, Jayjg declared these various accounts to be sockpuppets of Homeontherange and blocked them despite the fact that a) Homeontherange was never banned and b) none of the edits by those accounts were tendentious. Nevertheless he has labelled them all "abusive sockpuppets". This is wikilawyering and an attempt to use WP:SOCK as a pretext for his arbitrary actions despite the fact that WP:SOCK was not actually violated by the existence of these accounts.

As well, as I use a semi-public computer cluster along with a few hundred other people in my building, Jay's action has also declared several accounts I am uninvolved with as sockpuppets, including one belonging to my roomate.

I attempted to rectify this situation using User:Ex-Homey by pasting a "former Wikipedian" tag on User:Homeontherange. User:PinchasC reverted and then blocked me giving "homeontherange" as his justification for the block despite the fact that Homeontherange is not a banned user. I tried to explain this to Pinchas but he responded in an uncivil way by reverting me and then semiprotecting his talk page.

Both these users have thus misused their administrative permissions and acted arbitrarily. They have used wikilawyerly justifications for their actions based on a misapplication of WP:SOCK.Ex-Homey 15:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: FloNight

FloNight also banned an account of mine on sight despite the fact that Homeontherange was never banned by ArbComm or the community. After the fact she argued that there is a community ban when, in fact, no such thing has been done. In the face of opposition she unilaterally declared that there was a community ban in effect and banned User:Homeontherange despite the fact that that account had already been banned at my own request. This ban was lifted by Fred Bauder. Flo is engaging in an Post hoc ergo propter hoc argument to retroactively justify her arbitrary and out of policy bans. Ex-Homey 15:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to SlimVirgin

In fact Sonofzion is not "confirmed" and was never "confirmed". The CheckUser result at the time was "likely"[15] and there is evidence that someone who signed themselves Sonofzion (and later daughterofzion) is in fact in Sweden suggesting "Sonofzion" may have been someone off continent who perhaps made it appear that he was editing from Toronto by using a proxy server or dummy computer. Jay seems to have conveniently changed the finding several weeks after the fact based not on a new checkuser run (since that account has not resurfaced in the past month) but on his own wishful thinking. I specifically asked if Checkuser showed same system or not same system and was never given a reply. SV is deliberately misrepresenting the facts as is Jay by including Sonofzion in a confirmed sockpuppet cat. Given dynamic IPs the number of anon IPs is quite meaningless. The other alleged sockpuppets were either single purpose accounts (since it was my intention to leave and not start a new permanent account) or are not mine but either my roomate's or others started via an IP feed shared by our co-op. None of them violated WP:SOCK save for one instance in which someone was asked to review a page for a possible 3RR violation by SlimVirgin in which ignorance of 3RR was feigned. The Homeontherange account at Mediawiki was an obvious imposter and I sent Fred and a steward an email to complain about it at the time and there is no reason, except for Slim's vivid imagination and her wishful thinking, to suspect that the other mediawiki account she lists was me. I see by some of her talk page chatter that she is now accusing anyone who has a different view than her on animal rights pages of being me - this may be a convenient pretext to use to delete contributions she disagrees with but other than that it's bogus. I have shown no hesitation to confirm accounts I have actually used but if Slim wishes to go on a self-serving witchhunt to stamp out edits contrary to her fringe animal rights opinion so be it.Ex-Homey 22:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to PinchasC

Post hoc ergo propter hoc there was no talk of a community ban prior to Flo banning me on sight. This was introduced as an after the fact justification. It also makes no sense to argue that someone should be subject to a community ban because there are imposters pretending to be him. Ex-Homey 15:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Jayjg

That was accidental. What I was trying to to was revert my own removal of the notice of this RFA as I had decided to go ahead with it. Look at [16] and specifically [17] as well as [18] where I made the identical edit comment of "this seems to be necessary". I did not see Flo's intervening edit and because of that I a) reverted to the wrong prior edit and b) removed Flo's edit inadvertently.

In any case Jay, your post to ANI misrerepesented things by mischaracterising edits and also implying that several of the alleged sockpuppets had been banned for "disruption" when, in fact, only one had and not because the edits it made were disruptive but because Flo mistakenly assumed it was a Wordbomb sock because the account asked if Mantanmoreland's CheckUser results were going to be posted. If you misrepresented the situation similarly to the ArbComm then you obtained permission to act under false pretences. Since you are an involved party in past disputes you should have left this to someone else. As it was you distorted and misrepresented in order to obtain a desired result. Ex-Homey 15:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by SlimVirgin

This is another attempt by Homeontherange to use arbitration as a platform to cause more chaos. In the last few weeks, he has used 15 confirmed sockpuppets, some of them abusive, one of them in order to evade a block for 3RR. He has also posted using 20 anon IPs, including proxies, sometimes claiming to be Homey, then denying it a few edits later and claiming his computer/user account had been compromised; or that other disruptive editors were pretending to be him. He used these ambiguities to create confusion over whether he had asked to be desyopped, over whether he was leaving, and over whether he had filed a previous RfAr. He is having a laugh at everyone's expense and has come close to exhausting the community's patience. See the proposed community ban suggested by Thatcher131.

Sonofzion was used to evade a 3RR block. Deuteronomy was used to file a 3RR report against an admin who had blocked Homey for 3RR. Fluffy the Cotton Fish (who Homey claims is a friend of his) was used to comment on the nomination to the Mediation Committee of Pinchas, who had filed an RfAr against Homey. Schroedinger the Cat was used to accuse me of admin abuse, and deliberately gave the impression that he was banned User:WordBomb in order to cause confusion. Hunting Thomas was used to make provocative edits to PETA, an article Homeontherange had previously stalked me to (but had otherwise no interest in). Hunting Thomas also pretended to William_M._Connolley that he was a new user who didn't know about 3RR, [19] which is evidence that the account was being used deceptively in violation of WP:SOCK.

I request that the Committee not allow him to prolong this disruption with yet another arbitration case. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed accounts:

Suspected:

Confirmed IP addresses (these have either been posted on the check-user page or Homeontherange has admitted to them, so there is no private information here about his location that is not already known):

Suspected:

Statement by Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg

I must say that Homey has a lot of gall to even write this request. He has almost been as disruptive since he has "left" than he was before. He has an entire drawer of sockpuppets following around his former enemies, [20] and in some cases making disruptive edits, [21]. Homey has always had a tendency to go to ridiculous heights to try to get his way, but this situation just takes it to a whole new level. In this situation however I really don't see how it can accomplish anything besides backfiring in his face.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 14:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to User:KimvdLinde

I really do not know where you have found such a definition but I don't think it was anywhere on wikipedia. There is always one or two people defending even the most odious users. If we had to get the consensus on evey single person or even every single administrator before we enacted a community ban then I doubt anyone would ever be banned at all. Think about it, Willy on wheels would be running wild and free, Xed would still be making progressively crazier and crazier accusations of a vast conspiracy, that crazy religious guy would still be trying to convert people, Brandt and Merkey would have scared everyone off wikipedia by now. No, I don't think universal consensus is needed for this.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 14:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to User:Homeontherange

I must say that Homey's argument that Slimvirgin is basically just accusing everyone who diagrees with her of being socks of his, really sounds similar to every other time he denied that various sockpuppets belonged to him. I would say that even for someone who does not have access to checkuser reports, the evidence against him is rather obvious. His statements are beginning to look more and more like Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf and his annoucements of American soldiers setting themselves on fire in the streets of Baghdad in fear of the dreadful Iraqi army. In other words, to believe he is telling the truth flies in the face of all reason and common sense.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FloNight

IMO that User:Homeontherange is currently under a community ban. All of User:Homeontherange's user accounts are indef blocked on sight by myself and other admins. No other admins have undone these blocks. This type of behavior by the community is by definition a community ban. If they so desire, the Arbitration Committee and Jimbo can review our ban. If the Arbcom wants to open a case and modify the community ban they can. Until an admin reverses one of User:Homeontherange's blocked account, hopefully with full community consensus, I consider him under a community ban and will continue to block his sockpuppet user accounts. FloNight talk 14:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by ChrisO

Following up on FloNight's statement above, I don't think the assertion that Homeontherange is under a community ban is accurate - the block log has this entry:

20:16, 26 July 2006, KimvdLinde (Talk) blocked Homeontherange (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (Unblock) (Per request of Homeontherage per e-mail)

I assume this was done in the light of the apparent compromising of the Homeontherange account. No community ban applies in this case as far as I know. -- ChrisO 14:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:KimvdLinde

Community bans can only be applied when no body objects, and I objected, so there is no community ban. That I did not unblock any of his accounts is that it will probably end up in a wheelwar, where other admins will reblock as I am likely to be considered involved. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC) Reinserted by SlimVirgin [22]. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLOCK#Users_who_exhaust_the_community.27s_patience: Community bans must be supported by a strong consensus and should never be enacted based on agreement between a handful of admins or users Currently, I do not see that strong and wide consensus beyond editors that have been involved in various content disputes with Homey. That he was not community banned was confirmed by Fred Bauder here [23] I however, would very strongly suggest to Homey that he limits his editing to the ArbCom cases. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Saladin1970_appeal/Proposed_decision#Ban_by_the_community. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:PinchasC

The abuse committed by Homeontherange is fully elaborated in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeontherange and by Slimvirgin, Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg and the others above.

In regards to the claim of him that I blocked User:Ex-Homey, the reason was because with his username he may have been impersonating Homeontherange. I noted this by placing a suspected sockpuppet or impersonator tag on his user page, as he claims that there are multiple users using his ip and accounts. And even if it was Homeontherange, then as FloNight wrote above that there was community support and as Jayjg wrote in AN/I arbcom support for the banning of his sockpuppets. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Jayjg

Before tagging and blocking Homey's sockpuppets I consulted with the Arbitration Committee mailing list. I was advised to go ahead, and to note the fact that I had done so on WP:AN/I, which I did: [24] I also note that the IP address which brought this case vandalized my User: page before doing so: [25], and is one of a series of IP addresses claiming to be Homey, or claiming that other addresses claiming to be Homey are, in fact, not Homey, or various other deliberately confusing and disruptive actions and scenarios intended to spread FUD. Jayjg (talk) 01:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Sam Sloan

User:Sam Sloan vs. 137.216.208.82 and User:JzG

Involved parties

The parties have been notified.

One of the parties has found out by accident, User:Sam Sloan might like to post evidence that the other party has been made aware. Just zis Guy you know? 16:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summary False statements and vandalism by 137.216.208.82 and User:JzG

Statement by party 1

Both Louis Blair and User:JzG have falsely quoted me and should be blocked and have their edits reversed.

On July 19, 2006, Louis Blair who posts here as 137.216.208.82 posted 39 times a "Sam Sloan Announcement".

This was bogus, as I had made no such announcement.

If you go to the newsgroup rec.games.chess.politics and search for Louis Blair and Sam Sloan you will find hundreds of personal attacks by Blair against me.

Here, he posted this bogus Sam Sloan announcement to the talk pages of administrators who have a history of deleting my postings in the past. Here are some examples:

Only one of the above has actually acted in this request. That is User:JzG who has deleted or modified about 50 of my contributions to Wikipedia, especially on Middle Eastern Languages and on chess personalities.

User:JzG has lied about me. He wrote: "User:Sam Sloan recently poosted on Usenet that he has re-created every chess player article of his which has been deleted." There is not much here to establish the importance of the subject. Just zis Guy you know? 12:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Geoffrey_Borg[reply]

This is an outrageous lie. I have never made and such statement on usenet or anywhere else.

Administrators who lie should be blocked and removed from Wikipedia. I demand that this be done.

Because of these lies by Louis Blair and User:JzG about five good articles have been deleted from Wikipedia and even "salted the earth". Another 30 or more articles have been vandalized by User:JzG. For Example, Geoffrey_Borg is Vice-President of the World Chess Federation, an organization of 159 member nations and thus is clearly a notable person within the standards of Wikipedia. Ali_Nihat_Yazici is President of the Turkish Chess Federation, an organization of 125,000 members and is the subject of an article in the current issue of ChessBase Magazine and thus is clearly a notable person. Both artocles were deleted by User:JzG

The vandalism by User:JzG of these obviously notable persons plus his lie about me is more than suffieient ground to get User:JzG kicked out of Wikipedia.

Statement by User:JzG

Can anybody find any evidence at all of prior attempts to resolve the dispute? I wasn't even aware there was a dispute until Sloan posted to my Talk threatening to have me kicked off the project and call in the chess federation's lawyers.
I think Sloan also needs to pick better examples.
  1. Here's the announcement on Usenet whose existence he denies above: [26]. Interestingly, this states that he is systematically reposting deleted content and doing so in a way calculated to avoid detection - since Sloan has apparently used sockpuppets in the past this raises an interesting question about the methods he might have used this time round.
  2. Here's the deletion log for Geoffrey Borg, as Thatcher131 points out this was deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoffrey Borg which I did indeed start but did not close (or even participate in after starting it).
  3. The links to Talk pages (not diffs, I note, so may well vanish over time) were nothing to do with me, here's the anon which posted them: Special:Contributions/137.216.208.82. I don't think it will be necessary to trouble the CheckUser people to establish that I have never posted from this IP address since it's in South Dakota while I am in England.
  4. Here's the deletion log for Ali Nihat Yazici, which was a redirect
    And the article at the other end of the redirect I did indeed delete:
    • 12:56, July 19, 2006 JzG (talk · contribs) deleted "Ali Nihat Yazıcı" (Serially reposted copyvio)
    having compared the text to the previous version, deleted as a copyvio, it was indeed a copyvio from [27], reposted by Sam Sloan after two previous deletions for precisely the same issue. I am somewhat surprised that Sloan wishes to draw attention to this.
I guess the "vandalizm" of which he speaks is the removal of links to his website, which he added to numerous articles (WP:EL says do not add links to websites you own).
Sloan's posting of the above manifestly inaccurate complaint to my Talk page is his first and only attempt at dispute resolution, and was concurrent with his raising this ArbCom request (of which, incidentally, I have not been formally notified). Incidentaly, this [28] looks rather like a (hollow) legal threat. Just zis Guy you know? 13:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify per Fred Bauder's statement below, I have never subscribed to the newsgroup in question and am unlikely ever to do so. Just zis Guy you know? 22:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Louis Blair

I am not sure that I understand the objection of Sam Sloan. I pointed out [29] to various Wikipedia users (not 39) on their talk pages. Does Sam Sloan deny the existence of [30] ? - Louis Blair (1 August 2006)

Statement by Thatcher131

I saw this get posted and took a look for fun: Just to clarify, JzG did also delete Ali Nihat Yazıcı as Serially reposted copyvio. Note the article title uses non-Roman characters, and that this article has apparently been posted several times under different names. Also, JzG did not delete Geoffrey Borg but he was the AfD nominator.

This seems way too premature. Assuming the best of intentions on Sam Sloan's part, it seems he has some misunderstandings about how wikipedia works, and needs a mentor, not arbitration. Thatcher131 (talk) 13:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Billbrock

User:Sam Sloan is a convicted felon (speaks to credibility) and, IMO, habitual liar who has no conception of NPOV--see his ghosted autobiography Sam_Sloan. A decent chess player, however. Billbrock 06:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Phr

I think JzG may have been mis-remembering the Dorsch AfD when he mentioned sockpuppets. I'm not aware of any evidence of Sloan using sockpuppets. Sloan has done a lot of dumb and maybe sanctionable stuff, but sockpuppets aren't his style as far as I know. In the Dorsch AfD, I spotted an anon edit which looked to me like it might be Sloan forgetting to log in, so I flagged it as a possible unintentional sock for vote counting purposes. I'll take Sloan's word for it if he says it was someone else. Sloan's measure to avoid detection by Louis Blair, Rook Wave, and me appears to have been Sloan's stopping his former habit of posting to Usenet every time he put an article on Wikipedia, which used to alert Usenet readers to Sloan's Wikipedia antics as they happened. (Added 02:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC): Ooooh, I missed the special characters in Ali Nihat Yazıcı. Nice catch. --Phr)

Louis Blair is a regular Usenet participant who interacts there with Sloan and others, and occasionally visits Wikipedia because of Sloan's Usenet posts about it (which have now resumed). Louis Blair posts here from 137.216.208.82 (no privacy vio since he signs his name to his posts) and I'm completely confident that Louis and JzG are not the same person. I encourage Louis to create a Wikipedia account--it's friendlier than posting from an IP address.

That said, I agree with the rest of JzG's statement, and I believe this RFAR is nonsense. Sloan is a serial filer of silly RFAR's [31] [32] [33] and this is another.

Sloan has been around the chess world for a long time and is very knowledgeable, but he doesn't seem to understand that Wikipedia is a reference work and not an oral history collection. Therefore, he inserts stuff all the time that are true according to his (often inaccurate) memory, but completely violate WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:BIO (correction: WP:LIVING), and probably lots more of those. I agree with Thatcher131's suggestion of mentorship for Sloan. I could support this suggestion with numerous diffs if that helps. Phr (talk) 02:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: IMO, Fred Bauder's analysis "Most of this dispute seems to be occurring off-Wikipedia on a newsgroup" reflects a misunderstanding. It's primarily an on-wiki dispute about Sam Sloan's attempts to create and defend inappropriate Wikipedia articles. Sloan also reports on the dispute on the newsgroup and that reporting generates discussion there and occasionally attracts newsgroup participants here, but that's a side effect. I mention this because the problem will probably keep recurring and so I want to document it properly, even though at the moment it doesn't remotely reach the level of calling for an arb case. I agree with Fred's other remarks about the AfD process and so forth, and with his rejecting the case. Phr (talk) 23:26, 6 August 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)

  • Reject. Prior dispute resolution? Dmcdevit·t 18:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. Most of this dispute seems to be occurring off-Wikipedia on a newsgroup. The sin, if any, is posting about the off-wiki dispute and taking action based on that dispute. The question of notability of chess players can be settled through the articles for deletion process. Fred Bauder 17:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. - SimonP 14:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Smart

Involved parties

Statement by party 1

The Derek Smart page has been the target of edit waring and several other Wiki violations for many months and it not getting any better. Today a request for protection pending arbitration was granted and the page now has full protection.

For many years there has been a feud between supporters and detractors of Derek Smart. That feud has since spilled into his Wiki page. Both sides have been engaged in a slo-mo revert war over content for that page.

Particularly the detractors seem to want to turn his page into one of negative entries and which border on nothing more than character assassination. The same thing they were doing on Usenet prior to Derek Smart excusing himself from Usenet discussions bseveral years back. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 20:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comment by User:Ideogram

User:Supreme_Cmdr has not made any serious effort in the mediation. The mediation request was posted six days ago and no mediator has yet commented on the article talk page. --Ideogram 01:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Stifle

Firstly, this appears to be a content dispute, so I suspect the ArbCom will not consider it anyway. But besides that, it does not appear to have visited WP:RFC or WP:RFM yet. These should be considered. (Full disclosure: I protected the page to prevent edit wars.) Stifle (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An addendum: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Supreme Cmdr has been filed, and the diffs and evidence provided may prove relevant to arbitrators in deciding whether to accept or reject in favour of WP:RFC. I have become involved in the dispute since this request was filed. Stifle (talk) 00:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved User:Phil Sandifer

Oh, man... Derek Smart. Jeez. I was in the Derek Smart flame war back in... 2001.

In any case, this is very likely a Bogdanov Affair style thing, and arbitration involvement to tag the page accordingly would be a wise idea. This is a decade-long flame war that I'm surprised took this long to catch fire over here. Phil Sandifer 04:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Kehrli

Involved parties

  • Have notified User:Kehrli on his talk page, most of the anon editing I suspect to be Kherli

--Nick Y. 17:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Has gone through mediation


There is an ongoing content dispute and inappropriate behavior at Mass-to-charge ratio, Thomson (unit) and recently Mass spectrum.

Statement by party 1

User:Kehrli has continued over several months and after mediation to push original research and POV that is best reflected on his user page. I will mostly let the record on talk pages, previously deleted pages created by Kherli to push his POV etc. speak for itself. I do not have much to say other than removing dipute tags without reason seems very wrong and that wikipedia is about verification not about using multiple sources to reach a novel, however reasonable of a conclusion. I would also say that I agree with Kherli in almost every regard except that thsi is exactly the wrong place to make his point. He has directly pushed his POV to IUPAC and it was rejected. His novel suggestion is a combination of several guidelines, suggestions etc. however he can not provide a single source that uses his notation that he insists is the only correct notation (Again I think his ideas are great and do not strongly disagree with them in principle). Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth.--Nick Y. 17:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summary Kherli has been deleting dispute tags without giving the citations requested, adding dispute tags without specific dispute in retaliation, not removing tags once citations have been given, following me to other pages to argue with me, edit waring, generally acting incivily, and pushing POV through OR by synthesis.--Nick Y. 17:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Kerli has started threatening me for disputing his article in a way which appears to be an attempt at impersonating an administrator. User_talk:Nick_Y.#Stop_you_vandalizm_2

Requested references:

I was uncertain as to which contested unit/notation would be helpful to see in use so I searched for all relevant combinations at sciencedirect.com. Note that this is a limited although reasonably extensive database so more could be found.

m/z in use: [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66]

  • This is not even all of 2006, plus 1500 more on a single database that excludes much of the mass spec literature. Thousands more out there. Note that there is a wide array of journals represented here.

Examples of the unit Th in use in combination with m/z i.e. m/z (Th):

  • I could find two from 2006 and they were inconsistent sometimes using simply "m/z".

[67], [68]

  • No matter how hard I try I can not find a single citation that uses "m/q (Th)"

Google results are enlightening too: ""m/z" Mass Spectrometry" returns more than 800,000 hits ""m/q" Mass Spectrometry" returns about 30,000 hits mostly having to do with the physicis of mass spec ""m/q" Thomson Mass Spectrometry" returns about 300 hits mostly related to the pages in dispute here or pages which specifically are about J.J. Thomson's contributions to Mass spec.

I hope this is helpful--Nick Y. 23:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC) --Nick Y. 23:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2

Abstract: Whereas I am editing the articles under dispute according to the verifiable international conventions by ISO 31 and the IUPAC green book, Nick is trying to push a minority opinion of a small group of scientists.

User:Nick has continued over several months and after mediation to push original research and POV. I will mostly let the record on talk pages speak for itself. I do not have much to say other than placing dipute tags without reason seems very wrong and that wikipedia is about verification not about using minority sources to reach a novel, unreasonable conclusion. His editing is contradictory to the internationally accepted rules of ISO 31 and IUPAC green book. It is the POV of a small group of scientists not representative for the wider scientific community. He is pushing the tern m/z even though it is used in many different and inconsistent ways within the community he thinks to defend. The following things are all verifiable and have been proven by me several times:

  • m/z is not consistently used in the mass spec community
  • m/z as defined by the IUPAC Analytical Branch work group cannot be a mass-to-charge ratio since it has wrong dimensions
  • m/z as defined by the IUPAC Analytical Branch work group cannot be of unit thomson since m/z is dimensionless and therefore has no unit
  • m/z is so ill defined that it is even not clear wether it is a unit or a physical quantity

All these verifiable facts are contendet by Nick without giving any verifiable sources. He is just citing examples that in some cases even undermine his own position. Nick seems to completely lack the expertice in metrology to understand the issue. However, and this is the nice part, he even admits that my edits are correct in the sence that they better represent what he calls the truth. The reason he wants to revert my edits is that they are not in line with what he thinks is an "official" document but which is drafted by a minority group of scientists. Instead I am editing according to the wider scientific consensus givien in the IUPAC green book. (BTW: I only edit according to the internationally accepted ISO 31 standards as well as the verifiable IUPAC green book standards. I do not edit according to the "truth", because this issue is a matter of conventions, not truth.) Wikipedia is about verifiability and truth, not about POV of a minority group that lacks arguments. Nick, show me a single edit of mine that is not verifiable and I will immediately reverse it. --Kehrli. 30 July 2006

Additional information: in our last mediation we came to the conclusion that I would implement the wider scientific notations according to the ISO 31 in the mass-to-charge ratio article, and Nick would implement his minority view in the mass spectrum article. This splitting first worked fine. However, after about 3 months he started again vandalizing "my" article, arguing for deletion of the article, placing tags, and so on. Only for this reason I started to do some minor revisions on "his" article on issues that are obviously and verifiably wrong and against ISO 31 as well as the IUPAC green book. --Kehrli. 30 July 2006

The deeper reason of the dispute, by the way, is that a work group of the IUPAC Analytical Divison [69] published a document that is not compatible with the broader and international conventions given in ISO 31 as well as in the the IUPAC green book. Nick seems to believe that Wikipedia should "enforce" the minority POV of this group whereas I think Wikipedia should present both views, but it should use the broader document for verification. --Kehrli. 30 July 2006

Statement by uninvolved user Stifle

This appears to be a content dispute. Framing a content dispute as a behaviour dispute does not change the essential fact that it is a content dispute. You really don't want this before the ArbCom, as they're just liable to ban everyone from the article or similar blanket suppression. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Nick Y.

Although there is some content dispute this is mostly about behavior and the purpose of wikipedia. It will not be solved in any other way. There is something much more fundamental going on here if you look carefully. The "content dispute" is a guise for unabashed POV pushing and playing the system to further ones personal opinion. Note that on general principle I actually agree with most of how Kehrli believes things should be especially regarding the terrible inconsistencies in notation and units; however it is not for us to change the world, just report it. There is a fundamental disconnect as to how wikipedia works and what is appropriate behavior. --Nick Y. 00:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cacycle

I have now followed the behaviour of Kehrli since he registered in March, 2006. The case is clearly not about any technical question or dispute, it is only about the behaviour of Kehrli.

From his edits and the discussions on the talk pages including:

as well as from:

from his user subpages:

and from his most recent edits on:

  • M/z (started two days ago when this arbitration request was already pending!)

as well as from the following citations:

  • "In some way this is really frustrating, but in another way this is a very exciting social experiment. Look at it this way: we try to fight a misconception that can very analytically be proven wrong. We try to explain this to smart people that should be experts in the field (the mass spectrometrists). If this is so hard, how can you ever hope to fight other misconceptions that can not analyticaly be proven (e.g. in politics) to common people that are not experts in the field?" [70]
  • "Edsanville: some people claim that m/z is a dimensionless quantity. It unfortunately is also the official policy of the UIPAC, which you find here. Of course it nonsense. This is why I am currently fighting to replace the dimensionless m/z by the correct m/q on the m/z misconception page." [71]
I wrote these two paragraphs before I new of the IUPAC green book and new that the IUPAC actually requires the notations exactly the way I use them. Since then I am only defending the IUPAC regulations. There is no need to defend my own POV, which can be read here: User:Kehrli/mz_misconception and which, I admitt, contains some POV. --Kehrli 12:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and from the following incidents:

  • he deleted the content from his userpage after this requests for arbitration was filed diff
  • he still keeps copies of the deleted article m/z misconception in his userspace in violation of the Wikipedia user page guideline

it is clear that Kehrli

  • knows that the current nomenclature (m/z) is officially accepted by the IUPAC for mass spectrometry
IUPAC explicitly states that m/z is not a mass-to-charge ratio. I am not against using m/z, I am only against using it as a symbol mass-to charge ratio because this use it depricated [72] --Kehrli 12:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • and that his proposals have explicitely been rejected by the IUPAC [73]
these proposals have nothing to do with what the articles under discussion.
  • knows the relevant guidelines and policies of Wikipedia, especially Wikipedia:No original_research, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (no "propaganda or advocacy of any kind", "Wikipedia is not a free host for personal pages", "Wikipedia articles should not include ... advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, ...", "Wikipedia is not a

battleground.".

I am only stating the IUPAC green book, no POV. --Kehrli 12:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion on Kehrli is he is kind of fanatic on this topic and that he misuses Wikipedia as his forum to push his personal opinion. He uses the tactics of perseverance in vandalizing the articles in question. He does not participate in rational discussions but instead repetitively presents his agenda. This detered and still deters people from discussions with him (including me). Nick Y. was the only user that took the time and effort to talk to Kehrli, unfortunately without any result. For me it is obvious that Kehrli has a mission and will not stop misusing and vandalizing Wikipedia on his own. The only solution to stop him would be to ban him from editing mass spectrometry related articles.

mass-to-charge ratio is no longer considered a mass spectrometry article since the use of mass-to-charge ratio is considered depricated [74]. --Kehrli 12:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really urge the arbitration committee to accept this case and to find a solution.

Cacycle 01:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

I have removed extensive threaded dialog from this application. Please feel free to restore any material of relevance to the case in a more suitable (non-dialog) form. Please remember to remain concise. Arbitrators work hard and have no time to read long diatribes. --Tony Sidaway 13:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Reject, please sort this out on the talk pages of affected articles Fred Bauder 14:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept, now that I understand the issue. Fred Bauder 18:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Dmcdevit·t 20:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tabriz Rugs

Involved parties

Rembranth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vs Khosrow_II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Tabriz_rug (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Talk:Tabriz rug

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search To the administrator.

Please note that Tabriz is Azerbaijani city and its main inhabitants have been Azerbaijanis. Its culutre and carpets have been and are part of the Azerbaijani civilization, culture and history. Azerbaijanis have nothing to do with Persians and Persia, other than the fact that it has been divided into two parts: Iranian Azerbaijan and Rusian Azerbaijan. The Iranian Azerbaijan with its capital Tarbiz is still under the persian occupation. The Russian Azerbaijan has become independent in 1991. The iranian Azerbaijan will soon gain its independence as well. I just want to say that as Azerbaijani I have nothing to do with persian, no relation netiher by ethnicity, nor by religion. We are different civilizations, different people and different history. Please, don't call Tabriz rug as Persian rug. It hurts. --68.49.90.60 03:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Khosrov, be warned. YOu are vandalizing this web site. THere is not such a thing as iran. There is a Islamic Republic of Iran. Tabriz carpet is Azerbaijani carpet as most of the people in Tabriz are Azerbaijanis and they are the ones who make these carpets. Azerbaijanis are not Persians. See Wikipedia Azerbaijani section for more information. If you repeat your vandalism, I will call for arbitration and they will define who is right. --Rembranth 17:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tabriz_rug"

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by party 1

I tried to develop and make the information more accurate on the Tabriz Rug section. It is written that Tabriz rug is a persian carpet. Whereas all people who live in Tabriz are Azerbaijanis, how then carpets they make can be persian. In addition Khosrow II always deletes my changes about where the Tabriz is in. Tabriz is in the Islamic Republic of Iran, where as Khosrow II change this to Iran, which is the name of the overall location where persions have lives and persians haven't lived in Southern Azerbaijan, with the capital of Tabriz. I warned Khosrow II about his vandalism, but it appears that he never reads the discussion part of the article. I am powerless and request your help.

Statement by party 2

He usually claims that I am vandalizing the page, while he hasn't said a single word in the discussion section of the article. And Khosrov never reponded to my messages in the discussion part.

(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 Party 2

First of, I was never informed of this, which is against the rules. You cannot put a confirmation line when you have not even contacted me!
Secondly, this user, who is anon by the way, has several different accounts which he uses to vandalize several different articles. Also, he is putting POV in the article. If you check the article, you will find out that I am not the only one reverting his vandalism. He is falsifying facts and changing a relatively sound and accurate article. He is also committing the same vandalism in several other Iranian related articles, which have also been reverted by other users including me. Khosrow II 16:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


See talk page on my responses to his history revisionism and falsification. I have also contacted another north Azeri in an attempt to calm him down, since he is not listening reason. I hope that this issue will be resolved once a fellow country mate of his talks to him.Khosrow II 16:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This user also goes by many different names, all of which he uses to put his POV in several Iranian related articles: User:Diraf69, User:Rembranth, User:Roman123, and others, which I will post as soon as I recognize them. I know this because the way these users edit are all the same, all deal with the same type of articles, and all have the same POV. I am not the first user to accuse this user of having multiple accounts either.Khosrow II 16:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Gol

I hope this is the right palace to make comments, I apologize if it isn’t. I have been observing this discussion and I have to say that this user Rembranth has made some politically motivated and extremely POV comments such as Persians occupied Azerbaijan or that It will be separated soon! His comments about Iran are also completely wrong, Iran is not the area where Persians historically lived, that is Pars, Iran is the area where Iranian people/Iranic people historically lived and Iranian Azerbaijan was ALWAYS a part of it. His argument about Iran is also ridiculous it is like saying that China can not be called China because it is Peoples Republic of China!! He has also been rude and called us chauvinist!(see Tabriz rug talk page).

As for the rug, it is produced in an area that 100% BELONGS to Iran. He put the flag of the republic of Azerbaijan and removed the flag of Iran! Completely unacceptable; this rug has nothing to do with that flag.

As for Persian labeling, yes people of this city are mostly Azeri and so are those who make this rug but “Persians rug” was the term used for labeling rugs produced inside Iran (obviously because Iran was called Persian in the western world until 1935) .It had nothing to do with the ethnicity of the people who actually made those rugs. As I mentioned earlier, we can change it to Iranian now that the name of the country has changed but it might confuse many people since like it or not this rug was referred to as Persian throughout the history and it is still known chiefly by that name. We can go to any shop anywhere in the world and you will see Tabriz rug listed as a Persian rug (sometimes Oriental rug or Iranian rug but not Azerbaijani rug)Gol 09:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I completly agree with Gol and Khosrow II's standing on this matter. Rembranth's edits are very biased and his comments are particularly anit-persian. A good example of this is that he insists on spelling Khosrow II's name with a "v" instead of "w", probably because "Khosrov" is the turkish pronounciation of this name. Arash the Bowman 15:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Reject, premature: WP:DR. Dmcdevit·t 07:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept, I would rather give some guidance to users before things are completely out of hand. Fred Bauder 12:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject per Dmcdevit. - SimonP 13:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for clarification

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

Pedophilia userbox wheel war

I would like to know if Tony Sidaway's threats at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 8#Template:unblockabuse are valid per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war#SPUI, especially given the comments at [75]. --SPUI (T - C) 17:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link is no longer good. Fred Bauder 17:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[76] Ashibaka tock 00:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically this edit, which I still stand by. --Tony Sidaway 16:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internal spamming/campaigning

There's an ongoing discussion at WP:SPAM about what constitutes acceptable talk page contact between users regarding discussions, votes, polls, etc. Prior rulings that have been pointed to are this prior ruling and this one. Could you offer any more specific information about what is and is not allowed/discouraged, for example: is it the use of mass userbox messaging that is disallowed (if it is), or is internal spamming/campaigning disallowed only if disruptive? Thanks. IronDuke 17:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine. Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not. The difference lies in the disruption involved. If what is happening is getting everyone upset then it is a problem. Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article. Fred Bauder 16:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alienus

The Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alienus arbitration has been on indefinite hold since he seemed to have left the project. However, this week Alienus has returned and is using sockpuppets to edit war tendentiously. For example, compare this new edit [77] with this old edit from February where he signs his name [78]. So far he has used the addresses 24.44.189.249, 24.44.189.175, and 67.90.197.194. Because this seems to be a flagrant attempt to evade this accepted Arbcom case I would like to request that the case be moved back to active status, and furthermore an injunction against the use of such sockpuppets whil this case is ongoing, enforcement to be accomplished through reverting edits and indefinite block on sight. Nandesuka 13:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)


Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq

Motion to ban Zeq for a week for creating an attack article regarding User:Homeontherange (article has been deleted) diff will be available to Arbitration Committee members. Fred Bauder 21:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

  1. ^ Tom Zeller Jr. (2006-07-24). "Anne Frank 2006: War Diaries Online". The New York Times. Retrieved 2006-07-28. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ "ISRAELI AIR ATTACK KILLS CIVILIANS". CNN. 2006-07-30. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=68693060"