Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vezaso (talk | contribs) at 15:33, 1 September 2006 (→‎Statement by Vezaso). 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
Clarification request: Appeal methods for Lima Bean Farmer topic ban none none 12 August 2024
Amendment request: German war effort none (orig. case) 13 August 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

Kosovo

Initiated by Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) at 10:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Main article involved: Kosovo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (protection log)
Talk page involved: Talk:Kosovo (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Kosovo|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Other article involved: Kosovo war (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Other article involved: Serbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Other article involved: Template:Kosovo-InfoBox (edit | [[Talk:Template:Kosovo-InfoBox|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Other article involved: Template:Kosovo (edit | [[Talk:Template:Kosovo|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Involved parties

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

A Request for Arbitration surrounding the long-ongoing edit wars on Kosovo and related articles.

Statement by Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr)

Although instigated by disputes over article content, this dispute has developed into much more than just a content dispute, with lots of allegations of POV pushing, allegations of (extreme) nationalism and even allegations of admin abuse towards the only administrator (ChrisO) involved in this dispute.

In this summary I will not provide evidence towards specific users (and examples of edits I give are not to be taken as such), but rather explain the severe problems and disputes that have surrounded the Kosovo article (and some related articles) over the last months. Other users involved in this dispute will undoubtly present their views on this matter as well as evidence making their case.

The content dispute behind the problems is about the current political status of Kosovo. For months there have been discussions and edit wars whether Kosovo should be called (in these or similar words, since many variations have been proposed and used) a province in southern Serbia [24] or an entity under interim international administration [25] or a territory located in the south-east Europe [26]. Related to that, there have been disputes over whether the main map displayed in the infobox of the article should display just Kosovo [27], or Kosovo as a part of Serbia [28].

Even though in both disputes attempts at compromise have been made (e.g. adding the sentence While it is legally a part of Serbia it has been administered by the United Nations since the end of the 1999 Kosovo War. [29] and suggesting a different map [30]), the revert wars and incivilty have continued between people supporting different opinions.

What makes this more than a simple content dispute between a few users is the large number of registered editors involved in the edit wars, who are divided over groups supporting different views on the matter. Some editors have admitted to have either an Albanian/Kosovar or a Serbian view, whereas others claim neutrality in the dispute. Back and forth people from all three groups accuse each other often of having a strong (nationalist) POV (a few recent examples: [31][32][33]) and several accusations of admin abuse have been made as well (one example:[34]).

Several people have been blocked in the past over these issues (e.g. [35][36][37]), but the edit-warring has continued, with the same editors, but also with new editors. The reason I am now applying for Abitration for this issue is that in my opinion the article should be put under Article probation, so that all editors making disruptive edits (with whatever POV they have) can be dealt with more swiftly. The article has been protected quite a few times (including a full protection that lasted almost a month [38]). The large number of editors involved, however, makes it very difficult to stabilize the article by restricting or blocking specific editors, especially given the fact that most editors are editing in good faith, since they all see their opinion as NPOV.

My request is that Kosovo be put under article probation and that this probation should be enforced by an appointed administrator who has not been involved in editing this article in the past. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dardan - Kosovo Is a UN Protectorate

As some editors have pointed out, the present article presents Kosovo as if it were a pamphlet of the Serbian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The article needs to present Kosovo impartially. The conflict has been between a Serb nationalist point of view and an impartial point of view.

There are four approaches in which Kosovo is seen: 1. As a province of Serbia 2. As a UN protectorate 3. As a state (albeit unrecognized yet) 4. As Albanian territory disputed with Serbia

In 1999, the UN issued the resolution 1244, which put Kosovo under UN protectorate. UN Mission in Kosovo, then issued the Consitutional Framework, which is the provisional constitution of Kosovo, which defines Kosovo as "an entity under interim international administration which, with its people, has unique historical, legal, cultural and linguistic attributes." Presently Kosovo is a UN Protectorate, both Serbs and Albanians have their claims (Serb want it to be part of their territory, Albanians want it to be an independent state). We need to mention both, but for as long as Kosovo is a UN protectorate, that is the most important attribute. I think approaches 1, 3 and 4 are biased. Kosovo sees itslef as independent, Serbia sees it as part of its territory, the world sees it as a UN protectorate whose status will be resolved by the end of the year. We all know that the status will be independence. Dardan 10:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kushtrimxh - Kosovo Is a State

The Assembly of Kosovo declared Kosovo a state on 2 July 1990. The People of Kosovo in 1992 voted with 99,8% for independence in 1992. From 1992 until 1999 Kosovo lived under severe Serbian occupation. The consequences are some 15,000 killed, 120,000 burned down houses, 3,000 people still missing and instilling of intercommunal hatred. In 1999 Kosovo was put provisionally under UN protection. This is provisionally. The talks for the status of Kosovo have started and are anticipated to end in November with the recognision of Kosovo independence. The Kosovo independence exists! We are not inventing it. We need to put the Kosovo map, as an independet state, we need to put the Kosovo flag proposed by late President Rugova. The intro should state:

Kosovo is a state waiting to be internationally recognized, presently under UN protectorate. While Serbia disputes it, Kosovo will be independent by the end of the year.

In this way we recognise all sides, but of course we need to see things from the Kosovo point of view, because btw. those are the people that live there.kushtxh 11:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tonycdp

There are three main issues with this Article, and unless seriously taken into account I don't see the wars ending.


1. The ChrisO effect - has been very damaging and I blame him for inflaming the situation by constantly abusing his admin powers to provoke a number of users (and admitting it) [39] into vandalism and then consequently initiating campaigns against them [40]

2. Kosovo map - This article is about Kosovo and not about Serbia. Why does info-box have to contain the map of Serbia? This is by far the most infuriating issue, and it has remained as such since its introduction. A lot of editors complained about it and were ignored when reaching a 'consensus' supported by the ChrisO's admin backbone. I had warned about it, but it fell onto deaf ears until thankfully Cpt. Morgan decided to do something about it, by this time it was too late.

Kosovo may still be legally a part of Serbia, and as such there is an argument that Kosovo-in-Serbia map would be more realistic since that model was also used for Catalonia-in-Spain entry for example [41]. However there's also an argument that Kosovo has not been under Serbia’s administration since 1999 and that the province is a UN-run protectorate; Which makes Kosovo a very special case indeed, worthy of some sort of recognition as a region in transition. Another valid example would be the Northern Ireland entry [42]. It has a map of its own. Why can't the Kosovo Info-box modelled on Northern Ireland's.

3. The Introduction: Province of Serbia??? - Technically still yes, BUT that's as far as it goes. This dead-in-the-water legal status is over-emphasised. Why is this a problem? Well it is because to an uninformed reader (the majority of whom rarely ever bother to read beyond the first paragraph) indicates that Kosovo is also governed by Serbia which is not true. Serbia has no say whatsoever in how Kosovo is run and it is widely expected that Kosovo will become independent by the end of this year. The valid arguments and suggestions on Introduction made by Envoy202(probably the best informed person on Kosovo) [43] were ignored or simply dismissed with superficial arguments. Tonycdp 12:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HRE

I have been asked to make a statement regarding the current sitaution on the article of Kosovo. As you all might've noticed - I am one of the root editors of the article - particularely its History. I am a historian, and as such am very much familiar with the situation on Kosovo and its unique historical issue/problem. One thing must be understood - a region that lives through drastic demographic changes is bound to become an endless controversy - and even war to erupt. As such, it did. And since the "War for Kosovo" is practicly not finished yet, one can expect that there will be a lot of fighting at all fronts (including this one - an encyclopedia). It is because of this that I ask admins to take a very slow pace solving this issue, as it hurts, very, very deeply... Kosovo has been Serbia in the meaning of the words - and now the majority of its population are no longer Serbs, but ethnic Albanians. I'll try to remind people of the Bosnian War - which erupted just because of natality, as the Muslims replaced the Serbs as the majority of Bosnia... And those drastic changes really shake up things amongst the hard-core of the nationalist political leadership.

I want to speak in favor of ChrisO (although I don't like several of his actions, those which were already mentioned) - he has only been trying to defend Wikipedia's sole goal - to be an encyclopedia. However, regarding the fact that there are almost 2 million Albanians on Kosovo and considering the war that's going on over there - it's more than sufficient to understand the amount of anger that Albanian Kosovar users factually cannot accept the facts - regardless of them being facts or not. I am a victim of the Yugoslav wars, so I have walked the steps that they walk now. War can make even the brightest of mankind turn into nationalist Hitler-like warmongerors - percisely what I myself have been for several years because I lost my sister, home and a lot more. But, it takes time to learn that - and as grown people tend to learn slower, it's even more difficult with such people.

I don't understand why the map is of such an issue. My support of showing it a part of Serbia is only in the pursuit of parralleling the article with Vojvodina, or any other region of the world. However, a lot of wikipedians fail to notice this: Those that demand the map to show Kosovo seperated from Serbia are those same people deeply and emotianally addressed to the fact - as even if they finally do accept the fact that Kosovo is Serbia's southern province, they want to show it on the map seperately from Serbia, simply because they can't stand that. If that means so much to them; if it would factually appease any of the "demons" which I myself had long ago, the give it to them. There is no reason (really) not to give them - and their victory shall only better expose the true hides between the "patriotic fighters". Let it be. Over here is a saying: The smarter will always draw back.

And as for stating Kosovo not a part of Serbia (mostly in the intro, where it's essentially) is very ridiculous. It is what all the other encyclopedias say (all of 'em) and anything otherwise would be Original Research or, more likely, the wishful thinking of those same sad pursuits that I was talking about long ago. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ilir_pz

Unfortunately, thanks to some claiming to be neutral editors, and Serbian radical pushing, most of the articles related to Kosovo seeem as if they have been prepared by one of the sides in the dispute - Serbian side. I will lead you into some of such elements that make one suspect that. The infobox: the same as if the Govt. of Serbia's prepared it, the map included Kosovo as a part of Serbia, even if no such map is anywhere recognized in the world. The introduction: violates the way Kosovo is defined by its INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED Constitutional Framework which clearly states that "1.1 Kosovo is an entity under interim international administration which, with its people, has unique historical, legal, cultural and linguistic attributes" and nowhere predicts its status. History: It is filled with hatred, and making the Albanians seem as if they are not native in the land, but newcomers, as a result of the Ottoman Empire. The main problem here is that some of the editors REFUSE to comply with the internationally recognized documents and laws taking place in Kosovo, passed by the local government of Kosovo and the International Administration led by UN Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK). They instead prefer to use some Serbian govt like statements, or descriptions which they prefer. It is unacceptable that the real situation is ignored, and the laws in power in Kosovo NOW are ignored like that, and instead this article on Kosovo, and the ones related to it, are used for propaganda purposes. There is no reason Albanians would need to do any propaganda, as the future of Kosovo (and Albanians comprise 90% of its population) is VERY CERTAIN, but the other side seems to want to dream still. We, most of the Albanian editors here, are only trying to give you the documents in power in Kosovo as the ONLY way Kosovo related articles can be written, and in no other way. We are not happy with most of these internationally imposed laws, but this is a compromise we are making until Kosovo becomes de jure independent.I remind you, that Wikipedia is not a place to spread the destructive propaganda á la Serbian Radical Party but instead state the facts. With kind regards, ilir_pz 17:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by ChrisO

I endorse Reinoutr's summary above and second his request that the Kosovo article be placed under article probation. RFCs, polls, mediation, attempts to reach compromises and existing consensuses have all either failed, been rejected or been disregarded; arbitration is now the only option left.

I'll add some additional background here to supplement Reinoutr's summarry. There are essentially three POVs on the question of "what Kosovo is", namely: a Serb nationalist one which says that Kosovo is a part of Serbia illegally occupied by NATO; a middle one which says that Kosovo is a province of Serbia under temporary UN administration prior to a final status agreement, which is currently under negotiation; and an Albanian nationalist one which says that Kosovo is an independent though unrecognised state. The international community, the governments of Kosovo and Serbia, the international media, all of the major English-language encyclopedias, and commercial geographers - in other words, the vast majority of reliable, verifiable sources - express the middle position. The uninitiated may wish to have a look at the BBC's profile of Kosovo as a good primer on the political issues.

The core of the dispute is that a number of editors (principally User:Dardanv, User:Ferick, User:Ilir pz, User:Kushtrimxh, User:Tonycdp and User:Vezaso) wish the article to express the Albanian nationalist position despite this being contradicted by the overwhelming majority of sources (and unsupported by the one source they do cite). They apparently consider any position other than their own to be "pro-Serb."

Several neutral international editors, principally myself, User:Asterion, User:Litany, User:Osli73 and User:Reinoutr, have consistently insisted on the fundamental policies and guidelines WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V being followed in the article. Because the sources are nearly unanimous in expressing the middle position, we have advocated the view that the article and associated assets (such as the map) should reflect this. For the record, we have no ethnic or political affiliations with the region; we are respectively English, Spanish, Swedish, and Dutch. Some Serb editors are also involved, but the most active parties in this dispute are Albanian nationalists and neutral internationals.

While Reinoutr has intentionally not gone into much detail on editor conduct issues, I believe that this issue does need to be addressed. The ongoing dispute over this article has been exacerbated by serious editorial misconduct, specifically: repeated personal attacks; the use of sockpuppets and fake identities; tag-team edit warring; repeated violations of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:V, involving aggressive POV-pushing across multiple articles; editing while indefinitely blocked; a consistent and at times aggressive lack of assuming good faith; disregard for consensus; repeated violations of WP:3RR, for which several users have been blocked at various times; repeated disruption; refusal to negotiate; and consistent failure to cite sources. These violations are not confined solely to the Albanian nationalist editors.

Similar issues have also arisen in several other Kosovo-related articles that are being edited by some of the same users. The conflict described above shows every sign of spreading more widely (and already has, to some extent). I strongly recommend that the Arbitration Committee review this matter with a view to addressing the serious and ongoing editorial misconduct described above, as well as placing the Kosovo article under long-term article probation. -- ChrisO 19:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Asterion

My statement will be short, both ChrisO and Reinoutr have already said all I could say myself. I gave up on the article after some editors decided to boycott the consensus decision. I had previously done so for similar reasons but came back in order to express my views and obtain a permanent settlement for the more controversial part (i.e. Talk:Kosovo/Intro changes proposal). As far as I see it, the main problems with the article are: Not respecting consensus by some editors (Ilir pz, Dardan V, Hipi Zhdripi, etc), petty edit-warring (mainly for the sake of it, over trivial things such as removing alternative spellings in order to provoke the other side, but also over more important issues such as maps and infoboxes), sockpuppetry (sometimes linked to trollish behaviour). The thing is that while someone is only concerned about getting the article to be the "right version", no progress is possible. In this sense, I applaud ChrisO for showing up and being bold, while most other admins had shied away for too long. I proposed in the administrators noticeboard the possibility of a code of conduct for controversial issues like this some time ago[44]. Nevertheless, the will needs to exist to abide to it and, at the moment, this is *not* the case. Instead, there is an absence of respect for verifiable references by a few editors (already mentioned above) if these happen to go against their particular point of view. There is also a tendence by some of these editors to attack, call names and to smear neutral editors which I find incredibly unpleasant and unnecessary to say the least. This campaign has driven away many other good editors and kept other admins away from the subject too (I cannot help but to share their sense of despairness sometimes). Personally, I cannot see a way forward but would like to see how the RfA works out.

Regards, E Asterion u talking to me? 20:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Evv

I'm Argentinian (of Spanish and Italian ancestry). My opinion on the article: at bottom.

I also endorse Reinoutr's summary above and second his request that the Kosovo article be placed under article probation. I agree in general with the statements of both ChrisO and Asterion.

My take on the issue is simple: some editors have disrupted articles related to Kosovo by consistently disregarding WP:NOR and WP:V (thus, also WP:NPOV). A clear example "here".

I noticed the article only in late july 2006. Since then, I've witnessed constant attempts to present an Albanian nationalist POV, contrary to what all reliable sources these & [45] state, based only on unreliable sources [46] and original research on primary sources [47] & after the list. This was done principally by User:Ferick, User:Ilir pz [48], User:Dardanv [49], User:Vezaso [50] and User:Kushtrimxh [51]. All attempts to uphold WP:V, including those by User:ChrisO, have been considered "Serb nationalism" by the previously mentioned users.

As I see it, the bottom line is whether Wikipedia should allow edits by people who consistently refuse to follow WP:NOR & WP:V. - Regards. Evv 00:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bormalagurski (Serbiana)

After reviewing all statements made so far, I have to say that the Albanians are actually helping to show how ridiculous their propaganda is. What the Albanians are doing is a universal behaviour, Basques will not say they are from Spain, Chechens will not say they are from Russia, Tibetans will not say they are from China... The list goes on. Even though I understand the motive, I do not approve of it, and very much resent the fact that such a behaviour which lead to a war is being transferred to this encyclopedia.

The CIA states that Kosovo is a Serbian province [52] This is enough for me. The Constitutional Framework of Kosovo that Ilir is mentioning all the time is a political document made by one of the sides in the conflict - the side that was against the Serbs. Of course, according to the UN Resolution 1244, the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia [53] are guaranteed, which basically means that no territory can be taken from FRY (today Serbia) not then, not ever. And Albanians are still claiming that Kosovo is not a province of Serbia? How about looking at any map of Serbia on the internet ([54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78],...)

Now, unless all of those sites are pro-Serbian, and unless CIA is pro-Serbian, and unless the entire world is pro-Serbian when concerning Kosovo, Kosovo is a part of Serbia. No, Kosovo is the heart of Serbia. --serbiana - talk 01:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KOCOBO

I do not think that the article should be controlled by an "neutral" administrator, someone who "hasn't been involved in the conflict". Doesn't this sound too much like what's happening to Kosovo in real life? I mean.. the UN, the "neutral" force, came to Kosovo in 1999., and to this day solved - nothing. The tension is as higher than ever. Just forbid all of the involved parties to edit on that article, including me. That'll do it :) --KOCOBO 01:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vezaso

I got interested in the article when I had to write a paper on Kosovo. The article on Kosovo was not helpful, it was also misleading. That is why I decided to work on improveing. Kosovo is a very particular case, the only state in the forseable future. It is very interesting from an academic point of view. Presenting it as any other 'region' or 'province' is one, false and two, misleading. Although that was the case some years ago (before 1999), Kosovo is now more a state then a province of Serbia and above both those, is OFFICIALLAY A TERRITORY UNDER UN PROTECTORATE. As such, we need an article that represents Kosovo in what really is right now, a UN Protectorate. Comparing Kosovo with Vojvodina is simply wrong. Vojvodina is and will remain a part of Serbia, while Kosovo is not. Kosovo was a province, but is now a UN territory and will soon be a state. We also need to put the UN flag (not the Serb nor the Albanian) and the Logo of the PISG, as the only legitimate symbols of Kosovo. The map should show Kosovo without the region and it should be on blue, the UN color. The map of Serbia is missleading, and although it may satisfy Serb nationalists and their supportrs is missleading to the readers. Vezaso 15:33, 1 September 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)

Honda S2000

Initiated by — AKADriver ☎ at 15:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Comments regarding this request for arbitration have been added to:

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • A request for comment was posted approximately two months ago: [84]
  • Mediation was requested from the Cabal:

[85]

  • A cabal mediator suggested arbitration upon reviewing the temperament of the parties involved: [86]

The case is a revert war regarding the encyclopedic value of criticism of a sports car.

Statement by AKADriver

My position is that the "Criticism" section of this article is unencyclopedic editorial, and presents a biased POV by only representing negative opinions. Any attempts to alter the content, add positive opinions, shorten the section to improve the flow and readability of the article, add POV-check flags, or remove the section are reverted within hours by SpinyNorman alone. Consensus built by the RFC seems to indicate all editors except for SpinyNorman support shortening or removing the section.

The article's history [87] shows frequent reverts of this nature: [88] [89] [90] [91]

Zunaid condensed the section and removed the offending content following the RFC. [92] This version is acceptable to me, even though there is no precedent for criticism in an automotive article.

Statement by Jsw663 (cabal mediator)

After reviewing the case history, I thought about mediating. However, given that the user SpinyNorman has been imposing his version of his edit repeatedly over some time already, as well as his history being chequered by bans, as well as his statements on the discussion page, suggest that mediation will be useless, especially as others have agreed to compromise (e.g. AKADriver agreed to compromise on a shorter criticsm section, even though he didn't like such a section). Moreover, SpinyNorman is unwilling to participate in any form of mediation or compromise of his written work (see the talk page of the entry concerned). Informal mediation has been tried but has been completely ineffective. I thought that the arb. committee would be in a better place to judge for themselves whether penalties, sanctions and/or just a warning would be most appropriate in this case. (After all, only arbitrators can effect binding decisions and take more serious steps). Thanks. Jsw663 17:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I realize that the ArbCom primarily resolves interpersonal disputes rather than that over content only, but this has spilled over into a SpinyNorman versus every other editor on the Honda S2000 page. How can content be resolved until the ArbCom decides whether SpinyNorman's persistent and constant edits are fair (ie just defending his views) or unfair (ie going overboard in making the page one essentially written by SpinyNorman instead of a genuinely encyclopaedic page). Jsw663 20:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SpinyNorman

This case seems to be about the attempt by a handful of disgruntled POV-pushers to censor references to legitimate criticism of the vehicle by the motoring press. Despite repeated attempts to maintain balance in the article that are thwarted by various editors who will tolerate no criticism, they have resorted to escalating this issue in an attempt to get their POV enforced by inducing the arbcom to impose it by some sort of executive fiat. Personally, I would ask the arbcom to reject the case as a waste of their time --SpinyNorman 18:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Also, the claim that I have been unwilling to compromise is patently absurd. I have accepted many valid concerns about the content of the criticism section and modified considerably - as well as acceppting considerable modification of it by others since it was originally added. It is true that I won't accept the removal of legitimate criticism, but that's not being uncompromising, that's resisting the imposition of bias. To paraphrase Barry Goldwater... compromising with POV-pushers is no virtue and being uncompromising in the defense of objectivity is no vice. --SpinyNorman 19:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


(to address the points made by Jnbwade69): If the S2000 only oversteered with unskilled drivers, then why does the automotive press comment on that characteristic so widely? Do they all send unskilled drivers to test the cars? I think not. That being said, I don't think that the tendency to oversteer is, in and of itself, a problem and I certainly don't understand why you're comparing it to exploding Pintos or rolling Explorers. Oversteer isn't a safety issue and none of the comments in the criticism section say otherwise. But the fact is that the car has a pronounced tendency to oversteer. Speaking from personal experience, I can say that the tendency is far out of proportion to the car's power and design. I have driven cars with far more power and even lighter weight but with less tendency to oversteer. Also, the criticism of the car's power curve, gearing and NVH is perfectly valid. These are valid criticisms of ANY car. How can you justify your apparent desire to censor criticism of the car because you don't agree with it? Honda got a lot of things right with that car, but they did get some things wrong and since this article isn't intended to be a hagiography, it should include the good with the bad. --SpinyNorman 18:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jnbwade69

As I said in on the talk page, I am willing to compromise on the criticism section. I would concede to allow a statement on the car's tendency to oversteer if a reference can be found from the mainstream automobile press, or even the mainstream general press. This only seems to be a problem with unskilled drivers. Were not talking about exploding Pintos or rolling Explorers here. There is no widespread social impact to the car being "tail happy". The changes in the car to address daily driver comfort are already found in the Models section. All the stuff about the torque, horsepower and engine noise has to go. This is not valid criticism. Honda's intent was to created a car in the spirit of it's S800 roadster from the sixties. A car with a 0.8 liter engine, 70hp, and an 8000rpm redline BTW. Anyone who test drives an S2000 before buying would know this in about 30 seconds. The very nature of a VTEC engine is that all the torque and horsepower in at the top end. What does he want, for Honda to put another engine in the car. Many bought one because on these characteristics, and do not consider them shortcomings. It is a four wheel superbike, if you will. To address the revert war, I think the only alternative is to revoke SpinyNorman's privilege of editing the article. Evidently he owned one, hated it, and now has some sort of axe to grind. I respect that he has very strong feelings on this, but it seems to have clouded his judgement. He states that he has considered other editors opinions, but the Criticism section gets longer and more convoluted every time he edits it. Please review the article history and the talk page. They speak for themselves. Thank you for your time. --Jnbwade69 11:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Statement by party

Clerk notes

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

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


Requests for clarification

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

Highways

Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll may have been set up as a majority-wins poll, but the ArbCom clearly encouraged consensus on the matter. There is a clear lack of consensus on the poll, and yet so far three of the "admin judges" are treating it as a majority-wins poll. --SPUI (T - C) 06:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your side has 41%, which is definitely not consensus for your side. Also, we have to have some convention. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's no consensus, thus no convention. --SPUI (T - C) 06:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Back to self-law. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:29, 1 September 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]


Zeq wikistalking and block count

I've been having a difficult time applying arbitration enforcement for Zeq and feel I have since been targetted by him. For example, after I blocked Kelly Martin for her B-list attack page, Zeq just happens to come along so as to caution me from blocking a user with whom you have a dispute" (what dispute? he fails to mention). Or, after removing and protecting the attack page by Sarasto777, Zeq just happens to come along, again. These are not isolated examples. Then today, Zeq questions my administrative compotence and speaks of an "edit[orial] conflict" after I delete his copyvio entry, twice. Many blocks later, how should I proceed with the tendencious edits by the user? Should I implement Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq#Enforcement_by_block next time — it will be the 6th block. Or will it? I am inclined to count article bans as blocks, and am seeking clarification as to this approach, and Zeq's conduct overall as illustrated above. Thanks in advance. El_C 13:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do take the time to examine this request's threaded dialogue (it was removed without an accompanying diff being cited). Thanks. El_C 14:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your original question: article bans are not considered to count towards the escalating block periods, only vioations of bans. Having said that, if an editor is incorrigible, perhaps a general admin-discretionary block rather than, or in addition to, an arbcom article ban is warranted (by an uninvolved party of course, which I am not sure you are). I'd say take it to ANI, and try to avoid scaring admins awy with long-winded, dead-end discussions like the one that happened here. Dmcdevit·t 00:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. I plead for minimal respect on Dmcdevit's part. El_C 12:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moby Dick's article ban - projectspace?

"Moby Dick is banned from editing articles which concern Turkey or Kurdish issues." [93] Does this include Articles for Deletion discussions related to those issues? Cool Cat believes the diff above is part of a pattern of harrassment on AfDs, according to a post of his on the admins' incidents noticeboard. The simplest way to sort this out in my view would be to confirm whether his article ban does or should cover projectspace pages. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to clarify my reasoning. While one keep vote does not constitute as stalking, Moby Dick's continuing pattern of behaviour does.
The pattern of behaviour presented in the Arbitration cases evidence page is in my view continuing for one and a half years now. Two arbitration cases have been filed over the issue. Now those arbitration hearings need to be enforced.
--Cat out 14:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the ambiguous term "article" is to cover all namespaces. Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed per Sam. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair to all parties, I propose that someone alter the decision to read "page" and make an annotation to explain why the change was made (referring to this clarification with a diff). I could not make the change myself because I was an involved party in the case. --Tony Sidaway 01:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May an administrator take into account prior behavior?

I recently imposed what seemed to me to be a straightforward article ban on an editor who had been disrupting the article over a period of several months. The arbitration remedy is in a case that was closed yesterday and the ban doesn't seem to have been opposed for any substantive reason; only the procedure is questioned.

The case is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom and the ban is on Karl Meier editing Islamophobia, on which he almost invariably edit wars.

I would like to see the Committee clarify whether it is pertinent for an administrator, in making a decision on whether to impose a restriction under a remedy passed in an arbitration case, may take into account the behavior of the editor prior to the closing of the case. --Tony Sidaway 01:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Netscott

This WP:AN thread is pertinent to this question. (→Netscott) 03:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that under most circumstances, the day the case closes is the day the restrictions start and the day the behaviour has to change. Why else do we have injunctions? However, if an editor attempts to get their digs in just before a ban, I suspect the committee will be quite willing to extend a ruling. In this case, I think, Karl will either behave - or not - in which case I'm sure the community will ban him quickly. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not comfortable with the notion of judgements being applied retroactively; if the Committee had wanted to ban Karl Meier from editing an article for 3 months, it certainly could have done so as one of its remedies. Jayjg (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've rescinded the ban. On reflection I think this ban was not acceptable to the community. --Tony Sidaway 01:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, certainly, I think that "justice is blind" is not a useful process to use on Wikipedia. Sysops should use their common sense.
James F. (talk) 09:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Karl had not edited on en since 15th, and his only edit since then has been to reply on User talk:Karl Meier that "I don't care. I've lost any serious interest in the project." [94]. He has quit before, though [95], and came back within the month. --Tony Sidaway 19:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to James F., I think I agree. There were other issues of fairness here that convinced me that the ban was seen as too aggressive. --Tony Sidaway 19:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed summary of consensus (comment by User:Newyorkbrad)

As Tony indicates, there has been a certain amount of discussion on this issue, which the community might as well profit from rather than just lose when this specific case ages off the page. I think a fair synthesis of the reaction to this general situation would run more-or-less as follows:

1. An admin should not impose a block based exclusively on behavior occurring while (or before) an ArbCom case is pending, because the ArbCom presumably considered all of that behavior in determining the sanctions that ArbCom itself would impose and the user should have a chance to modify his/her behavior in response to the decision.

2. However, in the event of misbehavior after the ArbCom case has closed, an admin would of course take the prior behavior that was the subject of the ArbCom case into account (subject to the strictures of the ArbCom ruling itself).

3. There could be borderline cases where behavior occurred after the outcome of the ArbCom case was clear but before the case was formally closed, but these should be relatively rare and one might want to run the situation by the Arbitrators.

Just my thoughts, FWIW. If anyone wants to discuss this further, perhaps this thread should refactor to the talk page. Newyorkbrad 00:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't think it's necessary to formulate this as a policy but I do think we learn from this kind of situation. My concern here was that, knowing that the arbitration committee had decided that his edit warring was problematic, and intended to proscribe his activities, Karl Meier persisted. The enactment simply provided me and other admins with the capacity to act. However this offended the general feeling that arbitration remedies should be applied in a manifestly fair manner. It certainly doesn't do any harm, in this case, to wait for the editor to respond and become accustomed to working with the remedy. --Tony Sidaway 01:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A question on "Article Probation"

By what process does an articel get probation ordered on it revoked? I'm assuming it'd have to involve the Committee or member(s) of it, but the exact details don't seem to be specified anywhere. 68.39.174.238 20:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally one must make a specific appeal to the ArbCom by way of a further request for arbitration. However, in case of good general behaviour, a probation may be spontaneously revoked, see below for an example. Stifle (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it requires a "motion in a proir case", rather then a period of time or descision of one person (Unless explicitly declared as such to begin with)? 68.39.174.238 02:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Either that or a new request for arbitration. Stifle (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, only arbitrators are empowered to present a "motion in a prior case." I don't know whether the individual arbitrators would appreciate accept user requests to consider making such a motion. Presumably such a request would have to include strong evidence that the problems that led to the user or article being placed on probation have been resolved, and that there is cause to lift the probation (or other restriction) at this time. I don't know whether the ArbCom members would consider dealing with a request to an individual arbitrators to make a motion, to be more or less efficient and/or burdensome than presenting the matter via a whole new Request for Arbitration on this page. Perhaps one of the arbitrators or clerks will express a view on that. Newyorkbrad 14:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Typically, I think the most reasonable thing to do would be for someone to make their appeal right here in the clarifications section. If the appeals strikes a chord with me or any other arbitrators, we will make the necssary motion, otherwise we will reply in the negative. In some cases (though perhaps just one I can think of att the moment), we have initiated a new case if it is complex enough, but in general, that's not necessary. Dmcdevit·t 07:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of the rejection of the Rainbow Gathering case

Sorry for asking such a seemingly foolish question. I am still rather new to wikipedia and entirely new the arbitration. Does the "reject" decision from the arbcom mean that the "A Gathering of the Tribes" will *not* be allowed on the listing of Annual Gatherings? Thanks for the feedback. Bstone 00:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, just that the Arbitration Committee will not decide the matter one way or another. Fred Bauder 01:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Fred, for the reply. I wonder what you might suggest in the meantime? Since Lookingheart has entirely rejected mediation and the edit war continues I am wondering what the next step might be? Thanks. Bstone 02:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, have the same question. Will the page remain protected? For how long? You state, "local Rainbow Gatherings don't belong in a list of the national Gatherings" which is my contention. But that hasn't stopped them from being added again and again. You, "suggest an article on local Gatherings." So did Aguerriero during informal mediation. Lookingheart rejected that suggestion. That didn't stop the on-going edit war. What happens if lookingheart adds 10 AGOTT gatherings before next year's National as he said he might in discussion? At the moment I see only 2 options, continue the edit war or let lookingheart post what ever he wants. Oceankat 03:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about a nice article about A Gathering of the Tribes (Rainbow Family) explaining what that is all about together with a full listing of meetings? It might be nice to explore some of the issues. Wikipedia has no opinion about internal Rainbow Family issues. I have always had a lot more fun at smaller local gatherings myself. Fred Bauder 17:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Has this become a mediation session? If so, I agree with your suggestion as I did during informal mediation when Aguerriero suggested it. Unfortunately I don't know enough about AGOTT to feel competant in writing that article. Perhaps you would like to? The only "internal rainbow family issue" I'm concerned about is whether gatherings that in my opinion are not notable, not verifiable and in the case of the WV AGOTT and most likely the GA AGOTT violate wikipedia's policy concerning the posting of future events are appropiate additions to this article. And whether wikipedia has some means to resolve this issue. Apparantly there is none and since I'm not inclined to waste time in an edit war, I'm content to see anybody add any gathering they like to the list of national gatherings. Oceankat 20:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Oceankat. If this arbcom attempt has turned into a redirect for mediation, we have already done that. How is it possible that the arbcom is forcing us to use a mechanism which simply will not produce a result? Sorry if I seem irritated, but arbcom is supposed to be the final mechanism since all others have failed. I await a response. Bstone 04:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not involved in this dispute, but rather in the next one listed above (Gillberg affair). At present, my request has received two votes to reject (and no other votes), on the ground that it is largely about a debate over content. So nothing is decided yet, but if the final vote is to reject, then I would have the same question as Bstone: if the other party has entirely rejected mediation and the edit war continues, what is recommended as the next step? What mechanism does Wikipedia have for dealing with a (hypothetical) situation where some editors are dishonest and unrelenting?  —Daphne A 09:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't mean to leave you hanging. I have unprotected the page for evaluation of the situation. As to the request above, I have been waiting for some response by the other parties. Fred Bauder 09:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is entirely disheartening. A case is brought before the ArbCom specifically and solely because mediation failed and an edit war would simply continue. Based on the fact that mediation failed entirely because one of the warring parties (Lookingheart) entirely ignored and rejected all attempts at official mediation, I can see no benefit in ArbCom rejecting the case, removing the page protection and "evaluating" the situation. Is there no mechanism in Wikipedia to resolve such disputes? Bstone 14:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If he starts edit warring again I will block him. Any administrator could have done that. That is why the request is being rejected; there is no substantial issue to consider. Fred Bauder 14:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It appears as though we have reached a resolution of this issue and for that I am grateful. Most likely and hopefully there will be no further edit wars over this as it was never my desire to see anyone blocked or banned from editing this article. Thanks Fred, for your time and your help.Oceankat 03:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mass changing on style issues (dating)

user:SuperJumbo has been mass changing articles to use the British dating system. The relavant manual of style entry is as follows

"If the topic itself concerns a specific country, editors may choose to use the date format used in that country... For topics concerning the UK, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, most other member states of the Commonwealth of Nations, and most international organizations such as the United Nations, the formatting is usually 17 February 1958 (no comma and no "th"). In the United States, it is most commonly February 17, 1958. Elsewhere, either format is acceptable"

SuperJumbo's edits have been to articles pertaining to a non-Commonwealth nations (such as France and Suriname). The arbitration committee's ruling in the Sortan case (in which Jguk was doing similiar editing with regard to BC-AD/BCE-CE) says

Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike.

SuperJumbo's editing, however, appers to totally disgard this ruling. He claims that converting articles to the dating system used in those countries justifies per the first line of the MOS entry allows him to make these mass changes, when the more specific statement (3 sentences later) explicitely allows a number of styles. A number of admins, including myself, have objected to the changes he is making. I would like the arbitration committee to inform him that his claim is false, and have him reverse all the changes he made to non-commonwealth nation articles. Raul654 14:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does revert parole apply to edits of banned users?

User:Leyasu has been indef banned under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker for persistently violating his paroles with sockpuppets. He appears to be continuing to edit music-related articles from a series of British Telecom IP addresses. Deathrocker has been reverting these edits, frequently also using IP addresses rather than logging in. I know that reverting simple vandalism generally does not fall under the one revert per day limit; what about reverting edits from IP addresses suspected of being a banned editor? (Additional current discussion at Arbitration enforcement. Thatcher131 (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update I am not at all convinced that the revertions performed by several anon IPs were in fact Deathrocker. However, I still think it would be useful to clarify this issue, even if it is not immediately pressing. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)


Khoikhoi's probation rescinded

Since being placed on Probation for edit warring in the Aucaman case in May, Khoikhoi has demonstrated that the restriction is no longer necessary or warranted. He has been very prolific, invaluable in tracking down banned users Bonaparte and -Inanna-, contributed to at least one recent featured article. Most importantly, I see no signs of the edit warring that caused him to be included in the ruling.

I propose that, in view of good behavior, the probation placed on Khoikhoi (talk · contribs) be lifted so that he is no longer under any Arbitration Committee restrictions.

Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=73237558"