Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Brya (talk | contribs) at 13:50, 21 October 2006 (→‎Statement by [[User:Brya|Brya]] 13:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)). 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) Motion none 26 July 2024
Amendment request: German war effort Motion (orig. case) 13 August 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) none none 17 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 net accept votes are cast; that is, four more accept than reject votes. 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. "Recuse" means that an Arbitrator has excused themselves from a case because of a possible, or perceived, conflict of interest. Cases which have not met the acceptance criteria after 10 days will be removed from this page.

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

Arthur Ellis: Request for Reconsideration

Initiated by Arthur Ellis Arthur Ellis at 21:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

There are no other involved parties. this is a request for reconsideration in light of new evidence (i.e. the Rachel Marsden arbitration).


Statement by User:Arthur Ellis

This is an application to re-open the Warren Kinsella arbitration case.
I have been on Wikipedia less than six months. All of my edits, other than those dealing with Warren Kinsella and Rachel Marsden have been non-contentious. I feel that I was gannged up on by editors and admins on the Rachel Marsden page, who engineered an unfaor arbitration and an outrageous ruling that I cannot write or edit anything about politics -- now stretched to journalism, and, I suppose, sexual harassment controversies -- in my own country.
In light of the evidence and findings of the Rachel Marsden arbitration, I wish to have the ban narrowed to anything to do with Warren Kinsella, personally, through his music, his business, any political campaigns he's involved with, or any other business interests he may have. I give my word in front of the whole community that I will abide by this ruling, stick to one user name, and be a conscientious Wikipedian.Arthur Ellis 21:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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


Community Ban for User:Brya

Initiated by --Berton 00:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

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

Request for comments. Attempt at mediation refused. The facts occurred in this here and in this page here compare with this here

Statement by Berton

I request an arbitration against Users Pschemp, InShaneee and Moe Epsilon, based on the fact that these users abused of the sysops power and they had a behavior frankly hostile, threatening me several times of block and blocking User:Brya without previous consultation to the community to see if would be consensus for an indefinite community ban, what clearly demonstrates a violation of WP:Blocking policy. User: InShaneee tried to be frightened threatening of blockade, well that is a total outrage, besides being an insane attitude, because I think we are civilized people and that are not in a jungle, where a wild animal bites the other unaware! We have to solve the differences in a civilized way and not this stupid way. I believe that a punishment for this type of hostile and abusive behavior on the part of sysops should be exemplary. Besides User:Moe Epsilon removed my comments of the page and deleted them.

After reflecting too much, I withdrawn my accusations against the users InShaneee and Moe Epsilon. -Berton 23:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pschemp

Not sure what Berton is playing at here, or why he's started arbitration after statements like "The fact is this Wikipedia is no doubt an example of DIGITAL MAOISM and I will not contribute anymore. Berton 22:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)." There is a perfectly rational discussion about User:Brya going on at the moment on ANI and the project page with the rest of the community, but since Berton disagrees with the rest of the community (and he is the only one) he seems to think that arbitration is needed. It isn't, there is nothing to arbitrate here. Its been made clear that Brya's block is preventative while his subtle vandalism and POV pushing is sorted out. This filing is nothing more than more disruption by a user who isn't getting his way. Certainly that's obvious if you read the ANI and especially the AN thread. Also, contrary to his claims, Berton has never requested mediation with me. pschemp | talk 00:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to note that Improv has a couple facts wrong down there. One, McDarwin started the poll on TOL, not Petaholmes, and the original discussion was started in a very public forum on ANI, and during that discussion the poll was created and linked ot get some more people (who don't read ANI) and are more familiar with the editor to look at it. Calling it obscure and non-public in his closing is thus not quite true. Also, in reply to CBD, at the time I posted my statement, there was no one else who agreed with Berton. I have said all along, the current block is preventative while the community sorts out what is going on only. Again, I'd like to state that the community is handling this just fine, and no one else is up in arms and ranting about Digital Maoism as Berton is. Certainly there is no administrator misconduct such as Berton claims going on. pschemp | talk 21:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Moe Epsilon

  1. If I wasn't rolling on the floor laughing at the this poorly misguided user and this sorry excuse of an RFAr, I would try to be more serious
  2. I am not a sysop, so you cannot desysop me, which sort of proves you don't have your facts straight.
  3. Your statement saying that I deleted comments is technically incorrect. I cannot delete something, again, I'm not an admin. I redirected the conversation to one point so it could stay in one place.
  4. pschemp and InShaneee were in the right to block a disruptive user how has committed vandalism, engaged in non-NPOV discussions, and inserted original research into Wikipedia. Sysops don't need approval for some things and this is one of them. They are now conducting a Straw Poll to determine what the length of the block should be.
  5. The only purpose of this RFAr is cause more attention to Berton and the banned user and goes against WP:POINT.
  6. The only thing this RFAr could serve as is evidence of how disruptive Berton has been on WP:AN/I, WP:AN and now WP:RFAr. He has completely blown a tiny issue out of proportion and is causing unneeded stress to the community.

Update: Berton has dropped any accusations against me and InShaneee. [1] Regards — Moe 00:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Petaholmes

I started the discussion about a community ban for Brya since he has, and continues to violate several key wikipedia policies like OWN, NOR, CIVIL; I thought it was an obvious case that did not need ArbCom intervention and previous attempts at mediation have been refused. Everyone who commented on AN/I, with the exception of the party asking for arbitration, supported a ban. I think this is clear case of the community enforcing accepted standards of behaviour; nothing has occured out of process; I urge the ArbCom to refuse this case.--Peta 02:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by InShaneee

I don't see that there's much that I can say here; the above users are completely in the right that this is a big, loud, noisy WP:POINT violation. I exchanged I think two comments with this user, I haven't blocked anyone related to this case, I never recieved any request for mediation, this all happened, what, yesterday? And frankly, I hope this user IS blocked following this case as he is wasting everyone's time by demanding that we 'be made an example of'. Yes, I did warn Berton he was on his way to a block, mostly because he showed up on AN:I making wild accusations relating to the 'digital maoism' essay he'd recently posted to his userpage. No community consensus to block? I could have sworn that's precisely what the entire AN:I thread that started this was about! In summary, I can't have abused my sysop powers when I haven't applied any, and Berton has no idea whether I live in a jungle or not. --InShaneee 16:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC) Update As Moe pointed out above, accusations against him and myself have now been dropped. However, I'd like to reiterate that, whether the block is correct or not, I do not believe there was any administrative wrongdoing here. --InShaneee 14:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CBDunkerson

This is an odd case. A user who had never before been blocked or even, so far as I can see, warned of a possible block is placed under an indefinite community ban... normally I'd be crying foul, but given some legitimate concerns of possible 'sneaky vandalism' involving arcane details of botanical taxonomy and widespread strong animus towards the user I think pschemp made the right call in blocking until it could get sorted out. That said, upon review I do think the charges of 'vandalism' have been overblown and that Brya has likely been 'acting in good faith', if in a contentious way. Berton's strong objections to the block, some incivil comments (e.g. "monster") around it, and threats of himself being blocked are thus also somewhat understandable. Less threats / intimidation / hostility on all sides would be a good thing. Brya seems willing to discuss the issues relatively calmly and I think that is the best course for resolving this. Contrary to some of the statements above, Brya does seem to have a few supporters (e.g. Berton, JoJans, TeunSpaans) and several people who support the block, but are less than happy about it. I don't think any of the incivility in this case has risen to the level of requiring ArbCom attention, but there may be some value in reviewing Brya's conduct and coming up with a more 'official' remedy. There was a RfC back in June which covered some of the issues involved. --CBD 18:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I have unblocked Brya so that he may respond to this request and because after review I have concluded that the charges of 'subtle vandalism' were unfounded. This would not be readily apparent to someone without a careful review and/or some understanding of taxonomy, but I note that it also seems to be the consensus even amongst Brya's critics in that sub-community (except for KP Botany). As there are significant disputes apart from the 'vandalism' charge which might lead to a community ban in their own right I have told Brya not to edit pages other than this one and his own talk for the time being. --CBD 11:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Improv

My involvement in this is minimal and nonpartisan. Petaholmes started a vote on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life for a community ban on Brya. I closed the discussion using templates, noting that this resembled QuickPolls (a very old, now-abandoned way users once were banned through simple community votes) too strongly, and was problematic for many of the same reasons QuickPolls were - that Brya did not have ample opportunity to defend himself (being blocked), that bans should come from careful arguments by policy or trusted judgement (admins in some cases, ArbCom, etc). I hope that closing that poll that way was appropriate, but if it was not, I am open to correction by the Arbitration Committee. --Improv 19:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I started a discussion on AN/I. Someone else made a poll on ToL. --Peta 12:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrDarwin

I believe the accusations of vandalism against Brya are inaccurate and unfair. What was interpreted as vandalism is, in my opinion, just some sloppy editing and the addition of poorly worded (and occasionally erroneous) material combined with a very aggressive editing style. However I do support at least a temporary block of Brya for other reasons: Brya's unwillingness to cooperate or compromise with other editors, incivility towards other editors, POV pushing, assertion of ownership of numerous articles and refusal to allow other editors to touch those articles. Berton may have a very small point, that the block may have been done for the wrong reasons, but in my opinion was the right thing to do anyway. If the block is lifted, I would expect to see some indication that Brya understands some of the most basic Wikipedia policies. I have had serious conflicts of my own with Brya, so I am hardly an uninvolved third party, but would note that numerous other editors have had similar conflicts and have similar reservations about Brya (as the now-closed poll I initiated--and BTW advertised, and linked to, in 3 different places--demonstrated). MrDarwin 15:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Curtis Clark

In my estimation, the original actions that precipitated all this were Brya's incivility toward other editors, and Brya's unwillingness to accept edits to articles or sections of articles that he felt he had perfected, effectively causing edit wars. I have seen cases where similar actions from a new user resulted rather immediately in warnings about being blocked; it is a tribute to Brya's standing in the community at that time that no one chose to add a template warning to his user page.

The effect of Brya's incivility and POV-pushing has been to polarize a community that generally functioned smoothly before, and to discourage other editors from approaching entire classes of articles that Brya was actively editing and reverting. This is independent of the "correctness" of Brya's edits: (1) the disruption has diminished botany in Wikipedia overall, (2) the controversies and resulting polarization have detracted from reasoned interchange about accuracy and verifiability, and (3) entire articles (Paleodicots) have been "tainted".

Admittedly, many other editors have not reacted well or appropriately to Brya's (or Berton's) incivility. Nevertheless, it is Brya's actions that began the conflict. It is my philosophy on Wikipedia to avoid doing anything that would not be tolerated from an anon or new user. Were Brya an anon, or even a new user, he would have been blocked long before.--Curtis Clark 16:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KP Botany 18:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Even while being blocked from edits, Brya has posted a personal attack about me on her talk page:

"The block, in a middle of a discussion, on a false (not to say fabricated) pretext, of a user who made some forty edits in the past six weeks (mostly on Talk pages) because he is such an immediate danger, is telling. Some people are very afraid of the facts, indeed. Brya 15:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)"

Brya referenced "paleodicots" to APG II, but implied the accusation was about her creating the page. Mine was neither a false nor fabricated pretext, Brya simply attempted to make it appear so.

A check of my contributions shows that I have made substantially more than 40 edits--Brya's attempt to disparage my number of edits "forty ... in the past six weeks" is simply a nagative personal comment, a personal attack on me, and a false one, to put me down as a newcomer to Wikipedia.

"Some people are very afraid of the facts, indeed," is the type of personal attack by Brya that keeps editors away from the botany pages at Wikipedia and allows Brya's incorrect references to APG II, Brya's italics edit wars, and Brya's creation, "APG III," to be spread through Cyberspace with Wikipedia's stamp on it.

KP Botany 18:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Brya 13:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to start by repeating that I never "pushed" anything except NPoV, solid references and internal consistency." For the sake of demonstrating my non-aggressive behaviour two examples where I addressed a clear and demonstrable error: here (with a simultaneous note here) and here. In both cases I made only the single edit. Note that what I inserted in the second case is exactly lifted from Art 16 of the ICBN which covers forming these names. The phrase in this article is as wrong as can be, and is still there even now. No pushing. Most of the cases that got everybody so excited are pages I maintain, mostly pages I created. In most cases no serious edits were made on these pages, that is additions of content or perspective. In general these were drive-by insertions. For a more detailed discussion see user:Brya/Arbitration.

It was mentioned that I feel that "my" pages are perfected. This is not so. I do regard them as of being well above the average article on plants. Any examination of such a page will show my going back to correct errors expand content, etc. Basically I have no objection to other editors adding material, etc, but this should not entail too bad a drop in standards.

Another issue mentioned is that of edit summaries. As many of my edits are of a minimalistic nature, dealing with basic facts, an edit summary is no more than a heads-up. In my book, any competent editor will go back to an authoritative source, preferably more than one, and verify things personally, before making an edit himself. Editing on the basis of an edit summary is no better than acting on hearsay. Thus, an attempt-to-convince-by-an-edit-summary in my book is an insult, suggesting that other editors are incompetent to look up the facts for themselves (or to lazy to do so).

I cannot say I know user:InShaneee, user:Moe Epsilon or user:pschemp and do not see they went wildly out of line. But neither was this an exemplary action. I am not well versed in wikipedia procedures, so I will not comment beyond the fact that precipitous action against a user who is not particularly active, based on a single edit (the supposed creation of the palaeodicot page) even after it is shown that this edit did not take place (this supposition being based on a misreading), does look sloppy to me.

I do wish to thank user:Berton, who made an appeal above and beyond the call of duty. Of course it is true that Berton's awareness of things botanical exceeds his ability to express himself with due care. Knowing Berton, at least a little, I am sure any unpleasant expression he made was motivated more by his awareness of the state of affairs surrounding plant articles in wikipedia than by any personal animosity towards the people mentioned. Brya 13:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: for a comment on KP Botany's Statement see here Brya 13:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Accept. Seems to be just enough disagreement about this that a more binding decision by arbcom after considering the evidence may be helpful. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Charles Matthews 20:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are these acceptances to review the community ban? If so, I see consensus on the matter and no one has pointed out any of rya's promises to reform if allowed back. Are they about the supposed administrative misconduct Berton started this request for? Those claims seem preposterous based on the case presented. Are they, most reasonably, about incivility from Berton? Even in that case, I think it would be premature (at least, that hasn't been the focus of evidence presented so far). Reject until something sensibly arbitrable is brought forth. Dmcdevit·t 01:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bowling for Columbine

Initiated by PPGMD at 21:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

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

A RFC and a mediation cabal case have been tried, I skipped the Med Committee because I simply think it would be a repeat of the mediation cabal. All users listed above were notified on their talk page.

This case is pirmarily about the application and meaning of Wikipedia policies as applied to political critics on the Bowling for Columbine page.

Statement by {PPGMD}

This started recently when Schrodinger82 used WP:RS as a reason for removing much of the criticism of the film Bowling for Columbine. When attempting to argue in favor of the inclusion including citing policies that are much more relavent, he engages in Wikilawyering finding little technicallities that support his position rather then following the spirit.

He argues with WP:RS that they are self published/personal websites, we offer to switch them to their books or articles they wrote in National Magizine; he argues that they aren't notable, we argue that they are showing google searches, New York Times Best Seller list, et al; he argues that they aren't experts in film editing, we argue that such expertise is not needed as it's a political movie. It goes back and forth like that.

Here are some of the policies based on who he uses them: WP:RS - A guideline written mostly for citing factual information, no nessarily written for citing political opinions, but the spirit is that you should cite sources that have a reputation of being good. He argues that via the expert clause the critics must be experts in films of some sort.

WP:V - He interpets this as to mean that we must be able to verify that what they are saying is true, not that they said it like the policy says.

WP:NPOV - The user claims on a technicality that since the critics are not experts in film editing, or in any other film making aspect that their viewpoint is not one that matters for this article. We feel that this neglects that fact that the movie makes a political point and this viewpoint is held by a significant minority, thus criticism transcends film making as they aren't trying to argue that Moore used the wrong angle, film stock, or any other particulars to a film maker.

Those are the relavent policies, the user also cities other policies which are out of place in this dispute. Attempts in outside opinions simply end up with Schrodinger saying that they are wrong and citing policies.

I have attempted to propose a compromise as I agree with some of his points, for example I felt that the criticism section was too long and was giving Undue weight to the Pro-gun critics, and I suggested a much shorter version of the section that simply cites Hardy and Kopel as critics and follows all the Wikipedia policies. Schrodinger82 rejected this compromise.

Ultimately I would like to get a ruling on the policies and how they apply in particular to the criticism of Hardy and Kopel. Links:

Response to JzG: Yes it is for the most part a content issue, but it's one that is unlikely to get resolved via any method available to us. The discussion with the user goes round and round. If Wikilawyer is an offense then I support it's actionable, but I don't see anything that shows it's an actionable offense, just seen as a bad idea. Evidence that we have attempted to solve the content issue can be seen above in the Mediation Cabal case, and in the talk page, there are extensive discussions, none going anywhere.

Statement by User:JzG

I'm unclear what's supposed to happen here. The original version was grossly unbalanced in favour of criticism, the vast majority of which completely missed the point (hello, this is satire! it's not supposed to be a balanced and scholarly treatment, or 100% factually accurate in every tiny detail). The current version is better. I don't see the problem. Oh, and it's a content dispute. Where's the evidence of user conduct issues to arbitrate? Guy 21:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mangoe

I came into this as an observer from the Wikipedia:Expert retention effort and its child guideline, Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Except for a minor formatting fix and the removal of a dubious categorization, I have not edited the article. I am largely interested in this out of a concern over the principles that Schrodinger82 is trying to establish.

He is pushing four points:

  • That only film makers and critics may cited as critics of a documentary. I do not accept this theory, and I do not believe that the public in general accepts it. In general the factual content is fair game for anyone who cares to do the necessary fact-checking, but it is especially appropriate for those familiar with the field to do so. And in the case of political and social commentary in a documentary, it is reasonable for writers from the major political and social commentary media (in this case, National Review') to respond.
  • That David T. Hardy and Dave Kopel are not sufficiently notable to merit mention as critics. Those who follow the wikilinks will find articles on both men in Wikipedia, and both are there cited as Moore antagonists. In any case citations in the general media can be found where they are taken as noted opponents to Moore, and these citations have been supplied.
  • That majority acclaim for the documentary negates adverse reviews, no matter how prominent the reviewer. I found it trivial to find negative reviews, includng that in the New York Times. It seems to me that the picture of near universal acclaim is exaggerated.
  • That the statements of Hardy in particular are defamatory and that therefore we cannot recount them. It is clear to me that we can repeat them as long as we make it clear that it is Hardy speaking, and not Wikipedia. (It also seems to me that the claim is exaggerated.)

All of this is part of a strategy to essentially deny that there was any substantial criticism of the film. It is a profound misrepresentation of the reality that Moore is a figure of deepest political controversy. There have been some attempts to rectify prior issues with the article (particularly its structural flaws) but Schrodinger82 is burying the talk page in wikilawyering to prevent efforts from advancing. I am particularly concerned to see that the principles by which he opposes edits do not get taken as precedents for policies or guidelines. I confess that I have already edited Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines to reflect some of the points I have made here; there have been no subsequent changes to the guideline, however, and I think that most people would accept the additions I have made. Mangoe 03:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that I concur with the fifth point raised by Ken Arromdee. Mangoe 12:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ken Arromdee

I think that most if not all of Schrodinger82's removals were inappropriate.

It's hard to fully analyze his reasons for removing everything he removed, because of the huge quantity of text he's written and quoted. But his main reasons--as far as I can tell--seem unjustified. I think Mangoe has summarized them pretty well, though inevitably a few points weren't covered. It seems to me that Schrodinger82 doesn't want to see Moore criticized and is grasping at straws trying to find rules to justify removing the criticism.

However, I'd add a fifth point to Mangoe's four. Schroedinger82 is also pushing the idea:

  • That since he can argue against the criticism, it is less worthy of inclusion. Much of what he has written on the talk page consists of attempts to state where, in his opinion, the criticisms are flawed. Apparently, he thinks that if he can successfully argue that a source's criticism is flawed, the source itself must be a dubious source, and therefore is prohibited under Wikipedia:Verifiability. I feel this is inappropriate; you can't call a source dubious because it gives the wrong answer to a question that is the very reason you're consulting the source. Moreover, we're actually using Hardy and Kopel as a source for "prominent commentators make this criticism", not "these criticisms are correct", so giving bad criticism doesn't make them into bad sources anyway.

As for compromises, I feel that the suggested compromise by PPGMD at Compromise Version Proposed is terrible. It's nearly identical to the version with all the content deleted, with just a brief mention of Hardy and Kopel added. It leaves out many of the controversies and gives the reader few details about what people criticize the movie for. It isn't really a compromise at all.

And I don't believe that the original version violates Undue Weight. The original article had lots of criticism and not much support because much of the criticism is so on-point that it's very hard to dispute. In other words, the article is mostly criticism because the substantive source material is mostly criticism. While there are certainly lots of sources that praise the movie, most of them praise the movie in a general way and don't try to say, for instance, that Moore's association of the NRA with the KKK was factually accurate--because any source who tried claiming that would look very foolish.

I would accept a compromise that removed the Bushnell material (at least until Bushnell is professionally published or quoted in professional publications), though most of it is also said by Hardy or Kopel and should be sourced to them if possible instead. I also wouldn't mind if a "support" section was added to oppose the "criticism"--at least, if anyone *could* find sources supporting Moore on some of the points for which he has been criticized. For instance, JzG has said that the movie doesn't need to be accurate because it's satire. If a commentator could be found who defended the movie on the grounds that it's satire and doesn't need to be accurate, this could go in a "support" section.

Ken Arromdee 04:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved user Jossi

I came across this only today. My concern relates to original research: the editors that have created this article are reporting directly about a primary source (the documentary). As such, the choice of quotes and commentary is original research of the editors of the article. For this article to be compliant with WP content policies, the article needs to report just basic information about what the documentary is itself, and leave it at that. If there are reports by reliable sources that describe this documentary or the controversy surrounding it, these can be used in the article, if properly attributed. Wikipedia is not an investigative journalism site, or an advocay site. It is an encyclopedia that reports what secondary, reliable sources have said about a subject. It is not the role of editors to describe primary sources, in particular when the subject is controversial. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Schrodinger82

The question is whether or not including the cited sources meet current Wikipedia guidelines. I have repeated cited dozens of relevant passages from Wikipedia showing that they do not, and repeatedly asked them to cite their own passages showing that they do. They have yet to do so. The only passages that have been cited have been grossly cited out of context (e.g., citing a passage saying that that pop-culture articles don't need peer review, while ignoring the fact that it also says that standards for RS still apply. Citing a passage saying that we can cite professional journalists, while ignoring the fact that it specifies only "well known" journalists, and that caution must be exercised even then.). Currently, the criticisms section makes up for roughly 50% of the article, but 100% of the opinion. The plot outline is neutral. We have a length criticism section, but no prasie section, despite the fact that an outstanding 96% of professional film critics have given this movie a positive review. This, despite the fact that Hardy and Kopel do not meet the standards as professional film critics or as regarded as subject matter experts on the factual statements, despite the fact that they are vastly in the minority in terms of their opinion, and despite the fact that they aren't commenting on statements of facts in the first place. Most of the removed criticism is in reference to arguments that Moore never actually makes. For instance, Ken comments that " If a well-known criticism of Moore is that he blames the NRA for not cancelling uncancellable events, that can go in the article." The problem is, Moore never actually blames the NRA for this in the movie, so why should we include a criticism of something that he never actually did? I think that's a pretty impoirtant point, don't you?

The main problem is that the parties involved have never established a clear standard within Wikipedia standards that Hardy and Kopel have met, that haven't already been met by those in the majority. For instance, Kopel is a professional opinion journalist? The same goes for professional movie critics. Hardy has published a book? Many film experts and critics have published as well, many of them in an academic context. Academy Awards are nominated by your peers within your own category, meaning people who have produced entire films. At what point do you say, "Yes, not only do the critics deserve 100% of the viewpoints like they have now, but they also deserve to have their section twice as long? as it is currently?" The fact is, Wikipedia standards are very clear. When you post potentially defaming comments on a living person, the standards are higher, rather than less. Stating that "Moore claims that the B-52 plaque" says the following is a comment on the movie, and can be factually verified. Stating that "Moore's movies are fictional and uses misleading edits" is a comment on Moore's character, reputation, and integrity as a film maker, and is a subjective comment. Again, WP:V standards are clear on this matter, otherwise, you would see people posting whatever rumors they can from the National Enquirer, because "Well, we're not saying that Sharon Stone had a threesome with aliens, it's the national enquirer saying that!" The exception is when these accusations becomes a news story in itself with actual consequences. For instance, if the Academy Awards was reconsidering it's decision because of Hardy, that would be worth reporting. But right now, all we have is "some guy on the internet believes." In that case, NPOV guidelines further add that you don't give undue weight to minority opinions.

PPGMD attempts to bypass current standards on RS, by arguing that Hardy backs up up his points and is a reputable source. For instance, he claims that "if you ever read Hardy's site you will see that he quote reviewers (not average joes but professional film reviewers) that come to the conclusion that Moore is attempting to draw viewers to." So I decided to humor PPGMD and check for myself. The number of "professional film reviewers" cited? Zero. Hardy's sources include a user review on popcornmonsters.com, a socialist website on geocities, and a user comment on blogcritics.org . All of this points to dubious reliability with poor research skills. The fact that PPGMD could walk away from this believing that Hardy cited "not average joes but professional film reviewers" shows a severe lack of scrutiny, that needs to be reinstated. Further, the fact that David Hardy would cite reviews to prove his point shows that he himself believes that they are the best judge of deception, so why can't we consult the professionals directly, and leave Hardy out of this? PPGMD claim that RS doesn't cover political opinions, therefore, we don't need to follow any rules regarding them. In response, I should point out that:

  • RS does mention partisan sources, so yes, I think that it does apply.
  • While I don't think you have to be an expert on documentaries to dispute the factual content of the film (Provided that you're an expert on the factual content), I do think you would need to be an expert on documentaries to make a claim that "this film doesn't qualify as a documentary." Particularily when the documentary filmmaking community strongly disagrees. If Hardy and Kopel's assessment is valid and deserves to be noted, then it shouldn't be hard to find a recognized authority in the industry who agrees with it. I don't think that we would ever cite Morgan Spurlock as an expert when it came to defining US Policy, and I don't think that we should cite Hardy as an expert when it comes to defining documentaries.
  • While the movie may have political views, that does not warrant a response in itself. You would not, for instance, see Alberto Gonzales's views on torture listed on the page for "Critical Mass" episode of "Stargate Atlantis," even though that episode seems to express the political view that torture is wrong. Most books and movie are to some extent political. Allowing political commentary on their pages sets a dangerous precedent.
  • If such commentary is important, then it why not leave that to pages that discuss the controversy directly, rather than on the page for BFC? WP:NPOV has clear guidelines for this, labeled "Making necessary assumptions."
  • Where exactly is the extent of BFC's political commentary to begin with? Can anyone list any specific policies that Moore is advocating for? If we can't even determine what Moore is advocating, then why do we need any political commentators in the first place?
  • What makes Kopel and Hardy recognized autorities on those policies to begin with? For instance, if Congress was debating a new law based on the above policies, would any of the major news stations stations invite Kopel and Hardy to share their expert opinion on the subject?
  • PPGMD and other have claimed that we need to report the controversy, but have yet to establish what the threshhold for controversy actually is. Simply saying "Moore made a film, some people didn't like it" is not a controversy in itself. I mean, you might as well introduce sections to the "Casablanca" section, stating that some people think that the film is overrated.
  • Has BFC ever gone beyond just expressing political views, and being the center of a political issue? For instance, "Huckleberry Finn" has been at the center of debates on censorship. This has been highly contested within the context of school libraries. Hence, you could bring in commentators who agree with or against it's banning. Uncle Tom's Cabin has been credited by Abe Lincoln for causing the civil war. Can the same be said for BFC?

As for the complaints of user misconduct, so far, PPGMD and others have yet to cite a single policy/guideline that I'm violating. In fact, Mangoe's main complaint is that I have "come up with a novel way to lawyer around the restrictions of disruptive editing by twisting other policies," in other words, the fact that I am following the policies in a way he doesn't like. Their main acccusation isn't that I am violating policy, but that I am biased, because I think that giving 75% of the article to a non-notable, non-expert minority viewpoint is too much. This failure to AGF makes any attempt to make create consensus impossible. I should also point out that Mangoe has admitted to not even having watched the film and has relied entirely on Anti-Moore sites for his viewpoints, so the accusations of bias are highly ironic. His comment that we should include the NYT review violates the standards of "undue weight," unless he's saying that the NYT is notable enough so that we should include what it says in every film article on Wikipedia, period. The fact that he would go so far as to rewrite the WikiProjects Style Guidelines just to suit his own ends, with no attempt at discussion or consensus on their talk page, with no real film background or major participation within the WikiProjects Film commnity, and again without even having seen the film in question, is greatly disturbing. But even by your new standards, your arguments still don't apply, because because you're not referring to direct statements of fact from the movie.

Ken, I would like you to cite anywhere that I have pushed this idea that "'since he can argue against the criticism, it is less worthy of inclusion". Find a direct quote. You can't, because I haven't. My point all along has been that Hardy and Kopel have are dubious, non-authorative sources that don't meet the standards for reliability and reputability, and in Hardy's case, doesn't do basic fact checking. Thus, they do not meet the basic standards for inclusions. Does that mean that I can argue against the specific points as a result of that? Well, sure. It's pretty easy to come up with arguments against dubious, non-authorative sources that don't meet the standards for reliability and reputability, and don't do basic fact checking. But I have never once stated that we should remove them as sources because I could argue against them. Further, if Wikipedia states that we shouldn't include sources of dubious fact checking, and I show examples where their fact checking is dubious, then it's a completely valid point. The other thing is this. PPGMD was the first to bring up the point. My response was, "All of this is completely tangential, but..." Key phrase their is "tangential." Do you know what a tangent is? Geometrically, it's about as far away from the core as you can get. My argument was not contingent on this point, despite the fact that you claim that it is

But further, now you're contradicting yourself. If I do argue against your points, then you claim that that should somehow invalidate my stance that they don't meet Wikipedia standards, even though I already said that my entire argument was merely tangential to the discussion, except to prove that Hardy performs dubious fact checking. But if I don't argue against your points, then you'll claim that "many of the Hardy and Kopel criticisms are damning, and impossible to counter. And, as a result, nobody tries." So how am I supposed to respond? Note that nowhere in your argument do you state how Hardy's claims meets Wikipeida guidelines, and why he shuld be included in the first place. Your NRA/KKK argument is a strawman, because I have never disputed the inclusions of that. The fact is, you can't demand a "pro" source rebutal to something that was never news in the first place, and Hardy/Kopel were never "news," and therefore never warranted a "pro" response in the first place. You're never going to see Newsweek run an expose and point-by-point rebutal against someone who's biggest claim to fame was a single segment on "WAVE TV," because no one would know who Hardy was, and fewer will have read his site. You're not going to find anyone writing a book disputing Hardy, because most people don't care. But it's not hard to find people who are to David Hardy what David Hardy is to Michael Moore. So if we can include people far less notable than Michael Moore in response to Moore, then why can't we include people less notable than David Hardy in response to Hardy? Just because a comment goes uncontested on the Internet by the mainstream press doesn't magically make it true, and doesn't magically make it notable. I should also point out that Moore has placed a short response on his page, which Hardy has yet to counter. By your own standards, that's must be because Hardy knows that Moore is right. And if Hardy knows that Moore is right, then why is Hardy notable? Think about it. BTW, by defending the claims based on the fact that they "are damning, and impossible to counter", you are pretty much admitting that these claims are defametory, and presented as true. Good job.

One more note: "Controversy" is defined as "a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion." Controversy has to involve some sort of prolonged debate or dispute, presumably among people who would have something specific to debate over (e.g., a specific policy or decision.) Hence, "one side X, the other side doesn't care, except in passing" does not constitute an real controversy. Similarily, if the controversy is limitted to internet blogs and web pages, then it doesn't really qualify as a public controversy, and therefore isn't very notable. We have no evidence that the Academy Awards even considered revoking Moore's award on the basis that it didn't fit the standards of a documentary, much less that there was a "prolonged dispute over it." No prolonged, public dispute means no controversy, and no controversy means nothing to represent. -Schrodinger82 09:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {write party's name here}

Clerk notes

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

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


JJay

Initiated by Arbusto at 17:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

JJay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [2]

I can't even engage this user who removes my messages from his talk. I wanted to do an rfc, but as an admin pointed out there needs to be others in the dispute, and this user only makes a few edits (as explained below) and no one else is involved.

Statement by Arbusto

JJay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) does not contribute to actual articles (since I opened this at the AN/I JJay has editted a sex toy article), but merely votes in afds. Recently, he has almost exclusively limited his activites to stalking my afds. This includes the current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Geneva Theological Seminary. There is only two articles he has been concerned with in the last 7 days: One is a sex toy afd and the other is my afd.

This user has been doing this to my edits since April and most recently confronted him on his talk and he gave this reply: "If you nominate articles for deletion you should expect to encounter differing points of view." Independently another admin addressed his behavior, but that admin had to step away from wikipedia.

Examples of the disruptive behavior in my afds in the past few weeks:

Clearly this user is stalking me.[4]

Trying to address these issues with this user is not possible as he removes comments from his talk page and does so repeatedly.

Currently, the user claimed to have links to prove WP:V of an article I put up for deletion. User won't supply them, and having a 6+ month history with him I believe he is lying. He has exhausted WP:AGF and is being disruptive. Arbusto 17:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved party W.marsh

To simplify things and so I can understand the issue better, I've broken it down by complaints raised.

  1. JJay removes comments from his talk page. This is not very civil, but it's not vandalism or anything blockable either. Arbusto didn't mention it, but JJay calls him a troll repeatedly, which could be taken as a personal attack.
  2. JJay does not contribute to articles, based on the claim that he's just editted one article in the past week. This fails to mention his past year of making productive edits to a wide range of article. JJay clearly makes a considerable contribution to articles.
  3. JJay votes in a lot of AfDs. That's simply not an inherently bad behavior by any definition.
  4. JJay is stalking Arbusto, primarilly by voting often in AfD's nominated by Arbusto. This is a trickier one, but at a glance it seems just as plausible that JJay votes in a lot of AfDs and Arbusto unavoidably runs into him a lot. Even if JJay is just voting in "Arbusto's AfDs" (unlikely), "following someone around" in itself is not blockable, it has to be combined with other problematic behavior. It seems his comments in the cited AfDs are arguments for keeping the articles, not harassment of Arbusto. JJay often expresses unpopular views, he often argues with Arbusto... this is not harassment, it's a difference of opinions.

JJay has been somewhat incivil, okay. Maybe that, in combination with possibly Wikistalking Arbusto, is enough for ArbCom to look into this. But it's a pretty big maybe, I personally don't think JJay is trying to be disruptive, or has done anything warranting arbitration. On WP:PAIN it was mentioned that Arbusto should be the one being looked at, no opinion on that yet. --W.marsh 21:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (somewhat) uninvolved party Brianyoumans

I looked at the examples given above by Arbustoo; I think they are good examples of how Arbustoo manages to get into arguments with people by agressively pushing his opinions in AFD discussions and elsewhere. I think that JJay has been provoked into saying some things he shouldn't have.

I think Arbustoo has a bad habit of refusing to accept other people's opinions in discussions, demanding more and more verifiability until the person just gives up because they don't care that much about the subject. If you look at almost any AFD he initiated, you will find him agressively challenging many of the "keeps". (For instance: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Geneva Theological Seminary, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Baptist College, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Longview Baptist Temple) His responses are usually not unreasonable, but he seems to insist that everyone who makes a vote opposing him document their views. On the other hand, he sometimes AFDs things without doing proper research himself in advance as to notability. (See, for instance, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darrell Bock)

Someone should admonish JJay that he really should leave things on his talk page. Brianyoumans 22:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(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 uninvolved party Dr Zak (talk · contribs)

My involvement with User:JJay is small - I ran into him several months ago at Nude beach, trying to cull the overabundance of external links the page then had. [5], also see Talk:Nude_beach#External links. JJay has a penchant of including trivia beyond the point of absurdity, and this is also borne out in his edits to the external links guideline, see Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_3#Edits_from_User:Aaron_Brenneman and especially Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_3#Protected where he doesn't contribute to help the discussion advance.

One must grudgingly admire the subtlety of the trollery. It has been an ongoing problem for a while, and it needs to stop. Dr Zak 04:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Requests for clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process. Place new requests at the top.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox: clarification on what to do for other user/ Extraordinary Machine

I'm having a major ongoing issue regarding an inappropriate block and a massive misuse of sysop abilities, and I wouldn't be surprised if one thinks I'm simply placing this here because User talk:Velten was protected not long ago. I am editing from an IP address because the original operator of User:Eternal Equinox wants to return to Wikipedia, but does not want to use the same account as I (User:Hollow Wilerding) currently am. I'll understand if this is removed, but there's no other way to ask this as of now.

While I'm here, I'd like to request something of the arbitration committee. In the past few weeks, I've been receiving increasingly abusive blocks from User:Extraordinary Machine which range from reasons such as "removed a template that I think should have stayed there" to assuming that I've edited from an IP address when it can't be proven. Again, I'm sure this will be ignored and removed altogether, but his abuse has got to stop. I'd provide diffs, but most are currently on User talk:Velten and I'm not up to it since this is likely not going to stay here. If I'm going to be placed on an ArbCom decision, there are going to be circumstances under which I can become blocked, because EM has so far abused it to his likening, which is evident through the following:

  • First I made two edits to Loose (album) and Promiscuous (song) where we held a debate. Extraordinary Machine kept reminding me that I'm not supposed to engage in edit wars, but I was trying to express my view on the matter. He then went ahead and blocked me for a week because of this and called it "harassment".
  • He gives me three-weeks worth of a ban for this and this. How in the world does this warrant a block?
  • Because an IP address (74.117.11.247 (talk · contribs)) edited Cool (song) with a similar edit summary to mine (which I do admit, find somewhat peculiar, and wonder if someone's out to get me), I'm positive Extraordinary Machine used this as an excuse to restart the three-week ban over again. I don't even know who this person is!

I've already waited two a half weeks based on his original ridiculous block. I'm not waiting again for something I didn't do. Can the ArbCom please do something? Thatcher131 (talk · contribs) said that he was concerned about this block and that it wasn't within the ArbCom's scope, which if I look at WP:RFAR/Eternal Equinox, is over two weeks the original punishment. This user is now deliberately trying to keep me away.

Could something be done? 64.231.64.221 20:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]




Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=82810983"