Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Samuel Blanning (talk | contribs) at 12:49, 30 November 2006 (comment re ParadoxTom). 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
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area   6 November 2024 0/6/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Yasuke 13 Nov 2024

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

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

Jews for Jesus

Initiated by ParadoxTom 03:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Other steps have been tried. Cf. the involved parties' Talk pages, the Jews for Jesus discussion page, and our abortive mediation attempt: [6].

Statement by ParadoxTom

I am filing this Request for Arbitration as a final attempt to bring to an end the POV-pushing occurring on the Jews for Jesus article. Secondarily, I would like to see some users be censured for their inappropriate conduct; specifically, many of us who have sought to make Jews for Jesus encyclopedic and NPOV have been, eo ipso, called anti-Semites.

I don't have much else to say, as the involved parties have been over this all ad nauseum. I would refer interested persons to the references provided above.ParadoxTom 03:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg

Tom's above summary is very misleading. First of all, nobody has ever accused either him of his supporters of being anti-semitic. From the very beginning of their arrival, they have removed any passage that even implies that Jews for Jesus is a christian group despite numerous reliable sources. The only references that they have provided in support of their version comes from JFJ (or other smaller messianic organizations) themselves, when undue influence is brought they will immediately state that the reliable sources are irrelevant and we cannot take sides.

The basic dispute centers around the desire of a small circle of editors to describe JFJ as a Jewish rather than Christian organization. Now obviously religion is probably the most divisive issue known to man, so I really do not want to get too involved with any theological debate, however I will ask this- What seperate Judaism from christianity if it is not the belief that Jesus is the son of God and the Messiah?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JoshuaZ

I would urge the ArbCom to reject this RfAr. As a glance at ParadoxTom's mainspace contribution lists will show, he has edited almost nothing except for the Jews for Jesus article[7], his otherspace entries have all also been devoted to that conflict[8] and has in three months here short time here accumulated 9 3RR blocks on the article in question, one of which occured immediately after he had been unblocked to participate in an attempted mediation.[9]. His edits have most recently been attempts to revert to a version of the article from a few months ago as "the next best thing" to have a {{totallydisputed}} tag on the article [10]. Indeed, he has been unwilling even to use a weaker template even when other editors who have sympathies with him have attempted to use it instead [11]. I would see this user as very close to exhausting community patience.
However, this article is not ripe for arbitration in that 1) almost all of the issues but Paradox's reversions are content based and 2) Progress on the article is occuring albeit slowly. It would be counterproductive and a waste of both the involved editors time and the ArbCom's time to intervene at this stage. JoshuaZ 04:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Homestarmy

I've been involved in discussion with this article almost ever since the very first comments on the talk page began, and its been a very messy history. Many people have been blocked for 3RR violations, have left the project out of frustration it seems, (User:Justforasecond) and have clearly let frustrations fly many times. While i'm not so certain that Paradox is explicitly correct that people on one side of the debate over JfJ have been labelled anti-semites, I think a case can be made that many personal attacks have occured nonetheless over the months. While many of the attacks have been directed at JfJ itself, and thus, if I understand this correctly, don't actually constitute any real policy violations, things have often gotten out of hand over the past few months, for example, in archive two, (I don't have time to provide the diffs at the moment) there is a comment directed to Justforasecond, (who has since left Wikipedia) "..your edits pushed your delusion that J4J is just another Jewish denomination that a bunch of long-bearded Hassidim oppose." by User:Mantanmoreland on September 4thish of this year. On the 15th, we have "I suspect you're having "a serious problem with the claim "All maintream Jewish groups..."." because you don't know what it means. Your edits only confirm this impression" closely followed by "You don't have a point and you don't have a clue what you are talking about. See [12]." By Humus Sapiens to User:SpinyNorman in archive 3. When Spiny objected on grounds similiar to most non-anti JfJ editor's arguments, Humus responded with "For once, I agree with Spiny: "The intro is a disaster. It is filled with blatantly deceptive statements." - after his edits, that is.". After Justforasecond brings up the (possibly incorrect) point that since all Jewish organizations oppose a Christian organization, (and therefore a part of Christianity) Humus says "Wrong. It is Judaism that is under attack here." (With "here" I presume meaning the JfJ article, since the dispute at that time concerned the wording of how much opposition Judaism really had for JfJ.). A very recent comment concerning an actual involved user in this case I have a diff for however, namely, with Humus again to DJ: [13]. which I think is very exibitive of the more current trend the conversations on the talk page of JfJ have been taking.

Unfortunently, it seems i'm about out of the word limit :/. I know most of what I have up here can easily be called quote mining because I haven't shown the full context of these quotes, but I think that if this case is accepted, I can provide diffs for these statements and many others which show many personal attacks on users involved with this article. A possibly relevant situation may be the recent Template:NotJudaism template TfD here, but I feel that user conduct is a more easily defendable reason for Arbitration in this particular case. Homestarmy 04:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MPerel

I've had some involvement on this page. Overall this is a content dispute, albeit a bit heated at times. I think the editors are slowly working things out with the exception of User:ParadoxTom who has been particularly disruptive. Even Homestarmy warned Paradox Tom that "Arbitration Committee members will see a single-purpose account who has an extensive block log, a long history of not accepting policy concerning 3RR and what constitutes vandalism, and possibly even a vandal, because you've reverted to very old revisions of the articles several times."[14] (he actually sums it up pretty well). --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 05:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sam Blanning

ParadoxTom has been indefinitely blocked per exhausted community patience, with unanimous endorsement on WP:ANI at time of writing. Unless the Arbcom wants to review his ban - and to me it looks clearly appropriate - there doesn't seem anything more to do here. The other parties don't sound especially keen to go to arbitration, and at least two seem to be against it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Homestarmy has been requested to trim his statement. --Srikeit 05:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sex tourism

Initiated by Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. at 03:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

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

Statement by Mr. Knodel

I would like to request arbitration as a last resort in resolving a dispute that has perpetuated for over a month with almost daily reverts and editing conflicts. The dispute has been stressful and unproductive to all editors involved. There is simply no other way to resolve this without third-party intervention. I've outlined my request for specific content to be reviewed on the Arbitration Specifications section of the Sex Tourism Talk Page.
Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 06:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I filed arbitrate to stop accusations such as these. My request is serious in all points that are addressed, and I expect page content to be treated with respect as well as the links. All agruements I have presented throughout the discussion are completely valid. I was not paid off. I am not promoting myself. Sly Traveler is not my website. I did not use puppets to impersonate other editors. I have been insulted and treated rudely throughout the discussion. What do I need to do be treated with respect, and not have other editors attacked when they don't agree with your point of view!
Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 22:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Let me address the Def_Trojan puppet charge. He is my brother, Patrick Knodel, who lives on the other side of town in California, and we both use COX Communications as an internet service provider. I did ask him to support me. I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion that he was me, but I can only imagine it might have been that we both use the same ISP. I still maintain that I have not acted dishonestly, and that I never impersonated other editors.
As for Delover, I don't know him outside of Wikipedia.
Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 21:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement by edgarde

Mr. Knodel began editing on October 28, linking the Prostitution article to Sex tourism, then adding extensive pro- sex tourism promotional POV edits to the Sex tourism article.

I reverted these edits. Since then, KyndFellow has been edit-warring (against multiple editors[16][17]) to introduce and repeatedly reinstate POV edits to Sex tourism, and to reinstate his website, The Sly Traveler, to the External links section.

About 90kB of text has been added to the Discussion page where Mr. Knodel has WikiLawyered, unilaterally declared arbitrary rules, resolutions and moratoria (always favoring retention of his edits), purported insubstantial changes to be cooperation, acted put-upon and persecuted, canvassed[18][19][20][21] , misrepresented (and deleted[22][23][24][25]) other editors comments, ignored feedback from several editors, and put on a puppet show.

Even this RfA seems like an attempt to freeze the article with his website linked from Wikipedia for as long as possible.

Sample POV edits by Mr. Knodel (his most early, and most recent):

  • Mr. Knodel long fought to redefine[26] "Sex tourism" (an established concept[27][28]) as including activities such as observing other cultures and visiting sex museums.
  • Mr. Knodel frequently reverts[29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41] a well-annotated Sex tourism article paragraph (the 3rd) listing common concerns about the effects of sex tourism from the United Nations perspective. Reason given in his Arbitration spec: the U.N. statement (and I quote) basically says "all aspects of sex tourism are bad." Mr. Knodel then asserts that the in-line references for that paragraph nowhere state what is in fact clearly stated in the first reference (scan for the bold words Aware and Considering, in the 2nd & 3rd paragraphs of the UN link).

Many other examples can be provided. And always, he links his website. [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59]

Linking The Sly Traveller appears to be Mr. Knodel's driving issue. His other edits are probably intended to defend and promote traffic to his website. — edgarde 00:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mr. Knodel's advocate, user Fred-Chess

I suggest to await the results of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Devalover before proceeding.

If it turns out Mr. Knodel didn't use sockpuppets, it will be an important setback for edgarde. And vice versa.

Fred-Chess 10:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using Checkuser, Knodel is almost certainly DefTrojan, or used the same semi-static IP at least. Devalover is probably unrelated. Dmcdevit·t 20:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My first action as an advocate was to tell my client that he would probably find it problematic to add the external link to Sly Traveler. [60] A week or so later he told me he was about to have reached some agreement on the page, but that it was disturbed by edgarde's actions. I suggested he file a Request for Comments to get input from other users, and this was done too.

The RfC did not lead to consensus on how the article was supposed to be formulated, as I had hoped. At one time edgarde agreed to let the link to Sly Traveler in the article, but he later changed his mind. I did not see anyone agree with him though.

Essentially the dispute by then appeared to be between only two users. Devalover (talk · contribs) made a few edits, was never deeply involved, IMHO. For a while I therefore thought that mediation would be best. However, I now think it wouldn't lead anywhere, because edgarde is determined not to allow the link to Sly Traveler, while Mr. Knodel is determined of the opposite. I now think that further comments from unrelated others would be the best way to resolve the dispute.

There has been accusations of misbehaving from both parts, but I think both parts have acted comparatively well-mannered, and I don't think either one would persist with his actions if the community expressed support of the other one's version.

Mr. Knodel maintains that Def Trojan (talk · contribs) was his brother, and they shared the same ISP. I don't know yet if we can confirm this. However, it can at least be confirmed that Mr. Knodel has not used any other sockpuppets, which should speak to his advantage.

Fred-Chess 16:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Addhoc

Essentially, the dispute is about Mr. Knodel edit warring to reinstate his website, The Sly Traveller, to the External links section of Sex tourism. I would suggest the remainder of the dispute is fairly trivial and possibly a 'smoke screen' for his attempts to reintroduce this link. Addhoc 14:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk notes

Threaded comments moved to the commenter's own sections. Thatcher131 22:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Appeal of Prof02

Initiated by Fred Bauder at the request of Prof02 at 14:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Bishonen and Charles Matthews were notified. Fred Bauder 22:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Prof02 has been blocked and his user pages protected. Fred Bauder

Statement by Prof02

I would like to request arbitration of the case involving the work-in-progress posted on my user subpage, to wit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Prof02/Erich_Heller

This was "split", and one of the split parts was moved from the above-referenced user subpage to Wikipedia main article space by User:Bishonen, User:Charles Matthews, et al., on September 13, 2006, without my knowledge or consent. The action violates established Wikipedia guidelines, such as, for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_page#Ownership_and_editing_of_pages_in_the_user_space I wish to request a re-merger of the split article.

Furthermore, while preparing a dossier on the matter at User_talk:Prof02/archive#Conflict_in_need_of_resolution.2Frequest_for_comment, I was blocked from editing Wikipedia, while one of the blocking administrators (User:Bishonen) posted defamatory statements on my talk page (User_talk:Prof02/archive#Block_warning).

I wish to request unblocking and action against the accused.

In answer to User:Geogre's post on the arbitration page, I would like to say that if I am just abusing the system by using a user subpage (containing an article that has been worked on virtually every day for six months since its inception) for my own private purposes (what purposes might those exactly be?) that do not further the goals of the project as a whole (so User:Geogre), than can that user, User:Geogre, explain to me how the user subpage posted on the system since 25 December 2005 at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bishonen/Moods

fosters those (encyclopedic) goals of the project, so that its presence on Wikipedia servers is felt to be inoffensive and is left unchallenged? Does the trick involve the development of a group of like-minded mud-slingers around one's person, so that one can always count on help from them en bloc when the need arises, rather than standing alone?

Please be aware that the same user, User:Geogre, just a few days ago accused me of fraud here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FErich_Heller&diff=85652136&oldid=85650780

by stating that the '"author" [of the Erich Heller article] is not the "author," having gotten an account change since beginning' -- without offering a shred of corroborating evidence (which does not exist, as the allegation is false). Might this not, in itself, warrant the opening of an arbitration case against him?

All things considered, I do not see how User:Bishonen, after having written the words "your foul mouth" with reference to someone in a public arena and in User:Bishonen's official capacity as an administrator (consciously stating the fact here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AProf02%2Farchive&diff=87375398&oldid=87362143), could possibly continue as a Wikipedia administrator -- whatever the judges' decision on other points might be, and even if all these other points were to be decided in my disfavor. Fred Bauder 13:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC) on behalf of Prof02[reply]

Statement of Charles Matthews

I played no part at all in the manoeuvres described. At most I expressed an opinion on my Talk page that the userfied page had been there quite long enough. Charles Matthews 19:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence has been presented about the initial posting of Erich Heller. If it is 'biting' a newcomer to remove non-encyclopedic tone from new articles, though, we might as well give up editing. Charles Matthews 14:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(In reply to a point brought up by Giano) I am not 'shame-faced'. I backed off early in proceedings, having had someone say I was handling it badly. I was asking for policy to be enforced, is all. But I am not one to plough on in the face of that kind of comment. How on earth do you get to as a member of the arbcom if he felt an injustice was being carried out, it was his duty to speak up about it? What injustice? User:Bishonen is an experienced and widely respected admin, who could well handle this matter. As an Arbitrator I have to be very economical in making public comments about matters likely to come to dispute resolution. I have throughout tried only to explain policy here to User:Prof02, as my proper role. The fact that Bishonen and I have had little impact, working at it different ways, really speaks to the fact that the 'issue' (i.e. the fact that WP:OWN is not negotiable) is intractable. Charles Matthews 18:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bishonen

Prof02 often refers to himself on his talkpage in the third person as "the plaintive" [sic]. I ask Fred not to buy into such quasi-legal talk to the extent of referring to me as a "defendant". I don't see myself in that role. I have no intention of defending myself. The ArbCom will have to make do with the following illustrative links from me. For the events referred to, please see:

I also urge arbitrators to read Prof02's usertalk page (the version before it was blanked as an attack page by User:KillerChihuahua), the userfied Erich Heller talkpage and the mainspace Erich Heller talkpage. Most—almost all—of the input on those pages comes from Prof02 himself, and I believe his own words throw more light on his complaint than anything I could say. Bishonen | talk 22:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by uninvolved party Giano

I am surprised to see Bishonen here being described as "The accused" and "the defendant". I do not intend to dig up edits proving that prof02 is an eccentric in the grand manner, and Bishonen's efforts to solve the problem were correct and in good faith, as that is obvious to most. What concerns me is the attitude and statement of Charles Matthews, a member of the arbcom, who was fully aware of how Bishonen was attempting to resolve a difficult situation. Not only was he fully aware - it was his express wish that she do so, as he wanted too avoid the flak himself [61]. Charles Matthews has known of this situation since September, as a member of the arbcom if he felt an injustice was being carried out, it was his duty to speak up about it. He has not. I do wonder how it is that a member of the arbcom can invite an admin to resolve a problem - sit back silently while they do so, and then when the problem arrives here announce "I played no part at all in the manoeuvres described".

After all the talk of "the accused" and "the defendant" at the end of the day there is no crime committed here by an admin unless dishonourable and disappointing behaviour by a member of the arbcom is a crime. The case should not be accepted because there is no case, but I do hope Charles Matthews is feeling a little shame-faced. Giano 20:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comment by Uninvolved User:Newyorkbrad

The use of the word "defendants" was in the template for new cases and has been changed after I pointed this out (see talk). On the merits of the case, I recommend speedy rejection. This is an unfortunate situation, because Prof02 may have good subject-matter knowledge to add to the encyclopedia, but he appears to have difficulty with the concept of collaborative editing and has now become focused almost exclusively on the idee fixe of who moved Erich Heller into mainspace and why. Newyorkbrad 20:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the use of "defendant" in the template. Sorry about that. Fred Bauder 22:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Uninvolved user, user:Geogre

For clarity's sake, I should like to reassure myself and others that, while this was brought on behalf of Prof02 by Fred Bauder, that the text is from Prof02?

The user wants the block to be overturned. That is not very controversial, although I believe he was blocked after a very long history of misunderstanding the nature of cooperative editing and the GFDL, misunderstanding that led him to increasingly hostile comments that neared paranoia in their disconnect from the reality of the site. The second part, "action be taken" against those who blocked him and locked the talk page, is ill-conceived, nebulous, and without any apparent basis. Prof02's dispute with Wikipedia (because it is, indeed, with Wikipedia) is that he is not allowed to have an article entirely to himself segregated onto his user page, with no sharing and no editing from other people. That is the ultimate form of WP:OWN violation, as well as our general prohibition on people using Wikipedia as a private web host (or text editor). Anyone who has been involved in moving, copying, or editing that one contribution has become an abhorrent figure to Prof02. This, to me, falls well short of the threshhold of ArbCom action.

Prof02 is abusing Wikipedia more than editing it, in my view, although not noisily. He has his own intrasite, it seems, and if he is left as the emporer of it, he will neither be seen nor heard from, but if anyone wishes to make articles of that stuff or take it away, he gets panicked. If he were using his pages for hoaxes or scams, we would have gone to a long block long ago, but the fact is that he uses this private space for research and circumlocutions, and so it looks less noxious, even though it is, fundamentally, the same misuse of services. Geogre 04:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by completely uninvolved User:Ghirlandajo

It takes no arbitration to establish that Wikipedia is free for everyone to edit. Prof02 seems to ignore this basic fact. He hijacked an article for his private ownership and proceeded to edit it in a manner not acceptable for any encyclopaedic project. After the page was restored to mainspace and purged of cruft, he stooped to personal attacks and was blocked from editing. His request for unblocking may be resolved by community on WP:ANI or some other appropriate board. I see no great problem here. It's hard to understand why such a trivial matter should take time and efforts of so many precious contributors and arbitrators to settle it for a considerable period of time that arbitration normally takes. I have interacted with numerous editors who have experienced difficulties in adapting to the norms of behaviour accepted in the project. Some of these have failed to adapt and are currently blocked (User:SuperDeng); others successfully overcame their behavioural problems and evolved into excellent authors (User:Kenmore). Prof02 seems to have selected the first path. Admins from WP:ANI may choose to give him another chance, although I see no compelling reasons why this should be done. In short, I see no arbitration case here and urge ArbCom to move on to tackle some really serious instances of disruption. There are plenty of these around. --Ghirla -трёп- 20:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Sock Puppets and Dynamic IP

Initiated by Arsath at 04:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Yes both parties- defendants are notified Yes - all other involved parties have been notified

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Yes, I posted unblock template in my talk page and got no response. Then I contacted all the admins I know that was also of no use. Arsath 04:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Arsath

My user account Mystìc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was banned indefinitely saying it is a sock puppet account of User:Lahiru_k. Which is not true, this was done due to a checkuser request by user:Elalan, the fact is User:Lahiru_k would have been sock puppeting few accounts but my user account was not a sock puppet account of his/her. I was accused of vandalizing user:Sudharsansn's user page and there is no evidence of it. I want my account unblocked.

Thanks Iwazaki for your support on this. I invited EssJay here as he/she is an experienced wikipedian and I sincerely hoped that he/she'd be able to see light. But if such experienced users are turning a blind eye on the fact it is indeed a very unfortunate situation for wikipedia and the wikipedia community.


Anyway for the benefit of the community I'd like to question the checkuser process itself. If the checkuser process only checks for a persons IP and finds users with similar IP addresses and bans them, there cannot be a graver mistake than that an academic community like the wikipedia can do. I dont know how many of you are technical people but any one who understands basic network principals would know that two people on the net can share the same IP addresses at different times (Because service providers proxy randomly assigns IP addresses from pool of IPs reserved for them and in case of Sri Lanka its a very small number of IPs) . As Iwazaki has pointed out third world countries like Sri Lanka do not have many service providers and the number of internet users are also very limited. And the chance of many sharing the same IP address is very high.


The other point is the user Mystic has more than 700 edits to his credit and out of which less than twenty would've been related terrorism in Sri Lanka.


The third point is that I am a Muslim and to call my self a budhist even as a joke is against my faith. I wouldn't dishonor my faith even for my life.


The fourth point I'd like to make is that I stayed away from wikipedia because of some disputes on Template:Islam and wanted to take a brake. But after returning wikipedia has just stressed me out more. If you care to notice my contributions I have done quite a number of beautiful templates. Most are Islam related and the smiley template. Arsath 16:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another important point to be noted here is I didn't invite any of the users to Arbcomm in Bad faith.. I just want to prove that I am not Lahiru_k thats it.. 222.165.182.205 17:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Signing again after login Arsath 17:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have not brought in any uninvolved parties here..most of you are involved.. Simply because most of you have bad faith in me which is not correct, I have not brought in a single user who didn't list me as a sockpuppet with the exception of Essjay, Snowolfd4 and Lahiru_k (who actually is the puppet master). Of course I dont have bad faith in any of you..Its just the process you followed to block me I want to question.. Arsath 15:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment how could you be so blind to all the things going around you! I have opened this arbcomm case to prove that my account is not a sockpuppet account of Lahiru_k.. I just dont care whether he/she is a puppet master or not my account was blocked unfairly as a sockpuppet account. Please try to understand the point I am trying to make. Arsath 15:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesnt look good at all My pleads have only fallen on deaf ears.. Its okay.. I am leaving wikipedia for good and I have lost all faith in the procedures of wikipedia. When I first started contributing to wikipedia I was really thrilled and thought there is a system that will allow the common man to reveal the truth without censorship to the whole world, but now it seems wikipedia is now being ruled by prejudists, who only think what they do, what they say is final and there is nothing beyond there verdict. And now I am shamed of my self for being part of a system that is as corrupt and prejudice as all the other forums and most of all I am utterly disappointed that I wasted my precious time on this. Wikipedia still may be a good source of information for highly technical and complicated subjects especially where morons who cannot even understand how the internet works, cannot contribute and dispute facts. But on social and current affairs I have no hope on wikipedia, where any majority can get together and twist the facts and if opposed get a person banned or label him/her as a sockpuppet. And wikipedia's Checkuser process is the dumbest procedure the system has. Anyway thanks a lot for at least commenting on my case. I have lot more productive things than this to use my time. Arsath 09:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Daniel.Bryant

It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to clarify Checkuser results, nor to process an unblock request. I fail to see how anyone's behaviour needs to be examined (everybody acted appropriately, given the evidence, and hence no user conduct needs to be examined), and hence this isn't suitable for Arbitration. In addition, the user has presented a grand total of 0 evidence possibly explaining how the Checkuser results came back that way, other than the obvious one. I also fail to see how I'm listed as a party, given I had near-enough zero input into this, and none of my actions even bordered on infringing any of the behaviour-related policies. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 04:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And a further point: unless the applicant can demonstrate how I was involved in this case (other than acting in my role as a RFCU clerk in tagging the userpage and processing the checkuser request through its' stages of positioning, clarification and archiving - which is an impartial position, see the clerks guide linked from the clerks page), I am going to will consult with Arbitrators and AbrCom clerks about having them remove my name from the list of parties. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 04:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extension of statement by Daniel.Bryant in response to Fred's accept statement below
Um, is it really needed to run through the whole arbitration process to "to attempt to clarify questions"? The only question here is whether the checkuser results are applicable, and given there is no behavioural queries presented by the applicant (that's because there is no bad behaviour :P), it is of my opinion (which, I acknowledge, doesn't mean much beside a one-year ArbCommer on the face of things) that an extended RFCU, where there is a little bit of interaction between the checkusers and the applicant over explinations etc., would achieve the same goal. Fred, if you were referring to other questions by your acceptance statement, strike this and ignore it; I made this assumption on the basis that the applicant only requests an unblock as checkuser were faulty, so I assume that was the question you were alluding to. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 22:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Essjay

My only involvement here was to clarify an aspect of the checkuser request that was deemed uncertain, and responding to posts by Arsath on my talk page requesting intervention into the matter. Like Daniel, I fail to see how I'm a party to the matter; I didn't block Arsath, and provided direction in line with the established dispute resolution proceedure when asked. My advice to him was to begin with the {{unblock}} template, take the matter to ANI, and if that did not prove fruitful, to request the Arbitration Committee review the block in it's appeals capacity. I can find no evidence that the matter was ever taken to AN or ANI, and I belive filing for arbitration is premature in light of this. Further, listing a large number of uninvolved editors as parties is in bad taste and bad faith. Urge the Committee to direct the matter to AN/ANI for community resolution, and coach the individual on the meaning of "involved parties". Essjay (Talk) 05:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Sudharsansn

To begin with, I would like to be removed from this ArbComm because I have not accused this specific/supposed sockpuppet account User:Mystic of vandalizing my page but the accusations were all directed against the puppetmaster User:Lahiru_k and in this process it has been revealed that along with five other sockpuppets of Lahiru_k this user Mystic is one and has been created for the purpose of votestacking in the TfD for Sri Lankan state terrorism template. User:Mystic has not vandalized my page but a userid similar to that of mine, namely User:Snsudharsan was created and it had vandalized my page and another username, namely that of User:Snowolfd4 was in my page issuing a death threat to all Tamilians!! However, I do have a few points to make:

1). How can this useraccount User:Mystìc claim ignorance about all this when it has been clearly confirmed through the checkuser procedure that this profile along with many others are only fake profiles of the puppetmaster User:Lahiru_k as he himself has accepted it and put it up in his userpage, that he indeed was the puppetmaster.

2). I somehow strongly feel that this is only some kind of a joke being played here, because the puppetmaster himself has agreed that these are his own sockpuppets, and the checkuser procedure has also confirmed that this account is only a sockpuppet, so why does this profile even argue at all? For all we know, we might still be talking to Lahiru_k!!

3). Either there is a flaw in the checkuser procedure, which confirmed that Mystic is only a sockpuppet of Lahiru_k; or this ArbComm negotiation is being taken for a ride by the puppetmaster of these accounts. Thanks Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 06:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You really don't have to get furious about anything at all To begin with I don't know why I was dragged into this at all. If you have a point please put it forth to the admins and they can sort it out. Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 15:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RaveenS

I don’t know why I have been made a party to this, I was informed of this by another party not directly. The only comment I have is that all the puppets involved and further suspected of the who ever is the puppet master have different ethnic profiles mostly from Sri Lanka or India. One is an Indian and Tamil and male and Hindu, another Sri Lankan, Tamil and Christian, another Sri Lankan and Muslim and male another Sri Lankan and Buddhist and male another Sri Lankan Buddhist and female. The list is endless; I really don’t know how many sock puppets this puppet master has created. It either represents a character flaw or genuine mistake by a young man/woman caught in the emotions of the situation and a lack of knowledge both cultural and personal about the rule of law that governs Wikipedia. If this is a character flaw he/she should be banned for life. If it is a mistake then he/she should ask for forgiveness and get one as he/she seems to be a good editor. Just my thoughts 14:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


Statement by iwazaki

Though my name is not mentioned here, i would like add a few comments regarding this matter.
I would appreciate if the administrators ,take a very good look at all the contributions made by the Mystìc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)and Lahiru_k (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).None of which carry any genuine similarities .If all these accusations are based on the simple fact that Mystic and lahiru share same type of signature, then i would say the whole accusation a violation of wiki policy of sharing knowledge.OR if these allegations are based on the fact that ,they share a very similar IP, then I would like to point out that the most of the IPs issued by SLT, the leading internet provider(only broadband provider/Such as ADSL,ISDN) in Sri Lanka ,are look similar. So, many internet users in Sri Lanka ,may have very similar IPs ,simply due to that fact.Therefore,to assume everyone, is a sockpuppet of someone, and taking their right to contribute to wikipedia, is very unfortunate and should be corrected immediately.

And even the other alleged sockpuppets may well belong to genuine wikipedians ,who may have been unfairly blocked due the reasons i stated above.So,i strongly recommend Administrators to re-check the whole process and undo any unfair blocks.thank you --Iwazaki 15:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dmcdevit

I performed a CheckUser after an RFCU request, and gave the results. As is typical, I made the technical report, without regard to behavior patterns, and left it to the administrators to decide what to do about it, taking all evidence into account. If a block is disputed, it may be discussed on WP:ANI or a similar forum. This request skips all dispute resolution. Besides which, I invite any arbitrators with CheckUser to double check my findings. Dmcdevit·t 18:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Srikeit

My only involvement here is the actual blocking action which when was completely based on the checkuser results posted on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Snsudharsan by Dmcdevit. These results were brought to my attention by my fellow checkuser clerk Daniel.Bryant on IRC. It was specifically stated that Mystìc (talk · contribs) was the same as Lahiru k (talk · contribs) and as an admin-clerk, I enforced the results. From my relatively long experience in checkuser clerking, I explicitly trust the judgement and intentions of all the checkusers especially Dmcdevit and Essjay who, along with Mackensen, have handled almost all of the checkuser cases at WP:RFCU so far this year. Like Daniel has said above it is definitely not the role of the Arbitration Committee to clarify checkuser results or process unblock requests. Without any prior attempt at dispute resolution, this RFArb perfectly fits into that category. I, thus urge the Arbitration Committee to reject this case. --Srikeit 20:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Snowolfd4

To his defence I believe Mystìc posted the names of everybody involved in this incident in the "involved parties" section, and not just those who he thinks may have made a mistake. I also think the reason he requested arbitration was fact that Dmcdevit did not reply to the questions both me and Mystìc posted on his talk page.

Maybe Dmcdevit should have been given more time to go over the matter and I don't know if it is premature to seek arbitration, but in any case, since I have been listed here, I will provide my opinion on this matter, which is a copy of what I posted on Dmcdevit's talk page 2 days ago.

Hey Dmcdevit, about the checkuser case for User:Snsudharsan [63], the procedure has judged that a number of users Psivapalan, Sri119, Mama007, Mystìc and Ajgoonewardene to be socks of User:Lahiru_k. I'm pretty sure that's not the case. Looking at the contributions of User: Mystìc [64] and User:Lahiru_k [65], they seem quite different and their contributins are on varied topics. Even User:Ajgoonewardene and User:Mama007's edits don't seem to be related, apart from the TFD vote.
What I think has happened is this. There is currently only one broadband ISP in Sri Lanka called SLT, and they do not issue static IPs to subscribers. Everytime a subscriber connects, a different IP is issued (like AOL I believe). The WHOIS result for the IP Mystìc used to request unblocking says the status of the IP is "ALLOCATED PORTABLE" and the SLT website says they issue Dynamic IPs [66]. And from what I know, SLT has only a small pool of IPs they assign to their customers.
I'm not entirely sure how checkuser works, but if it checks the IPs from which the users have edited and compares them to see if they are similar, it could well be that it has judged everyone who was assigned a similar IP at one time or other to be sockpuppets of Lahiru_k. And therefore everyone who uses SLT may be may have been banned as sockpuppets.
So can you plase check into this, and make sure whether they really are socks of Lahiru_k? Thanks.

--snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 06:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Sudharsansn

I would like to add a small note here. It should be noted that most of them in this ArbComm, including myself aren't involved in this at all. I was dragged into this as my name was mentioned here without my knowledge and furthermore Arsath had left a message in my userpage eventhough I really do not have nothing to do with this account.

Seeing other comments from users who aren't also involved in this debate/issue, it seems to be only a strong case of votestacking in favor of another Sri Lankan, whom they support vociferously.

As explained above by other admins, I really do not think if this comes under the scope of ArbComm at all as I am able to understand this process by referring to the other cases. My humble suggestion would be to see if the checkuser procedure has been implemented properly in this case, and if so, maintain the current stand on this issue and reject this case!! Thanks Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 07:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lahiru_k

Yeah ok here I am. This is what I want to say. I don't know anything about Mystìc or any of these other so called sockpuppets of mine. There has been a huge mistake here even if everyone accepts it or not. If it is because of the IPs that me and the other users including Mystìc have been suspected as being sockpuppets of mine, then that is the biggest mistake done in the checkuser procedure. I too do not like to talk about what has gone wrong with the IPs here. According to Snowolfd4 and others, I also think that there has been some confusion regarding the IPs as the IP pool of the Sri Lanka Telecoms' is very small. If you suspect every user who logs in through SLT as a sockpuppet of mine, what would ultimately happen is there would be no contributions to wikipedia from the Sri Lankan users. Anyone could see that there is a big difference between my contributions and the contributions of Mystìc (Arsath). The primary target of him, as he had said, creating articles about Sri Lankan muslim community. And mine is, creating articles on the Sri Lankan civil war and reverting vandalism. According to my knowledge, Mystìc has done a lot of contributions in wikipedia. I too have created more than 25 articles since september 2006. I can provide evidence if there is any requirement to match my contributions against Mystìc's contributions.

Wikipedia is a great place where one shares its knowledge with others. And as a wikipedian, i strongly believe in this.So, what ever i create, can be used by others and vice versa. Since, i thought user mystics signature was an excellent peice of work, i my self wanted to have it as mine too. And by doing that,i have not broken any of the wiki rules.

And if i am accused because of the similarities in our signatures,then i must say this is unfair.And sincerely hope that the admins will give a further look into this matter and undone block as soon as possible.

I have no idea about this checkuser procedure and how we got involved in this. But there is one thing clear to me, it's really unfair on Mystic's side and mine and also some other users' as well. Some people here are trying to keep us in the same situation that we are today without even helping us to get out of the mess. The user Snsudharsan want to blame his user page vandalism on me which I have no idea why. I hope the other user who are involved in this checkuser procedure (blocked users) will come here, as user Iwazaki had invited them to this ArbComm case. I hope they will all come here and help in solving this issue. I have one last thing to say. There is no connection between me and Mystìc. I am prepared to do anything to unblock Mystìc and other users who have been affected by this. I am ready to face anything regarding this matter even with my busy schedule as I have mentioned in my user page due to which I took a some more time to keep a message here. Thank You!!! Lahiru k Temp 05:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC) (Lahiru_k 05:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Clerk notes

Threaded dialog has been removed. Please only edit within your own section. Thank you. Thatcher131 15:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requests for clarification

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


The following was copied from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone#Sources for popular culture to Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Popular culture and fiction some time ago:

[...] when a substantial body of material is available [...] the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included.

Some questions have risen as to the interpretation of that phrase ("can't work out what it's trying to say" [67]). Could the arbitrators clarify what the above sentence means? Or would they say the sentence should be clear in its context (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone#Sources for popular culture)? --Francis Schonken 22:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In order to keep the discussions on a single spot, may I ask the Arbitrators to post their clarifications at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Unclear sentence? Tx! --Francis Schonken 10:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LaRouche again

I've blocked ManEatingDonut (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for violation of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche, which says "Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense." See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche#Enforcement.

ManEatingDonut was warned on Oct 23 about reinserting LaRouche material, [68] and took part in a request for clarification on this page about it. [69] Despite the warning, on Nov 18, he removed the redirect of Eurasian Land-Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to Asian Highway Network and twice reinserted a LaRouche-related text. The Eurasian Land-Bridge is a name that some people use for parts of the Asian Highway, so the title is redirected there. However, it's also a name used for a more complex idea that LaRouche claims is his. Herschelkrustofsky/Weed Harper wrote the original article that included LaRouche's views; [70] it was redirected to Asian Highway Network in September 2004. The text was restored and rewritten a little by NathanDW, [71] another LaRouche supporter, on October 31, 2006; reverted by Will BeBack; restored by ManEatingDonut on Nov 18; [72] reverted by SlimVirgin; restored by ManEatingDonut on Nov 22. [73]

I've blocked him for 24 hours for the repeated re-insertion, but I'd like to make the block indefinite. He has made 186 edits since August, almost all promoting LaRouche. He has edited logged out (acknowledging that it was him) and used the same AOL IP range 172.192.0.0 - 172.194.0.0 that Herschelkrustofsky/WeedHarper used. There's no firm evidence that it's the same person, but I believe he may be from the same LaRouche group in Los Angeles. As any proposed ban needs to be confirmed by the ArbCom, I'm asking here for your thoughts. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. Jayjg (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good call. Both user:ManEatingDonut and user:NathanDW have followed almost the exact footsteps of User:Herschelkrustofsky, including the same aggressive promotion of LaRouche that got HK into trouble. NathanDW says he's independent of the LaRouche movement but his single-minded edit history belies his claim. Both of these editors appear to be sock or meat puppets of HK, and both should be banned indefinitely based on the previous ArbCom decisions, including Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2#Sockpuppet abuse: "Herschelkrustofsky is restricted to one account for editing. All other accounts showing the same editing patterns are to be blocked indefinitely." -Will Beback · † · 10:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Righteous Fred Bauder 21:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the responses. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that no one thought to notify me of this. I left a note on SlimVirgin's talk page asking her to warn me if she thought I was violating an arbcom decision, preferably before blocking me rather than afterward. I made my views on LaRouche clear to the only person who asked me, at User talk:Astor Piazzolla. It is wrong to accuse me of "promoting LaRouche" when I have added almost no material to these articles -- I have only opposed edits that I thought were biased, or looked up sources and added them when sources were requested. As far as those other people are concerned (Herschelkrustofsky, etc.) I became aware of them for the first time when I discovered the talk page of Eurasian Land-Bridge. Apparently there was a lot of conflict between them and SlimVirgin and Will Beback. I have no interest in reviving that conflict, and it is unfair to somehow involve me in it.

I came to this page tonight to ask further clarification. The arbcom decision that I have read says "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles." This is now being interpreted by editors at the article Lyndon LaRouche to include the article Lyndon LaRouche as well, and material is being removed such as a quote from Eugene McCarthy that appeared in an EIR interview, or in this case, a quote from Mexican President Lopez Portillo. Since the arbcom decision explicitly says "other than the article Lyndon LaRouche," I would like to know if you think that this behavior is justified. --ManEatingDonut 07:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I also ask a question here? I read the arbcom decision, and I can find no explanation for the ban on the use of EIR as a source. EIR has been published continuously for over 30 years, and is included in the Google News feeds. Is there any evidence that there have been factual errors in EIR? Has EIR ever been sued for libel? If not, why is EIR being singled out for special exclusion? --Tsunami Butler 22:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo

Although not provided for in the penalties, I have indefinitely blocked Terryeo as described at [74]. The reasons amount to malicious and targetted harassment of users as part of his unabandoned quest to advance his POV on Scientology. Phil Sandifer 18:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the necessity of this, but would not say ab initio that you have abused your discretion. Terreo does fine on Wikinfo, but our expectations are quite different. Fred Bauder 16:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your link doesn't seem to work. Jayjg (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correct link is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive62#Terryeo blocked. The edits in question [75] and [76] link to a site that tracks the activities of Scientology critics. Thatcher131 02:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The block looks good to me. Charles Matthews 22:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)


Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=91142345"