Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Denis Diderot (talk | contribs) at 17:42, 28 August 2006 (→‎Statement by [[User:Denis Diderot|Denis Diderot]]: fix links). 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
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 none (orig. case) 13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 13 May 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

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

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

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

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

See also



How to list cases

Under the Current requests section below:

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

Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template

Current requests

Gillberg affair

Initiated by Daphne A at 08:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Christopher_Gillberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • Denis Diderot: [1]
  • Pia L: [2]
  • Fred Chess: [3]
  • Article Talk (unrequired, but perhaps helpful): [4]


Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

I requested mediation on August 1st, both on the Talk page of the main article[5] and on the Talk page of Denis Diderot.[6] At this point, User:Fred Chess intervened, protecting the article and putting up a Request for Comment.[7] On August 10th, there had been no real progress and little substantive responses to my statements from Denis Diderot; so Fred Chess removed the protection.[8] There were more edit wars; and as before, discussion on the Talk page resolved little. On August 19th, I again asked the other parties to agree to mediation.[9] At this point, User:SandyGeorgia got involved, making some suggestions about how to resolve the dispute, which also had little success. I repeated my request to agree to mediation on August 23rd.[10] Denis Diderot made no response to this, though he did afterwards respond to other issues (raised by another editor) on the Talk page;[11] so he must have seen my request. Pia L did respond to my request: she claimed that there was "no dispute" and she then removed the POV sticker from the article.[12] In conclusion, my repeated requests to agree to mediation have either been ignored or treated rhetorically. (Many of the points that I raised on the Talk page were met similarly.)


This dispute pertains to the article Christopher Gillberg and two daughter articles: Gillberg's Gothenburg study and DAMP.

Statement by Daphne A

BACKGROUND. Christopher Gillberg is a psychiatrist in Sweden. He did a study of 141 children, which lasted many years. (The study suggested increasing the use of psychiatric drugs on children.) Gillberg was alleged to have fabricated much of the data in the study. The study data contains personal, private information about the children, and Gillberg had made promises to all concerned that it would remain confidential. A court, though, ordered Gillberg to make the data available to the two people who made the allegations. Gillberg's wife and two other co-workers then destroyed the data, saying that they had acted to maintain confidentiality. Investigation of the allegations was thereafter infeasible.
____________________

Briefly, I am asserting that the versions of the articles written by Denis Diderot and Pia L have an excessively-positive POV. There are many things in the articles that exemplify this. I list only a few examples here.

1. The articles Christopher Gillberg and Gillberg's Gothenburg study each claim that the "accusations [of data fabrication] were investigated by the Ethics Council" at Gillberg's university. This claim has also been made in the media. Because of that, the four people who were on the Council at the time published a letter (in 2005) saying "the question about scientific fraud never has been investigated". The letter also explicitly criticized those people who said otherwise. Thus, the claim in the Wikipedia article is false. (More details about what the Ethics Committee did and did not do is here. How Denis Diderot and Pia L talk their way around this is here.)

2. The fraud allegations, data destruction, etc. have come to be called the "Gillberg affair" in Sweden; there have tens of stories in the major newspapers, TV programs, etc. about this. The affair has also been the subject of two stories in the British Medical Journal. Gillberg has not received anywhere near such extensive media coverage for anything else. Thus, if someone outside Gillberg's field of research in psychiatry has heard of Gillberg, the affair is what very likely sparked their interest. For that reason, the Introduction of the article on Christopher Gillberg should discuss the affair. The current Intro states only that "Gillberg is also known for his concern about the confidentiality of medical records and his role in a related controversy"; that seems to me to be far too bland and extremely-positive POV. Compare that with the above BACKGROUND paragraph, or the last paragraph of the Intro that I wrote here.

3. Gillberg was awarded a prize for his work (Philips prize). The prize was awarded in part because Gillberg is "well-known in promoting important medical ethical questions in order to defend patients' and participants' personal integrity rights in regard to research studies" (quoted from the official prize announcement). This is a clear reference to Gillberg's refusal to allow the study data to be investigated. Gillberg was later criminally convicted (by a Swedish court) for refusing to hand over the data. I believe that if the article is going to mention the prize, then it should also mention the reasons for which the prize was awarded (the other reason was his work generally in neuropsychiatry and pediatric psychiatry). Denis Diderot and Pia L do not want the quoted reason mentioned in the article. I have tried to discuss this issue in Talk more than once; see especially the discussion here.

4. The article states that "When the study participants were asked if they would be prepared to have the data released, all but one family refused" and that "the participants of the study were strongly opposed" to investigation. Again there is more to this. Gillberg told the participants that if they agreed to the investigation, then all their personal data would become public, and so available to reporters, their worst enemies, etc. Of course participants would be against that. But Gillberg was misleading: the court actually authorized only two people to scrutinize the data, and those people would have been required to sign confidentiality agreements. I pointed this out in Talk.[13] If the article is going to mention what the study participants thought of making the data available, then what Gillberg misleadingly told them should be described. (I did not try to make the requisite change to the article, because by this time it was clear that such a change would be quickly reverted; the false reply that I got in Talk[14] essentially confirmed this.)

5. Gillberg has also done much work on things other than his Gothenburg study. In particular, he developed the concept of "DAMP". The main article has a short section on this. I have written a separate article on DAMP; the last version that I saved is here. The impression given by the main article is that DAMP is an important advance in psychiatry. As my version of the separate article makes clear, that impression has been agreed to by almost no one other than Gillberg's co-workers and is seriously misleading.

I could give other examples, especially because changes to entrench the POV have been accumulating while I requested agreement to mediation (particularly during the past few days), but this statement is already long. My purpose here is to establish that the other parties are trying for an extreme POV. I believe that the above does so.

—Daphne A 08:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Someone has pointed out to me that ArbCom does not resolve disputes over content. Before filing my request, I read Requests for arbitration/How to present a case which states that ArbCom cares "much more about product than process". I am not a newbie, but neither am I an expert Wikipedian, and I interpreted "product" as meaning article; for that reason I worded my request to focus on the article/content.

But I am confused. Consider example 1 in my statement (where the article claims that an investigation was done, but the people who supposedly did it published a letter saying that they didn't). So I changed the article to say they didn't. My change got reverted. And again. Discussion on the Talk page lead nowhere. A RfComment lead nowhere. My repeated requests to agree to mediation were ignored or rejected. So how can the dispute be resolved?

Example 2 is similar: edit wars, etc., and requests to agree to mediation ignored or rejected. (For links to evidence regarding mediation requests, see above section "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried".) Again, how can the dispute be resolved?

Example 3 is similar. Example 4 did not have an edit war, because by this time I saw little point. For example 5, I did not try much.

Perhaps two other examples will help illustrate.

6. For Gillberg's Gothenburg study, Denis Diderot added many unsourced statements. I reverted the change [04:41, 23 August 2006], and politely explained in Talk that the statements needed sources [15]. Denis then reverted my revert, and ignored what I had said in Talk.

7. A question arose as to whether the Swedish term Etiska rådet should be translated as "Ethics committee" or "Ethics council". I preferred the former and explained why in Talk.[16] Again my change got reverted and what I said in Talk was wholly ignored.

These examples are smaller, but part of the pattern.

—Daphne A 20:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Denis Diderot

The dispute began when I saw some potentially defamatory claims in the article about Christopher Gillberg. The claims were contradicted by the sources and appeared to be false. I therefore removed them immediately per WP:BLP.[17] I thought it was a simple mistake, but the other editor, Daphne A, restored the claims. After a very brief discussion,[18][19][20][21] Daphne accused me of being "dishonest" and began talking about "mediation/arbitration".[22]. I tried to break down the argument into separate issues to make discussion more fruitful.[23]. Daphne A would not continue the discussion at this point and stated that she requested mediation/arbitration.[24]Fred Chess intervened and urged Daphne A to continue the discussion.[25]. She appeared to reconsider.[26].

Unfortunately, during this time, Daphne kept adding the same claims to the lead.[27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] (The last two reverts were probably not by Daphne herself). I asked for a temporary protection[36], but Fred Chess independently protected the article before anyone had responded to my request.

In order to resolve the dispute Fred Chess put up a request for comment [37] [38] This didn't help much, but after some time, we received input from two editors who had not previously been involved, Pia L and SandyGeorgia. They were both very helpful.

A difficulty is that Daphne disagrees with other editors about even simple things, such as whether a press release is a press release, and she often has her own interpretation, not only of what the sources say, but also of fundamental Wikipedia policies. I have tried various approaches in the discussion, but they have all failed with Daphne saying things like "I don't think this line of discussion is productive"[39] or not replying at all. This makes it rather challenging to work with her, but I had still hoped that we could resolve the issues on the talk page. (See the discussion on the talk page and here)

Almost all Daphne's edits to these articles have introduced criticism of Gillberg. Some of the claims have been false, some misleading, and some merely unbalanced. In order to deal with all the issues in an NPOV manner, Fred Chess suggested that we create a new article for the debates and controversies. Unfortunately, none of us have had the time to do much work on this other article yet. Since Daphne sees her extremely negative view as the view with "integrity", she apparently feels that other editors are biased and "have an excessively-positive POV". Looking at the history of the talk page and other factors, it seems that Leif Elinder and Daphne A are trying to use Wikipedia to continue Elinder's "campaign" against Gillberg. Perhaps this need not be a problem if they respect basic Wikipedia policies. But I'm a bit pessimistic right now.--Denis Diderot 17:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 3

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

Statement by party 4

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

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Reject. I don't see any evidence that this has gone beyond a debate over content. - SimonP 18:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject as per Simon. James F. (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept for investigation of possible NPOV violation. Fred Bauder 15:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Gathering

Initiated by Oceankat at 17:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

  • I will post on the user's talk pages as well as the Rainbow Gathering discussion page.
  • There is an unresolved disagreement and edit war occuring over the additions of several gatherings by to the list of National/Annual Rainbow Gatherings.

Statement by oceankat

  • Several gatherings have been added to the list of National/Annual Rainbow Gatherings by Lookingheart (talk · contribs). Lookingheart (talk · contribs) has stated in discussion that next year he intends to add more. Most of my attempts at discussion before informal mediation were ignored by lookingheart as well as most of my posts during informal mediation. Lookingheart refused formal mediation. Without arbitration I see no way to end this edit war. These gatherings are not National but small local gatherings. The National Gatherings have 10,000 to 25,000 people in attendance, Lookiingheart's additions have maybe 200. There have been several hundred similar and larger local, regional, or alternative gatherings over the last 34 years. These rainbow gatherings, which have been called "a gathering of the tribes" or AGOTT or among the newest and the smallest of the expansions or alternatives. I could easily list over a hundred on the east coast that have been in existance far longer than AGOTT and have the same or much greater attendance. I'm sure those on the west coast could list twice that. If lookingheart's gatherings are listed then any equavalent gathering can be listed and eventually would be. Every little local gathering of 25 people as well as gatherings that have never happened before with no reasonable expectation that it even will occur. Often on rainbow calanders people would list gatherings that were only a wish and a dream but the energy never manifested to pull it off. The article would be flooded with trivia as well as non-factual information, ie. gatherings listed that will not occur. I have seen no independant verification of these gatherings. No newspaper articles. No discussion on rainbow websites with reports from the gathering. While its rumored maybe 200 people were at the Mossouri AGOTT, I have no rumors at all about the WV AGOTT lookingheart listed and all requests for information before and during informal mediation were ignored. I can't with any assurance state that the gathering even occured or that anyone besides the few focalizers showed up. The WV AGOTT was clearly in violation of wikipedia guidelines concerning the posting of future events. In my opinion, no alternative gatherings should be listed, not even the florida annual which has had annual gatherings for over 20 years. None are sufficiently notable and the difficulty of manufacturing a standard to include some and exclude others is nearly impossible. Yet if we were to craft a standard any standard for inclusion would have to exclude AGOTT as it is the among the smallest and newest of the expansions and any standard that included it would include all gatherings that have ever occured or will occur. Oceankat 18:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bstone

I hope some thoughts from me might be helpful. I fully admit I have been in a constant edit war with Lookingheart regarding the listing of National/Annual Rainbow Gatherings. I attempted to work out these issued by participating in informal mediation located at Talk:Rainbow Gathering. One will see there that various Administrators attempted to work through the process. While I admit I was not the most open minded, I was willing to compromise on some issues. Lookingheart, however, was entirely unagreeable to any form of compromise. As a result, information mediation failed.

After informal mediation failed, a request for formal mediation was put in. This request failed due to Lookingheart's utter refusal to participate in the mediation attempt. This can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/rainbow gathering.

As a result of this I put in a request to have the page fully protected, even from myself, until this arbitration process could proceed.

It should be noted that Lookingheart has made some striking and entirely basless accusations against myself. On the request for mediation page he likened my response to "Nazi tactics" and "detract from your earning concerning your personal Paypal account for what you call a CALM Unit", referring to the free, volunteer medical team which sets up shop at the Rainbow Gathering and alleging I embezzle donated funds for my own purpose. This is undeinabley false for a variety of reasons which I shall not get into there. This does, however, paint the picture of Lookingheart as someone who is incredibly difficult to work with, unwilling to accept impartial mediation and alleging actual legal crimes without any sort of proof.

I do hope that this arbitration process can proceed and investigate all the various infractions and settle this issue, once and for all. Bstone 12:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved User:JzG

I have looked into this and find that Lookingheart's contributions in mainspace are restricted almost exclusively to this subject (the single exception being to create an article on Cottman Transmission, which contradicted some of the information in AAMCO, and to link a single local franchise of Cottman in both the aforementioned articles. Make of that what you will).
So, to all intents and purposes, Lookingheart is a single-purpose account, and the sole proponent of adding these minor local gatherings to the Rainbow Gathering article. At this point I guess we could go one of two ways: Lookingheart could be banned from the Rainbow Gathering article, in the hope that he begins to contriute content in other areas, or he could be politely shown the door as having demonstrated obstinate refusal to accept the way Wikipedia works. Just zis Guy you know? 13:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2

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

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Reject, local Rainbow Gatherings don't belong in a list of the national Gatherings. I suggest an article on local Gatherings. Fred Bauder 14:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC) On looking at the contributions I see this is about A Gathering of the Tribes, not about local gatherings. If A Gathering of the Tribes will not support its own article it should not hijack the Rainbow Gathering article to publicize its Gatherings. Fred Bauder 14:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. Mainly a content dispute. - SimonP 18:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject as a content dispute. James F. (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Request for Clarification on Arbitrators Decision

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

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

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

This is entirely disheartening. A case is brought before the ArbCom specifically and solely because mediation failed and an edit war would simply continue. Based on the fact that mediation failed entirely because one of the warring parties (Lookingheart) entirely ignored and rejected all attempts at official mediation, I can see no benefit in ArbCom rejecting the case, removing the page protection and "evaluating" the situation. Is there no mechanism in Wikipedia to resolve such disputes? Bstone 14:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If he starts edit warring again I will block him. Any administrator could have done that. That is why the request is being rejected; there is no substantial issue to consider. Fred Bauder 14:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MyWikiBiz

Initiated by Cyde Weys at 14:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Involved parties and confirmations
MyWikiBiz
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
ArbCom is the only kind of dispute resolution that is liable to work in this instance.

MyWikiBiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been writing and influencing articles on Wikipedia on a contract basis for pay.

Statement by Cyde Weys

MyWikiBiz is admittedly writing articles on a for-pay basis. This was noticed and he was briefly blocked and then unblocked by Jimbo after he promised that he wasn't going to do anything bad. Well, it appears that he has. Here we see him voting delete in an AFD, saying the subject of the article should have employed him if they wanted an article that should be kept. This reeks of a protection racket. He's also nominated a few other articles about businesses for deletion; one wonders if he did so because he offered to improve their articles for pay and they refused? I believe this case needs to be accepted to establish some sort of precedent about whether such an egregious conflict of interest with the core goals of the project should be tolerated. --Cyde Weys 14:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More stuff to look at: Look at the deleted edits on Gregory Kohs and Gregory J. Kohs. I'm not quite sure what's going on here but User:Thekohser is self-admittedly an alternate account of "MyWikiBiz", and appears also to have been doing some suspicious business-related edits. --Cyde Weys 16:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MyWikiBiz

OFFICIAL STATEMENT: I hope that the Arbitration Committee will review the entire legacy of Conflicts, of PaidEditing, of the threads at WikiEN-l and of Options (which took quite some time and effort on my part, to create a fair discussion forum), and weigh the effort and thoughtfulness of those discussions against the three-word reply of "Absolutely unacceptable, sorry" by Jimbo Wales, regarding Conflicts. In light of that, I hope that (a) my most recent juvenile attempts at WP:POINT will be understood as a one-off spurt of activity (where I actually identified some pretty awful non-notable or spam-linked articles, but did so in the wrong way), and that (b) the ArbCom will elect to view this "case" not so much as a means to punish MyWikiBiz, but to address the larger issue of "paid editing" on Wikipedia. The herd of horses is already out of the barn, as evidenced by the Reward Board and by PRSA article. Are Wikipedia admins resolved in attempting to remedy the situation one AfD, one block, and one IP ban at a time? If so, then Wikipedia admins will have a ton of arduous work before them, and the prejudice against MyWikiBiz is going to be insurmountable, anyway, and this "statement" will have been just more wasted time. -- MyWikiBiz 15:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(posted on behalf of MyWikiBiz [40] --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Outside statement by Doc

Jimbo has had some discussion with this editor/firm, and allowed them to edit. That's fine. (I might quibble but his word is final). However, it appears that the editor has breached the guidelines Jimbo set. Further, the conflict of interests means that we shouldn't quite treat this user like any private individual. Since Jimbo is involved, it is difficult for the community to make decisions here. This is new territory. I suggest arbcom accept this case, and confer with Jimbo to firmly establish what is and is not acceptable in these cases. This clearly won't be the last issue like this, so some precedents may be useful here. --Doc 15:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Thatcher131

"You should have used MyWikiBiz" [41] might be an acceptable slogan in commercial advertising but is highly inappropriate on Wikipedia. In additional to the commercial implications, having a paid writer !voting to delete articles about non-clients is an unacceptable conflict of interest. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For what it's worth, MyWikiBiz claims this was a joke on his talk page and has accepted the 7 day ban that resulted from it without further complaint. ---J.S (t|c) 02:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment I agree with Kelly Martin below in all respects. Maybe this should be discussed at WP:ANI instead to solicit support for a community ban on MyWikiBiz nominating or participating in AfD. Morven is essentially correct, but even if the admins ignore him he may sway other participants and his advertising-like comments will still be visible for anyone to see. A community-approved ban on AfD would allow admins to simply blank his contributions rather than having to go through the drama of adding strikeouts and warnings. I hope MWB can see why his participation in AfD is not a good idea in general, even if any specific case was a "joke." Thatcher131 (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JChap

Aside from the comments in the diffs in Cyde's statements, what bothers me about this user is a pattern of participation in AfD, always with respect to business articles. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Technologies he really went to the wall to save an article that I can only assume from the redirects in his contribution history he had written. Is he also going to be allowed to advocate for these articles? In his comments in AfD'd for articles he hasn't written he has a pattern of voting delete' and suggesting that the article could be saved when written differently or by someone unconnected to the company (hint, hint) that go even beyond these two diffs. He also nominates articles (once again, on businesses) that he hasn't written. This is a clear conflict of interest and I doubt it was what was intended when he was allowed to edit. The proper party, either ArbCom or Jimbo Wales (or both), should determine whether this user has acted appropriately in this case. JChap2007 16:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Improv

I would like to suggest that arbcom reject the case and allow an admin to simply permablock the account (or alternatively execute summary judgement and do it themselves). The purpose of the account is unacceptable and outrageous to the community -- similarly, the actions are not something that should be tolerated. This is not a troublesome-but-productive user, nor is it something that can or should go through a RFC. I don't believe there's a basis for arbitration. --Improv 16:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by LinaMishima

To say that The purpose of the account is unacceptable and outrageous to the community would be wrong, as there is currently a healthy discussion on the subject at Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest, started by the community as a reaction to the plans of MyWikiBiz. MyWikiBiz has been fruitfully involved with this process and appears to be willing to accept any consensus reached. However there is, perhaps, an understandable, if somewhat undesirable, impatience to be allowed to get to work. I do not believe that ArbCon is the only solution that would work, however it does have to be said that the purported actions listed above are distinctly non-ethical, and as yet the community discussions on paid editing and related matters have not reached a conclusion as to how to deal with a breach of ethical guidelines. LinaMishima 23:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Phil Sandifer

I am not certain the arbcom has jurisdiction here, since an agreement was reached with Jimbo on this matter. Phil Sandifer 00:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sam Blanning

This is partly but not just a response to Phil Sandifer's comment above. As I understand it, Jimbo's agreement with MyWikiBiz centred on the writing of articles. It did not cover comments in Articles for Deletion discussions. That said, perhaps Jimbo should be asked if he wants to try to extend the scope of his agreement with MyWikiBiz; if he doesn't want to then perhaps there is something for Arbcom.

On reflection, though, I'm not sure there is much. Looked at one way, this is a content dispute. MyWikiBiz is creating articles that some may feel should be deleted, and arguing against their deletion (as he would be expected to). That's a matter for AfD. On the other hand, he's being paid to do so. The conflict of interest there seems to be a 'foundation matter', and if Jimbo has already stepped in perhaps it is in fact beyond Arbcom. Apart from that, we have - well, nothing. As far as I'm aware, MyWikiBiz has started no edit wars over 'his' articles, made no personal attacks, made no legal threats, recreated no deleted articles... The worst we seem to have is his "Should have gone to MyWikiBiz" comment which he claims as a joke - the comment as it stood had a smiley face which has not been included in many of the instances it was quoted. Regardless, he's already apologised and accepted a week's block for it.

Essentially, an Arbcom case would seem to me to boil down to a vote on whether accounts should openly advertise that they are writing articles for money. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Deathphoenix

I believe that Jimbo has jurisdiction here, but if he defers to Arbcom in this case, I would like to make the following statement.

I believe that MyWikiBiz's AfD comments were ill-advised given the sensitivity of his Wikipedia activities, but I do not believe these "first offense" activities deserve a long sanction. Indeed, outside of his AfD activities, I commend MyWikiBiz for being so open and honest about his Wikipedia activities. If every single PR firm and corporate hack were to adhere to his standards, we'd have a lot less vanity and spam articles to nominate, vote, and close in AfD. Whether the current week-long block is appropriate or not, I believe MyWikiBiz is willing to sit out the block as a lesson for a newbie-mistake. I believe he deserves another chance. I'm sure this block has already indicated how serious we take his activities, and he will be more careful with his on-Wikipedia activities as a result. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment of Geo.plrd

I urge the Committee to dismiss and send this case to Jimbo as it involves interpretation of an Act of Jimbo and he has jurisdiction. Geo. 23:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

This might be an opportunity to exercise a little creativity, perhaps by banning MyWikiBiz from AfDing articles or making more than one statement of up to 500 words (allowing updates ot the statement) on any given AfD. Just zis Guy you know? 01:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tyrenius

This needs a strategic solution, as it's going to occur increasingly in the future. The advantage of MyWikiBiz's openness is that we can work with him constructively to achieve articles we want, as well as ones his clients want. Another approach would be to make it known that there should be no stated connection between a business such as his and a user. The user may have been paid, but should present himself as any other user, without making any connection with such a business. He would then be judged as any other user on contributions and conduct. Tyrenius 18:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Stephen B Streater

I would like Arbom to take this case on. It's always good to know the rules before they are enforced, and this could elucidate not just this specific case, but related areas too.

My company has had several offers from professionals to craft a Wikipedia friendly article. Apparently this happens anonymously for many companies. I have always said they are welcome to write an article for fun, but not for money. This always gets a laugh. You can see the combined result of their work at Forbidden Technologies plc. We have hundreds if not thousands of press reports and articles in reliable sources about the company, and I'm sure any article would be informative and accurate.

But looking at it from the other side, having an article about your company is a double edged sword. As Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, we would constantly have to keep an eye out for vandalism. There are similar issues for biographies. Misleading and inaccurate information has the potential to cause real harm to a small company. Perhaps MyWikiBiz could start a business deleting rogue articles about small companies.

I have a more general proposal - articles should have something like AfC, but automated. The biggest risk is not that articles are put up in an imperfect state. Many articles are started by hobbyists/supporters and contain significant bias to start with. The problem arises when there is not enough interest to maintain them. With multiple independent editors, the risks of a rogue article diminish rapidly. Even a single concerned editor can bring others in to check the situation. I would include a warning on those articles with fewer than ten distinct editors in the last twelve months saying: Warning, this article is not highly maintained, or something similar. These articles would then be in a sort of grey zone. No individual or small clique could promote an article to full status on their own. However, a professionally initiated article in a genuinely interesting subject, after being knocked into shape by the community, would gain a life of its own - and would continue to be kept in shape.

I have always been open about my involvement with my company, but even then have got into trouble talking about Video Policy on the Video Policy Talk Page - which turns out to be the wrong area to discuss this subject. The level of paranoia here is quite remarkable to me, even though I am in business. This simple automated solution would tidy up most of the problem articles, leaving only a minority for overworked Admins, and generally allow people to relax and enjoy it here a bit more.

Comment by Kelly Martin

Unlike some people, I have no objection to people being paid to edit Wikipedia. If you can find people to pay you to edit Wikipedia without compromising your obligation as a Wikipedia editor toward NPOV and our other foundational principles, great, more power to you. The problem here is most certainly not that MyWikiBiz is accepting money from people to edit wikipedia. Rather, there are two, not really related issues: first, whether MyWikiBiz's editing practices tend to introduce bias into Wikipedia, and second, whether MyWikiBiz's use of AfD as a forum to advertise his business is inappropriate. I take no position on the first issue, since I haven't researched it. As to the second issue, MyWikiBiz is, in my mind, unquestionably guilty, and he should be forbidden in the clearest of possible terms from doing that.

Paid editors are the least of our problems when it comes to biased editing. Wikipedia is overrun with people who have agendas; most of them are not being paid for their efforts. If anything, the paid editors are the ones who are going to be more careful about bias because they are at least aware of those biases and are able to make the rational decisions to control them. I think it would be a gross mistake for Wikipedia to adopt the principle that paid editors are irreparably biased and categorically unable to edit; we should instead use our established policy that people who are unable to edit without bias for whatever reason will be asked to leave. We would have categorically ban all Eastern European editors long before we got to paid editors, when it comes to groups that are categorically prone to unmanageable bias. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Reject. Either Jimbo thinks his agreement has been broken, in which case it's a straightforward ban; or not, in which case I don't feel things have come to the point where we should be hearing the case. Charles Matthews 14:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. AFD is, famously, 'not a vote', and thus MyWikiBiz' contributions can be ignored by closing admins. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept Fred Bauder 14:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. Agree with Charles. - SimonP 18:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edit to clarify that, while I aree that if this is simply a review of a ban issued by Jimbo it is not our matter, there are also important general concerns with this case. I urge the community to come up with some policies in this area at Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest. - SimonP 00:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject as per Simon. James F. (talk) 09:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Special note from Jimbo: While I advise MyWikiBiz to behave himself in a more courteous and thoughtful manner going forward, I agree that an ArbCom case in this instance is a bit premature. We never have had a proper policy forbidding PR firm from editing Wikipedia, and the exact parameters of that policy are evolving now. I hope we can soon get a good conflict of interest policy.--Jimbo Wales 06:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Requests for clarification

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

Internal spamming/campaigning

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

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


Zeq wikistalking and block count

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

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

Moby Dick's article ban - projectspace?

"Moby Dick is banned from editing articles which concern Turkey or Kurdish issues." [42] Does this include Articles for Deletion discussions related to those issues? Cool Cat believes the diff above is part of a pattern of harrassment on AfDs, according to a post of his on the admins' incidents noticeboard. The simplest way to sort this out in my view would be to confirm whether his article ban does or should cover projectspace pages. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

May an administrator take into account prior behavior?

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

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

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

Comment by User:Netscott

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

I would say that under most circumstances, the day the case closes is the day the restrictions start and the day the behaviour has to change. Why else do we have injunctions? However, if an editor attempts to get their digs in just before a ban, I suspect the committee will be quite willing to extend a ruling. In this case, I think, Karl will either behave - or not - in which case I'm sure the community will ban him quickly. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not comfortable with the notion of judgements being applied retroactively; if the Committee had wanted to ban Karl Meier from editing an article for 3 months, it certainly could have done so as one of its remedies. Jayjg (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've rescinded the ban. On reflection I think this ban was not acceptable to the community. --Tony Sidaway 01:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, certainly, I think that "justice is blind" is not a useful process to use on Wikipedia. Sysops should use their common sense.
James F. (talk) 09:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Karl had not edited on en since 15th, and his only edit since then has been to reply on User talk:Karl Meier that "I don't care. I've lost any serious interest in the project." [43]. He has quit before, though [44], and came back within the month. --Tony Sidaway 19:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to James F., I think I agree. There were other issues of fairness here that convinced me that the ban was seen as too aggressive. --Tony Sidaway 19:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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=72426667"