Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Undid revision 407952529 by Becritical (talk) - please don't do that
Line 85: Line 85:
=== Statement by Peter Cohen ===
=== Statement by Peter Cohen ===
I am of the opinion that there has been a long-term attempt to make Wikipedia treat the fringe view that Shakepseare did not write his own plays with more respect than it deserves. I have occasionally quoted sources such as the ''Oxford Companion to Shakespeare'' in which the fringe view is treated with robust contempt. However I shall confine myself here to quoting the ''[[Literary Review]]'' in which the adherents of one form of the fringe theory have been described as [http://www.literaryreview.co.uk/duncan-jones_04_10.html "currently carpet-bombing Wikpedia"]. I hope that Arbcom will see fit to take steps to defend the encyclopedia from said carpet-bombing.--[[User:Peter cohen|Peter cohen]] ([[User talk:Peter cohen|talk]]) 01:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that there has been a long-term attempt to make Wikipedia treat the fringe view that Shakepseare did not write his own plays with more respect than it deserves. I have occasionally quoted sources such as the ''Oxford Companion to Shakespeare'' in which the fringe view is treated with robust contempt. However I shall confine myself here to quoting the ''[[Literary Review]]'' in which the adherents of one form of the fringe theory have been described as [http://www.literaryreview.co.uk/duncan-jones_04_10.html "currently carpet-bombing Wikpedia"]. I hope that Arbcom will see fit to take steps to defend the encyclopedia from said carpet-bombing.--[[User:Peter cohen|Peter cohen]] ([[User talk:Peter cohen|talk]]) 01:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by Nina Green ===

LessHeard should have opened this with this statement:

:However, there is a sustained and possibly co-ordinated campaign to defame, demean, disparage and discourage all anti-Stratfordian editors of the SAQ article and drive them away so that Tom Reedy and Nishidani, who have both admitted to bias in the editing of the SAQ article (Nishidani terming the authorship controversy 'this ideological mania' and Tom Reedy terming it 'a wacky theory'), can continue to own the article contrary to Wikipedia policy [[WP:OWN]], and prevent any substantive edit being made to the article other than one which Reedy and Nishidani either make themselves or personally sanction. This bias on the part of Nishidani and Tom Reedy motivates them to incessantly subject editors of the SAQ article who are not of their persuasion to personal attacks, defamation, and endless wikilawyering and other forms of harassment designed to drive those editors away from editing the article which are so numerous that it would be impossible to list the literally hundreds of them found on the SAQ Talk page and elsewhere in recent weeks.

Had LessHeard framed the arbitration request in that way, there would have been something to it. Moreover LessHeard should also have mentioned in his framing of the arbitration request that Nishidani has already been banned from numerous Wikipedia pages for personal. Nishidani himself posted this on my Talk page confirming that he is known for his personal attacks:

:Certainly. Happy to oblige. It's becoming a meme round here, to cite that record as proof I am an editwarrior. Smatprt used it first I think. Michael Price does the same regularly on the Ebionism page.Nishidani (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

[[User:NinaGreen|NinaGreen]] ([[User talk:NinaGreen|talk]]) 03:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


=== Clerk notes ===
=== Clerk notes ===

Revision as of 03:12, 15 January 2011

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Shakespeare authorship question   14 January 2011 {{{votes}}}
O Fenian   7 January 2011 {{{votes}}}
[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.

Requests for arbitration



Shakespeare authorship question

Initiated by LessHeard vanU (talk) at 23:11, 14 January 2011 (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 LessHeard vanU

The SAQ article derives from a small but vocal minority of Shakespeare students and occasional academic who hold that the mainstream Literature view that William Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon was the sole or principal author of the works ascribed to him is false, and that there are other better suited candidates for the title. That there is this viewpoint is accepted by Shakespeare scholars, although there is little credence given to the arguments or the other claimants, and it is WP consensus that the article should reflect this.
However, there is a sustained and possibly co-ordinated campaign to have the Wikipedia article reflect the POV of the "anti-Stratfordians"; providing potential authorship candidates (and one in particular presently) an enhanced (preferably equal) standing within the article to that of Shakespeare. This is attempted by use of tendentious editing of the SAQ talkpage, exhaustive Wikilawyering over detail (often while ignoring the substantive issues) during discussions, non consensus edits to the article page - usually by ip's or throwaway accounts, and personal attacks, attempted outing and harassment of those editors who attempt to maintain and explain Wikipedia:Neutral point of view editing of the article.

Examples;

Attempts to resolve these issues by the editors and uninvolved admins has not been successful, in part because new accounts - presenting the same or similar arguments - appear as existing ones (are made to) withdraw. These new accounts, quoting Wiki policy ("Consensus can change" is often cited), require existing editors to concentrate upon making the same good faith responses to the usual points, lest there are claims that process is being flouted or that the points are not able to be countered and that consensus should reflect the presented POV. Other attempts to address concerns regarding behaviour and attitudes of various editors have been met with stonewalling, allegations of (admin) bias, and counter claims upon other editors; there is an almost complete absence of any attempt to engage upon or mitigate inappropriate interaction.
There is a small (and diminishing) core of dedicated contributors trying to maintain Wikipedia:Neutral point of view within a subject against a seemingly inexhaustable group of advocates and pov pushers - there needs to be a proper evaluation by ArbCom and the provision of restrictions which will enable editors to concentrate upon improving the article and deprecate efforts to promote viewpoints. 23:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Moonraker2

Looking at the statement by LessHeard vanU, it is not clear exactly what is complained of nor who is considered to be answerable. I think what is at the heart of this is the suggestion of "a sustained and possibly co-ordinated campaign to have the Wikipedia article reflect the POV of the "anti-Stratfordians" ", but I am not aware of any such a thing and certainly would not be associated with it if it existed. If anyone believes there is such a campaign, then I suggest that further details of how that view was arrived at are needed here at an early stage.

Specific comments

First bullet point "Tendentious editing": this is no more than an assertion, as no detail is provided.

Second bullet point, "Wikilawyering": this offers two astonishingly weak instances and fails to take account of the contexts.

Third bullet point, "Disruptive editing": this refers only to a single edit, by an anonymous user, 67.189.124.240, whose contributions show only that one edit. In my view this cannot be relevant here.

Fourth bullet point, "Personal attacks/harassment": this is highly selective in the "personal attacks" referred to. Those made by the users referred to later as a "core of dedicated contributors" are also at issue.

Fifth bullet point, "Attempted outing": I am unable to comment on this, as one or both of the revisions has been deleted.

In reply to "new accounts - presenting the same or similar arguments - appear as existing ones (are made to) withdraw... a seemingly inexhaustable group of advocates and pov pushers", this seems to me to allege serious misconduct by one or more users, but no detail is provided of which accounts are complained of, nor indeed any details of any pov pushing, so more detail is needed to substantiate these sweeping statements. If LessHeard vanU can identify all users and accounts concerned, it will be clear whether there is a case for individual accounts to be referred for investigation. If not, these remarks may need to be withdrawn.

Moonraker2 (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Peter Cohen

I am of the opinion that there has been a long-term attempt to make Wikipedia treat the fringe view that Shakepseare did not write his own plays with more respect than it deserves. I have occasionally quoted sources such as the Oxford Companion to Shakespeare in which the fringe view is treated with robust contempt. However I shall confine myself here to quoting the Literary Review in which the adherents of one form of the fringe theory have been described as "currently carpet-bombing Wikpedia". I hope that Arbcom will see fit to take steps to defend the encyclopedia from said carpet-bombing.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nina Green

LessHeard should have opened this with this statement:

However, there is a sustained and possibly co-ordinated campaign to defame, demean, disparage and discourage all anti-Stratfordian editors of the SAQ article and drive them away so that Tom Reedy and Nishidani, who have both admitted to bias in the editing of the SAQ article (Nishidani terming the authorship controversy 'this ideological mania' and Tom Reedy terming it 'a wacky theory'), can continue to own the article contrary to Wikipedia policy WP:OWN, and prevent any substantive edit being made to the article other than one which Reedy and Nishidani either make themselves or personally sanction. This bias on the part of Nishidani and Tom Reedy motivates them to incessantly subject editors of the SAQ article who are not of their persuasion to personal attacks, defamation, and endless wikilawyering and other forms of harassment designed to drive those editors away from editing the article which are so numerous that it would be impossible to list the literally hundreds of them found on the SAQ Talk page and elsewhere in recent weeks.

Had LessHeard framed the arbitration request in that way, there would have been something to it. Moreover LessHeard should also have mentioned in his framing of the arbitration request that Nishidani has already been banned from numerous Wikipedia pages for personal. Nishidani himself posted this on my Talk page confirming that he is known for his personal attacks:

Certainly. Happy to oblige. It's becoming a meme round here, to cite that record as proof I am an editwarrior. Smatprt used it first I think. Michael Price does the same regularly on the Ebionism page.Nishidani (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

NinaGreen (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

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

  • Awaiting statements, but tentatively leaning toward acceptance. It is evident that the collaborative environment on this topic is in a bad state. Those commenting on the request who favor acceptance are invited to opine on the potential scope of any case. Those favoring our declining the case should suggest what other methods of dispute resolution should be attempted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto - leaning accept but awaiting responses from other involved parties. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

O Fenian

Initiated by Trelane (talk) at 01:41, 7 January 2011 (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 Trelane

User:O Fenian, has single-handedly monopolized List of terrorist incidents, 2011 citing WP:Consensus as un-changable policy. His statement that consensus requires that a "reliable source" declare an incident terrorism before it can be called such has resulted in an embassy bombing committed by Al Qaeda from being included in the list simply because the required verbiage wasn't present in the article. I reverted citing in comments his mis-interpretation of WP:Consensus, WP:ITR, and his authoritarian inflexibility in Talk:List of terrorist incidents, 2011 has prohibited any meaningful discusssion while he continues to revert the article. Furthermore as he's reverted 3 times today, I also am invoking WP:3rr, despite not actually qualifying O Fenian has reverted 6 times in 3 days, effectively gaming the rules, and at a minimum I request a warning be given here regarding prolonged edit-warring with multiple users. Trelane (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm taking this opportunity to expand her my initial statement. This is not a content debate, and from what I can see I stepped into this in the middle when it began affecting a group I post to elsewhere, while referencing this material. Understandably terrorist attacks, and their definitions change rapidly. My concern is O Fenian's capacity to edit war, dictate, and berate users into doing what he wants. I don't see that there ever has been WP:Consensus in the 2010 article, to the point that other editors were citing WP:Ignore All Rules. While WP is an encyclopedia, and does not generate content, it can act to foster consensus, and in this case there is seemingly only one party involved in the failure to arrive at consensus. It should be noted that not just IP addresses were reverted, and that O Fenian has, with minimal discussion in Talk:List of terrorist incidents, 2011 reverted 6 posts in 3 days. There may be sock puppetry, but I can assure you I am neither those IP addresses, nor am I User:Lihass. This means that there are at least 3 editors that O Fenian is reversing while DICTATING policy, WP:Consensus simply does not allow it, and being dictated to defies the very concept of consensus. Arbcom intervention is timely and required as O Fenian's actions have, over time degraded the quality of the terror related articles, chased away editors, and has generally been unacceptable by any standard of social conduct. With this said, I am done with this issue, and will await what Arbcom has to say. Trelane (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC) I've found additional history of O Fenian's behavior Lihaas#the END, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/O Fenian/Archive which demonstrates that while neither a sock, nor a puppet, his behavior has been controversial for a long time. This contains both escalated action, a block request, the end of serious participation by a long time Wikipedia editor, and should more than qualify. This user is combative, dictatorial, resorts to harassment, and is nearly impossible to work with. If Arbcom isn't willing to step in at this point, they at least need to direct what additional action they require before doing so if this is still deemed premature. Trelane (talk) 04:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lihaas

Its quite tiring to get admins on everything. Weve set up a discussion on talk, it shoudl go through that isntead on warring. that said ofenian does portend owership on these articles to try and force other editors away, the argueemtn worked for me in 2010, and i tried to taljk in 2011. the only thing admins needs to monitor is that the talk be monitored for actual consensus..it shoud not be reverted to war on the the "right version". lock downthe article if need be in the mean time. one will note ive also tried to get a forumlated definition ont he talk pgage. although let mer also not he has frequently warred on such articles. particularly when it comes to the ira and its factions.

although why my name was listen here i dont know (or care!)(Lihaas (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC));[reply]
Furthermore, o fenian seems to be again dictating terms on the talk page where he says "policy" cant be changes apparently because he decrees so. 1. there is not such policy, and 2. WP:Consensus can change is one of the prime raison d'etres of wikipedia.
the reverters (o fenian included on multiple occasions off the page too) continue not to discuss the issue on the talk page to gain any consensus (how can consensus be gained for refusal to discuss and just cite some mythical "policy") but resort to threats and blackmail. (he often resorts straight to 1RR complaints instead).
He is again trying to hijack wikipedia with his own interpretation that no discussion can take place if he doesnt agree with it.
He also ritually ignores discussion as @ Talk:List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2011#Dubious instead of responding with reverting.Lihaas (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
update: ive tried RFC. Talk:List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2011#CriteriaLihaas (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@The C of E: as above, ignoring discussion to dictate his terms is an old habit.(Lihaas (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC));[reply]

Statement by O Fenian

I have very little to say. This article and ones of similar years are a magnet for point-of-view pushers insisting that incidents are labelled terrorism based on their own opinion that a certain incident is a terrorist act. The article was semi-protected due to "constant addition of incidents not verifiably terrorism", and the subject has been discussed repeatedly at the previous year's article talk page and even been the subject of a request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ryan kirkpatrick. There are so many inaccuracies in the statement above I cannot even be bothered to correct most of them, but I will address the embassy bombing. The source cited does not say it was an Al-Qaida bombing, it says "She had no information about possible casualties or motives". The mention of Al-Qaida is in the sentence "The West African nation of Mali, a former French colony, is one of the countries in which Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, AQIM, operates", which is a standard background piece of information that appears in most news stories of this type. It does not say Al-Qaida were actually responsible, it just gives information so the reader can draw their own conclusion. I will also mention one from the "discussion" on the talk page, where here an argument is made that as "Al Jazeera has stated that no one has claimed responsibility yet", and apparently not claiming responsibility is "a usual tactic of terrorists", it miraculously becomes a terrorist attack.

What is needed is more people watching this new article to prevent this policy violating disruption. O Fenian (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Jclemens. Yes, the request for comment was about similar conduct by a different party. As I pointed out on the article's talk page, I believe it would be unreasonable to expect me, or someone else, to have to start a request for comment on every single editor that continues to add incidents which are not sourced as terrorism. O Fenian (talk) 10:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MuZemike

I became aware of the edit war going on at List of terrorist incidents, 2011 around late 6 January 2011. I saw that the article was already semi-protected on 17:23, 6 January 2011 as a result of IP addresses trying to edit war to insert information about additional terrorism information, which included various bomb threats and airplane hijackings. Not even two hours later, on 19:04, 6 January 2011 User:O Fenian and User:Trelane started edit warring against each other over the exact same material the IPs were trying to force in. Rather than block the involved parties (which I felt would only inflame issues further), I full-protected the article for 24 hours on 00:37, 7 January 2011.

For the record, I have no comment on the dispute itself or who was in the right; I wanted to stop an edit war before it got out of hand and force users to discuss at Talk:List of terrorist incidents, 2011 or pursue other venues of dispute resolution. Apparently, I was told that the other DR venues tried were at Talk:List of terrorist incidents, 2010 and some tangential discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ryan kirkpatrick.

As far as arbitration is concerned, I feel that is too premature at this point, as no efforts such as WP:RfC or mediation have even been attempted, and I agree that more attention needs to be brought to this topic. The crux of the dispute, from a quick look, seems to the stem from basic inclusion criteria of terrorist incidents, particularly whether or not such incidents in question are considered terrorism (see Talk:List of terrorist incidents, 2010#The criteria for inclusion). If there are possible conduct issues, my thought would be that they would stem from religious or nationalist POV-pushing – to promote (or demote) an incident to (from) being terrorist for those reasons. –MuZemike 05:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved Party Statement from The C of E

While I have had no involvement in this issue I will say that the observations made by the involved parties above about O Fenians behaviour stem way beyond this issue. I myself have had conflict with him in the past and his wording of his views to me felt less than civil. For example this incident Where I attempted to invoke WP:IAR and he responded with a closed statement about IAR itself and not even willing to acknowledge my statement. He also makes statements that are rude or could be seen as offensive about former flags of a country here. Just thought I'd bring it up. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/9/1/1)

  • While I am formally Recused due to my friendship with one of the editors here, it appears to me that this is a content dispute, not a conduct dispute (specifically on a source and how it may be used in an article), and as such, expect this to be speedily declined. Also, please note that terrorist is a very loaded word, and we must be very careful on how we apply it on Wikipedia. SirFozzie (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no evidence of prior dispute resolution in this particular dispute. If any has taken place, then it needs to be clearly spelled out. I suspect that it has not, which would render this case premature. The Ryan kirkpatrick RfC/U appears to have focused on similar conduct by different parties. Jclemens (talk) 07:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awaiting any further statements before voting, but the preceding comments seem apt. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline at this time. My colleagues' suggestions for other means of addressing the issues will be more useful than the prospect of an arbitration case, certainly at this stage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. ArbCom is the last step in resolving behavioral disputes, not the first. If there's a concern about an editor's behavior, it needs to be addressed by discussing it with them or an RfC before determining it's not solvable and needs to come here. Also, in this particular instance, if you have a disagreement with an editor over a source, WP:RS/N is usually the place to go for outside opinions. Shell babelfish 03:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline as premature. –xenotalk 00:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline as premature. RfC or content noticeboards, or involvement of active wikiprojects are all other options. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline:  Roger talk 05:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. PhilKnight (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. - Mailer Diablo 05:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline - after reading all the talk pages of {{List of Terrorist Incidents}}, the current consensus has previously been clear that events listed must be called terrorism by reliable sources, unless there is consensus on the talk page that an event is terrorism. Consensus can change, however a well-attended RFC is needed to overturn that. As a result, the evidence provided does not support the assertion that there is a user conduct issue wrt O Fenian. If there is more evidence, a User conduct WP:RFC would be the appropriate venue to take it.
    As an aside, I am concerned that the 2011 article in this series has been renamed (see Talk:List_of_armed_conflicts_and_attacks,_2011#Renaming) while the many other articles in this series have not been. Keep in mind that the 2011 article in this series will have less 'watchers' as the year has only just begun. (see [2], [3] & [4] vs [5]) Eliminating 'terrorism' could be a good step forward, but broader discussion is needed before that solution should be implemented. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=407956607"