Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Ukrainian conflict		28 October 2015	{{{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
Mzajac	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	—	Case suspended

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Ukrainian conflict

Initiated by Tobby72 (talk) at 18:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Tobby72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Haberstr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MyMoloboaccount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Iryna Harpy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Buzz105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Haberstr: [1]
• Volunteer Marek: [2]
• MyMoloboaccount: [3]
• Iryna Harpy: [4]
• Buzz105: [5]
• My very best wishes: [6]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Piecemeal dispute resolution has been attempted at NPOV/Noticeboard – diff and ANI – diff .

Statement by Tobby72

There is an ongoing dispute over NPOV issues with the Ukrainian conflict and related articles, where certain editors want to downplay or remove RSs that do not support their preferred POV – diff. The argument has been going on for months. They have repeatedly reverted edits by deleting verified information without substantial or convincing reasoning. Several examples here ... diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff.

The fact is that there are two main perspectives on editing the Ukraine-related articles. Basically, me, User:Haberstr, User:Buzz105, User:MyMoloboaccount, and User:Herzen disagree with User:Volunteer Marek, User:RGloucester, User:Iryna Harpy, and User:My very best wishes. – diff, diff, diff, diff. Numerous discussions have taken place, all resulting in NO CONSENSUS and a stalemated edit war running over months – diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. Furthermore, accusations, assumptions of bad faith, and hostile comments from Volunteer and like-minded editors have only made matters worse ... diff, diff, diff.

I think the core problem is differing opinions on policy. WP:NPOV says all significant viewpoints should be included in a neutral manner, based on WP:RS and WP:V. This "content dispute" has mostly been characterized by the opposing party removing the content over and over, and citing supposed Wikipedia "policies" (WP:UNDUE, etc), while spending very little time actually explaining their reasoning and making a solid case for their views. I completely agree with User:Darouet' s comment: "I'm afraid that by repeatedly sanctioning this kind of editing we've enabled behavior that wouldn't be tolerated anywhere else on this encyclopedia, and encourages only the most partisan editors to enter into the fray. That is *not* the decision we need to make." – diff -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek - "Toby and a couple other editors ... foment a WP:BATTLEGROUND atmosphere on these articles". Evidently, the phrase "pot calling the kettle black" means nothing to Volunteer Marek. ... WP:HOUNDING, in which Volunteer Marek deliberately went through and reverted my edits in 8 different articles — diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. (14:03 – 14:33, 24 October 2015). There was clearly no consensus to delete the material in question, which was reliably sourced and verified. -- Tobby72 (talk) 05:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Thryduulf - "Discretionary sanctions exist for the topic of Ukraine under WP:ARBEE, can parties (and others) briefly explain why these are not working (assuming they are being used, and if they aren't why is that?)?" - You're probably right. I've never filed an ArbCom case before. I was advised to file a request at AE if there are further disputes regarding Ukrainian conflict. -- Tobby72 (talk) 05:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@My very best wishes - You are automatically assuming bad faith. I didn't know there is a difference between ArbCom (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests) and AE (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement). ... Agree, RfC seems like the best solution. -- Tobby72 (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek - These diffs will be also useful for an WP:AE case ... to document your edit warring against multiple editors, across multiple Ukraine-related articles (this is just the tip of the iceberg) - diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. -- Tobby72 (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Haberstr - Volunteer Marek and like-minded editors actually want to downplay or remove even Western/U.K./U.S. mainstream RSs that do not support their preferred POV - diff (The New York Times, The Guardian, The Irish Times), diff (The Denver Post, Newsweek), diff (Der Spiegel, Le Monde diplomatique), diff (BBC News, The Daily Telegraph), diff (Pew Research Center), diff (Human Rights Watch). -- Tobby72 (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@My very best wishes - "you made four reverts on the same page during same day. Are you going to tell that you did not know what revert is?" Nice try. Tobby72 : diff - 1st edit, not revert (Pew Research poll), diff - 2nd edit, not revert (GfK Ukraine poll), diff - 3rd edit, not revert (Breedlove), diff - 1st revert.

Can we finally start talking about NPOV dispute? - For example, Talk:War in Donbass. - diff, diff. Can you point out where claims are made without sources? Where unreliable sources are used? WP:NPOV says clearly that the article should fairly represent all significant views published by reliable sources. -- Tobby72 (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Haberstr

I agree with the direction that Tobby72 wants Wikipedia to go on this issue. However, I disagree with his/her diagnosis of the core problem: "I think the core problem is differing opinions on policy. WP:NPOV says all significant viewpoints should be included in a neutral manner, based on WP:RS and WP:V." Well, no, I believe those 'disputes on policy' are a poor smokescreen. The core conflict really is that the 'Ukraine' side thinks that only its or the mainstream Western/U.K./U.S. perspective should be allowed in articles dealing with recent Ukraine political history. The 'balanced' side thinks that there should be a balance of the 'Russian' and 'Ukraine/Western' perspectives. In that light, I recommend that the arb committee on these New Cold War issues simply state that it is on the 'balanced' side and it will enforce that decision.

A powerful tool on the 'Ukraine' side in these disputes is the routine assertion that, in general, only Western mainstream media is RS, while non-Western media is nearly always non-RS. To deal with this unfairness, the arb committee should also clarify, I think, that the two major, mainstream English-language news media of Russia -- sputniknews.com and rt.com -- are RS. If we agree that those two sources are generally RS, then there can be richly balanced narratives on Wikipedia providing both the 'Eastern' and 'Western' perspectives on the conflicts and recent history of the new Cold War, without overburdening the 'Eastern' side.Haberstr (talk) 11:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Toby claims that while spending very little time actually explaining their reasoning and making a solid case for their view - nonsense. In fact just the opposite is true. This has been discussed multiple times, over and over and over and over and over again, the reasoning was explained, the case was made, and more or less a consensus was established. Toby and a couple other editors do in fact engage in a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior, foment a WP:BATTLEGROUND atmosphere on these articles (sometimes by accusing others of ethnic bigotry - can't remember if Toby ever did this but some of his buddies certainly have), employ the tactics of slow-motion edit warring (since he knows consensus is against him and he's likely to get reverted, Toby basically comes to the relevant articles once a week or so and tries to sneak the content that's been rejected in, sometimes with purposefully misleading edit summaries) etc. etc.

Having said all that, this is a matter for WP:AE and once again I'm regretting that I didn't file a WP:AE report on Tobby for his long term edit warring and abuse earlier to nip this in the bud (this was suggested previously at AN/I) early on. That's where it should be dealt with. Volunteer Marek  18:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I should also add that this ArbCom request appears to be retribution for me asking Tobby72 to reword his RfC in a neutral manner (the fact that he filed this RfC shows that this is a content issue, although there sure as hell are many problems with Tobby's behavior as well). Volunteer Marek  20:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's Tobby72's original RfC wording, which he altered after my response [7]. Volunteer Marek  20:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Thryduulf - "Discretionary sanctions exist for the topic of Ukraine under WP:ARBEE, can parties (and others) briefly explain why these are not working (assuming they are being used, and if they aren't why is that?)?" - That's a fair question. Honestly, on my end, it's simply because I'm lazy/busy and I don't have time to compile all the diffs necessary to file a WP:AE on Tobby72, which is long overdue. I figured that if you file an WP:AE you might as well do it right. And also, I was sort of hoping that he'd eventually stop. But his slow motion edit warring against consensus has been going for something like a year now. If it continues, yes, I will take it to WP:AE

On Tobby72's side, it's pretty much because WP:AE boomerangs easily so I'm sure he's skittish about that. He almost got boomeranged at AN/I: [8] (note the closing comment by the admin, as well as the comments by uninvolved editors/admins in the Archive or boomerang section.

So on one side it's laziness, on the other, he pretty much knows it wouldn't serve him well. Volunteer Marek  22:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Tobby72, I don't appreciate being accused of hounding. Those 8 articles are articles where this issue came up previously, where consensus was against you, where you refused to abide by consensus, where you keep coming back every few days or so and try to sneak the controversial material in and where you are engaged in your slow motion edit war. When you are told that your edits and behavior on one article are disruptive you move to another article and attempt to do the EXCACT same thing. Which is sort of like squaring the disruptivness... disruption^2. All those diffs show is that you are edit warring against multiple editors, across multiple articles and just keep spreading out the WP:BATTLEGROUND to new articles. So yeah, I reverted those changes... those diffs will be useful for an WP:AE case to document your edit warring, so thanks. Volunteer Marek  06:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Iryna Harpy

I didn't even intend to dignify this by responding here. Tobby72's behavioural patterns are the issue, and WP:GAMING is for AE. Continuing this so-called 'dispute resolution' is predictably going to end up as taking up everyone's valuable time and energy... only to be referred to AE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by My very best wishes

This is a frivolous request. Diffs by Tobby72 only show content disputes that have been already resolved, forgotten or can be easily resolved using RfC. In fact, Tobby72 did not even try to resolve any disputes on RfC prior to submitting this request. He previously submitted a similar spurious report to ANI [9]. According to closing admin, "Tobby72 is warned against forum shopping and counseled to file a request at AE if there are further disputes regarding Ukrainian conflicts." But Tobby72 decided not to follow this conclusion by ANI and submit a similar request directly to Abcom because this is safer and easier. My very best wishes (talk) 13:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@RicoCorinth. Nothing prevents you or anyone else from filing an WP:AE report if the case is rejected by Arbcom.

@Tobby72. I do not need to AGF in this case. It only matters that you were properly warned of discretionary sanctions, and a link to WP:AE (not this page!) has been provided on your talk page [10] and during your ANI request (link above). Also, after looking at your comments here, I do have an impression that you falsely blamed VM of 3RR violation when in fact he made only two reverts during 24 hours on this page, but you made four reverts on the same page during same day [11]. Are you going to tell that you did not know what revert is? My very best wishes (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by User:Alex Bakharev

Arbitration is not a place to solve content related disputes (a number of mediation options are outlined in WP:DR and they are not exhausted yet). Arbcom is for solving behavioral problems by users. We already have WP:ARBEE that gives very strong powers to any uninvolved administrators (including, obviously, all arbitrators), so if any arbitrator or an uninvolved admin wants to spend some time sanctioning problem users related to the Russia-Ukraine conflict they already have all the powers needed - no need for a fresh arbcom case that would last for months. I do not consider myself uninvolved in the Russia-Ukraine area, so I recluse myself from those powers but all uninvolved admins are very welcome here. Alex Bakharev (talk)

Statement by RicoCorinth

I have to disagree that this is a content dispute, and I truly hope that Tobby72 gets clobbered by the boomerang s/he deserves.

Something needs to be done, because the disruption is never going to stop.

Nothing is changing because Tobby72 is a skilled disruptive editor,[12][13][14][15] who knows when to fake humility[16] and duck.[17] In the words of Iryna Harpy to Tobby72, "Taking a very short-term break from your involvement when EdJohnston was involved in examining your editing patterns was an unabashedly cynical act of trying to fly under the radar."[18]

If something isn't done, the disruption will go on and on and on like a Twilight Zone episode.

Tobby72 will continue to add the disputed content back into articles with 'justifications' like "No clear consensus has been reached for deletion"[19][20][21][22] — the last time four times in one day[23][24][25][26] — putting the WP:ONUS on all the editors that keep deleting what he keeps trying to put in. — Ríco 21:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Pertinent policies, etc.

I believe Tobby72 has violated all of the following, and I can back it all up. I have told him about each, but he has ignored me in every instance. — Ríco 21:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

A disruptive editor is an editor who exhibits tendencies such as the following:

1. Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors.

— Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Examples of disruptive editing

Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion

While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

— Wikipedia:Verifiability policy

Gaming sanctions for disruptive behavior
[...]
3. 'Borderlining' – habitually treading the edge of policy breach or engaging in low-grade policy breach, in order to make it hard to actually prove misconduct.

Example: An editor never violates the three revert rule, but takes several months to repeatedly push the same edits over the objections of multiple editors.

[...]
5. 'Playing victim': Violating a rule and at the same time claiming others in violation of the same or closely related rule.

Example: An editor posts uncivil comments while at the same time accusing his opponent of uncivil behavior, demanding sanctions and citing policies that he himself clearly violates.

— Wikipedia:Gaming the system

“ Forum shopping, admin shopping, and spin-doctoring. Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators, or any of these repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus. ” — Wikipedia:Consensus policy, in the Consensus-building pitfalls and errors subsection

An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums.

— Wikipedia:Arbitration (Casting aspersions)

Reply to My very best wishes

The problem is only Tobby72 seems interested in going to all these forums to try to win.

The noticeboards are worthless, because nobody will look into anything thoroughly. Tobby72 starts out with a book that nobody will read,[27] and nothing changes. — Ríco 21:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Ukrainian conflict: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/6/0/1>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• I'm extremely busy/swamped. Right now I have real life commitments that trump arbcom work but I did get elected to do arbcom work, and hence it's a strong number two. This has been on my radar and I think there is some possibility we might need totake a case here but I haven't the time to review the evidence, and I'm not sure at this time. I"m trying to finish the GMO case up before the end of the month, and don't expect to be able to comment on this case with any reasonable credibility until perhaps early November. NativeForeigner ^Talk 20:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• Discretionary sanctions exist for the topic of Ukraine under WP:ARBEE, can parties (and others) briefly explain why these are not working (assuming they are being used, and if they aren't why is that?)? Thanks. Thryduulf (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

  Decline, as it seems that discretionary sanctions and AE have not been tried and I see no reason why they shouldn't be. Thryduulf (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

  @Haberstr: Whether a sources is or is not reliable is a content decision that ArbCom cannot make, if there is a disagreement over a source's reliablity then there exists the Wikipedia:Reliable sources noticeboard where it can be discussed. I will note though that whether a source is or is not reliable is independent of whether it is a mainstream western publication. Thryduulf (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• "Likely decline as it has not been demonstrated how DS is not working (vs not being used) in the topic area. Also while I havent looked at the links, one NPOV noticeboard post and and ANI dont qualify for Arbitration." DeltaQuad via the mailing list.

• Decline -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• Decline. The area is already under discretionary sanctions, and I see no reason to believe that those cannot bring any disruption under control here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
• Decline and refer to WP:AE. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
• Decline - there are more suitable venues as suggested above. User:Doug Weller 15:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
• Decline per above. Courcelles (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)