Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:51, 27 June 2013

Requests for arbitration

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Yopie		26 June 2013	{{{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

Clarification and Amendment requests

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)	8 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Shortcuts

Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority).

Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests.

Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace.

To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

File an arbitration request

This page is for statements, not discussion.

If you must reply to another user's statement, do so in your own section (more information).
Your section must not contain more than 500 words (Word Count Tool; internal gadget). This includes your replies to other users. To request an extension, either make the request in your statement section or email the clerks email list.
Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, eg off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
Declined case requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

Yopie

Initiated by ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) at 00:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

ItsAlwaysLupus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Yopie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Yopie Y

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by ItsAlwaysLupus

I feel appalled at the disruptive behavior of User:Yopie whom I perceive as a person with personality and ethic issues. His repugnant, borderline racist behavior came to my attention after having to deal with him myself due to a dispute of me creating an article on prejudice against Hungarian people. As a minority person (actually a double minority, to coin such term ad-hoc) based in the Czech Republic it is extremely important for me that Wikipedia had an coverage on this topic because that is something I have to deal with in my everyday life on a regular basis but anyhow let's get back to what's really important in here, him, the User Yopie. He's seen engaged in variety of disputes, ranging from stalking the users (reported behavior by multiple witnesses), blanking the pages, to removing the user-warning templates (reported behavior by multiple witnesses), that he either fueled or initially started and for this he was banned for "tendentious edit warring" by Deacon_of_Pndapetzim (2009-03-01), followed by "Violation of the three-revert rule: 1942 raid in Novi Sad" by Hersfold and last but not least, "Edit warring: edit wars across multiple articles" by Bwilkins. Despite him joining Wikipedia on 2005 he only got himself to make six articles which is not exactly Hall of Fame many, and even a single-purpose spam account is expected to make more (which I originally perceived him to be one). He was approved of his Rollback user rights on June 16, 2010 and abused this privilege ever since. In the user's history, ANI and sysop-imposed blocks for disruptive behavior on Yupie had absolutely no effect on him whatsoever; he did not take the time to change his ways at all.

In conclusion, his only intention here is to cause disruption between the users, and the nations, he doesn't care about Wikipedia, he is biased against minorities because he is a racist nationalist as shown from countless cases of people raising concerns about his prejudiced behavior plastered all over his talk page. He's hiding his covert hate behind his apparent lack of English skills so he often throws in phrases from Wikipedia Propaganda 101 like "be civil" or "assume good faith" and so forth. This all resembles a clueless idiot or a conniving troll who drops sackful of marbles on the floor and is amused by the sight of people falling down and breaking their neck or something while cursing him back ("Dear Stubes99, because you are indefinitely blocked from editing, I will not communicate with you."). He is the complete disruptive machine that must be stopped this instant because we have got the reputation of Wikipedia to protect and if he is incapable of complying with its rules due to language barriers and whatnot then it's our duty as Wikipedia Community members to helpfully show him the way to Czech Wikipedia or any place that is in his native language for either party's mental easement. At this point, I think he should be banned from English Wikipedia indefinitely. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 01:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get some hard facts to knock you over with:

(to further illustrate the point I even included snapshots of his quintessential behavior in his native Wikipedia habitat)

English Wikipedia

Inappropriate behavior (Stalking) — Yopie's following, hounding (formerly known as wikistalking) of other editors can be well documented. --Hobartimus (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC) + [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
Inappropriate behavior (Uncivil actions, fiddling with Users' userpage) — I have asked Yopie to explain his use of the template - as should be a requirement at any time - I would like to "hear it" from Yopie's mouth. His failure to reply was needlessly inflammatory. Law Lord should know that any editor may recieve [sic] a template warning - "Don't Template the Regulars" is an essay - I prefer "Do Template the Regulars". Removing his template from your talkpage as "harassment" was not likely wise, as it escalates a situation needlessly. '(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC) + (12-01-2006) (05-01-2008) (01-19-2010), etc
Abuse (10-03-2010) (10-02-2010), etc
- - Limited English skills prevents the user of properly functioning on English Wikipedia which makes it super difficult to establish any communication with him at all [6]
Disruptive editing (mostly Hungary related): Wikiquette affair |Vandalism in the Hungarian-related articles | Hungary-related | Another Slovakian-Hungarian edit war, | Expulsion of Germans etc

Czech Wikipedia

(you might want to consider an auto translate machine to use for further verification): 3RR-related disputes [7], homophobia-laden decisions as a member of Czech arbcom [8] + [9], open verbal attacks on a Sudeten German user [10]

@Bbb23 Uhm, it says "You do not have permission to do that, for the following reason: Your account does not have permission to add or remove user rights."? ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Treidoiunu A "couple" of warnings? More like an ocean of criticism of his misuse deserving an honor place in the Wikipedia Records (in spirit of the Guinness World Records). Keep in mind Yopie deliberately ignores and removes any post on his talk page criticizing his inappropriate actions making it virtually impossible to deal with him the regular orderly way, and I quote the admin who previously banned him, You have reverted a total of 7 times over the course of several days, with no apparent attempts to discuss the situation with the IP (Either on the article, or on their talk pages). (User:Excirial/2010-09-21), in other words he sends mixed signals to users basically saying 'you talking to me? Into the trash your post goes!' ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein The end does justify the means. A subject [Wikipedia user] is entitled to have an opinion no matter how tact-deficient, communally improper or crude it may appear to others and how emotionally badly others handle it specially when no harm was intended at all but I do reserve the sole right to present my POV opinion on the user here in its original, unaltered format barely shadowed with a false pretense of not being grossed out by Yopie's ruthless actions and wrongdoings, without predicatively riding the ad hominem chariot down the valley. No personal feelings involved & no harm intended, surely not on my behalf and I urge you to take that accusation back because it's untrue and you should just get back to blocking Yopie or something because that guy's got some serious issues, evidently. That's just my two cents here. Also if you must, ban me indefinitely as well (let's call it a personal attack, others will understand) when it's for the common good of Wikipedia and if that means not sharing the same space with racist people like Yopie yapping around and deliberately causing havoc among the Eastern European users. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Yopie

Procedural notes

According to WP:DR arbitration is last resort to resolve the dispute and accuser must show that he tried to resolve the dispute by other means. ItsAlwaysLupus proved nothing about his previous attempts to resolve dispute peacefully. So-called "other steps" are nearly 3 years old and were initiated by User:Nmate (11 times blocked user [11]), not by ItsAlwaysLupus. Of course, if Nmate is same person as accuser, this might be interesting case of sockpuppeting.

My behaviour in Czech Wikipedia is out of scope of EN ArbComm.

As far as I know, my only dispute with accuser is over the content of an article Anti-Hungarian sentiment and only communication I have with him is about content and existence of this (two times deleted) article.

Plot

I came to contact with accuser 22.6.2013 in the article Anti-Hungarian sentiment, as he re-created previously deleted article and I reverted it with comment AfD decision. Accuser reverted my revert next day, without any comment. Again (I know this is a little bit warring, sorry for it) I reverted him 24.6.2013 with comment rv recreation of deleted article, but he reverted me and that is all.

I ceased from dispute. Two reverts in 3 days.

In my talk page [12] he bullied me [13] with words A reaction like this in the future will be constituted as an act of spamming (shamelessly blanking the page with no logical reason previously stated) and subject to Administrator's noticeboard candidate. Maybe my English is not sufficient for understanding, why is redirecting called "sending unsolicited bulk messages", but I replied [14] Read talk page of this article and AfD's. You recreated previously deleted and redirected article.

After this in my talk page [15] wrote User:Filelakeshoe that the new article is better than previous deleted version and that we can consider WP:DRV. Accuser replied [16] with factual and consensual reply (and standard 3RR warning). As I understand from his User_talk:ItsAlwaysLupus, he agreed with User:EdJohnston proposal [17] about user subpage and for me is this best solution, as we can reach consensus.

From this point of view, for me is really surprise this arbitration as I´m not in dispute with him.

At "evidence"

All evidence is 6 - 3 years old, not from my interaction with accuser and was solved. His accusation is full of rude words as racist, homophob, clueless idiot etc., but even arbitration request can be in civil manner. In this stage is unnecessary to reply for every piece, but I reserve right to reply in future.

Some speculations

Ad can be seen above, my only known contact with accuser is normal content dispute. But in 26.6.2013 something happens and ItsAlwaysLupus filled this arbitration.

As he himself say, he is living in Czech Republic and as can be seen from his Czech "evidence", he understand Czech.Probably he is user in CS wiki.

In 25.6.2013 was announced that I was re-elected to CS ArbComm [18] with votes 23:2:3. As every arbiter know, arbitration is not popular among users and every decision can leave some users unsatisfied. I was arbiter for four years and some arbitrations were nasty, you know. Accuser accused me with wrongdoing in one case and this can be real reason for this arbitration. Maybe he was losing in some case, maybe he was friend or supporter of someone losing, I don't know. But what can be next? This arbitration will go and someone will say in CS wiki "hey, Yopie is defendant in EN arbitration and I want other vote for CS ArbComm". Nothing nice for me and for community.

This is only my personal speculation, as now I don't have evidence for it, but if necessary, I will ask check-user.

Note: Without accuser mentioned this, I will say here nothing about my membership in the ArbComm, so please treat me as regular. I never used it in any dispute, anywhere and I feel unhappy, that I must say it here. Thank you for understanding.

Conclusion

Arbitration is last resort and matters should not be referred to arbitration when a lesser step will be sufficient, accuser don't tried RfC, mediation or Administrators noticeboard.
I´m not in dispute with accuser, and he feels it, it is normal content dispute.
Evidence is outdated, incorrect and without any connection to accuser.
My plea is, that this request will be declined.--Yopie (talk) 01:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rschen7754

The Czech Wikipedia is outside the scope of the Arbitration Committee, though evidence from there may possibly be taken into account when determining actions to take here. --Rs chen 7754 01:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also puzzled, as apparently this editor was, and still is, a member of the Czech Wikipedia's ArbCom starting in 2011 and extending into 2014: cz:Wikipedie:Arbitrážní výbor. --Rs chen 7754 01:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bbb23

Just passing through. I don't know either party. One of my comments is not particularly significant, and the other is not worth really mentioning, but as long as I'm here ...

Yopie was granted rollback rights on June 16, 2010, but they were removed on October 4, 2010, so they didn't get an opportunity to "abuse" them for very long. @NW, you're missing a closing parenthesis.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Treidoiunu

I am surprised that User:ItsAlwaysLupus‎ brings as evidential diffs for vandalism accusations a couple of warnings given by ordinary uses (including an assertion made by a sockpuppet of a banned user), whose rightness is questionable, instead of offering article editing diffs or at least admin warnings. For instance the "vandalism in the Hungarian-related articles" is supported by a warning issued by an IP sock of the banned user Stubes99: [19] which in fact targets a content dispute, noway a vandalism (apparently the edit referred by Stubes99 is [20])

Another remark of mine is that the so-called Wikiquette affair is in fact a complaint against User:Jon Jonasson, where Yopie is mentioned only collaterally (he is not the accused party) Treidoiunu (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mathsci

The account Treidoiunu (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) was created one week ago and had made 22 edits before commenting here. The account does not seem to be a new user: there is an awareness of how to tag user pages as suspected sockpuppets.[21] the user page of an account whose sole edit was reverted by Iadrian yu; an awareness of who the puppeteer might be (Stubes99); the knowledge of how to find this part of project space; a knowledge of warning templates;[22] and a knowledge of WP:RFPP.[23] They made an edit already on one of the articles mentioned here, changing it to a redirect and showing awareness of an AfD from 2011 in the edit summary.[24] Please could the details of this account be checked? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now indefinitely CU-blocked as a sockpuppet by Timotheus Canens. Mathsci (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sandstein

Without having read the request in any detail: The parties may not be aware that there is a special mechanism to mitigate disruptive behavior related to Eastern Europe. It is described at WP:AC/DS and WP:ARBEE#Standard discretionary sanctions. If this matter does concern Eastern Europe, I recommend that somebody issue the appropriate warnings (per WP:AC/DS#Warnings) to the appropriate users. This probably includes ItsAlwaysLupus, whose statements here ("he is a racist nationalist", "This all resembles a clueless idiot or a conniving troll") I consider completely unacceptable no matter what the circumstances may be. Future misconduct can then be sanctioned via WP:AE. Sandstein 14:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Volunteer Marek

Bogus request. There might be some sketchy stuff going on here but it's pretty obviously from the filer not the filed-upon. Some of the diffs provided are from... 2005?

This [25] is interesting but mostly for this reason [26], which is a matter for CUs not ArbCom.

It's also about the most personal-attack laden RFA I've seen in awhile. Sandstein's right - deal with it at AE where the filer'd probably get boomeranged a bit.Volunteer Marek 01:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Yopie: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/1/0/1>

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

Decline. My impression is that the two parties recently got into a content dispute, as to which there has been no apparent effort at prior dispute resolution at all, and that ItsAlwaysLupus proceeded to dig through Yopie's contribution history on two wikis and compiled a list of every wrong or debatable move that Yopie ever made. Many of the diffs are ancient by wiki standards, and some of the allegations are not readily understandable. Contributions to Czech Wikipedia (like any other website) are outside our purview absent extraordinary circumstances, plus they are written in Czech, and we certainly cannot act against an arbitrator on another project for the content of their arbitration decisions (although I will admit I hadn't been aware that Cz had an ArbCom). The framing of the request for arbitration goes well beyond the tone of criticism that is appropriate even on an arbitration page, and by itself might be grounds for blocking. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting case and I potentially see a place for us to get involved, but my initial reading is that it might be a little too soon for that; that an administrator's noticeboard thread might be able to handle things more...quickly (I almost said "effectively" before checking myself.) But I'm going to await further statements on this one, especially from Yopie. NW (Talk) 03:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]