Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Grifter72 (talk | contribs) at 15:13, 29 February 2012 (→‎Statement by Elen of the Roads). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
American Conservatory of Music   27 February 2012 {{{votes}}}
Dalmatia 2   25 February 2012 {{{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


American Conservatory of Music

Initiated by Ewater58 (talk) at 03:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • Ewater58 confirmed the arbitration of request with Orlady and based on the respond, Orlady is aware of the request.

Arbitration Requested

Orlady, you are requested to refrain your edition to the American Conservatory of Music page until the Arbitration process is completed. (Ewater58 (talk) 04:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC))ArbReq/G

Your recent editing history at American Conservatory of Music shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Orlady (talk) 04:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Diff. 2 The truth is that The American Conservatory of Music exists - whether it is legally in Belize Central America, Hammond, Indiana and illegally in Illinois State of USA is not for Orlady or me to judge. I believe my edition is fair, unbiased and open.
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

The dispute is that Orlady has been consistently deleting my edition without verifying action, twice within 1 hour - an egoistic action. As Orlady is positioned as the Administrator, I see that Orlady has abused her authority and there is no other way to resolve this civilly but to go to Arbitration.

Statement by Ewater58

I have been warned by an Orlady threatened to block my edition. However, I see no reason of her action as the Conservatory has been operating in both Chicago and Belize campus. I would be grateful if you can look into this. (Ewater58 (talk) 03:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

The key of arbitration is that Orlady insisted The American Conservatory of Music is closed, but it is not the truth.

The American Conservatory of Music (http://www.americanconservatory.edu/) stated in their web site that they currently operates at two campus: Belize Campus Santa Elena (501) 824-2382 16 Maxi Street Santa Elena, Belize Central America

Chicago Campus (219) 931-6000 252 Wildwood Road Hammond, Indiana 46324

Their recent activities in Chicago were reported in the Chinese of Chicago webpage: http://www.chineseofchicago.com/Content.aspx?nid=2772. The Wikipedia or its administrators is not the judge whether the Conservatory should be religious based or BHE based. The Conservatory exists today, this is the truth. (Ewater58 (talk) 05:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

The action by Orlady in deleting other editors input twice without taking verification action within 1 hour is an abuse of authority and this is why I take this to Arbitration level.

Statement by Orlady

This matter is nowhere near being a case for arbitration. User Ewater58, who self-identified on my talk page as an agent of American Conservatory of Music of Hammond, Indiana, is the most recent in a multi-year succession of single-purpose accounts, all committed to righting a great wrong, who have been asserting that the entity in Hammond, Indiana, operating as a branch of an ecclesiastical entity in Belize, is in fact the successor to the institution that formerly operated in Chicago. No third-party support for this assertion has ever been supplied. The fact that I placed two warnings on the user's talk page is nowhere near a basis for requesting arbitration. --Orlady (talk) 04:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Ultraexactzz

Obviously, the matter is not ripe for arbitration. Indeed, I'm unable to find a point at which Ewater58 actually responded to a comment or concern from other editors. Once reverted initially, the discussion went straight to conspiracy as per this diff. This could likely be solved with a cup of tea and a sit down, coupled with a thorough reading of our policies on reliable sources and Verifiability for Ewater58. Arbitration is quite premature, and Courcelles' analysis of the matter is sound. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • I placed this in the correct formatting (original) and directed them to finish filling out the paperwork. I have refrained from listing this in the current arbitration requests until this happens. If this does not happen in 24 hours, I will speedy close this. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/0/0)

  • Decline as unsuited for arbitration at this time. A look through the history was enough to convince me that the statement by Orlady is factual and correctly grounded in policy. Ewater58, if this were not a request for this Committee to review this material, I would have at least considered blocking you for edit warring during m review of the matter; you have to discuss matters, rather than just reverting and seeing if it sticks. Finally, this Committee does not decide questions of content only of conduct. Courcelles 05:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline, substantially per Courcelles. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per Courcelles. This can be resolved by admin intervention, and doesn't require a full case. PhilKnight (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline and warn Ewater58 against further edit warring. SirFozzie (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. AGK [•] 22:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dalmatia 2

Initiated by Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! at 01:36, 25 February 2012 (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 Whenaxis

Collapsed statement
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There is a continuing dispute between various editors on WikiProject Croatia-related articles such as Zadar, Luciano Laurana, and Schiavone.

I was first brought to the attention of the dispute when I answered a request for a third opinion on Zadar where there was a dispute between Silvio1973 and Zenanarh. I tried resolving the content issues through a mediation on the talk page, which now appears to be unsuccessful as these problems continue to occur. It's mixed in with conduct related issues, as you can see from the above dispute resolution steps that have been tried at ANI (for incivility problems), 3RR (for edit warring) and a try at RfC/U.

The administrators involved, Elen of the Roads and DarkFalls, were there mainly to help resolve the issue at hand. Grifter72 and DIREKTOR have commented on various of the above dispute resolution pages as of recent so as a courtesy I have added them to the parties list. Also, just as a side note, DIREKTOR has brought up concerns that the IP addresses that have been commenting may be Zenanarh, perhaps we can have a look into having a Checkuser investigate that matter.

To break the back of the dispute, arbitration is the most appropriate avenue as you can see previous dispute resolution avenues have been exhausted or are not feasible because of the lack of willing to compromise.

It should also be noted that there was a previous arbitration case in 2007 regarding similar or the same topics: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia. Instead of filing for an amendment, I felt that filing for a new case would be much more appropriate since the previous case is likely out of date and no longer relevant to the current disputants.

Response to AGK

There have been request for comments previously with no avail: here for Zadar, here again for Zadar, here for Luciano Laurana and here for Schiavone. I have mentioned these efforts in the previous section "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried". I apologize if I was not specific enough when describing "Talk page discussions". The RfCs from a few years ago still outline the same proposals that are being brought back to the table. Regards, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 01:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to DarkFalls

I have not asked for a Checkuser to investigate this matter because it was just a hunch by DIREKTOR that the IP addresses are following the same patterns as Zenanarh. I added it here just as a note so that it would be a notification as a common courtesy to allow Zenanarh to explain himself. Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 02:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Courcelles

For conduct issues, thus far, the current dispute resolution process is not able to resolve this issue as the involved editors would stop disputing immediately around the time reported causing the responding administrators to overlook the problem and pass it off as 'resolved' (see the ANI reports and 3RR reports in the 'Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried' section above), then the involved editors would continue disruptive editing and point of view pushing after a period of time has passed. As I may have mentioned earlier, the content dispute will likely never be resolved because of political and advocacy reasons also because the disputing editors won't listen to consensus nor will they be able to compromise as shown by the involved editors' persistency. Uncivil and personal attacks and edit warring is probably taking a toll on the involved editors. I think arbitration is likely going to be more significant and meaningful for the involved editors as it will bring closure to the dispute and they will be allowed to provide evidence to protect themselves (if necessary), whereas, discretionary sanctions will lead to hard blocks and the likelihood to return to Wikipedia and retaliate. As an experienced editor yourself, I'm sure that you are familiar with this occurrence. Regards, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 15:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the Digwuren case relates to the Estonian-Russian ethnic conflict and the Macedonia 2 case relates to the Macedonian-Greek ethnic conflict. Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 00:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Elen of the Roads

I added you and DarkFalls so that you can provide a compound statement on the behaviour that you observed during your minimal interaction with the involved users. DarkFalls, Elen of the Roads, arbitrators or clerks, feel free to remove Elen of the Roads and DarkFalls from the involved parties list if it so warrants. Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 21:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Jclemens

Arbitration is intended to serve the project and I strongly believe that the conduct of the involved parties need to be reviewed and this dispute resolved to provide long term stability of the project which the Arbitration Committee can provide. I brought this dispute here to resolve the issue at hand once and for all. I agree that the Arbitration Committee should be the last and final resort, however, previous tries at dispute resolution have failed: RfCs, RfC/U, mediation/third opinions and ANIs. Reflecting upon previous cases such as the Macedonia 2, Digwuren and the previous Dalmatia case (which is outdated), editors have come to the Arbitration Committee to resolve disputes in what appear to be overlapping areas, however, without being specific to a certain area, editors will likely not pay attention to those cases. This case could be resolved by motion if you still disagree that a full case is needed. Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 00:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to arbitrators

Noticing that Zenanarh hasn't been contributing for roughly two months now and appears to be sockpuppeting through anonymous IP addresses, as noted by Elen of the Roads below, it is likely that formal mediation (since it requires all editors to participate) will not be successful. I think that the conduct issue and evidence is fairly straightforward and can be resolved in summary proceedings. In due course, unfortuantely, this will end up at arbitration again or it will never be resolved, if the Arbitration Committee does decide to decline this case. I understand that arbitration is a very serious step in the dispute resolution process and it took a lot of thought to be placed into this before requesting for arbitration and I truly believe that the Arbitration Committee can provide longterm stability of this project and the affected articles. Regards, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 21:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to note before the last Dalmatia case, formal mediation was requested but was rejected because not all parties agreed to mediation, in the end, the dispute landed at arbitration. I'm afraid this will happen similarly with this dispute. Regards, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 22:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have this moved to Arbitration enforcement by an arbitrator or a clerk, please? Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 23:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Director

To me this is a very strange dispute. I am a Croat myself, and from Dalmatia, but for the life of me I can't see what's wrong with the edit proposed by Italian user Silvio 1973. Its just a few sentences, most thoroughly sourced. The main source is a primary source, to be sure, but the proposed addition simply does not interpret it in any way. I approached Zenanarh regarding this and he just snapped at me, leading to an inevitable ANI report. And its such a small edit too. Frankly I don't think anyone should have this much trouble entering well sourced information into a Wikipedia article.

I cannot speak for any future proposals on the part of Silvio1973, and he has at times felt it necessary to speak out rather harshly against Croats as a nation, suggesting "some may need serious medical specialist help" [1], but this specific proposed edit that is (hopefully) currently in the article has my support. In fact I can't imagine what policy-relevant argument there could be against it. -- Director (talk) 01:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@DarkFalls: If I may, the reason is that, upon my having voiced the accusation, the IPs have stopped editing altogether. I for one do not wish to see Zenanarh indeffed (if that is indeed him!) over a few misguided posts. -- Director (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DarkFalls

I do not know why Elen and I have been included as involved parties in this dispute, given our minimal involvement. Given the nature of this dispute is on the use of sources, specifically the omission/inclusion of Croatian and Italian sources to reference the nationality of specific historical people in the Dalmatia region - I do believe a content RfC would be more productive than arbitration. But there has been ongoing hostility and some incivility between the different editors (both Croatian and Italian) over the nationality of the people in the Dalmatia region (and the use of sources to support this); the failure of the dispute resolution process (and the earlier Dalmatia case) in resolving these issues may merit some attention. I refer to my comments in the (deleted) RfC for a more detailed explanation of this particular dispute between Zenanarh and Silvio, [2] (if necessary, I consent to having the page undeleted / my deleted comment posted). —Dark 01:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to "Also, just as a side note, DIREKTOR has brought up concerns that the IP addresses that have been commenting may be Zenanarh, perhaps we can have a look into having a Checkuser investigate that matter" - if there is any evidence of this, why has a checkuser investigation not been done prior to the filing of arbitration? —Dark 01:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Silvio1973

The issue about the articles in question is purely of content. The issue is that in the past parties rappresenting the most extreme opinions on this part of the Croatian/Italian history have confronted themselves. To solve the issue permanently more involvement is necessary from other users. Nevertheless I understand the difficulty of getting other parties involved due to complex nature of the issue and the fact the multiple sources often in conflicts exist. This is the current situation.

  • Zadar : there is currently a process of mediation on some issues that looks to be promising, but this is going trough multiple personal attacks.
  • Luciano Laurana : unknown editor is pushing a POV (Luciano Laurana Croatian architect). After careful analysis of the available sources iit is clear that this architect cannot be claimed neither Italian or Croatian because none of the parties involved in the discussion cannot bring a valid source other than Italian or Croatian stating that he is of any of the two nationality. I have moved away from this edit war. Still the issue exists.
  • Schiavone : The article is in discussion. There is will to push the concept that the nickname/surname Schiavone indicate an ethnic origin (ie Slavik) and not a mere geographical origin (from Dalmatia).

A side note
When I wrote that "some may need serious medical specialist help" [3], I was not referring to Croatian users but to some contributors to the article Croatia. Everyone is welcome to check. Also please check to the diff in question and perhaps my opinion could be shared. The sarcasm in the diff in question was of extreme violence and I genuinely hope that the author will not do again something similar. --Silvio1973 (talk) 05:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Elen of the Roads. With the all due respect, I am not anti-Croatian. I am against the use of Wikipedia as a vector of any nationalism. In this istance this is the case of the nationalism of some Croatian users. The overwhelming majority of Croatian users are moderate people. If you want, I can give you a dozen of examples of evident nationalism in Croatian articles (both in en:wiki and hr:wiki). Please be ensured that I do not like the extremism of some Italian users (possibly I like it even less). However, I welcome this arbitration and think that there is large room to find a compromise and to give finally to the articles about Dalmatia the stability they deserve.

--Silvio1973 (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Elen of the Roads. I also think that any claim of Croatian or Italian nationality should be absolutely banned for people that lived at that time. I tried to remove the reference to the nationality of Luciano Laurana but some user is insisting claiming him being Croatian. I have moved away from this in order not be involved in an edit war but this is an issue that need to be addressed.

--Silvio1973 (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Elen of the Roads

Please note, I have no opinion on whatever the content dispute is, and have never taken part in it. I deleted the RFC/U as it had not been certified after several days - I don't consider this makes me "involved" as it is a routine admin action. I would appreciate the filing party explaining a bit further why they consider me involved in this dispute.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs)

In response to the request by Whenaxis, my experience has been that Zenanarh is extremely anti-Italian, also rude and not too inclined to co-operate with any process designed to assist in reaching consensus; and Silvio1973 is anti-Croatian, but more polite about it, and more co-operative with mediation. Someone tried to start an RfC/U on the pair of them, which isn't really the right way to go about it, and which was never certified. There are a number of options available - I suspect an RFC/U on Zenanarh might be profitable (or might lead to a topic ban), and everyone needs to focus less on what nationality the other person is. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a final note, any source that says that anyone born in Zadar in 1420 was either Croatian or Italian cannot possibly be reliable, as Zadar was under the control of the Repùblica Vèneta at the time, and Venice was not part of Italy until 1805, when Boneparte jammed it in . This is a sourcing problem that is not being in any way assisted by nationalist POV pushing on the part of modern Italians and Croats. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the IP editors at Zadar, two are Italian. I believe the others are Zenanarh. Zenanarh has edited logged out on a number of occasions, although mostly one off instances consistent with the Mediawiki interface having logged him out. There is one instance where he has edited anonymously for a day or so. He should consider himself warned not to do this again. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Grifter72

Often, problems are created or amplified by ip users. I think that registred users who attend the Dalmatian pages have learned to know each other. For this I think hot pages (and relative discussions) should be alwais protected. --Grifter72 (talk) 15:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ASCIIn2Bme

I noticed during an ANI thread in which DIREKTOR and another user (not named as a party here) were given an WP:IBAN that yet another RfC/U attempt exists at User:Nuujinn/direktor rfcu. I don't know if that is indicative of a long-term problem or not, but keeping draft RfC/Us in user-space is probably counterproductive in the long term. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  •  Clerk note: I'd like to remind all editors participating in this request for arbitration to please only edit their own subsection and not those of others. Thanks. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/7/0/0)

  • Awaiting statements by the other parties. However, I see no reason why this should not be handled (in the first instance) by a request for comments. Until now, aside from the small group of disputants, the only uninvolved input has been by the mediator and a couple of administrators; it seems premature to me to jump directly to arbitration, at least at this stage. AGK [•] 01:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the follow up; you're correct that I didn't realise those talk page threads were RFCs. I'll post my own final view on the request once more statements are in. AGK [•] 01:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. AGK [•] 22:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awaiting statements, but noting that the Committee will not decide issues of content, such as whether a source is valid. (I think everyone involved is experienced enough to know this, but sometimes it bears saying again). What are the conduct issues here (if any) that make another case more effective than an AE filing under either Macedonia 2 or Digwuren to investigate whether discretionary sanctions are merited for individual users? Courcelles 06:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline and defer towards a certified RFCU and AE filings if anyone's conduct is particularly egregious in the future. There's just nothing here I see within the Committee's jurisdiction that justifies the months-long process of a case, against selected and pointed AE filings if the misconduct becomes particularly bad. Courcelles 17:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Both cases I referenced above allowed sanctions on geographic basises that include Croatia. (Eastern Europe and the Balkans, Courcelles 21:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline without reference to any other facts of the case, if there is a failure to certify an RFC/U, the next step is not arbitration, but rather a certified RFC/U. Jclemens (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline in the hope this dispute can be resolved without arbitration, which is often a lengthy and contentious process. This doesn't imply your dispute is unimportant, merely that arbitration isn't the best way to resolve it. Suggest having a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution - there are several kinds of dispute resolution that could be useful. For the content side of the dispute, given the complexity of the issues, I would suggest the next stage is formal mediation. For the user conduct dispute, I would suggest a Request for Comment on user conduct. PhilKnight (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per three preceding. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline and guide to AE/RFC per those preceding. SirFozzie (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline at this time per the comments above. I hope that these issues can be addressed without the future need for another arbitration case or for sanctions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=479482566"