Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Arbitration​Committee

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

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.

Current requests

Highway 401

Initiated by RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk at 20:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• RingtailedFox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snickerdo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bacl-presby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gridlock Joe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dl2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Sonysnob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• NE2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All parties are aware.

Mediation by neutral third parties have been attempted. Parties are unable to reach a middle ground

Statement by Ringtailed Fox, on behalf of himself, Gridlock Joe, Snickerdo, Dl2000, and Bacl-presby

• Ringtailed Fox, backed by Gridlock Joe, Snickerdo, and Bacl-presby have repeatedly asked Sonysnob how the text regarding the upgrades to Highway 401 is a copyright violation of Sonysnob's website, onthighways.com. When asked by Ringtaled Fox, Snickerdo, and Bacl-presby on how it is a violation, the user either refuses to answer, or states that it is from his website, therefore a violation, even after the article was re-worded as he asked, and sourced no less than three times throughout the large article. We revert, feeling there is no violation present, and we have followed the Wikipedia copyright system. Ringtailed Fox and Snickerdo have also tried to contact Sonysnob, but the user tends to avoid most of hte time, choosing when and if to respond. Most of the communication is on RingtailedFox's talk page.
• Sonysnob claims that the section regarding the upgrade of the Oxford county upgrades to Highway 401 is a direct violation of his website, onthighways.com. Sonysnob acts by reverting the article continually, or by deleting the allegedly violating information.

Clerk notes

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

• One comment moved to correct section. Please include your complete statement in your own section, even if you are summarizing what you understand to be another party's position. Newyorkbrad 22:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

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

• Recuse. Kirill Lokshin 21:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

---

ElKevbo

Initiated by John254 at 03:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• ElKevbo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

They haven't. However, much of the controversy regarding this situation concerns the nature and proper interpretation of checkuser results, the underlying data for which cannot be publicly released to facilitate community-based dispute resolution. The Arbitration Committee, which has the privilege of viewing the exact IP addresses from which ElKevbo has been editing, is best suited to resolving this issue, as explained below.

Statement by John254

On February 20, 2007, there was an edit war on Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006 between LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, various IP addresses, and ElKevbo.[2] Since ElKevbo joined the edit war to revert to the article version favored by the IP addresses, then filed a report on WP:AN3 regarding LegitimateAndEvenCompelling's reversions (most of which were reversions of edits from various IP addresses), I suspected that ElKevbo may have been using the IP addresses as abusive sockpuppets to violate the three-revert rule. Thus, I filed Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/ElKevbo regarding this situation, which yielded a result of "inconclusive". As checkuser results reflect only the degree to which a user's IP addresses are related to the other IP addresses, rather than the totality of evidence as to whether a user has been engaging in abusive sockpuppetry, I filed a report on WP:AN3, which set forth in detail the evidence that ElKevbo had used an IP address as an abusive sockpuppet to violate the three-revert rule, on the basis of the fact that his IP addresses were sufficiently related to the IP in question to warrant an "inconclusive" rather than an "unrelated" checkuser finding, the chronology of the edits by ElKevbo and the IP, and the fact that both ElKevbo and the IP were reverting to identical versions of the article. As a result of this report, Crum375 blocked ElKevbo for one week, then subsequently unblocked ElKevbo after he asserted his innocence. [3] [4] [5]. Of particular interest is the fact that ElKevbo stated that "At least one of the IP addresses that was alleged to my sockpuppet appears to be in or around Chicago whereas I live in (rural) Tennessee" [6]. After ElKevbo's account was unblocked, he requested the unblocking of 24.183.217.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an IP address located in Tullahoma, Tennessee, allegedly to remove an autoblock. By contrast, the IP addresses at issue in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ElKevbo, 68.22.204.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 68.22.193.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and 66.158.92.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), are all located in Chicago, Illinois ([7] [8] [9]). The distance between these two locations would seem to be consistent with "unrelated" checkuser results, not "inconclusive" as was the case in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ElKevbo. As the Arbitration Committee can view the actual checkuser data in this case, it is in the best position to consider the totality of evidence, and to determine whether ElKevbo has engaged in abusive sockpuppetry to violate the three-revert rule on Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006. John254 03:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by ElKevbo

If the ArbCom would like to look into this, they're more then welcome to do so. However, if the only evidence to be considered is IP address information then I'm afraid such an investigation would be inconclusive. I'm sure that we all know that IP addresses can be spoofed, proxies employed, etc. Further, I assert that the editing pattern of the anonymous editors is entirely inconsistent with own editing pattern. As an editor with several thousand edits, there is a large body of such evidence.

If the ArbCom does not take this case, would it be appropriate for you to instruct John to please drop this case and leave me alone? I was mistakenly blocked on very flimsy evidence and the block was subsequently lifted by the administrator involved after several e-mails were exchanged. I'm not sure what more can be done but this entire incident has proved very frustrating and puzzling. I expect to be treated better as an upstanding editor with a clean record of contributions. I also expect to take abuse from the vandals whose edits I continually revert; I do not expect to take such abuse from other upstanding editors. --ElKevbo 03:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Response to Essjay's comment at 06:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC): Ah, ok. If this had been stated to me earlier perhaps I could have cleared up part of this confusion. I did spend a few days traveling last week to two different campuses in two different states. Therefore you probably do see edits from IPs in Indiana, Michigan, and Tennessee (with the vast majority in Tennessee). Note that none of those are in Illinois which to where the anonymous editor(s)' IP addresses map. I believe the timing is also different. If you'd like further information about when and why I was out state, I'd be happy to supply that information, too, if that will allow us to drop this and move on. --ElKevbo 06:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Response to Essjay's comment at 06:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC): That would have been easier if I had been told about the RFCU. But I was never told; I only found out after being blocked. I'm sure you can appreciate the problem with this sequence of events. --ElKevbo 07:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Essjay

On the issue of the inconclusive result in the checkuser case: The IPs listed all resolve to Chicago. The user in question is editing from two universities in two different states, and from IPs that resolve to two additional states. Under those circumstances, I did not feel comfortable calling the result unrelated. I will be happy to provide full results on the mailing list if necessary. As an aside, I was asked about this by the blocking admin via email, and made the same explanation. Essjay (Talk) 06:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Responding to ElKevbo: Our job is not to interrogate users about thier editing patters, and indeed, there is no way to do so while continuing to protect your privacy (I could come out and say "Why were you in Timbuktu on this date? Why are you editing from the University of Katmandu?" but then the stalkers know where you are, don't they?). Our job is to look at the technical evidence and give a report about it. Because you obviously had access to a number of different IPs in a number of different locations, I couldn't rule out that you had access to IPs in Chicago too. On the other hand, you were free to ask on the checkuser case why the result was inconclusive, and you would have been told. Essjay (Talk) 06:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Decline, nothing to arbitrate here. Regardless of what the checkuser data may or may not show, a 3RR violation isn't something that requires our attention. Kirill Lokshin 03:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Decline. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Decline. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Armenia-Azerbaijan

Initiated by Dmcdevit·t at 10:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• AdilBaguirov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Atabek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dacy69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Artaxiad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (formerly Nareklm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))
• TigranTheGreat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fadix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Grandmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Aivazovsky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Eupator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fedayee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Parishan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ROOB323 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mardavich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Azerbaijani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]

[21] [22] [23]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• See my statement; the parties have refused numerous suggestions of mediation, and their behavior demonstrates it would not be successful.

Statement by Dmcdevit

I'm making this request as a third-party initiator that has become very involved in this dispute as an administrator only. Don't be fooled by the number of parties I've attached; I'm not going overboard, here are actually more tht could have been included. This is a very wide-ranging nationalist dispute with so many participants willfully engaging in blind edit warring, personal attacks, and sockpuppetry, that resolution has become impossible. Every party here has been blocked for edit warring, incivility, or some combination of the two.

• The amount of articles that have had to be protected over this dispute is huge: Nagorno-Karabakh, Stepanakert, Tigranes the Great, Denial of the Armenian Genocide, Mammed Amin Rasulzade, Paytakaran, Caucasian Albania, Nakhichevan, Karki (Azerbaijan), Qazakh, Armenian Revolutionary Federation, March Days, Monte Melkonian (there may be more), and so this has become very disruptive to the community.

There can be no dispute resolution as long as the parties persist in WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND mentalities, endlessly reverting. Additionally, no amount of encouraging them to seek out mediation has resulted in any attempts to resolve the dispute with peaceful means. In fact, the 10 parties listed have a combined total of 13 blocks from me alone in the last month. An injunction is needed as soon as possible, and I expect to see several paroles or bans as a result of arbitration, for the parties with no capacity for working with others. I suspect with so many parties, the nature of the dispute will become obvious when they all give their statements, but I'll expand if it isn't clear. Dmcdevit·t 10:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Note that the issue here is not some unresolvable nationalist dispute (the content dispute is not considered during arbitration anyway), but the actual conduct issues(edit warring and incivility) of some of these parties that make a resolution impossible at this time. That is what arbitration seeks to resolve. Dmcdevit·t 20:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Grandmaster

I would like to respectfully disagree with some of what has been said with regard to the situation. Saying that no dispute resolution was tried is not entirely accurate, I personally initiated a dispute resolution with regard to one of the articles that are mentioned above, i.e. Paytakaran. Please see: Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance/Requests/January_2007/Grandmaster It is currently underway, please check Talk:Paytakaran. Also, I initiated or supported a couple of RfCs with regard to disputed issues. [24] [25] Unfortunately, they did not generate much response. I know that some of other above mentioned people, for instance Dacy69 also tried dispute resolution procedures. Also, the disputes were mediated by wiki admins, and I would like to specifically mention Francis Tyers, who made a tremendous contribution to resolution of disputes between the parties. I would like to add that for people not familiar with our region such intense disputes may seem strange, but one has to bear in mind that the two countries were engaged in a war that took thousands of lives, and therefore the people from our region take the issues with more passion than those who were not affected by such tragedies. I don’t think that banning the current group of editors will help resolve the situation, it means that all active users representing these two countries would be banned, and those who take their place would start everything all over again. If you check Armenia-Azerbaijan related internet forums, you’ll see what I mean. Instead, I would recommend that the wiki community should be more active in monitoring such heated disputes related to this particular topic and help parties to find middle ground. My negative experience with RfCs shows that no one is really interested in what is going on these articles and some admins see the only way of resolving the problems by blocking and banning active editors. Grandmaster 12:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Additional statement. Since the personal accusations started, I would like to provide some insight as to what caused edit wars in the first place. Time after time I found myself in a situation, when all of my edits, no matter how well sourced and referenced they were, were fully reverted by certain users. Paytakaran is a typical example of such indiscriminate blind reverts. [26]

Other examples could be found here: [27] [28]

I tried to discuss issues on talk, and 2 archives on Paytakaran and extensive archives on other pages are a proof of that. When a third party editor filed a request for the official mediation with regard to the dispute on Paytakaran, me and other involved editors on both sides agreed, and it was Fadix who rejected it, and mediation never took place. After that I filed an AMA request, and the issue is currently being mediated. I don't think Fadix has much room for accusing others, while he himself was not much willing to have disputes resolved via the respective dispute resolution procedures. I was the one who always supported and in most cases initiated dispute resolution, however sometimes the other party was unwilling to cooperate. Of course it is very frustrating to see that the edits you put so much research and effort in being reverted without any valid explanation or under a false pretext. This is what causes edit wars. It is also not nice to see your edits being reverted by people, who never contributed a singe line to the articles they rv or their talks, and you can only guess what their real motives are. Therefore I think it would be fair to add User:Azerbaijani and User:Mardavich to the list of involved parties. If you check their contributions, you’ll see that in addition to edit warring on various Iran related articles, these people have been actively involved in edit wars on Armenia – Azerbaijan related articles, undoing edits by Azerbaijani users. Just a couple of examples of their rvs of the articles, to which they never contributed a single line, be that the articles themselves or their talks.

Azerbaijani: [29] [30]

Same for Mardavich: [31] [32] [33]

In addition, these 2 have been edit warring on such articles as Atabeg, Azerbaijan, Arran (Azerbaijan), Musavat, Safavid dynasty and many others.

Please see [34] [35] [36] [37]

Also, User:ROOB323 belongs to the list too. Because of his edit warring History of Nagorno-Karabakh article has recently got protected too: [38] [39] He is well aware of 3RR rule, as he was warned by an admin.

I still think that arbcom will not resolve the problem, the only way out of this situation is more active involvement of wiki community in resolution of the disputes. Grandmaster 12:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Francis Tyers

If it isn't too presumptuous, I'd like to add that I have sucessfully, and unsuccessfully mediated cases involving these articles and users in the past (notably Khojaly massacre and Nagorno Karabakh). I would agree that arbitration would be a good step. - Francis Tyers · 10:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by AdilBaguirov

The case has become complicated, in part due to so many editors involved, and in part due to shortcomings of the legal and procedural rules governing such disputes. As the rules and spirit of Wikipedia clearly states, anything that is verifiable, from authoritative source(s), and has been presented and discussed on the appropriate Talk page, has the right to be featured in an article (in this case, for example, Tigranes the Great article [40]. If someone has legitimate counter-arguments from authoritative sources, they too can go through the same procedure, present and discuss it on the Talk page, then either remove or most likely, modify/add their information to complement the other information. However, under no circumstances, should the properly cited, verifiable, truthful and properly presented and discussed information simply be constantly removed, sometimes without any explanation, and at other times, simple "because" someone just feels like it -- in contravening of all scholarly and historical sources.

This is unfortunately what happened on this particular page (for editing of which I got blocked), and despite my edits being fully presented and discussed, and using a URL reference to Encyclopedia Iranica, provided by a third-party user on the Talk page, my edit were reverted by two editors (who later also got blocked), and neither the edits were re-instated by the administrators, nor have the participants of the article's edits been warned about unacceptability of removing discussed, verifiable and authoritative information. In addition to being blocked for reinstating 3 times in a row such crucial edits (and thus, admittedly, potentially breaking the 3RR rule, at least in its loose interpretation), I also received the block first (at least 10 minutes before the other editor), and received it for a significantly longer time (72 hours versus 48 for the other editor). In justification of the block, admin Dmcdevit claimed that I didn't discuss the changes -- which means he clearly overlooked the Talk page or otherwise didn't dwell into the issue at all, as I have been presenting pages of sources since last year. In fact, admin Dmcdevit makes the same statement in regards to other pages [41], such as Stepanakert and Mamed Emin Rasulzade, despite the fact that there are pages of sources presented by users like myself, whilst the other side often doesn't present anything.

I'd like to also emphasize the following: I've been active on Wikipedia since early summer of last year, and never been blocked, despite editing the very same pages, with the very same editors involved. Often, the discussions would be heated, but nevertheless not result in blocks for anyone -- perhaps because several administrators, such as Khoikhoi, Golbez, etc., were actively participating in the discussions and thus dwelled into issues. However, in case of Dmcdevit, it is very different -- not only does he appear not to have done full research into the matter, but not having much of prior exposure to the Armenia-Azerbaijan issues, he jumped on the matter just recently, since about mid-January 2007.

So then why did I, who has been on Wikipedia long enough and has done tons of writing on many Talk pages and many edits of articles, never been blocked until last week? And suddenly, in the course of a week, I am blocked twice by Dmcdevit, in both cases for 3 days? Why? How did I suddenly become an "edit-warrior" now? Perhaps it's not me, and other editors, who have suddenly all become offenders, but a hasty decision was made?

Additionally, Dmcdevit made a coment in our private e-mail exchange (in which, I naturally appealed to him to take another, deeper, look, and unblock me) that is troublesome and threatening: "You're just going to have to sit it out. And if you're more combative afterwards, you're going to be sitting it out much more in the future." (date Feb 20, 2007 10:14 PM)

I hope Dmcdevit understands that this is not about him or me or anyone else in particular, but about the quality of the articles, which are underserved when radical decisions on blocking active editors is made in haste. Things get heated sometimes, but that doesn't mean we should all be trigger-happy. I look forward to working with Dominic in the future, but hopefully, he will use his blocking privileges only as a last resort, and instead, warn those who violate the rules and spirit of this encyclopedia and remove properly discussed and sourced verifiable facts.

Also, in my exchange of opinions with Khoikhoi, I've suggested to place a permanent semi-protection on all Azerbaijani and Armenian pages, to forever prevent IP vandals and socks from reverting and vandalizing pages -- it would help enormously, I think. --AdilBaguirov 18:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Atabek

I am glad to see that Dmcdevit-t has taken the initiative of pursuing this problem through a dispute resolution. Though some of the blocks, whether by Dmcdevit-t or else seem to be applied rather in arbitrary or summarizing manner, it's quite understandable that administrators cannot always concentrate on a particular edit conflict on such a broad scale and cannot always be even handed.

I likewise think that both sides shall be encouraged to discuss their differences on Talk page prior to making any edits. It's important to hold off the desire of jumping into reverting before agreement is achieved. This is effectively done by myself at Talk:March Days, Talk:Qazakh, Talk:Safavid dynasty, Talk:Musavat,Talk:Armenian Revolutionary Federation and Talk:Azerbaijan Democratic Republic. Unfortunately, the problem is that there will always be a new user who will come in and revert the page without consulting the talk pages, which makes it difficult to achieve a lasting solution or to avoid administrator's deliberate punishments. Similarly, some old users may just refuse to come to consensus and will go straight into another edit war. A perfect example is March Days, a website which required hours of research on JSTOR and through books, yet was reverted to a single-paragraph version by one of the opposing contributors above, without any kind of consulting on a talk page. So the reporting mechanism for those cases shall be improved, administrators need to take a more careful look at talk pages and see who is contributing to them and who does not.

It's difficult to blame either Armenians or Azeris in this case, and it's immaterial who does the first revert. Actually in many times, Persian editors arbitrarily join/coordinate with the Armenian side and vice versa, but all of this is a content detail. It shall be understood, that both Armenian and Azeri people have suffered a long and bloody conflict taking thousands of lives, and with thousands of refugees on one of the sides still continuing to suffer in refugee camps. As long as this conflict is not resolved in reality, the effect of emotions on activity of a particular editor associated with either side is difficult to avoid. But arbitrary blockage, such as that applied by Dmcdevit, will not solve this problem either. Arbitrary blockage of one or the other side's contributors gives more leverage to other warriors to gain or do further reverts often expressing a gratitude to administrator for blocking "the enemy". This is the case in particular with Safavid Dynasty and March Days pages and only embitters the conflicting sides. It shall be kept in mind, that some of the editors mentioned above on either side are also valuable contributors to Wikipedia in any case, and indefinite and deliberate blockage of those will not establish peace, there will be always other new users, who may be even less qualified, joining from both ranks and having the same conflicts.

Suggestions:

1. I think the first and foremost step to solve this conflict in Wikipedia is to have an independent administrator or an arbiter who is knowledgable in contents of the disputed articles. Administrator Dmcdevit has openly stated in private correspondence that he does not claim to be "any more qualified to address the content concerns than the parties" and that the "area is not his area of expertise" (February 21, 16:43). But that's the root of the problem, that if the administrator is unfamiliar with content dispute (which is a source of the conflict), it's difficult for him/her to come up with a fair judgement instead of blocking. Administrator Khoikhoi has demonstrated some of this knowledge. But in any case, whoever that one chosen administrator is, he or she shall be the judge independent of yet agreed by both parties as more or less of a balanced expert. Both parties should have sufficient trust and ability to rely on this administrator in any administrative concern.

2. Both contributors and administrators shall stick tightly to the Wikipedia 3RR rule, which has been recently violated very often. It's important for the administrator, who is a subject matter expert, to carefully review every request and make a fair and balanced judgement.

3. Both sides should establish a committee of even number of people, with equal representation from both sides. This committee of balanced experts will be consulted with for any kind edit by other users and shall support/coordinate with the actions of the appointed independent administrator. This shall be done on any of the national or ethnic-based editing conflicts.

4. If other relevant edit warriors need to be listed, I would also like to mention User:Azerbaijani and User:Mardavich who are engaged in even more fierce edit wars than some of those mentioned above, on Azerbaijan and Armenia-related pages despite not being related to either country.

Thanks and I hope we will be able to achieve a fair and just resolution as well as permanent peace. Atabek 19:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Dacy69

Well, I have reported my view about my blocking by user:Dmcdevit. Since it is another topic I will write only about it. But I am happy to provide explanation and furthet info why I believe that user:Dmcdevit blocking was unfair and double standards.

I'd like to start that it is apparant that Armenia and Azerbaijan related pages are vandalized and sometimes modified without justifications. Or there is attempt to present strict POV and to clean up pages from negative information. As for me, in most cases I have discussed my edits, supplied well-referenced information. My opponents usually deleted it. I have participated exstensively on talk pages. I have created several non-disputable (thus far) pages. Three times I made mediation offer which was not accepted by Armenian opponents - Urartu, Monte Melkonian, Armenian Revolutionary Federation and plus another on page Iranian Azerbaijan to Persian editor --User:Ali doostzadeh. Two times I filed request for assistance - [42], one is still open[43].

I'd like to touch to certain pages just to produce examples.

On page Urartu I requested Assistance, got it and resolved my dispute. (We argued about a section of Ethnic Composition) But then my opponents made another attempt to reintroduce their arguments and created another chapter (Urartu and Armenian Ethnogenesis) and for that purpose continued deleting my edits there.

On page Armenian Revolutionary Federation I made edit based on the referenced information. I wanted add more sources and more information but the page got protected. Without much discussion user Fadix insulted me 2 times [44] and threatened with edit revenge on other Wiki pages [45]. User Fedayee also insulted me, in supporting Fadix claim [46]. I filed 2 complaints about personal attacks but no measure has been taken except warning for 1st insults after which Fadix insulted a second time.

My edit on page Monte Melkonian is well-referenced. I proposed mediation offer for that page which is not accepted. I wonder why opponents, if they believe that I am wrong, don't accept mediation offer. I made explicit and informative edit summary on page Armenians.

In the course of other disputes I was insulted too (e.g. by user:Eupator. Armenian editor user:Fedayee on page ARF and Persian editor user:Ali doostzadeh on page Iranian Azerbaijan made open threat to launch edit revenge on other Wiki pages.

It is clear that such heated discussions should be mediated and managed by third impartial party. I found dmcdevit administrating is superficial and unjust.

I second Atabek proposals. Moreover, I believe that it will be useful if 2-3 admins will form a kind of board and monitor situation on Armenia and Azerbaijani related pages, will make judgements about references and facilitate dispute resolution, and definitely will block vandalism and punish insults.--Dacy69 21:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I also suggest to add some other Armenian users to that discussion user:ROOB323, User:Augustgrahl and user:Vartanm as they are deleting and reverting edits or involved in disputes.

I see that our opponents make cooments on contributors rather on the content of arbitration (pages, editing, behavior, pesonal attacks). I believe that it was checked several times - I mean accusation of sockpupetting.

I see also that admins try to disengage from the dispute. Here we are not requesting to resolve Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict but make, monitor and facilitate proper editing. And I think solution can be find in order to put an end the desruptive activity of certain editors and insults. As I mentioned 2-3 admin might facilitate the dispute resolution process in Wiki editing.

Statement by Fadix

If the Arbcom decide to hear this cases and this RfAr is accepted, the evidences I will be providing will be concentrated on user:AdilBaguirov, user:Dacy69 and user:Atabek disruption. I will be documenting that Dacy69 and Atabek are acting as meat puppets. I also request all the members involved here to be checkused, and I want to include also user:Tabib.

A little historic of the situation, so that the committee understand my position.

user:AdilBaguirov for a great amount of time has left Wikipedia. He left Wikipedia, with his last edit on July 25, 2006[47]. After months out of Wikipedia he came back on December 10 of the same year. One day after user:Dacy69 has registered and first edited Wikipedia, which was on December 9. Adil first contribution after his long vacation was on the Urartu article [48] which was basically reverts and supports of user:Dacy69 edits (done the same day, a day after he registered) on the same article. Also the same day user:Dacy69 had edited Armenia article [49], and the same day user:AdilBaguirov has edited the Armenia page in support of Dacy69 [50]. Basically, Dacy69 registers an account, a day later makes edits, when he is reverted he has been backed by Adil who for months hasn’t edited Wikipedia comes in support of him.

This doesn’t stop here; there are evidences of cohesion between members. user:Tabib after over two months of absence made his first edit on the Match Days article [51]. Reverted, 9 days later a new member has registered, user:Tengri, prepared, has started extending the March Days article with controversial materials as documentations to the previous user:Tabib edit, without any discussions. [52], [53] , [54] and so on. And has been later found that user:Tengri was a sock of user:Atabek [55] who registered on January 21, 2007, about 4 days after Tabib has reappeared.

More evidences of cohesion could be found on the Request for deletion of the Ottoman Muslim casualties of World War I. As far as I could remember, Azeri editors have never been involved on that article. First Grandmaster vote, a little more than 2 hours later user:Ulvi I. another Azeri member vote, just 6 minutes after user:AdilBaguirov vote, less than an hour later Dacy69, user:Tabib less than a day later vote. [56] There is nothing wrong in voting, my evidence here is regarding the cohesion between members.

Also, what is suspicious is that user:Tabib who was the most active Azeri user in the past, and who does seem to follow what is happening here on Wikipedia has refrained himself on the last 2 edits on voting only. [57] [58]

Another evidence of cohesion can be found on the deletion of Genocide deniers’ category. Again, the point is not about them having voted, but the fact that they will be voting in Armenian related articles which they weren’t even ever related in, and the time frame in which those votes were submitted. About two hours after user:Grandmaster has voted user:Dacy69 has voted under his IP address 66.46.197.50, less than 2 hours later user:Atabek, and less than half hour later user:AdilBaguirov. [59]

In some instance cohesion has not only shown an organization in the action of various users, but also in attempting to reverse a legitimate request for deletion which would even qualify as a speedy delete. The cases I want to present is the one on Albanian-Udi which was submitted for deletion. user:Dacy69 and the rest of the members involved have opposed to the deletion of this article, even if there is already an article on Udi people and that the entirety of the article was coming from another Wikipedia article. It was deleted even though no consensus was achieved by the administrator, because it was an obvious delete material. [60]

Not to say, that user:AdilBaguirov has broken a hard reached consensus after months of negotiations, between members and two administrators on the Nagorno Karabakh article, as a result the article was locked two consecutive times and probably had user:AdilBaguirov not been blocked it would have been locked again. [61]

With those repeated cohesions and mass ganging, and being exhausted I have answered with rude comments, but have on the other hand not revert warred. But all the members with whom I have been rude have disrespected Wikipedia, disrespected various members and have engaged in disruptive actions. I won’t justify my rude comments, at times very rude comments and am ready to pay the price. On the other hand, I will maintain that being rude has given more positive result than any attempted way.

What I present in the above is just few examples of various other instances. Before concluding, I will make a last comment on what has been happening on the Armenian Revolutionary Federation article. user:Dacy69 actions there were against a general consensus on the uses of the term “terrorist” and “terrorism” in a wide range of articles such as the article about PKK. user:Dacy69 and the meat puppets have made various edits on various Armenian related articles, always in one direction, always negative materials, with dubious wording and without further discussion. Had they been done in good faith, we could have expected those same members working on Azeri related articles which are much more biased. For instance, there is no reference to Heydar Aliev article about his mafia and the organized crime in which he was involved in. In short, when user:AdilBaguirov came back after his vacation, he has brought with him other members who would go on meat puppeting and vilifying Armenian related articles, this is what brought all the edit warrings, there was some relative peace before that. user:Parishan, he isn’t involved, user:Grandmaster isn’t more than the Armenian members involved, but definitely user:Atabek, who by now I am starting to suspect being user:Tabib. user:Dacy69 and user:AdilBaguirov have done not much good here, they have in their account various articles which they were able to successfully lock. user:Artaxiad uses of a sock haven’t helped either, neither his request to change his name on the middle of a conflict. (ix) 03:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Additional Comment and important note to the Clerk and the Arbitrators: Others here have no experience with arbitration it seems, and think that the Arbitration would decide on content. I know this is beyond the mandate of the administration committee, I already have experience with a previous cases involving user:Cool_Cat and others I have read. The only arbitration material there is here, is if whatever or not user:AdilBaguirov is using meat puppets and is responsible of very serious disruptive behaviours which could not be handled without an arbitration cases. The administrator who brought this cases here, has it right in one major aspect, this conflict has become out of proportion. Not because of some content issues, which Grandmaster in his update report (which concerns me), and doesn’t say all what need to be said about it. I know what qualify as arbitration cases and what does not and if I am requesting the Arbcom to decide to hear this case, is not because I want to drag it in hearing some intestine war of words. user:AdilBaguirov is really being disruptive, and has really brought with him meat puppets, and one of the many results of their actions really resulted in the locking of various, various articles. I will be for now waiting the comment of the Clerk, on what need to be done, what sort of evidences should be brought here for the arbitration committee to hear this case. I have also in mind past rulings and Wikipedian Jurisprudences in that regard for comparaison purpouses if that needs to be developped. Like I said, I wait Clerk comments.

Some members here don't even bother reading about Wikipedia arbitration since two members have answered other members in their own section.

Statement by Artaxiad

I personally hope this ends its getting old and annoying, I can see why Adil, Dacy and Atabek follow these certain patters they all follow adils theories online, possibly all of them are his accomplices or they obviously revert together, please see [62] these users are trying to poison Wikipedia with false nationalist theories. Scan through the news article, that is why this edit war is happening for most of these theories they have published on the site. Another thing for example on Monte Melkonian Dacy keeps on want to add that he was a terrorist why is this? to make him look bad he was a great commander in the Nagorno-Karabakh War leading 3,000 men against them and he succeed, which he wants to make that person look as bad as possible, because regarding the situation in Karabakh Adil is highly disruptive in that stage so obviously Dacy is here to help Adil revert, Adil is in Turkish news alot with his theories regarding Karabakh possible a government worker. Not to mention identical additions on Urartu, please see, [63] and [64] Artaxiad 08:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• "Armenian claims of alleged genocide and its constant campaign around the world (this is despite the fact that Armenians massacred an estimated up to 2.5 million Turks" Possible Anti-Armenian, [65]

• This may seem content-related but I just wanted to outline a detail. User Artaxiad above said "Dacy keeps on want to add that he (Monte Melkonian) was a terrorist, why is this?" -- The answer: Monte Melkonian was a member and one of the main leaders of ASALA - Armenian Secret Army for Liberation of Armenia, which was considered as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department. Below are some links in reference.

* [U.S. State Department Patterns of Global Terrorism: 1997]

* [U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing October 8, 1997]

* [US Department of State Daily Press Briefing #190, Monday, December 23, 1991]

Thanks. Atabek 17:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC), P.S. The comment itemized right above this is not from me.

• Umm dude you don't get it do you, whats the talk page for?! this is my section. Not to mention all these Azeri editors listed here cause trouble on Russian Wikipedia also, edit wars. Artaxiad 23:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved user:Irpen

I have no relation to this series of editing conflicts and saw this accidentally by scanning though an AtrbCom page which I normally avoid. I think accepting this case is a road to nowhere not because there is no Arbitrable behavior but because this is all too complex and there are so many parties involved that it is impossible to sort this out through an ArbCom decision. The whole case is basically a statement that says "Oh, this is a huge mess which does not seem to be solving itself! Let's throw this into an ArbCom grinding mill and see how it goes". Trouble is that this is the wrong kind of approach and the case will keep arbcom bogged down for months, turn the workshop and evidence pages into a mess where the content debates from articles' talk pages will move and no possible working remedies may be given except "hang them all", which I doubt would help the project since most involved editors contribute in good faith.

Yes, some POV conflicts are hard to solve and the only way is to wait, invite more participants and if this does not help, repeat the cycle. Some POV conflicts are irreconcilable and it is not the business of ArbCom to reconcile them. With time and gradually increased inflow of users even Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Soviet-Polish War and 2006 Georgian-Russian espionage controversy were all ridden of POV tags. Same here, we just have to wait and let the process rather than ArbCom work its way. If there are clearly disruptive users, this would be ArbCom's purview, but none of the statements above makes it clear that this is really the case. Some very complex content disputes become huge due to, what I would call, irreconcilable worldviews. They still remain content disputes. Mediation, third, fith, twentieth opinion and lots of talking is the way to go combined with elimination of truly disruptive editors if there are any. This case presented thus far does not demonstrate the latter and most truly disruptive users can be eliminated by the community blocks these days anyway.

To summarize, if no one knows what to do, let the time and normal development sort it out rather than ArbCom. --Irpen 07:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Alex Bakharev

I am second to Irpen. There was a war there: tens of thousands displaced, thousands killed. I think every editor has a relative strongly affected by the war. The underlying ethnic conflict lasted centuries, there are historic narratives from the both sides. It is unrealistic to expect that there will be no editorial conflicts there. I do not think any arbcom decision would solve the problem. We can ban a couple of the most trouble-making editors from each side, but I am not sure there are clear candidates. On the other hand banning all prominent editors from a side would make the articles hopelessly biased and banning both sides would completely arrest the development.

I do not see any other solutions other then to bite the bullet and let the painfully slow process of negotiations begin. The editors will edit and look for sources, admins will enforce 3RR, CIV, NOR, NPOV and all our famous policies, neutral people will try to mediate and propose compromise solution. Everything of this sort is on the article-by-articles basis. It is painfully slow but it usually works, repressions do not. Alex Bakharev 10:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• That is very true we're lucky things haven't escalated more, since theres alot of chaos on government websites and forums between Azeris and Armenians, [66] [67] Artaxiad 10:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Fedayee

I would like to second the statement that user:Dacy69, user:Atabek and user:AdilBaguirov have been meatpuppeting. I would like to mention that there had been relative peace before the new year but since the return/membership of some users, the tensions have escalated, notably during the recent FAC of the article Nagorno-Karabakh war (which has been listed as FA now). User:Dacy69, user:Atabek and user:AdilBaguirov's negative editing has disrupted numerous Armenian related articles, from the 3000 year old Urartu to the Armenian Revolutionary Federation article which I have been working on with relative peace for a few months now. I have also asked for a peer review and 3rd person NPOV advice which has been responded to, but before I could work on it some more, the entire article became locked because of one sentence on Nagorno-Karabakh (which can now be taken care of) and constant attempts by user:Dacy69 and user:Atabek to add various statements about terrorism, not to mention user:AdilBaguirov who at one point participated in the revert war and tried to ignite a huge flame between Armenians and Azeris by saying the following during a revert: (actually Karabakh is an irrelevant topic on ARF page, it's a disputed territory, and there are several pages devoted to it.) [68] I see this statement as an attempt to completely enrage both sides and show to what extent this user will go to disrupt. user:Dacy69 also once tried to link Osama Bin Laden to Armenia which is a ridiculous attempt to vilify the Armenians [69]. It is hard to work and keep your cool knowing that Armenia and Azerbaijan went through a war just a few years ago. It is frustrating when comments by user:AdilBaguirov that generalize all Armenians as Turkic hating people are used as a possible attempt to ignite tensions between Turks and Armenians, which is already emotional due to the Armenian Genocide. [70]. - Fedayee 00:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Aivazovsky

I haven't read all the statements listed here, but there are a few things that I wish to write about regarding the Armenian-Azeri dispute on Wikipedia. First, I am frustrated with the lack of attention that our problems get with Wikipedia administrators. Only a few admins have shown a willingness to become involved and help us. I don't believe that blocking most of the Armenian and Azeri users involved in this really helped anything. Second, although I can discuss issues with Azer users such as User:Grandmaster and come to eventual compromises, I find it difficult to deal with User:Dacy69, User:Atabek and especially User:AdilBaguirov. All of these users do not wish to compromise unless all of their contributions are accepted, whether POV or not. They attempt to achieve this by tactics such as intimidation and pressuring other users to accept their points of view.

Like others have pointed out earlier, there was relative peace until the arrival (or rearrival) of these users. It seems that most conveniently began contributing after the Hrant Dink ordeal had settled. Seeing that, for once, Armenian and Turkish editors were beginning to have reasonably good relations, they decided to cause problems for us. They began making disruptive edits and revisions to several Armenian articles and attacked articles such as Nakhichevan where a delicate Armenian-Azeri compromise was in place. Since their arrival, tensions have escalated to the greatest height since the failure of the Rambouillet talks on Karabakh. Aside from causing these disruptions though, it became apparent that part of their goal was to re-ignite Turkish-Armenian tensions. This was could be seen when they generalized us as expansionist (claiming that Armenia had claims to Turkey and Georgia) and as Turkic-hating people.

My frustration with these three users and the lack of action by administrators against them nearly led me to leave Wikipedia earlier this week. -- Aivazovsky 00:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

One of the parties, above, requested input from a Clerk on what type of evidence should be presented. At this stage, statements should focus on whether it would be useful for ArbCom to hear and decide this case. It is helpful to include links or diffs to relevant pages or edits, as several parties have done. If the case is accepted, each editor will have the opportunity to make a more detailed evidence presentation. If any of the arbitrators has a question for the parties or a request for more information, this will be noted in their accept/reject comments just below this section. Newyorkbrad 22:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

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

• Recuse since I blocked some of the parties recently. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Decline; I don't believe any possible outcome of arbitration would improve the project here. This is fundamentally a long-standing historical dispute between two national groups that happen to be represented here by particular editors, rather than a dispute between those editors per se; nothing we can do will resolve the underlying issue (as it's a function of real-world circumstances beyond our control), and simply divesting the articles of all their experienced editors won't actually help matters. Kirill Lokshin 13:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Accept to examine behavior issues. This kind of disruption simply is not acceptable. Mackensen (talk) 02:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Instantnood 4

Initiated by SchmuckyTheCat at 20:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Instantnood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Huaiwei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I'm pretty sure that Huaiwei would be interested to be listed as a party. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[71] [72]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

This will be Instantnoods 3rd ArbCom case. Other dispute resolution has already failed.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3, closed March 2006

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 2, closed December 2005

Statement by SchmuckyTheCat

Instantnood has been through ArbCom sanctions two times already. The last put him on permanent probation and said he should be banned if he can't stop revert warring. He has not stopped, whatsoever. He's been article banned repeatedly - that works. He's been put on time based blocks of up to two weeks multiple times and when he returns he just has a larger list of things he needs to revert. The last remedy from the last ArbCom case was an absolute user ban forever. I don't particularly want that outcome.

The nature of the reverts is exactly the same as always. It doesn't really matter whether consensus exists in any of his reverts - he reverts to what he prefers no matter whether talk page discussions agree with him or not. Some reverts are silly (dozens of reverts over the spelling of Macao, insisting it be spelled with an o, rather than a u) and some are absolutely unacceptable POV warring [73] (removing Macau and Hong Kong from the Category of People's Republic of China). Some of the participants in the edit wars are the same, some are new. What's clear is the problem is centered around Instantnood.

In other words, same content and edit wars as before, same violations of polices as before. The existing remedies have not convinced him to change his behavior and the enforcement is lacking in effectiveness to curb it.

Proposed remedy

The remedies from the last case have been ineffective. The only effective remedy has been article bans; so I propose an extension of that. Instantnood should be placed on 0RR. He should never be able to revert an article to a previous version. He should be able to create new content and participate in discussions regarding content and the direction of policies. 1RR would be ineffective as he simply moves the revert war, making the same edit to different articles.

Evidence

Just a cursory examination of his contributions over the last 24 hours (19 February 2007) shows more than 100 reverts out of 200 edits. It's absolutely robotic, nearly mechanical and absolutely overwhelming. He's also making new POV re-organizations of exactly the same sort he was prohibited from doing in the last case.

Procedure

Does this really need a total case opening? It's the exact same case that's been argued twice before, there's no defense to it. I'm simply asking for a new remedy.

Response to statements below.

When Instantnood makes reverts like these [74] he affects close to 1000 articles at a time.

Kirill Lokshin "Instantnood is already under two different probations (as well as some other restrictions); I don't see anything that a further case could reasonably add." Instantnood has been banned uncountable number of times on his existing probations. The remedy does not work. The last remedy from the last case to consider is a permanent ban from Wikipedia, which I don't want and neither does any commenter below. This is an attempt to save the editor when it is probably the only other course is permanent removal. What this further case would add is a workable, enforcible remedy.

All of the others below, even those who agree with him in some part, can point out that Instantnood is always on a revert spree against consensus. We need a solution that puts a stop to that but preserves his ability to edit and discuss, or as HongQiGong said, forces him to discuss.

Statement by user Penwhale

My previous involvement is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2. My stance has not changed much, although this worries me. Most of IN's edits on that page seems to be WP:POINT. And that's not talking about the PRC/ROC edits (which, to be honest, I haven't been looking at lately). My gut is telling me that this time it's not just China/Taiwan related anymore. More than that, I cannot say at this time. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 04:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Deryck C.'s comment below, I agree that most of the mainland china/PRC/etc... is content dispute. The diff I provided above is a whole different case. The mass-revert of Macau to Macao should have been discussed. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 10:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved user Deryck C.

I've been working closely with Instantnood in Hong Kong-related articles since mid-2005 till 2006 when Instantnood was first put on sanction. There were clear evidence that putting aside such revert wars, Instantnood's contribution to Wikipedia is certainly beneficial to the spreading of knowledge about Hong Kong.

From the revert wars and arbcom cases that happened so far, I noticed that no party involved in the dispute, especially Huaiwei, sought consensus. The involved parties would only like to kick the opposite opinion out of Wikipedia through arbcom sanctions. This violates Wikipedia's acceptance of variety.

An example illustrating my abovesaid situation is the article Hong Kong Central Library, in which I, Instantnood and Huaiwei all participated greatly. The main focus of the dispute was that Instantnood and I agreed the inclusion of Category:National libraries, while Huaiwei opposed. Instead of trying to seek a remedy or consensus, an edit war broke out which lasted until Instantnood's first sanction. Afterwards, it is self-explanatory that Huaiwei's version prevailed.

However, this is only part of the situation. During the period when the dispute was in process, I discovered that Huaiwei followed my edits to various articles closely and reverted or further edited many of them. Moreover, personal discussions with Huaiwei did not seem to yield much.

Moreover, even the remedy SchmuckyTheCat suggested was not useful. 0RR is not useful in most content disputes since the party under sanction can alter some wording and put forth the same idea. Categorization and other actions can be appended to another edit so that the rule was not violated.

It looks clear that some involved parties would like to make use of arbcom to terminate a content dispute through banning another user from performing reversion completely. Is this, a content dispute, something the arbcom supposed to decide upon? Seems not. --Deryck C. 06:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding Penwhale's comment on the diff, I reckon that Instantnood's probable misinterpretation of "guidelines" is worrying. However, I still doubt that another arbcom decision will be fruitful above the decisions made in prior cases. --Deryck C. 10:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding Huaiwei's reply, I am delighted to see Huaiwei's effort to seek personal discussion by posting a message on my talk page. I am sorry that I cannot provide direct reference to the situation I described above, but Flag of Hong Kong was likely a case. I cannot provide such references immediately because of my unavailability to access the computer for long time periods. Therefore it is quite impractical and non-beneficial if I check each single edit of mine and of Huaiwei's from early July to late December 2005. In the above statement, I was only describing the situation out of my memory. My apologies if (a double apology if somebody can prove) my memory is actually messed up after being stored in my brain for one and a half years. Anyway, I would like to thank Huaiwei for responding to my accusation directly and positively, making the situation clearer and more open to all parties. --Deryck C. 16:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

  Hereby I would like to seek some opinion: Huaiwei suggested that because Wikipedia:Verifiability should override Wikipedia:Consensus (according to the latter page, this is true as long as the consensus does not decide to reinterpret the rule of verifiability for this special case) he chose to ignore consensus when editing Hong Kong Central Library. However, since categories are just tools for reader navigation instead of article information itself, should the verifiability rule still apply strictly to categorization? Moreover, since the criterion befitting a "national library" itself is not comprehensively defined, I believe the verifiability rule, even if applies to categorization, can be twisted a bit when the consensus is to include the categorization. --Deryck C. 17:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Huaiwei

Before I give the full facts behind my stand, may I respond with regards to User:Deryck Chan's comment above.

If Deryck Chan's comments on my failure to act according to concensus is based on an example like Hong Kong Central Library, then I must point out that in such instances, it is almost always a case of Wikipedia:Consensus being pitted against Wikipedia:Verifiability. My primary contention is that the contributors to the said article has been unable to cite any reliable, non-self-published source, nor any official government document supporting views as advanced by the "majority", practically all of whom where Hong Kongers and thus with vested interests on the said topic. Not to say local knowledge or community concensus are unimportant, and nor am I comfortable with the idea of pitting one policy against another, but in all past disputes I have been invovled in, Wikipedia:Verifiability has always prevailed over Wikipedia:Consensus, unless I have interpreted this wrong all along. I hope someone can enlighten me if the later is true.

May I also refer to his suggestion that I was wikistalking his edits. I do hope he may provide some evidence for this allerged behavior.--Huaiwei 15:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by HongQiGong

I have personally been involved in revert-warring with Instantnood, and have had arguments with him. Despite that, I still believe his edits are all in good faith. And when he's not revert-warring, he does add valuable contribution to Hong Kong and Macau-related articles. Let's be honest, revert-warring takes at least two parties. But the difference with Instantnood is that his reverting always seems to be some solo personal crusade, with nearly nobody ever agreeing with him. This points to an unwillingness to work with other editors in a give-and-take situation to build consensus. I don't think the solution is a permanent ban. I would argue that he be prevented from editing article pages, but that he should retain full editing privileges on Talk pages. This will force him to gain consensus for the changes he wants to see on the articles. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Alai

I had, as I expressed at WP:ANI reservations about this going to the committee for a fourth iteration, as it hardly seems the speediest or most delicate way of getting resolution of these 'venerable' issues. However, as that thread has since died a death (perhaps due to this filing, or else general fatigue?), I begin to wonder if it doesn't beat no resolution at all. It's clear to me that enforcement of existing remedies haven't (yet) been successful: even today we're seeing edits with summaries like "Revert POV reorganisation by user:SchmuckyTheCat and user:Huaiwei. Status quo ante". That implies to me that either we accept constant reversion of every article, category and template on which there's no explicit case by case consensus on spelling (Macau vs. Macao) or scoping (PRC vs. Mainland China), where lack of explicit consensus is construed as a licence to revert back to some supposedly presumptively "uncontroversial" pre-edit-war version (in all likelihood simply a "who got there first" version); or more heavy-handed enforcement is employed, meaning in effect longer and longer blocks. (Or else AN/I does its occasional 'mini-arbcom' impersonation, and decides to impose a 'community-supported' sanction, or a "or else we'll block" provision.) I'm also sure there will be protests if anyone who has attempted to help resolve these issues in the past acts in such a manner, on the basis of their being "too involved". So I equally have reservations about seeing this 'declined through want of possible measures'.

Can I suggest that possible remedies would in fact be:

• 0RR, as suggested in the filing (for anyone found to have acted against the spirit of existing injunctions, not necessarily just IN);
• a ban from the category space (and category-populating templates), as they pertain to such issues;
• a requirement that such edits be in line with those in closely-related articles, rather than allowing a style free-for-all;
• or an explicit requirement to discuss such edits before they're carried out, or at the least before they're repeated.

Any of those would see to me to be preferable to the "all or nothing" options. An ideal resolution would be an explicit cross-wikipedia consensus on style, naming and scoping questions (or failing which, whatever agreement there is on such matters, made explicit), so that these battles don't have to be endlessly refought an article at a time. I hesitate to suggest enforcing any sort of 'binding mediation', since the track record in such areas doesn't seem to be good ("U.S. highways" springs to mind), but this seems as suitable a case as any, if only to draw up a 'ceasefire line', if an actual overall resolution can't be achieved.

To Deryck I would like to say: no, this isn't a content issue, this is a behaviour issue, where the behaviour is manifest in the context of a content dispute (as is very often the case). That other people may have behaved inappropriately is by no means a reason not to look at IN's behaviour (rather, it's a reason to look at theirs, too). It seems to me that a 0RR limitation (of any and all parties) would be extremely useful: it would cause the disruptive behaviour to cease. If by 'not useful', you mean 'cause "the wrong version" to prevail', I'd say that's a second-order issue, and one that other editors can take up -- hopefully in a more moderate fashion. (And I say that without reference to which version might prevail.) I'm also sure that editors already under probation would find it more 'useful' to them than a lengthy block. Further, speculating about the intent of those asking for committee to examine the issues doesn't seem helpful: even if the filer were indeed acting in bad faith, if an issue was correctly identified thereby which it was appropriate to address in this venue, I feel it would not be logical to rule it out on those grounds. (Never mind the whole 'windows into souls' area that gets into.) Alai 20:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

To which list of possible remedies I'd like to add: one could make Instantnood's practice of 'systematic "ante bellum" reversion' binding on all parties to the dispute. I.e. that no-one already under sanction -- or indeed more broadly, no-one at all -- should change these naming/scoping/style choices from that of the original contributor, until such time as there's a consensus to do so. Personally I don't think this is a very good solution, as it rather negates the quaint idea that we're attempting to build an encyclopaedia with common editorial standards, rather than providing a hosting service for a bunch of wiki-linked articles WP:OWNed by their original authors; but again, it would at least solve the behaviour problem(s), without getting into the area of the AC directly determining content. Alai 16:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Decline. Instantnood is already under two different probations (as well as some other restrictions); I don't see anything that a further case could reasonably add. Kirill Lokshin 14:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Decline Fred Bauder 19:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Requests for clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process. Place new requests at the top.

Clarification on Parole violations

Refer to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier

No time limit is given for the Parole violations. Am I correct to assume that this ends when the article ban ends as well? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Parole is generally indefinite unless otherwise stated. However, that decision is oddly worded compared to recent cases. I'd guess that since more than three months have passed, you should make a formal request to lift the revert parole. Thatcher131 22:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It does not appear that any revert paroles were actually passed in this case. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier/Proposed decision#Revert parole. (The majority in this case was 6.) Recent precedent is that an enforcement provision that remains in the decision as an artifact of a remedy proposal that was not passed, but has no adopted remedy to enforce, is to be disregarded. Compare Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Konstable/Proposed decision#Implementation notes. Given the prior difficulties you encountered, you might be well-advised to abide by the proposed parole limitations voluntarily if you intend to resume editing the relevant article. However, if you wish, clarification can be requested from the arbitrators on this issue, or perhaps they will comment here. Newyorkbrad 03:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The revert parole didn't pass, only the mooted enforcement for if it had passed. TDC is on parole from this case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Depleted_uranium#TDC_placed_on_revert_parole, and that expires May 6, 2007. Dmcdevit·t 03:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I had actually wondered about that. There appears to be a discrepancy in the decision. In the “Proposed Remedies”, there appeared to be no consensus on a Revert Parole [75], then in the Proposed Enforcement section there is unanimous support for a “Parole violations” [76]. The “Parole violations” also appears in the final decision. So now we have several questions.

1. Why is there a discrepancy between the proposed decision and proposed enforcement?

2. What does this discrepancy mean, if anything.

3. What is the expiration date, if any of the “RV Parole”?

Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

From the Winter Soldier case, a revert parole was proposed but failed. See here. Therefore the enforcement proposal does not take effect, there being nothing to enforce. (It probably should have been left off the page.) There is no revert parole from the Winter Soldier case.

However, a general one-revert parole was approved in the Depleted Uranium case, see here. As stated, you are limited to one content revert per article per day, for a duration of one year from the date the case was closed (6 May 2006). Thatcher131 16:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to be obtuse here, but there is a discrepancy, and the final decision does lay out a provision for Rv Patrol, and has a unanimous passing vote. I was confused about this at the time as well. I am seeking clarification because the anonymous user has returned. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Well, you can't enforce something that doesn't pass. There were 10 active arbitrators on the Winter Soldier case, so a majority is 6. The proposed 1RR parole on the anonymous editor had a vote of 5-2 here, so it didn't pass. Unfortunately, this mean that now that the one year ban is over, the anonymous editor can revert more than you can, because of your parole in the subsequent DU case. That certainly seems unfair, particularly if the anon editor is continuing to revert war. I can only suggest that you try one of the following; ask for semi-protection at WP:RFPP, try to get some admins to watch the page for you, use RFC to demonstrate that your version has consensus, or file a request to reopen the Winter Soldier case, showing that the anon editor is back and is continuing the same behavior. Good luck. Thatcher131 16:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Thatcher's opinion above: the Winter Soldier revert parole did not pass (to my disappointment), so discussion of its enforcement is nugatory; once the Depleted Uranium revert parole expires, TDC's revert rate is capped only by the 3RR (which is an electric fence, not an entitlement). ➥the Epopt 16:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The anon is back, but has an account now. I filed a checkuser, and it indicated that it was likely that the new user was also the anon. The edits are not taking place on the same article, but a related one. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is always the usual dispute resolution process, at the end of which, if the editor is still disruptive, is arbitration. You could try filing an arbitration case now; acceptance would depend on whether the arbitrators agree that the editor's previous pass through arbitration and current behavior are enough to demonstrate the futility of running through the whole DR process from the beginning. Thatcher131 18:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Thatcher and The Epopt. However, one can approach the Arbcom, or even AN/I, if disruptive behaviors that were once under Arbcom sanction recur, and the process for getting those sanctions re-applied or even extended are often much less formal and quicker. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Question to Arbcom

see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults

I have had a Arbcom case against me in the past. I am now, I believe being harrassed based on it. Any dispute with a user, meaning disagreement involves a user threatening an Arbcom hearing against me. There is a page for enforcement that lets people complain about those who have had hearings, where do those who feel they are being harrassed because of them, have to go to be heard? Is there an equal place where Arbcom will here their points? --NuclearZer0 21:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

These kinds of disputes should be handled through the normal mediation process first. If you have specific examples of harassment, please take them to WP:MEDCOM or WP:MEDCAB for resolution. The past ruling against you by the Arbitration Committee does not give them original jurisdiction over all disputes or complaints raised by you in the future. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Lord knows NuclearUmpf/Zer0faults can be a pain in the ass, and an edit warrior. But I can list off the top of my head three instances where the first thing an editor did when he saw an edit by Nuclear that he didn't like was to either threaten him with arbitration, or post a complaint to Arbitration enforcement. I'm not aware that being on probation relieves other editors of the expectation that they will at least make a good faith attempt to discuss a disputed edit before applying for sanctions. When an editor reverts Nuclear's edits with the edit summary "Suggest that he's violating the Arbcom ruling for the 4th or 5th time," and it's the first time Nuclear has been reverted at that page, and no prior (or subsequent) discussion was attempted, its hard not to see that as creating a corrosive environment for him. Since the arbitration committee places enforcement of its decrees in the hands of the admins at large, I do not expect they will take any concrete action here. But I don't know what to do either. Thatcher131 04:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No indeed. Nuclear could help by not going nuclear so quickly, I think. Guy (Help!) 23:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Nuclear is currently blocked pending consideration of an oubreak of egregious trolling, followed by a threat to disrupt using sockpuppets. Guy (Help!) 21:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification on remedy of the Requests for arbitration/Kosovo

On 21 October 2006 the Kosovo arbcom found that I had been given 96 hours probation for edit warring on the Srebrenica massacre article and based on this (presumably) gave me one years probation and revert parole. I have a couple of questions regarding this remedy.

• why did the Kosovo arbcom consider my misconduct on the Srebrenica massacre article? Nowehere is the Srebrenica massacre article names as a 'related article'. Nowhere is the reasoning for linking the two articles given.
• it seems a rather harsh remedy to give me one years probation and revert parole for a 'crime' which I had already served time for (so to say).
• is it possible to appeal the Kosovo arbcom's decision?

Sincere regards Osli73 10:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this happened. I don't see any edits at all that you made to Kosovo. Fred Bauder 18:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please also refer to my note on Fred's talk page as well as the conversation on my talk page. El_C 02:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Fred, what is the process I need to go through to appeal the decision of the arbcom? Regards Osli73 09:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC) Oh, I see it has already started.Osli73 09:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that Dmcdevit is arguing not to revoke the decisions. My comments on his reasons for not doing so are:

1. dmcdevit doesn't answer why I should be 'punished' a second time for a 'crime' which I had already been punished for. If so, could I be 'punished' for the original edit war yet another time?
2. I don't it mentioned anywhere in the Kosovo arbcom case that edits on the Srebrenica massacre article should be considered. It might be worthy of interest that Asterion already asked Dmcdevit this question (here) to which Dmcdevit answered that "It's reasonably related enough for me". What is the 'jurisdiction' of the Kosovo arbcom? Why were not edits on other articles considered?
3. It seems somewhat odd that a, in my opinion, wrongfully made decision should be upheld by events which took place after that decision was made. In my opinion, the original arbcom decision should be upheld or revoked based on what took place prior to the original decision. Any subsequent behaviour should be judged on its own merits. I see this process as revoking an incorrect judgment, not as an appeal for 'early release'.

Regards Osli73 10:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Osli73 has repeatedly violated the terms of his parole. He created a sockpuppet KarlXII with which he created fake conversations between Osli73 and KarlXII in a willful attempt to deceive people. With the sockpuppet KarlXII, he continued the behavior that got him on parole in the first place. What purpose does it serve to lessen (?!) the penalties at a time when he should be facing more restrictions for this behavior?89.146.130.23 22:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

As I have explained before, this inappropriate behavior was due to personal threats (off wikipedia) and harassment (much of it by you, some recent examples [77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84]). The identity change was to avoid personal threats, not avoid the remedy (KarlXII existed before the ARBCOM decision). This does not excuse the sockpuppeteering, but it explains it. Regards Osli73 10:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Would this biographical stub be associated with depleted uranium?

I am prohibited from editing articles "associated" with depleted uranium, but what is and is not associated has never been defined. This has caused some difficulty, but not so much as to be insurmountable. For example, an arbitration clerk has claimed that Gulf War syndrome is associated with DU, while my erstwhile arbitration opponents insist that there is no such association.

I would like to create the following biographical stub:

John Taschner is a member of the technical staff in the Environment, Safety and Health Division of Los Alamos National Laboratory where he is involved in radiological transportation accident exercise planning. Prior to coming to Los Alamos, Taschner was Deputy Director of the US Navy's Radiological Controls Program Office in Washington, DC, and has held numerous key health physics management positions with the US Navy and Air Force. Since the 1970s, Taschner has served on several radiation protection standards committees. Since 1992, Taschner has been the Vice Chairman of the American National Standards Institute's N43 Committee, which writes radiation safety standards for non-medical radiation producing equipment. In the 1980s, Taschner received an award from the US Navy for convincing them to use tungsten instead of depleted uranium munitions in the Phalanx CIWS ship defense system.[85] Taschner has been a member of the Health Physics Society since 1958 and is a member of the American Academy of Health Physics. Taschner earned his M.S. in radiation biophysics from the University of Kansas in 1966 and, in 1973, received his certification in Health Physics by the American Board of Health Physics.[86]

My inclination is that Taschner's association with depleted uranium is not strong enough to consider his biography "associated" with DU. I respectfully request clarification from the arbitrators concerning their opinion on this question. In the event that the biography is considered associated with depleted uranium, I would request suggestions for how I should submit this request to other editors (because a non-existant article doesn't have a talk page.) If no comments are forthcomming within seven days, I will create the biographical article in the interest of making a comprehensive and accurate encyclopedia. James S. 19:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

And in comes the camels nose! Non notable biography and would not survive a Vfd as his name only brings up 79 hits in google Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Taschner easily satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (people) because he has made widely recognized contributions that are part of the enduring historical record in his field, and has received multiple independent awards for his work, as TDC's Google hits show (and is even more clear if you include his middle initial.) James S. 19:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I would say he's clearly "associated" with depleted uranium. The only even arguably notable sourced detail in that stub is that he received an award for his opposition to depleted uranium. My recommndation would be (1) if you wrote a stub that didn't mention depleted uranium in any respect or link to any page discussing depleted uranium, you would probably be fine; (2) if you do write about depleted uranium, then you're writing about something "associated" with depleted uranium; and (3) since your stub doesn't include reference to multiple independent non-trivial published accounts discussing Dr. Taschner, it will probably get deleted as non-notable under WP:BIO. TheronJ 15:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: On Feb 5, 2007, James added the John C. Taschner stub that he proposed above, using his new username.[87] As I stated, I personally think that adding a stub for a government employee whose only claim to notability is his opposition to depleted uranium is pretty clearly editing an article "related to depleted uranium," but maybe we need some clarification from an Arb Comm member or clerk. Thanks, TheronJ 16:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, he isn't notable because he was opposed to DU, but because the Navy gave him an award for convincing them not to use it, and because the Health Physics Society awarded him a fellowship -- multiple independent awards, as per WP:BIO. His interaction with DU was a very small part of his life, most of which has been spent on the Accident Response Group preparing to clean up after nuclear weapons incidents. Secondly, without clarification on what is and is not "associated" with depleted uranium, my restriction is unreasonably vague. James S. 03:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

James, you are Wikilawyering. I have nuked it, leave it to some other editor who does not have this sanction against them. It is self-evidently the case that his purported notability rests in large part on DU, and if you edit the article you;re asking for trouble. Please just respect the ruling. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"he isn't notable because he was opposed to DU, but because the Navy gave him an award for convincing them not to use it." Say wha...? Perhaps others can handle cognitive dissonance better than I can. Raymond Arritt 23:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Asking a question isn't wikilawyering. What is "associated" and what is not? Am I at the mercy of what is or is not "self-evident" to any admin? James S. 07:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make and vote on such motions. Other editors may comment on the talk page)

Osli73

On 21 October 2006 the Kosovo arbcom found that I had been given 96 hours probation for edit warring on the Srebrenica massacre article and based on this (presumably) gave me one year's probation and revert parole. I have a couple of questions regarding this remedy.

• why did the Kosovo arbcom consider my misconduct on the Srebrenica massacre article? Nowehere is the Srebrenica massacre article names as a 'related article'. Nowhere is the reasoning for linking the two articles given.
• it seems a rather harsh remedy to give me one years probation and revert parole for a 'crime' which I had already served time for (so to say).
• is it possible to appeal the Kosovo arbcom's decision?

Sincere regards Osli73 10:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this happened. I don't see any edits at all that you made to Kosovo. Fred Bauder 18:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Moved that the two remedies applied to Osli73 be revoked. Fred Bauder 18:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. When we look at a case, we certainly may take into account a party's total behavior if it is relevant in coming to a conclusion. In some cases ignoring a wider problem because of concerns about scope is harmful; it's a judgment call. Since the case, Osli has been blocked for violation of his remedies, and using a sockpuppet to evade detection. And I note that Osli has repeatedly been edit warring at Srebrenica massacre [88] for months now; in fact, 30 seconds perusing shows that he violated his revert parole yesterday: [89], [90]. Lessening the restrictions at this point seems counterproductive. Dmcdevit·t 05:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Abstain:

Archives

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests (extremely sparse, selective, and unofficial)