Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎[[User:JRR Trollkien]]: Deleted due to inconclusive deadlock
Line 87: Line 87:
# Recuse - Involves Lir which biases me in favor of 172. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 09:58, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
# Recuse - Involves Lir which biases me in favor of 172. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 09:58, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)


===[[User:JRR Trollkien]]===


''Evidence of sock-puppetry presented by various users moved to [[User talk:JRR Trollkien]]. [[User:MyRedDice|Martin]] 00:47, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)''

====Complaint by [[User:UninvitedCompany|UninvitedCompany]]====
This user appears to be the same user who was previously banned as:
* [[User:24]]
* [[User:142|142.177.xxx]]
* [[User:EntmootsOfTrolls]]
and who was believed to be, in real life, Craig Hubley ([http://www.hubley.org website]).

In accordance with [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]], I have tried to discuss these matters on [[User_talk:JRR Trollkien|the user's talk page]], as has another user. My concerns have gone unanswered despite [[User:JRR Trollkien]] making continued edits elsewhere. I have also asked [[User:JRR Trollkien]] to confirm or deny having edited previously under one of the three identities listed above, on a related arbitration page, and he neither confirmed nor denied having made such edits. I do not believe that mediation is appropriate in this case, both because of [[User:JRR Trollkien]]'s refusal to discuss any edits on any talk page, and because of the existing ban. However, if the committee should conclude that mediation would somehow be beneficial, I would be happy to participate.


====Requested relief====
If the committee can satisfy itself that this is the same user banned previously, I request that the existing ban be reaffirmed and enforced. I believe this is important, notwithstanding the quality of any current edits, to preserve the integrity and effectiveness of user bans and the right of the community to choose its members.

If the committee believes that this user is unrelated to any previously banned user, I request that the committee ask [[User:JRR Trollkien]] to quit adding content written by previously banned users and since removed through the consensus editing process.

Respectfully, [[User:UninvitedCompany|UninvitedCompany]] 23:10, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)


:there is something I find a bit problematic here UC. It is simply that some of these edits you mention here, have been done while the previous user was not banned *yet* (for example 24). Besides, the user mentionned has not been banned because of the content provided, but because of an behavior considered inapropriate by the community standards. You are basing a good deal of your argument on the fact trollkien is reintroducing content provided before the ban and not object of the ban.

:While I understand very well your concern, I am also worried that what you are asking will set a couple of precedents that could be unwelcome. Right now, it is not current practice to remove edits made by banned users previously to the banning. And I would add that we punish users being bad with the community by punishing them, not deleting contents. What you are now suggesting is that we change this entirely, and use from now on a new law. From a legal perspective, when a law is changed, it is not fair that it is applied by anteriority on people.

:So, I'd say, the committee should only feel concerned by one question : if this user is a banned user, the ban should be enforced. If not, this user should not be bothered. In all cases, what this user is doing is irrelevant and the type of edit he is making is only to be used to make the relationship betwen previously banned user. Content made while the editor could edit should not be taken into account directly.

:Between you and I, I think you should try to loosen this unhealthy obsession :-) But well... friendly yours. Ant

::The original ban of 24 was due to a refusal to work cooperatively with other editors, because 24 engaged in exactly the sort of constant re-insertion of his material that is going on here. 142, as I recall, was chiefly banned as a "reincarnation," and the stated reason for EofT's ban concerned the contents of a specific edit.

:::Nope. 142 was not banned for being a reincarnation. He was banned for making threats. I think that whatever the reason of the ban, and whatever its validity, it is important to say that the reasons of the 3 bannings were not content itself, but behavior. It would be nice that over time, the reason why people are banned are not distorted. I think it is important. If only to remind and insist that people are banned because of behavioral issues, and not for content issues. If reinsertion of content added by a user who has been banned *after* the edition is motive to ban people, then we admit that we ban people for issues of "content". While if we ban people for being reincarnation of ban user, we inforce banning, but we ban over behavioral issue, not content issue. I am in agreement to enforce ban, I am not in agreement to ban people on issues of content. And I do think that the argument you are giving above is borderline in that context. I'd say it is okay to try to make a link between people using the argument of reinsertion, but it is not okay to ban them because they are reinserting content that did not justify the ban in the first place. I am not sure I am explaining myself clearly enough here Steve, but I hope you will see the slight difference in approach that I suggest. Enforce banning over sockpuppet if you wish. But please, do not put a ban on someone because of an issue of content properly. I think that would be a very serious slippery slope to do so. Do you understand what I mean ?

::Several users have counseled me to provde evidence that the user is indeed the same as the ones previously banned. Since there is no technical means to provide such evidence (since we don't try to verify identity and since we haven't saved logs from a year ago to use to compare HTTP headers), I can only point to the editing pattern, which is what I've done. I have already pointed out [[User:JRR Trollkien]]'s refusal to deny authorship of the 24/142/EofT material, which, IMO, speaks volumes.

::The edits being reinstated by [[User:JRR Trollkien]] are ones that were removed one at a time, through the course of careful editing by a wide varity of users. None of them were removed by me, and only one was removed due to authorship alone, and that after the ban. By re-adding this content, verbatim, paragraphs at a time, to a fairly wide range of articles, [[User:JRR Trollkien]] is undoing the careful work of many people who reworded it or rewrote the articles to make them better in the intervening time, well over a year in some cases. I think that's unfair, regardless of the true identity of the people involved.

:::Well, that is a wiki, and everyone is free to participate I'd say. Since you consider that readding content removed over a year by 2 or 3 people is unfair, I take it you consider that the opinion of 2 or 3 people only is more important that the opinion of just 1 person. That means that you agree to follow the opinion of the majority then, and that you lend all power to only 2 or 3 people. I think that is also a dangerous direction. It is perhaps interesting to see in the view of current political dispute involving 172. Imagine that WP is providing a very antiisraelite view. And that one user comes around and add his pro-israel view. Then leave for a while. During a year, 2 or 3 people against israel view come along and carefully, quietly remove the pro-israel view. Then the initial user comes back and tries to reinsert his pro-israel view. Would you say that this is vandalism and unfair ? I'd say that it is not; and if you reacted by excluding this guy, you would perhaps be on the slope of censorship and majority of pov promoting. I think I can say that fairly. I have seen work done on antifrench articles. I tried to improve them a year ago. Over a year, a good deal of what I added was removed quietly by anti french people. Would it be unfair that I add it again ? Just because more people removed it ? Arenot we not bordering something bad here ? I agree that some of the work done is perhaps best than what was done previously, but I also wonder if there is not a risk of "paralysing" the life of articles when a set of users decide that "this version" is the good one, and should not receive again input in another anterior direction. This is something I fear a bit for Wikipedia : the organisation of team who will protect some articles and prevent growth. Overprotection. Hmmmmm.... just think about it please, when you are over your hunting energy. Please, do think about it... from a woman working as well on a younger wikipedia, and who can see the protective forces at work. Do not forget that they are cases which could be dangerous to set. That is all I mean, and I wish you see beneath that precise case to think about that. Okay ? :-) [[User:Anthere|SweetLittleFluffyThing]] 19:22, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

::As to whether this is an unhealthy obsession, I disagree and would be happy to discuss the reasons why at some more suitable location if you're interested.

:: [[User:UninvitedCompany|UninvitedCompany]] 17:23, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

:::I think I already know your arguments. But perhaps it is too important to you. I think you consider you have been trapped at some point, and want to compensate now. Well.... no big deal. I still object, but I have other things to do in my life. I think I enough said my opinion. If you understand what I try to say, so much the best, otherwise, it is not worth I go on :-)

[[User:JRR Trollkien]] should be permanently banned asap. If WP does not have a mechanism for making such a ban effective, we should really sit down and figure one out. [[User:JRR Trollkien]] is a time wasting moron -- get rid of him immediately. BTW I think it's beside the point whether [[User:JRR Trollkien]] is the same as some other troll. Same or not, just ban him. Thanks. [[User:Wile E. Heresiarch|Wile E. Heresiarch]] 06:30, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I ask the arbitration committee not to ban [[User:JRR Trollkien|JRR Trollkien]], but to recognize that he and [[User:EntmootsOfTrolls|EntmootsOfTrolls]] are the same person. There is no need for a new ban to be implemented, if it is shown that JRR Trollkien is already banned. [[User:Guanaco|Guan]][[User talk:Guanaco|aco]] 08:08, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hephaestos blocked JRR Trollkien and [[User:Leo Trollstoy|Leo Trollstoy]] for thirty days. Later on 10 Jun 2004, Mark Richards unblocked, asking (here) "Has the committee already ruled? On both users? If I've missed something here please let me know".

====Votes and discussion by arbitrators (0/3/1/0) ====
# <s>Accept [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]]. There is strong evidence based on his earliest posts that this user was not a new user when he entered Wikipedia, See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&offset=1000&hideminor=0&target=JRR_Trollkien] 12:57, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)</s> Reject, he's out of here. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 18:10, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
# Recuse - Comments by 142.177 to me were the main reason why that user was banned. [http://meta.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Daniel_Mayer&diff=19973&oldid=19972] [http://meta.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Daniel_Mayer&diff=4935&oldid=4934] --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 09:13, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# <s>Accept; if he is, indeed, shown to be a reincarnation, this will be a short case. [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User_talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 09:56, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)</s> ''This looks like it will be unnecessary, as JRR is currently deemed by popular acclaim to be a reincarnation, as said; however, ''accept for purposes of reviewing sysop behaviour in relation to this account '' &c. [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User_talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 01:02, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)''.
# <s>Accept. My current belief is that under current [[wikipedia:banning policy|banning policy]], JRR may already be blocked for being an obvious reincarnation, without even needing an arbitration ruling.</s> As of now, reject. Now that JRR has been blocked as an obvious reincarnation, we only need to consider this case if Mark, Heph, and the community in general are unable to resolve any difference of opinion regards whether the reincarnation is sufficiently "obvious" (in which case, accept). [[User:MyRedDice|Martin]] 02:57, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)


== Matters currently in Arbitration ==
== Matters currently in Arbitration ==

Revision as of 13:34, 12 August 2004

Shortcut

The last step of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is Arbitration, (see arbitration for a general overview of the topic). If, and only if, all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee.

See Wikipedia:Arbitration policy, Wikipedia:Arbitrators, /Admin enforcement requested


Arbitration Committee proceedings

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
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

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Earlier Steps

Please review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for other avenues you should take before requesting Arbitration. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request for Arbitration will be rejected.

Current requests for Arbitration

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. Be brief - put a quick list of the nature of the complaints. Link to detailed evidence elsewhere if you need to. New requests to the top, please.

The numbers in the ====Comments and votes by arbitrators (0/0/0/0)==== sections correspond to (Accept/Reject/Recuse/Other).

Guanaco and MyRedDice vs Lir

Guanaco and MyRedDice continue to abuse their powers, insisting on a revert war at My Arbitration Defense Page. Guanaco is the same user who has banned me without just cause, both here and at the so-called "unofficial" IRC channel. This is yet another clear example of my being denied due process. Every user has the right to defend themselves without infringement by sysops and supersysops -- these users must cease and desist.


I've answered them multiple times. I'll answer them here -- I have no sysop accounts, and I've never claimed to. You people can't even honor the principle of letting someone present their own defense -- you should be ashamed!Lirath Q. Pynnor


I think its getting pretty old too. Its a goddamn defense page; I have the right to create one, and the right not to have a bunch of jerks editing warring with me over it. If you think its "old" mav; THEN TELL MARTIN TO STOP. Lirath Q. Pynnor


Comments and votes by arbitrators (0/4/0/0)

  1. Reject. Lir, please just answer the questions MyRedDice is asking you. Fred Bauder 12:21, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Reject; second Fred's request. James F. (talk) 23:33, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. Reject --the Epopt 16:28, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  4. Reject -- Lir stop requesting arbitration about every user you get into a dispute over. That is getting real old. --mav 04:44, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)


172

172 has been reverting me at New Imperialism and he refuses to discuss the matter. I request that the arbitration committee examine this uncooperative behaviour. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I strongly request that User:172 be examined by the arbitration committee, regarding a general tendancy towards edit wars and incivility. Sam [Spade] 04:09, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See Dialogue below for an interaction. Sam [Spade] 22:19, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I also request that User:172 be examined by the arbitration committee, because of his extensive edit wars with VeryVerily, and Lir.--Plato 22:08, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A note: 172's proposed solution to the problem at New Imperialism was a poll between the two versions - virtually identical to what Lir did at one point on Saddam Hussein. I'm interested in how Lir distinguishes between the two. Snowspinner 12:52, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. We appreciate your concern. I do not recall ever requesting a poll at Saddam Hussein -- however, we will take your point into consideration. Lirath Q. Pynnor

172 has repeatedly deleted contributions by others in the "Evidence" section. I'm disturbed by his actions in this regard - surely a party in an arbitration case should not be permitted to delete contributions by other parties? The issue is being discussed at [1]. -- ChrisO 19:30, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade, Lir, and Plato did not follow dispute resolution procedure so they should also be considered defendants. 172 14:05, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, we have -- but you continue to reject mediation. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Evidence

If people could refrain from removing evidence, that'd certainly help. I don't appreciate my job being made more difficult. Thanks. Martin 17:51, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)


I believe Muriel G would also agree with this request, the following exchange is from her talkpage:

  • As you have learned, by arguing with 172, the cabal is real. They are a group of petty tyrants with no respect for common decency -- their goal is not to make the wikipedia better, but to make the wikipedia theirs. Lirath Q. Pynnor
    • Thats why i moved to wiki.pt :) Muriel G 10:25, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No she would not. I never dealt with 172 (except in VfD) so i couldnt have an opinion on the matter. And i apreciate if people refrain from putting words into my mouth, especially when they are grossely out of context. Muriel G 18:34, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nobody put any words in your mouth; in the above exchange, you clearly stated that 172s actions were "why i moved to wiki.pt". If you mispoke -- that is your fault. I would guess the real problem here, is not that Muriel objects to 172s behaviour; but that she is afraid of being labeled a "troll" and facing future punitive actions by the cabal. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I don't think Muriel needs her mind read, her motivation intuited, or her opinions stated for her. Nor is she in any danger of being labelled or punished on the basis of a label. - Nunh-huh 02:48, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

But she apparently needs you to speak for her... Lirath Q. Pynnor

  • I'm speaking for myself. - Nunh-huh 03:52, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Dialogue

Comments and votes by arbitrators (1(+1)/0/2/0)

  1. Recuse Fred Bauder 12:18, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Accept. James F. (talk) 03:23, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  3. Leave hanging while the two existing Lir cases are resolved - the outcome of those two may render arbitration in this case unnecessary. Martin 23:52, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  4. Recuse - Involves Lir which biases me in favor of 172. --mav 09:58, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Matters currently in Arbitration

/Template

Rejected requests

  • Avala vs various users - Rejected - try other forms of dispute resolution first, please. Discussion moved to User talk:Avala
  • Wheeler vs 172 - Rejected - please try mediation first. Discussion moved to user talk:WHEELER
  • Cheng v. Anonymous and others - Rejected - refer to wikipedia:username for name change policy. For content dispute, try other forms of dispute resolution first, please. Discussion moved to User talk:Nathan w cheng.
  • WikiUser vs. unspecified others - Rejected due to lack of a specific request.
  • Simonides vs. "everyone" - Rejected - referred to the Mediation Committee.
  • Sam Spade vs. Danny - Withdrawn
  • Sam Spade vs. AndyL - Withdrawn
  • Raul654 vs Anthony DiPierro - Withdrawn after agreement of both parties (see standing order).
  • RickK - Rejected - referred to the Mediation Committee.
  • Mike Storm - Rejected - please try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process.
  • Lir (IRC blocking claims) - Rejected due to either a lack of jurisdiction (the IRC channels are not official), or a failure to follow earlier steps.
  • Sam Spade vs. 172 - Rejected - please try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process.


Completed requests

  • /Theresa knott vs. Mr-Natural-Health - Decided on 11th Februry 2004 that Mr-Natural-Health would be banned from editing for 30 days (i.e., until 12 Mar 2004). The vote was 6-2 in favor of banning, with 2 explicit and 1 de-facto abstention.
  • /Plautus satire vs Raul654 - Decided on 11th March 2004 that Plautus satire is to be banned for one year, up to and including March 11 2005. The vote was unanimous with 8 votes in favour and 1 de-facto abstention; a further vote in favour of extending the ban indefinitely was held but not met.
  • /Wik - Decided on 15th March 2004 that Wik would have a three month probation during which he may be temp-banned in certain circumstances. There were six votes in favour, three opposed, and one de-facto abstention. Further decisions and minority opinions can be read at /Wik.
  • /Anthony DiPierro - Decided on 25th April 2004 to instruct Anthony with regards to his VfD edits, and refer other issues to mediation. The vote was unanimous with 6 votes in favour and 4 de-facto abstentions. Note that the case was accepted solely to investigate use of VfD.
  • /Mav v. 168 - Closed on 03 July 2004 with an open verdict.
  • /Cantus - Decided on 01 Aug 2004, apply a revert parole to Cantus and other remedies.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=5161237"