Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 459: Line 459:
----
----


=== Derek Smart ===


==== Involved parties ====

* All parties have been made aware of the request by posting in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Derek_Smart Derek Smart talk] page. [[User:Supreme_Cmdr|Supreme_Cmdr]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Supreme_Cmdr|(talk)]]</small></sup> 20:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

*We have tried mediation before and it failed miserably. [[User:Supreme_Cmdr|Supreme_Cmdr]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Supreme_Cmdr|(talk)]]</small></sup> 20:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

==== Statement by party 1 ====

The [[Derek Smart]] page has been the target of edit waring and several other Wiki violations for
many months and it not getting any better. Today a request for protection pending arbitration was
granted and the page now has '''full protection'''.

For many years there has been a feud between supporters and detractors of Derek Smart. That feud has since spilled into his Wiki page. Both sides have been engaged in a slo-mo revert war over content for that page.

Particularly the detractors seem to want to turn his page into one of negative entries and which border on nothing more than character assassination. The same thing they were doing on Usenet prior to Derek Smart excusing himself from Usenet discussions bseveral years back. [[User:Supreme_Cmdr|Supreme_Cmdr]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Supreme_Cmdr|(talk)]]</small></sup> 20:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)



==== Comment by [[User:Ideogram]] ====

[[User:Supreme_Cmdr]] has not made any serious effort in the mediation. The [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-21 Revert war on Derek Smart page|mediation request]] was posted six days ago and no mediator has yet commented on the article talk page. --[[User:Ideogram|Ideogram]] 01:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

==== Statement by [[User:Stifle]] ====
Firstly, this appears to be a content dispute, so I suspect the ArbCom will not consider it anyway. But besides that, it does not appear to have visited [[WP:RFC]] or [[WP:RFM]] yet. These should be considered. (Full disclosure: I protected the page to prevent edit wars.) [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 21:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

An addendum: [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Supreme Cmdr]] has been filed, and the diffs and evidence provided may prove relevant to arbitrators in deciding whether to accept or reject in favour of [[WP:RFC]]. I have become involved in the dispute since this request was filed. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 00:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

====Statement by uninvolved [[User:Phil Sandifer]] ====

Oh, man... Derek Smart. Jeez. I was in the Derek Smart flame war back in... 2001.

In any case, this is very likely a [[Bogdanov Affair]] style thing, and arbitration involvement to tag the page accordingly would be a wise idea. This is a decade-long flame war that I'm surprised took this long to catch fire over here. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 04:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

==== Clerk notes ====
: (This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)
==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/4/0/0) ====
*Reject in favor of prior [[WP:DR]]. [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 06:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
*Accept. We need to keep taking cases which involve [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]] until a general consensus is achieved. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 17:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
*Reject. Leave protected for a while, and people who really think this matters might get out more. Admins please bash anyone who posts defamation. [[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] 11:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
*Reject. This seems well within the competance of our admins to deal with. [[User:Sam Korn|Sam Korn]] <sup>[[User talk:Sam Korn|(smoddy)]]</sup> 10:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
*Reject. - [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 12:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

----


== Requests for clarification ==
== Requests for clarification ==

Revision as of 12:57, 14 August 2006

Shortcut

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. Before requesting arbitration, please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. 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 (ArbCom).

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
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.

The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and (exceptionally) to summarily review new evidence and update the findings and decisions of a previous case. Review is likely to be appropriate if later events indicate the original ruling on scope or enforcement was too limited and does not adequately address the situation, or if new evidence suggests the findings of fact were significantly in error.

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. If your case is accepted for arbitration, the arbitrator or clerk will create an evidence page that you can use to provide more detail. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person against whom you lodge a complaint.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arbitrators' votes to accept/reject/recuse/other. Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after four accept votes are cast. When a case is opened, a notice that includes a link to a newly created evidence page will be posted to each participant's talk page. See the Requests section of the arbitration policy page for details.

This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Please do not open cases; only an Arbitrator or clerk may do so.

See also



How to list cases

Under the Current requests section below:

  • Click the "[edit]" tab on the right of the screen appearing above the section break line;
  • Copy the full formatting template (text will be visible in edit mode), omitting the lines which say "BEGIN" and "END TEMPLATE";
  • Paste template text where it says "ADD CASE BELOW";
  • Follow instructions on comments (indented), and fill out the form;
  • Remove the template comments (indented).

Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template

Current requests

Jtkiefer

Involved parties

Jtkiefer has demonstrated a repeated propensity to betray trust but persistently seeks positions of responsibility.


All three of his known accounts have been notified on their respective talk pages.

Statement by Tony Sidaway

During the course of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jtkiefer 3, it emerged that Jtkiefer, who was making his twelfth bid for a position of responsibility on Wikipedia, had a history of abusive sock puppetry for which he has demonstrated no significant contrition and about which he deliberately misled Wikipedians. A discussion on WP:ANI has turned over even more evidence [1], and reached agreement that his behavior is a cause for concern, but there is no significant support for a community ban. I seek a remedy restricting him to use of a single account. --Tony Sidaway 18:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sympathetic to suggestions by Taxman and others that arbitration may not be necessary; however the case that Taxman himself has noted, wherein Jtkiefer seems to be trying to secure a rerun of a confidentiality agreement of a type that he has abused in the past, suggests to me a level of compulsion, and an accompanying lack of insight and self control, that would make him unable to regard any such agreement as binding. A formal remedy providing for enforcement would in my opinion be preferable. --Tony Sidaway 19:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jtkiefer

Block me, ban me, hang me out to dry it really doesn't matter what I say in my own defense at the moment.


For the record I agree with a one account probation with the caveat that it not be this account or any other known account and that trusted Wikipedians who are bound by the arbcom to not release the nick of the new account are chosen to oversee it, I have mosted more in detail on that on the AN/I post.. Jtkiefer 18:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Cyde Weys

I would also ask the Arbitration Committee to consider some sort of time-limited ban on Jtkiefer re-applying to RFA, as his continued re-nominations, especially the latest one, were rather disruptive. --Cyde Weys 18:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ian13

Although not involved in this case, I ask that the Arbitrators consider the amount of disruption to the encyclopedia that this user has caused, and not just community related disruption. (I do however think that restriction to one account would be suitable.) Ian¹³/t 19:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Taxman

As the bureaucrat that closed the latest RfA nomination, I find the multiple attempts at adminship and bureaucratship (in fact he tried for two adminships at once) troubling and I would agree that the new account should never be allowed to apply for a position of trust without disclosing the relationship. I also find his request that trusted editors be bound not to release the identity to be more of the same problem. Apparently he extracted a similar promise from Kelly Martin and that is what led to 4 innapropriate RfAdminships. The arbcom and whoever else necessary should know the identity of the new account and should reveal it if any attempts to violate policy or sit for a position of authority are made. Other than that I'm not sure why this needed to come to the arbcom, the discussion on AN/I was already solidiying on a one account limit with some trusted people knowing the identity, which is exactly what is being asked for here. - Taxman Talk 19:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dante Alighieri

For the record, Jtkiefer has been involved in some potential irregularities on the WP:FPC. See here for details. His/Her consistent attempts to act as if he/she has "authority" over others or some special status seem in the same vein as his/her attempts to achieve adminship. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

As petitioner, I recuse myself as a clerk. --Tony Sidaway 18:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has Jt REALLY left? (Statement by Dante Alighieri)

I implore the ArbCom not to ignore the issue because he/she has "left". Jt has "left" more than once before and come back again and again with the same pattern of behavior. If you ignore the behavior, all Jt will need to do is lay low for a month or so, and then come back and do it all over again. This isn't just about RfA, so simply speedy-closing those is not enough of a solution. Please accept the case and examine the whole history of this user and his/her associated socks. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JDG

As a longtime editor-in-good-standing whose participation in the project was severely and unneccesarily disrupted by a malicious ban from Jtkiefer (see 11th Oppose vote on this page), I urge arbitrators to take this matter more seriously than the first two votes indicate they are. The cycle of offense, slap-on-the-wrist, laying-low, offense, slap-on-the-wrist, laying-low, etc.,. really ought to be broken. I take exception to the phrase "his actions [...] were never particularly disruptive". They were extremely disruptive to me and, more recently, I don't know how one can read this and still adhere to this "not particularly disruptive" idea. He has sockpuppets voting in tandem, deals made under one account broken by actions under other accounts, opposing his own RfA, requesting adminship for sockpuppet accounts and on and on. What would "particularly disruptive" be, an actual physical assault on the servers? Please reconsider. JDG 22:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Calton

Given that part of the problem is a pattern of Jtkiefer claiming to leave but coming back instead, doesn't rejecting the case on grounds that Jtkiefer is leaving smewhat miss the point?

But, more importantly, given that Jtkiefer has stated above that he is NOT leaving ("I haven't left...I don't plan on leaving anytime soon..."), aren't the rejection reasons even less applicable? --Calton | Talk 04:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aren't I Obscure?

(Note: I'm making my own section because apparently discussion within section isn't allowed. [2] Oh well.) JtKiefer's previous "departure" is precisely what led to this problem. This doesn't have to be a complicated case since the facts are essentially undisputed. While an argument can be made that his behavior didn't distupt the main namespace, his actions were appallingly abusive and the ArbCom needs to make some sort of binding decision. Aren't I Obscure? 05:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/0/0)

  • Reject. The user in question seems to have left, and while his actions were underhanded they were never particularly disruptive. As to the RFA issue, speedy closing any future RFAs per WP:SNOW seems like the best solution. - SimonP 14:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject - I concur with Simon. Raul654 16:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject - I can't see what great benefit there is going to be from us hearing this case. Sam Korn (smoddy) 10:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein

Sandstein and Mugaliens

I made some original posts on Fashion Police. Sandstein warned me once [3], and I made the necessary corrections. Several hours after I made the corrections he gave me a second, rather unnecessary warning [4] with a threat of expulsion should I continue. A

Apparently, this admin did not observe the corrections I made, and his second response contained a rather surprising amont of anger, quite unbecoming of a Wiki Admin.

When I brought this to his attention in the most polite manner possible (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sandstein&action=edit&section=8), his anger apparently got the better of him a second time and he continued his tirade, mentioning issues of which I've never been a part.

I feel I have a great deal to contribute to Wiki, and have absolute no wish for any contentions. Yet it appears there are highly contentious individuals here. What am I to make of this? How do I respond? This is quite unheard of, and I'm not familiar with how I might proceed, hence this post. I quite expected my comments to be met with a cooperative/collaborative response, but instead this individual appears to be focused on something far darker, to what extent, I cannot imagine. I offered him the white glove of cooperation and collaboration and he responds with insults and derrogatory comments. I fail to understand how Wikipedia can tolerate such an individual in the position of an admin.

The train of comments and responses is evident on both my own pages as well as his. Please follow them.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mugaliens (talk • contribs) 21:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 1

Statement by party 2

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/0/0)

  • Reject - this has been sitting here for nearly a week with no further comments. It is clearly way, way too early in the DR process to even think about arbitration. Rather more evidence would need to be produced. Sam Korn (smoddy) 10:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. Charles Matthews 12:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. - SimonP 12:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Article Talk Page User Talks: [5][6]

I am aware of the request. Spike 23:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Leuko

During the course of the past few weeks, a number of issues on the St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine have come up which we were not able to resolve using the other steps in the dispute resolution process. They are:

  • ParalelUni is of the opinion that a website published by a state government agency (the Oregon Office of Degree Assessment) is not a reliable source for inclusion and citation under WP:RS and WP:V. Users Leuko, Azskeptic as well as the user providing the Third Opinion all agree that a government website qualifies under WP:RS and should be included. However, ParalelUni refuses to abide by the consensus and the WP:3O, and states that he will only submit to an administrative opinion.diff.

Those are the major issues to be decided, as well as one minor issue:

  • ParalelUni has placed the article into 6 categories. 3 of these categories are subcategories of each other, and others are marginally related at best. I feel a single category would be most appropriate.

--Leuko 19:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Azskeptic

I believe that placing SCIMD in the category of Medical Schools in England is false advertising. The school is a Senegal chartered school that is squatting in the UK and not recognized. Also we have no proof that SCIMD is indeed related to the original SC and thus it isn't recognized in the same way SC was and wasn't. Numerous states won't accept SC diplomas and yet the website has been setup on wikipedia to act like it is widely accepted Azskeptic 19:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main Statement by ParalelUni

We basically just need a ruling on whether the page:

http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.html

meets the requirements of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources.

It's my contention that it doesn't. The fact that it's a state gov. page doesn't automatically mean that it's reliable. They do not reference where the information for this page is obtained or provide any references to appropriate primary research, materials, or methods used to gather this information. There's also no oversight of the ODA to ensure that the information contained on the page is accurate. It there is no oversight, no reference to how or where they got this information from and no verification of the information on that page it can't possibly meet the requirments for Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Also, don't be fooled by the link at the top to the AACRAO publication, they didn't get the information for that page from that publication, it's the other way around. The AACRAO used the unverified and unproven data on that page for their publication, which is really a shame. Spike 23:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if the ODA is not found to meet the guidelines of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, all other sources that use it as a major/only source of reference should also be banned from the article since that is just a roundabout way to include the same inappropriate material. Spike 23:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other Statments Made By ParalelUni

Someone also need to do something about JzG, he is acting horribly for a wikipedia admin. Please check his edits on the article in question. He is adding content that is totally inappropriate, instead of discussing the material he is just reverting my edits stating "He is an admin" such that it explains his poor behavior, and threatened me that my editing abilities could be removed even though I am doing nothing wrong. Someone really needs to pull on his leash and rein him in. Spike 21:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Uninvolved now involved JzG

The issue of unaccredited universities is a long-standing bone of contention. Understandably, faculty and graduates are keen to de-emphasise the importance of accreditation. Equally understandably, others are keen to ensure that the problems of degrees from unaccredited universities, which include the fact that use of unaccredited titles is illegal in some jurisdictions, is properly reflected. We have a template, {{unaccredited}}, for this purpose. Many unaccredited schools are religious establishments, where accreditation is probably not that important in the global scheme of things. This is not a religious institution, it's a medical school which is not recognised by either the US accreditation agencies or the General Medical Council, the main medical accreditation body in its base country. The fact that some graduates have managed to get onto programmes in the US is actually a dangerous distraction here - ther ehave been instances of tenured professors in US universities turnign out to have degrees from known degree mills, checking of credentials can be very lax. The fact that it is not accredited by any recognised accreditation body, and specifically not recognised by the GMC, is of paramount importance and arguably the single most important fact about the place, in terms of documenting it for an encyclopaedia. I don't know what ArbCom is being asked to do here; if it's a matter of stopping a minority view from skewing an article then that can be fixed by the involvement of admins (I'm over there now). It sems to me that this is actually a content dispute which requires a bit of policing, not a matter for ArbCom, but what do I know? Changed my view: I now think User:ParalelUni needs to be banned from this subject area.

Response to this is in the talk page at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration#From_St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine

Addendum: I have checked, this institution is not accredited to award degrees in the UK and is not recognised by the CHMS [7]. It is my strong opinion that this body should notbe in any of the categories relating to UK higher or medical education, because according to the bodies which regulate UK higher and medical education it is not an accredited British instituion. One of the sources ParalelUni refuses to allow is the Office of Degree Authorization in the State of Oregon, which says about this school: Great Britain ceased accepting its degrees, March, 2006. No Senegalese school issuing degrees under this name exists as of March, 2006. Price, Waterhouse has taken over the entity's records (UK/Senegal) and students who want to get information must contact PWC. It was announced that a portion of Luton (UK) operation became a branch campus of Medical University of the Americas, Belize, March 28, 2006. See Medical University of the Americas. However, the school ownership is apparently in dispute at this time. [8] Medical University of the Americas, Belize almost certainly refers to American Global University School of Medicine, which is located in Belize, and is also unaccredited.
Addendum: here [9] User:ParalelUni uses the word "we" to describe the disputed institution. If it was not obvious or admitted before, this explicitly identifies him with the subject. WP:SOCK and WP:3RR ([10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. User:ParalelUni reacts rather badly to being blocked, including taunting me about the recent death of my sister [15], and opining that not only is it a really great thing for the gene pool that she died, but that hopefully I won't be far behind: [16]. Lovely. Just zis Guy you know? 06:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved User:JBKramer

Massive incivility by User:ParalelUni here demands serious action. JBKramer 17:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JoshuaZ

After multiple requests, I have extended my block of ParalelUni to indefinite following the above edit noted by Kramer as well as [17][18] [19]. JoshuaZ 20:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JzG's comment was in response to you mocking his sister's death. Given the circumstances his single comment seemed to me to be restrained, and was in any event only after you had made repeated attacks on him and his sister. To even think about this being in the same scale is ridiculous. JoshuaZ 21:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC) I will note that since this user is Paralel by his own admission, he has no attempted to avoid edit avoiding a block on the relevant article. JoshuaZ 21:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC) (clarification, this comment and the bellow comments were in response to comments by Paralel which have been factored out by Kelly). JoshuaZ 02:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've also taken the liberty of blocking the above IP address for 24 hours since the user attempted to use to continue edit warring on the page in question. JoshuaZ 22:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, he continued vandalism to JzG's user space. I will now use the rollback tool on all edits that this user does. JoshuaZ 22:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

Pat8722

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by party 1 (BorgHunter)

Though I would have liked very much to avoid it, I see the Arbitration Committee as the only viable solution to the problem we have brewing here. User Pat8722 has had a history of tendentious editing, starting with Libertarianism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and includes more recently Water_fluoridation_controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Temporomandibular_joint_disorder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), all three of which he has disrupted with regular edit warring. He is aware of the three revert rule, but has claimed on many occasions that he is within his rights to revert these articles three times per day, despite being corrected on this point repeatedly and by numerous admins. He responds to the corrections by repeating his claim that he is entitled to three reverts, and characterizing my first block of him (for 4 reverts in 24 and a half hours) as out-of-policy. He also has stated his desire, on numerous occasions, to de-sysop a number of admins because of their, as he characterizes them, "out-of-policy" blocks. Because of this constant disruption, he was for a short time indef-blocked by Knewledge Seeker, but that block was reversed by the community as being too much, too soon. After being unblocked, I observed more incivility and edit warring, and blocked him for two weeks (after previous blocks by me of 24 and 31 hours). This block, still in effect, has not deterred him from his behavior, as he engages in the same incivility as before, though now it is limited to his talk page. He has not expressed contrition for his behavior at all, or any understand of Wikipedia policy, though he frequently touts Wikipedia:Voting is evil, for some reason. He has repeated his desire to edit war, claiming that his opponents are vandals, despite evidence to the contrary and frequent urging to read WP:FAITH. Consensus is usually against him in these edit wars. Finally, he has ignored his RfC (in which no one came to his defense and all who edited the page made comments against his behavior), except to (somewhat paradoxically) refer to it as a document in defense of his edits to Libertarianism. I think the situation has reached the point where all attempts that could be made at reasoning with him have been made, and only a binding decision could deter him from his behavior. —BorgHunter (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Tony's statement below, I'd like to note that I believe the only course which will prevent an eventual indef block of Pat8722 is arbitration, as the ArbCom is the only authority Pat8722 really seems to recognize. The community is handling the situation, yes, but because of Pat8722's stubbornness, I fear that leaving the situation to the community will ultimately lead to his indef block rather than his reformation into the very model of a modern Wikipedian. I think an arbitration case, though it may on the surface appear to be unnecessary, is the route that would best help Wikipedia. —BorgHunter (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2 (CBDunkerson)

As noted by Tony below, my involvement here was reviewing an unblock request and providing some suggestions for resolving disagreements. Overall my impression is that the user wants to help improve the encyclopedia, but very much has his own ways of doing things - which sometimes conflict with standards or the opinions of others and bring him into disputes. He has, I believe, some legitimate grounds for complaint in a few cases, but has conflated these beyond their merits and was not himself wholly blameless in any of the situations.
I don't know if an ArbCom case would help to 'get through to him' as BorgHunter suggests or not. I do agree that his current ideas about how things on Wikipedia are/should be run seem inconsistent and likely to lead to continuing conflict and eventually an indefinite block. However, I don't see ArbCom or any other particular course as being clearly more likely to prompt him to re-examine those views at this point.
Finally, please note that he is currently still blocked for the remainder of the week and thus unable to reply to this ArbCom motion on his own behalf. --CBD 11:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 3

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Clerk notes

It appears that this is a case where an editor, and he alone, disagrees with the eventual outcome of administrator action taken to deal with his behavior. The matter has been repeatedly reviewed, there is agreement on this user's problematic behavior, and the latest block by BorgHunter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been reviewed and explicitly endorsed by Deckiller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), [24], and Kbdank71 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [25]. CBDunkerson (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) reviewed in depth and promised to unblock if the editor agreed to make an effort to take on board legitimate criticism of his behavior [26]. Saxifrage (talk · contribs) has also made constructive comments and has helped to have the block reviewed. The matter has also been raised by User:Pat8722 on the "unblock-en-l" mailing list, in which he characterized such blocks as "frivolous and malicious" and accused the blocking administrators of acting from political motivations.
The community seems to be quite capably dealing with this case without further intervention. --Tony Sidaway 13:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/0/0/0)

Jayjg, PinchasC & FloNight

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Jayjg.

Note, after this note was left, it was removed by the same user that posted it see this diff and then blanked this case as well see this diff then readded by an ip see this diff. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See my response to Jayjg below, I removed the notice after I removed this RFA[27] and intended to restore the notice when I decided to proceed with the RFA with the edit note "this seems to be necessary", the same comment I made when I restored this RFA[28] however, since there was an intervening edit by Flo which I didn't see I misfired and a) reverted to the wrong prior edit (the one that followed my notice) and b) accidentally removed Flo's edit. Ex-Homey 17:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot leave a message at User talk:PinchasC as that page is semi-protected, I have sent him an email instead. And he has responded.
  • FloNight is already aware of this RFA
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

[29] [30] As first party, you may feel tempted to add a summary here. If you do, make it a single sentence of not more than twenty words. Please make your case in your statement.

Statement by User:Ex-Homey

Withdrawn See [31]. Ex-Homey 20:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC) I was formerly User:Homeontherange. My former account was never banned, rather, I abandoned the account for various reasons, partly frustration at wikipedia and partly the suspicion that it had been compromised. I no longer have the account's password and thus cannot edit from that account, additionally it has been blocked and desysopped on my request. While there was an RFA against that account at the time that I left it was for a review of admin permissions and did not extend beyond that. [reply]

I have been in the process of withdrawing from wikipedia however I have continued to edit under single purpose accounts which with one exception I have tended to use only for a day or so.

Today, Jayjg declared these various accounts to be sockpuppets of Homeontherange and blocked them despite the fact that a) Homeontherange was never banned and b) none of the edits by those accounts were tendentious. Nevertheless he has labelled them all "abusive sockpuppets". This is wikilawyering and an attempt to use WP:SOCK as a pretext for his arbitrary actions despite the fact that WP:SOCK was not actually violated by the existence of these accounts.

As well, as I use a semi-public computer cluster along with a few hundred other people in my building, Jay's action has also declared several accounts I am uninvolved with as sockpuppets, including one belonging to my roomate.

I attempted to rectify this situation using User:Ex-Homey by pasting a "former Wikipedian" tag on User:Homeontherange. User:PinchasC reverted and then blocked me giving "homeontherange" as his justification for the block despite the fact that Homeontherange is not a banned user. I tried to explain this to Pinchas but he responded in an uncivil way by reverting me and then semiprotecting his talk page.

Both these users have thus misused their administrative permissions and acted arbitrarily. They have used wikilawyerly justifications for their actions based on a misapplication of WP:SOCK.Ex-Homey 15:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Re: FloNight

FloNight also banned an account of mine on sight despite the fact that Homeontherange was never banned by ArbComm or the community. After the fact she argued that there is a community ban when, in fact, no such thing has been done. In the face of opposition she unilaterally declared that there was a community ban in effect and banned User:Homeontherange despite the fact that that account had already been banned at my own request. This ban was lifted by Fred Bauder. Flo is engaging in an Post hoc ergo propter hoc argument to retroactively justify her arbitrary and out of policy bans. Ex-Homey 15:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to SlimVirgin

In fact Sonofzion is not "confirmed" and was never "confirmed". The CheckUser result at the time was "likely"[32] and there is evidence that someone who signed themselves Sonofzion (and later daughterofzion) is in fact in Sweden suggesting "Sonofzion" may have been someone off continent who perhaps made it appear that he was editing from Toronto by using a proxy server or dummy computer. Jay seems to have conveniently changed the finding several weeks after the fact based not on a new checkuser run (since that account has not resurfaced in the past month) but on his own wishful thinking. I specifically asked if Checkuser showed same system or not same system and was never given a reply. SV is deliberately misrepresenting the facts as is Jay by including Sonofzion in a confirmed sockpuppet cat. Given dynamic IPs the number of anon IPs is quite meaningless. The other alleged sockpuppets were either single purpose accounts (since it was my intention to leave and not start a new permanent account) or are not mine but either my roomate's or others started via an IP feed shared by our co-op. None of them violated WP:SOCK save for one instance in which someone was asked to review a page for a possible 3RR violation by SlimVirgin in which ignorance of 3RR was feigned. The Homeontherange account at Mediawiki was an obvious imposter and I sent Fred and a steward an email to complain about it at the time and there is no reason, except for Slim's vivid imagination and her wishful thinking, to suspect that the other mediawiki account she lists was me. I see by some of her talk page chatter that she is now accusing anyone who has a different view than her on animal rights pages of being me - this may be a convenient pretext to use to delete contributions she disagrees with but other than that it's bogus. I have shown no hesitation to confirm accounts I have actually used but if Slim wishes to go on a self-serving witchhunt to stamp out edits contrary to her fringe animal rights opinion so be it.Ex-Homey 22:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to PinchasC

Post hoc ergo propter hoc there was no talk of a community ban prior to Flo banning me on sight. This was introduced as an after the fact justification. It also makes no sense to argue that someone should be subject to a community ban because there are imposters pretending to be him. Ex-Homey 15:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Jayjg

That was accidental. What I was trying to to was revert my own removal of the notice of this RFA as I had decided to go ahead with it. Look at [33] and specifically [34] as well as [35] where I made the identical edit comment of "this seems to be necessary". I did not see Flo's intervening edit and because of that I a) reverted to the wrong prior edit and b) removed Flo's edit inadvertently.

In any case Jay, your post to ANI misrerepesented things by mischaracterising edits and also implying that several of the alleged sockpuppets had been banned for "disruption" when, in fact, only one had and not because the edits it made were disruptive but because Flo mistakenly assumed it was a Wordbomb sock because the account asked if Mantanmoreland's CheckUser results were going to be posted. If you misrepresented the situation similarly to the ArbComm then you obtained permission to act under false pretences. Since you are an involved party in past disputes you should have left this to someone else. As it was you distorted and misrepresented in order to obtain a desired result. Ex-Homey 15:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Committee

*Two admins (at least) oppose the community ban which means there is none in effect. What I need is a clear understanding that I am free to edit without FloNight, PinchasC, SV or anyone else blocking me under the false pretense that I am a banned user.

::If there *is* a community ban then I would like to appeal it (something that is now permitted according eg Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Saladin1970_appeal. If there is no community ban then I want that to be stated clearly. Ex-Homey 00:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Query to FloNight

according to Requests_for_arbitration/Saladin1970_appeal/Proposed_decision#Ban_by_the_community

The touchstone of an appropriate "ban by the community" is that there is no administrator who after examining the matter is willing to lift or reduce the ban.

Accordingly, since ChrisO below, for instance, says there is no community ban will you still ban me? If so, if ChrisO or another admin unblocks me will you respect that?Ex-Homey 10:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Statement by SlimVirgin

This is another attempt by Homeontherange to use arbitration as a platform to cause more chaos. In the last few weeks, he has used 15 confirmed sockpuppets, some of them abusive, one of them in order to evade a block for 3RR. He has also posted using 20 anon IPs, including proxies, sometimes claiming to be Homey, then denying it a few edits later and claiming his computer/user account had been compromised; or that other disruptive editors were pretending to be him. He used these ambiguities to create confusion over whether he had asked to be desyopped, over whether he was leaving, and over whether he had filed a previous RfAr. He is having a laugh at everyone's expense and has come close to exhausting the community's patience. See the proposed community ban suggested by Thatcher131.

Sonofzion was used to evade a 3RR block. Deuteronomy was used to file a 3RR report against an admin who had blocked Homey for 3RR. Fluffy the Cotton Fish (who Homey claims is a friend of his) was used to comment on the nomination to the Mediation Committee of Pinchas, who had filed an RfAr against Homey. Schroedinger the Cat was used to accuse me of admin abuse, and deliberately gave the impression that he was banned User:WordBomb in order to cause confusion. Hunting Thomas was used to make provocative edits to PETA, an article Homeontherange had previously stalked me to (but had otherwise no interest in). Hunting Thomas also pretended to William_M._Connolley that he was a new user who didn't know about 3RR, [36] which is evidence that the account was being used deceptively in violation of WP:SOCK.

I request that the Committee not allow him to prolong this disruption with yet another arbitration case. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed accounts:

Suspected:

Confirmed IP addresses (these have either been posted on the check-user page or Homeontherange has admitted to them, so there is no private information here about his location that is not already known):

Suspected:

Statement by Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg

I must say that Homey has a lot of gall to even write this request. He has almost been as disruptive since he has "left" than he was before. He has an entire drawer of sockpuppets following around his former enemies, [37] and in some cases making disruptive edits, [38]. Homey has always had a tendency to go to ridiculous heights to try to get his way, but this situation just takes it to a whole new level. In this situation however I really don't see how it can accomplish anything besides backfiring in his face.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 14:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to User:KimvdLinde

I really do not know where you have found such a definition but I don't think it was anywhere on wikipedia. There is always one or two people defending even the most odious users. If we had to get the consensus on evey single person or even every single administrator before we enacted a community ban then I doubt anyone would ever be banned at all. Think about it, Willy on wheels would be running wild and free, Xed would still be making progressively crazier and crazier accusations of a vast conspiracy, that crazy religious guy would still be trying to convert people, Brandt and Merkey would have scared everyone off wikipedia by now. No, I don't think universal consensus is needed for this.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 14:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to User:Homeontherange

I must say that Homey's argument that Slimvirgin is basically just accusing everyone who diagrees with her of being socks of his, really sounds similar to every other time he denied that various sockpuppets belonged to him. I would say that even for someone who does not have access to checkuser reports, the evidence against him is rather obvious. His statements are beginning to look more and more like Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf and his annoucements of American soldiers setting themselves on fire in the streets of Baghdad in fear of the dreadful Iraqi army. In other words, to believe he is telling the truth flies in the face of all reason and common sense.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FloNight

IMO that User:Homeontherange is currently under a community ban. All of User:Homeontherange's user accounts are indef blocked on sight by myself and other admins. No other admins have undone these blocks. This type of behavior by the community is by definition a community ban. If they so desire, the Arbitration Committee and Jimbo can review our ban. If the Arbcom wants to open a case and modify the community ban they can. Until an admin reverses one of User:Homeontherange's blocked account, hopefully with full community consensus, I consider him under a community ban and will continue to block his sockpuppet user accounts. FloNight talk 14:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Selected comments from User talk:FloNight#Ex-Homey thread.

Fred Bauder explains reason that he unblocked Homey's accounts.

I have unblocked Ex-Homey to participate in the arbitration request he made. He is limited to editing only arbitration pages. I will use checkuser to enforce this. Fred Bauder 15:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC) I also unblocked Homeonetherange. The password is lost and the only effect is to autoblock his new account. Fred Bauder 15:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

FloNight explains the reason all Homey's accounts are indef blocked.

My blocks have nothing to do with an editing dispute. As far as I can recall, I have never edited an article with Homey. My indef blocks are purely based on his use of disruptive sockpuppets which are proven by Checkuser... FloNight talk 19:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Based on the above, I will reblock Homey if he edits outside of arb case pages. FloNight talk 01:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by ChrisO

Following up on FloNight's statement above, I don't think the assertion that Homeontherange is under a community ban is accurate - the block log has this entry:

20:16, 26 July 2006, KimvdLinde (Talk) blocked Homeontherange (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (Unblock) (Per request of Homeontherage per e-mail)

I assume this was done in the light of the apparent compromising of the Homeontherange account. No community ban applies in this case as far as I know. -- ChrisO 14:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:KimvdLinde

Community bans can only be applied when no body objects, and I objected, so there is no community ban. That I did not unblock any of his accounts is that it will probably end up in a wheelwar, where other admins will reblock as I am likely to be considered involved. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC) Reinserted by SlimVirgin [39]. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLOCK#Users_who_exhaust_the_community.27s_patience: Community bans must be supported by a strong consensus and should never be enacted based on agreement between a handful of admins or users Currently, I do not see that strong and wide consensus beyond editors that have been involved in various content disputes with Homey. That he was not community banned was confirmed by Fred Bauder here [40] I however, would very strongly suggest to Homey that he limits his editing to the ArbCom cases. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Saladin1970_appeal/Proposed_decision#Ban_by_the_community. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The ruling states: The touchstone of an appropriate "ban by the community" is that there is no administrator who after examining the matter is willing to lift or reduce the ban. Seems clear to me. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:PinchasC

The abuse committed by Homeontherange is fully elaborated in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeontherange and by Slimvirgin, Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg and the others above.

In regards to the claim of him that I blocked User:Ex-Homey, the reason was because with his username he may have been impersonating Homeontherange. I noted this by placing a suspected sockpuppet or impersonator tag on his user page, as he claims that there are multiple users using his ip and accounts. And even if it was Homeontherange, then as FloNight wrote above that there was community support and as Jayjg wrote in AN/I arbcom support for the banning of his sockpuppets. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Jayjg

Before tagging and blocking Homey's sockpuppets I consulted with the Arbitration Committee mailing list. I was advised to go ahead, and to note the fact that I had done so on WP:AN/I, which I did: [41] I also note that the IP address which brought this case vandalized my User: page before doing so: [42], and is one of a series of IP addresses claiming to be Homey, or claiming that other addresses claiming to be Homey are, in fact, not Homey, or various other deliberately confusing and disruptive actions and scenarios intended to spread FUD. Jayjg (talk) 01:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Bhouston

A user who goes by the username User:WordBomb among others was actually responsible for a lot of the shinnanigans as well as the original accounts that Zeq believed were sockpuppets of Homeontherange. Whether WordBomb and Homeontherange are the same people is a different question -- although I think it is established that they are different people because WordBomb has a history of abuse (I think SV mentioned this once) while Homeontherange doesn't. I can present evidence to this effect. WordBomb was incredibly effective as a troll. --Ben Houston 07:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/2/0/0)


Requests for clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process.

Pedophilia userbox wheel war

I would like to know if Tony Sidaway's threats at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 8#Template:unblockabuse are valid per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war#SPUI, especially given the comments at [43]. --SPUI (T - C) 17:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link is no longer good. Fred Bauder 17:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[44] Ashibaka tock 00:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically this edit, which I still stand by. --Tony Sidaway 16:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internal spamming/campaigning

There's an ongoing discussion at WP:SPAM about what constitutes acceptable talk page contact between users regarding discussions, votes, polls, etc. Prior rulings that have been pointed to are this prior ruling and this one. Could you offer any more specific information about what is and is not allowed/discouraged, for example: is it the use of mass userbox messaging that is disallowed (if it is), or is internal spamming/campaigning disallowed only if disruptive? Thanks. IronDuke 17:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine. Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not. The difference lies in the disruption involved. If what is happening is getting everyone upset then it is a problem. Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article. Fred Bauder 16:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alienus

The Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alienus arbitration has been on indefinite hold since he seemed to have left the project. However, this week Alienus has returned and is using sockpuppets to edit war tendentiously. For example, compare this new edit [45] with this old edit from February where he signs his name [46]. So far he has used the addresses 24.44.189.249, 24.44.189.175, and 67.90.197.194. Because this seems to be a flagrant attempt to evade this accepted Arbcom case I would like to request that the case be moved back to active status, and furthermore an injunction against the use of such sockpuppets whil this case is ongoing, enforcement to be accomplished through reverting edits and indefinite block on sight. Nandesuka 13:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Today's he's used 24.44.184.238 as well. Nandesuka 12:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a question about this at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Alienus/Proposed decision. -Will Beback 03:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)


Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq

Motion to ban Zeq for a week for creating an attack article regarding User:Homeontherange (article has been deleted) diff will be available to Arbitration Committee members. Fred Bauder 21:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=69575280"