Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

From Free net encyclopedia

{{{1{{{1|}}}|

Shortcut:
{{{1|}}}
}}}

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. Template:Clearright Template:Dispute-resolution

Arbitration tasks  (edit) (changes)
Initials indicate the Clerks involved with the case.
Evidence
(.) (p) (w) SqueakBox and Zapatancas 13 Apr 2006
(.) (p) (w) Monicasdude 12 Apr 2006
(.) (p) (w) Messhermit 7 Apr 2006
(.) (p) (w) Jacrosse 6 Apr 2006
(.) (p) (w) Terryeo 3 Apr 2006
(.) (p) (w) Marcosantezana 26 Mar 2006
(.) (p) (w) DarrenRay and 2006BC 23 Mar 2006
Voting
(.) (e) (w) FourthAve 21 Apr 2006
(.) (e) (w) Depleted uranium 18 Apr 2006
(.) (e) (w) Aucaman Inj. 15 Apr 2006
(.) (e) (w) Agapetos angel 14 Apr 2006
(.) (e) (w) Locke Cole 14 Apr 2006
(.) (e) (w) Lou franklin 21 Mar 2006
(.) (e) (w) KJV 2 Mar 2006
Motion to close
—
Recently closed (see all)
ZAROVE 14 Apr 2006
Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al 12 Apr 2006 Template:Wpc
Lapsed Pacifist 4 Apr 2006 Template:Wpc


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. 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.

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.



Contents

[edit]

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


[edit]

Current requests

[edit]

Case name

[edit]

Involved parties

User:Wizardry_Dragon

User:Will_Beback

User:65.213.7.6

User:216.254.126.222

Case Summary: Disagreement on the neutrality and usefulness of links involving the Lou Dobbs article. Two of the editors refuse to follow the guidelines set forth by Wikipedia regarding WP:EL and have shown extreme bias.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

A formal and public notice regarding the arbitration was made on the talk page located here Talk:Lou Dobbs diffs available at the following [1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

I've tried disputing NPOV and allowing for other editors to comment. Before any time summarily passes the links in question are readded, the editors in question cite reasons and agreement made between themselves or no one at all. They claim threats have been made but when asked what threats? There is simply no response or the discussion topic is switched. This is all available on the talk page of the article in question. I've had no choice but to refer to the guidelines repeatedly and i'm now here to find some civility.

[edit]

Statement User:216.254.126.222

I've said all I have regarding this matter on the talk page. To summarize I believe that external links linking to a person should adhere to the guidelines set forth here WP:EL. I also believe that no matter how much one may disagree with a person. Linking to a site that does nothing but lambast the individual without any fact, partiality, neutrality or general deceny should not be tolerated. Wikipedia isn't a magazine.

[edit]

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.)
[edit]

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

[edit]

Appeal for leniency on behalf of User:Rgulerdem

[edit]

Involved parties

Case summary: Indefinite blocking of User:Rgulerdem by User:Cyde and User:NSLE (who acted with approval from WP:ANI). User:Johntex is appealing the block at the request of User:Rgulerdem, who is indefinitely blocked with a protected talk page.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Johntex has informed the other 3 parties. [2], [3], [4]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Johntex has posted to WP:ANI asking if there might be room for some leniency in this matter.[5] This did not result in any change to the blocking. Johntex unprotected Rgulerdem's Talk page so that he could detail his positive contributions. This resulted in no change in heart by the blocking admins, and Rgulerdem was accused of continuing to be uncivil. His talk page was reprotected. Given the history between Rgulerdem and the blocking admins, I don't think continued discussion will help. NSLE has posted to Johntex that the next step should be to give the Arbitration Committee a chance to reveiw the situation.[6]

[edit]

Statement by User:Johntex

I believe there is room for leniency in this case:

  1. Upon joining Wikipedia, Rgulerdem made good edits and engaged in good discussion. [7], [8], [9]
  2. He got into trouble because about showing the cartoons at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy: [10]. Although he did made mistakes (Eg. 3RR violations), he also engaged in many attempts to help others understand how some people feel hurt by these images.
  3. He started on a proposed policy called Wikipedia:Wikiethics. This has not been a popular proposal, and there has been incivility both by Rgulerdem and towards Rgulerdem.
  4. User:NicholasTurnbull gave Rgulerdem what he called a "final warning"[11] but he did not provide specific examples of problem behavior.
  5. Rgulerdem questioned whether Wikipedia has a "final warning".[12]
  6. User:NSLE gave a link to a policy that does not mention a final warning.[13], so it did not answer Rgulerdem's question.
  7. User:NSLE protected Rgulerdem’s page with the statement that Rgulerdem was engaging in trolling and incivility on his talk page.[14] I don’t agree these actions were trolling or uncivil.
  8. User:Cyde indefinitely blocked Rgulerdem, without providing any specific cause.[15]
  9. Rgulerdem contacted me by e-mail and asked me to unblock him. I declined to remove the block.[16], but I did unprotect his talk page so that he could speak about his positive contributions.[17]
  10. Rgulerdem provided information about his positive. Unfortunately, he also made complaints about those who have blocked him, although I had specifically asked him to “… not make any remarks which could possibly be construed as personal attacks, or which could possibly be seen as being uncivil..." I do not think anything he said was a personal attack or uncivil, though he was argumentative when I had specifically asked him to stick to the positive.
  11. Rgulerdem then spoke directly to NSLE saying "Please note that, I am not editing here in Wiki based on your mercy. If I were you I would quit this threatening-style talks as it does not work.". At this point, NLSE re-protected the page.

I do believe that Rgulerdem has behaved badly in the past, but he has served his penalties for those actions. I agree he has tested the community's patience and caused many people to spend a lot of time on him.
On the other hand, he has made some positive contributions. He has worked hard and in good faith on a proposed policy that is important to him. He has suffered insults and incivility on the parts of people who oppose his ideas.
Most importantly to me, the "final warning" and "indefinite block" came about without a specific cause. I have no doubt the blocking admins feel Rgulerdem is a time-sink at best and a hazzard at worst. Also, there was little opposition to the block at WP:ANI. However, I wonder if readers at WP:ANI were able to hear both sides of the issue, since the user was blocked and had his page protected at least part of the time. I ask for the block to be reduced to

[edit]

brenneman says...

This seems just a little bit early for ArbCom. Either the block stands (i.e. no ArbCom involvment) or it gets lifted (no ArbCom until when/if something else goes pear-shaped.) I'd suggest a pseudo-mentorship: He's clearly passionate, if more than a little bit rough around the edges. *snort* 11R violation *snort*
brenneman{L} 05:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Brenneman - Thank you for your advice. I would be willing to mentor this user, but clearly I don't want to unblock him unless there is support for my doing so. No unblock=No possibility for mentorship, right? Johntex\talk 05:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
He has proved to be capable of positive contributions and in his persistence has shown to pocess true desire to work in this project. Censorship is a matter that gets many people emotional, that should not be held against him. He did get carried away, but certain other people were not perfectly civil either. He should be given a second chance with careful observation period,IMHO. Loom91 07:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit]

Cyde Weys responds...

Rgulerdem's block log speaks for itself. It was hardly just me who felt the ban was justified. I urge the ArbCom not to bother taking this case. --Cyde Weys 08:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

To clarify what Cyde meant, when the block was posted to ANI (link above) many admins and non-admins alike agreed with the block. Resid's complaint to the mailing list received similar responses. NSLE (T+C) at 08:48 UTC (2006-04-21)
[edit]

NSLE's take

Resid has previously been blocked for incivility, disruption, 3RR, WP:OWN and sockpuppetry. I once blocked him 50 hours for sockpuppetry. For some reason, a glitch in the system allowed him to resume editing, and I reblocked him. He then claimed I was biased and had an agenda, claiming I blocked him for no reason, and later claiming that since the glitch unblocked him he should be free to edit.

After his 50-hour block expired, he went back to revert warring at Wikipedia talk:Wikiethics. He then accused someone else of vandalism, which violates WP:AGF, and when I reverted his edit, and User:Netscott his next revert, he listed us both, as well as innocent user User:Rory096, at WP:AN/3RR, and I blocked him 15 minutes on disruption of 3RR vio page as there was no 3RR.

He has been downright disruptive and I see no reason why the ArbCom shouldaccept this case to lift a block on someone who's obviously not here to contribute cohesively and conducively. NSLE (T+C) at 08:51 UTC (2006-04-21)

[edit]

Rgulerdem's presence is necessary on Wikipedia

Socrates was a self-appointed gadfly who "bugged" the Athenians and exposed their flaws but in the process made numerous enemies. Let us not block Rgulerdem, our modern day Socrates, and feed him the same Hemlock. Please focus on his positives: I ask you how many Muslim Wikipedians have the same academic arsenal and verbal prowess as him? More importantly how many Muslim Wikipedians share the sentiments of religious tolerance and express an interest to share interfaith dialogue? Very very few. This was one lone voice, albeit caustic, that was raised and you seek to squelch it? Sigh! Oh what a sad day this is! I am VERY sure that if given a chance to be unblocked Rgulerdem will apologize for hurting anyone's feeling and contribute contructively to Wikipedia. Please, oh please, do let him return. Netpari 21:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Rgulerdem was blocked for being persistently disruptive over the span of many months. May I point out that it is ludicrous to (1) compare him to Socrates and (2) suggest that I should be more lenient on him because he is a Muslim. Socrates is a non-sequitur and I practice a strict policy of separation of church and unblock. --Cyde Weys 21:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, okay. Don't unblock him because he is Muslim. And I agree that his comparison to Socrates may be unfounded. But he has contributed extensively to certain articles and has good intentions. Don't you think an indefinite block is a little too extreme? It is the equivalent of a death penalty on Wikipedia. Have a heart please. Netpari 23:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

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

[edit]

Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others re Biological psychiatry

[edit]

Involved parties

Case summary: repeated POV-tagging of Biological psychiatry by Cesar Tort and Ombudsman

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

Editors Cesar Tort and Ombudsman did not respond to requests for mediation/arbitration.
Request consent for arbitration from Ombudsman (no response):

Request consent for mediation/arbitration from Cesar Tort (no response):

[edit]

Statement by party 1

Case concerns repeated POV-tagging of Biological psychiatry, apparently motivated by strong anti-psychiatry feelings primarily by two editors: Cesar Tort and Ombudsman

The parties are in two opposing groups: Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs everybody else.

Cesar Tort and Ombudsman have repeatedly POV-tagged Biological psychiatry, despite repeated entreaties by several editors to stop. They have strong anti-psychiatry feelings and want the article to extensively reflect that viewpoint. However there's already an article on Anti-psychiatry, where most of such content belongs. That has been tactfully pointed out to them multiple times.

There is broad consensus the article in current form is NPOV, well-referenced, and encyclopedic in tone and content. Two editors disagree: Cesar Tort and Ombudsman.

They've been begged to stop POV-tagging the article multiple times. They have not responded to requests for mediation. They feel very strongly about the topic, but apparently don't understand an encyclopedia article is not the forum to express those feelings, or at least restrict them to Anti-psychiatry. Regretably, at this point arbitration seems the only choice. See evidence sub-page: [18] Joema 01:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

Statement by party 2

While not deeply involved in the dispute this request addresses, i was asked to comment having worked with Cesar Tort on an extensive re-write of Anti-psychiatry. I concur with Joema's position, whose contribution to biological psychiatry i have praised [19], and attempted to explain Wikipedia's position on pseudoscience and WP:NPOV [20]. I, with others, have also encouraged those who dispute the article's content to contribute their material to a more suitable article [21]. I believe Cesar Tort's position, while misguided, is in good faith and that lack of response to requests for mediation is due to not understanding [22], rather than wilful disregard for the dispute resolution process. I take no position on Ombudsman's motives, though i believe her/his use of the NPOV tag is also misguided. Rockpocket 06:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

Statement by non-involved party Stifle

This appears to be a content dispute and does not appear to have visited WP:RFC yet. I urge rejection without prejudice. Stifle (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

Statement by party 3

I agree with the statements by parties one and two. Joema pretty much summed up the entire dispute. Regarding the above statement by Stifle: there is already a clear majority in support of Joema's edits. If you read the talk page, this is quite clear. I don't think that input is needed from non-involved parties. The issue is not so much about content as it is about improper tagging of the article (with the POV tag). If the issue was about content, Cesar Tort would be the one requesting arbitration, as he is the major opponent of the article's content. The POV tag has been removed numerous times by several different people. Ombudsman has nearly violated the three-revert rule[23] by reverting to the tagged article three times in row in 25 hours (1 hour less and he would have been blocked), despite its having been removed by three different people. To sum it up, the issue is over repeated improper use of a tag, not over content, and therefore it should not be rejected and/or moved to the WP:RFC page. Fuzzform 00:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

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

[edit]

Requests for Clarification

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

[edit]

LaRouche POV on user pages

Could the ArbCom please clarify whether the expression of pro-LaRouche opinions on one's own user page are in violation of its past rulings? There appears to be some activity regarding censorship of these opinions which I find very disturbing and contrary to our whole spirit here. Everyking 11:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Everyking is referring (I think) to Cognition's user page when in this form. JoshuaZ 12:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that the edits are within what I would consider our intent in the ruling, yes. Cries of "censorship" be damned, we're here to write an encyclopædia.
James F. (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't interested in the intent of the ruling, but rather in the interpretation of the ruling as it is written. But I guess that's another issue. The main point I want to make is that you are making the assumption that censoring the expression of a political POV on a user page will help write the encyclopedia. Is this accurate? My view, and it seems to be a common one, is that freedom of expression will work to improve the encyclopedia. Also: if it is true that, as you argue, this political POV expressed on a user page is harmful to the encyclopedia, does it follow that any political POV expressed on a user page is harmful to the encyclopedia? Everyking 06:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I fail to see how the expression of any general opinion in any way helps the project, yes. I suppose that there is a case to be made for internal politics, such as "I think that the English Wikipedia should be more deletionist", but even then... Certainly, expressions of personal faith ("I am a Christian"), of politics ("I am a Labour supporter"), or of non-organised belief ("I believe in animal rights") seem to me to be wholly and absolutely without merit.
As to the execution of our orders, the intent governs the interpretation rather closely, given the immediacy of action and comment afforded to us by the wiki, so I would have thought it rather important. :-)
James F. (talk) 11:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


James F's opinion is being cited now as if it's the opinion of the whole ArbCom. Could other arbitrators please weigh in on this? Everyking 06:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

Crotalus horridus

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway

The enforcement for Crotalus horridus conflicts with the enforcement provided in the userbox remedy. Presumably the enforcement applies only to Crotalus's probation should that be invoked. Or can admins choose whichever they prefer? (And, if they can, could 5 two-week blocks result in triggering the year-block even though the remedy would not have been invoked since it limits blocks to a week?) -Splashtalk 16:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, we (I?) didn't do that too well. The options are to remove the enforcement from Remedy 1 or to specify that the enforcement only applies to Remedies 2 and 3. I support the former. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
<ping>. I guess it's not especially important since Ch appears to be abiding by it, but it's at least untidy to let it lie. -Splashtalk 23:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit]

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)

[edit]

DPSingh

Since his arbitration case, {{{2|DPSingh}}} (talk • contribs) has violated his ruling and been blocked, and then created a whole host of sockpuppets to violate his article ban, and just be generally disruptive and uncivil. See most recent socks at Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser#Rajput_case. I recommend a general ban.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rajput is modified to include the following remedy:

[edit]

DPSingh banned

For continued violation of his article ban for edit warring and incivility using sockpuppets, DPSingh is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 08:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
[edit]

Xed

Since his second Arbitration case, the personal attack probation against {{{2|Xed}}} (talk • contribs) imposed in the first case has lapsed, and Xed's behaviour has subsequently deteriorated. This, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Xed 2 is modified to include the following remedy:

[edit]

Xed placed on indefinite personal attack parole

For continued personal attacks, Xed is placed indefinitely on personal attack parole. If, in the judgement of any sysop, Xed has breached this ruling, he may be briefly blocked should he make personal attacks, for up to a month in the case of repeat offenses.

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 00:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Dmcdevit·t 00:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 00:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
[edit]

Archives

fr:Wikipédia:Comité d'arbitrage/Arbitrage ru:Википедия:Заявки на арбитраж

Retrieved from "http://www.netipedia.com/index.php/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration"