[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jdforrester (talk | contribs) at 09:25, 23 February 2006 (→‎Userbox Mass Deletion/Improv: De-list; rejected.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

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.

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland Motion (orig. case) 21 June 2024
Amendment request: Extended confirmed restriction none none 25 July 2024
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) none none 26 July 2024
Motion name Date posted
Historical elections 21 July 2024

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.



How to list cases

Under the below Current requests section:

  • Click "[edit]";
  • 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

Chad Bryant posts real life information

Involved parties

Chadbryant TruthCrusader

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

I have asked Chad Bryant many many times to refrain from posting this information, he has refused. Other editors have warned him not to post the information, he has ignored them. I have informed him of my request for arbitration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chadbryant


Statement by party 1

Chad Bryant has been continuously posting, what he claims to be, my real life name. He has also recently posted two links to websites that correspond to the individual he claims I am. I have stated many times that I am NOT this person, yet Chad Bryant, despite my requests and the requests of others, continues to do so. (NOTE: The individual Chad Bryant maintains I am does not, by all appearances, have a Wikipedia account and is probably unaware of what is happening) I provide these links to several of the instances where Chad Bryant posts the information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.131.237.219&oldid=40754090 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rec.sport.pro-wrestling&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:PyterTaravitch&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:AvengerRSPW&action=history

I wish to also draw attention to Wikipedia rules regarding the posting of alleged real life information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:HAR

I feel this matter cannot be solved any other way. The posting ofr real life information, even if it is incorrect, for the intentpurpose of harrassment, cannot be tolerated. Thank you for your time TruthCrusader 23:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This matter has NOTHING to do with the conflict between Alex Cain and Chad Bryant. This is about Chad Bryant posting supposed real life information, not about any flame war between Chad and anyone else. Please try and stay focused on the matter at hand. TruthCrusader 08:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2

This is coming from an individual who originally registered as User:ChadBryant to vandalize and harass, and who has posted what he believes is the name of my employer (see [1]). This individual does not have "clean hands", and his request is merely another ploy to cause trouble. I refuse to dignify this request further. - Chadbryant 01:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by David Gerard

I have some small familiarity with this case. User:Chadbryant is a normal good editor. However, he has a troll who followed him here from Usenet after Chad wrote a Usenet FAQ about the troll many years ago, and who will not let up. I remember blocking multiple sockpuppets of the troll several months ago. I can't say at a glance if this is that troll, but every conflict I've seen with Chad on one side has the troll on the other or pitching in - David Gerard 07:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Curps

The situation between Chad Bryant and "Alex Cain" has dragged on for many months. Dozens if not hundreds of sockpuppets have been created by the "Alex Cain" persona (see Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Dick Witham, which "Alex Cain" repeatedly tries to depopulate), which usually engage in repeated personal attacks (mostly in the nature of schoolyard taunts) and occasional vandalism. Chad Bryant may have crossed the line sometimes in fighting back. I don't believe any kind of mediation is possible. -- Curps 07:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside statement by McClenon

"Alex Cain" is a notorious Usenet troll who uses hundreds of sockpuppets. If the ArbCom were to open a case, they would conclude that Alex Cain is a troll, and would ban him and his sockpuppets. However, I see no reason why ArbCom action is necessary. There should be Wikipedia consensus (with the exception of the hundreds of sockpuppets, who are only sockpuppets) that these trolls and sockpuppets should be blocked. Robert McClenon 08:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hamas

Involved parties

user:Tazmaniacs user:Irishpunktom user:AladdinSE

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the requ

User_talk:Irishpunktom#ArbCom_case

User_talk:Irishpunktom#ArbCom_case

User_talk:Tazmaniacs#ArbCom_case

Statement by party 1

The 3 users are removing material that has long been a consensus editing on Hamas replacing it with POV pushing which tries to present Hamas a charity orgnization / resistence organization only, ignoring it's terrorist activity.

The consensus editing (see edits by Slim, Jayjg, Sean, Humusspaiens, Bertilvidet and Zeq) has recognize Hamas 3 roles: 1. An Islamic welfare providing organization 2. A mlitary wing that attacked israeli forces in occupied territories (mainly in Gaza when Israeli forces were there) 3. A terror organization that murdered hundreds of innocent israeli civilians

ArbCom is requested to put an end to the constant need to edit war over these issues. see history page of Hamas

Statement by party 2

 (Please limit your statement to 500 words)

Statement by Sean Black

I urge the ArbCom to reject this case. It is, more or less, a content dispute, though it's more to do with one perpetually controversial article rather than any specific issues. I don't think this deserves any special treatment by the ArbCom, or they'd have cases on a good half of all articles on Wikipedia, which is obviously too bizarre for words. Though that does describe the experience of editing Hamas occaisionally. In any case (har, har), I think this is a matter that can be settled via discussion. I'll grant that some of those listed above could be doing a better job of that, but that's life for you. In closing, I believe that the ArbCom should reject this matter, for reasons elicudated immediately above. I now await the torrent of "Reject per Sean Black"'s that will surely flow forth, and I thank you in advance for feeding my vanity.--Sean Black (talk) 08:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Involved parties

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

Mediation was requested and seemed successful with a compromise settlement article Health and environmental effects of depleted uranium being split without any mediator ever becoming involved. The request for mediation was withdrawn by consent of all the involved parties. Subsequent edits were made to the negotiated compromise settlement, including several by Dr U which are plainly contrary to truth. Nrcprm2026 merged corrections into the original Depleted uranium article after the negotiated settlement article was protected. --James S. 20:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ten Dead Chickens

After not contribution to the article for several months, I began making edits to the Depleted Uranium article. After several go arounds on talk with Nrcprm2026 (James) and several other editors, the article was split and another specific article was made to deal with all the factual and POV issues [2]. This article was subject to a great deal of debate, and although not all sides agreed with the solution, it was a working version. James continues to include massive amounts of original research: a rejected FOIA that James filed against the Navy [3], the inclusion of information on a gaseous form of Uranium Trioxide that no one believes exists [4] and whose only evidence is obscure material that James is most likely misinterpreting, and continual novel interpretation of source material drawing conclusions not stated in the sources themselves [5]. This would not be that big an issue in and of itself, but the problem lies in James unwillingness to listen to reason. A licensed engineer, an industrial metallurgist with 30years experience, and an MD have all concluded that James either does not understand the material he is citing or is deliberately distorting it.

After two months of back and forth with a working version, James decides to scrap all our efforts at mediation on the article [6] [7] , [8], [9], [10][11]. This shows an extreme degree of bad faith, when all parties involved have bent over backwards to include all of James relevant contributions and explain in great detail our objections to his contributions. His personal attacks on other editors credibility, motivation, character and ethics has also gotten much worse [12] [13] as the discussion continues. Ten Dead Chickens 20:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dr U

I have little to add as far as reasons for arbitration.

I will attest that steps short of arbitration have lead to deadlock.

I support arbitration.

Dr U 01:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:DV8 2XL

For months the article Depleted uranium has been the subject of an edit war between those that would have an encyclopedic article, and those who would use Wikipedia as a platform for conducting a campaign against DU in general and the United States' involvement in the Mid East in general. User:Nrcprm2026 AKA JamesS is attempting to insert a great deal of material that violates WP:NOR ether by wildly misinterpreting published results by others, or selectively quoiting published material out of context. This user has no scientific training and other editors who have, have shown a great deal of patience with him attempting to explain where he has made errors, however it would seem that he is convinced that somehow we are part of some conspiracy to silence the truth. In an attempt to free the DU article from a lock-down and because the health issues were getting too large at section, it was agreed to split the article into two topics, the other being Health and environmental effects of depleted uranium. An edit war has broken out there over the same issues of misinterpretation and novel conclusions that was occurring in the Depleted uranium article. User:Nrcprm2026 is not being reasonable, and is not able to see that perhaps he simply doesn't understand the material he is writing about.

While expertise, in and of itself is not (and should not) be a limiting criterion for contributing to this project, at some point the ill conceived opinions of amateurs must yield to the generally accepted paradigms of science. I hope that ArbCom takes into account the fact that User:Nrcprm2026 is now editing Uranium hexafluoride and Uranium trioxide to reflect wholesale changes that he is making elsewhere and it is going to take some effort to clean this up. --DV8 2XL 21:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demurrer by Nrcprm2026 = James S.

Because this content dispute was never accepted by any of the proposed mediators, the available remedies have not been exausted. The present dispute involves highly technical aspects of physical chemistry and epidemiology which a committee of arbitrators may not be able to deal with before it has been studied by a single "special master"-type mediator skilled in the fields involved.

I deny I have made any personal attacks. Certain edits by editor Dr U do not reflect the degree of professionalism he has claimed (Dr U claims an unverifiable medical doctorate because he refuses to reveal his identity.) I believe that Dr U's edits, for example removing the fact that depleted uranium is toxic, are sufficient grounds for that critique. If Dr U indeed has a medical doctorate, then his edits may reflect diagnostic misconduct. My comments have been against Dr U's edits, not against Dr U.

I respectfully ask that the arbitration committee decline this request for arbitration on the grounds that mediation never actually occured, because all the parties reached a (now failed) compromise settlement before any mediator accepted this request, and ask that the plaintiff(s) be instructed to exaust the previously-sucessful remedy of mediation before re-submitting this arbitration request.

In the alternative, I ask that the arbitration committee appoint one or more special master(s) familiar with physical chemistry and/or epidemiology to assist the clerk's office with the preparation of evidence in this case. --James S. 20:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Dr U has claimed that I have libeled him even though he refuses to reveal his name, and that he has not responded to the substance of my complaints about his several recent edits (See Talk:Depleted uranium.) --James S. 21:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DV8 2XL accuses parties of an "edit war between those that would have an encyclopedic article, and those who would use Wikipedia as a platform for conducting a campaign against DU in general and the United States' involvement in the Mid East in general." I deny edit waring, because almost all of my edits have been supported by peer-reviewed medical or scientific literature sources cited, and I deny any such "campaign." I would point out that DV8 2XL has been unable to provide any peer-reviewed citations in support of his contention that uranyl oxide gas vapor is not a product of uranium combustion; on the contrary, I have provided several peer-reviewed literature sources cited on Uranium trioxide showing that it is. Will Wikipedia tolerate that kind of a misinformation campaign? --James S. 21:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Physchim62

I am surprised that nobody has thought of asking for comment from WP:Chem during this dispute. I would be willing to mediate on the technical aspects if the parties so wish. Physchim62, Ph.D. (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to this proposal. --James S. 23:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, why not? --DV8 2XL 00:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Might be worth a try. Ten Dead Chickens 13:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The mediation has now been opened here. The parties are warned that if there is any repetition of the serious personal attacks which have, in part, prompted this request for arbitration, I will personally bring the case back before the Arbitration Committee. Physchim62 (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/0/1)



Crotalus horridus

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

All accounts have been notified [14], [15], [16]. -- Netoholic @ 17:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Netoholic

User:Crotalus horridus is an account run by the same person as User:Firebug, and also banned User:LevelCheck. This person, who I will refer to as "Josh", has used these accounts to perform bad-faith Sock puppetry, including AFD and RFA vote-stacking, deception, evasion of responsibility, and creating the illusion of broader support for several positions including the Userbox dilemma.

Rough timeline
Other evidence of a connection

I am sorry for the length. Of course, to fully lay all this evidence out would require much more space, but I hope this shows enough to open this prima facia. I'd like to open this case up separately from both Tony Sidaway's and RJIII's, but the conclusion of this case may alter how those are decided. -- Netoholic @ 17:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2

Ever since I expressed opposition to Netoholic's pet proposal, WP:AUM, he has engaged in a campaign of harassment aimed at me. This is just the latest salvo. Netoholic has a history of failing to assume good faith when dealing with disputes, this being a prime example. Netoholic strings together a number of coincidental similarities and then blandly jumps to a conclusion of sockpuppetry. I welcome a review of my contribution history, and especially a comparison of my contributions - and my behavior toward other users - with that of Netoholic. The evidence will show that it is Netoholic, not I, who has been stirring up trouble, edit warring, and doing very little actual productive editing. Interestingly, he accused both me and User:Locke Cole of "wikistalking" him because we had both reviewed his contribution history (in light of his poor judgment and personal attacks on WT:AUM) and reverted those edits that I felt were problematic, which is perfectly within the bounds of reasonable behavior - after all, this is a wiki [21]. His response is to concoct these spurious allegations. A cursory review of both of our contribution histories will show that it is his edits, not mine, that have been disruptive to the functioning of the encyclopedia. Note that when I used a role account (User:Userboxes), this was fully disclosed on the user page and elsewhere from the start. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tony Sidaway

If this is accepted I suggest that it would best be merged with the ongoing arbitration case involving me and Crotalus horridus:

Further statement by Netoholic

This is a tough call because this also impacts RJII v. Firebug, where several people have commented on the futility of proposing sanctions against Firebug because he's "quit". I'd prefer if the identity question be handled separately because, if it's decided that Firebug has not left but instead assumed a new persona, then that case is impacted as well. I also would like to present lots of evidence which might be off-topic in a Userbox case. -- Netoholic @ 18:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aaron Brenneman

This should at the very least be deferrred until the close of the first case. Adding additional material will only create more confusion in a case already inflicted with word smog. Let the boxen proceed, examine the behavior of everyone involved in isolation and then move on to the second problem. It will be impossible to examine the conduct of all the parties involved otherwise, and if the result of this case is that he's not firebug it will have been to the serious detriment of one case with to no advantage. - brenneman{T}{L} 23:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Locke Cole

For the record, David Gerard (talk · contribs) has already indicated that Crotalus horridus (talk · contribs) cannot be linked to any other accounts (but only due to technical restrictions of checkuser). —Locke Cole • t • c 13:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - the current window on en: is about a month. So this is neither a confirm or a deny. But I must note that checkuser is not magic wiki pixie dust - it only confirms or denies an existing suspicion of sockpuppetry, because the original suspicion will be based on edit patterns, and IP matches can only reinforce that. I always consider edit patterns more important than IP evidence myself - David Gerard 12:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requests for Clarification

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

Carl_Hewitt#Writing_about_yourself

In the recent ruling at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Carl_Hewitt#Writing_about_yourself the Arbitration Committee posits that Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so. I feel that, while the rule itself is obviously sensible, this way of putting it is overly broad and imprecise, thus potentially causing confusion and misuse. The question has long been discussed (see for example Wikipedia_talk:Autobiography/Archive, particularly the first paragraphs), but to my knowledge, there has never been a consensus on where and how to draw the line between legitimate editing on subjects in which a Wikipedian may be an expert and personally involved, and unacceptable editing on subjects where conflicts of interest endanger NPOV. I suggest that the Arb Com amend that ruling to the effect that: 1) Wikipedians should normally refrain from writing about themselves, but are 2) welcome to edit subjects within their field of expertise; that they should 3) be cautious with respect to conflicts of interest, and should 4) wherever possible trust the judgement of others when personal interests are involved. Thank you. Kosebamse 17:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will gladly clarify this principle:
  1. Wikipedians should normally refrain from writing about themselves, but are
  2. welcome to edit subjects within their field of expertise; that they should
  3. be cautious with respect to conflicts of interest, and should
  4. wherever possible trust the judgement of others when personal interests are involved.
The statement isn't intended at all to stop subject experts from writing about their fields! Perhaps it could have been worded to be narrower. Same guidelines apply as have always applied: edit where you can edit neutrally without a conflict of interest, and where you can't, leave it to others. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Carl Hewitt tried to raise the straw man that experts were being excluded from editing. What we were excluding is one expert with an axe to grind. Fred Bauder 15:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying this. Kosebamse 18:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Descriptions of edits

The decision of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine was that he, I, and Robert West (who is still having technical difficulties with WP) should collaborate on a consensus version.

Since my return to Wikipedia, Ultramarine is continuing his habit of referring to edits he has made as the "good", "superior", "correct abd complete" version. I find this uncollegial, and ask if it is consistent with the spirit of the arbitration decision. Several diffs of such claims be found in the evidence in the case, and the usage has continued on Talk:Democratic peace theory, and I believe elsewhere. Septentrionalis 21:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KDRGibby

I removed what I thought were personal attacks in line with the ruling at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby, but user:KDRGibby reinstated some of it shortly after, disputing there were not personal attacks. Will the ArbCom please advise me on this issue and clarify which information is eligible for removal. Thank you. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 20:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any personal attacks are eligible to be (or rather, not just eligible to be, but should be) removed. I suggest you raise the issue on WP:AN. If there is a general consensus that he readded personal attacks, or that any remain, they can be (re)removed, with blocks if necessary to enforce the removal. Dmcdevit·t 22:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, "The remove personal attacks guideline (and the application thereof) is controversial. It has often been abused by malefactors, and may not have community consensus. It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly." - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI Raul654 00:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Er, per our ruling in that case, rather, Any personal attacks should be removed from his user page, I mean. Dmcdevit·t 16:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)


Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=40838512"