Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Arbitration​Committee

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

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

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

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

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

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area		6 November 2024	0/5/0

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Yasuke	13 Nov 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

Indian Rebellion of 1857

Initiated by srs 15:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Involved Parties

• DemolitionMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bobby Awasthi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• hserus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Josquius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[1] [2] [3] [4]
(Parties notified by uninvolved passerby Nwwaew. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-15 Indian Rebellion of 1857

Statement by srs

Earlier (wrongly) placed on Arbitration Enforcement, I am still something of a newbie to Wikipedia AUP enforcement. Re-pasted this request below.

Tendentious editing by multiple editors - User:Bobby Awasthi and User:DemolitionMan who continue to bring a hindu nationalist NPOV into the article. Edits by others are greeted with abuse (DemolitionMan loves to call me a "janitor", because, well, I'm an ISP postmaster), or summarily reverted, with 3RR skated around by tag team editing, or in the case of User:DemolitionMan by creating sockpuppets, for which he was banned for a day and his sock perm-banned some days back.

Mediation has failed - Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-15 Indian Rebellion of 1857 - a mediator, User:Phoenix-wiki has recused himself and suggested that the case be taken to the arbcomm.

Case accordingly placed before the arbcomm

nb: One of the parties in this request has just been banned for a week - User_talk:DemolitionMan#Blocked_2 - for persistent violation of WP:3RR and history of disruptive editing, including confirmed (checkuser) puppeteering.

srs 15:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Ronnotel, blocking admin

Prior to the filing of this case, I blocked User:DemolitionMan for one week per a request to WP:3RR that is directly related to the subject matter described above. I am willing to unblock if it is determined that User:DemolitionMan's input is required. I, too, have found User:DemolitionMan's behavior to be tendentious, disruptive and overly POV. As per Nwwaew below, I think that an RfC may be a preferred next step rather than ArbCom. So far, the user has shown little interest in responding to an attempt at mediation. Ronnotel 20:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

As per User:DemolitionMan's comment below - the reason for the lengthy block is because of his history of tendentious editing, previous blocks, and pattern of disruptive behavior which necessitate administrative action in order to protect the encyclopedia. He has engaged in persistent edit-warring after repeated warnings. He has been confirmed as a sock puppeteer. Yet in this edit, he disingenuously claim to be unaware of WP:3RR policy, even though his sock had earlier created a WP:3RR report. While he agreed to engage in mediation, he immediately reverted to his tendentious behavior when the mediator decided against him. He even admits below to being adamant about enforcing his POV into the article in question. For all of these reasons, and others, I found it necessary to place a block on his account. As I said previously, I'd be willing to unblock so that he can more easily participate in this case. However, I'd like to ask that he agrees to refrain from editing the article in question until this issue is resolved or the 1 week period expires. User:DemolitionMan, you can respond on your talk page if this is acceptable. Of course, you may also contest the block using the procedure described on your talk page. Ronnotel 13:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Nwwaew

In my opinion, this case needs to go through the Mediation Committee (and maybe a Request for Comment) before Arbitration. It was going through the Mediation Cabal, but the mediator decided to drop out, and choose another mediator, or file an arbitration request. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by srs

The mediator decided to drop out because at least one of the parties - User:DemolitionMan was actively resisting mediation, as well as leaving comments on the mediator's talk page accusing him of PoV pushing on the article. You can take this one through all the wikipedia admin stages formally but it would be IMO a waste of time and goodwill from all concerned when extremist PoV pushing + childish rudeness is involved, as in the case of User:DemolitionMan.

He actually reminds me of User:HKelkar if that rings a bell .. the two of them are cut from the same cloth in right wing hindu ideology, choices of pages to edit (For example, User:Hkelkar was on Tipu Sultan for quite some time, User:DemolitionMan on Indian Rebellion of 1857 as well as some other pages such as Winston Churchill. Similarly, their tactics (use of socks, wikilawyering etc) are quite similar.

I would respectfully submit that this RFAR be taken forward, as the other previous steps (involving mediation) assume good faith + misunderstanding / communication gaps on both parts, which is noticeably not the case here. srs 01:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by DemolitionMan, by email to Nwwaew

Firstly, I shall admit that I've been adamant. However, I don't like being branded an "RSS/BJP Hindu nationalist" all the time. I also take exception to user Josuquis not being banned for 3RR, while I am banned by user Ronnotel. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander.

Secondly, coming straight to the point both - Bobby Awasthi and I have provided numerous references to the term "Freedom Fighters" being a legitimate term used by a variety of sources. Look at the link here

http://www.google.co.in/search?q=%22Freedom+Fighters%22+%2B+1857&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

That is the link for the following string in Google - "Freedom Fighters" + 1857

The contention of both Josuquis and Srs is that this does not represent a NPOV. Both Awasthi and I have taken exception to the fact that these two users are definitely not qualified to make a call on the same. I would be pushing a militant Hindu POV if I were insisting that the British be dubbed "evil", "terrorists" or "exploiters". The users also wish to delete from the infobox that certain civilians also took part in the Rebellion. If all combatants are to be listed, why make an exception for the civilians? What's the point of white-washing history? A NPOV should represent a balanced view. How is sticking to a British POV make it NPOV. After it was pointed out to me that the word "Freedom Fighters" should be avoided according to Wikipedia rules, I agreed. I did check other sites on Wars of Independence where the term "Patriots" is used. When this was pointed out, Josquius promptly went ahead and deleted the term "Patriots" from Venezuelan War of Independence.

The article clearly states that whether this was a War of Independence or merely a Mutiny is a matter of perspective and there are enough points which show us that they were both depending on the perspective you look at. Shouldn't the Infobox reflect that?

Lastly, I would like to know from Ronnotel, on what basis does he/she separate set of rules for implementing 3RR? (Posted by Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) 11:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC))

Statement by Josquius

To the above:
1: I have not broken the 3RR on that article.
2: The civilians point is a minor one, but I don't believe it needs adding to the article that Indian civilians fought in the rebellion. Civilians are involved/caught up in practically every war; under casualty lists by all means list them but under combatants it isn't the done thing. Also I notice DM forgets that a lot of civilians were caught up against the rebels too.
3: Yes I edited the VWOI article, I am trying to improve the whole of wikipedia not just the one article, it was simply that DM brought that to my attention that I edited it (for the better).
4: British POV is a major issue with regards to dealing with demolition man, anything that doesn't comply with the world view he was taught is apparently 'British POV' (British in this sense meaning a old school tory and not a modern, painfully PC, overly black-washing of history Brit). Our side is not pushing a British POV at all, we're simply trying to remove the extremist Indian POV in favour of a NPOV.
5 (the big one): Yes the war can be interpreted in any number of ways. The infobox however is not the place for this. The infobox is just about facts- a bunch of Indians rebelled against the East India Company and after a lot of people on both sides were killed were eventually beaten. The infobox is no place to mention that the Indians were all traitors who got what was coming to them or that they were valiant martyrs who were fighting for the good of India. Just that they existed.--Josquius 14:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

---

Tom Cryer

Initiated by Mpublius at 16:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Mpublius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Famspear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• N0 D1C4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mateo SA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Into The Fray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All parties are aware of the request

[5] [6] [7] [8] circuitously

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

RFC on Tom Cryer talk page at Talk:Tom Cryer#RFC on neutrality dispute and Mediation Cabal at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-03 Tom Cryer.

Statement by MPublius

The Tom Cryer article is a biography of a living person who is notable for his legal dispute with the government. This is a dispute about original research, which:

refers to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

The section, "Rulings by the Courts" is a narrative analysis and synthesis of court cases written by Famspear designed to push a political position against Tom Cryer and in favor of the government. Cryer and the government have web sites where their positions and legal briefs are published. These sources should be linked with appropriate quoted passages, and the "Rulings by the Courts" narrative section of original research should be removed.

Statement by Isotope23

It appears to me that this is a content dispute. The committee doesn't rule on content dispute issues.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm appending my statement that anything beyond the core content dispute can probably be handled through WP:ANI at this point.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Famspear

At this point, I contend that this is an abuse of Wikipedia processes by Mpublius. Before we get deeply into this, I urge any interested parties to review Mpublius behavior, including but not limited to a review of his user talk page and the articles and talk pages at Tom Cryer and Tax protester. His latest attempt is [9]. I, like other editors who have been dealing with Mpublius, will be happy to respond on the substantive points here, but at some point this has got to stop. Yours, Famspear 17:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Arthur Rubin

Not only is this a content dispute, but the notice was neither pointed to properly above nor given properly. Thanks to Famspear for pointing me to the correct location. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Maybe not. Perhaps the initiator's actions in submitting multiple article RfCs, requests for mediation, and now an RfAr, all about the same issue, might be considered an abuse of process. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Into The Fray

This is a content dispute. I came across this because Famspear noted it on the talk page, otherwise I probably wouldn't have noticed it. Given that I have actively participated in depth in a discussion of this article and had to list myself in the MedCab, I should have been notified. Regardless, this is (at best) a misunderstanding of process. Into The Fray ^T/C 21:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Decline. Content dispute. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. Also, I would strongly counsel editors from suggestion that the actions of others are part of a conspiracy by the US Government, as it generally does not lead to an impression conducive to convincing others. James F. (talk) 07:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. A content dispute that is being handled just fine by the Community, I think. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Requests for clarification

Place requests for clarification on matters related to the Arbitration process in this section. Place new requests at the top.

Jimbo Wales

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/My_desysop_of_Zscout370 clearly displays that the community is still at odds over the recent Jimbo Wales drama and when an exhaustive discussion fails to produce a consensus, the issue is usually deferred to the ArbCom. I have not yet decided whether I am prepared to write up the case but the clarification from the committee is needed on the issue on which there is still no clarity.

Does the committee have a jurisdiction to review the actions of Jimbo Wales when such actions were done in the capacity of a Wikipedia user, that is an editor, an administrator or a steward?

Clearly, ArbCom has no jurisdiction upon Jimbo's actions made on behalf of the board but what about the rest?

What would be appreciated is a simple yes/no answer to this fairly general but important question. All caveats, including Jimbo's "special status", "special role" and the fact that he appoints the committee itself (at times not even consulting the community [10] ) are known. So, please let's not make this request another fork of the pretty heated board referenced above. TIA, --Irpen 18:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not Jimbo Wales's original delegation of authority to the Arbitration Committee in 2004 would have included jurisdiction for ArbCom to review Jimbo's own administrator/bureaucrat/steward actions is doubtful. After all, the Wikipedia:Arbitration policy provides that ArbCom decisions may be appealed to Jimbo Wales. However, in discussing a recent block, Jimbo posted earlier this week that "[o]ne of our oldest traditions, absolutely unquestioned across the entire history of Wikipedia, is that I have the right to ban users who violate our social norms. I am happy to review my own actions, and indeed happy to have them reviewed by the ArbCom, and of course as a matter of tradition equally as strong, I would defer to the ArbCom in any review of my own actions." (Emphasis added.) Thus, Jimbo has agreed that his decisions may be reviewed by the arbitrators. Whether to grant a review in a given instance, precisely what types of decisions are reviewable, and whether such reviews should be sought by filing a conventional request for arbitration or via a different procedure, would presumably be questions for the arbitrators to resolve. Newyorkbrad 20:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Everyking 3 remedy expiration

I have a question regarding a detail from the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3. It is a minor point, but I figured it would be better to put it here than on a talk page, where it might be overlooked. The arbitrators decided in the aforementioned case that I should be under a set of restrictions "until November 2007". No specific date was given, and as November 2007 is now nearly upon us, this detail has become significant. It could be interpreted as meaning that the restrictions end when we enter the month of November, or it could be interpreted as meaning that the restrictions end on Nov. 11, the second anniversary of the closing of the original case (pre-amendment). Naturally I prefer the first interpretation, and given the extraordinary duration of these restrictions I feel it would be more reasonable to end them on the earlier date, but I hope that the ArbCom will clarify this for me and determine which interpretation it considers more reasonable. Everyking 05:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to preface this by saying I do not feel EK has reformed, that he still repeats the same mistakes that led to his banning from the administrators' noticeboard and involuntary desysopping (that he gripes about others' administrative actions without doing a scintilla of work to educate himself on the situation), and that it's only a matter of time until the arbitration committee will have to deal with him again. With that said, (like all good computer engineers) I consider "until" to be exclusive of the termination condition. Therefore, I feel the correct interpretation would be that EK's restrictions should expire at the end of October. Raul654 14:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Nah. November 11th it is. The intent was clearly a one year extension. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Robert Prechter remedy

User:Newyorkbrad suggested this was the place to come for this problem.

In the RfA for Robert Prechter Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert Prechter I was banned from editing articles related to Prechter, essentially because I was putting "too much" negative information into a WP:BLP. I consider this ban a stain on my reputation. I think that subsequent events have shown that the decision was wrong, and I request that you review the ban.

In early August User:Rgfolsom quit editing Wikipedia following two major set-backs (for him not for Wikipedia). In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socionomics (2nd nomination) it was again decided that Socionomics be deleted (it was supposed to be put into a tempory redirect to Prechter and is still there.) Folsom offended many editors in that debate with his attack-dog style. As the closer said:

Discussion. — This is a very unwieldy discussion, so for the sake of efficiency I am simply discounting anything written by Rgfolsom (talk · contribs), who is being paid to promote and defend Robert Prechter's concept of "socionomics" and has a conflict of interest. As volunteer editors, we are simply not playing in the same league as he.

About the same time he fought unsucessfully to have the following deleted from the Prechter article:

In July 2007, the Hulbert Financial Digest, published by Dow Jones, reported that Elliott Wave International's Elliott Wave Financial Forecast had a 15-year annualized return of negative 25.4%/year and a return of negative 17.8% over the life of the newsletter.[17]

This is well documented, and other editors would simply not put up with his demands anymore. I think this is why he quit editing - everybody could easily see his bullying tactics, and the community would not let him use them anymore.

Since I was banned for putting too much weight on negative material, I think this fact needs to be considered (the negative 25.4% annual return over 15 years). When an investment advisor has a negative 25.4% annual return duing the biggest bull market in history, I don't see how the documented quotes from major news sources that I put in the article could be considered to be overly negative.

Combined with his attack-dog style which has offended just about everybody he's dealt with, I'd like you to reconsider the ban.

Sincerely,

Smallbones 23:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of RfA Armenia-Azerbaijan2 remedy

At [11] the text states that remedy 2 will apply to articles which relate to Armenian and Azerbaijan and related conflicts, i.e. conflicts which relate to Armenian and Azerbaijan.

However, the template that Seraphimblade has placed on my [[12]] talk page has text which, in its scope, far exceeds what was decided in that remedy 2. Under the wording of the Armenia-Azerbaijan2 RfA remedy, articles conected to Turkey would only fall under that particular RfA remedy if the article was in some way related to either Armenia or Azerbaijan. However, Seraphimblade has used the RfA remedy to apply to an edit I made in a talk page of the entry on [Occupation_of_Istanbul], a subject which is completely unrelated to either Armenia or Azerbaijan. Moreover, this remedy was not applied by Seraphimblade as a result of an edit made to an article but as a result of a comment on the article's talk page. Where did the template text applied by Seraphimblade come from? What discussion and voting preceeded its composition? Why is it connected to Armenia-Azerbaijan2 RfA given that it far wider in scope than the actual remedy 2 decided on in Armenia-Azerbaijan2 RfA? I've asked Seraphimblade these questions a number of times but he has declined to give me an answer. Meowy 18:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• I created the template in question to aid admins in enforcing the remedies in that case. The first remedy states "Hajji Piruz and the other users placed on revert limitation in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Remedies are subject to supervised editing. They may be banned by any administrator from editing any or all articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area should they fail to maintain a reasonable degree of civility in their interactions with one another concerning disputes which may arise." (emphasis added). The second remedy applies to editors "which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts". (emphasis added) It doesn't make much sense for "related ethnic conflicts" to have two different meanings in the two remedies. Thatcher131 22:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What (on record) discussions did you have before drafting that template? You have seriously altered the meaning and scope of the "any editor who edits articles which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts" part of remedy 2. You cannot use emphasis to change that meaning to support your re-writing of the remedy. It is quite clear from the wording of the remedy that the ethnic conflicts have to be in some way related to either (or both) Armenia and Azerbaijan. For example, an article about Azeri ethnicity is not directly connected to the country or territory of Azerbaijan, but it is related to Azerbaijan, so would fall under the remit of remedy 2, massacres of Armenians in the territory of the Ottoman empire are not directly connected to the country of Armenia, but is a related ethnic conflict, so would fall under the remit of remedy 2. An article which deals solely with Turkey does not fall under the remit of remedy 2.

You played no part in the discussions that took place at [[13]], you were not one of the six who voted on the text for remedy 2, yet you have substantially altered (aparently arbitrarily) the text that those six agreed on, extending its scope beyond what was actually decided upon. If remedy 2 was intended to be the same as remedy 1 (as you seem to want to suggest), then why were two remedies proposed, and voted for separately, and given completely different remedies? Meowy 16:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

As an Arbitration Clerk (at the time) I had reasonably broad discretion to interpret decisions. Of course, I am certainly willing to be corrected by the Arbitrators, if their view differs from mine. Thatcher131 16:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Note, the template is {{Armenia-Azerbaijan enforcement}}. I wrote it to help admins to enforce the remedies in that case by making it easy to apply a comprehensive notice that would avoid disputes about whether an editor was properly noticed to all elements of the remedy. Also note Meowy's comments such as [14] which prompted the application of the probation. Thatcher131 16:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have already contacted all six arbritrators, via their talk pages. Your insinuation that I am in some way trying to hide the existence of the comment I made here: [15] is completely unjustified. The whole point of initiating this request for clarification arose from an administrator notifying me that I would be subject to the RfA remedy because of that comment. I have been completely open about its existence, as you can see if you look at my talk-page discussion [16]. Regardless of whether you agree or do not agree with my comment on the Occupation of Istanbul talk page, it does not fall within the remit of remedy 2 because it is in the talk page of an article that is outside remedy 2's remit! This RfC concerns your apparent altering of the RfA remedy2 decision. Meowy 17:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

We really screwed that one up, didn't we? Aside from the differently worded scopes, it appears that the original decision didn't have any probation remedies—the probation was part of the new decision—so that part of the new wording doesn't make any sense either.

Our intent, however, was to impose a remedy on the old participants, and to allow admins to impose the same remedy on any new parties that became involved. As such, the second remedy should be considered to apply to the same range of articles as the first one does. Kirill 04:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

With all respect, you may claim "our intent", but the most you can say with certainty is "my intent". As proof, during the RfA, one of the arbitrators Jdforrester had said when voting that he was already "unhappy with the broadness of the overall case". You can't now claim you all wanted to make it even broader! The simple fact is that the remedy you, and your fellow arbitrators decided on and then voted for only said "articles which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts". You can't now change that remedy on the grounds that you actually wanted to vote for something different.

Are you seriously saying that that RfA remedy should be applied to, let's say, an entry about the Ottoman-Venetian naval battle at Lepanto, or an entry about the population of Germany if it mentions ethnic Turkish immigrants communities in Berlin, or even to some overly-heated talk page discussion about the football-playing abilities of Galatasaray over Fenerbace! How can you possibly justify such a thing when no such broadness in scope was suggested or implied during the RfA discussion. Meowy 18:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I must also note that Meowy’s block log shows that he has 2 blocks for 3RR violations and another 2 for harassment of other editors, [17] the last one dated 22 September 2007, i.e. after the end of the last arbcom case. I don’t think that the technical issues should be used as a pretext to avoid the application of arbcom remedies, while it is clear that the scope of arbitration was never limited to Armenia – Azerbaijan related articles and the title is misleading. Both arbcom cases covered the articles concerning wider region than those 2 countries. Grandmaster 06:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Your position is understandable: someone who has already been hung several times under Armenia-Azerbaijan RfA1 and RfA2 has no incentive to oppose hanging, and someone who has no interest in accuracy has no inclination to oppose inacuracy. Meowy 19:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Please mind WP:NPA. Whatever I said is an accurate info that can be verified by anyone. Claims that I have "no interest in accuracy" are not in line with the aforementioned policy. Grandmaster 07:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the way the particular Arbitration case's remedies are being implemented.

James F. (talk) 06:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Question from Zeq

Hopefully this is the right place for such question. If not I appologize. As you may recall I am banned from article Palestinian Exodus by previous rulling from few years back and I have followed that ban. There is a new article Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus which I began to participate - mostly on talk (made 2 rather small edits to the article - this is the biggest one: [18]).

I have only now noticed that that article is actually a fork and refernced in Palestinian Exodus. If my ban apply to the new article as well I will of course stay away from it. please clarify.

I will stay away from the article from now until such clarification is provided. Thank You. Zeq 15:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Zeq made 5 edits to Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus after his suggestions on the Talk page were ignored. This is a clear violation of the intent of the ArbCom probation and further evidence that Zeq has little interest in adhering to Wikipedia policies or editing in good faith. I would recommend that Zeq's article ban be extended to all articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as he has been causing disruption to these articles for two years now. For the record, I blocked Zeq for 24 hours due to this incident. Also, for the record, I have no involvement in any of the articles in question. Kaldari 16:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed some edit-warring at Arab citizens of Israel between Zeq and other users. Zeq has been responsive to my intervention (I reported the incident as 3RR, though it did not meet the technical requirements and Zeq himself did not violate 3RR). He communicated with me in a civil manner on my talk page about the reverts and his probation. He is also responding at the article Talk in what I would ordinarily interpret as a good faith discussion. Similarly, Zeq initially started editing (BRD) at Allegations of Israeli apartheid in a manner unsuited to such a volatile page. Since then, he seems to be engaged usefully in the Talk page discussion. Granted, I sense that he tends to promote a POV rather than work entirely thru a neutral viewpoint, but I must say that seems to be quite common for Israel-related topics. Though I don't know the history or severity of the case, I wonder if a topic ban would be hasty. In any case, perhaps you should look at his apparent responsiveness (with me) before deciding. Thanks. HG | Talk 18:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because POV-pushing is common on Israel-related topics does not mean it is to be tolerated or ignored. Yes, Zeq has learned how to edit within policy (most of the time, and only after severe and sustained efforts to rein him in). However, the extent to which he edits within policy is only just as much as is required to avoid sanctions. He is clearly here for one purpose only - to push his specific point of view. He has been doing this without rest for 2 years. If Zeq was content to channel his POV-pushing into adamant debate and discussion, I would say he's a great asset to Wikipedia. The fact that he edits tendentiously and disruptively, however, and has eaten up at least as much administrator time and effort as any of our worst trolls or vandals, convinces me that Wikipedia would be better off without him. Wikipedia is NOT a battleground. However, as long as Zeq and similar users are given free reign, it sure as hell looks like one. Kaldari 21:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Since User:Kaldari was kind enough to unblock me I just wanted to say that the facts - as he presented them above, as well as his descriptions of me as "POV pusher" are not true. As for the facts (number of edit, when did they occur) a simple review of the history files will show that the way he describe the issue is not what took place. I will save you the detail unless someone really care. I am not this monster some people try to paint me as. I am working on some of the most difficult articles in wikipedia, I am doing it under conditions of probation for two years and most of the time I only get into problems becausee people think that my probation give them the justification to ignore me (or revert me) and some admins who make the mistake and block me based on some misunderstanding. many of my blocks over the last two years have ended up in being unblocked once the facts cleared. maybe it is time to remove this probation all together or make sure there is policy which allow users under probation - who wish to edit within policy - to edit without the stigma of "probation". Zeq 21:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Y'know, sometimes even I am inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt, but when one stumbles across pages like User:Zeq/apartheid propeganda, it makes it a little difficult to see anything but "POV pushing" here. I realize it is an old userspace page, but it kinda makes it clear that you've got a particular axe to grind. Tarc 23:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Tarc, it is a priavte page created a year ago during the big "israeli apartheid" discussion. that is all. means nothing and never completed. don't make any concusions from half baked ideas. But it prooves my point: People go out of their way to find fault in what I do. I have forgot about this page and I don't know how you found it. Zeq 04:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Almost uninvolved editor - I don't expect to agree with anyone all the time, and I expect to disagree with some editors a lot. But I don't expect to have to question their judgement. Edits such as this, inserting this little essay on Arab citizens of Israel from User:Zeq are very worrying, and he's reinserted it once and then again only last week. The whole thing appears to be aimed at inciting hatred and fear - worse still, some of the references (eg this, the last one) are totally worthless and could never have said what is claimed of them. This topic, more than most, deserves integrity from the editors participating. PR^talk 15:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Almost uninvolved editor part II - I find more disturbing insertions even in this same article. This edit here suggests that the "PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION has stated" certain things eg "There was no doubt that it had largely contributed to increasing the hostile feelings of the Arabs for the Jews.". But examining the actual report (not referenced, I've had to find it), it turns out this is not what the report has stated, it's what one witness, a "M. Van Rees" has put in his evidence. I've not removed this particular claim and sizable clip from the article so far, I've only provided one historians synopsis of the whole business, but it's quite worrying to discover that this kind of distortion is being inserted into articles. PR^talk 21:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • A reply from Zeq to the so-called "Almost uninvolved editor: You are always welcome to disagree politly with my edit but stop doubting my intentions. Always WP:AGF. I am tired of people accusing me in things I did not do. The facts are clear: The refernced document [19]include a section from which I quoted excatly what is in the article. The source quotes page 31 of the Shaw report. That is what I said no more no less. PS an editor with the name "Palestine Rememebered" (which is also happnd to be a an advocay/propeganda web site can not claim that he is uninvolved in this issue. I wonder alos if your user name comply with Wikipedia policy. Zeq 10:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Given that the original remedy allows any admin to extend the ban to any other article, the question is somewhat moot. Any administrator (e.g. Kaldari) is empowered to ban you from the forked article regardless of whether or not it is considered to be equivalent to the original one. Kirill 04:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

makes perfect sense and simple. Thank You. I will stay away from that article although no formal ban has been issued by any admin as of now. Zeq 10:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That's common sense. Fred Bauder 11:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarify please: Is Kaldari extending the ban to Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus or (per K's recommendation above) to the entire Israeli-Palestinian topic? Kirill apparently refers to a single article. Thanks. HG | Talk 16:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Zeq's probation allows any admin to ban him from any article he disrupts. Zeq must be notified on his talk page and the ban must be logged here. No ban is currently logged. It is to everyone's benefit for admins enforcing such remedies to be as clear as possible to prevent misunderstandings, so you should ask Kaldari what his specific intent is and ask him to properly log it. Thatcher131 13:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Content dispute removed. Take it elsewhere. Are there further questions as to the application and enforcement of the probation? Thatcher131 22:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification regarding the MONGO case

I have noticed several editors have commented that the Attack Sites arbcom case which just closed, essentially supercedes the MONGO case. One editor has gone as far as to state that the Attack Sites case findings and remedies now permit linking to the encyclopedia dramatica website. Miltopia, has stated "please update your jargon/update catch-phrases from the asinine MONGO decision in your brains accordingly.". Neil has stated that "your old ArbCom ruling, which has since been outmoded.". Dtobias has even gone so far as to state that the MONGO case is obsolete and outdated[20] and that ED is not "totally off-limits under all circumstances."...so the questions are...is the MONGO case superceded by the Attack Sites case, or do they compliment each other...or are they completely seperate?--MONGO 07:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Over the last 4 days, MONGO has made 11 reverts to restore the BADSITES language and his arbitration case into WP:NPA. 4*3=12, so this is only 1 revert under a 3RR violation. This behavior has been going on for 4 days. MONGO is seeking clarification from ArbCom in order to sanction his edit warring. SchmuckyTheCat

Sorry you think that is the case, as it is not...didn't you just get through telling me to AGF...now I expect you do the same for me...who knows, maybe the MONGO case is null and void. That is why I asked arbcom for clarification.--MONGO 07:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I echo the need for clarification, in no small part due to an administrator's stated intent to continue enforcing a rejected policy proposal [21]. Milto LOL pia 07:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

In light of MONGO's stated adherence to the MONGO case: [22] [23], both in direct contradiction of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Guilt_by_association (though note that neither Schmucky nor I are active "there"). Please keep this in mind when considering the good faith of MONGO's request here. Milto LOL pia 07:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I asked for clarification here...if indeed, the MONGO case is now superceded by the Attack Sites case...I am sorry if I used some of your comments, but that was needed in order to demonstrate that, as I stated, many seem to believe that the MONGO case is essentially null and void.--MONGO 07:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem using my comments, I have a problem with you reverting me, your ENTIRE reason being that I'm an ED contributor, which isn't even true anymore for crying out loud! And then that's all you have to say on the talk as well. Milto LOL pia 07:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just asked you a simple question, and yes, I do believe that if an editor is an active partcipant in contributing to ED, and they are trying to remove language from the NPA policy which prohibits linking to that capricious website, then that is an issue with me, and should be for every editor that cares about protecting others from insidious harassment.--MONGO 07:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have made it clear to you several times, MONGO, that I have no desire to see that website linked anywhere. I'd revert war to remove sch a link to it if it weren't blacklisted. Further discussion about this is not helpful; perhaps can the committee plz clarify the MONGO ruling I linked to above? "Guilty by association"? Are contributors to a BADSITE free to be hounded and hassled as MONGO has done? If so, does this apply to only active contributors or anyone who has ever participated at such websites? Milto LOL pia 07:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The bigger issue is the probable COI...contributors to websites that harass our editors and want to deemphasize or even be able to link to these websites by making edits to a major policy page is a serious matter. Most importantly, I seek clarification that ED is indeed a "malicious site".[24]--MONGO 07:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Red herring; no one is questioning that. I doubt it will happen but I'd like to request that arbcom make a motion to somehow restrict or sanction those who disrupt discussions by repeatedly, repeatedly, nauseatingly so, make bad faith references to former offsite activities by Wikipedians when it has been made abundantly clear that those activities have ceased. The lack of integrity shown by MONGO in his self-inflicted dealings with Schmucky, myself and I'm sure several others is personally appaling and has been a roadblock to productive discussion ever since the MONGO ruling. MONGO has turned every forum he can reach into a battleground against phantom harassment, dragging several good-standing Wikipedians into the dirt in the process, with the same sort of behavior discussed in the Seabchan (spelling?) case that led to his desysopping for failure to relate to other admins and the community in general on these issues. Victim of past harassment or not, this is disruptive and it needs to stop. Milto LOL pia 08:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at that capricious website, and you have made recent edits there...so cease telling everyone you are no longer active there when you still are. I can't control whether you do contribute there and certainly don't have any right to, but don't expect me to see your removal of links to the NPA policy which makes it clear we don't link to that website as not being a COI.--MONGO 08:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

(restore indent) As a participant observer, my take on the matter is that use of overly broad "attack sites" language in the MONGO decision lead to (or set conditions allowing for) the past year's many conflicts over the "BADSITES" proposal and "ATTACK SITES" language in NPA. As the recently closed Arb case was initiated on the very concept of "ATTACK SITES," as it was applied (or misapplied) to a diverse host of issues, it therefore has to supercede the prior MONGO decision so far as that concept, which the ArbCom invented, can be considered useful as support for any current points in policy and related discussions. Regards to all, —AL ^FOCUS! 14:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• More idiocy on all sides and the page is protected again, I see. As an observer of the Arbitration process I note first that the committee had plenty of chances to specifically repudiate their earlier ruling and did not do so. However, the following principles in the Attack Sites case also passed:
  • Linking to external sites which contain information harmful to another person so as to harass them is unacceptable.
  • Wikipedia should not link to websites set up for the purpose of or substantially devoted to harassing its volunteers. (Appears to restate the MONGO decision, by the way.)
  • The selection of appropriate external links for an article is a matter of sound editorial judgment.
  • WP:NPA is about conduct, not about content. Concepts that apply to user behavior have nothing to do with article content, regardless of the article subject matter. Article content should be determined in a disinterested editorial manner; applying community policies or guidelines not intended for article content, or allowing one's own opinions of, or experiences with, the subject of an article, to be a consideration, is inappropriate.

So, I don't really understand the dispute. WP:NPA does not apply to article space. In project space and talk pages, don't post links to sites for the intent or purpose of harassing, intimidating or embarassing other editors. Don't link to sites that are primarily or substantially devoted to harassment. Links in articles should be based on editorial content policies. I suggest that these points cover nearly every possible situation (provided editors are not arguing to make a point, or from a position of bad faith--desire to let more trolling on board, for example), and I'm perfectly happy to enforce these principles any time a problem is pointed out to me, regardless of edit warring over the written policy. Thatcher131 15:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What part of "remanded to the community" is unclear? The Committee has no desire to impose a policy regarding which links are permitted or not permitted; the community needs to come together and develop one on its own. Editors arguing over what sites may or may not be banned under some interpretation of the case decision are missing the point in a very big way. Kirill 17:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hum...so is the MONGO case null and void, or isn't it? Please look over the findings and remedies of that case if you get the time.--MONGO 06:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand and concur with that. The primary issue to be clarified is whether the wording in the recent "Attack sites" case supercedes or renders null or obsolete the wording in the prior "MONGO" case, mainly as concerning the notion of "Attack sites," not whether certain links are still permissible or not. I know the Committee does not write policy, but its decisions are used to support policy points, so the clarification is needed. I respectfully second the request for clarification from members of the Committee.—AL ^FOCUS! 17:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131 says it well, I think. The specifics of ruling in the MONGO case applies to the MONGO case. The specifics of ruling in the Attack sites case applies to the Attack site case. I don't know how much clearer we can say it. As a general rule, per existing policy, if a site is being used for harassment, to bully, or embarass then the links should be removed as we have said in Principles of our the rulings. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That answers the question adequately for me, thank you. So my understanding of the matter is, the remedies and principles passed in the MONGO case were meant to specifically apply to ED, and still do. The BADSITES proposal, in all its incarnations including at NPA, attempted to use the "attack sites" abstraction to apply the specific remedies passed in the MONGO case against ED to off-site links to various critical sites across en.wiki. This obviously became disruptive, leading to the case specifically on the "Attack sites" concept, which encompassed a number of these instances. While the ArbCom did not revisit the specifics of the MONGO case, it did find that its rulings had been misapplied as policy: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites#Inappropriate_application_of_policy. While the principles between both cases to me seem consistent with each other, in this case the Arb Com did not recommend a specific set of remedies, such as 3RR exceptions, to be applied against ASM and like sites, instead remanding the matter to the community. So the final impression I take away from all this is that the MONGO case, while not rendered null and void in itself as concerning ED, should not and never should have been applied "across the board" to other sites automatically as policy, and with this ruling the ArbCom leaves it to the community to develop appropriate policies for the problem of links to off-site harassment.—AL ^FOCUS! 15:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll just chime in to say it looks to me that that Arbcom doesn't create policies in general, and in the Attack Sites case in particular, Arbcom explicitly very much reiterated that it doesn't create policies. If we want to know what our policies towards BADSITES should be, we should be asking the community, not the committee. That's what _I_ think the attacksite ruling was basically trying to say, anyway. --Alecmconroy 04:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

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