Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Factsource (talk | contribs) at 02:20, 1 October 2007 (→Requests for clarification). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

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:

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 14 Dec 2024 04 Jan 2025
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/How-to

Current requests

Ebionites

Initiated by John Carter at 15:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Notice has been sent to MichaelCPrice [1], Ovadyah [2], Str1977 [3], and Nishidani [4]. John Carter 16:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

A request for arbritration was filed. MichaelCPrice initially agreed to it, and then withdrew from mediation, as per here.

Statement by Warlordjohncarter

The subject under discussion is the currently FA Ebionites. The article is currently in FAR as per here over concerns regarding the article's stability, neutrality and accuracy. Many of these concerns seem to be over recent additions added by User:MichaelCPrice. MichaelCPrice's in his additions has recently been found, as per this comment [5] by User:Nishidani, to have, and I quote, "forged the evidence, and fobbed it onto Eisenman, with a combination of circular methodology, illegal synthesis, misattribution, and misinterpretation," Eisenman in the quote being a reputable scholar to whom MichaelCPrice has attributed comments from much less reputable individuals. MichaelCPrice has consistently defended the insertion of this fringe theory as being legitimate by the means described by Nishidani above, and had recently through his adamant refusal to work to improve the article and or address the concerns raised by the material he included caused the editor who had been working to keep the article at FA status, User:Ovadyah, to temporarily leave wikipedia, saying here [6] he would leave the article's "carcass to the jackals". Michael's primary defense seems to be based on the idea that this theory which has received little attention by reputable scholars, in part because of the basically non-existent reputation of one of its primary proponents, is somehow required to ensure NPOV, despite the fact that the proponents of the theory are themselves at best dubiously qualified under WP:RS, and ignoring the fact that the amount of space given this fringe argument seems to be in the eyes of virtually everyone else a total violation of WP:Undue weight to what is seemingly very much a fringe theory. John Carter 15:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I also must agree with MichaelCPrice below that the assumption of bad faith on his part seems to be shared by just about everyone who was worked with him on this article. Make of that what you will. John Carter 23:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MichaelCPrice

The Ebionite article seems to attract editors with strong POVs but with an unwillingness to allow the presentation of other notable, reliably sourced POVs (such as James Tabor's) in a balanced and fair way, in line with Wikipolicies such as WP:NPOV. Rather than productively debate these substantive issues many editors resort to the consistent presumption of bad faith. This is a long-standing problem that needs addressing. With this bad faith practice stopped I believe the content issues can be resolved.

The most recent, indeed ongoing, example of this presumption of bad faith is User:Warlordjohncarter's example above: in response to User:Nishidani's analysis [7] of a passage (in which the claim is made that I "forged the evidence") I provided some feedback [8] in which I responded to all the points, accepted some changes[9], and suggested that the more appropriate fora for this discussion were other existing sections of the same talk page where these issues had already been discussed. This was to avoid the ongoing problem of text being taken out of context. Despite this, and rather than use the "page-up" keys, User:Warlordjohncarter accused me of bad faith (again) [10].

I withdrew from the mediation when it became clear that the bad faith issue was not going to be addressed. [11] --Michael C. Price talk 19:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must emphasize that this assumption of bad faith is routinely assumed by all the other parties here, not just User:Warlordjohncarter. If I change my views on something I am accused of shifting like a chameleon, If I don't change my views I am accused of obduracy. If I say I'm undecided I'm accused of egotism. And always the assumption of bad faith (evidenced even on this arbitration page). Needless to say the disputed substantive issues are not as straightforward as presented by others; the continued assumption of bad faith makes it impossible to have a rational debate about them, since the first thing lost when bad faith is assumed is objectively; I have always assumed good faith of the other editors, no matter how we much we disagree over content; all the other editors listed here consistently assume bad faith. One point I agree with Ovadyah about is when he says that the article can only progress "when this user conduct problem is dealt with once and for all." --Michael C. Price talk 07:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just before I ever edited the article [12] Tabor's POV that the Ebionites were followers of John the Baptist, as well as Jesus, was displayed in the first paragraph of the lead. The second paragraph featured (exclusively) the views of Eisenman. Now the other editors are claiming that these two sources are examples of fringe scholarship (despite an explicit admin judgement to the contrary[13]) or even not reliable sources[14]. All I am trying to do is restore the balance that has been lost and I am accused of bad faith, pushing a fringe POV, not understanding undue weight etc. --Michael C. Price talk 07:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ovadyah

Indeed there is a long-standing problem here. However, the problem is not one of bad faith. It is a persistent pattern of editorial synthesis, purposeful misattribution, evasion, and obfuscation. As I have stated elsewhere on the talk page, Michael Price has repeatedly introduced content into the Ebionites article that is knowingly false with the intent to deceive.

[15][16][17][18] He is engaging in an effort to push a fringe POV that is not stated even by the fringe sources he heavily relies upon. It is my hope that the article, now under FAR, can be restored to FA quality. But it can only happen when this user conduct problem is dealt with once and for all. Ovadyah 21:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assumptions of bad faith, which Michael Price goes on so much about, happen for a reason. They are a symptom, not a problem. They are reactions to ceasless edit-warring, editorial bullying, personal attacks, a stone-deaf ear, and a contemptible regard for the opinions of other editors. As if this were not enough, there is a pernicious mendacity in his editorial behavior that requires other editors to verify his work and root out purposelful mistatements and misattributions. I agree with Loremaster's summary conclusion. This editor must be stopped from doing further damage to the Ebionites article. Ovadyah 12:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GRBerry

I recollect at least one RfC this summer on the Religion/Philosophy subpage. The evidence issues were beyond my competence to address quickly, and I did not have time for an in depth consideration. I don't know if the community gave any input to the RfC. But I note for the committee that an RfC was also tried, in addition to an RfM. The talk page of the article also demonstrates at least one call on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. GRBerry 21:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

I chanced upon the page, to correct a minor mispelling, and, noting a disagreement between MichaelCPrice and Ovadyah, attempted a mediation, in which at first I gave some backing to MichaelCPrice. Subsequently, I found it impossible, even by extensive analyses, to get MichaelCPrice to at least see both the critical position others held, and to give some reflection to the frailties, extensively documented, of his own positions (I use the plural advisedly because, when he yields on what strikes others, after unnecessarily numerous comments from a majority of other contributors, as untenable, he changes his stance, but only slightly). Ovadyah, I think correctly, likened his attitude in these endless exchanges to the labile chromatic switches proverbially associated with chameleons.

'Michael, I can't help but notice you're constantly shifting positions like a chameleon. First, you made the absolute statement that archaeology supports a settlement of vegetarian Essenes at Qumran. Then you changed your story to Qumran after 31 BCE, then it was not Qumran but Ein Gedi. Now you're saying a whole group of settlements but not Qumran (Masada, Herodium Jericho, Ein Gedi, Ein Boqeq, Ein Feshkha, Kallirrhoe, Machaerus). I think you have no idea, and you are just grasping at any headlines you happen find on the web. From now on, please bring your evidence here in the form of direct quotations that we can read for ourselves.Ovadyah 20:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

To this Michael CPrice replied:-

'I have no problem with changing my mind about things. Glad you noticed.'

I think evidence has been provided that the passage he stoutly defended, while refusing to provide evidence for its several assertions, is definitely a 'synthesis' based on his guesswork, of two distinct books, which he conflated, and then attributed his own OR conclusions back to both authors. The point was obvious from the outset, but required a considerable amount of time and labour to do, and was met with a very late, perhaps last ditch, offer to reconsider a fragmentary part of it. I won't cite my own technical arguments, but conclude with the following exchange, which I think puts the finger on the problem.

'I produced a quotation of exactly what Pliny said about the Essenes, and pointed out to you that Pliny made no remarks about the Essene's vegetarianism. You made no attempt to correct this mistake in the article, even after several days, so I can only conclude that the statement you inserted into the article was knowingly false. Ovadyah 16:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

MichaelCPrice replied.

'I left the quote in because, for the moment, I am undecided.'

That I which I highlight, is the problem. Ovadyah meticulously gave detailed evidence that invalidated MichaelCPrice's claim, MichaelCPrice refused to adjust his post after the refutation, and when asked why answered that he wouldn't withdraw a false claim because (though false) he personally hadn't decided one way or another what he might do about it.

An article that achieved FA standard is at risk of being degraded, and some of its best authors disenchanted of maintaining its quality, predominantly because of difficulties one editor is making, virtually for everyone else. He doesn't appear to appreciate that 'collaboration' on a collective article is not a synonym for getting one's own way by sheer attrition Nishidani 22:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Loremaster

Months after having worked hard to ensure that Ebionites became a featured article, I chose to permanently stop contributing partly because I was no longer willing to tolerate MichealCPrice's use of wikilawyering to undermine the neutral point of view of the article in order to give undue weight to fringe theories and, worse, his systematic personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with him in order to intimidate them into surrendering to his agenda. Bottom line: This user must be stopped. --Loremaster 00:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Str1977

It is hard to say anything that has not already been said, so I will try to make this brief: the ongoing problem on Ebionites (and less pressingly other pages) is MichealCPrice's behaviour that has driven of two regular editors and made the Ebionite article unstable. In contrast to what he claims above, no editor has tried to removed Tabor's view from the article - it was rather ensuring NPOV in as much as Tabor's view is not the only scholarly view (that has been achieved), not giving it undue weight (not solved yet) and distinguishing Tabor's view from other views instead of creating a synthesis (not solved yet). Another problem has been the insitence on including things not directly relevant to the article, often creating a POV problem thereby. Recently the problem has been augmented by Michael's refusal to give references (stating that he gave them once upon a time). As for assuming bad faith: certainly some of his opponents hold Michael to be acting in bad faith but that is the result of bad experiences with him, so it is rather concluding bad faith. I personally think that Michael is honestly so much immersed into Tabor's view that he can't see anything else. OTOH, I have seen Michael assuming bad faith on practically every occasion. His withdrawal from the mediation also seems unwarranted as the issue to be solved was content and not behaviour. If we agreed on content, behaviour would no longer be a current issue. His withdrawal prevented this. And this is why we are here. Str1977 (talk) 09:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Hugh Hefner

Initiated by JerryGraf on Sept. 26, 2007

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Jerry Graf has been notified JerryGraf 06:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue Gremlin has been notifed Rogue Gremlin Talk

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

The parties have actively sought to resolve their differences on the discussion board conneced with this article: This dicussion can be viewed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hugh_Hefner#Edit_Conflict

Statement by JerryGraf

Rogue and I debated for many days. He has deleted my comments nearly a dozen times with little or no evidence to support his view that my remarks do not belong on this page.

The statement that Rogue Gremlin opposes is shown, in complete context, in blue, below. It comes from the top of the Hugh Hefner page:

Hugh Marston Hefner (born April 9, 1926 in Chicago, Illinois), also referred to colloquially as Hef, is the founder, editor-in-chief, and Chief Creative Officer of Playboy Enterprises[1]. He is the majority owner of Playboy Enterprise Inc.[2]For decades, Hefner and Playboy Magazine have been icons of American sexuality and a voice for the sexual revolution.

The Playboy empire peaked in 1972 when the magazine sold over 7 million copies. Today, total circulation is just over 4 million.[3] The company Mr. Hefner founded, Playboy Enterprises, has since 1983, been managed by his daugther Christie Hefner, and today derives only one third of its revenues from Playboy Magazine. The balance comes through the dissemination of adult content in electronic form, such as television, the internet and DVD's.[4] Much of this electronic revenue comes not from the soft nude imagery which made the magazine famous, but from hardcore pornography connected with the company's ownership of Spice Digital Networks[5], Club Jenna[6], and Adult.com [7]

In editing this, Rogue argues that he "Removed the negative comments on the biography of a living person." This argument is falacious and the comments should be returned. First, the "negativeness" of ownership of pornography assets is nowhere proven. Second, even it were indeed negative, Wiki guidelines do not prohibit such material from being in the biography of living persons. The actual language is: "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." None of these conditions hold true as every single thing I posted is plainly sourced.

I argue that Hugh Hefner as the largest shareholder (over 60%), controlling shareholder, and most highly paid officer of Playboy Enterprises Inc. must be measured in no small part by the business results of that company. Once cannot reasonably divorce Mr. Hefner from all that happened since the day after he created Playboy Magazine in 1953. The image of Mr. Hefner as the sophisticated playboy may have once been connected with reality. Today, the business he owns is quite different than the one he started. The magazine itself does not make money. It loses it. Real money is made mostly in the TV and web business in which Playboy (under other trademarks) disseminates hardcore adult entertainment. My citations prove these points. I have not sought to comment on any of this. Only to report it.

Statement by Rogue Gremlin

The comments he is making are clearly about Playboy Enterprises and belong on that page not Hugh Hefner's biography page. Not to mention if you read to comment. The last half that I deleted is ment a negative comment against the character of Hugh Hefner, as admitted by this person in the talkpages. Someone owning a majorit of stock in a company or being the highest paid employee does not make them the boss of the company. These are assumptions by JerryGraf. Christine Hefner is both Chairman of the board, and CEO of Playboy Enterprises. Hugh Hefner is merely Editor in Chief and Chief Creative Officer and is NOT even on the board of directors. It is common knowledge his daughter has ran the company for the last 26 years. This person just wants to bring down the character of Hugh Hefner. With the acquistions PEI has made after his daughter took over the company. So the stuff this person is trying to add belongs on PEI's page or Christine Hefner's page.Rogue Gremlin 13:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {party 2}

Clerk notes

It is good that the parties have been discussing this issue on the article talk page, but there are other methods of dispute resolution that should be tried next. For example, it does not sound like a WP:third opinion or WP:mediation have been attempted. If there has been further effort at resolution that is not already described above, links should be added. Otherwise, the filing party should consider withdrawing this arbitration case and pursuing those steps instead. In addition, please note that the arbitrators usually resolved disputes about user conduct (such as disruptive editing, violations of policies, etc.) as opposed to content disputes (what a specific article should or shouldn't say). Newyorkbrad 12:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ned Scott-White Cat

Initiated by - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps at 04:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Ned Scott notified White Cat notified Centrx notified

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Ned Scott's RfC

Further dispute resolution is unlikely to be possible. See these edits

Statement by initiator Penwhale

The history of Ned Scott and White Cat go all the way back to May, when Ned Scott decided to revert White Cat's edits of changing old signatures.

Since then, White Cat and Ned Scott have been constantly quarreling, resulting in the RfC linked above, which I won't reproduce here. White Cat accuses that Ned Scott has been harassing him on multiple articles lately. The breaking point is this edit, in which Ned Scott listed the article on AfD using an inappropriate comment (yeah, you are SO nominated for deletion.. hahahahahaha).

Regarding this RfAr request, I'm hoping that these two editors can stay away from each other.

I consider Centrx an (peripherally) involved party because he also had a hand in reverting the signature changes by White Cat.

Response to Shalom

It's not just the old signature revert war anymore. It's gotten to the point where they're warring over multiple articles as well as talk pages. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 04:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shalom

I don't think this is a particularly complicated case. White Cat wants to change links to his userpage. Why, I don't know, and I don't care. Ned Scott wants to stop him from doing that. The result has been a lame edit war over changing links in talk page archives.

With due respect to Penwhale and the involved parties, I don't think the Arbitration Committee needs to bother with such a simple case over such an insignificant underlying issue. ArbCom has more important cases to worry about. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ned Scott

I'm very sorry to the community for making a big deal out of the Cat signature issue. As I said on the RfC, at the time I felt the community backed me up, especially having other admins at the time who were also reverting him. The community made it clear that they didn't think it was worth the fuss, and I backed down from the issue. Cat's claims of harassment and stalking were unfounded.

I fully disclosed why I nominated the trek-dog article for deletion, because it was related to a discussion on WT:FICT, where I was already active. Cat came there because people were putting merge tags on articles he felt was notable, and I thought the best way to address it was to let the community decide in an AfD format. This was far more productive given his behavior in similar discussions in the past, where he would pretty much ignore guidelines, consensus, and anything else that didn't agree with him. I didn't think it was wrong or over the line. My edit summary for the AfD was simply that I felt it funny that a dog in Star Trek had an article, and nominating it was an obvious thing to do. Likewise, I didn't think highly of Cat's rationale for keeping the article. A bad response on my part, but this wasn't me seeking him out, or looking to harass him. Frustration got the better of me, having been in several discussions about fictional notability with him in the past.

Had it not been for the discussion on WT:FICT, and had the article been unrelated to that discussion, I wouldn't even know it existed. There are several articles that Cat is very involved with that I'd like to clean up, but I avoid because I know he has an attachment to those articles. I didn't think Cat had an attachment to Porthos (Star Trek), but only that he felt it to be notable (I looked at his contribs to see what articles he was referring to regarding the WT:FICT thread. I did not look at the edit history). Selecting the article because of his involvement was not because it was White Cat, but because it was one of the articles he was talking keeping in the WT:FICT discussion.

During all this, which happened last night, several admins where aware of the situation, and there was even a discussion on IRC about it. Some people felt it was in bad taste that I thought the whole thing was funny, and although I feel that's a bit of an over-reaction, I can respect that view. Never did I think it would result in me getting blocked 11 hours later, nor did I think an RfArb would be filed.

Is there tension between White Cat and myself? Yes. Do I seek him out, or does he seek me out? No. I personally don't think there is an issue here other than some lingering bad feelings (which I am guilty of), and the rest being a massive amount of over-reaction from White Cat. I even tried to make light of the issue, but that might have made it worse. I'm not even that active on Wikipedia as I was a year ago, let alone even seeing Cat around the place. If the community really is concerned enough about this, then I'm open to trying mediation. Taking this to arbcom is overkill, and would only feed the drama at this point. -- Ned Scott 05:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional statement by Ned Scott

I think there is some confusion here based on the comments by others. The issue of Cat's sig changes was resolved a long while ago, and there is no on going issue there. In addition, it's very unfair to me to make this sound like I was the only user who was reverting him, when there were others. However, I was the only one who defended my actions on AN/I discussions, which likely lead to the impression that I was acting alone. Further more, only during the last AN/I discussion on the matter was I ever told directly to stop, or was even given the impression that removing the changes was not acceptable, and sure enough I had given no further reverts (even before Cat put together an RfC on me). This issue basically ended on July 18th [19]. I stopped talking about it on Augest 2nd [20].

I'd also like to reply directly to Riana's above statement, as it is a prime example of the misimpression people have gotten: "...I believe this boils down to Ned Scott's inability to resist a chance to taunt White Cat. Ned's involvement with WP:EPISODE sometimes seems to be a convenient scapegoat for his following White Cat and his edits, and White Cat often seems unable to take it into his stride..."

I never "follow Cat around", and the only time my involvement with WP:EPISODE has crossed with Cat is on Talk:List of Oh My Goddess episodes#Episode notability. A situation I handled very well, and I invite people to look for themselves. I can only assume you meant to say this is about WP:FICT, which is a situation where I've only nominated one article for deletion that he was related with, something I did not intend to be harassing, but rather as a way (the only way, in my mind) to actually show Cat that said articles were not notable (the topic of the WT:FICT discussion). Given how many times we could have easily crossed paths, and considering how many similar areas we are both interested in, I find it a little bit insulting that someone would say something like "Ned Scott's inability to resist a chance to taunt White Cat". I am not some petty school yard bully.

I let this last incident get to me and was down right rude to him, I admit that. I was wrong there, and I was wrong to get worked up about his sig changes. But quite frankly, those who feel this is a big issue are just buying into White Cat's attempts to generate drama. I almost desire this case to be accepted so that it can be clearly documented that I do not follow him around, or would even desire to be in a dispute with him. -- Ned Scott 03:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ST47

Well, I don't think I've done this before.

My involvement here began when White_Cat first changed his name to White_Cat. He wanted to change his signatures from one format to the other, to keep them linking to his new username - he wanted the redirects deleted as well, and he used one to justify the other. At first he did it by hand, then he made a bot request. Mets501 approved for a trial, which is traditionally 50 edits, the bot went way over that and ended up on AN/I, and most of its edits were reverted by Ned Scott. We didn't want to approve the bot with the community against it until we were sure it was needed, so I asked White_Cat to explain why this way necessary, which is on that page, but for continuity I'll quote it here:

  • I prefer to keep a consistent sig. When you look at an archive you can easily identify me this way. A lot of people would not know who "Cool Cat" supposed to be in about say a year. It helps people better identify me. I feel this is the responsible thing to do.
  • In the past I had fancier sigs including sigs which displays all the barnstars I earned and stuff. I had been meaning to solve that issue for quite some time. This is the perfect opportunity for it.
  • Is this entire thing critical? No. But it was never a requirement that bots are to be used for critical tasks only. I am letting a bot take care of a task I am allowed to handle manually to save myself time.

Myself and possibly two, possibly three, bot approvals regulars discussed this off-wiki, and in a nutshell decided that:

  • Keeping a 'consistent sig' may not be useful, as required for bot policy (WP:BOT), and does not have community support.
  • Cleaning up some old sigs does not require all pages ever signed to be edited
  • Redirect policy says that links to redirects that are not broken need not be fixed
  • As evidenced by the reversions and the ANI topics, this bot did not have community consensus.

And I denied the bot. That was May 27th. Since then, he had three other maintenance bots approved, and then requested this. Three bot approval members commented negatively, as did Deskana, a bureaucrat, and the request was closed.

That's really the extent of my involvement, plus I have school now, but I'll probably add more later.

Statement by White Cat

I'd like to referance to the signature comment above by shalom first as I believe this problem is an ongoing issue if the discussion on Centrx's talk page is any indication (and since he is an involved party). Help:Reverting#Do not reads (bold emphasis not mine):

So while the actual edit itself was no big deal, the revert of it is a big deal unless help pages are written just to pass time - which I do not believe they are.

Ned Scott has made many other "guest" appearances on discussions.

  • This was not the first time I have encountered Ned Scott. One early example I do recall is as far back as July of 2006: User talk:White Cat/Archive/2006/07#Spellchecking archives.
  • He was on two of my commons adminship requests. In first an actual participant and on second - well a commentator after the closure of it. User was never active on commons at any point. - Now I know this is beyond the scope of arbcom but this is demonstrating a behavioral pattern:
  • His other and most notable appearance was on the signature issue and the related deletion of my former userpage (User:Cool Cat) which Ned Scott repetitively recreated forcing a MfD. He reverted the closure of the MfD 4 times and even taken the matter as far as DRV and more. More evidence is available at the older version of the linked RfC. This entire signature-related nonsense created an artificial problem on weather or not updating signatures is indeed controversial despite it being "an insignificant underlying issue".
    Centrx was also mass reverting my wikipedia-wide signature alterations repetitively even inside my own userpace.

One other problem I have with Ned Scott is his incivility. He was warned and even blocked for it so I am under the belief that he is aware of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Most recent example includes the following:


I have exhausted all forms of dispute resolution. I have made my best effort not to escalate the matter. For example I have not attempted to fix my sigs since then until the issue was resolved. I figure he would probably revert me on commons or maybe even tr.wikipedia.

-- Cat chi? 12:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Clarification to a point by Thatcher131

After a concern I had, it was User:Betacommand who recommended to raise the concern at WP:FICT. So I did not seek User:Ned Scott. WP:FICT is a major guideline and me meeting up with Ned Scott there was purely incidental. Same can't be said about the AfD nom. -- Cat chi? 16:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Clarification to a point by Ryan Postlethwaite

I don't like wiki-drama or attention whatsoever. I do not like this specific attention at all. -- Cat chi? 14:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

Not sure what there really is to arbitrate here, it's just two users that have created a petty argument and need their heads banging together, I wouldn't say the matters out of hand. Ned's not all in the wrong here, White Cat seems to like causing as many problems as he can with his signature in order to kick up a response, he loves the wiki-drama that comes with it. If this is accepted, then I would suggest taking a close look at both users conduct here as there does seem to be little bit of pointy behaviour. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved ^demon

I just wanted to echo Ryan's statements above mine. This is an absolutely stupid issue that isn't worth fighting over. I have every reason to believe that both editors have been acting in good faith, but I do feel that there might have been some pointed behaviors. With Ryan, I'm not sure whether there's anything to arbitrate, rather a firm reminder to both to always assume good faith (notwithstanding evidence to believe otherwise), to not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point, and to remember to try and respect the community. While you may not agree with them at times, if everyone you encounter says "Don't do this," then don't go do it. ^demon[omg plz] 13:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thatcher131

This issue is raised now because White Cat and Ned Scott are getting into each other again. It appears that after White Cat initiated a discussion regarding mass merge/redirects of fictional characters at WT:FICT (a page where Ned Scott has a long history prior to this incident), Ned checked White Cat's contributions and nominated Porthos (Star Trek) for AfD, based on White Cat's complaint that too many minor characters were being merged without AfD discussion. [23] [24] Ned also taunted [25] [26] White Cat regarding this nomination. This appears to violate an agreement made at RfC/Ned Scott to voluntarily stay away from White Cat. Ned was blocked for 24 hours for trolling White Cat.

The best way to resolve this situation would be for Ned Scott and White Cat to avoid each other as much as possible. When they do come into contact, through mutual involvement in articles broadly related to the topic of fictional characters, they should treat each other with respect, enforced as necessary by taps of the administrative cluebat. I don't think Arbitration is required at this time. If Ned Scott challenges the application of the admin cluebat, he should reflect first on whether he wants to substitute an ArbCom clueaxe. Thatcher131 14:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Riana

With apologies to any offended, I believe this boils down to Ned Scott's inability to resist a chance to taunt White Cat. Ned's involvement with WP:EPISODE sometimes seems to be a convenient scapegoat for his following White Cat and his edits, and White Cat often seems unable to take it into his stride. The best and least messy way to resolve this would be to tell them both to shake hands and act like grown-ups henceforth, and when they do come into contact with each other, to make every effort to ensure hackles are not raised. If administrative cluebatting is necessary for either party, I am happy to provide, but I'm not entirely sure that the situation currently requires full-scale arbitration. No need to escalate this - perhaps this is the wake-up call all parties need?

If the case is accepted, I do not think preventing interaction entirely would be very conducive to a collegial editing atmosphere, but if this interaction is somewhat limited, or supervised by an uninvolved party, that might work. ~ Riana ⁂ 15:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Moe Epsilon

I am mostly uninvolved for the most part between White Cat and Ned Scott's signature reverting when this all started (and haven't been around lately about the issue at WT:FICT), only commenting a few times about they're reverting of the signatures. Honestly, the reverting was nonsensical as White Cat is allowed to change his signature per guidelines. Ned Scott, following the conduct RFC has decided to taunt White Cat numerous times, and has also shown a total lack of civility at times [27] [28]

Also, while were on the topic of signature revision, Centrx is a named party here as reverting White Cat's signatures. I am also changing my signatures and Centrx is reverting, as he has also done with White Cat's signatures. Like White Cat, I am changing my signature for privacy reasons, and despite that and a full reasoning behind that which I well explained, Centrx decides to revert war with me over changing the signatures. [29] (many other history pages can be provided). Although I haven't gone through the full process of dispute resolution with Centrx, I considered it harrassment that Centrx decided to continue to revert despite a plea for him not to and continuing to imply that archives being kept intact for accuracy is more important than my real life well being. Centrx, despite having some kind of issue with me, has a problem with signatures changing like Ned Scott did, and I think the issue of changing signatures needs to be settled in addition to Ned Scott's incivility towards White Cat being addressed in this arbitration case. — Moe ε 19:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Pilotguy

White Cat likes to create drama, Ned... well... Ned just needs to go do something else apparently. Seriously, though, how the hell is the AC supposed to fix this? Pilotguy 00:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Newyorkbrad

In the interest of brevity I won't repeat the background, which has been pretty well summarized above. These disputes have been festering for months and been a serious drain on administrator time. When Penwhale filed the case, I thought he was doing a useful service and that it should probably be accepted.

However, being named as parties to an arbitration request seems to have captured the parties' (particularly Ned Scott's) attention and brought home that the petty disputes with one another and Ned Scott's provocative behavior toward White Cat need to cease immediately. If the parties are ready to behave reasonably, we have achieved the outcome that is wanted and needed here. Given the time and effort involved in the arbitration process, I think it worth a final try to see if the parties can keep their promises to stay out of each other's hair before imposing a full-fledged arbitration case on this overburdened committee. Thus, the best result might be to decline the case for now, while emphasizing that it very likely to be accepted and sanctions imposed if problems resume and the parties wind up back here. Newyorkbrad 03:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by grateful-to-be-uninvolved Durova

Somebody needs to update the entry on this dispute to note that this has progressed as far as an arbitration request. Can't we all just get along? DurovaCharge! 04:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by marginally involved AldeBaer

I'm not going to make a strong case out of this, but I wanted it stated here that although civility may not be Ned's strongest side and incivility of course never accomplishes anything useful, I can indeed relate to his feelings of exhaustion and maybe short-temperedness after repeatedly trying and failing to communicate basic issues regarding notability (which he does perfectly civil wherever I have crossed his way before). This should be considered, if only as a footnote: Some editors are really resistent against all attempts at getting across some fairly well-established basic notions about Wikipedia's nature as an encyclopedia. That's all. — aldebaer⁠ 07:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by invisibly watching O

For some time, I've been hearing all sorts of commotion between White Cat and Ned Scott. The first was the signature change. Then I've heard that there were different conflicts between these two after the signature incident (on ANI), and I believe that this is a case of stalking. These two users absolutely need to at least take a break from Wikipedia for a period of time, so as to let any further interaction diminish after these two have come back from break. However, if both parties are ready to behave normally after a little time, then we should be satisfied about that outcome. —O (说 • 喝) 20:45, 28 September 2007 (GMT)

Clerk notes

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

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

Requests for clarification

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

===/Factsource Do arbitrators have the final say in this article? There are several inaccuracies and misleading statements in this article. I will appreciate an opportunity to contribute evidence to help arrive at an accurate article.


Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zacheus-jkb

I would like the Arbcom to confirm that User:V. Z. is an alternate account or a sockpuppet of User:Zacheus, and is subject to the decision. (Originally, the account V. Z. was the user's real name, then it was blocked on the user's request, then it was - again on the user's request and to protect his privacy - renamed to V. Z. and the user created another account Zacheus to use [he indeed confirmed that they are operated by the same person], but the block did not carry over after the rename.) - Mike Rosoft 17:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason for this request? A user can have more than one account as long as they are not used abusively. Thatcher131 17:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; in fact, I have an alternate account, and it's an open secret which one it is (hint: look at the history of my user page). On Czech Wikipedia V.Z. was known to evade his ban using sockpuppet accounts (I don't know of any evidence of their misuse on English Wikipedia), and also had a habit of wikilawyering, so I would like it to be explicitly declared. - Mike Rosoft 20:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given Zacheus was put under restrictions, it would make sense along the lines of the recent incident with Vickers on AE, no? Daniel 09:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am uneasy about this request because it is so vague. Certainly it is part of the case evidence that V. Z. and Zacheus are both accounts used by this person. He changed the name of the V. Z. account because it was his personal name; the account still links to talk page edits signed with his real name. However, neither account has contributed much lately and there are no accusations that Zacheus has been misbehaving, so the only outcome of this request is to call attention to the prior case and its particulars. Thatcher131 17:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there is no action required here and this thread can be archived, but would appreciate confirmation from at least one arbitrator before doing so. Newyorkbrad 15:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 Remedy

As the closing clerk, I noticed some interesting problems with the remedy 1 of this case. The remedy 1 puts edit supervision on the editors sanctioned in the original case, however, at least 2 editors sanctioned in the original case was not named as a party to the newer case and was surprised/shocked of the development. I'd like some input from the Committee to explain the ruling on this. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 04:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, under this case, other editors who edit in a similar manner to the previously-sanctioned editors may be placed under the limitations of the original Armenia-Azerbaijan case. Do these sanctions expire one year after the editor in question is notified, or are they indefinite as no time limit is mentioned? The supervised editing remedy from the second case appears to be indefinite, as no expiration is mentioned, so my question is whether this is indeed the case and whether the other remedies are still meant to expire after a year, including on other editors brought in under the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 decision. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this situation requires attention from the committee. Frankly, I was always troubled by remedy number 1, which took all the users who were placed on revert parole (revert limitation) in the earlier case, and now placed them on supervised editing (which I gather is a new term for some form of probation and/or civility parole) as well. This was done despite the observation that although some of the parties to the earlier case had continued to display problematic behavior, others had done little or nothing wrong since the earlier decision, and there was no real reason to be applying additional remedies to them.
The problem is magnified if, as has been stated, some of the parties to the earlier case were not parties to the newer one. The case was such a sprawl and so many editors were listed as parties (and there was edit-warring over the list for awhile) that the clerk handling the case probably assumed that all the (unbanned) parties to the earlier case had been listed again. (From now on, I will check for things like this in every case myself.) If that didn't happen, then at a minimum anyone who was subjected to a remedy without having been notified of the case should be entitled to have the case reopened and to be heard on this issue. Newyorkbrad 19:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. See below.
As far as the duration is concerned, "until the situation improves" is probably a good rule of thumb. I am content to leave the decision up to the enforcing administrators. Kirill 19:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to NYB, I was also the clerk in the original A-A case. However, this case was opened anew, so I did not add the parties from the old case to the new one. I never assumed that they were listed. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 20:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, there was no reason to look for the additional parties or add them at the beginning of the case. However, when a remedy showed up on /proposed decision (or originally in an arbitrator proposal on the workshop) applicable to "all the parties to the prior decision," we should all have checked then to make sure that all of them were parties in or had all received notice of the new case. My fault as much as anyone's. Newyorkbrad 20:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With due respect to Kirill I think this is a non-issue and his motion is a mistake. Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 provides that any editor who edits disruptively on the topic of "Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area" may be placed on civility parole, 1RR and probation by means of a warning on their talk page. The fact that some editors in the first case were not notified of the second case is easily remedied by a note on their talk page. Passing the motion below would take a small group of editors who were placed on 1RR and exempt them from the civility parole and probation that applies to every other editor on Wikipedia following an appropriate notice. Thatcher131 20:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • They could be placed back on the remedy, yes; but only if they edit disruptively. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt; staying out of the second case does count for something, I think. Kirill 20:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dren. I missed that remedy #2 still applied. Sorry. Thatcher131 20:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thatcher, I had to look that word up. Clearly I have some remedial TV watching to do. More seriously, Penwhale, could you advise which users subjected to the remedy in the first case were not parties to the new case? (I ask you instead of doing the research myself as you know which users have complained to you already.) Thanks, Newyorkbrad 23:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not so much of "complaining", but TigranTheGreat and ROOB323 were the ones affected. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 01:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • While User:TigranTheGreat was not included in the list of the parties to the second arbcom case, many users provided evidence of his behavior which they considered to be disruptive. So he was definitely a party to the second case, and he was well aware of it as he provided evidence himself. His non-inclusion was just a mistake, because most users considered all the parties to the previous case to be parties to the second one as well. On the other hand, no one complained about ROOB323, so he should be the only one affected. Grandmaster 06:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a quick note, since contributors in the 2nd ArbCom case ended up there due to pretty much the same disruptions as those in the 1st case, would not it be simpler to just place everyone on 1RR parole? I think this would significantly reduce the reporting and decision overhead, whether something should be considered a civility violation or not. Thanks. Atabek 14:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

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


Extension of remedies in Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

Those parties to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan who were not named as parties to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 and were not given notice of the proceedings are exempted from the extension of existing remedies imposed by Remedy #1 in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. They remain subject to Remedy #2.

See also discussion above. As there are currently 10 active Arbitrators, the majority is 6.
Support:
  1. We messed up here. Kirill 19:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Paul August ☎ 13:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. There is a defect in noticing everyone in, but the remedy should properly apply to everyone. Fred Bauder 13:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=161448787"