Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→[[User:VeryVerily|VeryVerily]]: Reinstate Snowspiiner's deleted comment.
What the actual fuck
Tags: Replaced Undo
 
Line 1:
{{Short description|Wikimedia project page}}
{{Shortcut|[[WP:RFAR]]}}
<noinclude>{{pp-protected|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>
The last step of [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]] is Arbitration, (see [[arbitration]] for a general overview of the topic). If, and only if, all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee.
{{/Header}}
{{/Case}}
{{/Clarification and Amendment}}
{{/Motions}}
{{/Enforcement}}
 
[[Category:Wikipedia requests]]
See [[Wikipedia:Arbitration policy]], [[Wikipedia:Arbitrators]], [[/Admin enforcement requested]]
[[Category:Wikipedia arbitration]]
 
{{ArbCommOpenTasks}}
==Earlier Steps==
 
Please review [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]] for other avenues you should take before requesting Arbitration. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request for Arbitration will be rejected.
 
== Structure of this page ==
 
The procedure for accepting requests is described in the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration policy|Arbitration policy]]. '''Be brief''' - put a quick list of the nature of the complaints. Link to detailed evidence elsewhere if you need to. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person you lodge a complaint against. New requests to the top, please.
 
===What belongs in Requests for Arbitration===
* The Complaint including enough links to evidence that an arbitrator considering the matter can find examples of what is being complained of. Include links to any policy which applies.
* The Response which should address the matters raised by the Complaint. Again, links to edits or other evidence are useful.
* Any Complaint by the defendant against the user who made the original Complaint as well as against other users who have seconded the Complaint or were intimately involved in the events complained of.
* Information regarding what steps of the [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]] procedures were followed. Not the details, especially not what happened during any mediation.
* Users may join in the Complaint by seconding the Complaint or elaborating on it, but by doing so they implicitly respresent that they wish to be a party to the case and are thus subject to counterclaims which they may have to respond to.
* The Plaintiff(s) and the Defendent(s) should limit their posts to their own section, the Complaint and the Response to it; this is not the place for debate.
 
====What doesn't belong in Requests for Arbitration====
* Comments regarding the viability of the Complaint by persons not involved in the matter.
* Comments regarding how the matter is to be titled or the effect of choosing one title or another.
* Any posting by anyone who is not involved in the case. These are welcome on the talk page.
 
The numbers in the ===='''Comments and votes by arbitrators (0/0/0/0)'''==== sections correspond to '''(Accept/Reject/Recuse/Other)'''.
 
== Current requests for Arbitration==
 
===[[User:VeryVerily|VeryVerily]]===
This user has been listed on [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment]] for some time but has not changed his behaviour of reverting parts of [[George W. Bush]] against talk page consensus (where polls have gone 20-3 and <s>5-0</s> 5-1 against him), causing the page to be protected regularly. I suggest putting him on a strict three-revert limit, if not excluding him from editing the Bush page entirely. [[User:Gzornenplatz|Gzornenplatz]] 14:20, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
 
----
I'd like to note that I don't think VV's conduct can be reasonably looked at without looking at the larger issue of his treatment by the community at large, and, specifically, by people who are supposed to be in the position of settling disputes. I refer here to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/172&diff=3681033&oldid=3681018], which I think probably had the effect of making both requests for comment and mediation ineffective options for VeryVerily. I'm not asking for sanction against Danny (Or against Mirv or Hephestos, both of whom later signed this summary), but I think that this action and the consequences it probably had for dispute resolution with VV need to be taken into account. [[User:Snowspinner|Snowspinner]] 16:45, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
 
I also request that user [[User:VeryVerily|VeryVerily]] be examined by the arbitration committee. I am particularly concerned with the user's conduct on the [[George W. Bush|George W. Bush page]]. [[User:Kevin baas|Kevin Baas]] | [[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]] 19:51, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)
 
I am concerned with the user's:
*complete disregard for consensus
*complete disregard for the 3-revert rule; constant reversions
*failure to discuss changes, justify edits, make reasoned arguments, address reasoned arguments, etc.
*insertion of POV
*suppression of relevant and significant information
*'''complete obstinacy in this conduct'''
[[User:Kevin baas|Kevin Baas]] | [[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]] 01:42, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)
 
 
----
 
 
'''Evidence'''
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=George+W.+Bush&action=history&limit=300&offset=0] - Page history of George W. Bush showing lots of reverts and <s>four</s> five page protections. Notice edit summaries. Notice consistency of user conduct.
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Anti-American+sentiment&action=history&limit=150&offset=0] –page history, anti-american sentiment
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=U.S._presidential_election%2C_2000&action=history] –page history, u.s. presidential election
 
 
'''Dialogue'''
*[[Talk:George_W._Bush/Archive_11]] Notice two instances of strong and explicit consensus.
*[[Talk:anti-American sentiment]]
*[[Talk:U.S._presidential_election,_2000#Scrub_list.2C_numbers]]
*[[User talk:Stevertigo]]
*[[User talk:Snowspinner]]
*[[User_talk:Gzornenplatz]]
*[[User_talk:VeryVerily]]
*[[User_talk:VeryVerily/archive]] (archived 2004 Aug 21)
 
 
 
====<s>Brief</s> response====
I'll try to be brief, as I don't want to waste my time or the arbitrators' on what seems to me a frivolous request. I feel this conflict is largely due to Kevin baas (KB)'s "discussion" style.
 
To illustrate, here are two examples of KB's approach: He said on the Bush page that responding to my points "would be a waist of <nowiki>[his]</nowiki> time" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:George_W._Bush&diff=4681186&oldid=4681057], thus making it clear it would not occur. And on the PNAC flare-up, he wrote [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Project_for_the_New_American_Century&diff=5072804&oldid=5069792 this], and then, after my response, simply ''cut-and-pasted'' it again with new indentation as his "response" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Project_for_the_New_American_Century&diff=5087531&oldid=5083587]. Such "smart-alec" behavior is indicative of his general manner, which makes discussion of points well-nigh impossible.
 
Which brings up the polls, which KB flocks to in lieu of talking. In general I believe polls are a poor substitute for discussion. Besides my own [[Wikipedia:Quickpolls/Archive|sour experiences]], it's the case that the core issues often fail to be addressed in any depth by such a crude approach, and moreover here they turn into referendums on Bush, who ''is'' unpopular on the 'pedia. I believe [[Wikipedia:Survey guidelines]] reflects my views. In this case there are two polls being used against me. The short answer is that the meaning and significance of these polls are in dispute. The long answer requires less brevity than I had hoped for.
 
The first poll was initiated by KB between my version and his, with me favoring something brief without heavy language. Other versions got tacked on, and Neutrality's late addition, perhaps seen as a middle ground, wound up flocked to. As such, I accepted N's general framework, longer coverage with country details - but I did ''not'' regard the wording as set in stone, and still believed it required editing for balance and neutrality. Implicitly N may have agreed as, as I pointed out in my RfC, he repeatedly altered his own text ''after'' many votes were in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk%3AGeorge_W._Bush&diff=4773992&oldid=4773230] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:George_W._Bush&diff=4793821&oldid=4793815], in my view quite dishonest. Again, my position is that the poll was too coarse to decide anything but the framework for the information, and the NPOV policy trumps it. One can see that my changes beyond that were not substantial, simply adding in "the other side" of the coin.
 
Since KB was not communicative, but at points [[User:Gzornenplatz|Gzornenplatz]] was, I wound up conversing with him on User talk pages about what the concerns were, and we came to an agreeable para. That is the version I have been pushing, but it is getting reverted too. Gz no longer favors it, citing "consensus".
 
The second poll is even more dubious. Gz describes it above as "5-0", but Rex voted for my version. Furthermore, I sat it out on principle and Texture said he preferred my version [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:George_W._Bush&diff=5175209&oldid=5175142], so the tally might really have been 5-3, hardly a consensus, or anything at all, especially given anti-Bush sentiment. Again, polling is no substitute for ''discussion'', where the issues come out.
 
I would also like to say I consider KB to be a heavy pusher of POV. The versions he has sought are skewed and one-sided and unreasonably so. But more on point his discussion tactics have turned this into a revert-fest.
 
Sorry this is so long. [[User:VeryVerily|V]][[User talk:VeryVerily|<font color=green>V</font>]] 21:54, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 
:Yes, the second poll is currently at 5-1, but you were already reverting when it stood at 5-0. I don't know how you can accuse others of turning this into a revert-fest, when no one reverts as much as you. If polling is no substitute for discussion, reverting isn't either. The issue here is not about the content of the article (I have no problem with your version of the popularity section myself, I just don't think it should be pushed against consensus), but about your behaviour, which only results in the page being protected half the time. If a poll goes 20-3 against you, you can't just say everyone is biased or uncommunicative. It's up to you to make your case on the talk page and try to convince people to change their vote. [[User:Gzornenplatz|Gzornenplatz]] 22:16, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
 
===Arbitration policy===
 
From [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy]]:
''Where a dispute has not gone through mediation, the arbitrators'' '''may''' ''refer the dispute to the mediation committee'' '''if it believes mediation is likely to help.'''
: We are very doubtful that mediation is likely to help in this case.
 
''The arbitrators will hear or not hear disputes according to the wishes of the community, where there is a consensus.''
: If need be, this consensus can be demonstrated.
[[User:Kevin baas|Kevin Baas]] | [[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]] 17:33, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)
 
====Comments and votes by arbitrators====
I just noticed that no notice of this request was made on [[User:VeryVerily]]'s talk page. I have now given him notice myself, but I can see that we need to make it very clear that notice is required. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 19:08, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
# Reject. My feeling is that neither serious [[negotiation]] or [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation]] has been tried in this matter. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 14:50, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
# Reject; concur with Fred. [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User_talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 16:12, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
# Reject also, for essentially the same reasons. [[User:Jwrosenzweig|Jwrosenzweig]] 16:50, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 
===[[User:172|172]]===
172 has been reverting me at [[New Imperialism]] and he refuses to discuss the matter. I request that the arbitration committee examine this uncooperative behaviour. [[User:Lir|Lirath Q. Pynnor]]
 
----
 
I strongly request that [[User:172]] be examined by the arbitration committee, regarding a general tendancy towards edit wars and incivility. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 04:09, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 
I second this request to examine 172 [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404]] 07:10, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 
:See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Dialogue Dialogue] below for an interaction. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 22:19, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 
----
 
I also request that [[User:172]] be examined by the arbitration committee, because of his '''extensive''' edit wars with [[User:VeryVerily|VeryVerily]], and [[User:Lir|Lir]].--[[User:Plato|Plato]] 22:08, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 
:A note: 172's proposed solution to the problem at [[New Imperialism]] was a poll between the two versions - virtually identical to what Lir did at one point on [[Saddam Hussein]]. I'm interested in how Lir distinguishes between the two. [[User:Snowspinner|Snowspinner]] 12:52, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
::Thank you for your comments. We appreciate your concern. I do not recall ever requesting a poll at Saddam Hussein -- however, we will take your point into consideration. [[User:Lir|Lirath Q. Pynnor]]
 
172 has repeatedly deleted contributions by others in the "Evidence" section. I'm disturbed by his actions in this regard - surely a party in an arbitration case should not be permitted to delete contributions by other parties? The issue is being discussed at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration#172]. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 19:30, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 
Sam Spade, Lir, and Plato did not follow dispute resolution procedure so they should also be considered defendants. [[User:172|172]] 14:05, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
:Actually, we have -- but you continue to reject mediation. [[User:Lir|Lirath Q. Pynnor]]
 
Has there been an RFC filed? Have there been attempts to mediate with this user? [[User:Raul654|&rarr;Raul654]] 19:20, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
 
:There has been a couple rfc's, and I have attempted mediation w 172, which he has turned down a couple times. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 21:45, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 
====Evidence====
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Spade/Clients#Arbitration_evidence link to evidence]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=4922809&oldid=4921702] 172 has thrice removed evidence from this page.
 
If people could refrain from removing evidence, that'd certainly help. I don't appreciate my job being made more difficult. Thanks. [[User:MyRedDice|Martin]] 17:51, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 
====Dialogue====
*[[User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive_August_2004#172]]
*[[User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive_August_2004#172_revisited]]
 
====Comments and votes by arbitrators (2(+2)/0/2/0)====
# Recuse [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 12:18, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
# Accept. [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User_talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 03:23, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) (Minor change: leave hanging as with Martin. [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User_talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 21:07, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC))
# Leave hanging while the two existing Lir cases are resolved - the outcome of those two may render arbitration in this case unnecessary. [[User:MyRedDice|Martin]] 23:52, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
# Recuse - Involves Lir which biases me in favor of 172. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 09:58, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
# Accept hesitantly. I feel what we are being asked to examine above is very, very broad, and I am a little unsure as to how we're going to limit the number of parties being addressed, and the issues at stake. There is, however, clearly a dispute, and I believe it has been sufficiently demonstrated that alternative dispute resolution (such as RFC) has been attempted, but only just. I would appreciate it very much if one or more of the parties requesting arbitration would clearly define (on my talk page, at least, if this page is inappropriate or likely to be contentious) who the parties are, and what specific acts brought on this call for arbitration. [[User:Jwrosenzweig|Jwrosenzweig]] 22:47, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
# Accept only to consider the matter of 172's revert warring. [[User:Raul654|&rarr;Raul654]] 20:04, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
 
== Matters currently in Arbitration ==
: [[/Template]]
 
* [[/JRR Trollkien]] - '''Accepted''' for Arbitration with four votes, on April 20, 2004. Evidence to [[/JRR Trollkien/Evidence]], please. For discussion and voting on this matter see [[/JRR Trollkien]]. Note that this case is accepted solely to determine whether, under existing Wikipedia policy, it is acceptable for sysops to ban obvious trolls.
* [[/ChrisO and Levzur]] '''Accepted''' for Arbitration with three votes (there were 3 recusals) on May 2, 2004. Evidence to [[/ChrisO and Levzur/Evidence]], please. For discussion and voting on this matter see [[/ChrisO and Levzur]].
* [[/Lyndon LaRouche]] (Herschelkrustofsky, Adam_Carr, John_Kenney, and AndyL) - '''Accepted''' for Arbitration with four votes on 6 July 2004. Evidence to [[/Lyndon LaRouche/Evidence]], please.
* [[/User:Guanaco versus User:Lir]] - '''Accepted''' for Arbitration with four votes on July 11, 2004. Evidence to [[/User:Guanaco versus User:Lir/Evidence]], please.
* [[/User:PolishPoliticians]] - '''Accepted''' for Arbitration with four votes on July 27, 2004. Evidence to [[/User:PolishPoliticians/Evidence]], please.
* [[/RK]] - '''Accepted''' for Arbitration with four votes and two recusals on August 1, 2004. Evidence to [[/RK/Evidence]], please.
* [[/Avala]] - '''Accepted''' for Arbitration with four votes and one rejection on August 8, 2004. Evidence to [[/Avala/Evidence]], please.
* [[/Lance6wins]] - '''Accepted''' for Arbitration with four votes and one rejection on August 8, 2004. Evidence to [[/Lance6wins/Evidence]], please.
* [[/K1]] - '''Accepted''' for Arbitration with four votes and one rejection on August 8, 2004. Evidence to [[/K1/Evidence]], please.
* [[/Rex071404]] - '''Accepted''' for Arbitration with four votes on August 8, 2004. Evidence to [[/Rex071404/Evidence]], please.
*[[/Kenneth Alan]] - '''Accepted''' for Arbitration with five votes on August 22, 2004. Evidence to [[/Kenneth Alan/Evidence]], please.
 
== Rejected requests ==
 
* Avala vs various users - '''Rejected''' - try other forms of dispute resolution first, please. Discussion moved to [[User talk:Avala]]
 
* Matter of Hephaestos - '''Rejected''' - due to lack of community desire or allegations. Case referred by Jimbo Feb 19, 2004, rejected Feb 26, 2004. Discussion moved to [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Hephaestos]].
 
* Wheeler vs 172 - '''Rejected''' - please try mediation first. Discussion moved to [[user talk:WHEELER]]
 
* Cheng v. Anonymous and others - '''Rejected''' - refer to [[wikipedia:username]] for name change policy. For content dispute, try other forms of dispute resolution first, please. Discussion moved to [[User talk:Nathan w cheng]].
 
* WikiUser vs. unspecified others - '''Rejected''' due to lack of a specific request.
 
* Simonides vs. "everyone" - '''Rejected''' - referred to the Mediation Committee.
 
* Sam Spade vs. Danny - '''Withdrawn'''
 
* Sam Spade vs. AndyL - '''Withdrawn'''
 
* Raul654 vs Anthony DiPierro - '''Withdrawn''' after agreement of both parties (see [[Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration/Standing orders/Anthony|standing order]]).
 
* RickK - '''Rejected''' - referred to the Mediation Committee.
 
* Mike Storm - '''Rejected''' - please try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process.
 
* Lir (IRC blocking claims) - '''Rejected''' due to either a lack of jurisdiction (the IRC channels are not official), or a failure to follow earlier steps.
 
* Sam Spade vs. 172 - '''Rejected''' - please try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process.
 
* User:JRR Trollkien 2 - Inconclusive deadlock: 3 votes to reject, none to accept. Archived at [[User talk:JRR Trollkien]]
 
* Tim Starling - '''Rejected'''.
 
== Completed requests ==
 
*[[/Theresa knott vs. Mr-Natural-Health]] - '''Decided''' on 11th Februry 2004 that Mr-Natural-Health would be banned from editing for 30 days (i.e., until 12 Mar 2004). The vote was 6-2 in favor of banning, with 2 ''explicit'' and 1 ''de-facto'' abstention.
 
*[[/Plautus satire vs Raul654]] - '''Decided''' on 11th March 2004 that [[User:Plautus satire|Plautus satire]] is to be banned for one year, up to and including [[March 11]] [[2005]]. The vote was unanimous with 8 votes in favour and 1 ''de-facto'' abstention; a further vote in favour of extending the ban indefinitely was held but not met.
 
*[[/Wik]] - '''Decided''' on 15th March 2004 that Wik would have a three month probation during which he may be temp-banned in certain circumstances. There were six votes in favour, three opposed, and one ''de-facto'' abstention. Further decisions and minority opinions can be read at [[/Wik]].
 
*[[/Irismeister]] - '''Decided''' on 31st March 2004 that Irismeister would be banned from editing all pages for ten days, and banned from editing [[Iridology]] indefinitely. Decision can be found at [[/Irismeister/Decision]].
 
* [[/Anthony DiPierro]] - '''Decided''' on 25th April 2004 to instruct Anthony with regards to his VfD edits, and refer other issues to mediation. The vote was unanimous with 6 votes in favour and 4 ''de-facto'' abstentions. Note that the case was accepted solely to investigate use of VfD.
 
* [[/Paul Vogel]] - '''Decided''' on 10 May 2004 to ban Vogel for one year. Further discussion and proposals are available at [[/Paul Vogel/Proposals]].
 
* [[/Wik2]] - '''Decided''' at [[/Wik2/Decided]] on 21 May 2004.
 
* [[/Mr-Natural-Health]] - '''Partial decision''' on 25 June 2004 to apply a three month ban. Possibility of further decisions. For discussion and voting on this matter see [[/Mr-Natural-Health/Proposed decision]].
 
* [[/Irismeister 2]] - '''Decided''' on 03 July 2004 to apply a personal attack parole. For discussion and voting on this matter see [[/Irismeister 2/Proposed decision]].
 
* [[/Mav v. 168]] - '''Closed''' on 03 July 2004 with an open verdict.
 
* [[/Cantus]] - '''Decided''' on 01 Aug 2004, apply a revert parole to Cantus and other remedies.
 
* [[/Lir]] - '''Decided''' on 23 Aug 2004, blocked for 15 days, revert parole applied, and other remedies.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests"