Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions

The last step of dispute resolution is a request for arbitration. Please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee.

Arbitration policy
Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
Developer help needed
Standing orders
Arbitration template

Structure of this page

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. Important points:

Be brief. Put a quick list of the nature of the complaints. Link to detailed evidence in the standard /Template format 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.
Please sign and date at least your original submission with "~~~~."
New requests to the top, please.

The numbers in the Comments and votes by Arbitrators (0/0/0/0) section corresponds to accept/reject/recuse/other.

New requests

When adding new requests, please give them an appropriate title as well as a subsection for arbitrator's votes.

Slrubenstein

I raised this issue before, it was rejected on the grounds that I should have presented it as defence evidence in the arbitration against User:CheeseDreams. I refused to do so because I thought that the defence evidence would not be commented on, none of its facts would be found/unfound, and it would be ignored. I was correct. However, that argument against raising this arbitration no longer exists.

Slrubenstein has the following behaviour-

frequent and rabid personal attacks - "Amgine is simply revealing his ignorance", "Amgine has amply demonstrated that this good faith is ill-deserved", "Amgine, you simply don't know what you are talking about and are in no poisition to judge content", (with respect to the version Amgine supports) "pompous and ridiculous", (to Amgine) "You have made your own ignorance clear", (to Amgine) "You have not contributed anything of value, and have only gotten in the way", "You must live in a dark wolrd[sic] indeed", "Your claim ... is frankly one of the stupidest things I have ever heard.", "they are both moronic so I must be misreading you", "he is incapable of intelligent contributions or discussion", "CheeseDreams, FT2 and Amgine actually need mentoring on how to work in Wikipedia", "hasn't done any research, used a crappy, non-authoritative quote", "FT2 is partisan and resents criticism", "Next time, a little research before you write in an article would be in order.", "your reasoning is specious and ignorant"
vanity, and equal lack of respect for people who disagree with it - e.g. "These are historical facts, don't change them", "I deleted the short paragraph on Messianic movements because it is not based on critical historical scholarship", "This is a superior -- more precise, more accurate -- version", "It seems like lousy scholarship and inappropriate to boot", "Give up the delusion that whatever "you" think is "the consensus."", ""FT2, Amgine, and CheeseDream ... are mistaken and ignorant about many things", "I had explained to FT2 what his mistake was, and corrected him"
"Trolling" - Massively verbose responses to small questions which are easily answered
Hypocriticism - (repeatedly) moving a summary by one contributer that that contributer considers important to an archive but resurrecting his own text from the archive
Unwillingness to adhere to NPOV, or the basic priciples of consensus. This is best illustrated by Talk:Jewish mythology, but also by the archives of Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus

Other examples include, FT2 producing a version of an article for discussion, for the very purpose of avoiding an edit war, which Slrubenstein proceeded immediately to completely overwrite and radically restructure in a manner not acceptable to at least 2 of the other editors, FT2 then integrated Slrubensteins changes, but Slrubenstein reverted them, talk page discussion occurred in which Slrubenstein was adamantly unwilling to tolerate anything other than his paragraph as it stood, despite his criticisms being continuously taken into account.

Persistent use of a deliberately offensive term Bubelah, as admitted to be a personal attack here [1]
Made an accusation of racism and absolutely refused to retract it, re-asserting it more forcefully, in fact

Since mediation between Slrubenstein and two people who opposed his views - Amgine and CheeseDreams failed,

I therefore request

Arbitration
an immediate injunction, specifically a ban of Slrubenstein from articles relating to Judao-Christianity, for aggressive edit warring (as illustrated by the history of Cultural and historical background of Jesus - at this link [2]).

I do not regard Fred Bauder as a neutral arbitrator. A good The reason can be found here [3] if you are interested (another, rather bizarre, statement [4] - is quite interesting to note as well).

CheeseDreams 22:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Note: the supposedly bizarre statement of Fred Bauder is easily explained. Fred copied the text of a complaint posted to the mailing list by an individual who had been blocked; he put this copied text on the user talk page of the admin who had imposed the block; he added his signature with ~~~~. It appears confusing without the context, but has nothing to do with whether he should be recused. --Michael Snow 00:16, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Which still leaves the accusation that a matter in his personal life makes him unfit to be an arbitrator, a claim that I think the word "absurd" is too nice for, personally, and I hope that Fred does not set for himself the precedent of recusing for any user who decides to cite that reason. Snowspinner 03:36, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Response by Slrubenstein

Thank you Grunt. I will respond here as briefly as I can; if I should have done this on the talk page let me know and I will move it.

First and foremost, I apologize to the Arbitration Committee for having had a role in unleashing Cheese Dreams on you, and I sincerely wish you good luck. I say this because I think her complaint is trivial and without merit, and she is doing this merely as an act of revenge because I joined in a complaint to the Arb Com.
Second, I admit to most of what she accuses me of having written or done. In most cases these are factual statements that I do not believe would constitute poor behavior under any circumstances (for example, I wrote that "Amgine is displaying his ignorance" only after Amgine asserted a claim that was ignorant; moroever, I explained why it was ignorant and provided my sources. "CheeseDreams, FT2 and Amgine actually need mentoring on how to work in Wikipedia" and "Next time, a little research before you write in an article would be in order." were similarly factual assertions and completely appropriate; this is not the first time that a Wikipedian has suggested mentoring for a Newbie and there is nothing wrong with the suggestion. Moreover, verification is one of our policies. There is nothing at all wrong for asking verification, and, if verification is not offered, informing newbies that they ought to back up their work with research. I am absolutely proud that I wrote "These are historical facts, don't change them" and "I deleted the short paragraph on Messianic movements because it is not based on critical historical scholarship" because I am firmly committed to our verification policy. These were accurate statements and I'd be happy to provide my historical sources upon request (or, you could just go to the article as I also followed policy by citing sources)
As for other things I said that are more hostile, all I can say is that in some cases these statements were perfectly appropriate in context; in other cases they reflect my exasperation and fatigue at having to defend claims I had made that were based on research and backed up by sources against petty arguments by people who actually admitted to not knowing much about the topic.
Re: her complaint, "Hypocriticism - (repeatedly) moving a summary by one contributer that that contributer considers important to an archive but resurrecting his own text from the archive." She refers to her own obsession with writing extensive summaries. The thing is, her having written these summaries was actually part of my complaint to the ArbCom against her. I believe that your decision then reflected your assessment of this complaint [5]. Here ChesseDreams is trying to use a back-door attempt to get you to reverse your earlier decision.
CheeseDreams wants you to ban me from Cultural and Historical Background of Jesus simply because she blames me for her having been banned. I do not deny that interactions between she and I were often acrimoneous. But I do think there is one stark difference between us: I always backed up my claims with the most reputable sources; she never backed up any of her claims. Never. Anything I said that may have been too aggressive was said in defense of Wikipedia standards against someone who has repeatedly shown little or no regard at all for those standards.
Beyond these immediate responses, I would ask you to look at my original complant against her, and my evidence. CheeseDreams is not bringing up anything new. Every element in her complaint against me comes from her defense in re my complaint against her. She is just wasting your time trying to get you to reverse your decision, and she is making me waste my time by necessitating me to respond to things I responded to in detail, here, a month ago. And worst of all, she is putting me in a position where I must waste your time, by making you read this response that simply repeats things we went over in arbitration before, and for this I apologize.
It is precisely because of these time-wasting trivial acts that I consider CheeseDreams to be a troll. I do not say this lightly; I sincerely believe that her first priority is to disrupt the work of others ArbCom finding of fact, secondly to push her own agenda (which involves gnosticism), and a very very very distant third, to possibly make some contribution to our project. Alas, I am convinced that her obsessive, vengeful nature will lead her to do this again and again, which is why I once suggested she should be banned. I imagine that she has not committed a banable offense and thus cannot be banned. But if my assessment of her character is accurate, well, you will see in time. Slrubenstein 23:15, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Votes and Comments by Arbitrators (0/0/0/1)

~~I would like to hear what Slrubenstein has to say here before making an official vote. I also note that Slrubenstein has not been notified of the request. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 22:50, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)~~ I would further like to see the diffs of Cheesedreams' cited edits before making an official vote. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 23:20, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
Slrubenstein has now been notified. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:12, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Matters currently in Arbitration

/Template

/Robert the Bruce - Accepted with six votes on 28 January 2005. Evidence to /Robert the Bruce/Evidence, please.
/Lyndon LaRouche Part Deux - Accepted with four votes and one recusal on 25 January 2005. Evidence to /Lyndon LaRouche Part Deux/Evidence, please.
/Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute - Accepted with four votes on 25 January 2005. Evidence to /Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute/Evidence, please.
/Antifinnugor - Accepted for Arbitration with five votes and two abstentions on January 9, 2005. Evidence to /Antifinnugor/Evidence, please.
/Chuck F - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes on December 7, 2004. Evidence to /Chuck F/Evidence, please.

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 When adding new requests, please give them an appropriate title as well as a subsection for arbitrator's votes.
-===Gzornenplatz/Wik===
-[[User:Gzornenplatz]] is a reincarnation of [[User:Wik]], as has been confirmed by both Fred Bauder and Raul654. [[User:Wik]] is responsible for a lengthy vandalbot attack on Wikipedia in the summer of 2004. This attack involved mass-generating accounts and then using them each for a single edit to a page, changing all instances of a letter to another letter. A sample edit can be found at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help_talk:Contents&diff=prev&oldid=4133994] and a vast In short, it was a very  bad scene - virtually untrackable, virtually unstoppable. This was done in part to protest a week long ban of Wik by the arbcom in [[/Wik2]].
-At the time, Jimbo noted that the apapropriate thing to do was to extend the block indefinitely unless there was an appeal to the arbcom. To my knowledge, no appeal was ever made, but Jimbo stopped short of declaring the indefinite block as well. Elsewhere he suggested a permanant ban, but there is clearly confusion on this matter, as different admins continue to block and unblock Gzornenplatz due to a lack of agreement on whether Wik is permabanned. Likewise, several measures exist in [[/Wik2]] that deal with the vandalbot attack, but Fred was the only one to vote on those findings.  I also note that one of the problems with Wik in the previous ruling was his use of sockpuppets to evade action, which the switch to Gzornenplatz very much is.
-I ask that the matter of Wik be re-opened, therefore, this time examining the vandalbot attack and the threats of a vandalbot attack that took place on the mailing list, and a decision be reached as to whether Wik is under a permanant ban, an indefinite block, or whether he is a user in good standing. I also ask that his use of the sockpuppet Gzornenplatz be examined, particularly whether this sockpupet was used to evade a ban or block. [[User:Snowspinner|Snowspinner]] 15:03, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
-====Comments by ''amici curiae''====
-Gzornenplatz/Wik has been banned permanently by RickK on the grounds that there is a community consensus for a permanent ban (see 1. under [[Wikipedia:Banning policy]]). The ArbCom has no jurisdiction here, and there's nothing for it to decide. Only one admin to date, 172, appears to be against a ban. Under the policy Gzornenplatz/Wik has the right to appeal to the ArbCom or to Jimbo for it to be lifted - and no doubt he will email someone if he does wish to appeal, [[User:Jguk|jguk]] 15:50, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
-:I sincerely doubt that community consensus for this has been shown, unless there is a discussion I am unaware of. [[User:Snowspinner|Snowspinner]] 15:54, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC
-::Oh. He's on the list of banned users. Well, fair enough then, I'll call the matter settled. Complaint withdrawn. [[User:Snowspinner|Snowspinner]] 16:13, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
-====Arbitrator votes on hearing this matter (0/1/0/0)====
-# Reject, as there appears to be nothing we can do (as jguk as said). See also [[Wikipedia:List of banned users#Wik]]. -- [[User:Grunt|Grun]][[User talk:Grunt|t]] [[European Union|{{User:Grunt/euflag}}]] 15:58, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
 === Slrubenstein ===

Revision as of 16:18, 29 January 2005