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

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)	21 Dec 2024	11 Jan 2025

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions	1 December 2024

Current requests

Linguistic/Cultural Bias Towards United States in "Hacker"

Initiated by Andrew81446 (talk) at 06:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Andrew81446 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• rtc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pengo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cyrius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kirrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Colonel Warden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nandesuka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Army1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Luna Santin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• rtc
• Pengo
• Cyrius
• Kirrus
• Colonel Warden
• Nandesuka
• Army1987
• Luna Santin

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• RFC

Two administrators (Pengo, Luna Santin) have been involved in this debate, one of whom singled me out for direct punitive measures, the other staunchly defending the stance taken in the current article. The actions of both administrators removed trust in the intermediary stages of the dispute resolution process that rely on such adminstrators. After the RFC, I went back to the very beginning, inviting everybody to define the audience for the Hacker article, and asking everybody to state what their idea of English Wikipedia's audience is. These genuine attempts at building consensus were not participated in by anyone else (they all took a "vote" and archived my requests off the page without even attempting to answer). Hence the final stage considered was arbitration.

Statement by Andrew81446

Article: Hacker

Summary of all claims, counter-claims, and supporting evidence for the discussion.

On November 1st, 2007, a comment was written about the cultural and linguistic bias of this article affecting its content. No edit was performed on the article seven weeks following. One person (User:rtc) strongly voiced an opinion. Apart from that one person, no-one said anything. The page was then tagged on the 18th December 2007 with a {{globalize}} tag to warn both readers and editors that suspected bias was at play, but the tag was removed two days later with no comment on the talk page, "spam" being instead cited in the removals change log. On December 23rd, after no further objections were received, I invoked the "interpretation of silence" rule as outlined in the consensus policy and applied the changes. An intractible discussion and edit war has since ensued.

Main Claims Made During The Discussion

1) Article Scope. The exact intended audience of the disputed aricle has never been defined, resulting in every claim regarding the article's content being evaded. This has resulted in relentless arguing, edit warring, and no progress on the article.

2) Consensus System Failure. Without agreement from all editors on who they believe the intended audience article is, consensus is fundamentally impossible and so, therefore, is writing the article's content, let alone guaranteeing it's neutrality and balance.

3) Documentation, not Definition. Wikipedia policy states that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so it should document, not define, a subject. Most of the disputed article comprises a debate about what the overlaps/differences are of the word "hacker" within the US (although "United States" is not mentioned in the article).

4) English as a Global Language. English is not the native language, nor the preserve, of the United States. The disputed article used US-specific acronyms, jargon, place and society names, amongst other things that all go unexplained, misleading readers of English Wikipedia these US-specific entities were in place (or known about) across the entire English-speaking world. "Hacker" is a word in the English Language that has meanings that differ depending on the region, so an article titled only as "hacker" must neutrally unify all contexts of the word. English Wikipedia is also used by non-English speakers as the bible about the English speaking world when it comes to learning about both language and culture, therefore general articles should specifically avoid or disambiguate those phrases, or word meanings that have a significant historical/cultural anchoring in just one country.

Situation Summary

I have been repeatedly lectured on my personal talk page, intimidated on the article's talk page, been the subject of unprovoked and unrequested racist rants (look for "13:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)" in this post), my edits on talk pages have been moved around, edited, and archived out of sight. Very recently I was being accused of operating a sock puppet, and just now an editor told me to "fuck off" while posting and filing this report. English Wikipedia is for the entire English-speaking world, including me (and the millions of people whose views I represent), and this bias should be removed, regardless of how many people who support the current stand believe otherwise.

Andrew81446 (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If you consider [1] to be a racist rant, then your sarcasm detector is broken. I suggest buying a new one. :-) (Hint: Try re-reading it, paying attention to the part immediately before the colon (':'), and to the last two sentences.) --Army1987 (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:rtc volunteered that information when it was specifically not asked for. And in my opinion, there is nothing "broken" with somebody's "sarcasm detector" when it comes to issues of race. If you walked into your local bar and a foreign person asked you a simple yes or no question and you replied with that torrent, you would be physically beaten. People hiding behind the anonymity that Wikipedia affords does not detract from the fact that that torrent of nationalist abuse was not asked for, regardless of whether he was "smiling sarcastically" as he typed it. So Wikipedia condones racism if it's said "sarcastically"? I'm slowly but surely getting the picture. Andrew81446 (talk) 10:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Response to "it's a content issue"

As part of the Aribtration Committees ruling, I would grateful if the following questions could be answered to so that, in future, I know (and I can tell other people) exactly where one stands in the Wikipedia system before bringing a case to arbitration:

1) In terms of content, is English Wikipedia considered to be a vehicle for documenting the United States, or for documenting the entire English-speaking world?

2) Does the removal of a {{globalize}} with the reason of "spam", or non-US editors being told to "fuck off" when voicing their opinions just because they don't conform to the majority of the US editors already present, constitute a content problem?

3) How does Wikipedia guarantee that the content of other English-speaking countries, and non-IT people who don't edit on this system, makes it into articles when those kinds of editors are not present in the system in nearly as heavy numbers as the United States IT/Academia-related editors? Who actually enforces policies like Naming Conventions, Neutrality, and "Not a Democracy"?

It is common sense that each country in the world has its own language, even within the English-speaking world. How many of the US editors on this article have actually been to another country in the English-speaking world and experienced culture on a long-term basis? Yet, their comments about naming ('Computer Security', 'Black Hat') are based on terms that are not recognised by lay-people either inside or outside of the US. Current Wikipedia Naming Convention policy is explicit: "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists". This is particularly so for single word titles, like "hacker", that have different meanings depending on which country you're accessing Wikipedia from. The content must also confirm to that principle. There are not physically enough IT editors from other countries, and there are virtually no non-IT editors, and yet these people make up the majority of the English Wikipedia's intended audience. With over 2,200,000 articles on Wikipedia, if every non-US contributor to an article with a single-word title meets a four-month campaign of intimidation, by editors and administrators alike, then the bias in English Wikipedia is a staggeringly serious problem.

Andrew81446 (talk) 11:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Every party in this debate has been asked on multiple occasions (09:28, 15 February 2008, 10:18, 18 February 2008) to define the audience for this article so that content issues can be resolved. What else can one do when every other party in the debate have voted together to point-blank refused to reply to content issues on every count, instead, archiving the content discussion out of sight calling it a Gordian Knot. Yes: "Cutting the Gordian Knot" was how genuine attempts at having content discussions have been derided. How else is one meant to build the consensus for content decisions can be built upon a common understanding of who the article is being written for. You cannot have a debate about content when all parties are deliberately hiding their prejudices behind a wall of silence. All members have had four months to admit their is a problem with the content. Nobody has admitted that the content is wrong, in a whole four months. Everybody has had ample opportunity to admit there's a problem and we have had ample opportunity to fix it. People have to admit what the problem is. Without people admitting what the problem is by themselves, the problem can never be fixed.

Andrew81446 (talk) 10:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by rtc

The problem is not Andrew's view that the article is biased. There is a grain of truth in what he says. (Although his theories that the article has been invaded by people from the US is far-fetched.) That has been acknowledged from the very beginning in this conflict by me and other editors. But instead of working in a civil, piecemeal and cooperative manner and in a way that preserves the work already done, Andrew merely used the talk page for endless rants, repeating the same claims again and again. He accepted no other solution so far than to immediately replace the complete article with his own version. Andrew repeatedly stressed that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Yet he judged relevance exactly as a dictionary would—by the prevalence of the respective meaning in ordinary language. I think that this is wrong. Relevance should be judged according to how much good literature is available on the subject. Andrew sees only one solution for all problems: To enforce his own view by authority (just as he tries to do with this arbcom request); and if people disagree, he explains that not with his own failure to give convincing arguments or to write a better replacement for the article, but with the bias, nationality etc. of those who oppose his views and with an alleged failure of the consensus system. I certainly agree that consensus is a dangerous thing and that minority opinions need to be protected, regardless of how weird they may seem. But that requires that people who hold the minority opinion in turn take the majority opinion seriously, even if they do not agree with it, and take it for granted that they may be wrong in the end. That is exactly what Andrew fails to do. --rtc (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Pengo

Rather than "globalizing" the article, Andrew81446 has simply replaced it with a different topic: largely that of Hacker (computer security). The two articles do overlap in scope, but he has simply replaced the scope of one article with that of the other. Andrew81446 has ignored the existing Hacker (computer security) article (which I have to admit I did create to make the Hacker article less confusing as it did once skip between the two related meanings). If he's looking to (re)merge the two articles then that's a different matter, but he's simply ignored the article that is on the topic he's concerned with, instead of editing it directly, much to the frustration of other Wikipedians. I have even suggestion swapping the articles so that "Hacker" becomes "Hacker (enthusiast)", and "Hacker (computer security)" becomes "Hacker", however this suggestion, like most things mentioned to Andrew81446 in talk pages, was ignored. I've given more detailed opinions already in the talk page of the article: Talk:Hacker/Archive3#Sources_Used_in_the_Disputed_Article (search for Pengo). Also, while I am an administrator, I'd like to note I have not used any administrator privileges in this case. —Pengo 10:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There's enough debate already about what "hacker" means, but I'd also like to note that "hacker" does not imply "criminal". It may mean someone who gains unauthorized access, something that may or may not be a criminal act. For example, a "hacker" may be someone who hacks a network printer to print a document in the office while the print server is down; or someone who legally hacks their ipod to by-pass overly restrictive DRM. The media uses hacker in this sense also. This is why there is an article called hacker (computer security) and not "hacker (criminal)". —Pengo 10:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Colonel Warden

My part in this was to respond to an RFC. Regarding the content, there seems to be some tendentious POV-pushing from both sides. On the one hand we have hackers as the heroes that built the internet. On the other hand, we have the complainant's view that hackers are nothing but criminals. There are now multiple articles covering these POVs as can be seen at Hacker (disambiguation). The article in question might best be reduced to a disambiguation page rather than trying to accommodate such extreme viewpoints together.

There seems to have been bad behaviour on both sides - bad language and ranting. The main point of special interest is whether there is some systemic bias as Wikipedia itself is a product of the open-source movement that lays claim to primary usage of the word hacker.

Colonel Warden (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Nandesuka

This is a content dispute. I first became involved with the dispute on Hacker, as an editor, on January 21st. I noticed that there was a stale edit war occurring, where a single editor, Andrew81446, was replacing the consensus version of the article with his preferred version, which seemed to be a complete rewrite. In December and January, at least 6 editors reverted Andrew repeatedly, several of them asking to discuss his changes on the article's talk page, and to discuss his changes in small steps. Some of those editors participated as a result of an article RFC; Andrew81446 was unwilling to accept that the consensus was that his version of the article was unreadable. Admin Luna Santin appropriately protected the page for a week on February 12th. During that period, discussion on the talk page was voluminous, but unfruitful. Andrew81446 was by turns aggressive, accusatory, and seemed constitutionally unable to discuss any issue using less than what seemed like several thousand words per edit. Towards the end of the week, Andrew81446 began discussing and speculating, inappropriately, on the nationalities and employment histories of his fellow editors. At this point, I proposed archiving the talk page, since it was nigh-unreadable due to Andrew81446's edits, and recommending to Andrew that he follow the dispute resolution procedure.

On February 19th, Andrew81446 used a sockpuppet to post a rambling, accusatory message where he pretended to be an uninvolved party. At that point I archived the talk page and we have proceeded to get work done on the article. Andrew81446 has reverted back his 50k "Summary of Claims and Counter-claims for Arbitrators" onto the Talk:Hacker page. I have been, and continue to intend to, removing that as disruptive whenever it appears.

In summary: this is a content dispute started and continued by a user who has not, in good faith, tried any method of resolving disputes. This case should be rejected, and he should be dealt with like any other disruptive user. If the committee decides to take the case, the topic of the case should be limited to the behavior and editing patterns of the users involved (including Andrew81446 and myself), and not the underlying content dispute. Nandesuka (talk) 12:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Luna Santin

This strikes me as a bit premature for arbitration, but I admit I'm a latecomer to the dispute.

I became involved in early February, after noticing and observing an edit war at the Hacker article, in which Andrew was repeatedly forcing major changes to the article, and those changes were repeatedly being reverted along with requests that he avoid rewriting the entire article in one fell swoop and instead seek consensus on the talk page, or make smaller changes over time. I left him what I figured was a polite note asking that he bear in mind the requests of his fellow editors and a vague reminder that edit wars regularly result in blocking/protection, and got a lengthy reply accusing me of bias, power abuse, racism, and so on. This set the tone for our exchange, unfortunately, the bulk of which can be seen at User talk:Luna Santin#Your message and User talk:Andrew81446#civility (2nd).

On several occassions, he's asked me to "reprimand" other editors, at which point I've asked him to point out any user sinking as many reverts into the page as he has -- he's refused to do so, repeatedly. To his credit, it's true that a person cannot edit war alone, he seems to be very much outnumbered in the dispute and is acting under pressure because of that, and he's never technically breached 3RR.

Not too long after that, I protected the article for a week (just expired the other day). The situation took a bit of a turn around the protection's expiry, with several editors accusing Andrew of possible sockpuppetry via 87.41.56.30 (talk · contribs) and the otherwise mentioned archival of a large amount of text on Talk:Hacker, text which I believe Andrew wants kept for now.

Arbitration is one option, but getting more people involved may prove a better means of breaking the current impasse. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Army1987

I don't know of any serious evidence that the understanding of the word hacker is significantly different in the US than in the rest of the English speaking word. Anyway, given that the word has several different but partly related meanings, I think the best thing is having a specific article about each meaning, and having Hacker having a short introduction briefly noting that there are different meanings; a short section about each meaning, each one with a link to the main article; and a discussion on the overlaps and differences between meanings. That is, the same structure of the article as it exists now ([2]). The wording could be improved, of course. Also, the title of Hacker (academia) can be discussed, but I don't like a title such as Hacker (United States), as there are people using that meaning also outside of US, although possibly less frequently than there (although I don't believe such a significant difference exists), and the "criminal" meaning is also used in the US. (I don't like the title Hacker (academia) either, but I think it is less bad, and I can't think of anything much better — the obvious Hacker (free software) is inadequate because the hacker (ESR's sense) subculture predates the free software movement as it exists today.) But Andrew, rather than fixing the wording of this article, or seriously discussing any title, first massively replaced it with an article with the same scope of Hacker (computer security), and then, when it was reverted, it added {{Globalize|USA}} tags, citing, as the only evidence that the pro-free software hacker bias (which I fail to perceive) is a pro-US bias, the fact that an US dictionary happens to report that meaning, and the concise version of an UK dictionary doesn't (though the full version of the same dict does). --Army1987 (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved editor ElKevbo

I've done some editing on this article in the past although I have recently been inactive. Excepting some of the alleged user conduct issues, the core of this dispute is clearly content. Andrew81446 does raise some good points and it's a shame that we haven't adequately responded to them but that should not be implied as consensus to make significant unilateral changes to the article particularly when several other editors have expressed opposition to said changes. --ElKevbo (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved admin Stifle

Recommend this case be rejected as a content dispute. No real behaviour problems here that standard admin action can't fix. Stifle (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Comment. I'd like to hear from rtc (talk · contribs · email) before committing myself but it seems to me this issue is currently more suited to mediation. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline. There is some user misconduct associated here but it is minimal. With good will on both sides this dispute can be solved by earlier steps in dispute resolution. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Decline. Primarily a content dispute. Paul August ☎ 17:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Hopefully awaiting comments from others. Not inclined to anticipate a view on the case until more of others' views is seen. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Reject, content dispute. Kirill 13:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Decline at this time. Much of the issue raised is a content dispute that should be engaged by earlier stages of dispute resolution. To the extent there are user-conduct issues involved, they also appear resolvable by means short of an arbitration case, at this time. The request can be re-filed later if user-conduct problems continue and other dispute resolution fails. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Clarifications and other requests

Place requests related to amendments of prior cases, appeals, and clarifications in this section. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at Arbitration enforcement. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the Talk page. Place new requests at the top. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How-to other requests

Request for clarification re Macedonia case

We are currently experiencing edit wars, blanking, vandalism, ethnic ranting and various other forms of disruptive editing on a variety of different content items relating to Kosovo, including articles, talk pages, images, templates, categories etc. I'd be grateful if an arbitrator could confirm that the general sanction concerning Balkans-related articles that was passed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia applies to all namespaces within the area of conflict, not just to the narrower category of "pages" (the wording used in the sanction). I presume it does but I'd like to have it on the record for clarity's sake. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

"Page" (as opposed to the narrower "article") applies to all namespaces. Kirill 13:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kirill, although the existence of any doubt emphasizes that warnings should be given before restrictions are imposed (which is good practice anyway). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As Kiril and newyorkbrad said. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Request to clarify/expand remedy from Ferrylodge case

Link to original case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge

Notification of involved users:

• Ferrylodge (talk · contribs) [3]
• FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [4]
• KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [5]

Statement by MastCell

In Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ferrylodge, Ferrylodge (talk · contribs) was identified as having "a long history of disruptive editing on topics related to pregnancy and abortion." He was placed under indefinite sanction: "Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing."

Recently Ferrylodge has taken what I consider to be a very disruptive tack on Talk:Abortion. I posted diffs and details here at WP:AE, because I believe that his behavior represented a continuation of his disruptive and tendentious approach to abortion-related articles sanctioned in the ArbCom case. My filing was reviewed by User:GRBerry, who raised the very sensible issue that the sanction applies to "articles" and likely not to associated talk pages.

Talk:Abortion and associated pages are contentious under the best of circumstances. Based on the diffs and evidence in my AE report, I believe that Ferrylodge is disrupting these talk pages with tendentious, circular arguments, presumptions of bad faith, extensive wikilawyering, and the like. I'm asking, therefore, that the sanction from his case be amended to read: "Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any page which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing." This would include talk pages, WikiProjects, and the like, though presumably somewhat greater latitude would be provided on these pages than in article-space. I believe this extension is justified based on his lengthy history and ongoing behavior. MastCell ^Talk 21:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Response to GRBerry: No, there are no previous logged Blocks&Bans. Still, Ferrylodge has constantly been testing the limits of his sanctions. For example, here at WP:AE 2 admins (AGK and Rlevse) found his conduct disruptive - in fact, AGK banned him from Roe v. Wade - but he was let off the hook with yet another promise to reform, though his tactics had played a role in driving a very valuable contributor off Wikipedia. That pattern has repeated itself long enough. At some point, a critical mass of disruption is achieved here, and I think we're at that point. MastCell ^Talk 22:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Response to Ferrylodge: I'm asking a very specific and straightforward question about an ArbCom case here. I'm not interested in defending myself against your attempts to distract, impugn, or muddy the waters. The reasoning behind my edits is discussed in depth on the relevant article talk pages. If you have a problem with my conduct, then please follow dispute resolution. MastCell ^Talk 02:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by GRBerry

In interpreting the case, I noted that the committee explicitly chose the passed wording over a prior version that said "article or other page". The other difference was that the prior version was "is banned" and the passed version is "uninvolved administrator may ban". I don't know which difference the committee was focusing on.

There has been a prior request for clarification on this issue, which no committee member responded to. It is logged at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Proposed decision#More clarification requested. Thatcher then said "The remedy would include any page related to abortion, including article talk pages, user talk pages (if an abortion-related discussion is carried on there), templates, policies, wikiprojects, AfDs, you name it. This has been established in past clarifications of other cases. The point of the remedy is to stop Ferrylodge from being disruptive, wherever it occurs. I personally would allow more freedom on talk pages, but there still will be an actionable level of disruption." I too am certainly going to allow more freedom in discussion venues (talk pages, XfDs, and the like).

I also note Kirill's comment earlier today on the Macedonia case: "'Page' (as opposed to the narrower 'article') applies to all namespaces. Kirill 13:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Since Thatcher (who has more WP:AE experience than I) and I are reading the tea leaves differently, clarification may well be in order even if expansion isn't.

There is currently nothing logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge#Log of blocks and bans. GRBerry 22:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Ferrylodge

I’ve responded to Mastcell at the Arbitration Enforcement proceeding that he initiated, and at the pertinent article talk page.

I hope that any further decision or clarification by ArbCom in this matter will be prospective only (which may be Mastcell’s intent anyway). I also hope that my comments at the pertinent talk page will not be viewed in isolation, but rather ArbCom should be free to review the behavior of all involved people, including "trusted members of the community."

Mastcell does not object to any article edit that I made. He objects to my talk page comments. And Mastcell is not denying that those comments followed up on a false statement that he had inserted into the article text, with an accompanying footnote in which Mastcell cited a POV newspaper editorial that did not even support the false statement that he was inserting into the article text. As far as I know, Mastcell does not deny any of this, but rather he deems all of this context irrelevant. It is very relevant. Unlike Mastcell, I did not disrupt the article text at all, and no one accuses me of having done so.

At the corresponding article talk page, Mastcell made numerous false allegations and personal attacks against me. He falsely accused me of “quote-mining a primary source” and of using “ a series of quotes from primary sources to advance your opinion” and “massag[ing] the primary sources” and “violat[ing] WP:SYN to mine quotes from a primary source” and trying to “set aside WP:NOR.”

I respectfully submit to ArbCom that all of these wiki-lawyering accusations by Mastcell were blatantly false. I do not see how ArbCom could agree to Mastcell’s present request without examining whether those accusations by Mastcell were indeed blatantly false.

It is tendentious for an Admin to make a stream of false accusations at an article talk page, while also inserting false material and POV footnotes into the article text. You may disregard these assertions of mine because Mastcell is a “trusted member of the community.” However, I urge you to please look at the facts. The discussion at the article talk page became heated, and Mastcell was as much a part of the heat as myself, if not more so. I was responding to irresponsible edits by Mastcell (and one other editor in particular) in the article text, and responding to irresponsible accusations against me by Mastcell (and one other editor in particular) at the article talk page. I have tried my best to avoid causing what even the most biased person might consider disruption of any article text covered by the Arbcom decision, and no one accuses me of having done so.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Response to Mastcell: The title of the request you made here at this page says that you are interested in "expanding" the remedy in my case. You're requesting that the language of the remedy be amended, and you've supplied ArbCom with more expansive language for them to adopt. So please don't pretend that you are merely asking a "specific and straightforward question" about the meaning of a previous remedy. You are seeking an amended and expanded remedy, and you are relying on a long list of "diffs and details." However, when I mention details that are not on your long list, you now accuse me of trying to play, distract, impugn, and muddy the waters. This is the kind of counterproductive wikilawyering that I referred to in my statement above, and I'm asking you politely to please ease up.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: A few minutes ago, Mastcell made this reversion. I am totally flabbergasted. I do not understand it, see no justification for it, and feel compelled to mention it here. Please judge for yourselves.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Zsero

Regardless of whether this specific decision was meant to include talk pages, having looked at the edits to which Mastcell objects, I see nothing disruptive in them. Now I haven't been at all involved in the history of that page, so I don't know how it might seem to someone who is involved, but the essence of Mastcell's complaint seems to be that in making a perfectly valid edit, Ferrylodge cynically assumed that someone would revert it, and got his response in first, so to speak. Mastcell seems to be claiming that this lack of AGF was inherently disruptive, and that Ferrylodge was under an obligation to pretend that he expected his edit to be accepted in good grace, simply because it was true, and only to respond once it was in fact reverted. The fact that his prediction seems to have been fulfilled would seem to me to vindicate him. And in light of his past treatment, especially the lynch mob back in September (my disgust at how he was treated caused me to withdraw from WP for several months), I think he's entitled to anticipate opposition to anything he does on that page, however valid, and to defend his edits as if they had already been challenged. At least that's how it appears to this utterly uninvolved editor (I only knew about this action because I had Ferrylodge's talk page on my watch list from when I made an edit to it way back when). -- Zsero (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• By convention and long practice, the term "articles" in Arbitration cases should be read as "pages" meaning article, talk, wikiproject, template, and any other page. I happen to be otherwise occupied and taking a break from WP:AE for a while, but I would have no problem applying and enforcing the ban you propose. Thatcher 22:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Did you notice that Kirill said the opposite this morning in a different request for clarification? (Diff in my statement.) GRBerry 22:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I can probably find diffs that say the opposite, from various Arbitrators over the last 18 months. I can deal with either a broad interpretation or a narrow one, but having both is pretty annoying. If there were two alternative proposals for voting that differentiated between page and article that would be definitive, but I rather suspect it is due to imprecise drafting of the proposed decisions. I guess we either need a vote on this case or a general clarification of Arbitration policy. As far as I am concerned, narrowly limiting probation to articles invites just this sort of problem. Thatcher 22:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• References to "any article" are generally meant to include talkpages. I will try to make sure that any ambiguity on this score is avoided in future decisions. Not commenting on the other issues as yet. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Request for appeal: Octavian history

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Wiki-user3728 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator, SPA)
• Octavian history (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by Octavian history

I am writing this for User:Octavian history [6] because his account was blocked by an admin who is abusing his powers. Here is what he wrote:

"Dear Wikipedia admins, I am a major contributor to Wikipedia and have been blocked for no reason. Wanted to ask for your help. As a scholar and historian I have tried very hard to improve Wikipedia and make it a better place.

User Gyrofrog (real name [redacted]) is an admin who is abusing his powers and has blocked my account (Octavian history) indefinitely for absolutely no reason. I can prove he has stalked my every move and has lead a terror campaign against me from the minute I started on wiki! He is absolutely obsessed with my every move and is a very unjust individual. He claims he blocked me because I am a "sock puppet", but that is absolutely not true. A few people do use this computer at the office and I did not know they can't write about the same subject. Gyro claims I have a million sock puppets, but that claim is 100% false. I have asked the two individuals at my office to never write about the same subject again, so it does not any confusion.

Wiki rule says "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users". I have never damaged Wikipedia and only helped construct over 1200 edits.

I have not done anything wrong, but have made over a 1200 constructive edits and created many new topics of great interest with factual citations. I started and convinced the scientific community on wiki to correct and change the name of Charles Darwin's book On the Origin of Species.

I have not only made over a thousand constructive edits, but I have also created dozens of important pages such as:

Beverly Hills Police Department

Abraham Lincoln's Cooper Union speech

Jack Clemmons

Marina Oswald Porter (Lee Harvey Oswald's wife, the assasin of President Kennedy)

Please restore my account and please tell me how to stop gyrofrog from harassing and stalking me. Thank you very much for your time!!!

Sincerely, Octavian history"--Wiki-user3728 (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Originally posted by User:Wiki-user3728 at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Octavian history on February 19, 2008. Original has since been oversighted -- see above redaction. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher (Checkuser)

I have rechecked the findings at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Johnyajohn. It is clear that the following accounts have been operated from the same computer and the same internet connection: Octavian history (talk · contribs); Hasan075 (talk · contribs); Wallststockguy (talk · contribs); The-Scriptorium (talk · contribs); Equinoximus (talk · contribs); Monroebuffzz204 (talk · contribs); Sam838south (talk · contribs); Sarazip1 (talk · contribs). Other listed accounts are too old to check. Detailed records will be made available to the Arbitrators on request. Sadly, checkuser is not enabled with a time-travelling reverse web-cam, so claims of family/friends/etc editing will have to evaluated on behavioral as well as technical grounds. However, one particular series of edits on 19 January may shed light on this request.

• 19:32 Octavian history comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hajj Amin Elahi
• 19:43 Octavian history signs a comment on the AfD [7]
• 19:47 someone at this computer connects to Wikipedia through AOL and creates Hasan075 (talk · contribs)
• 19:49 Hasan075 votes in the AfD [8]
• 19:52 Hasan075 makes an edit to Kurdish music
• 21:33 Hasan075 is indefinitely blocked by Gyrofrog
• 21:44 Octavian history is blocked for 24 hours by Gyrofrog for abusing multiple accounts

Note that Wiki-user3728 (talk · contribs) and Holy-wiki (talk · contribs) are also coming from the same connection and computer. Thatcher 05:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• See evidence of large scale sock use at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Johnyajohn, on more than one occasion. I do not agree that Gyrofrog's block can be construed as "harassing" or "stalking". His role as an administrator is to prevent abuse of editing privileges. A request for checkuser review concluded there was disruptive sockpuppetry and the account was indeed a sockpuppet.
  
  I also note that this request is itself not without problems. The bringer of this request, User:Wiki-user3728, who states "I am writing this for User:Octavian history because his account was blocked", is actually (and unsurprisingly), almost certainly not "writing for" someone, but is almost certainly Octavian History himself. As a second aside he seems to have used his login on Feb 19 to create a second account, used as an undisclosed new sockpuppet, namely Holy-wiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Update, comment received: "Dear sir, I am not him, but a family member. If you look at his history you will notice he has not done a single vandalism or unconstructive edit. He has also fought against vandals. There are thousands of people who attack wiki every minute with vandalism. I truly can't believe that you would not side with someone who has tried hard to create and improve so many articles. Two of the puppets were friends and family members, not the 100 that have been named. Also, we did not know that friends and family cannot agree about the same subject. I can easily never work on any article that he does from now on if that helps" [9]. Submitted for RFCU review, again at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Johnyajohn. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Request for clarification: Digwuren

Statement by Moreschi

I'm requesting clarification as regards this FoF and this remedy. I've just blocked said user, RJ CG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for edit-warring yet again. Time for the "summary bans" bit to be enforced? Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 23:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that reminds me: if an arbitrator/checkuser with knowledge of the Estonian sock stable could figure out who on earth 84.50.127.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), also blocked for his part in the edit-war, actually is, this might be helpful. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 23:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Martintg

I see that Kirill is wishing to apply additional remedies from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles. What's the scope? I don't think it is necessary in Estonia related articles, there has hardly been any activity, let alone disputes, with only User:RJ CG popping his head in briefly after a long break before being promptly blocked for two weeks for 3RR. As I said previously, Wikiproject Estonia has been chilled to the bone with most of the editors leaving the project, with no significant articles created or expanded, except for football it seems. I suppose if you are going to turn the screws even tighter, how about also adding:

• The applicable scope: Eastern Europe broadly defined, or just Estonia related articles?
• The definition of uninvolved admin for enforcement from that case as well Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Uninvolved_administrators
• Lifting of the ban for Digwuren. Nobody from either side wanted year long bans. Given Digwuren only joined around April 2007, had not been previously subjected any other genuine dispute resolution attempts before being taken to ArbCom (obviously Irpen's opinions carry a lot of weight with ArbCom), this newbie certainly has been bitten hard. We need at least one person from Estonia who can speak the language and willing to contribute meaningfully to articles.

Thanks. Martintg (talk) 06:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Biophys

Unlike Israeli-Palestinian conflict, "Eastern European subjects", are not clearly defined. Does this include every Russia-related topic, like Russia-China relations or Soviet intelligence operations in the United States? If we want to follow the "Israeli-Palestinian" remedy, the "conflict area" should be clearly defined, say "Russian-Polish" or "Russian-Estonian" conflicts. Anything that is not area of conflict (e.g. articles on Russian-Turkish subjects or internal Russian affairs) do not belong there. Could you please clarify which subjects are covered?Biophys (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

I have read this but am recusing from commenting due to my involvement in that case. I will ask the others to look over this. --Deskana (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In this case, comment is probably best given in the first instance by arbitrators who were active when that case was being heard. Deferring to othes to clarify the above. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The "summary bans" bit predates some of the more useful methods we've developed since then; I'd prefer not to funnel everything through a bottleneck by having the Committee do everything itself, but rather to take the standard approach we've used for other conflict areas recently. See my motion below. Kirill 13:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed motions and voting

Motion:

The general restriction in the Digwuren case is replaced with the following:

1) Discretionary sanctions

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

2) Appeal of discretionary sanctions

Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

3) Other provisions

This shall not affect any sanctions already imposed under the old remedies. All sanctions imposed under these provisions are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. I remain convinced that this is the best solution, at least until the working group develops something more useful. Kirill 13:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Support. This is more helpful to those who find themselves involved in editing disputes over Eastern Europe, whether as participant or administrator. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

---

---