JCScaliger (talk | contribs) |
AlexandrDmitri (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 91: | Line 91: | ||
=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/1) === |
=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/1) === |
||
* Awaiting statements. The statements so far are concerning, but there are two sides to every story... [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 00:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC) |
* Awaiting statements. The statements so far are concerning, but there are two sides to every story... [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 00:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
== Block review and Afghanistan, India and Pakistan disputes== |
|||
'''Initiated by ''' [[User:JCAla|JCAla]] ([[User talk:JCAla|talk]]) '''at''' 17:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
=== Involved parties === |
|||
<!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator --> |
|||
*{{userlinks|JCAla}}, ''filing party'' |
|||
*{{admin|Magog the Ogre}} |
|||
*{{userlinks|TopGun}} |
|||
*{{userlinks|Darkness Shines}} |
|||
*{{userlinks|Mar4d}} |
|||
*{{userlinks|DBigXray}} (mentioned in diff) |
|||
*{{userlinks|Wikireader41}} (mentioned in diff) |
|||
<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. --> |
|||
;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request |
|||
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. --> |
|||
*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Magog_the_Ogre&diff=471900069&oldid=471894272 |
|||
*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TopGun&diff=471901123&oldid=471813877 |
|||
*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darkness_Shines&diff=471900333&oldid=471748631 |
|||
*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mar4d&diff=471901290&oldid=471646607 |
|||
*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DBigXray&action=history |
|||
*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wikireader41&diff=471900976&oldid=471825609 |
|||
;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried |
|||
<!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration --> |
|||
Regarding the conduct: |
|||
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Magog_the_Ogre#About |
|||
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Magog_the_Ogre#Last_block_and_something_to_notice |
|||
*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JCAla&diff=469355125&oldid=469295647 |
|||
Regarding the initial content dispute: |
|||
*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=465975749 |
|||
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#references |
|||
*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=469521116 |
|||
There are more diffs. If more diffs are needed, please let me know. |
|||
The reasons why arbitration is requested directly after the above discussions will be outlined below. |
|||
=== Statement by JCAla === |
|||
Dear ArbCom members, |
|||
# I want to ask you for a review (and possibly revision) of a one-week block imposed by [[User:Magog the Ogre]] for a one-time revert on the article [[Indians in Afghanistan]]. [[User:TopGun]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indians_in_Afghanistan&diff=470658179&oldid=470657302 had removed 10,000 bytes] of sourced and verified content. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indians_in_Afghanistan&diff=470659007&oldid=470658179 I made one one-time revert] of his revert based on [[WP:BRD-NOT]] and on reasonably assuming consensus among all (but two) of the editors active on the article or discussions surrounding it. [[User:AshLin]] and [[User:Rvd4life]] had added to the version I restored and restored it themselves after a sock IP had been removing content from the article. Two neutral/uninvolved editors had furthermore stated about the version I restored:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Indians_in_Afghanistan&diff=470581858&oldid=470581777 "The article in its current state is well-sourced, and the topic itself appears notable."] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Indians_in_Afghanistan&diff=next&oldid=470600807 "The article contains ample well referenced sections about various aspects involving Indians in Afghanistan."] After I had made the revert, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indians_in_Afghanistan&diff=470684529&oldid=470659007 a sock IP] reverted again. I did not revert again. TopGun ran to Magog (who had previously been involved in an AfD about an earlier version of the article) to get me blocked stating, “Hope I don't get a mutual block for this too.”[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Magog_the_Ogre&diff=470660609&oldid=470652514] Magog acted as requested. |
|||
# The underlying conflict is that there are content disputes between several editors with regards to issues involving Afghanistan, India and Pakistan. I once asked Magog the Ogre to help resolve one of these disputes. Unfortunately, after being constantly harassed by [[User:TopGun]] who presents himself as being "hounded", Magog has become personally invested in the issue. He i. e. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=466149464&oldid=466147294 assumed bad faith] just for me consulting a dispute resolution noticeboard. This is being fully utilized by TopGun who regularly runs to Magog the Ogre's talk page to report editors with whom he is engaged in content disputes and to indulge in conspiracy theories against them. Some examples: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Magog_the_Ogre&diff=470073061&oldid=470052403][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DBigXray&diff=470211216&oldid=470209662][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JCAla&diff=470074888&oldid=470073955][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=471805395][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=469167857][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Magog_the_Ogre&diff=469114670&oldid=469112630] |
|||
The major problem - what needs to be reviewed here - is the dynamic of TopGun provoking a reaction of other editors, then "reporting" and indulging in conspiracy theories everywhere [<small>Administrator [[User:Bwilkins]] wrote on ANI about the first dispute between TopGun and me, addressing TopGun: "You PERSONALLY forced the other editor to edit-war, reported him, and have the further belief that you could get away with it by claiming you weren't going to do it anymore?"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive729#Punitive_Block]</small> ] and Magog then taking unbalanced actions against only one part like i. e. imposing a one-week block for a one-time revert of TopGun's removal of 10,000 bytes of content. This dynamic is not appropriate and not productive for wikipedia. [[User:JCAla|JCAla]] ([[User talk:JCAla|talk]]) 09:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
* <small>Chopped off collapse boxes and left a note on complainant's talk page regarding 500 word limit. [[User:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|<nowiki>[</nowikI>•<nowiki>]</nowiki>]] 21:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)</small> |
|||
* Wow, in response to what Magog wrote, everyone is free to review my contributions. I have been working with a lot of editors who disagreed on content with me, and everything was worked out through discussions. I worked i. e. with [[User:Rdavi404]] on the [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=Tehrik-i-Taliban_Pakistan Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan] article very much, and we had many differences of opinion but always were able to sort them out without ever going beyond the article's talk page. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Magog_the_Ogre#Still.3F Magog refuses to realize] TopGun's behavior when none else does[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=472421133&oldid=472420982][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=472422471&oldid=472421919], and he seems to be incapable of just taking a step back. I have never before questioned the integrity of any administrator with regards to his/her use of administrative rights. But Magog's characterization of the editors involved shows how unbalanced he is in this issue. IP's have constantly turned up on articles when TopGun was involved in edit wars (supporting his reverts), this is simply not the case in my case. Hardly any of the [[m:MPOV|megalomaniacal point of view]] characteristics do I display. Yet, this has become Magog's favourite accusation. I have hardly used the term "NPOV" (TopGun has done so a hundred times), I do not revert an article "three times a day" (TopGun does), I have not indulged in conspiracy theories (TopGun repeatedly does so). I have had enough of these baseless accusations by Magog. Seriously, this kind of administrative behavior does wikipedia no good. That is why I asked for arbitration. [[User:JCAla|JCAla]] ([[User talk:JCAla|talk]]) 23:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*After [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Magog_the_Ogre#Still.3F this request by TopGun] Magog just [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Darkness_Shines blocked Darkness Shines] for 48 hours [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Darkness_Shines#Blocked citing these incorrect reasons (I have explained on the talk page why they are not correct)] (even mentioning me - although I wasn't involved - which shows that he has indeed become personally invested), and this all although this request here has not even been closed yet. [[User:JCAla|JCAla]] ([[User talk:JCAla|talk]]) 23:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
===Statement by Mar4d=== |
|||
The "two absolutely neutral and uninvolved editors" you keep quoting also said the following in their statements about that article which in reality was [[WP:COATRACK]] following the "rewrite", which you've conveniently chosen to remove: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Indians_in_Afghanistan&diff=470581858&oldid=470581777 WP:COATRACK concerns expressed in this AfD discussion can be addressed on the article's talk page and through editing...] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Indians_in_Afghanistan&diff=next&oldid=470600807 Anything that doesn't belong can be discussed on the article's talk page, and removed or altered to be more suitable for Wikipedia]. Cherry-picked quotes are not a good excuse for trying to get around an argument, especially when you start a thread at Arbitration. [[User:Mar4d|Mar4d]] ([[User talk:Mar4d|talk]]) 02:52, 18 January 2012 (UTC)<br> |
|||
<small>Note: This was in response to point 1 and was initially posted under there, and has understandably been moved here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase&action=historysubmit&diff=472068675&oldid=472064278]. [[User:Mar4d|Mar4d]] ([[User talk:Mar4d|talk]]) 15:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)</small> |
|||
=== Statement by TopGun === |
|||
The statement by filer is full of half truths molded to his own choice leaving out facts like he is the one who called Magog as a neutral mediator and usage of his talk page was correct as per conditions set by him to which JCAla, me and another user in dispute agreed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taliban&diff=next&oldid=466024495] (JCAla later withdrew when he faced action). I've met Magog through JCAla's insistence of involving an informal mediator who JCAla introduced to me as the most neutral administrator he knew. His views only changed after he was blocked because of himself. He also filed a report at ANI for Magog to recuse himself from the case which was rejected unanimously. I've not presented any facts incorrectly or even in half truth while filing any reports. Two users 'mentioned in diffs' have behavior problems with me one of whom is currently reported for long term harassment and the other one got a bare mention in a discussion which is used here - both 'informed' to indirectly canvass them here. Note that Darkness Shines and JCAla have a history [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DBigXray&curid=33070626&diff=470073909&oldid=470053375] of 'informing' any editor who gets a bare mention or referred to in respect to a previous case, if it helps their side. They've also invited each other into disputes previously [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darkness_Shines&diff=prev&oldid=468117273] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJCAla&action=historysubmit&diff=465518361&oldid=465478236] where they fully [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inter-Services_Intelligence&action=historysubmit&diff=465524318&oldid=465519284 participated] in response to each other's canvassing. Even in this report there are quite some visible personal attacks against me. <ins>I don't see why JCAla compares me to a sockmaster he previously reported as 'the only other person' and his so called fair use of AN3 was first on a case where he was not involved (reported me by stalking my contributions?) and was warned not to make bad faith reports and the second one led him to a [[WP:BOOMERANG]] block of 48hrs.</ins> I have a strong rebuttal to this with evidence. Should I wait for the case to be accepted first? --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:TopGun|<b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b>]] ([[User talk:TopGun|<b style="color:#000">talk</b>]])</span> 14:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
<small> |
|||
:I've added some evidence per Darkness Shines's request below - though this is only a small part of the full picture - I assume I don't have to add more till the case is accepted lest the effort go wasted otherwise. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:TopGun|<b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b>]] ([[User talk:TopGun|<b style="color:#000">talk</b>]])</span> 23:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)</small> |
|||
;Response to statement by DBigXray: This user has a history of hounding me and he was warned by [[User:Dave1185]] that he would be ''banned'' if he continued [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATopGun&action=historysubmit&diff=455952664&oldid=455942966]. All the reports and diffs presented by the user are self-explainatory either alone or in combination with follow on diffs. All his comments on content start with discussion of my motto or such. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:TopGun|<b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b>]] ([[User talk:TopGun|<b style="color:#000">talk</b>]])</span> 00:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
;Response to statement by Darkness Shines: Out of context diffs have been presented to which I'll not respond here due to the limitation I'll reserve the replies for an evidence board - he was asked to stay of my talk page at ANI and the talk page removals were justified. He and JCAla base their 'righteousness' on the amount of content being reverted which is completely incorrect. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:TopGun|<b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b>]] ([[User talk:TopGun|<b style="color:#000">talk</b>]])</span> 00:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
===Statement by Darkness Shines=== |
|||
Topgun makes an accusation above of my canvassing editors to win content disputes, I should like to see the evidence please. If the case is accepted I would appreciate being told what exactly is it I am meant to do here? [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 19:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*Asking one person once for their opinion is not canvassing. Here is how TG edits. |
|||
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pakistan%27s_role_in_the_War_on_Terror&action=historysubmit&diff=462552798&oldid=462257737][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pakistan%27s_role_in_the_War_on_Terror&action=historysubmit&diff=467932969&oldid=467929883][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pakistan%27s_role_in_the_War_on_Terror&action=historysubmit&diff=468057461&oldid=468054104]. Edit wars uncited content into an article. |
|||
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inter-Services_Intelligence&action=historysubmit&diff=463822694&oldid=463538264] Reverets in unsourced content. |
|||
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Separatist_movements_of_India Other states of India:- Citation needed.] Various editors arguing with TG over his edit warring uncited content into an article. |
|||
#When pointed out on his talk page his habit of reverting unsourced content into articles[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fatima_Jinnah&diff=prev&oldid=468615047#Quotes] he says "Blah"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATopGun&action=historysubmit&diff=468635176&oldid=468633772] |
|||
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taliban&diff=prev&oldid=469637035] Reverts out reliably sourced content. He did not like it. |
|||
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=469006611] Files an AN3 report, even though 3R was never broken by myself. |
|||
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taliban&diff=prev&oldid=468922212] Misrepresentation of sources |
|||
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TopGun&diff=next&oldid=469693814][[WP:BATTLEFIELD|Battlefield]] mentality, talks of "sides" |
|||
#[[Inter-Services Intelligence]] was locked for two weeks due to TG edit warring, his first action upon the article being unlocked, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inter-Services_Intelligence&diff=prev&oldid=471828955 He reverts] again. I endeavor to use only the best of sources, all are from academic publishing houses. |
|||
#[[Taliban]] we have the same issue again, TG [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taliban&action=historysubmit&diff=469637035&oldid=469633141 reverts out][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taliban&action=historysubmit&diff=469620646&oldid=469619262] huge amounts of content, all of which is sourced to academic publishers. He quite simply reverts out content which he thinks sheds a poor light on Pakistan. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 14:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
=== Statement by EdJohnston === |
|||
*In his first point, JCAla is requesting 'block review' but his block has already expired. |
|||
*In his second point, he is asking for help with a dispute but complaining that the efforts of the admin Magog the Ogre are misguided. "Magog now has become personally invested in the issue assuming bad faith with regards to only one part of the editors." JCAla already requested once at ANI that Magog be prevented from playing any further role, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive733#Asking_Magog_to_leave_administrative_actions_to_other_admins_in_matters_related_to_TopGun.27s_content_disputes here]. The thread was closed by [[User:Salvio giuliano]] as an unfounded complaint. |
|||
*My own connection to the dispute is that I've seen reports filed at [[WP:AN3]] by many of the players and I've closed three of the reports. Magog is acting as an uninvolved admin. |
|||
*JCAla is one of a group of about four people who have been warring tenaciously on articles related to Pakistan, mostly with one another. The editors who often turn up on the opposite side of JCAla at the 3RR noticeboard are Darkness Shines and TopGun. I have noticed that TopGun tends to react to unfavorable statements made about Pakistan. He [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TopGun/Archives/2011/December#Threaded_discussion_header_is_puzzling clarified his thinking here in response to my question]. Lately all these editors are careful not to break 3RR so you tend to see slow edit wars across several articles. I do not see that their actions comply with Wikipedia policy regarding dispute resolution. |
|||
*Here are all the admin noticeboard search results for 'JCAla' since November, 2011: |
|||
{{hat|1=Links}} |
|||
* [[WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive173#User:JCAla reported by User:TopGun (Result: Both blocked 48hrs )]] |
|||
* [[WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive229#Request for admin closure]] |
|||
* [[WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive174#User:TopGun reported by User:JCAla (Result: Protected)]] |
|||
* [[WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive174#User:JCAla reported by User:TopGun (Result: Declined)]] |
|||
* [[WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive175#User:TopGun reported by User:JCAla (Result: Reporter blocked 48 hours)]] |
|||
* [[WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive175#User:Darkness Shines reported by User:TopGun (Result: Articles protected)]] (part of the dispute, but JCAla was not mentioned) |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive733#Asking Magog to leave administrative actions to other admins in matters related to TopGun's content disputes]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive734#Personal attacks by Darkness Shines after warning at ANI]] |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
For Magog's attempts to reason with JCAla about his editing, see two diffs already supplied by JCAla: |
|||
*[[User talk:Magog the Ogre#About]] |
|||
*[[User talk:Magog the Ogre#Last block and something to notice]] |
|||
Consider [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive734#Personal_attacks_by_Darkness_Shines_after_warning_at_ANI this statement by Magog] as well: "'''The next person''' who makes a personal attack, who goads another editor, who hounds another editor's contributions, or generally acts distuptively in this dispute will be blocked. I really mean it. I'm getting sick of people acting like 12 year olds." |
|||
In my opinion, Magog's attempt to draw a line on incivility and bad behavior was worth a try. It seems to me that further monitoring of the dispute by Magog and by the admins at ANI and AN3 will be sufficient. No objections if JCAla or one of the other disputants wants to open an RFC/U. Since this dispute does not exceed what the community can deal with, I do not see the need for Arbcom to open a case. — [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 06:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
=== Statement by DBigXray === |
|||
#TopGun has a Motto of Inserting Pakistani POV in Wiki articles (and can be clearly seen in his edits) and is often met by resistance from other editors. I had several disputes when he tries to disrupt(insert POV and content removal) india related articles under my watchlist. To get me out of his way he has desperately tried all attempts of getting me blocked by all possible means and failed. |
|||
#Also its not easy for a such edits to go un noticed on wikipedia. And when the other editors complain of his behavior he prefers calling them Sockpuppets, proofs here .[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hassanhn5&diff=prev&oldid=461467773] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHassanhn5&action=historysubmit&diff=461417049&oldid=461416257] . Even made a failed attempt to get me blocked for Sockpuppetry [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DBigXray&action=edit&oldid=461592208] |
|||
#Also he has mentioned me and accused me of something or the other on talk page of so many different admins , often in issues which i am not even related to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMagog_the_Ogre&action=historysubmit&diff=470073061&oldid=470052403]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MilborneOne&diff=prev&oldid=460176734] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Bushranger&diff=prev&oldid=460175054] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrator_intervention_against_vandalism&action=historysubmit&diff=458375474&oldid=458373806 ] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMustihussain&action=historysubmit&diff=457845324&oldid=457722480] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dave1185&diff=prev&oldid=455926051] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston&diff=prev&oldid=456340062][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_ed17&diff=prev&oldid=461098532] --[[User:DBigXray|<font color="indigo">Ð</font><font color="maroon">ℬig</font>]][[User talk:DBigXray|<font color="lime">XЯaɣ</font>]] 07:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
;Response to statement by TopGun: we can see in his reponse to my claims he again tries to mislead other editors by Saying History of wkihounding, he prefers to share his fantasies here while in reality this has never happened and subsequently he failed in his attempts to get me blocked at ANI. Also its amusing to see that he gives links to a different comment altogether while cleverly hiding the real discussion. I am giving the archived link for ANI[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive724#Wikistalking.2FWikihounding] Topgun was daydreaming that i was stalking him and took the matter to ANI hoping that he might get me banned by his incorrect allegations and failed.--[[User:DBigXray|<font color="indigo">Ð</font><font color="maroon">ℬig</font>]][[User talk:DBigXray|<font color="lime">XЯaɣ</font>]] 11:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
=== Statement by Smsarmad === |
|||
I am making a statement (about my observation) here as an uninvolved editor to this case but I am or was involved with some of the editors listed above in content related discussions. I have been watching Darkness Shines editing articles related to Pakistan (that are on my watchlist, can provide diffs if asked) and mostly adding controversial information and afterwards getting in disputes with TopGun and Mar4d mostly. Also his deletion tagging of Pakistan related articles inlcuding speedy deletion of [[Muhammad Iqbal]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_Iqbal&action=historysubmit&diff=469936581&oldid=469936179] (a former featured article) and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Army Public School and College (Pakistan)|AFD]] of [[Army Public School and College (Pakistan)]] on the grounds of notability. All this compels me to think that is he on wikipedia only for a [[WP:SPA|single purpose]]. Though I recommend TopGun and Mar4d to excercise maximum restraint but again it is impossible if the other party don't, so this issue needs to be permanently resolved. --[[User:Smsarmad|<span style="background:white;color:LightSeaGreen">'''S'''</span><span style="background:white;color:DodgerBlue">'''M'''</span><span style="background:white;color:LightSeaGreen">'''S'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Smsarmad|Talk]]</sup> 20:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
===Statement by TParis=== |
|||
I am strongly involved with Magog the Ogre, JCAla, Darkness Shines, and TopGun on the [[Taliban]] article but my involvement does not extend beyond that. An explanation of how I got involved can be found [[User_talk:Magog_the_Ogre/Archive_18#Military_support_discussion|here]] I'm not going to make any accusations so forgive me if I do not provide a lot of diffs. I think this could be solved at an RFC/U. I think Magog the Ogre's has shown incredible patience and has been impartial and fair. [[WP:3RR]] is not a promise, it's a warning. Several attempts were made by Magog to enforce civility including on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taliban&diff=466000211&oldid=465975971 Taliban article's talk age]. Plenty of warnings about civility and edit warrings ([[User_talk:Magog_the_Ogre/Archive_19#TopGun|here]], were given by Magog before blocks started. I would like to point out that Magog the Ogre got involved [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Magog_the_Ogre&diff=464933953&oldid=464795575 at JCAla's request].--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 01:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
===Statement by My76Strat=== |
|||
This dispute seems misplaced here and should seek resolution by a lessor means like RfC/U. My opinion is that ArbCom should reject this case without prejudice. [[User:My76Strat|My76Strat]] ([[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]) 11:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
===Statement by Jehochman=== |
|||
Magog doesn't seem to want to comment here. They said, |
|||
::: "While I was love if ArbCom would take the case, I understand they don't have 16 hours per day to work on everything. When (if) the request fails, I will recommend an RFC/U for everyone involved. I may sign it for users on both sides. I don't think an RFC/U on me will get real far; JCAla might do better asking for a second opinion at ANI." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Magog_the_Ogre&diff=472106333&oldid=472098928] |
|||
I think it would be useful to ask administrators to always post a comment when their actions are questioned on this page. It is the duty of an administrator to respond when their actions are questioned, and arbitrators need statements from all parties to properly dispose of a request. I think it would also be useful to ask the arbitration clerks not to remove any statement posted in good faith.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=472425427&oldid=472423810] If there is a problem, ask the user to amend their statement. Treating a good faith user like a vandal is very poor practice. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 13:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
===Statement by Magog the Ogre=== |
|||
Jehochman's statement by me is in fact a good summary of how I feel. I haven't posted yet because I was awaiting other statements, and because I have to pay my bills by that old fashioned thing called employment ([[File:Face-wink.svg|18px|link=]]). |
|||
I believe a few things: |
|||
*I've been meaning for a while to ask the community for a site-wide sanction for Indo-Iranian issues. It goes beyond just the editors above; that part of the world is a veritable mix of ugly nationalist tension. I could pull from my talk page history alone numerous editors who have been blocked at one point for issues (including one prolific sockpuppeteer). Among other reasons, see [[:File:Major ethnic groups of Pakistan in 1980.jpg]] for an example of why. It is every bit as bad as Israel-Palestine, Caucuses, etc. I could list a treasure trove of blocked and banned editors on the issue. |
|||
*There is sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry on both sides (in this case, the sides being pro-Pakistan and pro-India). I don't know, nor do I particularly care how it came to be (because I can't prove it anyway). I'd bet my right foot though that someone along the way is a banned editor. |
|||
*I see major [[m:MPOV|megalomanical point of view]] problems with JCAla (compare with American talk radio, with heavy personalities that never see their own side as doing wrong). When I tried to mediate between the sides on [[Taliban]], it seemed like we were getting somewhere every time until I walked away for ~24 hours, at which point JCAla had devolved it into accusations of bad faith. He is OK as long as someone tells him to tone it down and focus on content, but this isn't possible 24/7. To put it bluntly, he is absolutely horrendous at mediation. I do not think an RFC/U will ever amend his behavior, because he is simply ''incapable'' of ever working with TopGun or anyone with a strong Pakistani-POV. |
|||
*Darkness Shines is Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde - sometimes he is constructive, other times he is hounding, edit warring, battleground thinking, etc. |
|||
*TopGun is more level-headed, but is prone to edit war. He unquestionably has a strong nationalist Pakistani POV, and he's not afraid to remove or add content in such a way that he believes it becomes more neutral. There is no question in my mind that he pushes his point of view too hard at times. What I can't tell is if s/he should be around or not at all, given that the waters have been muddied by the above two editors going after him. Lest I should be accused of taking TopGun's side on the issue, I'd like to make it clear I generally disagree with his side on the issues at hand (e.g., statements about Pakistan's support for the Taliban pre-9/11). |
|||
*Naturally, I don't think my block was a bad one. I would feel free to elaborate on why if the Arbs asked me to. |
|||
There are three ways forward from here: |
|||
*We could try a number of RFC/U's. As stated above, I think the presence of JCAla in the issue would make it a moot point, because he is incapable of editing with TopGun, or frankly anyone who has ever opposed him, as that automatically makes said person (including me) an irrational and unfair editor. Thus, it would be process for process' sake, and it would only end with either of the next two options. |
|||
*A brute force, BOLD action by administrators within the community to outright ban certain editors from the pages, by block if necessary. The same administrator would have to be bold in semi-protecting a lot of pages because of the rampant sockpuppetry. The administrator would have ''some'' of the support of the community, but would be missing a lot. The reason is simple: the issue is so outstandingly complex that threads at ANI will be the very definition of [[WP:SOUP]]. Only a truly in-depth look would fix the issue. |
|||
*Arbitration |
|||
Thus, I leave it up to the Arbs if they want arbitration or not. I think it's going to be the end of it anyway, unless there are some blocks that I or another admin start throwing down; blocks that are difficult to impossible to review, and which will leave many unhappy, as they will give the appearance of abuse of power. A few of you have already declined; maybe you'll choose to revisit that decline upon my comment. [[User:Magog the Ogre|Magog the Ogre]] ([[User talk:Magog the Ogre|talk]]) 22:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Just to be clear, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ADarkness+Shines this] is the type of block that will have to be made. It will appear subjective, and it will upset people. But it's the only way to proceed short of ArbCom intervention. [[User:Magog the Ogre|Magog the Ogre]] ([[User talk:Magog the Ogre|talk]]) 23:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
=== Clerk notes === |
|||
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' |
|||
*'''Recuse''' <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml"> '''[[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]'''</span> [[User talk:Salvio giuliano| <sup>Let's talk about it!</sup>]] 10:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/0/2) === |
|||
*Just an acknowledgment that I've seen this. I don't see any way I'll get to look into it any deeper until after the blackout, and I doubt much of the committee will, either. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 02:58, 18 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
**Also, will everyone please comment in your own sections. This page is not for threaded discussion. Thank you. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 02:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
***'''Decline''' per the below. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 17:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
* Awaiting statements. I echo Courcelles' direction that responses to other statements should be made in one's own section, and would ask that they please be as brief as possible. [[User:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|<nowiki>[</nowikI>•<nowiki>]</nowiki>]] 15:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:* '''Decline''' per my colleagues. If there are ongoing issues with the topic area, I suggest the community hold a discussion with a view to authorising more a more liberal sanction paradigm. With respect to the specific conduct issues, a RFC/U would be the appropriate next step. If either issue is not resolved by these actions, we might then give more consideration to a request for arbitration. My impression of this topic area is that it is problematic, but that an arbitration case is not yet necessary; I hope it does not become so. I concur with Jehochman that administrators whose actions have been challenged are expected to respond to an associated request for arbitration, and I thank Magog for responding appropriately. [[User:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|<nowiki>[</nowikI>•<nowiki>]</nowiki>]] 01:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*Awaiting further statements; however, JCAla, please shorten your statement significantly; I cannot tell what you consider to be the major problem here, nor what you want done about it, because it's cluttered with too much information that appears to be only peripherally related to the major problem. Cut it down to about 500 words, please; you're now at about 940. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 23:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Decline''' I have yet to see an allegation that exceeds the scope of an RFC/U and would require ArbCom intervention at this point. Willing to be convinced otherwise, but haven't been yet. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 21:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Decline'''. Suggest trying the [[WP:RFC/USER|Request for Comment on user conduct]] process in the hope this dispute can be resolved without arbitration, which is often a lengthy and contentious process. This doesn't imply your dispute is unimportant, merely that arbitration isn't the best way to resolve it. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 15:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Decline''' case as presented. As far as I can make out, while JCala has listed a half dozen other parties, his beef is with Magog blocking him. Without judging whether the block was in fact problematic, one block is not sufficient grounds to start an Arbitration action. The correct approach to appealing a block is to appeal the block, but the filing party stated that he didn't want to do this. The correct approach where you think an admin is not behaving appropriately is an RFC/U. I do think that underlying issues with editing in the area may eventually come back to haunt us, but (a) we're not at that point yet, and (b) this request isn't about that. --[[User:Elen of the Roads|Elen of the Roads]] ([[User talk:Elen of the Roads|talk]]) 18:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Decline''' per above. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] <sup>[[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|[talk]]] [[User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism|[prof]]]</sup> 15:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:20, 27 January 2012
Requests for arbitration
Article titles/MOS
Initiated by SarekOfVulcan (talk) at 22:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Involved parties
- SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
- Born2cycle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- JCScaliger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Noetica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Tony1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Amatulic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- MarketTechnician (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Possibly other parties who have participated in Talk:Relative Strength Index#Requested move and Talk:True strength index#Requested move
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Statement by SarekOfVulcan
There has been long-term disruptive editing on the MOS and article naming pages. As far as I can tell, no single RFC/U or edit warring block is going to solve the problem, so I'm bringing it to Arbcom in an attempt to break the back of the problem and make working in this area of the encyclopedia less unpleasant. For examples, see the recent history of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters and Wikipedia talk:Article titles. There have been huge amounts of discussion spent on these topics, as well as related arb cases like WP:RFAR/DDL, so I'm not providing specific diffs of previous dispute resolution attempts above.
Statement by JCScaliger
On the other hand, I do believe that a single block (or better, a single mentoring) will solve this problem. A timeline of the events behind this is at User:Born2cycle/DearElen; long, and one of you has been faced with it already, but full of diffs.
Noetica and two of his friends have a tendency to engage in "campaigns" to "improve" Wikipedia, and assert the "authority" of our manual of style; I believe some of them have come before ArbCom before. They are a close-net little community, that tends to write about gaining territory, subversion, and, again, subversion. (They behave as though they were one mind; they appear on the same pages, they make the same arguments, they use the same language. I have not seen them disagree.) They are led by Noetica, who speaks for Order, in his own vocabulary.
The three of them are engaged in two of these crusades (or should I say internal security investigations?) and happen to have encountered me at both of them. At WP:TITLE, they came up with an idea for unnecessary disambiguation, which did not get a warm reception. They decided that one of the phrases in the first section of the policy was responsible, and began to boldly edit it. There were objections, and a poll; WT:AT#RFC on Recognizability guideline wording; it seems fairly decisive, but their response was to denounce the poll, boycott the page, and edit war for the wording they prefer.
This produced a month of discussion, and continual war; the page was protected twice. A couple of alternate versions were suggested by various people, and widely approved of. Two of these three editors did not object, but they reverted the results. Eventually I was bold enough to put both on in succession (together with the text that had been there when all this began), in the hope of at least novel wording from the dissentients, on the grounds that consensus should finally prevail.
(A hitherto uninvolved editor said: that there was clear consensus and one of Noetica's wikifriends said: it appears there is quite clearly a consensus and reverted in support of the language on familiarity. It has just had another RFC, this one unanimous.)
A policy with this amount of support has been disturbed for a month, almost entirely by Noetica alone, with some support from his friends and the admin Kwamikagami. This has cost us User:Kotniski; who quit Wikipedia, as explained in this edit because of the "month of smoke and mirrors".
Their other campaign has been to make all articles be lower-case, based solely on a vague expression in the lead of WP:MOSCAPS. Five editors joined in disliking this, and deploring the language, only to be told that the text, which had been boldly written by Noetica two weeks before, was "long-standing consensus"; Dicklyon has now reverted to the version he himself wrote in December. This is at least progress, and why I believe that mentoring Noetica may be enough. JCScaliger (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note. Another reason for leniency is that these three are merely exporting the poisonous environment of MOS to other pages. For example Wikipedia_talk:MOS#Species_capitalization_points is a lengthy current discussion whether MOS should "tolerate" or expunge a widespread custom used by many editors over a whole group of pages. Clearly five or six editors (none of them in this case) think their discussion in this corner is legislation, to be obeyed by all editors and left stable and unedited (unless there is consensus to change it, which is unlikely as long as the five or six decline to do so). It is unusual only in that a member of the group being discussed is actually present. If the five or six go forth to enforce their edict, there will be scattered protests, which will be ignored or brushed off (unless perhaps "consensus" can be as unmistakably shown as at WP:TITLE); changes will be revert-warred, because the protesters are tampering with the Law. This is what happened at WP:MOSCAPS too; Noetica was doing the same thing at TITLE, but was outnumbered (and Dicklyon is still arguing whether there is a consensus). If ArbCom can make a dent in this mindset, that would be most helpful. JCScaliger (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Statement by Amatulic
Until some articles on my watchlist (including two I created) got caught up in a mass-renaming spree by Tony1 (the vast majority of which, upon examining his move log, constituted excellent work with just a few errors), and subsequently became aware of this ArbCom request, I had not known that there was a coordinated campaign to enforce an imagined "authority" of MOS:CAPS as written by two or three editors without the involvement of a larger community.
My involvement here has to do with the naming of technical analysis indicators. The entire page Talk:True strength index contains arguments from those well-versed in the field and familiar with the mass of reliable sources (most of which are not online) against renaming to lowercase. It amazes me that a handful of editors wielding an incomplete style guideline would try to force-fit it to every article, effectively re-writing decades of standard usage by reliable sources.
I was going to suggest a change to MOS:CAPS to include technical analysis indicators as creative works in the MOS:CT section, but then realized that this would be futile without wider community involvement, because the primary participants there are the same ones who promote the disruptive renaming of articles about technical analysis inventions in the first place.
The situation does need resolution. Currently the debate on Relative Strength Index has been closed as keeping the original uppercase version of the title, while the debate that got started after Tony1 changed True strength index to lowercase is evenly split; if closed as no consensus, then we have an inconsistency between the result of two debate closings if the original version is not restored. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Statement by Born2cycle
IN PROGRESS: (I know I'm already over the 500 word limit)
I'm not involved with Tony's, Dicklyon's or Noetica's disputes at WP:MOS.
The specific month-long dispute at WP:TITLE is about whether the Recognizability criterion should be restricted to those familiar with articles topic or not. This specific dispute at WP:TITLE is really part of a larger one that extends to WP:D/WT:D, and many RM discussion in which Noetica, Tony1 and Dicklyon are involved, because they hold a view contrary to long-held community consensus about titles. In particular, they would like to see more descriptive information in many titles in situations where the relevant policies, guidelines and conventions indicate otherwise, primarily because of our convention to add more descriptive information to titles only when needed to disambiguate the titles from others uses in Wikipedia.
- December 20, 2011 22:35 The origin of the specific dispute starts when Tony1 (talk · contribs)'s edit in a discussion about whether a title required disambiguation, alerts me to the fact that the familiarity clause of the Recognizability criterion at WP:CRITERIA was no longer there.
- I researched the situation and concluded that it had been removed inadvertently on May 21, 2011 in a simplification effort that did not intent to change the meaning of this criterion.
- While I knew the phrase was supported by community consensus and continually reaffirmed in practice, I also knew there was a small group of editors who would probably oppose re-inserting the phrase because it contradicted their view that many of our titles should be more descriptive, so I decided to treat it as a bold edit. So, per WP:BRD, I simultaneously edited the policy age and added a full explanation to the talk page.
- Dec 20, 2011 23:13 The familiarity phrase restored by Born2cycle (talk · contribs) [4] Edit summary: "Restore original meaning/wording which was, apparently inadvertently, removed in May 2011. See talk WT:Article titles#Clarification of recognizability lost"
- Dec 20, 2011 23:13 Explanation of adding familiarity phrase provided simultaneously [5]
- Link to that discussion section: Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Clarification_of_recognizability_lost
- Despite all that, I wasn't too surprised to be reverted almost immediately.
- After all, I was prepared to discuss it and explain it. What I wasn't prepared for was a discussion about why there needed to be a discussion instead of actually having that discussion. After 40 minutes of that with multiple posts from Tony1 and Dicklyon (talk · contribs) without any substantive objection from either one I stated, "I will presume the absence of the expression of a substantive objection to the restorative change is evidence of an actual absence of a substantive objection to the restorative change, and so will restore it again.", and then re-inserted the phrase, but this was soon reverted by Dicklyon.
- Dec 20, 2011 23:53 Phrase re-inserted by Born2cycle [7] edit summary: "Again, restoring original wording. Per talk, no substantive objection expressed to this restoration."
- Dec 21, 2011 00:07 Phrase removed by Dicklyon [8] Edit summary: "several of us have asked B2C on talk page to make a proposal and discuss it first, rather than unilaterally change the guideline"
- 00:15 December 21 2011 A few minutes later Noetica (talk · contribs) weighs in in the discussion, with a long disruptive personal attack on me, and saying nothing substantive in objection to the edit [9]
- 00:58 December 21, 2011 Two hours after I clearly gave my reasons for the edit, Dicklyon is suggesting I make a proposal and "wait for some discussion". [10]
The insistence to discuss, while simultaneously refusing and/or avoiding actual substantive discussion has continued by Tony, Dicklyon and Noetica for over a month now, as today is already January 26, 2012, and not one of them has said anything substantive in objection to the edit, or in support of the wording without the edit.
To be continued
Statement by {Party 5}
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).