Alanscottwalker (talk | contribs) →Statement by Alanscottwalker: sadly yes |
Anachronist (talk | contribs) →Statement by OTRS volunteer: looks fine |
||
Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
=== Statement by Cirt === |
=== Statement by Cirt === |
||
I agree here with {{u|Jehochman}}. Unfortunately, the issues appear to be much too complex for ANI to handle on its own. — '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 21:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC) |
I agree here with {{u|Jehochman}}. Unfortunately, the issues appear to be much too complex for ANI to handle on its own. — '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 21:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC) |
||
=== Statement by OTRS volunteer === |
|||
Wikicology has submitted {{OTRS ticket|9087211|2016040310006004}} in which he provides scanned copies of the following documents: |
|||
* Interim Bachelor of Science degree certificate (explaining that it is "interim" because it can take 3-5 years to retrieve the original from Nigerian universities) |
|||
* NYSC certificate, which is awarded to university and polytechnic graduates |
|||
* Current employment appointment letter |
|||
* Employment identity card |
|||
* Postgraduate application form |
|||
I confess I have not been following this or the ANI thread, I came across it due to a mention on a user talk page that happens to be on my watch list, but to the extent that this information is relevant, well, there it is. ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] <small>([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]])</small> 22:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
=== Statement by {Non-party} === |
=== Statement by {Non-party} === |
Revision as of 22:25, 3 April 2016
Requests for arbitration
Wikicology
Initiated by Andreas JN466 at 05:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Involved parties
- Jayen466 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- Wikicology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Isaacatm
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive856#New_editor
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threat and following subsections
Statement by Jayen466
The current discussion at AN/I has been ongoing for close to a week, following much the same pattern as a previous discussion that took place in 2014. Pretty much everybody who has commented in the current thread, including Wikicology himself, seems to agree that there is a significant issue, involving a number of different perceived problems, from mis-stated credentials, self-promotion and past sockpuppeting to copyright infringements (due to unattributed copying within Wikipedia), made-up references that do not back up the article content (and at times seem to have been chosen completely at random), and basic competence to create reliable content. What is less clear is what should be done about it. Wikicology is a member of the Wikimedia movement's Individual Engagement Grants committee and plays a leading role in Wikimedia PR and outreach work in Nigeria, including the country's Wikimedia User Group and Wikipedia Education Program. An indefinite block/community ban proposal currently stands at 14 supports vs. 9 opposes; an additional, narrow topic ban proposal stands at 4 supports vs. 2 opposes. Mentoring has been offered. Given the scale and diverse nature of the perceived issues, I believe a formal investigation by the Arbitration Committee is warranted in order to gain a clear idea of the magnitude of the problem and devise appropriate remedies concerning both Wikicology himself and the Wikipedia content created by him. The AN/I process appears to lack clear consensus at this time and is too unstructured to address these issues properly.
Statement by Wikicology
Can the ongoing ANI be closed, or can this ARBCOM case be closed until that other discussion is concluded. It seems a bit unusual or even difficult to expect (or ask) that an editor should defend himself on two fronts at the same time. Thank you, Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 10:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Mendaliv
This is a case of friendly disruption.
Wikicology has been engaged in disruption, whether deliberate or negligent, for at least two years. However, because much of the misconduct has been difficult to see, and because Wikicology has been gifted with the ability to apologize well, the problem has not been resolved satisfactorily.
Wikicology has created pages on himself over fourteen times; is an admitted sockpuppeteer (M1, M2); has added a great deal of content on BLPs, biomedical articles and articles of social importance with citations to non-existent references and references which do not support the claim (M3, M4); has engaged in puffery regarding his own qualifications and credentials in his own userspace, and failed to timely correct others' false statements/impressions about him that were based on that puffery (e.g., the nom for his own RfA: M5); has apparently hosted editing events, but appears to have allowed overstatement of the levels of participation (e.g., many of these listed accounts don't exist: M6). This is all illustrated by the past and ongoing ANI threads and Jayen466's statement, and will be proven by the materials to be submitted during the evidentiary portion of this case (the links attached to this statement are not intended as the sole evidence).
This matter falls within WP:ARBPOL#Scope as the community has been unable to resolve it, and moreover involves matters of such serious import that it is unlikely that any resolution at ANI will be satisfactory. While some conduct claimed here takes place on other WMF sites, there is no credible argument that said conduct's connection to enwiki is insufficient to confer jurisdiction.
ArbCom should look past Wikicology's outward friendliness and move towards resolving the disruption by accepting this case. A botched resolution at ANI will wreak a great deal of damage, and the seriousness of the accusations demand a fair and impartial hearing for Wikicology. Even the discussants at ANI who support summary action by and large prefer arbitration because of how serious this has become. The community is not comfortable with resolving this matter itself.
Thank you for your time and trouble in considering this request, and thanks to Jayen466 for bringing this matter here.
Statement by Coffee Crumbs
I urge the committee to accept this case. This situation is such a craggy mess that there needs to be a systematic investigation of the circumstances in order to untangle all the various threads. Given how many parallel issues appear to be involved here, ANI has struggled to cohesively deal with this situation. In this matter, ArbCom, as imperfect as it is, ought to step in and take its role as the "decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve."
@TheWolfChild: While I wouldn't be against mentorship in principle, given the length of the behavior and how broad the issues are, I don't think mentorship is appropriate without these issues being fully investigated. The user's long-term history of pleading ignorance every time they ignore policy, including while *requesting adminship* make me less sympathetic.
Statement by BethNaught
This matter involves so many threads that ANI will never give it a proper investigation. It needs to structured investigation provided by a case. As an example of the problems with article creation and sourcing, Wikicology created Nitrogen dioxide poisoning. Recently redirected after User:Peter Damian/investigation showed very close paraphrasing from certain sources which were in fact about other types of poisoning, and other sources did not actually support the content. Other editors at the ANI, including Fram, have stated that this is a recurrent problem with Wikicology's articles. In an example of his credential puffery, here he admits describing a picture of him as being in his university office despite him not actually having a university office; and he thinks this is inconsequential. It is clear to me that Wikicology's ability to apologise means that the good faith of certain ANI contributors will prevent the full, dispassionate investigation into these serious issues which is needed.
Statement by Peter Damian
I ask the committee to accept the case. It is complex, and the ANI discussion is split, and unstructured. The committee needs to decide on whether there is underlying issue, and propose appropriate remedies. As Mendaliv suggests above, a botched resolution at ANI as the potential to cause great damage to the project, both internally and externally.
Statement by MPS1992
There is currently a Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal - indef block open, which has received substantial support also including some calls for a site ban. It is unclear to me why the community could not deal with this editor in this way without the delay of an arbitration committee case. Delays are not useful because the editor is still causing problems in article space as recently as yesterday.
The aspects of the behavior which would not be dealt with by a site ban, for example the alleged misrepresentation on projects other than English Wikipedia, and the WMF-funded outreach work by this editor, are not within the purview of the English Wikipedia arbitration committee anyway. Similarly, the required clean-up work on English Wikipedia cannot be mandated by the arbitration committee, but needs to be undertaken by the community.
Statement by Alanscottwalker
There are two resolutions the ANI is currently considering. If the block does not occur, it will be because not only has the user apologized but they have agreed to a mentorship that has been offered by and agreed to by Cullen, and they have agreed to not create any more articles and only work on clean-up of past editing. And if they fail, they have agreed to a site ban. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Chesnaught: The NLT - threat was redacted during the discussion of it, as were the self-claims on the user page - those are just not the acts of someone who does not respond to the community. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Have to agree with Jhochman, preserving the subject's dignity (and English Wikipedia's) - it is unfortunately already said in the ANI discussion that he should be blocked or banned because he is a "Nigerian . . .". That just cannot and should not be allowed to pass. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by The Big Bad Wolfowitz
An important, perhaps essential component of this case deals with the editor's real-life credentials and identity. Community discussion is particularly unsuited for assessing the veracity of the editor's claims and handling essentially private information. Given the Committee's resolute unwillingness to afford public discussion over identity issues in the Scalhotrod case (even though the relevant evidence there dealt primarily, probably entirely, with publicly posted information (by the editor at issue), it would seem clear that the committee has already established that matters like this should be resolved by ArbComm, not by community discussion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Rich Farmbrough
- There is no suggestion that this is a conflict that the community can't handle.
- ArbCom is welcome to take on a separate inquisitorial role, if time lies heavy on their hands. But that is neither what ArbCom was designed and appointed for, nor what they traditionally do.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC).
Statement by Thewolfchild
I don't see a need for Arbcom here. It's not as if the arbitrators are going to clean this mess up, and there is one hell of a mess here. 550 articles and counting. I think Wikicology should be made to clean it up himself. He can do so under the mentorship of Cullen328 and with the assistance of Irondome and any others willing to pitch in. In the meantime, Wikicology is not to create any more articles and not make changes to any articles, other than the ones he created and is fixing. Should he fail in this in any way, then ban him. Simple.
As for his credentials, he has advised (here) that he has forwarded them to OTRS. They can vet them and report back. Let the WMF determine his future with them and WMF-Nigeria. - theWOLFchild 16:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I have made a new proposal at the ANI in line with my comments here. The hope being that we can finally come to some consensus on something and finally close that thread and move forward. - theWOLFchild 16:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I think people need to stop throwing around phrases like "false credentials". We should wait to hear back from OTRS on this. If there was indeed some deception here, then all the more reason to ban. But, if his credentials are in fact what he said they were, some people will need to start striking comments and posting apologies. - theWOLFchild 17:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Irondome
I completely agree with Thewolfchild here. On the understanding that if WF makes any further missteps, he is banned. I confirm that I am ready to assist with mentoring. WF has also notified me in the same manner as Twc regarding credentials, and I believe that to be a very positive step. I have begun dialogue with Wikicology regarding his ideas for priority areas to be addressed in cleaning this up, and on terms for mentoring. WF has provided a complete list of articles he has worked on in addition, which is a great help in navigating this clean up. I do not believe that this is a case for Arbcom if the above steps are taken. Irondome (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Chesnaught
I ask that the Arbitration Committee accept this case. Olatunde Isaac's actions have merited sanctions up to and including a site ban. His disingenuous use of false credentials and sockpuppetry are highly concerning, and I would personally question his competence when it comes to editing the English Wikipedia. He recently made a legal threat which is usually grounds for an indefinite block until the threat is redacted - why was he not blocked for this? Consensus at AN/I determined that Isaac was making a clear legal threat. I simply think we cannot accept apologies from somebody who keeps making the same mistakes - no matter how sincere their apology is. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 16:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Carrite
Since this matter is still under consideration at AN/I, where a solution might be crafted, it is not ready for ArbCom at this time. If anything less than a site ban comes out of that discussion, however, this case needs to be heard. There will be extensive article cleanup required, in all likelihood, starting with a full scale investigation of contributions. The 14 efforts at creating a COI autobiography and socking and false identity claims are the portion of the iceberg we can see. Carrite (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Cullen328
I will express no opinion at this time as to whether or not ArbCom should accept this case, and in no way do I want to minimize the seriousness of the issues around Wikicology's editing. I simply want to reiterate my willingness to mentor Wikicology, with assistance from Irondome, and I would hope, a third experienced editor. I see this as a one year project to review all the articles this editor has created, for the purpose of getting him to improve his articles on notable topics and deleting the articles on non-notable topics. I believe this is the most beneficial outcome for the encyclopedia but recognize that many editors I respect are in complete disagreement. I have no interest in debating with anyone about this, though am always willing to respond to questions. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by EvergreenFir
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information. To Doug and other committee members suggesting they wait until the ANI is closed, it seems unlikely that any productive close will occur any time soon. The only thing that seems to have a chance of passing is a topic ban. I'd urge the arb com to close the ANI discussion themselves and open this case. There seems to be little reason to wait for nothing to come out of the ANI. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Gamaliel: Fair enough. Just been watching ANI recently and that thread. I think your use of "frustration" is exactly right. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Mz7
I've been watching the proceedings with interest but have not commented until now. The main issue with the ANI thread is that there is a very, very wide breadth of issues, and for community members just now coming in, it can be tedious to ascertain exactly what they are and if they are substantiated. There's so much being said that a lot of us are inclined to just force Wikicology out and be done with it, while others are looking for more open-minded solutions. If no consensus results at ANI, I see arbitration as the logical next step. Essentially, this is such a large dispute that the structured, formal process of arbitration is necessary to "break the back" of it, and accepting the case does not mean that solutions like mentorship will be automatically disregarded. Mz7 (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Jehochman
Please close the ANI discussion and hear the case. There are issues related to editor's real life identity and sock puppetry. The remedy needs to be thorough and final. ArbCom is the most appropriate way to deal with this while preserving the subject's dignity. Jehochman Talk 21:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Cirt
I agree here with Jehochman. Unfortunately, the issues appear to be much too complex for ANI to handle on its own. — Cirt (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by OTRS volunteer
Wikicology has submitted VRTS ticket # 2016040310006004 in which he provides scanned copies of the following documents:
- Interim Bachelor of Science degree certificate (explaining that it is "interim" because it can take 3-5 years to retrieve the original from Nigerian universities)
- NYSC certificate, which is awarded to university and polytechnic graduates
- Current employment appointment letter
- Employment identity card
- Postgraduate application form
I confess I have not been following this or the ANI thread, I came across it due to a mention on a user talk page that happens to be on my watch list, but to the extent that this information is relevant, well, there it is. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by {Non-party}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Wikicology: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/6>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)
- Andreas, I was hoping you'd summarize the entire ANI thread in one sentence. I have not yet read that thread as attentively as I should before speaking out on whether we should accept this, but I thank you for bringing it here since there certainly is a lot going on. Drmies (talk) 05:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- My initial impression is that accepting this would be prudent due to the scope and long term nature of this. I'll take a look at the thread...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'd prefer to wait until a decision is reached at ANI. If that fails I'll vote to accept. Doug Weller talk 13:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Conur with Doug Weller. Gamaliel (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- @EvergreenFir: We understand the importance of this matter and the frustration of those who want us to act. But it is important that we allow the community to try to address the situation. A few days won't make a difference here if they don't find an appropriate solution at ANI. Gamaliel (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Doug --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Inclined to accept this. I think the issues raised are complex enough that they are better suited to a more structured investigation, but the procedurally correct and consistent thing to do is to wait for a result at ANI. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Infobox for Jamalul Kiram III, Ismael Kiram II, Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram
Initiated by Shhhhwwww!! (talk) at 16:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Involved parties
- Shhhhwwww!! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- Molecule Extraction (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- [diff of notification Molecular Extraction]
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- Talk:Jamalul Kiram III#Request for comment: The infobox is controversial
- Talk:Ismael Kiram II#Request for comment: The infobox is controversial
Statement by Shhhhwwww!!
The are issues with the articles above specifically the infoboxes. Instead of reporting each other (like this one here) that may result in blocks this is a better solution.
Statement by Molecule Extraction
Please be noted that this discussion can be read from here. Funny that Shhhhwwww!! just brought the case to here. Molecule Extraction (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by {Non-party}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Infobox for Jamalul Kiram III, Ismael Kiram II, Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/6/0/0>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)
- Decline An RFC was just started today. Please let the RFC run its course first. Gamaliel (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Decline this is a) premature, and b) a content dispute. RfC is the right venue at this stage, and one was just started, so I'd encourage all participants to focus their efforts there. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Decline for the reasons above. Doug Weller talk 19:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Decline, as per above. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Decline per Opabinia. Keilana (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Decline for reasons my fellow arbs have already stated --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)