Dispute resolution (Requests) |
---|
Tips |
Content disputes |
Conduct disputes |
|
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 trancludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.
Please make your request in the appropriate section:
|
Requests for arbitration
Requests for clarification and amendment
Motions
Requests for enforcement
Tanbircdq
Per Callanecc's warning (found at Tanbircdq's 2014 talk archive) Tanbircdq has been blocked indefinitely for violating WP:SOCK. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC) | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Request concerning Tanbircdq
None
Tanbircdq added a slew of negative material to Yisrael Katz (politician, born 1955) in November/December 2015, and edit-warred over its inclusion with other editors. The material consisted of a series of cherrypicked quotes that depicted the subject of the article in an unfairly and unduly bad light, in violation of WP:BLP. Some of this material was potentially libellous and was sourced to weak or partisan sources. The matter was referred to ANI by Number 57 but the complaint lapsed and was archived without sanction. Some months later, Tanbircdq returned with an IP sock and attempted to reinsert the rejected material ([7]). This was clearly a band hand sock as his conduct on the talkpage was uncooperative, rude and obstinate. He added out-of-context and cherrypicked quotes that did not communicate a fair or accurate assessment of the subject's views as a whole. He also added patently libellous material that falsely suggested that the subject of the article advocated murdering members of an anti-Israel political movement ([8]). He edit-warred over the above and was briefly blocked. Most of the actionable conduct relates to Tanbircdq's actions whilst editing as this IP. A second IP sock canvassed various editors considered to be sympathetic to Tanbircdq's agenda. After the article was semi-protected, Tanbircdq returned some days later under his main account. His conduct on the talk page can be summed up as "I didn't hear that". He suggested it was up to other editors to add balancing material to offset his negative.([9]) He began a biased RfC in an attempt badger consensus, reinserted the problematic material before the RfC was complete, and added further negative material of dubious source quality. In the "final straw" he sneakily manipulated a source ([10]) in order to justify the restoration of a preferred quote. ([11]) Taken as a whole his editing is a long charade of sockpuppetry, tendentious editing, disruptive editing and "I didn't hear that" involving severe BLP violations. I can only suggest an indef topic ban from ARBPIA articles and BLPs on politicians and political activists.
Regarding "ignoring content", ArbCom most certainly does not ignore content if it violates Wikipedia's rules, and BLP violations are taken particularly seriously. The subject of the article is well known for making outrageous Donald Trump-like comments, but like Donald Trump, he makes himself extremely clear and leaves no doubt what he thinks and why he thinks it. Tanbircdq however added a series of chosen quotes intended to present the subject as a small-minded nutjob and his views as illogical and irrational. I am absolutely serious when I say some of the material was libellous - as in, WMF-gets-sued libellous - in its original form. Regarding the sockpuppetry, I want to make it clear that this was not just 'logged-out editing', he deceived the community by presenting himself as an alternative person. In this edit, the IP suggests he is a drive-by random who merely "found" the material in the history, while in this edit he pinged himself, so this 'logged-out editing' was no accident. Not to mention the very clear and deliberate change in writing style, which is less literate. Notwithstanding any block for sockpuppetry, I want to push for a topic-ban from ARBPIA and possibly political BLP articles as well. Tanbircdq has clearly engaged in tendentious editing here. I know it's difficult to "prove" that somebody's editing is tendentious. You have to look at the editing taken as a whole: this editor has stopped at nothing to insert this material into this article over the objections of other editors. In summary, he has edit-warred, sockpuppeted, canvassed, edit-warred some more, made at least one personal attack, disrupted another part of the encyclopedia to make a point when he didn't get his way, disregarded the NPOV and BLP policies, ignored other editors concerns, accused them of "censoring" the article and of acting in bad faith, and started a dubious RfC to undermine the consensus against his additions. All this was done over a period of several months, and was clearly intended to wear the other editors down in order to force his POV into the article. People have been indef topic-banned for a lot less than this, and I'll tell you frankly administators, that topic area has enough difficulties without this kind of behavior from persistent and determined POV-pushers like Tanbircdq. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning TanbircdqStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by TanbircdqStatement by KingsindianI will concentrate on the content issue; I have no comment on the sockpuppetry (I was canvassed by one of the IPs but I told them I had no interest in the article) The root issue is whether the negative material (some of it well-sourced, some not) was WP:UNDUE or not. That is not a matter for WP:AE but the talk page. The RfC was too vague: the question asked was almost a tautology, so the result was almost unanimous. Tanbirdq was a bit hasty in adding material while the RfC was going on; they should have waited a while. Regarding the "sneaky" source change, I fail to find any substantive difference between the two sources. Both are from the same newspaper. The main point is that Katz introduced a bill to deport families of terrorists. One source talks about Katz's public statement before introduction of the bill - where he notes the Prime Minister's support. The other source is one week later, when he actually introduced the bill - which also notes the Prime Minister's support who referred it to the Attorney General to check its legality. I also don't see anything wrong with moving the bill to the "Political Career" section from the "Views" section. People can just move it back if they disagree. Overall I don't find any misconduct here. I suggest reversion of the article to the state before all this material was added, together with a clear, short, neutral RfC which shows the new version (it could be a WP:DRAFT) and directly asks people whether it is undue or not. Alternatively, WP:DRN could be used. There could be full-protection applied in the meantime, though that is not necessary. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Tanbircdq
|
Oatitonimly
Filing party AE blocked for breaching previous topic ban. Closing without prejudice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Oatitonimly
I would realy like it if something was done against this. I got blocked for a week because of reverting back my edits that was already agreed on earlier. He also keeps removing sourced content from the Greco Turkish war (1922). He doesn't use the talk page either.
Discussion concerning OatitonimlyStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by OatitonimlyStatement by (username)Result concerning Oatitonimly
|
Volunteer Marek
Case was without merit and filing party blocked for sock puppetry. --regentspark (comment) 22:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Volunteer Marek
This user has engaged for many years in tendentious nationalist editing in Eastern European topics, notably Polish-Russian and Polish-German (recent example: [21] changing "city's majority of German-speakers" into "large numbers of German-speakers" claiming in the E/S this is "fixing POVish changes" (!)) common history/disputes, which is how he earned his previous blocks and sanctions. His more recent activities concentrate on topics related to Russian-Ukrainian disputes, Vladimir Putin as well as Russia's role in the Syrian conflict with disruptive edit warring, offensive mudslinging against editors who disagree with him and his POV pushing. He is always rude, keen on endless revert warring, contributes nothing to articles anywhere (cf his list of recent "contributions") apart from large unexplained erasures (typical for his editing style) with meaningless edit summaries like "basically junk" with no explanations given at talk. All of this justifiedly raises the question posed by an editor: „Anytime you make a comment or edit, it is always to smear Russia or Russians, as opposed to building an encyclopedia. Why is that?“. A topic ban from everything related to Russia is inevitable, a topic ban from the whole Eastern European topic would be of even greater use.Dorpater (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC) Apart from the 2 times when he was blocked as a result of the AE, Volunteer Marek has been reported at Arbitration Enforcement for at least 3 times during the recent years [22] ("This complaint is archived in the expectation it can be reopened when User:Volunteer Marek returns to Wikipedia editing. EdJohnston (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)"), [23], (16 February 2014). Dorpater (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC) Concerning this: "Nota bene - I didn't get sanctioned there, Russavia did and the whole thing was made moot by Russavia's infamous indef ban, which makes bringing that up here sort of ridiculous. This is very interesting. How in the world would you find that or know how to look for it?" Extremely simple. I merely searched for your username in the AE 'search archive' field and that's what popped up. You see, I really took my time to prepare this report. No need to waste your time for concocting conspiracy theories there. Dorpater (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Volunteer MarekStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Volunteer MarekFirst, User:Dorpater is a fairly obvious sockpuppet of User:Lokalkosmopolit (one of many). I filed an SPI. And no, it wasn't a "revenge" SPI - it's just that I've known that Dorpater was a sockpuppet for a couple weeks now and this spurious nonsense WP:AE request just forced my hand. Indeed I told him first that if he persisted in following my edits around and engaging in battleground behavior I would file an SPI [24]. My view on this is that if a indef banned user creates a new account but they don't cause any new trouble, I'm willing to look the other way. But if they do start causing trouble - returning to the kind of POV pushing and harassment that Lokalkosmopolit was indef banned for - well, there isn't much you can do, you got to report it. Second, come on, these diffs aren't even objectionable. In fact they're improvements. Take the first one [25]. What's the problem here? Undoing an edit by a user who has been engaged in a year long slow motion edit war against several users (User:Iryna Harpy, User:RGloucester, others... it's been going on for more than a year so I can't even remember everyone that's reverted them) over a matter which has been discussed to death (literally I think - the discussion went on for so long that over the course of the period, my neighbor's hamster had babies, they grew up, and then one of them died). Or is the problem the edit summary which emphasizes that this edit warring user really should stop? Anyway, the same thing applies to the second diff too - there was consensus, one user refused to respect it, and edit warred. This is one of the instances of someone - in this particular case me - undoing that user's edit. This diff presented by Dorpater is me reverting an edit by a sockpuppet of indef banned User:Kaiser von Europa. And so on... Anyway, all these diffs are like that. And holy crap, notice how OLD they are. Some of them are diffs that have been trotted out by various users multiple times already. Nothing there, just pretending that there's something nefarious going on where there isn't. I could go through all of them but it's just completely nonsense and it's a beautiful day outside and I already wasted an hour writing up that SPI so I'm gonna go outside do something more enjoyable rather than defend myself against ridiculous bad faithed accusations made by a sock puppet of a user banned for harassment. Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC) Oh wow, holy crap, just noticed that you're bringing up this WP:AE report [26] over my interaction ban with User:Russavia. Yes. THAT User:Russavia. Nota bene - I didn't get sanctioned there, Russavia did and the whole thing was made moot by Russavia's infamous indef ban, which makes bringing that up here sort of ridiculous. This is very interesting. How in the world would you find that or know how to look for it? Here is the probable answer: In the original SPI for User:Lokalkosmopolit I stated that that user (and their sockpuppets) was most likely not the overall sockmaster - that would be User:Estlandia (previously Miacek) due to the similarity in interests. At the time there was no way to verify that probability with certainty with checkuser tools since the Estlandia account had gotten stale (he "quit" Wikipedia after getting topic banned from all Eastern European and German topics - this would also explain Dorpater's bringing up Germany related edits - a topic he's never edited himself - in the above report). Estlandia and Russavia were close buddies and Estlandia proxied for Russavia during the latter's numerous blocks from Wikipedia. So this is probably as close to a confirmation - since we can't check user three+ year old accounts - that this is indeed Estlandia/Miacek.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by Malik ShabazzIs this some sort of joke, bringing up diffs from January and February 2015? I have it on good authority that as a teenager, Volunteer Marek once took an old woman's cane from her and tripped her. I think he should be sanctioned for that as well. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 22:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by OptimusViewIf to look into Marek's recent edits [27], the most part are controversial deletions of information without any explanations and consensus at talk pages. Marek was engaged in another editwarring at the scope of EE and AA. While the 2016_Armenian–Azerbaijani_clashes is under 1RR rule, Volunteer Marek made 3 reverts [28][29][30] during 4 days, deleting an entire section consisting of 11,000+ characters and 30+ sources/reports with very dubious and disaffected comments. OptimusView (talk) 12:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Volunteer Marek
|
Sfarney
Topic banned for one year under WP:ARBSCI Remedy 5.1 The WordsmithTalk to me 15:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Sfarney
Sanction to be enforced Diffs
Previous relevant sanctions : None known Evidence the editor was warned:
Additional comments I stepped in at R2-45 a few weeks ago to try to defuse an ongoing argument by rewriting and improving the article. I managed to greatly improve the article and its sourcing, but very quickly found that editing and discussions were being disrupted repeatedly by Sfarney. Among other things, he has sabotaged a requested GA review, repeatedly deleted cited sources for completely bogus reasons (Sfarney has had WP:BLP, WP:PRIMARY and WP:SOURCEACCESS explained to him but does not seem to accept them) and repeatedly personally attacked the author of one particular source which he dislikes. His approach to discussion has been continuously combative and aggressive, and he has explicitly refused to contribute to improving the article (see the last in my series of diffs), instead preferring to delete content without prior discussion, post complaints or forum-shop (so far three times to WP:ANI, also to WP:DR, WP:RS and most recently here). He rejects sources because they are hard for him to find. The normal editing process becomes impossible when an editor won't accept basic Wikipedia content policies and refuses to collaborate with other editors. This kind of behaviour is exactly why the original Scientology arbitration case ended up banning a swathe of editors from the topic area. It's worth noting that his conduct, especially his GA review sabotage, continued despite an earlier warning from myself. Sfarney's behaviour here, particularly sabotaging a GA review - which I've never seen done before in 10+ years of editing Wikipedia - is a very clear violation of the arbitration sanctions. Prioryman (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC) Comment from Dan Murphy"Prioryman" is a longtime crusader against Scientology who likes to make Wikipedia content about Scientology as negative as possible and has been allowed to do so for a great many years. "Sfarney" may be, though I know nothing about him, the opposite of "Prioryman." If you tolerate the one, a symmetry of skew from someone else is about the best you can hope for. Enjoy the wargame.Dan Murphy (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC) Comment by TParis
Discussion concerning SfarneyStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by (sfarney)The article R2-45 is a parody of Wikipedia. It accuses Scientology of
The article does not represent a consensus of opinion, even among Scientology's harshest critics. Instead, the editors have built those fringe theories by WP:CHERRYPICKING from primary sources, and citing a blog, a single book, wikileaks, and an unreviewed article by a sociology Professor. All of this editing is in violation of WP:FRINGE. The Wikipedia article is a list of criminal charges -- But no government has ever leveled those charges against Scientology. The page is way out there on the fringe. Wikipedia is not a scandal rag or an investigative journal. Wikipedia is designed as a compendium of consensus, and this article does not satisfy. Recently, editor Feoffer (talk · contribs) added a copyrighted image to the page in violation of WP:NFC#UUI #15. I reported it and had it removed.[32][33]. In the process, instead of supporting WP policy, editor Prioryman attacked me.[34] (WP:PA includes accusations with no evidence.) Other editors defended the use of the non-free image. On 25 May, I asked for arbitration enforcement against Prioryman. In that action, Prioryman again PA attacked me and I pointed it out. The arbitrator acknowledged that it was an improper attack, but then ended the hearing by cautioning ME to be more gracious, kind, and gentle in my speech. Administrator The Wordsmith (talk · contribs) opined that the action was "ripe for Boomerang", though s/he did not cite a single violation for which I could be sanctioned. The editors on this article have violated and are in violation of many principles of Wikipedia. The primary editors involved are Slashme (talk · contribs), Damotclese (talk · contribs), Feoffer (talk · contribs), and Prioryman (talk · contribs). Recently, Thimbleweed (talk · contribs) has joined the group and trimmed R2-45 of all maintenance tags. This I quote:
Requests for rewording these fringe theories (cited above as one of my offenses) are a form of WP:OWN. My edits to the article have been an attempt to bring it more in compliance with the principles of Wikipedia.Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 07:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by Damotclese
Result concerning Sfarney
|