(Go: >> BACK << -|- >> HOME <<)
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.117.6.210 (talk) at 23:50, 27 November 2005 (→‎Louis Epstein). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

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

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland Motion (orig. case) 21 June 2024
Amendment request: Suspension of Beeblebrox Motion none 10 July 2024
Clarification request: Desysoppings none none 12 July 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person you lodge a complaint against.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arb Com member votes to accept/ reject/ recuse/ other.

This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

How to list cases

Under the below Current requests section:

  • Click "[edit]";
  • Copy the full formatting template (text will be visible in edit mode), ommitting the lines which say "BEGIN" and "END TEMPLATE";
  • Paste template text where it says "ADD CASE BELOW";
  • Follow instructions on comments (indented), and fill out the form;
  • Remove the template comments (indented).

Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template


Current requests

Carl Hewitt

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

User:CarlHewitt has been informed here.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

A significant amount of effort, by a group of editors, over more than three months has been spent trying to resolve conflicts with Carl Hewitt. See User:R.Koot/Request for Comments on User:CarlHewitt and User talk:CarlHewitt for a summary of the conflicts and efforts done to resolve the conflits and User talk:R.Koot/Request for Comments on User:CarlHewitt for the reasoning behind the decision to start arbitration.

Statement by party 1

Too summarize: Two persistent complaints are that his contributions are Original research or Self-promotion (see, for example, [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] and User talk:CSTAR/Relativistic information science discussion).

Statement by party 2

Please see discussion of Rudy's statment at article section User_talk:CarlHewitt#Arbitration_with_Rudy_Koot_and_Edward_Schaefer (the discussion is gradually beginning to build inline throughout the entire section). Thanks,--Carl Hewitt 02:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the discussion above is based on the original statement submitted by Rudy and may different from the subsequent versions that he has created at User:R.Koot/Request for Comments on User:CarlHewitt.

Two observations can be made:

  1. From the discussion, it is evident that Rudy's statement often got it's facts wrong.
  2. Many of the recommendations in Rudy's statement are against Wikipedia policy. For example, his recommendation that just about all the articles be lumped into the article Actor model goes against the Wikipedia recommendation on the size of articles since Actor model is already over the recommended limit.

Regards,--Carl Hewitt 09:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Regarding webcomics deletion

Involved parties

Many, of whom the most notable are:

A large number of people who have left the project with a bad taste in their mouths

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Notification will be left on all talk pages.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

There was a failed RfC on the matter of webcomic deletion broadly. Large amounts of discussion have taken place at Wikipedia talk:Websites and previously on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Webcomics/Notability and inclusion guidelines. No RfM has been attempted, because I can't very well mediate on behalf of the people that have been driven off the project.

Statement by Snowspinner

Several users, most notably Aaron and Dragonfiend, have engaged in a persistent campaign to reduce the number of articles that Wikipedia has about webcomics. In doing so, they have engaged in a consistent pattern of assuming bad faith, biting the newbies, ramming Wikipedia policy through on talk pages with minimal consensus and no outside eyes, and often disregarding the expressed consensus of Wikipedians on AfD in setting their policy. They have, most gallingly, actively declared a lack of concern as to expert opinions on notability in AfDs, accusing experts of having "conflicts of interest" whereby they might use their professional work for the sole purpose of establishing notability on Wikipedia, and thus that their opinion should actually count for less than the opinions of people who know nothing about the subject.

Assumptions of bad faith: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] (Planning a second AfD before the first one has even concluded) [26]

Note particularly [27] where Aaron begins edit counting AfD contributors to discount their votes including Eric Burns, who, although he has 29 edits, has also been around for a year, edited plenty of non-AfD articles, and is, by almost any standard, not a sock. Note also that he signs his edit counts not as himself but instead as the users he is counting the votes of.

Clear intention to disregard established AfD consensus in drafting policy: [28] [29]

I would note also that this issue is doing serious damage to Wikipedia, as evidenced by the transformation of Eric Burns (One of the foremost authorities on webcomics, involved in both of the major webcomics review sites, as well as running his own blog, Websnark, which is huge in the webcomics community) has made regarding Wikipedia. Around a year ago, he wrote [30]. Recently, he wrote [31].

The poisonous atmosphere surrounding webcomics is driving off good-faith contributors. It needs to be stopped.

Trivial clarification by Snowspinner

I don't see this as a case regarding deletion policy at large. I do think it's a case involving assumptions of good faith, the fact that Wikipedia exists primarily for its readers, and the fact that it is not acceptable to try to craft policy under a relative cloud of secrecy and them to use it as a hammer to reshape consensus. I also don't think that any of these principles are remotely in doubt or need of review. Although I object to some of the webcomic nominations - most extremely Dragonfiend's nomination of Checkerboard Nightmare, I am prepared to accept that they were all made in good faith, if not in good judgment. Regretably, this separates them from much of the conduct surrounding this issue. Phil Sandifer 00:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Sjakkalle

With all due respect, that's just not true... this isn't a case about a few bad AfD nominations. It's a case about a campaign to rid Wikipedia of undesirable content, conducted without care to who it drove off, on the implicit assumption that people who only contribute about webcomics aren't real contributors anyway. It's about a "by any means necessary" attitude towards deletion that results in trying to secretly change the rules because you don't like consensus, in trying to call suspicion on every advocate of the other side you can, and in continually declaring bad faith on the part of those you disagree with. In short, people are operating under the influence of m:MPOV. That's what's poisonous. Making a dumb AfD nomination isn't - we've all done that. Phil Sandifer 15:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2

How about an RfC first? - brenneman(t)(c) 21:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 3

I see no reason to suspect that this issue can't be resolved with the earliest steps of Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. -- Dragonfiend 18:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Sjakkalle

This looks like a weak case.

Like several other categories of article, some webcomics are deleted by AFD consensus and some are kept, and I see no reason for the ArbCom to get involved in making rulings about the deletion of such comics in particular. All the AFD nominations appear to be in good faith, whether or not I agree with them. Marking votes with a very low number of edits, even if they have a long time present is also common and should not be interpreted as a bad faith action. It is left up to the discretion of the AFD closer to decide whether or not to count those votes. If the webcomic deletion nomination was ill-advised it will attract a flurry of "keep"-votes anyway and the article will be kept, so no real harm done. The AFD system has its problems, but as a regular closer of AFD debates I think the system can handle this without the ArbCom getting involved.

Regarding the discussion in the diffs provided it looks like a somewhat heated but altogether controlled discussion between good-faith contributors with a genuine disagreement.

I recommend that the ArbCom reject this case. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Rich Farmbrough

While the zealousness of those attempting to dispose of surplus comix may have been a little to much for some of the more expert in the webcomix community, essentially sound procedures were followed where I have looked. It is perhaps unfortunate that the involvement of the external webcomix community was not seen as expert opinion rather than ballot stuffing, and that the AfD process was seen as by the webcomix community as a personal attack. I would like to see those who know webcomix encouraged to support the webcomix project, and to help the AfD process run more smoothly. There are currently several hundred webcomix on the 'pedia, and we need help to distinguish the wheat from the chaff. I urge the proposers to withdraw this case. Rich Farmbrough 22:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not entirely certain we can ignore this issue. We cannot rest on the letter of the law at the expense of the community spirit. That "essentially sound procedures" were followed does not change the crux of the issue: assumption of bad faith and its effects upon the willingness of those outside the Wikipedia community to contribute.
I believe the bottom line here is that if the Webcomix Project is to be representative of the community it is dedicated to, Wikipedia cannot afford to alienate knowledgeable people such as Eric Burns.--Rosicrucian 22:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by David D. talk

This is a response to snowspinners comment above of : "The poisonous atmosphere surrounding webcomics is driving off good-faith contributors. It needs to be stopped."

Just out of interest why should wikipedia care what bloggers in general think. If wikipedia jumps every time a blogger gets pissed then you may as well just throw out the WP:V and WP:CITE requirements and accept everything. A wikipedia with everything will be more of a joke than a wikipedia with a few NN things missing. And when I say everything, I mean all schools including day care, all the cafe's in England that serve tea, etc. Everything is not better.

So often it seems that wikipedia does not acknowledge it's own quidelines, a type of mob rule seems to exist. If this is the reality that now exists I would suggest wikipedia just gets rid of the rules. Banning Afds would be a start. I see many people wasting editing time in these Afd, Rfc and arbitrations rather than filling the huge holes that exist in this encylopedia. By the way it's the huge holes of real content (just check out the science articles) that make wikipedia a joke, not to mention enough of it is factually incorrect to drive away knowledgable users (who might have otherwise become contributors if they thought it was a worthwhile resource). Personally, I think the fact that wikipedia does not have EVERY pokemon, darlek or webcomic might actually be seen as an asset by many users. Wikipedia claims to be bringing all human knowledge to one place. Unfortunately, to many, it looks like wikipedia is bringing together all information while the knowledge bit is secondary to the trivia, arguing and preening.

If this web comic becomes more notable then it can be added later. If it is already notable it will be kept. I find Dragonfiends nomination perfectly acceptable. She has set a different line with regard to notablity than Eric Burns but I don't see why she should be hung draw and quartered for having such an opinion. Either get rid of the rules or stop bringing this type of subjective Afd to arbitration. It is a waste of everyones time. This type of nomination will hurt wikipedia 10,000 times more than any bloggers comments in cyperspace in wasted man hours. David D. (Talk) 22:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that i do not think that wikipedia is a joke and I think it can become a very useful compliment to text books and other resources. What is frustrating is to see how much time is wasted in Rfc Afd and arbitration. If you think Afd is broken get rid of it but don't waste time arguing about where to draw the NN line. It is too subjective to be a serious discussion. David D. (Talk) 23:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm responding here for the sake of not having a half dozen sections with my name on them - if it's a problem, feel free to move my comments wherever you feel appropriate. But I don't care what "bloggers in general" think. I care what Eric Burns, a reasonable person who knows webcomics cold, is important within the community, and is someone I have found to be respectable and knowledgable in every aspect that I have seen him in thinks. Beyond that, I think you miss the point of the case - I don't object to the Checkerboard Nightmare nomination. Well, I do, but I don't doubt that it was made in good faith. Nor do I object to an effort to draw the NN line, or the existence of a NN line - at least, not here. What I object to is the widespread bad faith - which isn't a question of nominations. It's a question of attitudes, responses, comments, etc. A dumb nomination can be good faith. But to assume bad faith - and to assume bad faith is the default - is poisonous. Phil Sandifer 23:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is appropriate. So why not just ditch Afd. What purpose can it serve when the line for NN is so subjective. Other than causing huge arguments? David D. (Talk) 23:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, why don't you try to move AfD to a "historical pages" category and see what happens. Phil Sandifer 23:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict on edit with Phil) Another point I was going to make was that the school Afds are ridiculous, and i'm sure many other Afd topics are heading that way too. With regard to the "historical pages" category I'm not quite sure i get the jist of your comment? David D. (Talk) 23:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you are wondering why I don't do away with AfD, try doing away with it yourself - you'll see the degree of doomed in the prospect. Phil Sandifer 23:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Are you offering me one of Hercules' tasks? Anyway wouldn't this be a top down decision? I'm sure exactly no one will listen to anything i suggest. David D. (Talk) 23:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think what he is proposing refers less to Hercules and more to Sisyphus.--Rosicrucian 21:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response to David Gerard by Splash

Yes, encouraging the Arbitrators to enter into a case for the purpose of prejudging it is dead right. -Splashtalk 21:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would say David's clarification is more than reasonable. I would also point out the irony of assuming bad faith in an arbitration request whose subject is assuming bad faith.--Rosicrucian 21:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/0/1/0)

Community vs. User:AndriyK

Involved parties


This arbitration request by users Irpen, Ezhiki and other Wikipedians that co-signed above is against user AndriyK, who on numerous occasions engaged in extreme POV pushing, disruptive behavior, personal attacks on and off Wikipedia, copyright violations, and effective vote falsification by using outside forums to recruit followers and sockpuppets for voting and assistance in revert warring to circumvent the 3RR policy. User also engaged in bad faith moves and redirect creations in multiple steps making them hard to undo (thus abusing the features of wikisoftware). The user also refuses to cooperatively work on issues with which parties are in disagreement and shows lack of civility when attempts for constructive discussions are made.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Involved parties have been notified:

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • User’s talk page extensively documents other users’ negotiation attempts. The results of negotiations are usually that the user refuses to accept any reasoning except that matching his POV, cites sources, which often do not support his reasoning, and refuses to accept counter-sources cited by others.
  • The user was contacted multiple times by many editors, some attempting to mediate. In fact, the number of comments he received from the large number of users exceeds the usual feedback generated by an RfC. Thus, a full equivalent of RfC has been tried with no effect.
  • Considering the extent of user’s actions, his disruptive behavior, general lack of civility, and unwillingness/inability to consider points of view other than his own we do not believe that trying an RfC before arbitration would have a desired effect.

Reminder

Do not comment on statements made by any party. If you wish to comment, draft your own statement. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do not comment on statements made by any party. If you wish to comment, draft your own statement. --Wojsyl (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 1 (User:Ezhiki)

On October 27, 2005, AndriyK unilaterally moved the articles Mikhail of Chernigov and Oleg of Chernigov to new titles ([32], [33]). Later this day, User:Mzajac posted requests to have the articles moved back ([34], [35]). Because the first votes cast were overwhelmingly in support of the move, AndriyK posted a message on an outside Ukrainian forum ([36]), which not only called for all interested Ukrainians to register Wikipedia accounts and vote regarding the articles’ moves, but also classified opposing parties as "Russian mafia" (http://www2.maidan.org.ua/n/free/1130025302). English translations of the posts are available here and here. The result of the posts was an inflow of Ukrainian voters—enough to create an illusion of greater opposition than it otherwise would be—whose only goal was to support AndriyK’s POV. As per Wikipedia:Sock puppet, "these newly created accounts... may be friends of a Wikipedian, or may be related in some way to the subject of an article under discussion. These accounts are not actually sockpuppets, but they are difficult to distinguish from real sockpuppets and are treated similarly." We are, therefore, requesting that the results of the votes are reconsidered and appropriate measures are applied to AndriyK so this kind of behavior does not repeat in future. The following is a list of possible sockpuppets (or accounts that can be treated as such per Wikipedia:Sock puppet definition above) used to skew the vote results:

On Mikhail of Chernihiv:

The official result of the vote was: "support"—14, "oppose"—20. Adjusted for possible sockpuppets, the result is: "support"—14, "oppose"—10.

On Oleg of Chernihiv:

The official result of the vote was: "support"—15, "oppose"—17. Adjusted for possible sockpuppets, the result is: "support"—15, "oppose"—8.

As per results of the vote, the move was not completed. At this point of time, despite the fact that the vote was only in regards the title of the article, AndriyK is engaged in revert wars that change all internal article references from "Chernigov" to "Chernihiv". Other editors feel that this is a completely separate issue which should be dealt separately. AndriyK disagrees, and uses his "allotment" of three reverts per article almost on the daily basis (see [37] and [38] for examples). The user had been previously blocked for 3RR violations ([39]), and is now extremely cautious not to overstep the technical limits of this policy, while definitely breaking its spirit.

Other users comments to the statement by User:Ezhiki
I am a real Wikipedia user, just a newbie. I currently work on my first article on Ukrainian Wikipedia. Please remove me from these lists. -- Yalovets 02:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Yalovets. The only reason you were identified by my as a possible sockpuppet is because your account properties match the sockpuppet definition available at Wikipedia:Sock puppet. Please do not take the fact that you are listed above as an accusation. This RfAr is not against you. If ArbComm determines that your account is not a sockpuppet one, I am ready to publicly apologize, if that would make feel you better. I have no intention of making you feel unwelcome here.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 01:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Would like to add to this, that the statement of User:Ezhiki is nothing but a personal attack against other editors. The people who contributed to the vote should not be judged in bad faith. Many of them don't even know that they are being badmouthed in absentia. User:Ezhiki has not tried to contact these users prior to posting their names. There was not even an attepmt to confirm the accusation of sock puppetting. This seems like a general disregard of the rules of Wikipedia. --Andrew Alexander 04:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew, filing an RfAr is not a "personal attack", it's a right every Wikipedian (you included) has. Furthermore, this RfAr is not against the users listed above, it's against AndriyK. The only reason the users above are identified as possible sockpuppets is because of the combination of their editing history, editing patterns, and timing of their joining of Wikipedia. I very well realize that I could have misidentified a few of them and that some may indeed be (and are) real people acting on their own. However, even in this case, they do fall under the definition of a sockpuppet, as per Wikipedia:Sock puppet (please refer to the policy quote available in my statement above).—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 01:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please read this: "However, simply having made few edits is not evidence of sockpuppetry on its own,". Have you tried to email those people? Have you requested to check their ip addresses?--Andrew Alexander 06:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, it's all about the evidence. This RfAr is, among other things, an attempt to collect such evidence. So to answer your questions: one—no, I have not tried to contact these users (because the case is not against them, and I am not accusing them of anything). Two—yes, I have requested to check their IP addresses, but that is hard without having an RfAr in place. So here we go.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disclamer from MaryMaidan: I have read the definition of a sockpuppet, and I can assure you, AndrijK has not invented me, I do indeed exist. I am one of the administrators of the site www.maidan.org.ua (you can confirm that sending an e-mail straight to me mary@maidanua.org or to the administration admin@maidanua.org). I have not been contributing a lot to English wikipedia, as we have been busy translating one cool program into Ukrainian (see the process here http://www2.maidan.org.ua/n/mova/1132045021 and the resulf here http://maidan.org.ua/wiki/index.php/PledgeBank). Having said that, I am insisting, that the edits I have made made the articles in Wikipedia more truthful, if there is such thing as thruth, of course. --MaryMaidan 23:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I must say that Wikipedia's not my virtual home, I mean it's not the place where I spend my time online. I'm a real person, but I don't edit/add here anything everyday. But I came here to vote against Russificated names for contemporary Ukrainian towns/cities. I aint know Andriy_K personally. He did cast the call for Ua users to support the pro-ukrainian initiative. And I (and others) did it right by voting against Russian names. And what really surprised me about Wikipedia is this anti-ua flow of accuses/slandering. Just thinking logically — Ukrainian towns must have Ukrainian names. Down with some chronicles of XVI or IX centuries, or whatever era they belong to. What are they mentioned for? We're talking about contemporary Ukrainian cities/towns, and there are no CherniGOV there, only Chernihiv. That's it. And last thing - dear non Russian-speaking users! You're being made a victim of the Russian imperial chauvinism (I thought it was a lie, but certain events, including those happened in Wikipedia's votes around Chernihiv, proved this danger real). Why? Because you're being told that there are such towns in Ukraine as "chernigov", "Irpen" etc. In fact there are NO SUCH TOWNS HERE. So you're being misled by these Russian English-speaking users. Decide yourself how you wanna be further. Paul Kiss http://paulkiss.forever.kz/

Statement by party 2 (User:Irpen)

Additionally to the vote fraud listed in the statement by Ezhiki, these two moves have another peculiar feature that they share with more than a dozen of other page moves made by the user. When moving articles, AndriyK uses a sneaky trick making use of the features of Wikisoftware to make a reversal of his moves burdensome, thus requiring an WP:RM vote, which he thinks he will be able to falsify using the above tactics.

ALL of his moves starting from October 24, 2005 (Severyn Nalivaiko → Severyn Nalyvaiko) are done in the following bad faith three steps procedure: (1) Move the article, (2) Go to a redirect with an older name and damage it by adding a typo, and (3) Correct a typo back. Thus, the redirect now has its own history and the article cannot be moved back without WP:RM votes that he expects to flood with sockpuppets and/or followers recruited from internet forums.

This is the list of articles moved in such fashion: (1) Nalyvayko, (2) Bohun, (3) Southern Buh, (4) a subway line, (5) another subway line, (6) yet another subway line, (7) Oleg of Chernigov followed by a VOTE FRAUD (note discussion and number of red link voters or 2-3 edit voters), (8) Mikhail of Chernigov followed by another VOTE FRAUD, (9) Vsevolod Svyatoslavich (moved further later and his harm thus corrected), (10) Mongol invasion of Russia (sensible move but still in same bad faith manner), (11) Igor Svyatoslavich, see also the deletion log caused by an admin cleaning it up on his own, (12) Russian architecture (restored by an admin who cleaned it up on his own initiative [40], note move time Oct 28, 8:09 and check deleted log for three edits by AndriyK at 8:09-8:10), (13) Petro Mohyla, (14) Trubezh river, (15) Battle of the Stugna River.

Please note an identical pattern in all these moves.

His earlier fraud included multiple moving by cut and paste: (1) Russkaya pravda [41], repeated here, and here, (2) Siverians was cut and pasted twice, see history.

Also, when an article already exists uder the name he likes, he smartly creates the redirects from the name he assumes others might want to move it to and not only he creates redirects from those names, but creates them in the same subtle way (in two steps: a wrong redirect + correction). Now, that a redirect has a history, the move over redirect cannot be made. An example is Severian Principality entry created as a redirect to Siverian Principality he was writing, but again, in two steps to prevent the move to a name he dislikes [42]. Similar redirects were created from all other Russian names and all in two steps to make sure a redirect has a history and cannot be moved over: (1) Principality of Severia, (2) Novgorod Severskiy Principality, (3) Novgorod-Severskiy Principality, (4) Novgorod Seversky Principality, (5) Principality of Novgorod Severskiy, (6) Principality of Novgorod Seversky, (7) Principality of Novgorod-Seversky, (8) Principality of Novgorod-Severskiy. Similarly, he took and existing redirect Chernigov → Chernihiv and to make sure it is not moved back (though no one was going to) he added a blank line to it [43] so that the redirect would have a history.

Interesting was to see his reaction when I noticed the Peter Mogila's move first and mentioned it at his talk, hoping to shame him or just to check whether he would admit or pretend that it was an "innocent" mistake (I was not sure at the time that it was a bad-faith redirect as much as I am now when I saw an entire pattern). When talking to him, I brought up that I was considering moving Polkovnyk he created to a Ukrainian colonel but I did not do that unilaterally because it is just a courtesy to warn the interested parties of any moves so that they can voice any disagreements. Interestingly, his reaction was (as I assumed it would be) an immediate creation of two redirects Ukrainian Colonel and Ukrainian colonel and BOTH were created in a similar fashion, in two steps, to make a move there impossible. Please see these histories and check them step by step: [44] and [45]. This time he "forgot" the bracket in the first attempt and "corrected" that in the second one.

As for his response, he could not deny it (like he couldn't deny vote fraud earlier, always ignoring my pointing it out many times to him). One time our dialog turned especially amusing when he turned that on me and said that he learned these tricks from me (he had nothing more to say being embarrassed). Check this dialog:

To see this hypocrisy right after your "respect your colleagues" call is rather amusing. --Irpen

I learned it from you: to use different rules in different cases. As you mentioned above, I do learn fast. ;)--AndriyK

...You left me speechless hear. Not only you cheat but you take pride in that. --Irpen

You don't like of other people bahave like you? Why? :)--AndriyK

See this for complete context.

Also, interesting was how he was responding to these issues earlier. When I wrote to him long time ago that "Moving articles should be done with care in cases where you may expect disagreement since it it much more difficult to undo", he responded cynically: "I just follow Wikipedia Guidelines, so I do not expect any disagreement.". See this.

The main conclusion is that he is not a short-tempered but possibly productive fellow, but he is a cynical and experienced POV pusher and no wonder: he came from another language wikipedia, well experienced and he knew exactly what he was doing.

To summarize his behaviour shown above, it includes:

  1. bad faith potentially disagreeable moves with no discussion or in spite of discussion where other people seemed ambivalent to impose their vision on article names and kept discussing on what to do;
  2. abuse of the Wikisoftware features to avoid move reversion to make sure his moves prevail;
  3. abuse of Wikisoftware features to avoid his article moved for the same reason;
  4. Moves by cut and paste when he could not get it his way by "Move articles" and calling those who reverted him "Vandals".

As for the revert warring, this question from him at the help-desk speaks much. Here he is looking for the info on how to get on everyone's nerves without getting himself in trouble.

The most typical of his sockpuppets or just recruited blind followers is user:Dovbush. One can see from his contributions what a productive account this is.

I respectfully request the ArbCom to consider the following remedies in addition or in place of whatever ban is appropriate:

  1. administrative reversal of all his article moves done in 3 steps (including those where WP:RM voting was falsified) so that the proposals to move could be discussed by everyone without the threat of bullying
  2. limiting him to 1 revert per 24 h instead of 3 (he is permanently just one step under 3 RR at several articles),
  3. personal attacks probation,
  4. possibly, ban from several articles and/or topics altogether (for some time).

--Irpen 21:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum by Irpen

My statement above is a simple documenting of AndriyK's behavior. I know, it exceeded the space of 500 words but this was only because the intensity of AndriyK's warfare and fraudulent behavior was so high that it took this much space to present it to ArbCom. I would just like to add quickly the following.

First of all, multiple attempts to engage him into cooperation and discussion have been made by me and by others despite his horrific badmouthing of me at Ukrainian Wikipedia (even with the use of the B-word next to my Wiki-name) and a loud slander campaign at Maidan (a Ukrainian political activism site). I was willing to put this behind and his talk page documents my attempts to work with this editor.

Second, the attempt to present this a Russian Wiki-mafia trying to gang-bang a newcomer who tried to give a Ukrainian perspective is simply wrong. Please note that of many editors that co-signed this arbitration, four are the active editors of the Ukrainian wiki-community who are active at Ukrainian portal and in the Ukrainian topics. User:Mzajac contributed to Ukrainian topics probably more than any other Wiki-editor, User:Sashazlv, with another editor, wrote the only Ukraine-related featured article to this date (the Hero of Ukraine), user:Fisenko and myself (user:Irpen) were active in Ukrainian topics for a while and all of us were able to argue a Ukrainian perspective in many topics with Russian and Polish editors. Yes, Ukraine is under-represented at Wikipedia, but there was little bad faith in the behavior of our neighbors and the atmosphere was mostly of respect and collaboration.

Finally, please note that the action requested from the ArbCom will not curb the ability of AndriyK to contribute to Wikipedia by writing articles and adding info to existing articles. Only a verdict that would disallow such disruptive behavior as mass name changes in the texts of the articles from the more established names in the literature to the ones that suite AndriyK's particular taste, sockpuppeting (if established) and revert warring is requested, together with a single real restriction on this user, that is a ban to move articles and create redirects. At least, with his past pattern he cannot be trusted with the article moves and he should be required to propose such drastic measures before performing them. At the same time, it is justly requested that his past bad-faith moves are undone for further review and discussion since they cannot be undone without an administrative action due to the dirty tricks he used. He should be either banned from moving articles for a while or be required to propose the moves first, at least, because it is in this activity he created so much hassle and this is the activity he conducted using unethical tricks. Proposing the potentially disagreeable moves before imposing them is generally considered a common sense rule anyway, and he should be required to stick to the common sense rule if his personal ethics is insufficient to give him an idea of whether a particular move would be viewed as controversial or not. Moreover, his using a wikisoftware trick to make his moved non-revertible makes me believe strongly that he knew that the moves might meet an opposition and he went ahead with them to force his POV without seeking a consensus. His cynical response that he didn't expect any disagreement, that's why should be taken into account.

As for the suspected sockpuppetry, should it be established that AndriyK uses sockpuppet accounts, a broader ruling as per Zivinbudas precedent is respectfully requested to make ArbCom decisions applicable to any anonymous or sockpuppet-like accounts that exhibit trademark immature Ukrainian nationalism through enforcing particular names over the established ones without seeking the consensus from the community.

--Irpen 08:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the statement by party 2 (User:Irpen)

I must stress that User:Irpen cut the dialog he cited to destort its meaning. I found it reasonable to copy the complete context here to make it clear where I was joking and were I was speaking seriously.

I learned it from you: to use different rules in different cases. As you mentioned above, I do learn fast. ;)--AndriyK 17:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If seriosly, unique and clear rules have to be established. Otherwise we'll always have such discussions.--AndriyK 17:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You left me speachless hear. Not only you cheat but you take pride in that. --Irpen 17:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You don't like of other people bahave like you? Why? :)--AndriyK 18:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's just ridiculous, AndriyK. However, thanks to the Wikisoftware, all the history is preserved and anyone can judge who did what! --Irpen 18:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is precisely what I mean.--AndriyK 18:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied from [46]). As you see, the bold pharse, reflecting my true opinion was not cited by Irpen. So he has tried to present my jokes as an evidence of improper behavior. A clear example of cheating.--AndriyK 15:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It must be added that User Irpen has engaged on multiple occasions in personal attacks as well as attacks against Ukrainian related articles. For instance, he has reverted multiple times the article Holodomor, trying to erase the words "Ukrainian genocide" and the references to the findings of the US Government Commission on the Ukrainian Famine (e.g. [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], he then accused me of "extreme nationalism" on Talk:Holodomor). His desire to limit other side's editing priveleges seems nothing but another step in his revert war with the people that don't share his political views. This arbitration setup alone shows this. Instead of inviting both sides of the dispute in equal proportion, he invites almost exclusively a few allies of the revert wars here to "punish" one of his opponenta. So the people not sharing the "correct" political agenda must find out about this only by accident. A fare vote and consultations must be held prior to making any decisions in this case. Otherwise, a small group of editors will limit the neutral point of view.--Andrew Alexander 04:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Andrew Alexander. The issue about Holodomor, is a narrow one and related to a specific article rather than to this arbitration. Since you brought it here, I will just say that this was not about removal of the term from the article but about keeping the discussion about the term within a section specifically devoted to it. You insisted to bring it into the lead paragraph or even the very first line, and it is disputable whether the term belongs there. However, this ArbCom filing is not about the merit of AndriyK's or his opponents' positions in specific article disputes. This is about his behavior, particularly, frivolous page moves, bad-faith redirect creation, copyvios, using 3RR as daily "alottment" or using tricks to circumvent it, vote fraud, sockpuppetry and other mischief. If you want to accuse the compliants of this case in any policy or ethical violations, you are welcome to start 1, 2, 3 or more RfC's or even file your own ArbCom case(s). Finally, keep your remarks within your own statement, that is if you are entitled for one of which I am not sure, but I don't mind it anyway. --Irpen 08:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Irpen, please do not try to mislead. You have not moved the quotes and references elsewhere in the article, you bluntly deleted them. The diffs show it very well. The comment is relevant since it demonstrates your bias and violations of WP policies in your revert warfare. This arbitration seems to be just another level of that warfare. You mislead in your accusations just as much as you mislead in your denials of reference deletions. I've seen you using your "allotment" of 3RR fairly regularly. I also disagree with your definitions of "vote fraud" and "frivolous page moves".--Andrew Alexander 09:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did not move Genocide elsewhere in the article, because it was already there. There was a section called "Was Holodomor a Genocide?".
You should have added your refs there or to the ref section and not to the lead. In any case, don't waste an ArbCom space for issues unrelated to AndriyK's behavior which this is all about. You are welcome to start an RfC or an ArbCom against me or all complaints in this case if you see anyone behavior warrants it. You can express your disagreement over the applicability of "Fraud" and "frivolous" to his page moves in your own statement here, if you are entitled for one. What matters is whether the ArbCom agrees or disagrees, seeing the evidence above. --Irpen 09:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you deleted all those quotes and references. Several times. Stop misleading please.--Andrew Alexander 04:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There alway was and still is a section in the article Holodomor#Was_the_Holodomor_genocide.3F. I repeatedly objected just to your using the lead to inject all your ideas at once and requested you to use an appropriate section. See for example this edit of mine supplied with a summary "remove from lead what don't belong there. Hey, there are sections for that and it is discussed there already". However, in any case what does it have to do with AndriyK's behavior? If you think it is an arbitrable issue, I welcome you to start an another ArbCom re my behavior at Holodomor. You could also start with the user RfC (against me) or the article RfC (Holodomor). Or you are just trying to make this page as confusing as possible by bringing as much irrelevant stuff here as you can? --Irpen 05:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is out of place here. Anyone who is interested is welcome to check mine and others' comments at Talk:Holodomor#Kuban, Talk:Holodomor#Changes_by_alexander, Talk:Holodomor#Holodomor_Investigation_Commission_Unproven_Bias. But most importantly, please see this Reminder. --Irpen 06:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, I think it would save ArbComm some time and would be beneficial overall if you provided specific links to diffs, as Irpen did in his statement. Also, arbitration is not a "setup". It's the last resort at conflict resolution. I would recommend you spend a bit more time studying Wikipedia policies and procedures if you intend yourself to be taken seriously in matters like this one—it would benefit both parties.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 01:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks at least for not calling me a "sockpuppet".--Andrew Alexander 02:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 3 (User:Ghirlandajo)

In my experience, AndriyK is a highly skilled, determined, and cold-blooded revert warrior. His edits consist of little in the way of constructive editing. As he was repeatedly blocked for 3RR violatiion in the past, he evolved several sophisticated tricks to eschew the rule. Most notably, he recruited ua.wiki supporters whose only contribution to this project has been endless reverting. For example, when AndriyK is close to violating 3RR, there appears a certain user:Dovbush (his name was red-linked yesterday, but Andriy added a comment to his user page to eliminate red-linking) who assaults exactly the same pages and makes exactly the same edits as Andriy did: cf. Dovbuzh's contributions with Andriy's.

It is worth noting that AndriyK seems to prefer to assault those pages that were written by me and/or Irpen. One instructive example is Russian architecture, which it took me infinite pains to write almost single-handedly, from the first line to the last. AndriyK, despite having been informed about a need to consult other editors about such decisive moves, did move the article on architectural traditions of Kievan Rus, Muscovy, Imperial Russia and Soviet Union to Architecture of Rus. I fail to see any rationale behind such controversial and inflammatory actions other than deliberately stirring discord. As a result of his actions, there had been two completely identical articles - Russian architecture and Architecture of Rus - until an admin reverted his move back to normalcy. Thereupon AndriyK and his crony User:Andrew Alexander attempted to delete some sections from the article without contributing as much as one new line. Neither did they heed an advise to write a separate article on Ukrainian architecture. As a result, the article was protected by an admin from further disruptive editing by deletionists.

What turns AndriyK's edits to a nightmare for other editors is a wide extent of his disruptive editing. He is capable of reverting from 60 to 80 articles in an hour (example), which takes efforts of many users and quite some time to undo. Endless revert wars instigated by Andriy effectively ruined history records of many pages started or written by me and/or Irpen (e.g., Oleg of Chernihiv, Mikhail of Chernihiv, Chernihiv).

As AndriyK has devised several strategies to avoid violating 3RR, I second Irpen's request for the following remedies to be applied in this case:

  • administrative reversal of all his article moves done in 3 steps (including those where WP:RM voting was falsified) so that the proposals to move could be discussed by everyone without the threat of bullying
  • limiting him to 1 revert per 24 h instead of 3 (he is permanently just one step under 3 RR at several articles),
  • personal attacks probation,
  • possibly, ban from several articles and/or topics altogether (for some time). --Ghirlandajo 08:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum by party 3

In my opinion, AndriyK's continued revert warring, now when his case was submitted to arbitration, indicates his lack of respect for the arbitration committee and for established procedures of dispute resolution.--Ghirlandajo 09:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A few "spicy" comments by "unbiased" User:Ghirlandajo.
16:30, 11 November 2005 Ghirlandajo m (restored deletions by a racist)
16:16, 11 November 2005 Ghirlandajo (rv vandalism: if you continue messing the article with its talk page, you will be reported!)
07:47, 11 November 2005 Ghirlandajo m (huh, lost your medkit again?)
22:11, 21 November 2005 Ghirlandajo m (rvv another revert warrior) -- that warrior wasn't as strong. User:Ghirlandajo performed an astonishing number of reverts, beating many, many people.--Andrew Alexander 09:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 4 (Gnomz007)

Since his entry AndriyK has demonstrated a pattern of distrust towards other users, instead of discussing his concerns about Ukrainian topics, he just went ahead and made mass-moves, and other potentially disagreeable edits.

While I do not have enough confidence in my knowledge of Ukrainian language to put it on my user page, I can pretty much understand the content of his messages on Maidanua.org, he accused many editors of being part of something "very much like a teenager gang".

In one message, where he scrutinized the edits of other users [52] with quite offensive comments, he said that he reckons than he has no other choice but to use the methods of his perceived gang on Wikipedia.

He continually bullied several other users, motivating it by what he considers spreading of anti-Ukrainian propaganda by them.

Bemoaning the "Russian mafia", he made an attempt to explain to forum patrons the rules of Wikipedia, largely unsuccessfully, since he omitted the main principles, he urged to take care of POV, while not explaining what it means becoming an editor. And since he pointed finger at the sources of POV, his crusade aggravated many editors and in itself a serious bad-faith accusation.

While he is concerned with what he cosiders monopoly on POV, what he effectively does is replacing it by another monopoly on POV, beacause he bruteforced many things.

He did spectacular amounts of reverts, I have just a few of those articles on my watchlist, but the reverts popped regularly every day.

I think that he believes in what he does, but ignorant of Wikipedia workings, and lacks trust into the usual procedures of Wikipedia, which causes him to exercise his allowances left and right, which largely violates WP:POINT.

–Gnomz007(?) 06:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 5 (User:Halibutt)

(Please limit your statement to 500 words)

Statement by party 6 (User:Kuban kazak)

To be fair I am really dissapointed with AndriyK. Numerous times I was working on articles when AndriK would barge in and change everything without prior discussion. The strory with Kiev Metro is such when even though I asked him to refrain from further changes in transliteration, he nevertheless changed them. Now writing templates is an impossible task since he somehow locked the original spelling to avoid its revert. Also is his taste for ommition of facts that do not coincide with his nationalistic tastes. Such example is St. Vladimir's Cathedral where for nearly two weeks he spent deleting all the relevant articles, and without prior agreement at discussions. A similar situation can be found in the Cossack article where he kept on deleting my addtions. The Holodomor is also such a case where distputable sources were included before an agreement was reached. I have numerously tried to incourage AndriyK to actually start writing articles (which he on numerous occasions claimed was his reason for coming here). My suggestion of having something simple was met with profound rudeness (and hidden behind it - lasiness) as it can be witnessed in the Drogobych and Izmail Oblast heading at his talk page. I have also reminded him that such actions could negatively skew experienced wikipedia authors and editors to develop a negative, stereotypical attitude towards Ukraine and Ukrainians. Considering that the people who he brings from Maidan forum are a marginal group of people who do not represent the Ukrainian nation as a whole.

Comments to the statement by party 6
Could the Ukrainian nation be left alone at least? The article Holodomor has been edited by you with multiple violations of the rules of Wikipedia. You have engaged in revert wars, doctoring and erasing quotes from reputable sources on multiple occasions. Profound rudeness is to accuse editors of "laziness" while slashing and destroying valuable references.--Andrew Alexander 05:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sources whose factual information has been DISPROVED. Respectible that the same source made very many public mistakes. And why should I leave a coutry alone where I lived for five years and have many friends there, go there often, and my wife happens to come from there. I do accuse him of laziness because I am yet to see a respecitble piece of work submitted by him.Kuban kazak 14:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 7 (User:Sashazlv)

As a native Ukrainian speaker, I had a chance to closely follow User:AndriyK's remarks about Wikipedia users and articles that he posted on maidanua forum. Some of the remarks were also cross-posted on pravda.com.ua forum, one of the most popular fora among the Ukrainian Internet community.

Overall, I found his remarks humiliating, at best. For instance, in describing his "rivals", User:AndriyK used such derogatory expressions as "Russian mafia", "teenage gang", "cunning troll", "insufficiently educated", etc. At worst, the intention was to disrupt the regular process of expansion and improvement of Ukraine-related articles. The pool of Wikipedia users who can effectively contribute to such articles is tiny and this provocation has diverted effort and immensely drained scarce time.

I tried to reason with User:AndriyK and analyzed some of his comments ([53]). My primary conclusion was that his comments were not justified. Part of the reply I got from User:AndriyK was on the verge of personal offence. From that point on I deliberately abstained from direct confrontation.

Hopefully, the Arbitration Committee will find a way to insulate conscientious users from the disgraceful attack. Sashazlv 02:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 8 (User:Alex Bakharev)

I find that User:AndriyK has a quite annoying habit of working for Wikipedia not by adding new articles or new information to the existing articles but by blanking information, changing the names of the geographical locations according to his POV and most importantly by initiating the revert wars.

Let us look for a few examples:

Ivan Kotlyarevsky

The history starts with AndreyK's friend User:Andrew Alexander put a blatant copyvio from the site http://wumag.kiev.ua , without any acknowledgements of somebody else's authorship. I had to put a copyvio notice on the article. I also asked for somebody to help Andrew Alexander on the Ukrainian notice board Portal:Ukraine/New article announcements#October 2005. Irpen wrote a stub and was willing to continue to work on the article. Meanwhile, Irpen, I and many other users were trying our best to explain the Wikipedia copyright requirements to Andrew Alexander (see Talk:Ivan Kotlyarevsky who kept reverting to copyvio version, then decided for some reason to plagiarize Brittanica instead of wumag.kiev.ua. Finally, Andrew and his seemed to stop interfere with the article. It was probably a good time to start to work on the article, then come User:AndriyK and restored the copyvio version again [54]. The article was protected and everybody seems to lost interest to improvement of the article. If the same effort that was put into the talk page and the revert war had been put into the article it will be a good article. Thus, the article about the man who considered to be the pioneer of Ukrainian literature is a stub, mostly due to the destructive actions of User:AndriyK and his friend.

"Unbiased" User:Alex Bakharev "forgot" to mention that User:Andrew Alexander mentioned to have performed a negotiation with the author of the article to pulblish it in Wikipedia.--Andrew Alexander 09:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the arbitrage is not about your behavior but about AndriyK's. Since I had limitation on the length of my statement I was trying not to dwell on your behavior (unless you suggest, that you and AndriyK are sockpupets of each other). I can believe that your first plagiarizing was an honest mistake (You sincerely thought that you can submit any text on a free web site as your own. Communists taught their school boys that plagiarizing is a small sin, etc.). I can believe the first of your reverts was an honest mistake. I have doubts that plagiarizing Britannica was an honest mistake. As for the other five reverts of you, one of your sockpupet and one of AndriyK, they were malicious actions with a single purpose to stop productive work on the article. Since we are discussing AndreyK now; I am more interested with the AndiyK's revert. BTW I am not a judge, I am a plaintiff here, I do not have to be unbiased. abakharev 10:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you abstain from personal insults. First of all, I am not a "sockpuppet" of anyone nor do I have such. Second, I did not "plagiarize" anything (see Plagiarism) but published the original with the name of the author in it, with her explicit consent. Again, you misrepresent the events even though you can simply read the discussion for that article. But now you add insults to misrepresentations.--Andrew Alexander 22:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
St Volodymyr's Cathedral

This is an article about a pearl of Kievan barocco architecture. Lets look into the history of the article [55] . The article was started on June 7, 2005 by User:Ghirlandajo. It robustly grew by the efforts of User:Irpen, User:Mzajac, User:Kuban kazak and others. Everybody was adding new important information. Then on October 23, 2005 came User:AndriyK, who started by blanking info added by other users. The revert war continues to the present time (600 something edits) - many potentially productive people were involved. The article is almost in the same shape as it was on the tenth edit.

BTW, looking throw all these 600 edits, trying to find a positive contribution by AndriyK, I have found only a copyvio so far [56]. Together with his pushing for Copyvios in Ivan Kotlyarevsky articles it shows a kind of a sinister pattern, but lets hope it is just a coincidence.

Silly Chernihiv/Chernigov war

A Ukraine city usually has two English names: the older one, based on Russian (or old Slavonic) spelling and the newer one based on the modern Ukraine spelling. Usually the older names are still has wider usage in English (as supported by Googling), but wikipedia promotes the newer name for the modern events and the older ones for the history (especially for historical event that happen before the introducing of the modern Ukraine spelling). On October 23d User:AndriyK without consulting community changed the names of Chernigov (that happens to be the older name of the city) to Chernihiv in sixty-something articles. He wrote none of these article in almost all of them the name change was his only contribution. In all of these articles Chernigov name was used for the historical events, strictly according to the convention. He did not stopped with this WP:Point action - he started a revert war that continues up to the present time, having about 500 reverts for each of the "edited" articles. Assuming for a moment that there is a merit in using anachronistic names, Wikipedia has a policy of keeping all the ambiguous things consistent with the original author.

Resume

This only a part of the pattern of destructive behavior demonstrated by User:AndriyK, but I do not have more space in the 500 words limit. I am not aware of any new articles contributed by the user and only of a very few positive contributions by him. Currently his behavior significantly decreases quality of the Ukrainian segment of Wikipedia. Productive people avoid contributing articles on Ukrainian themes, AndriyK and his friends do not contribute much either spending most of their time on the revert wars. I think AndriyK should be banned from editing by reverting, blanking and changing names. Instead he should be encouraged to write new article and contribute new information to the present articles. abakharev 08:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 9 (User:Mzajac)

AndriyK has come to English-language Wikipedia with a political agenda, and expends great energy in pursuing it. Based on his own statements here and at the Maidan forums, I think that he feels that en.wikipedia is saturated with the "Russian mafia's" point of view, and he intends to fix this, mostly by the mass changing of names from Russian to Ukrainian versions. He sees this as an us-against-them war. He'll do it wherever he thinks he can get away with it, by any means possible, and whether it's appropriate or not. He shows little respect for the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia or for other editors' feelings. His actions have wasted an enormous amount of energy and productivity, inflamed the community of editors of Ukrainian-related articles, and brought out the worst in many others including AndriyK's "foes" and "allies", to the point of being very destructive.

I honestly wish he'd pitch in and apply his copious energy otherwise. He's counselled others that neutral point of view can be restored to many articles by adding balancing encyclopedic material, but sadly, he's applied himself this way in a very few cases. —Michael Z. 2005-11-23 22:30 Z

Statement by party 10 (User:Introvert)

(Please limit your statement to 500 words)

Statement by party 11 (User:Fisenko)

(Please limit your statement to 500 words)

AndriyK has moved to "more Ukrainian" names a number of articles created by me such as Ivan Bogun, Severyn Nalyvaiko and Putivl as well as edited numerous other articles without any discussions and explanations. He labels everyone who disagree with him as "Russian mafia" and is trying to use Wikipedia for his own political agenda. Fisenko 03:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 12 (User:KNewman)

(Please limit your statement to 500 words)

Statement by party (User:AndriyK)

Statement by party (User:Ashapochka)

Well, eleven against one, using phraseology like “sock puppets and blind followers” on every single Wikipedian who happens to support AndriyK’s standpoint, is not easy to stomach. Luckily this same fact hints us some of the dear community-members-speaking-against-AndriyK might just be in for suppression and ostracism of this Wikipedian, who has different (and nevertheless well founded on facts) views on the Ukraine-related encyclopedic knowledge from theirs, rather than on the quest for the truth and understanding. For example User:Ezhiki calls me a “possible sock puppet of AndriyK”. He never contacted me to see if that was the case, he could verify that my Wikipedia account is old enough to make such a statement sound silly, he could check it out I am an active contributor to the Ukrainian Wikipedia and some of my articles were chosen “Articles of the week” out there. But he preferred not to check his facts for some reason and go right for the offence. I would not be surprised if some of the other so called “sock puppets” turned to be normal, responsible for their votes wikipedians. For his information I had never been contacted by AndriyK before I came and expressed my mind (based on facts) on the matter of Ukrainian-Latin transliteration here and explicitly pointed to it from my “Chernihiv” votes.

They further argue, AndriyK goes for support to the Ukrainian Wikipedia and Maidan. Ok, tell me please where else can you expect to find an authoritative opinion on the Ukrainian language and transliteration of the Ukrainian names if not among English speaking Ukrainian wikipedians? Let us note the fact, he cannot make wikipedians vote to his benefit, they are always free to express their opinions.

I do not believe the arbitration arguments against him based on his renaming activities hold any water. The official guide to transliteration can be seen here, and while it is true not everyone in the world sticks to it, you must produce some really hard stats numbers to prove it must not be used in the Wikipedia despite the fact it is official in Ukraine and as such is used by the country’s Government, commercial companies, educational institutions, etc. See also the Lviv University lections on translation theory and practice for the future diplomats [57] (in Ukrainian). As for the historical tradition, the Russian variants of Ukrainian names are without doubt preferred by Russian speaking people. But does one attempt to transliterate Polish or Finnish (former parts of the Russian Empire) names from their Russian spellings? And even those speaking against AndriyK readily recognize that as a rule he made a provision for the folks comfortable with the Russian-style transliteration only creating the corresponding automatic redirects.

I am approaching my word limit for the comment, but I hope the outmost weakness of the arguments against AndriyK was shown clearly even in these 500 words (against the total of several thousands by his opponents) --ashapochka 14:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do admit the possibility of me misidentifying a few of the accounts I listed as sockpuppets. Yours, for example, was included not because it falls under the technical definition of a sockpuppet, but rather under the extended definition ("these newly created accounts... may be friends of a Wikipedian, or may be related in some way to the subject of an article under discussion. These accounts are not actually sockpuppets, but they are difficult to distinguish from real sockpuppets and are treated similarly"). Still, I am ready to publicly apologize (once this RfAr is over), if that will make you feel better.
I do not feel I am in a position to comment on the rest of your statement. I'm sure ArbComm will take it into account when making a decision.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ezhiki, I gladly accept your apologies, thank you. Oh, well, RfAr isn't over yet, but nevertheless, I should know about myself even now whether I am a sock puppet or not :))).
Comment of statement by party (User:Ashapochka)

Mr. Ashapochka, please stop misinforming others. Four plaintiffs - Irpen, Michael Z., Sashazlv, Fisenko - are ethnic Ukrainians. Halibutt is a very respected Polish editor, whose reputation for occasional nationalism nearly cost him adminship. We represent the community who actually *edits* East Slavic topics, not just blindly changes spelling of one or two names, and then reverts endlessly, like you do.

The proper name for the city of Chernigov should be discussed on Talk:Chernihiv. Andriy has been told quite a few times that the historical name Chernigov should be reserved for historical purposes. He is free to use a modern Ukrainian spelling, Chernihiv, when referring to modern politics and post-1917 Ukraine. For earlier periods, the name Chernigov should be preferred, as they do in the 2004 Britannica and as proposed by user:Mikkalai.

The modern Ukrainian form Chernihiv evolved from the Old East Slavic form Chernigov in the late Middle Ages, when the common Slavic vowel o (cf. Lwow, Krakow, Kijow, Pskov) was transformed in Ukrainian to i (cf. Lviv, Krakiv, Kyiv). It is also worth noting that the names promoted by Andriy - Oleg of Chernihiv, Mikhail of Chernihiv - are incorrect both in Russian and Ukrainian. The correct Ukrainian versions would be Oleh of Chernihiv and Mikhailo of Chernihiv. Therefore, AndriyK's preferred names should be classified as original research, and quite misleading at that. He has been told that before but refuses to discuss the matter in any meaningful way. Escalating revert wars is so much easier.

Also, the google search reveals that the spelling Chernigov is three times more popular in English than Chernihiv. Consequently, total elimination of the well-established historic name from the article is unacceptable. I don't know why you, AndriyK and your friends refuse to discuss the matter and prefer to enforce your POV by rigging move votes. Please stop complaining and do something positive. --Ghirlandajo 10:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on, Mr Ghirlandajo, even making your comment about me misinforming the Arbitration commity, you choose to neglect the truth, which is I never moved a single article in the en:Wikipedia, and I never changed spelling of proper names in it. Anyone can check it for herself. In lying there is no honor and no profit, Mr. Ghirlandajo, for it undermines peoples' trust in your other assertions be they true or not.
Comment to comment by Ghirlandajo

First, ethnicity is irrelevant to the point. Second, one cannot check the athnicity of the user.

Please do not misinform the Arbitration commity. Chernihiv is used in the 2004 Britannica everywhere in the article and applied to all periods of the history, while Chernigov is just mentioned as the Russian name of the city [58]. You have provided no references confirming that Chernigov is more "historical" the Chernihiv.

It is open question when exactly the common Slavonic "o" evolved into Ukrainian "i". But even if one assumes it happened in "late Middle Ages", then at earlier times the name was prononce as "Chernihov". The East Slavic tribes that populated the territory of present-day Ukraine did not have consonant "g" in their dialects. (See book by Shevelov cited in Ukrainian Language).

The most blatant lie is that we allegigly refuse to discuss the matter. It's enough to have a look at Talk:Chernihiv# Chernihiv vs. Chernigov and Portal talk:Ukraine/New article announcements how much time I spent explaining you the basic things, but you showed you inability to accept any arguments.--AndriyK 16:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andriy, don't start this again. Isn't it ridiculous to back up statements on impropriety of the spelling Chernigov with an url which features this word: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9023842?query=Chernigov&ct= check. And of course Ukrainian "h" is also a secondary development which replaced PIE and Common Slavic "g" in later centuries. Anyway, you found a wrong place for discussions of this sort. Go to Talk:Chernihiv and discuss the issue there. --Ghirlandajo 18:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I discussed enough at Talk:Chernihiv. Now I just try to demonstrate to the Arbitration Commity that Ghirlandajo is cheating and twist the facts making his statement against me. This is the right place to do it.
I provided a reference (book by Shevelev) stating that the consonant "g" was not present in the dialects of Easten Slavs that lived on the territory of present-day Ukraine. Ghirlandajo asserts the opposite without any reference. This demostrate the discussion style of my opponents. This is also relevant to the case under consideration.--AndriyK 01:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party (User:Andrew Alexander)

I'd like to direct your attention to my comments made above regarding User:Ezhiki's personal attacks, User:Irpen's personal attacks and violations of Wikipedia rules when e.g. deleting references, User:Ghirlandajo's personal attacks and out-of-control revert warring, User:Kuban kazak's wanton doctoring and deletion of reputable sources, User:Alex Bakharev's avoiding truthful depiction of the events. It also must be noted that all the mentioned users, without exception, appear to be native in the Russian language. While this is great when people from different countries can come to Wikipedia, it's not OK when people from one country gang up against a person from another nation to suppress his or her political views. If you read the original complaints, practically all of them have something to do with Ukrainian related articles. I hate to make this conclusion, but it seems almost as if the mentioned people decided to police and revert these article in favor of the Russian nationalism POV. The arbitrary deletions and source doctoring in the Holodomor article strike particularly by its cynicism. To come here after that reference massacre and demand "justice" seems flat obscene.--Andrew Alexander 21:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, links to diffs would be helpful. I am especially interested to see my personal attacks revealed.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 02:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Read here: [59]--Andrew Alexander 05:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While I already mentioned that filing an RfAr case is not a personal attack, but a procedure everyone is entitled to, I'll leave this with no comment. The final decision is ArbComm's anyway.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Quote:it's not OK when people from one country gang up against a person from another nation to suppress his or her political views.
Wikipedia is an apolitical encyclopedia, I suggest that you understand this as well. I know that I might write an article which is biased, but I encourage people to neutralise it, and provide more sources. AndriyK seems to follow the opposite policy of giving refernces to nationalistic sources and politising the articles, as do you Andrew - Due to the Soviet and Modern Russian policy of covering up. In Holodomor I believe that was your quote. In fact AndriyK has numerously said that he will ensure that Wikipedia is cleansed of KGB/FSB propaganda. Kuban kazak 14:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kuban kazak, perhaps it's just your style of doctoring quotes, but I never wrote the second quote as you posted it here.--Andrew Alexander 00:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Irpen's denials of own edit summaries with deletions of quotes and references. It illustrates the integrity of the accusations Irpen brings forward. It also illustrates the character of revert warfare conducted by the accusers.--Andrew Alexander 05:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


For the record. Your edit [60] of Ivan Kotlyarevsky is a blatant copying and pasting 678 words from somebody else's work [61] (almost entire content of the webpage) and 50 words of [62]. You did not do any attempt to acknowledge the authorship of the texts until caught red-handed [63], nor did you bother to at least copy-edit the text to prevent legal problems for Wikipedia. Copy-pasting large chunks of information without acknowledgements the sources is called Plagiarism. It is an indisputable fact. My hypothesis that your behavior might be an honest mistake caused by the lenience of the Soviet system of education to plagiarism is my opinion, it is not supported by facts. I am sorry if it offended you. Quite possible you acted in bad faith from the very beginning.
You are certainly entitled to your opinions, however, as an administrator of Wikipedia, you should not try to hide the facts and mislead the Arbitration Committee. The fact of the matter is that I tried to contact the author and received her permission to publish the article, which was indicated on the article's discussion page.--Andrew Alexander 23:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The addition [64] by AndriyK is also a direct copy-paste of a paragraph of approximately 65 words from the [65]. It is definitely a blatant copyvio, but might not be a plagiarism, since the source was already put to the External links section of the article by some other editor. After the paragraph was re-written in the non-copyvio form by User:Andrew Alexander it was accepted by all the parties (BTW it was me, who was trying to protect the paragraph by User:AndriyK, User:Andrew Alexander and Andriy VLASENKO, Viktor KYRKEVYCH and Serhiy KARDASH from [66] from the accusation in POV. See Talk:St Volodymyr's Cathedral#Recent Edit war). abakharev 22:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

It must be noted that St Volodymyr's Cathedral has been reverted at least 150 times to underline the "uncanonical" status of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Kiev Patriarchy (as opposed to Moscow Patriarchy) and to switch Ukrainian name tranliterations into Russian ones: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St_Volodymyr%27s_Cathedral&action=history. The article is curently undergoing RfM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Improv#RFM. The RfM has been requested by AndriyK, which seems to have acted the most mature in that conflict.--Andrew Alexander 07:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Wojsyl

While I'm not directly involved in the edit war between Russian and Ukrainian editors on Ukraine-related articles, I've been following it closely and I tend to believe that the problem there is not going to be solved by punishing individual editor but rather calls for some sort of protection of the relevant articles. By protection I do not mean "lock" but rather some more strict limitation of number of reverts of these articles, like to one revert per 24h or other means that would incline the warring parties to discuss more instead of stubbornly forcing one version over another. This said I've the impression that User:AndriyK is often more eager to compromise than some of his Russian speaking opponents. --Wojsyl (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to second this statement by Wojsyl. In this particular orbitration case a ban or another form of punishment applied to AndriyK or any of the other parties will definitely not be viewed as just and deserved by quite a few of those involved in the dispute. Finding a sound and just compromise with help of the Arbitration Committee should serve to achieve the peace much-much better. --ashapochka 19:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I doubt if finding a compromise is within Arbcoms scope of action. I'd rather hope for some enforcement that would strongly suggest to everyone involved in these editwars that discussion is a better and preferred way of handling it. But above all, I think that RFC would be more appropriate than RFAr here. --Wojsyl (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I support Wojsyl's proposal as well. Buchik 20:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Gutsul

Dear wikipedians, all of you should understand what is going on. Some editors like AndriyK and others are trying to change names of cities, historical facts and so on to more common in Ukraine. It’s not a secret that in the whole world USSR was seen as Russia and Ukraine was seen only as part of this Russia. Terminology used for Ukraine was translated from Russian. Now Ukraine is independent country and we are trying to change this russified point of view on Ukraine and its history. I don’t expect that it will be easy. We are only at the beginning of our long way, but I do believe that in 10-20 years will not be discussed how to call Ukrainian cities in English (Чернігів will be Chernihiv).

So what AndriyK is doing is very important and i will try to support him. Maybe sometimes the way he doing it is not the best way so such cases one should discuss. Gutsul 09:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)

Conduct of User:Reddi with respect to other editors

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Evidence that User:Reddi will not even engage me when I point out this Request for arbitrartion

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  1. Attempt to get response on QSS page
  2. Attempt by Joshuaschroeder to get response on Plasma cosmology talk page
  3. Attempt by Art Carlson to get response on Plasma cosmology talk page
  4. Attempt to get a response from user directly by Joshuaschroeder
  5. Attempt to get a response from user directly by Art Carlson
  6. Attempt to get a response on Ultimate fate of the universe talk page
  7. RfC started: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Reddi

Evidence that User:Reddi absolutely refuses to engage me as an editor and further that he will not respond to other attempts at mediation: [68]

Statement by party 1

I have been involved in a number of articles concerning how to report on non-standard cosmology here on Wikipedia. User:Reddi has determined that my work is trollish and he has made it clear that he will not engage me but instead will simply revert every edit I make on the articles listed in the RfC. He has struck-through my comments on his talkpage asking for him to respond to me claiming that he doesn't deal with trolls. I have no other place to turn to at this moment as he refuses to engage me on the talkpages or on the RfC and seems content to continue his inappropriate actions here at Wikipedia.

--Joshuaschroeder 18:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2

 (Please limit your statement to 500 words)

Statement by admin that protected the article (≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @)

I protected the Plasma cosmology article on November 5, due to editwarring, personal attacks and lack of civility in the discussions at the talk page. After a new editor, a subject expert matter joined the editing process (Eric Lerner User:Elerner), and after what I perceived to be a show of good faith by participating editors, I unprotected the article on November 6. Notwithstanding User:Reddi's behavior in not responding to questions by a fellow editor, as a neutral observer I am surprised this interpersonal problem between User:Joshuaschroeder and other editors has arrived to the ArbCom without exploring other avenues for dispute resolution. I received personal email from some one of the editors involved, stating that he is giving up contributing to this article (and probably others) due to the relentless involvement of User:Joshuaschroeder in the editing process. We need passionate editors that care, but sometimes too much passion may elicit the wrong type of response from editors that otherwise are quite happy to engage and collaborate in the editing process with others. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 00:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also note RfC's by User:Joshuaschroeder and User:Joke137 dated Nov 21st against two editors involved in this dispute:
Why do we need arbitration two days after a user's RfCs against User:Reddi has been posted by User:Joshuaschroeder? Let these run their course, and then seek mediation if still unsastisfied. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 03:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I escalated this to the RfA status so soon is because User:Reddi refused to engage me on the RfC (he struckthrough my comments about both that and this RfC) while continuing to edit articles. Subsequently, Reddi has been banned for Wikipedia:3RR and has continued to refuse to address me directly. He has gone as far as to change my posts on talkpages to say something completely different [69]. What evidence is there that he will engage me? He has explicitly claimed that he wouldn't. Joshuaschroeder 05:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Read Wikipedia's dispute resolution official policy and note that Arbitration is the last resort. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 06:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Informal Mediation
  2. Discuss with third parties (e.g. RfC)
  3. Mediation
  4. Requesting an advocate
  5. Last resort: Arbitration
Maybe you should read the evidence I presented that User:Reddi has out-and-out refused to talk and continues to revert and edit articles without using the talkpages. Arbitration is a last resort when there is evidence that other dispute resolution processes won't work. You haven't addressed the evidence I've laid out above. In fact, you've been fairly unresponsive to evidence I've laid out during this entire fiasco. --Joshuaschroeder 17:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your perceived unresponsiveness to your evidence on my part is based on the fact that nontwithstanding the lack of response by User:Reddi, you have (a) yet to wait to see if the RfC yields changes in attitude; (b) you can explore mediation if the RfC fails to produce such change ; and (c) you can request the assistance of an advocate. Only then, if all three dispute resolution processes fail to produce satisfactory results, you can submit the case to Arbitration. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 19:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have evidence that User:Reddi was not responsive to the RfC as he continued to edit articles in the same fashion. He then proceded to cross-out every attempt that I made to communicate with him. I already have other people trying to help me (one of whom User:Joke137 has decided to stop editting due to the interminable conflicts). This has been ongoing for some time, and it isn't the first time that User:Reddi's conduct has been pointed out to this body. There is plenty of evidence above showing why I resorted to this since informal advocacy seems to be getting us nowhere (see the work of Art Carlson and your half-hearted attempt at moderation) did not engage Reddi's reticence. Therefore The RfArb is what is left to appeal to. --Joshuaschroeder 20:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have said all I could in my statement above and in responding tou your comments.. Now it is up to the ArbCom to decide if to hear this case or not. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 21:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pjacobi

While only tangentially involved in this dispute with Reddi, I cannot help but give a supporting statement for Joshuaschroeder and Joke137 which have been harassed by Reddi [[70]], [[71]]. I'd be very sad if they really decide to leave because of this.

Reddi is on mission to give minority or fringe views in science greater weight in Wikipedia. This mission has its legitimate part, as we want to document all knowledge, but it also has (in my not so humble opinion) an illegitimate part, if these views start to invade the main articles in the field and are presented in way, which may mislead our readers. I've met Reddi all over since starting to edit Wikipedia, beginning with Testatika (which I voted to keep BTW), later the Tesla related stuff, recently in Motionless Electrical Generator. Mostly I had the impression of good (bad ill-directed) faith, so his behaviour in this case came rather as surprise.

The background for all this is IMHO, that there is simmering, undecided problem with clarification of NPOV in scientific topics. Is it right for Wikipedia to present the topic as seen by academic science, including minority views, but establishing the consensus view if this is quite clear. Or would this be presenting an academic POV, as Reddi never gets tired to protest? Can we rely on the scientific process, with it's visible results like academic text books, peer-reviewed journal articles, citation counts, or is this censuring?

Pjacobi 11:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

William M. Connolley 21:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC) (I endorse Pjacobi's statement (every word of it); not sure if its appropriate for me to; remove if not)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/0/0/0)

Request to re-opening Climate change dispute

[ Moved from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute James F. (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC) ][reply]

I move to reopen this case. In my opinion, User:William M. Connolley's revert parole has been imposed more out of a perceived sense of "fairness" ("Hey, it is a bad edit conflict - let's punish all!") than any real need. It does not serve any useful purpose, but instead is used by some users (in particular User:SEWilco, who has a long history of conflict with WMC) to stalk WMC and to claim "violations" even on uncontroversial and trivial edits (e.g. Kyoto protocol). See the dicussions on the Administrators Noticeboard. Let me also point out that 6 month is a very long time nowadays - I've seen people go from newbie to admin in less than 6 month, and I have seen admins being considered for bueraucrats after 5 month as admin. As far as I can tell, few of these people have contributed nearly as much as WMC.
Yes, I know this is against procedure. Yes, I know this might make me part of the case. Let it be so. --Stephan Schulz 10:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to second this appeal to lift William M. Connolley's parole. El_C 12:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are some additional people involved, particularly those affected by the remedies and those involved in implementing and enforcing the remedies.
—(SEWilco 04:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Or, you know, they could be sane. Phil Sandifer 04:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see SEW's recent behaviour examined: he has been malicious. I would also like my parole clarified (well actually I'd like it revoked). SEW's attempt to make the process so wide as to be unmanageable is absurd, and rather typical of his behaviour. William M. Connolley 22:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]
So you'd rather attack me personally than figure out why your parole was not being enforced? The process has to be wide enough to include the people who did not enforce your parole, as for some reason my aid in enforcing the ArbComm decision is being questioned. (SEWilco 05:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SEWilco. William M. Connolley 23:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

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

Regarding the 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy

Involved parties

Most prominantly User:Kevin baas, although others are involved.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

On his talk page.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
 (If not, then explain why that would be fruitless)

This dispute has been ongoing for well over a year, and is a dispute of wilful POV pushing and revert warring. Among the contributors is Kevin Baas, who narrowly escaped a previous arbcom case. The issue has appeared on the mailing list, and numerous editors have already weighed in.

Statement by Snowspinner

2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and its associated sub-articles have been drowning in original research, POV, and edit warring since their creation. So far an astonishing 50,000 words have been written on the matter, all meticulously sourced. However, the sourcing is overwhelmingly towards nonnotable and POV sources, and the articles have been tightly controlled by their creators so as to stifle any attempts at dissent, including addition of NPOV and original research tags. The result has been to keep mostrously bad work on Wikipedia that stands in violation of numerous policies. Most flagrant in this has been User:Kevin baas, who has added copyvio material to the article and persistantly refused to acknowledge the existence of an NPOV dispute, defending all sources, including things such as treating Ben Cohen, the founder of Ben and Jerry's, as a notable source on election fraud, the use of partisan blogs as a major source, and the production of original research through novel aggregation of facts. Simply put, the articles have grown unmanagably bad, and none of the tools offered to editors are making a significant effort in fixing them - I ask for the arbcom to put some rules on articles that will allow editors invested in NPOV to do the gut-editing these articles need without sparking yet another revert war. Phil Sandifer 18:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ammendment

I would think that [72], Several of [73], [74], [75] (Particularly the second), and some variation on the "cite sources" policy, although none of the listed principles apply.

Particular tactics of stonewalling and edit warring that seem to me greivously offensive are the removal of NPOV tags despite a well-stated dispute (I did not revert war this point) as with [76]. (Note that a list of every problematic citation has been on the talk page for quite a while now). Also problematic is the insistence on leaving bad information in place until it is fixed instead of removing badly sourced and POV material and reconstructing the article from there - in other words, an insistence on leaving the article in its POV and bad form until the task of creating a "perfect" article is finished. Examples of this mentality are at [77] and [78]. Further problematic is the usage of a GAO report as direct source material for the article - paragraphs were copied wholesale into the article. This is not copyvio (The GAO report is public domain), but it's still the importation of original research, and the entire thing was quoted to a Wired Magazine article instead of directly to the report.

Aggressively reverting all attempts to tag an article with a dispute tag or to remove material that is sourced to extremist blogs and ice cream moguls is a violation of policies. Since it's a dispute with quite a few editors, an article content RfC would be most appropriate, which consists of a link to the article - two VfDs on the entire block of articles and a mailing list post have clearly directed enough outside editors. As is usually the case with situations like this, the outside editors made a noble effort, got reverted, and wandered off to do other things.

That enough specific evidence of policy issues? Phil Sandifer 16:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Fred

I do not think it is primarily a content dispute - the case it most resembles is the first Lyndon LaRouche case - in fact, the central issue with the provided sources (Reliance on mutually self-referential sources from a minor and extremist point of view) is identical in both cases. But it is, to my mind, a dispute over the application of several policies - NPOV, NOR, as well as article ownership. It's certainly nothing that hasn't been dealt with by the arbcom before - see [79] [80] [81] [82] and [83] for examples of cases that have similar relationships to content. Phil Sandifer 17:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The question of the reliability of sources remains unsettled. Unreliable sources may not be used, reliable sources may be, but the location of the dividing line is uncertain. It may depend on context. Fred Bauder 19:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at [84] - at least my first post in that thread, in which I go over all 68 of the sources. Among the things being used are Green Party press releases, geocities pages, webforum threads, blog posts, and several citations to Michael Moore, all made without crediting the claims in any sort of "Michael Moore alledges" way. Phil Sandifer 20:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carbonite

The main problem with these articles (see Template:2004 U.S. presidential election controversy see also for a mostly complete list) is that they grew extremely fast and were quickly considered "owned" by a tiny group of editors. Attempts to remove even the most trivial of information are usually met with reverts and demands to justify all changes. I strongly urge the ArbCom to accept arbitration on this matter. Carbonite | Talk 19:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/3/1/0)

Ted Wilkes, Wyss, and Onefortyone

Involved parties

I request a merge to the previous case on Onefortyone seeking an addendum stating that Wyss and Ted Wilkes lay off 141. In my personal opinion they have been harassing him, and I've seen them go out of their way to revert him. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Well, this very step has been tried by Ted Wilkes it seems. He has tried to RfAr Fred Bauder over this all. I would like to get a wiki-restraining order between Onefortyone and the two others. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 1

Please be advised that I formally protest this Arbitration proceeding and reserve all rights to the recourses available without exclusion as prescribed at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy#Scope. Take note that on 02:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC), Arbitration Committee member Kelly Martin blocked me for one week, said block expiring 21:36, 23 November 2005. The decisions by Arbitration Committee member Fred Bauder, Arbitration Committee member User:Jdforrester, Arbitration Committee member Kelly Martin, and Arbitration Committee member Mindspillage to hear this case were knowingly rendered while I was under block. This action constituted a full denial of my right to a rebuttal statement while at the same time prejudicing my position by having accepted statements from others including an inaccurate 699 word Statement by party 3, said party 3 on Wikipedia:Probation. Rendering a judgment while I was under block and unable to exercise my right to due process was discriminatory and violated a precept essential to an impartial arbitration and elemental to the principle stated in Rule # 3 of Wikipedia:Arbitration policy#Rules. In accordance with Wikipedia:Arbitration policy#Requests which states "Individual Arbitrators will provide a rationale for their vote if so moved, or if specifically requested," as my first step in this initial stage of the Arbitration Committee process I hereby exercise the right to specifically request that the four Individual Arbitrators named herein provide a rationale for their vote on the Request that denied me the right to due process. - Ted Wilkes 15:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2

The filer of this RfAr has taken no steps towards any sort of dispute resolution or mediation and contrary to the template instructions, has declined to explain why he thinks such efforts would be presumably fruitless. Meanwhile, 141 is currently on probation for abusive editing practices and tactics. I was mistaken in my initial impression that he'd been prohibited from editing celebrity articles because I misinterpreted some related edit summaries before before being contacted by Fred Bauder and reading the arbcom decision for myself. After I was contacted by Fred Bauder that single time, I never touched the articles again. Aside from Fred Bauder, nobody has ever meaningfully contacted me about my behaviour towards 141 in the past. I think it's because few really care about the inclusion of unsupported gossip in celebrity articles... it is rather boring, truth be told. Anyway I'm always open to helpful suggestions in these efforts to stabilize the articles involved.

Arbcom members are respectfully requested not to conflate past issues concerning 141 with my recent attempts to explain Ted Wilkes' long and extremely unpopular RfAr against Fred Bauder on the project talk page. Given the timing of this RfAr, I'm convinced that the filer has included me in it as backhanded punishment for my commentary concerning Ted Wilkes' above-mentioned RfAr. I have informed the filer that this is a blatant, abusive breach of WP policy and that I am deeply unhappy about it. This RfAr is not necessary since any active admin or bureaucrat can contact me on my talk page and politely ask me to desist from any given behaviour and I more than likely will.

As for User:Calton, with whom I cannot remember having had any contact in the past, readers will please note that I began using metaphors (which he cites below) only after he and others had begun directing sarcasm at me on this project's talk page. I was trying to lightheartedly diffuse that by repeating back their metaphors myself in my replies. For example, Calton was the first to use the signal-to-noise-ratio metaphor, as a reference to wordiness. Later, he posted the following note to me, which I think speaks for itself.

I write short words. You not grasp sense, but throw dirt in its place. But you ask Fred and others to grasp very long words by Ted. This make no sense. This called "double standard." You use long words wrong (like "vandalism") even when people tell you it is wrong. You call people "trolls" for when they say you are wrong. This called "bad faith."
I write short words. You not grasp sense, but throw dirt in its place. I say I will write with big letters and short words. I say I will send to you so you can grasp sense. You still not grasp sense but throw more dirt, so I make more clear now. See?
Where can I mail notes to you? I will use as many stamps as I need. --Calton | Talk 04:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia's applied sourcing methodologies are not at academic levels across the encyclopedia I will no longer be participating in this project. Wyss 16:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 3

User:Ted Wilkes falsely accused me of spamdexing and childish vandalism. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone/Evidence#Spamdexing_and_Vandalism_BY_Onefortyone.7CANON_80.141 and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone/Evidence#Reply_by_Onefortyone. Significantly, user Wyss and Ted Wilkes are frequently accusing me of being a spammer, a vandal, a liar, a troll, of fabricating texts, etc. See Talk:Nick_Adams/Archive_1#Discussion_of_sources, [85], etc. etc. Ted Wilkes has repeatedly deleted paragraphs from talk and article pages. See [86], [87], [88], [89], [90]. He deleted a new paragraph written by me on Elvis's consumption of drugs calling this paragraph a "continued diatribe" and a "mass of personal opinions, snide or derogatory allusions", though he himself had suggested this section. See [91] and [92]. He even falsely claimed to have moved content from the Talk:Elvis Presley/Homosexuality page to the Talk:Elvis Presley/Sexuality page, but the content has been totally deleted by him. See [93]. Wyss accused administrator Mel Etitis of being a troll. See [94] and [95]. Both Ted Wilkes and Wyss are denigrating all books and articles I have used for my Wikipedia contributions. They are constantly reverting my edits, which are supported by several independent, and published, sources, presumably because these sources are not in line with their personal view. For instance, they have repeatedly called reputed biographer Gavin Lambert, which was one of my sources, a gossip book writer, referring to a positive Guardian review which actually said "For bitchy, witty and perceptive high-class gossip about Hollywood, there was no better source than the critic, screenwriter, novelist and biographer Gavin Lambert." See also Talk:Gavin_Lambert#Lambert_the_insightful_chronicler_of_Hollywood. Ted Wilkes repeatedly violated the 3RR in the past and was blocked for doing so. See User_talk:Ted_Wilkes#3RR_Violation. Significantly, another user stated on the Talk:Elvis Presley page: "what I find weird is that whenever someone writes something 'bad' about Elvis ( be it drug abuse, derogatory nicknames, sexual orientation or the way he died ), somehow the 'system' prevents those things from staying there for too long." See [96]. There are similar deleting tactics by User:Wyss. See [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105]. For a discussion of Wyss's deleting tactics, see Talk:Nick_Adams/Archive_1#Discussion_of_edits. The blanket reversions continue. Recently, contributions by administrator FCYTravis were also reverted by Wyss and Ted Wilkes. See [106], [107], [108] and User_talk:Ted_Wilkes#Blanket_reversions. Onefortyone 04:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am now providing diffs that show both Wyss and Wilkes of harrassing Onefortyone after arbitration closed on 3 November 2005:

Here are some diffs that show anyone attempting good faith efforts to resolve these cases of harrassment after they occurred:

On 18 November 2005, User:Wyss still accused me on his talk page of having used the rumours section of an article "as a wedge from which to seed Elvis Presley with Google-friendly keywords which would lead to tabloid books by David Brent." See [136]. Such an absurd accusation clearly shows that Wyss is not really willing to put an end to the edit war with me. Onefortyone 21:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Calton

I find Wyss' statement that he'll knock off his misapplication of Onefortyone's probation if asked by an admin to be more than a little disingenuous, considering

  • that he HAS been notified by an admin, Fred Bauder. [137]
  • that he is being notified of his misapprehension of the probation by one of the people who actually crafted it, so therefore might be expected to have first-hand knowledge of what it means.
  • that he falsely characterizes Fred Bauder's post as a threat of ArbCom, since what it actually says is I think [Onefortyone's] complaints are justified. If he took you to arbitration over this I would vote to accept the case, which is a (in my opinion accurate) characterization of Wyss's behavior and its potential consequences.

--Calton | Talk 04:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Addendum: I'll note that Wyss's addition doesn't respond to s single one of the points I raised, in addition to throwing in an out-of-context quote. He left off the preceding posts, whereby he, despite claiming that the ArbCom members are expected to plow through all 3,000 words of Ted Wilkes' request below and sift for the nuggets of meaning...

And petitioners who can't take the time to read that their statements should be 500 words in length and at least arrive in the ballpark of that should be rejected out of hand. If there's a complaint, phrase it coherently - don't expect the arbcom to be psychic. Phil Sandifer 00:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure psychic powers are part of the required skill set for reading, but maybe Ted Wilkes can edit it down when he has a chance. Wyss 00:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...he then, in groundlessly questioning my qualification to comment (...have you familiarized yourself with the background on this or are you only guessing?), he professes to not understand my simple 92-word answer (Could you please be more specific about the background materials you've checked into? Your own signal-to-noise ratio got rather high in that last post) AND its bullet-pointed follow-up.

In other words, he's being disingenuous and evasive, and it appears to be his normal operating mode. He certainly lacks any standing to complain about sarcasm, given his liberal use of it. --Calton | Talk 06:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:FuelWagon re wyss wilkes and onefortyone

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone closed on 3 November 2005. Please provide diffs that show both Wyss and Wilkes of "harrassing" onefortyone after arbitration closed. (A brief look at the statement by onefortyone shows that most diffs of alleged bad behaviour occur in September or October.) Then please provide diffs that show anyone attempting good faith efforts to resolve these alleged cases of harrassment after they occurred. No, a request for arbitration by Wyss or Wilkes against Fred Bauder does not satisfy either an example of harrassment against onefortyone or an attempt to resolve said harrassment.

Furthermore, FredBauder is far too involved with these editors to accept or reject this request for arbitration against Wyss and Wilkes. Fred should have recused himself from Wilkes's RFA against him, and he should clearly recuse himself from this one. That he accepted this RFA against Wilkes and Wyss without a single diff showing either editor actually harassing onefortyone or a single diff showing anyone actually trying to resolve the alleged behaviour is telling.

This whole thing has gotten out of hand, to the point that numerous editors have gotten emotionally involved. And I mean "numerous". And I don't mean "everyone you percieve to be the enemy here". Given a complete lack of evidence of misbehaviour, a complete lack evidence of any real attempt to resolve the alleged misbehaviour, and the acceptance by a member of arbcom who has a clear conflict of interest, I call a time out and a cooling off period. Everyone gets to go to their respective corners and chill out for a while. Because this is looking far more like someone is getting railroaded than any sort of legitimate attempt to resolve a real dispute. FuelWagon 06:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(update) user onefortyone has provided some diffs that have occurred since the arbcom case has closed. All the dates for the diffs occur in November, so I'm just going to provide the diffs with just the date of the month in them. This is what it looks like when laid out sequentially.

evidence of disputed behaviour: 88899910101012121213

attempts to resove dispute: 11 1113131313131313131313 16

So, pretty much all the diffs of disputed behaviour occurred before anyone attempted to resolve the dispute. The two attempts to resolve on the 11th [138] [139] were both by the same person, JackofOz, which doesn't meet the RfC requrement and they're fairly indirect attempts. Assuming you count those attempts, you're looking at a total of four diffs of alleged harrassment that occurred on or after the 11th 12121213. I don't know how much of a stickler arbcom is, but four edits doesn't seem to warrant their attention. The serious attempts to resolve the dispute seem to have occurred on teh 13th, when Kelly Martin weighs in and clarifies an arbcom ruling 13 (Wyss or Wilkes or both cited the arbcom ruling in some of their edits that are cited as alleged harrassment. I don't know what the ruling was, but it would seem that whatever Kelly told them, plus multiple attempts to resolve the issue, cleared things up and resolved whatever problem existed). There are no diffs of alleged harrassment provided that occur after the 13th. Personally, I would declare that the attempts to resolve the dispute on the 13th, did in fact, resolve the dispute. Can we move on now? FuelWagon 22:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

EffK, formerly known as Famekeeper

Involved parties

This editor has been engaging in an extended effort to use Wikipedia to present a theory of Roman Catholic Church complicity in and active support of Adolf Hitler. This effort has involved personal attacks on other editors, accusations of bad faith (including that other editors are acting as agents of the Vatican), and using article talk pages as a soapbox.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Defendant's response shows that he is aware of the request. Robert McClenon 12:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • Efforts by affected editors to resolve situation:

Several editors who wished to edit the articles on Pope Pius XI, Pope Pius XII, Ludwig Kaas, and Reichskonkordat constructively began requesting the defendant to refrain from personal attacks and to refrain from using Wikipedia as a soapbox, beginning in May 2005. A user conduct Request for Comments was posted in July 2005. The link has been deleted from the user conduct RfC page, but the RfC itself is available at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Famekeeper. The RfC summarizes the previous steps that were taken prior to posting the RfC. Robert McClenon also suggested mediation. Famekeeper then asked Wyss to act as a mediator. After some effort to mediate, Wyss concluded that the mediation was not working.

  • Efforts by the user in question to resolve situation:

The user in question, as User:Famekeeper posted several messages to the talk page of User:Jimbo Wales, asking for his intervention to defend the integrity of the Wikipedia against User:Str1977 and others. On 4 and 5 September 2005, Jimbo Wales advised User:Famekeeper to leave Wikipedia voluntarily because he (Famekeeper) appeared to be the sort of user who would otherwise be banned. He did leave Wikipedia for about two months, but then returned as EffK. On 11 November 2005, the user in question posted a request on the RfAr talk page (not on this RfAr article page, and so not a formal RfAr) to ban User:Str1977. The requests by the user in question for the ArbCom or Jimbo Wales to take action show that any measures short of arbitration have been exhausted.

Statement by party 1

The RfC contains a summary of the conduct in question.

Also see the following diff of a frivolous request by the editor in question to ban another editor: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=27989592&oldid=27748413

Update by party 1

The defendant is posting messages to my talk page and the talk page of Str1977 that I consider to be harassment. The following is the most recent such: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon&diff=29160780&oldid=29142597

Statement by party 2

Recent expansion of the charge warrants briefest expansion of my rebuttal . I say that accomodation of Hitler (even by the RC Church ), is not POV [[140]], but NPOV history . I have only shock , not POV . The POV as alleged is actually church canon law[[141]] ,[[142]]. The user's Mclenon and Str1977 , are intellectually dishonest in claiming against me. [[143]] ,EffK 00:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC) Concurrent to this RfA I [[144]] [[145]] [[146]] my sole disputant,[[147]],[148]][[149]], [[150]],[[151]] .[[152]] ,[[153]],[[154]] ,[[155]],[[156]] ,[[157]] ,User:Str1977 ,[[158]] - [[159]],[[160]],[[161]], and to Robert Mcclenon ( talk )(false [[162]],[[163]] mediator [[164]],[[165]],[[166]] ,[[167]],[[168]] , [[169]] ,[[170]] ,[[171]] , [[172]]. See :[[173]] , updated talk at [[174]][reply]

McClenon does not understand ,[[175]],[[176]],[[177]][[178]],[[179]], [[180]],[[181]],[[182]][[183]],[[184]][[185]],[[186]],[[187]][[188]], [[189]] the sources [[190]] of my bulk contributions [[191]][[192]],[[193]],[[194]],[[195]],http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Weimar_Republic&action=edit&section=2,[[196]], and WP corrections , [[197]] ,[[198]][[199]], [[200]] , nor my real disputant : [[201]][[202]],[[203]] ,[[204]][[205]]([[206]] ,, McC thinks or pretends that I represent a vandalous attacker upon the church, when I bring only published source [[207]] ,[[208]],[[209]]

I have never wanted to give an email to WP , and so cookie-loss means I changed name variations.

As to Str1977 , pages Reichskonkordat, Weimar Republic and Centre Party Germany for today 17 November 2005 , will show that an anon & Str1977 , after a 3/4 year edit-war cf: [[210]] ,[[211]], has accepted the gist of my sources [[212]] ,and NPOV [[213]]. I believe that WP has finally/or never enabled me to correct the Str1977 ,and , after irksome discourse (filibustering to McClenon) I repaired some serious fault in WP .

Str1977 by present allowance of my edits which he consistently removed (in provocative manner [[214]] ,[[215]] ,[[216]],[[217]], [[218]]) over 12 months , the same day that Mcclenon starts this RfA , proves the RfA a form of ad hominem ,illustrating the WP faith problem[[219]] better than my supposed crime.

This is McClenon's second case against me (RfC) & I signed , a day late an RfC against him as lying bully . I take no pleasure here [[220]],[[221]] , nor enjoy intellectual provocation and denial of source by means solely of the two users' interpretation [[222]] .

I believe this RfA is last ditch attempt to remove the accusations made by the world [[223]] at large [[224]], [[225]] , [[226]] from Wikipedia , following from my demands that [[227]] ,the opposition ( my good friend nevertheless [[228]], [[229]], Str1977 ]] put up or shut up . The new allowance of my edits to remain within the above articles , is the result.

My blocker ,[[230]],[[231]],[[232]],[[233]],[[234]]/[[235]][[236]],[[237]],[[238]] has always been Str1977, who hopefully has stopped the denialism [[239]][[240]] [[241]] . I was suggested by Jimbo to leave , I did for 2 months, WP deteriorated as I proved and I came back because three users , one Robert McClenon ,started posting "FK research" , my location by country , and shared accusatory condemnation of me in WP, calling me a paranoid schizophrenic conspiracy theorist with writing disability [[242]].

All these users should be admonished .

This [[243]] [[244]] , thorniest historical issue is defended here by actual 'denialism [[[,[[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reichskonkordat&diff=next&oldid=27703162][[245]],[[246]], [[247]] ,[[248]] , of source [[249]] ,[[250]][[251]],[[252]] something [[253]][[254]] reflected in greater cyberspace [[255]] . I openly claimed recently there is not one political error I have made so far[[256]] . I unknowingly concurrently of this RfA sought an apology from McClenon and congratulated Str1977 on final good sense in accepting my NPOV [[257]][[258]]/[[259]] ,[[260]],[[261]]. Links may follow. EffK 01:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Caveat

At the moment let me just note

  • that EffK's statement about our agreement are wrong. Some things he has posted I have never disputed, while other things I continue to dispute. To say we have reached an agreement or that I have accepted the gist is untrue, unless he has suddenly withdrawn his theories. Hence I place doubt upon the congratulations.
  • that EffK is far from having made no error (I don't know what "political" means here
  • that I was not EffK/Famekeeper's sole disputant, though the main one. Other editor, e.g. John Kenney were involved with him as well.
  • that I meant no harm in posting "FK Research" - it was basically a reaction to his inquisitiveness about personal details of other editors (Robert McClenon in particular), his own seclusiveness in that matter and his insistence on being a native speaker.

I don't know whether this is the right place to post this. If it isn't, please drop me a line and show where I should place this. Str1977 10:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/0/1/0)

Requests for Clarification

Checkuser Awilliamson

From WP:RFM/JoA:

User:Durova: We seem to have broken the deadlock and the article is much improved. I'd like to solicit Admin's help for one continuing problem. Switisweti and I are convinced that AWilliamson is still damaging the article via anonymous IP addresses. These range from aggressive POV edits to outright vandalism.

-St|eve 07:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Instantnood

This is still not closed, but I'm wanting the ArbComs input on course of action. It's been my assertion that Instantnood is a POV warrior for Hong Kong independence. It's mostly the ArbComs deference to not rule on content. In the current case, Fred Bauder initially proposed a fact that Instantnood's edits sometimes questioned the soveriegnty of the People's Republic of China over Hong Kong - then he removed himself from that same fact. In our latest fracas, List of road-rail bridges, I have placed Hong Kong as a subsection of China. Instantnood reverts it, wanting Hong Kong to appear as an independent country. The last two edit summaries make it clear:

Me: (rv instantnoods insistence on Hong Kong as an independent country is POV.) [262]
'Nood: (a section ≠ it is an independent sovereign state) [263]

What's that say about Hong Kong? it is an independent sovereign state

Now, judging stricly by behavior, I may be seen as edit warring as much as 'Nood. Fine, and I'll take my lumps of being on probation with him. Clearly though, something must be done about his POV editing about Hong Kong. Some statement must be made that Hong Kong is not an independent country and it is appropriately listed as part of China, the country to which it belongs. SchmuckyTheCat 16:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I said in the edit summary "a section ≠ it is an independent sovereign state". The fact is that Hong Kong and Macao are not and have never been independent sovereign states. Nobody involved in the dispute has ever advocated their independence or secession. What is disputed and debatable is how to acknowledge their special status. I believe with several months of exchanges SchmuckyTheCat is pretty familiar with what is disputed and my position. I'd like to invite members of the ArbCom to take his deliberate inaccurate presentation of information and misinterpretation of my position into consideration. Thank you. — Instantnood 17:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for putting words in your mouth. However, edit summaries fail to show unicode and html entities correctly - at least on my browser.
The issue is still there - you're presenting Hong Kong in a list of independent countries when it is not. SchmuckyTheCat 23:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the similar lists are lists by countries, not lists by independent sovereign states, although in some cases there're less than a handful of non-sovereign ones. Thanks to its size of population and economy, it's not surprising to find Hong Kong to be the only non-sovereign territory on such lists. — Instantnood 06:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zen-master race and intelligence ban clarification/justification question

The admin Ryan Delaney has banned me (I am on probation) from the race and intelligence article for adding the {npov} template to a highly and fundamentally disputed article (and area of research). A quick look at the talk page will show the article and area of research have been accused (with citations) of unscientific and racism inducing methodologies. It also has as its foundation IQ testing which is itself highly disputed on numerous points.

Another admin has already poitned out to Ryan that (from Wikipedia:Probation) "A ban may be imposed only for good cause which shall be documented in a section set aside for that purpose in the arbitration case. Banning without good cause or in bad faith shall be grounds for censure, restriction, or removal of administrative access". The only explanation Ryan offered was in a check in summary which labeled my action as a "disruption", I challenge Ryan or anyone to show exactly how adding an {npov} template to an article that is (fundamentally) disputed in good faith is a "disruption"? For recent discussion of this see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zen-master#Impositions_of_a_ban_under_the_probation_remedy. There seems to be a highly coordinated effort to censor, mischaracterize or lessen fundamental criticisms of "race" and "intelligence" "research". zen master T 18:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have a history of disruptively adding permanent {npov} templates to articles until you get your way. This is part of a pattern. Jayjg (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A quick look at the talk page will show other editors agree with me that the race and intelligence article is fundamentally disputed. Please assume good faith and investigate this issue. The criteria here is not about me getting my "way", the issue is Ryan Delaney and other admins repeatedly trying to deny the existence of criticisms of what appears to be a racism inducing article, aren't you at all concerned about that possibility? How can adding {npov} be "disruptive" if an in good faith dispute exists? zen master T 19:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While there are legitimate issues with respect to the framing of the issues, your way of struggling regarding the framing of issues has been found to be disruptive, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zen-master#Disruptive_edits. Fred Bauder 20:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maoririder and the current Motion to Close

I looked on the /Proposed Decision page for Maoririder, and it seems odd to me that there is a MtC when there is currently nothing (only templates) in the "Proposed remedies" and "Proposed enforcement" sections. Can someone explain this?

It started that way but now Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Maoririder/Proposed_decision#Mentorship has been added. Fred Bauder 20:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser Systemworks

Systemworks seems to be a Lightbringer sock, violating the terms of his RFAr probation prohibiting the editing of Freemasonry-related articles. I've blocked the user as a disruption-only sock account in any case; could someone with checkuser see if it is Lightbringer's sock? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Same ISP, same traceroute up to the last hop or two. Likely, but not certain, match; either the same person or someone who lives nearby. Kelly Martin (talk) 10:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we wouldn't wanna repeat that Agriculture/The Chief thing, but still, there's so much circumstantial evidence it's just too much of a coincidence, and especially after a closed case. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 10:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are arbitration decisions to be taken seriously in climate change dispute?

  • Please confirm to Admins whether ArbComm decisions are to be enforced, specifically for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute#Remedies. Please advise whether the bans and restrictions are to be enforced.
  • Please advise how violations should be reported. Usually users are supposed to report what they notice. I have been blocked due to reporting this no-Talk violation by User:SlimVirgin after having been invited by same to post additional violation reports to WP:AN/I (and such was noted in the report). I've made only 13 reports of his most obvious violations (about one a day is too fast for admins accusing me of spamming).
    • Inform Admins whether there is a statute of limitations on reporting violations. I did not see a /Precedent. Does it make sense that violations which are noticed during the term of the parole be ignored? ("You paid the court fine with a forged check, but we did not catch you until half the term of your parole had expired…")
    • Existing instructions on ArbComm and Admin pages should be clarified for reporting violations. There are limitations which make it difficult to find where to report violations.
    • I suggest that you consider having the Wikipedia:Mentorship Committee supervise the climate change dispute's remedy restrictions.
    • I suggest that you consider having William M. Connolley report his past violations to the ArbComm, in two types of violations: those for which he did not edit the Talk page for each revert, and those for which he did not (or may not) have met the content requirements for the required Talk page entry.
      • The others for whom remedies have been stated should also be required to do same, but their Contributions are much simpler to evaluate because of bans and a lack of activity.

— (SEWilco 16:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

  • The most disruptive consequence of WMC's parole violations seems to be SEWilco's response on WP:AN/3RR, WP:AN/I, and now here. Wikipedia is not a penal colony; if WMC's actions didn't upset anyone enough to prompt a request for admin enforcement until three weeks or a month after the fact.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Epstein

It seems that he is still not following punctuation spacing rules (based on a check of his recent edits), yet it seems that no block has been imposed on him yet. Can someone check this out?

Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=29427126"