Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
copyedit
removing lvl 1 header
Line 162: Line 162:
In 1999, the UN issued the resolution 1244, which put Kosovo under UN protectorate. UN Mission in Kosovo, then issued the Consitutional Framework, which is the provisional constitution of Kosovo, which defines Kosovo as "an entity under interim international administration which, with its people, has unique historical, legal, cultural and linguistic attributes." Presently Kosovo is a UN Protectorate, both Serbs and Albanians have their claims (Serb want it to be part of their territory, Albanians want it to be an independent state). We need to mention both, but for as long as Kosovo is a UN protectorate, that is the most important attribute. I think approaches 1, 3 and 4 are biased. Kosovo sees itslef as independent, Serbia sees it as part of its territory, the world sees it as a UN protectorate whose status will be resolved by the end of the year. We all know that the status will be independence. [[User:Dardanv|Dardan]] 10:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
In 1999, the UN issued the resolution 1244, which put Kosovo under UN protectorate. UN Mission in Kosovo, then issued the Consitutional Framework, which is the provisional constitution of Kosovo, which defines Kosovo as "an entity under interim international administration which, with its people, has unique historical, legal, cultural and linguistic attributes." Presently Kosovo is a UN Protectorate, both Serbs and Albanians have their claims (Serb want it to be part of their territory, Albanians want it to be an independent state). We need to mention both, but for as long as Kosovo is a UN protectorate, that is the most important attribute. I think approaches 1, 3 and 4 are biased. Kosovo sees itslef as independent, Serbia sees it as part of its territory, the world sees it as a UN protectorate whose status will be resolved by the end of the year. We all know that the status will be independence. [[User:Dardanv|Dardan]] 10:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


==== Statement by Kushtrimxh - Kosovo is a Unrecognised State ====
==== Statement by Kushtrimxh ====
The Assembly of Kosovo declared Kosovo a state on 2 July 1990. The People of Kosovo in 1992 voted with 99,8% for independence in 1992. From 1992 until 1999 Kosovo lived under severe Serbian occupation. The consequences are some 15,000 killed, 120,000 burned down houses, 3,000 people still missing and instilling of intercommunal hatred. In 1999 Kosovo was put provisionally under UN protection. This is provisionally. The talks for the status of Kosovo have started and are anticipated to end in November with the recognision of Kosovo independence. The Kosovo independence exists! We are not inventing it. We need to put the Kosovo map, as an independet state, we need to put the Kosovo flag proposed by late President Rugova. The intro should state:
The Assembly of Kosovo declared Kosovo a state on 2 July 1990. The People of Kosovo in 1992 voted with 99,8% for independence in 1992. From 1992 until 1999 Kosovo lived under severe Serbian occupation. The consequences are some 15,000 killed, 120,000 burned down houses, 3,000 people still missing and instilling of intercommunal hatred. In 1999 Kosovo was put provisionally under UN protection. This is provisionally. The talks for the status of Kosovo have started and are anticipated to end in November with the recognision of Kosovo independence. The Kosovo independence exists! We are not inventing it. We need to put the Kosovo map, as an independet state, we need to put the Kosovo flag proposed by late President Rugova. The intro should state:


Revision as of 11:23, 31 August 2006

Shortcut

A 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 (ArbCom).

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Wikipediocracy-related conduct   21 October 2024 4/1/2
Marine 69-71   26 October 2024 0/0/0
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 10 Oct 2024 24 Oct 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) Motion (orig. case) 17 August 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and (exceptionally) to summarily review new evidence and update the findings and decisions of a previous case. Review is likely to be appropriate if later events indicate the original ruling on scope or enforcement was too limited and does not adequately address the situation, or if new evidence suggests the findings of fact were significantly in error.

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. If your case is accepted for arbitration, the arbitrator or clerk will create an evidence page that you can use to provide more detail. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person against whom you lodge a complaint.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arbitrators' votes to accept/reject/recuse/other. Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after four accept votes are cast. When a case is opened, a notice that includes a link to a newly created evidence page will be posted to each participant's talk page. See the Requests section of the arbitration policy page for details.

This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Please do not open cases; only an Arbitrator or Clerk may do so.

See also



How to list cases

Under the Current requests section below:

  • Click the "[edit]" tab on the right of the screen appearing above the section break line;
  • Copy the full formatting template (text will be visible in edit mode), omitting 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

Kosovo

Initiated by Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) at 10:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Main article involved: Kosovo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (protection log)
Talk page involved: Talk:Kosovo (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Kosovo|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Other article involved: Kosovo war (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Other article involved: Template:Kosovo-InfoBox (edit | [[Talk:Template:Kosovo-InfoBox|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Other article involved: Template:Kosovo (edit | [[Talk:Template:Kosovo|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Involved parties

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

A Request for Arbitration surrounding the long-ongoing edit wars on Kosovo and related articles.

Statement by Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr)

Although instigated by disputes over article content, this dispute has developed into much more than just a content dispute, with lots of allegations of POV pushing, allegations of (extreme) nationalism and even allegations of admin abuse towards the only administrator (ChrisO) involved in this dispute.

In this summary I will not provide evidence towards specific users (and examples of edits I give are not to be taken as such), but rather explain the severe problems and disputes that have surrounded the Kosovo article (and some related articles) over the last months. Other users involved in this dispute will undoubtly present their views on this matter as well as evidence making their case.

The content dispute behind the problems is about the current political status of Kosovo. For months there have been discussions and edit wars whether Kosovo should be called (in these or similar words, since many variations have been proposed and used) a province in southern Serbia [24] or an entity under interim international administration [25] or a territory located in the south-east Europe [26]. Related to that, there have been disputes over whether the main map displayed in the infobox of the article should display just Kosovo [27], or Kosovo as a part of Serbia [28].

Even though in both disputes attempts at compromise have been made (e.g. adding the sentence While it is legally a part of Serbia it has been administered by the United Nations since the end of the 1999 Kosovo War. [29] and suggesting a different map [30], the revert wars and incivilty have continued between people supporting different opinions.

What makes this more than a simple content dispute between a few users is the large number of registered editors involved in the edit wars, who are divided over groups supporting different views on the matter. Some editors have admitted to have either an Albanian/Kosovar or a Serbian view, whereas others claim neutrality in the dispute. Back and forth people from all three groups accuse each other often of having a strong (nationalist) POV (a few recent examples: [31][32][33]) and several accusations of admin abuse have been made as well (one example:[34]).

Several people have been blocked in the past over these issues (e.g. [35][36][37]), but the edit-warring has continued, with the same editors, but also with new editors. The reason I am now applying for Abitration for this issue is that in my opinion the article should be put under Article probation, so that all editors making disruptive edits (with whatever POV they have) can be dealt with more swiftly. The article has been protected quite a few times (including a full protection that lasted almost a month [38]. The large number of editors involved, however, makes it very difficult to stabilize the article by restricting or blocking specific editors, especially given the fact that most editors are editing in good faith, since they all see their opinion as NPOV.

My request is that Kosovo be put under article probation and that this probation should be enforced by an appointed administrator who has not been involved in editing this article in the past. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Dardan - Kosovo Is a UN Protectorate

As some editors have pointed out, the present article presents Kosovo as if it were a pamphlet of the Serbian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The article needs to present Kosovo impartially. The conflict has been between a Serb nationalist point of view and an impartial point of view.

There are four approaches in which Kosovo is seen: 1. As a province of Serbia 2. As a UN protectorate 3. As a state (albeit unrecognized yet) 4. As Albanian territory disputed with Serbia

In 1999, the UN issued the resolution 1244, which put Kosovo under UN protectorate. UN Mission in Kosovo, then issued the Consitutional Framework, which is the provisional constitution of Kosovo, which defines Kosovo as "an entity under interim international administration which, with its people, has unique historical, legal, cultural and linguistic attributes." Presently Kosovo is a UN Protectorate, both Serbs and Albanians have their claims (Serb want it to be part of their territory, Albanians want it to be an independent state). We need to mention both, but for as long as Kosovo is a UN protectorate, that is the most important attribute. I think approaches 1, 3 and 4 are biased. Kosovo sees itslef as independent, Serbia sees it as part of its territory, the world sees it as a UN protectorate whose status will be resolved by the end of the year. We all know that the status will be independence. Dardan 10:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kushtrimxh

The Assembly of Kosovo declared Kosovo a state on 2 July 1990. The People of Kosovo in 1992 voted with 99,8% for independence in 1992. From 1992 until 1999 Kosovo lived under severe Serbian occupation. The consequences are some 15,000 killed, 120,000 burned down houses, 3,000 people still missing and instilling of intercommunal hatred. In 1999 Kosovo was put provisionally under UN protection. This is provisionally. The talks for the status of Kosovo have started and are anticipated to end in November with the recognision of Kosovo independence. The Kosovo independence exists! We are not inventing it. We need to put the Kosovo map, as an independet state, we need to put the Kosovo flag proposed by late President Rugova. The intro should state:

Kosovo is a state waiting to be internationally recognized, presently under UN protectorate. While Serbia disputes it, Kosovo will be independent by the end of the year.

In this way we recognise all sides, but of course we need to see things from the Kosovo point of view, because btw. those are the people that live there.kushtxh 11:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ...

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

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

Honda S2000

Initiated by — AKADriver ☎ at 15:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Comments regarding this request for arbitration have been added to:

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • A request for comment was posted approximately two months ago: [44]
  • Mediation was requested from the Cabal:

[45]

  • A cabal mediator suggested arbitration upon reviewing the temperament of the parties involved: [46]

The case is a revert war regarding the encyclopedic value of criticism of a sports car.

Statement by AKADriver

My position is that the "Criticism" section of this article is unencyclopedic editorial, and presents a biased POV by only representing negative opinions. Any attempts to alter the content, add positive opinions, shorten the section to improve the flow and readability of the article, add POV-check flags, or remove the section are reverted within hours by SpinyNorman alone. Consensus built by the RFC seems to indicate all editors except for SpinyNorman support shortening or removing the section.

The article's history [47] shows frequent reverts of this nature: [48] [49] [50] [51]

Zunaid condensed the section and removed the offending content following the RFC. [52] This version is acceptable to me, even though there is no precedent for criticism in an automotive article.

Statement by Jsw663 (cabal mediator)

After reviewing the case history, I thought about mediating. However, given that the user SpinyNorman has been imposing his version of his edit repeatedly over some time already, as well as his history being chequered by bans, as well as his statements on the discussion page, suggest that mediation will be useless, especially as others have agreed to compromise (e.g. AKADriver agreed to compromise on a shorter criticsm section, even though he didn't like such a section). Moreover, SpinyNorman is unwilling to participate in any form of mediation or compromise of his written work (see the talk page of the entry concerned). Informal mediation has been tried but has been completely ineffective. I thought that the arb. committee would be in a better place to judge for themselves whether penalties, sanctions and/or just a warning would be most appropriate in this case. (After all, only arbitrators can effect binding decisions and take more serious steps). Thanks. Jsw663 17:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I realize that the ArbCom primarily resolves interpersonal disputes rather than that over content only, but this has spilled over into a SpinyNorman versus every other editor on the Honda S2000 page. How can content be resolved until the ArbCom decides whether SpinyNorman's persistent and constant edits are fair (ie just defending his views) or unfair (ie going overboard in making the page one essentially written by SpinyNorman instead of a genuinely encyclopaedic page). Jsw663 20:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SpinyNorman

This case seems to be about the attempt by a handful of disgruntled POV-pushers to censor references to legitimate criticism of the vehicle by the motoring press. Despite repeated attempts to maintain balance in the article that are thwarted by various editors who will tolerate no criticism, they have resorted to escalating this issue in an attempt to get their POV enforced by inducing the arbcom to impose it by some sort of executive fiat. Personally, I would ask the arbcom to reject the case as a waste of their time --SpinyNorman 18:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Also, the claim that I have been unwilling to compromise is patently absurd. I have accepted many valid concerns about the content of the criticism section and modified considerably - as well as acceppting considerable modification of it by others since it was originally added. It is true that I won't accept the removal of legitimate criticism, but that's not being uncompromising, that's resisting the imposition of bias. To paraphrase Barry Goldwater... compromising with POV-pushers is no virtue and being uncompromising in the defense of objectivity is no vice. --SpinyNorman 19:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

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

Gillberg affair

Initiated by Daphne A at 08:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

main article: Christopher Gillberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
other article involved: Gillberg's Gothenburg study (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
other article involved: DAMP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • Denis Diderot: [53]
  • Pia L: [54]
  • Fred Chess: [55]
  • Article Talk (unrequired, but perhaps helpful): [56]


Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

I requested mediation on August 1st, both on the Talk page of the main article[57] and on the Talk page of Denis Diderot.[58] At this point, User:Fred Chess intervened, protecting the article and putting up a Request for Comment.[59] On August 10th, there had been no real progress and little substantive responses to my statements from Denis Diderot; so Fred Chess removed the protection.[60] There were more edit wars; and as before, discussion on the Talk page resolved little. On August 19th, I again asked the other parties to agree to mediation.[61] At this point, User:SandyGeorgia got involved, making some suggestions about how to resolve the dispute, which also had little success. I repeated my request to agree to mediation on August 23rd.[62] Denis Diderot made no response to this, though he did afterwards respond to other issues (raised by another editor) on the Talk page;[63] so he must have seen my request. Pia L did respond to my request: she claimed that there was "no dispute" and she then removed the POV sticker from the article.[64] In conclusion, my repeated requests to agree to mediation have either been ignored or treated rhetorically. (Many of the points that I raised on the Talk page were met similarly.)


Statement by Daphne A

BACKGROUND. Christopher Gillberg is a psychiatrist in Sweden. He did a study of 141 children, which lasted many years. (The study suggested increasing the use of psychiatric drugs on children.) Gillberg was alleged to have fabricated much of the data in the study. The study data contains personal, private information about the children, and Gillberg had made promises to all concerned that it would remain confidential. A court, though, ordered Gillberg to make the data available to the two people who made the allegations. Gillberg's wife and two other co-workers then destroyed the data, saying that they had acted to maintain confidentiality. Investigation of the allegations was thereafter infeasible.
____________________

Briefly, I am asserting that the versions of the articles written by Denis Diderot and Pia L have an excessively-positive POV. There are many things in the articles that exemplify this. I list only a few examples here.

1. The articles Christopher Gillberg and Gillberg's Gothenburg study each claim that the "accusations [of data fabrication] were investigated by the Ethics Council" at Gillberg's university. This claim has also been made in the media. Because of that, the four people who were on the Council at the time published a letter (in 2005) saying "the question about scientific fraud never has been investigated". The letter also explicitly criticized those people who said otherwise. Thus, the claim in the Wikipedia article is false. (More details about what the Ethics Committee did and did not do is here. How Denis Diderot and Pia L talk their way around this is here.)

2. The fraud allegations, data destruction, etc. have come to be called the "Gillberg affair" in Sweden; there have tens of stories in the major newspapers, TV programs, etc. about this. The affair has also been the subject of two stories in the British Medical Journal. Gillberg has not received anywhere near such extensive media coverage for anything else. Thus, if someone outside Gillberg's field of research in psychiatry has heard of Gillberg, the affair is what very likely sparked their interest. For that reason, the Introduction of the article on Christopher Gillberg should discuss the affair. The current Intro states only that "Gillberg is also known for his concern about the confidentiality of medical records and his role in a related controversy"; that seems to me to be far too bland and extremely-positive POV. Compare that with the above BACKGROUND paragraph, or the last paragraph of the Intro that I wrote here.

3. Gillberg was awarded a prize for his work (Philips prize). The prize was awarded in part because Gillberg is "well-known in promoting important medical ethical questions in order to defend patients' and participants' personal integrity rights in regard to research studies" (quoted from the official prize announcement). This is a clear reference to Gillberg's refusal to allow the study data to be investigated. Gillberg was later criminally convicted (by a Swedish court) for refusing to hand over the data. I believe that if the article is going to mention the prize, then it should also mention the reasons for which the prize was awarded (the other reason was his work generally in neuropsychiatry and pediatric psychiatry). Denis Diderot and Pia L do not want the quoted reason mentioned in the article. I have tried to discuss this issue in Talk more than once; see especially the discussion here.

4. The article states that "When the study participants were asked if they would be prepared to have the data released, all but one family refused" and that "the participants of the study were strongly opposed" to investigation. Again there is more to this. Gillberg told the participants that if they agreed to the investigation, then all their personal data would become public, and so available to reporters, their worst enemies, etc. Of course participants would be against that. But Gillberg was misleading: the court actually authorized only two people to scrutinize the data, and those people would have been required to sign confidentiality agreements. I pointed this out in Talk.[65] If the article is going to mention what the study participants thought of making the data available, then what Gillberg misleadingly told them should be described. (I did not try to make the requisite change to the article, because by this time it was clear that such a change would be quickly reverted; the false reply that I got in Talk[66] essentially confirmed this.)

5. Gillberg has also done much work on things other than his Gothenburg study. In particular, he developed the concept of "DAMP". The main article has a short section on this. I have written a separate article on DAMP; the last version that I saved is here. The impression given by the main article is that DAMP is an important advance in psychiatry. As my version of the separate article makes clear, that impression has been agreed to by almost no one other than Gillberg's co-workers and is seriously misleading.

I could give other examples, especially because changes to entrench the POV have been accumulating while I requested agreement to mediation (particularly during the past few days), but this statement is already long. My purpose here is to establish that the other parties are trying for an extreme POV. I believe that the above does so.

—Daphne A 08:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Someone has pointed out to me that ArbCom does not resolve disputes over content. Before filing my request, I read Requests for arbitration/How to present a case which states that ArbCom cares "much more about product than process". I am not a newbie, but neither am I an expert Wikipedian, and I interpreted "product" as meaning article; for that reason I worded my request to focus on the article/content.

But I am confused. Consider example 1 in my statement (where the article claims that an investigation was done, but the people who supposedly did it published a letter saying that they didn't). So I changed the article to say they didn't. My change got reverted. And again. Discussion on the Talk page lead nowhere. A RfComment lead nowhere. My repeated requests to agree to mediation were ignored or rejected. So how can the dispute be resolved?

Example 2 is similar: edit wars, etc., and requests to agree to mediation ignored or rejected. (For links to evidence regarding mediation requests, see above section "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried".) Again, how can the dispute be resolved?

Example 3 is similar. Example 4 did not have an edit war, because by this time I saw little point. For example 5, I did not try much.

Perhaps two other examples will help illustrate.

6. For Gillberg's Gothenburg study, Denis Diderot added many unsourced statements. I reverted the change [04:41, 23 August 2006], and politely explained in Talk that the statements needed sources [67]. Denis then reverted my revert, and ignored what I had said in Talk.

7. A question arose as to whether the Swedish term Etiska rådet should be translated as "Ethics committee" or "Ethics council". I preferred the former and explained why in Talk.[68] Again my change got reverted and what I said in Talk was wholly ignored.

These examples are smaller, but part of the pattern.

—Daphne A 20:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Addendum. I accept the criticisms by Pia L of my edits where she cites these: [69], [70], [71]. (Those edits, though, are from mid July, and the errors have since been corrected.) Also, for my earlier responses to the first three criticisms by Fred Chess, please see the link that Fred provided.  —Daphne A 14:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Denis Diderot

The dispute began when I saw some potentially defamatory claims in the article about Christopher Gillberg. The claims were contradicted by the sources and appeared to be false. I therefore removed them immediately per WP:BLP.[72] I thought it was a simple mistake, but the other editor, Daphne A, restored the claims. After a very brief discussion,[73][74][75][76] Daphne accused me of being "dishonest" and began talking about "mediation/arbitration".[77]. I tried to break down the argument into separate issues to make discussion more fruitful.[78]. Daphne A would not continue the discussion at this point and stated that she requested mediation/arbitration.[79]Fred Chess intervened and urged Daphne A to continue the discussion.[80]. She appeared to reconsider.[81].

Unfortunately, during this time, Daphne kept adding the same claims to the lead.[82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90] (The last two reverts were probably not by Daphne herself). I asked for a temporary protection[91], but Fred Chess independently protected the article before anyone had responded to my request.

In order to resolve the dispute Fred Chess put up a request for comment [92] [93] This didn't help much, but after some time, we received input from two editors who had not previously been involved, Pia L and SandyGeorgia. They were both very helpful.

A difficulty is that Daphne disagrees with other editors about even simple things, such as whether a press release is a press release, and she often has her own interpretation, not only of what the sources say, but also of fundamental Wikipedia policies. I have tried various approaches in the discussion, but they have all failed with Daphne saying things like "I don't think this line of discussion is productive"[94] or not replying at all. This makes it rather challenging to work with her, but I had still hoped that we could resolve the issues on the talk page. (See the discussion on the talk page and here)

Almost all Daphne's edits to these articles have introduced criticism of Gillberg. Some of the claims have been false, some misleading, and some merely unbalanced. In order to deal with all the issues in an NPOV manner, Fred Chess suggested that we create a new article for the debates and controversies. Unfortunately, none of us have had the time to do much work on this other article yet. Since Daphne sees her extremely negative view as the view with "integrity", she apparently feels that other editors are biased and "have an excessively-positive POV". Looking at the history of the talk page and other factors, it seems that Leif Elinder and Daphne A are trying to use Wikipedia to continue Elinder's "campaign" against Gillberg. Perhaps this need not be a problem if they respect basic Wikipedia policies. But I'm a bit pessimistic right now.--Denis Diderot 17:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pia L

One of Daphne A's first contributions to the article was to remove all fact request tags inserted by user SandyGeorgia, here, without adding references, and to introduce allegations of fraud [95], a statement that "investigations into misconduct" was taking place when the records were destroyed [96], and a statement that all of Gillberg's research material had been deliberately destroyed by Gillberg. All these statements were demonstrated to be negated by news reports in mainstream media and court records, and the results of the fact checks were presented on the discussion page. At a later point, Daphne A also introduced the statement "Gillberg initially claimed that this was done without his knowledge or permission, but the Swedish courts did not believe this." [97]. The problem, obviously, is that she cannot have any knowledge about what the court was "believing", as no charges against Gillberg were ever filed in regards to the destruction of the files. (And he never appears to have changed from an "initial" to a "later" statement, as the same answers seem to have been given to the Swedish and British press.) Daphne A also introduced an external link labeled "Discussion about Gillberg fraud allegation" [98], leading to a debate page with 6 letters to the editor (called Rapid Responses) from detractors--including two letters from people involved in a legal dispute with Gillberg, with an extremely negative POV. (In addition, the two persons involved in the legal dispute are not active in Gillberg's field, one is not active in research at all, and both represent a minority view). My first contribution to the Christopher Gillberg article was on a 15 Aug. 2006, a correction of a factual mistake. Except for the additon of an entirely new section at a later date, about which h Daphne A stated [99]: "If someone wants to add a new section on legal and other societal aspects, that's fine by me", I have not contributed to the article or been involved in Daphne A's edit war. My main concern, which I have presented on the discussion page over and over in different versions, is that user Daphne A is proposing inclusion of her own interpretations, of opinions of non-expert detractors and of unsupported accusations from legal opponents, exclusively found in non-fact-checked letters, into a biography of a living person, while presenting them as facts. The long statement by Daphne A above contains snippets of content disputes already discussed in minute detail on the discussion page, during which requests for reputable sources have been repeatedly forwarded, only to be met with references to a letter received by user Daphne A, translated by her and innovatively interpreted by her. According to Daphne A, WP:BLP is not applicable to this particular biography [100]. I also want to point out that the entry below by Daphne A, about "dealing with a (hypothetical) situation where some editors are dishonest and unrelenting", is the first potential overstep of civilty I have seen in this particular discussion so far. Pia 00:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: In response to Daphne A's addendum, "Those edits, though, are from mid July, and the errors have since been corrected", see 10 Aug. 2006. The latest "new" version presented by Daphne A is essentially an attempt to introduce the same ideas, by 1)omission of facts and by 2)guilt by association. The omission: the failure to mention the dismissal by the ethics committee, as well as the who, what and how of the accusation. Who accused? A sociologist with no expertise in neuropsychiatry, and a pediatrician, with no research experience. What was the accusation? That some of the participants in the study did not exist but were invented by the researchers. How was the accusation met? The accusation, forwarded twice, once by the sociologist and once by the pediatrician, was dismissed, the first time by the ethics committee after interviews with the nurses responsible for the record-keeping that showed the lists of names and established who showed up to participate in the study, and interviews with university administrators as well as with the scientists themselves. The second time the investigation lasted eight months. The investigation was thereby over. The implication of fraud builds on the fact that the sociologists and pediatrician sued for access to the raw data as private individuals after the investigation had ended. Other physicians involved in the study destroyed the patient journals rather than break their promises of confidentiality and secrecy by handing the sensitive personal data collected about children to two private individuals who were not requesting access for research purposes and who had not presented a research proposal for ethical review. Guilt by association is established by Daphne A by attempting to make it appear as if Gillberg was involved in the destruction of the sensitive data in order to thwart an investigation that had already ended. I also want to add that many scientists may have disputes with colleagues in their field occasionally, and it is not unusual to have been asked by a university ethics committee to respond to questions or allegations in regards to such a dispute. The difference is that horticulturalists usually don't sue as private individuals to gain access and disrupt the work of mathematicians and heart surgeons usually don't attack marine biologists about the classification of mollusks. And when they do, their allegations are usually not used to define a person for life, especially not once the allegation has been investigated and dismissed by an ethics committee, twice. 71.107.30.224 18:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Pia 18:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Correction: the plural s in "sociologists and pediatrician" above is a typo. Concerns one sociologist.)

Statement by Fred-Chess

Basically I agree with Denis Diderot's version.
But I'll add some stuff that is specific to me.
There were three points that I considered wrong by Daphne. I described them in Talk:Christopher_Gillberg#Request_for_Comment:_Scientific_misconduct_/_credible_sources. I'll copy them as I wrote them:
  • The inclusion of the category category:Scientific misconduct violates Wikipedia policy about living person because Gillberg has not been convicted of scientific misconduct.
  • Daphne wants to lead section to say: "In 2002, Gillberg was accused of having committed scientific fraud for much of his career. [including other things] . This violates WP:NPOV, since an accusation by itself is not substantial.
  • Daphne wants to add a private letter that was sent to her. Having been told that Wikipedia material needs to be published, she intends to "publish" it on Wikisource (!) thus violation the important policy about wikipedia:Verifiability.
Daphne responding by defending her stand in all of the points (read reponse at the linked talk page), and she continued to revert back to the article versions she prefered.
  • A fourth point that I only addressed later: Daphne's main source was Investigate Magazine ( http://www.investigatemagazine.com/ ), which neither I nor Denish Diderot consider credible.
Because she didn't believe / understand neither me nor Denis Diderot, I tried to get others' input.
I made an RfC, but it seems this procedure doesn't work anymore. Not knowing what to do, I asked the ever-NPOV user:Tupsharru to comment, but he didn't have the time. I think that after Denis Diderot made a comment on my talk page, Pia read it and got involved (for which I am very grateful).
Well, at this time, the disputed points are still the same. But they have moved to offspring-article The Gothenburg Study of Children with DAMP.
Fred-Chess 09:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

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

Requests for clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process.

Internal spamming/campaigning

There's an ongoing discussion at WP:SPAM about what constitutes acceptable talk page contact between users regarding discussions, votes, polls, etc. Prior rulings that have been pointed to are this prior ruling and this one. Could you offer any more specific information about what is and is not allowed/discouraged, for example: is it the use of mass userbox messaging that is disallowed (if it is), or is internal spamming/campaigning disallowed only if disruptive? Thanks. IronDuke 17:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine. Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not. The difference lies in the disruption involved. If what is happening is getting everyone upset then it is a problem. Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article. Fred Bauder 16:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Zeq wikistalking and block count

I've been having a difficult time applying arbitration enforcement for Zeq and feel I have since been targetted by him. For example, after I blocked Kelly Martin for her B-list attack page, Zeq just happens to come along so as to caution me from blocking a user with whom you have a dispute" (what dispute? he fails to mention). Or, after removing and protecting the attack page by Sarasto777, Zeq just happens to come along, again. These are not isolated examples. Then today, Zeq questions my administrative compotence and speaks of an "edit[orial] conflict" after I delete his copyvio entry, twice. Many blocks later, how should I proceed with the tendencious edits by the user? Should I implement Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq#Enforcement_by_block next time — it will be the 6th block. Or will it? I am inclined to count article bans as blocks, and am seeking clarification as to this approach, and Zeq's conduct overall as illustrated above. Thanks in advance. El_C 13:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do take the time to examine this request's threaded dialogue (it was removed without an accompanying diff being cited). Thanks. El_C 14:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your original question: article bans are not considered to count towards the escalating block periods, only vioations of bans. Having said that, if an editor is incorrigible, perhaps a general admin-discretionary block rather than, or in addition to, an arbcom article ban is warranted (by an uninvolved party of course, which I am not sure you are). I'd say take it to ANI, and try to avoid scaring admins awy with long-winded, dead-end discussions like the one that happened here. Dmcdevit·t 00:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. I plead for minimal respect on Dmcdevit's part. El_C 12:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moby Dick's article ban - projectspace?

"Moby Dick is banned from editing articles which concern Turkey or Kurdish issues." [101] Does this include Articles for Deletion discussions related to those issues? Cool Cat believes the diff above is part of a pattern of harrassment on AfDs, according to a post of his on the admins' incidents noticeboard. The simplest way to sort this out in my view would be to confirm whether his article ban does or should cover projectspace pages. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to clarify my reasoning. While one keep vote does not constitute as stalking, Moby Dick's continuing pattern of behaviour does.
The pattern of behaviour presented in the Arbitration cases evidence page is in my view continuing for one and a half years now. Two arbitration cases have been filed over the issue. Now those arbitration hearings need to be enforced.
--Cat out 14:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the ambiguous term "article" is to cover all namespaces. Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed per Sam. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair to all parties, I propose that someone alter the decision to read "page" and make an annotation to explain why the change was made (referring to this clarification with a diff). I could not make the change myself because I was an involved party in the case. --Tony Sidaway 01:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May an administrator take into account prior behavior?

I recently imposed what seemed to me to be a straightforward article ban on an editor who had been disrupting the article over a period of several months. The arbitration remedy is in a case that was closed yesterday and the ban doesn't seem to have been opposed for any substantive reason; only the procedure is questioned.

The case is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom and the ban is on Karl Meier editing Islamophobia, on which he almost invariably edit wars.

I would like to see the Committee clarify whether it is pertinent for an administrator, in making a decision on whether to impose a restriction under a remedy passed in an arbitration case, may take into account the behavior of the editor prior to the closing of the case. --Tony Sidaway 01:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Netscott

This WP:AN thread is pertinent to this question. (→Netscott) 03:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that under most circumstances, the day the case closes is the day the restrictions start and the day the behaviour has to change. Why else do we have injunctions? However, if an editor attempts to get their digs in just before a ban, I suspect the committee will be quite willing to extend a ruling. In this case, I think, Karl will either behave - or not - in which case I'm sure the community will ban him quickly. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not comfortable with the notion of judgements being applied retroactively; if the Committee had wanted to ban Karl Meier from editing an article for 3 months, it certainly could have done so as one of its remedies. Jayjg (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've rescinded the ban. On reflection I think this ban was not acceptable to the community. --Tony Sidaway 01:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, certainly, I think that "justice is blind" is not a useful process to use on Wikipedia. Sysops should use their common sense.
James F. (talk) 09:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Karl had not edited on en since 15th, and his only edit since then has been to reply on User talk:Karl Meier that "I don't care. I've lost any serious interest in the project." [102]. He has quit before, though [103], and came back within the month. --Tony Sidaway 19:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to James F., I think I agree. There were other issues of fairness here that convinced me that the ban was seen as too aggressive. --Tony Sidaway 19:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed summary of consensus (comment by User:Newyorkbrad)

As Tony indicates, there has been a certain amount of discussion on this issue, which the community might as well profit from rather than just lose when this specific case ages off the page. I think a fair synthesis of the reaction to this general situation would run more-or-less as follows:

1. An admin should not impose a block based exclusively on behavior occurring while (or before) an ArbCom case is pending, because the ArbCom presumably considered all of that behavior in determining the sanctions that ArbCom itself would impose and the user should have a chance to modify his/her behavior in response to the decision.

2. However, in the event of misbehavior after the ArbCom case has closed, an admin would of course take the prior behavior that was the subject of the ArbCom case into account (subject to the strictures of the ArbCom ruling itself).

3. There could be borderline cases where behavior occurred after the outcome of the ArbCom case was clear but before the case was formally closed, but these should be relatively rare and one might want to run the situation by the Arbitrators.

Just my thoughts, FWIW. If anyone wants to discuss this further, perhaps this thread should refactor to the talk page. Newyorkbrad 00:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't think it's necessary to formulate this as a policy but I do think we learn from this kind of situation. My concern here was that, knowing that the arbitration committee had decided that his edit warring was problematic, and intended to proscribe his activities, Karl Meier persisted. The enactment simply provided me and other admins with the capacity to act. However this offended the general feeling that arbitration remedies should be applied in a manifestly fair manner. It certainly doesn't do any harm, in this case, to wait for the editor to respond and become accustomed to working with the remedy. --Tony Sidaway 01:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A question on "Article Probation"

By what process does an articel get probation ordered on it revoked? I'm assuming it'd have to involve the Committee or member(s) of it, but the exact details don't seem to be specified anywhere. 68.39.174.238 20:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally one must make a specific appeal to the ArbCom by way of a further request for arbitration. However, in case of good general behaviour, a probation may be spontaneously revoked, see below for an example. Stifle (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it requires a "motion in a proir case", rather then a period of time or descision of one person (Unless explicitly declared as such to begin with)? 68.39.174.238 02:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Either that or a new request for arbitration. Stifle (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, only arbitrators are empowered to present a "motion in a prior case." I don't know whether the individual arbitrators would appreciate accept user requests to consider making such a motion. Presumably such a request would have to include strong evidence that the problems that led to the user or article being placed on probation have been resolved, and that there is cause to lift the probation (or other restriction) at this time. I don't know whether the ArbCom members would consider dealing with a request to an individual arbitrators to make a motion, to be more or less efficient and/or burdensome than presenting the matter via a whole new Request for Arbitration on this page. Perhaps one of the arbitrators or clerks will express a view on that. Newyorkbrad 14:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Clarification of the rejection of the Rainbow Gathering case

Sorry for asking such a seemingly foolish question. I am still rather new to wikipedia and entirely new the arbitration. Does the "reject" decision from the arbcom mean that the "A Gathering of the Tribes" will *not* be allowed on the listing of Annual Gatherings? Thanks for the feedback. Bstone 00:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, just that the Arbitration Committee will not decide the matter one way or another. Fred Bauder 01:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Fred, for the reply. I wonder what you might suggest in the meantime? Since Lookingheart has entirely rejected mediation and the edit war continues I am wondering what the next step might be? Thanks. Bstone 02:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, have the same question. Will the page remain protected? For how long? You state, "local Rainbow Gatherings don't belong in a list of the national Gatherings" which is my contention. But that hasn't stopped them from being added again and again. You, "suggest an article on local Gatherings." So did Aguerriero during informal mediation. Lookingheart rejected that suggestion. That didn't stop the on-going edit war. What happens if lookingheart adds 10 AGOTT gatherings before next year's National as he said he might in discussion? At the moment I see only 2 options, continue the edit war or let lookingheart post what ever he wants. Oceankat 03:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about a nice article about A Gathering of the Tribes (Rainbow Family) explaining what that is all about together with a full listing of meetings? It might be nice to explore some of the issues. Wikipedia has no opinion about internal Rainbow Family issues. I have always had a lot more fun at smaller local gatherings myself. Fred Bauder 17:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Has this become a mediation session? If so, I agree with your suggestion as I did during informal mediation when Aguerriero suggested it. Unfortunately I don't know enough about AGOTT to feel competant in writing that article. Perhaps you would like to? The only "internal rainbow family issue" I'm concerned about is whether gatherings that in my opinion are not notable, not verifiable and in the case of the WV AGOTT and most likely the GA AGOTT violate wikipedia's policy concerning the posting of future events are appropiate additions to this article. And whether wikipedia has some means to resolve this issue. Apparantly there is none and since I'm not inclined to waste time in an edit war, I'm content to see anybody add any gathering they like to the list of national gatherings. Oceankat 20:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Oceankat. If this arbcom attempt has turned into a redirect for mediation, we have already done that. How is it possible that the arbcom is forcing us to use a mechanism which simply will not produce a result? Sorry if I seem irritated, but arbcom is supposed to be the final mechanism since all others have failed. I await a response. Bstone 04:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not involved in this dispute, but rather in the next one listed above (Gillberg affair). At present, my request has received two votes to reject (and no other votes), on the ground that it is largely about a debate over content. So nothing is decided yet, but if the final vote is to reject, then I would have the same question as Bstone: if the other party has entirely rejected mediation and the edit war continues, what is recommended as the next step? What mechanism does Wikipedia have for dealing with a (hypothetical) situation where some editors are dishonest and unrelenting?  —Daphne A 09:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't mean to leave you hanging. I have unprotected the page for evaluation of the situation. As to the request above, I have been waiting for some response by the other parties. Fred Bauder 09:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is entirely disheartening. A case is brought before the ArbCom specifically and solely because mediation failed and an edit war would simply continue. Based on the fact that mediation failed entirely because one of the warring parties (Lookingheart) entirely ignored and rejected all attempts at official mediation, I can see no benefit in ArbCom rejecting the case, removing the page protection and "evaluating" the situation. Is there no mechanism in Wikipedia to resolve such disputes? Bstone 14:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If he starts edit warring again I will block him. Any administrator could have done that. That is why the request is being rejected; there is no substantial issue to consider. Fred Bauder 14:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It appears as though we have reached a resolution of this issue and for that I am grateful. Most likely and hopefully there will be no further edit wars over this as it was never my desire to see anyone blocked or banned from editing this article. Thanks Fred, for your time and your help.Oceankat 03:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mass changing on style issues (dating)

user:SuperJumbo has been mass changing articles to use the British dating system. The relavant manual of style entry is as follows

"If the topic itself concerns a specific country, editors may choose to use the date format used in that country... For topics concerning the UK, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, most other member states of the Commonwealth of Nations, and most international organizations such as the United Nations, the formatting is usually 17 February 1958 (no comma and no "th"). In the United States, it is most commonly February 17, 1958. Elsewhere, either format is acceptable"

SuperJumbo's edits have been to articles pertaining to a non-Commonwealth nations (such as France and Suriname). The arbitration committee's ruling in the Sortan case (in which Jguk was doing similiar editing with regard to BC-AD/BCE-CE) says

Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike.

SuperJumbo's editing, however, appers to totally disgard this ruling. He claims that converting articles to the dating system used in those countries justifies per the first line of the MOS entry allows him to make these mass changes, when the more specific statement (3 sentences later) explicitely allows a number of styles. A number of admins, including myself, have objected to the changes he is making. I would like the arbitration committee to inform him that his claim is false, and have him reverse all the changes he made to non-commonwealth nation articles. Raul654 14:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does revert parole apply to edits of banned users?

User:Leyasu has been indef banned under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker for persistently violating his paroles with sockpuppets. He appears to be continuing to edit music-related articles from a series of British Telecom IP addresses. Deathrocker has been reverting these edits, frequently also using IP addresses rather than logging in. I know that reverting simple vandalism generally does not fall under the one revert per day limit; what about reverting edits from IP addresses suspected of being a banned editor? (Additional current discussion at Arbitration enforcement. Thatcher131 (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update I am not at all convinced that the revertions performed by several anon IPs were in fact Deathrocker. However, I still think it would be useful to clarify this issue, even if it is not immediately pressing. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)


Khoikhoi's probation rescinded

Since being placed on Probation for edit warring in the Aucaman case in May, Khoikhoi has demonstrated that the restriction is no longer necessary or warranted. He has been very prolific, invaluable in tracking down banned users Bonaparte and -Inanna-, contributed to at least one recent featured article. Most importantly, I see no signs of the edit warring that caused him to be included in the ruling.

I propose that, in view of good behavior, the probation placed on Khoikhoi (talk · contribs) be lifted so that he is no longer under any Arbitration Committee restrictions.

Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=73005229"