Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case - Wikipedia


Article Images

Requests for arbitration

Initiated by Welshleprechaun (talk) at 12:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

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

Statement by Welshleprechaun

Ongoing issue at West Wales. The boundaries of this region are vague, not officially defined and therefore subject to opinion. User:Velela is continuously inserting a map image representing one interpretation of the boundaries and defining it as the offical boundaries. I removed the image and informed the user that the some consider one area to be in the region whilst others do not, and therefore the map image shows only one person's POV. Velela refuses to accept this and continues to reinsert the image.

User:Pondle has provided sources on the article's talk page reinforcing the fact that there are many definitions of the region, but that has clearly been ignored by Velela who believes that living in an area that is considered to be in West Wales by some, but not by others, is enough evidence to support the map's inclusion, contrary to Wikipedia policy that requires reliable sources that state the boundaries as a hard fact, which has yet to be proven to exist. Welshleprechaun (talk) 12:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Velela

On 25th October 2005 User:Stemonitis added a map to the article. This is the map that is currently subject to debate. On 3rs February 2008 User:Welshleprechaun removed the map with the the comment

“ I have removed the map because it inaccurately portrays the region including Swansea but excluding Ceredigion. Please do not reinsert it, rather try to find a more accurate image. Thank you”

No justification as to why this particular view of what constitutes West Wales was given and no references provided.

On the 3rd February Welshleprechaun makes changes to the text striking our references to Swansea and South Ceredigion replacing them simply with Ceredigion. No reason given.

A contribution by Jeremy Bolwell inserting a referenced edit “Swansea and Neath Port Talbot are included in the former Welsh Development Agency and ELWa West Wales regions.[5]” is immediately deleted by User: Welshleprechaun with not even an edit comment.

On 26th February the map is re-inserted by User:Ǽ as is deleted again by Welshlepachaun in less than 20 minutes.

On 10th June 2009 User:Neonlightjames restores the map but on 10th July Welshleprechaun deletes is again with the comment “rmv inaccurate image” I restores it on the same day. 8 minutes later Welshleprechaun deletes it with the comment

“Shows Swansea and Gower to be in West whereas most commonly accepted to be in South Wales)”
but provides no evidence for what is or is not commonly accepted. I restored it a couple of hours later with a comment on  Welshleprechaun  talk page stating :
”As someone who lived for many years on Gower Road in Swansea I know from first hand experience that most of the local population regard themselves as both in South Wales and in West Wales. This is not a problem since these areas are only vaguely defined but walking round Swansea market there is a very clear sense of much greater cultural, economic and social links with Wales west of Swansea, in Llanelli and Carmarthenshire, than there is with Cardiff and the Vale . Your exclusion of a useful map says more about your POV than about how the people of Swansea feel.”

Welshleprechaun ‘s response on my talk page is:

“I find your message somewhat hypocritical in that it's your own POV that Swansea is in West Wales. The boundaries are not officially defined and it's your opinion whether it's in the west or not. The map only shows one version of the definition, so please don't push your POV down every other reader's throat. Welshleprechaun (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

On 13th July I once again restore the map only to have it quickly deleted together with the following comment on my talk page: If you do not stop being disruptive by re-inserting the image that is based on your interpretation and opinion into the article, I will contact an administrator and pursue a block on your editing. Welshleprechaun (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC) I responded on Welshleprechaun ’s talk page with:

“With all due and humble respect it is you that is being disruptive. I produced my own evidence that the local population regard themselves as being in West Wales (as well as South Wales) and you ? Well you said ".....whereas most commonly accepted to be in South Wales" on your edit of the 10th July. "Commonly accepted"? by whom ? Where is there evidence for this? Have you lived for a substantial time in Swansea ? Or is this a very partial view from Cardiff, do let me know, I would be so delighted. I also believe that threatening and bullying behaviour is ill advised and positively counter productive on Wikipedia. I will not trade in threats, and your adherence to well behaved debate would cut a great deal more ice with me than bombastic messages “

I have subsequently re-drafted the image so that it includes Ceredigion (using the Wikipedia Ceredigion map as the source. I have also provide a reference from Swansea City Council linking themselves to West Wales.

Whilst I would agree with most if not all editors that there is no formally accepted definition of West Wales, it is mirthless a well established and frequently used geographical shorthand. Providing a map showing an approximate boundary of the area I believe is helpful. The text makes it quite clear that the boundaries are flexible. During this whole episode 3 other editors have inserted the map and only Welshleprechaun has deleted it. The map has been changed to reflect on of the gripes that Ceredigion was not included. None of Welshleprechaun 's deletions has been substantiated by any reference and the whole basis of deletion seems to be based non Welshleprechaun 's belief that he (I assume a he from the language) is the only arbiter of what is or is not West Wales.  Velela  Velela Talk   14:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a footnote, I might also add that this seems like a storm in a tea-cup and not the issue that should have come to an Rfa. At the first stage when Welshleprechaun was moved to delete the map, had he placed a message on the article talk page inviting a consensus view on retaining or deleting the map with arguments stated, it would have avoided all of this and would have enabled us all to agree an appropriate way forward.  Velela  Velela Talk   17:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Welshleprechaun

My deletion has not been substantiated by any reference because there is none stating the boundaries! Velela's interpretation of the "approximate extent" of the boundaries is subject to their own opinion and not for them to put on a map and publish to Wikipedia. That is why I have removed it. Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deb

Not having been involved in this dispute or even aware of it until now, I would have to concur that the map which is the subject of discussion is quite inappropriate. It therefore seems unreasonable to insert it repeatedly after a more knowledgeable user has deleted it and explained their reasons. Had I known that the argument was going on, I would perhaps have stepped in sooner and tried to mediate, because I agree that it is silly for it to come to this. Deb (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ghmyrtle

I have not been involved in this article. The map which seems to have caused the dispute shows boundaries - that is, including Swansea but not Ceredigion - used by the Learning and Skills Observatory for Wales (an agency of the Welsh Assembly Government) - where the area shown is described as South West Wales (sic). Other definitions, such as this one, show "West Wales" as including Ceredigion but excluding Swansea. As stated by Welshleprechaun, Pondle and others, there are many definitions of "West Wales", and no single official definition. It is a region with no clear boundaries, and one which can overlap with other regions, such as "South Wales". The best solution would either be for the article to show no map at all; or, if any map is used, that it be clearly captioned as showing only one (referenced) definition of the area. It would certainly be inappropriate original research for an editor to devise a map showing their own definition of the area. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

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

Initiated by Abd (talk) at 05:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

WMC notified.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

The statement by Abd documents attempts to resolve, and provides basis for expectation that further attempts below ArbComm are likely to result in fruitless disruption.

Statement by Abd

Summary
  • WMC was involved in immediate content dispute and long-term behavioral dispute with me.
  • He edited Cold fusion while protected in expectation of controversy over it, and contrary to an expressed consensus.
  • Then he declared me banned from the article and its Talk.
  • Later, he blocked me for making a self-reverted harmless edit, contrary to his expressed prior opinion about harmless edits under ban.
  • In spite of charges of involvement, he insists that he remains the enforcer of an expired community ban, asserting it as indef.
History of prior dispute, mostly over use of tools while involved

Stored at:[6]

The present dispute;

Stored at: [7].

Further considerations and issues to be arbitrated

Stored at [8].

--Abd (talk) 05:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response of Abd re Mathsci

I decided not to make this RfAr cover specific Fringe science issues; had I done so, Mathsci would have been a party, along with as many as a dozen others. ArbComm may, however, decide to look at his statement here, and the series of directly false or ABF charges he has made; I suggest, however, avoiding a focus on Fringe science here, it will complicate an otherwise simple case. To correct false statements, my full response is at [9].

Response of Abd to Bilby

I agree with Bilby that clarification would be useful. Complete response, correcting errors, is at [10]. --Abd (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not edit war in the June 1 incident that resulted in the 2nd protection and the ban. A ban reason was not given, except for hints: alleged walls of text in talk, and interest in policy. --Abd (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response of Abd re Enric Naval and Protonk

  • Enric's comment shows why ArbComm should take this case, for he has promised disruptive action if it's rejected. I urge ArbComm to keep it simple and not extend to a full addressing of Fringe issues at this time. My complete response is at [11]. --Abd (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Protonk's comment shows this even more urgently. Promising page bans if ArbComm disagrees with him? Grounds for immediate desysop? Perhaps Protonk will refactor that comment. --Abd (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response of Abd to Jehochman et al

  • Thanks. Such a response! Voluntary disclosure: I'm 65. 7 children, ages 5-40, 5 grandchildren, ages 5-17. Long experience with voluntary communities and consensus process; on-line since The WELL, about 1986.

Response of Abd to William M. Connolley

  • I'm still trying to understand the concept of banning me from an article when, having studied the topic for five months, having bought the references (half of them skeptical), and having discussed it perhaps too extensively, I stopped talking so much and started seriously editing it, based firmly on reliable sources, with the reason given for maintaining the ban being my "unhealthy interest in policy." I assume you'll explain to ArbComm, I'll be reading with interest. --Abd (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mathsci

I recommend that ArbCom reject this second disruptive request from Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an account that has regressed to a single purpose account. Abd is now a tendentious fringe POV-pusher. His editing of cold fusion and its talk page openly acknowledged off-wiki contacts with two advocates, Steven B. Krivit and community banned editor User:JedRothwell, neither of them recognized scientists. Abd has shown contempt for any other users with scientific training: the fact that he frequently addresses User:William M. Connolley as "Dr. Connolley" on talk pages was not a sign of respect, in the light of this request, which he has threatened for some time. Abd was page-banned from cold fusion and its talk page by WMC. He has engaged in discussions on the article on user talk pages, but not the mediation page. His misuse of secondary sources has been criticized by a number of experts in chemistry, including EdChem (talk · contribs) and Kirk shanahan (talk · contribs). The page-bans were given community support on WP:ANI. Abd's editing of cold fusion started roughly around the time of the "Fringe science" ArbCom case and was briefly mentioned in the "Abd & JZG" case, when his editing patterns were less clear. In this case, this needless escalation of dispute resolution should probably result in an indefinite community ban for Abd. His timing of this request might be another tactic. He might wish to attract the large circus surrounding the Obama articles. WMC has made some unpopular blocks there; and there is a peanut gallery which might share Abd's personal animosity to experts in science and grudges against WMC. The last ArbCom case directly involving Abd resulted in the disappearance of JzG (talk · contribs): Abd might be trying to do the same now with WMC. Abd's own editing patterns are highly problematic. At the moment there does not seem to be anything positive that Abd is contributing to WP. This long premeditated request is wholly negative. I hope that elsewhere the community can discuss, but rarely have an an indefinite ban and that ArbCom reject this case.

As far as Coppertwig's statements go, he is simply reiterating Abd's point of view. This view is shared by hardly any other editors and certainly none who edit serious namespace articles on uncontroversial material. Coppertwig should look at the talk pages of EdChem and Kirk shanahan to see how Abd interacts in an unhelpful way with established scientists.
I don't think Jehochman's comments about wiki meetups are helpful. I have met WMC twice at wiki meetups: he seemed quiet, thoughtful and pleasant, but after 2 brief meetings I wouldn't venture to make any statement about him on the basis of that. Why should the fact that Jehochman has formed a personal hunch as a result of wikidrinks validate a highly disruptive request against a fellow administrator?

Statement by Bilby

Prior to WMC's involvement at Cold fusion, the article had been the subject of an edit war between Abd and User:Hipocrite which resulted in full protection by WMC for one week. After the protection was lifted, the two editors engaged in a second edit war, resulting in the page being protected a second time by Causa sui. This led to an extremely messy situation on the Cold fusion talk page, with two concurrent polls being run on the same changes by the two editors. The first, by Abd, used a non-standard methodology, and was the subject of an AN/I discussion regarding problems with Abd's edits to the poll. The second, by Hipocrite, came slightly later (and was created in response to Abd's poll) but used a standard format. The short version, then, was that it was a mess, with both Abd and Hipocrite very much at the center.

As to the specifics:

  • WMC's only content edit while the page was protected was to revert the article back to a state prior to the edit warring, as suggested by GoRight. WMC made no content changes to the article other than this revert. Prior to this Abd had vocally argued against the version that was initially protected, accusing Hipocrite of gaming the system.
  • WMC subsequently banned both Abd and Hipocrite from the article and talk page for one month, dependent on their behaviour, and then WMC lifted the page protection. Hipocrite accepted the ban, Abd did not.
  • Abd announced that he would defy the ban so that he could appeal any subsequent block, or, if WMC chose not to block him, demonstrate that the ban did not hold. This, he argued, would limit any disruption. In response, Enric Naval raised the issue at AN/I. The resulting discussion endorsed the ban (full disclosure: I !voted to support it), but it was cut short before support emerged for Abd, as Abd asked that the discussion be closed and stated that he would agree to the ban.
  • As described, Abd subsequently made a minor edit to Cold fusion, reverted it, and was blocked by WMC. I see no reason not to assume good faith here on Abd's part, but WMC's response should probably be considered in light of prior events.
  • WMC later unbanned Hipocrite after Hipocrite made guarantees about his editing. WMC has not chosen to unban Abd, and Abd has been unable to receive confirmation that the AN/I ban has expired from the closing admin (due to a wikibreak).

In short, WMC banned two problematic editors on opposing sides from the Cold fusion article, although he had no problems with them continuing with mediation on the subject. One accepted the ban, and it was subsequently lifted, the other continued to dispute it. WMC's curt responses didn't help things, and it may well be better to have clarification on when Abd can return to editing the article, but in general I believe that WMC's actions were reasonable.

Bilby (talk) 11:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Jehochman: The age of editors here seems completely irrelevant to this discussion. Let's stick to issues regarding the case. - Bilby (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Enric Naval

Disclaimer: I have edited both Cold fusion and its talk page, and I have very strong disagreements with Abd, although we ocassionally agree on stuff. I also raised the review of Abd's ban at ANI, and I would raise it again.

I think that the community can handle Abd's ban, and I think that Abd refuses to take this to AN/ANI because he knows that there is a very high chance that the continuation of the ban is resoundingly endorsed. This is trying to shorcut the community because he doesn't agree with what it thinks. If this case gets rejected, my first step will be raising the issue at AN where the community can give input on the continuation of the ban. (or start a RFC/U, maybe, I am never sure about these things)

WMC's actions were reasonable, and they protected the editors of the article and the, what was the name, the ambient of peaceful and calm colaboration ambient in the page, which was being disrupted to hell and back by enormous walls of text, refusal to accept consensus, insistance in refusing the input of any actual expert in Physics that gave his input, inserting half a dozen unrelated topics in one long meandering reply, etc. WMC's actions broke that bad atmosphere, and allowed work to continue in the article, so WMC was clearly doing the job that wikipedia admins are supposed to do, using the tools given to him by the community, and this community endorsed his actions in the only occassion when it was asked about it.

As an editor, I have to say that I welcome the tranquility and peace that there is now at Talk:Cold fusion after Abd was banned from the page. I also welcome that Abd's editing is now limited to the cold fusion mediation by Cryptic_C62, where his walls of text can be kept in check, and where Cryptic_C62 can keep the discussion on-topic.

Abd has not stopped wikilawyering about his own ban, Jed's ban and Pcarbonn's ban, saying that "experts" have been banned from the article for POV reasons, while refusing to agree that they were being disruptive, COI'ed, soapboxing and POV pushing. I think that this is just the latest instance of this disruptive behaviour, and that Arbcom should deny him the attention to his disruptive ideas, and let the community handle this.

P.D.: At most, if Arbcom members really thinks that there is disruption here, then they should put a motion to place Cold Fusion under discrectionary sanctions, just like Homeopathy, so we can cut short the recurrent disruption without any intervening admin being always subject to continuous wikilawyering, being dragged to RFCU, Arbcom, until he stops editing, etc (should I place the motion myself?). No wonder that it takes so much effort to get admins to do something about disruptive editors, if those editors are going to make such a circus every time, not to mention the chilling effect if Arbcom actually goes and endorses the circus..... Also, when you consider accepting this case, I ask that you take as precedent the Homeopathy case, where DanaUllman was banned for one year for similar disruption by Arbcom itself, and the article placed under discrectionary sanctions. And Dana was also causing disruption in talk pages and saying that he shouldn't be banned because he didn't edit the articles themselves. It's good not to repeat the mistakes of past committees, but you should also consider repeating their correct decisions, eh? --Enric Naval (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Jehochman: I don't doubt that Abd can be a pleasant person face-to-face, but here we are looking to his behaviour in wikipedia, not to his behaviour in wikimeetups or in Real Life. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by William M. Connolley

I came to cold fusion - I forget how - and discovered the talk page a disaster area. I banned Hipocrite and Abd from CF [12], which was mostly an effort to achieve symmetry, though I believed the harm was mostly from Abd. Since then, peace and calm have largely reigned. Abd broke that ban on two occaisions: on the first, I removed his comment and warned him not to do it again. On the second, I blocked him.

Abd has an unhealthy interest in policy above content. In short, he is a wiki-lawyer. He isn't very good at it, but that doesn't stop him offering his unhelpful advice, e.g. to User:PJHaseldine. He produces walls of text that no-one reads and which disrupt the flow of any page he is involved in.

Essentially all of his statement is wrong or misleading; the claims of prior involvement are an attempt to muddy the waters.

My opinion is that Abd is a net negative to the encyclopaedia: he has forgotten the purpose is to write articles and instead uses it as a forum to pursue his interest in discussing policy.

William M. Connolley (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Coppertwig

I suggest that the Committee open this case to examine whether there has been inappropriate use of tools while involved. As an editor of Cold fusion, I had been considering objecting to WMC's edit to the protected page, but didn't find time to study the diffs before the page was unprotected.

Note that when Abd was blocked by WMC, Abd had clearly stated that he was not going to defy the ban. Editing one character for the purpose of fixing a broken link and immediately self-reverting was intended as a non-disruptive action, not a defiance of the ban, and was well within what WMC had indicated as acceptable from banned editors.

Reply to Mathsci
I disagree with many of your statements. Abd works to find and respect consensus. In disputes about notability of material within fringe topics, we mustn't assume the deletionists are necessarily always right. Steven Krivit has been referred to as a "leading authority" on cold fusion in a press release from the American Chemical Society. I'm a scientist and Abd has never shown contempt for me; in fact, I don't remember ever seeing Abd show contempt for anyone. I think you're totally misunderstanding Abd if you think calling WMC "Dr. Connolley" is a sign of contempt. It's a sign of respect, as it also was when I called him that. (He had objected to being called "Bill".) Abd was invited to participate in the cold fusion mediation and has been participating in it. The use of secondary sources may be a valid topic of disagreement; no need to call it "misuse". Please AGF re Abd's motives in opening this request. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Stephan Schulz

In my experience, Abd has no understanding of science as a process and little knowledge about science as a subject. Unfortunately, he has chosen to become a champion of fringe science topics. His (in)famous "wall of text" technique of incredibly long, rambling, and mostly content-free talk page postings make attempts at communication with him unproductive and frustrating. His definition of involvement apparently would allow each admin exactly one interaction with a given user, and only in fields the admin never worked in before. This is not a useful or even realistic interpretation of Wikipedia's rules.

William, on the other hand, is a productive and active admin. He is willing to work on WP:3RR violations, to enforce ArbCom decisions and promote a rational environment. He is somewhat brusk and of course not very popular with several editors he blocked, but his actions contribute significantly to making Wikipedia a better place for constructive editors.

Reply to Jehochman: I object to the implied ageism and the request for irrelevant personal information.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

I've met Abd in real life. He's a thoughtful, considerate individual in my view. I think he deserves more assumption of good faith and tolerance. He is prolix, while I am terse, but we still manage to get along. Tolerance is one of the keys to civility. Jehochman Talk 01:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be exciting and educational for each participant in this discussion to disclose their age. I'm 41. Jehochman Talk 15:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Verbal

WMC has acted properly throughout, and his actions have vastly improved the atmosphere at CF talk, which has led to improvements on the CF page. The ban and WMCs "involvement" has been so far fully approved of by the community at ANI. If Abd has a problem the correct place to take it for review would be ANI, but he is probably aware his poor wikilawyering, walls-of-text (which arbcom has censured him for), and other verbal tricks would be ignored there, and the ban probably endorsed if not extended. Claims of WMCs involvement are clearly ludicrous. This should be rejected, and Abd warned about his behaviour. I fully endorse the views of William, Enric, MathSci, Stephan Schulz, and Biliby (apart from the criticism of WMCs responses, they were factual and appropriate). Unfortunately I fail to see the relevance of Jehochman's view, as Abd has been given every chance. Verbal chat 11:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Jehochman What relevance does your request have? WP:AGF, I'm in my late twenties (as of two days ago, unfortunately), other information on my talk page. I wouldn't be surprised if a clerk removed your question and any replies, however. Re Abd's reply, I've been online since Prestel and then on the internet since CompuServe arrived in the UK. Verbal chat 17:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Coren This has been to ANI once, and Abd's interpretation of events was found wanting. I see no need for arbcom's involvement in a situation which could quite possibly be solved by the community, if it were taken to them. On your other point, if I was to come along and accuse an admin of involvement, would that automatically lead to an accept? "Both factors demand examination" - why? Could you support or explain your reasoning, please. If you could make it clear whose behaviour you feel deserves investigating, that might answer some of my concerns. Thanks, Verbal chat 17:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Casliber I repeat my requests made of Cohren, see above. If you want to investigate WMC, say why. If you want to investigate Abd, say why. If both, say why - an actual reason. Eg. "Xs disruptive wikilawyering here" or "Ys probable admin abuse here". A bit more specific than "accusations of admin abuse" - unless you believe that has happened, and say why! I'd also like to hear why you think the community can't deal with this, when so far it has when given the chance. Thanks, Verbal chat 22:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Protonk

Jechoman, I disagree. It might be educational for everyone to act their age. I find AbD to be intelligent, forgiving and gentle as well. He's probably a tremendous person. But I don't think he is in the right here and I don't think that we are missing out on something by not having met him. I don't think that page banning people from CF is beyond WMC's remit and frankly I'm prepared to step in and page ban people should arbcom disagree with me. Protonk (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

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

Initiated by Interestedinfairness (talk) at 10:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

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

Statement by interestedinfairness

There has been repeated discussion regarding the correct, and most widely recognized English spelling of the name for the city (currently spelled "Kosovska Mitrovica"). Certain users who were apposed to the renaming the article to "Mitrovica", have since come round to the idea. There remains however, no consensus or will, amongst administrators present in the discussion to take the initiative and rename the article. In fact, even the editors who acknowledge the correct English spelling of the city, have left the page without participating further in discussion after the consensus was reached here. I do not posses the know-how to change the name of the article and the direct, re-directs. Nevertheless, I think this is the correct route to take before any unilaterally actions. Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, who wrote this and presented it as my statement? --Cinéma C 17:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

user:Hersfold did (?). Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to dab
This is exactly what I'm talking about. No accountability or willingness to help new users like my self with content dispute or the right procedures to under take. The realities have changed with regards to the Mitrovica page and the old arb com ruling. I have given countless sources as per Wikipedia's naming convention and other editors and more worryingly administrators refuse to do anything about it. I agree with dab in the sense that this is not the place to be resolving content dispute however, when administrators are not willing to do anything in light of all the evidence I have provided in the talk page in favor of my proposal, then what am I to do? May I also point out that admin:dab agreed with my proposal before. Interestedinfairness (talk) 12:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to admins
Thanks for your responses. It should be a clear cut case as Wikipedia does offer a set of relatively easy tests to conduct in order to work out the most common English word. I have posted all the findings on the talk page but no one is willing to take it any further even after consensus between two of the most vociferous editors was reached. Its a shame I have to try out another procedure now -- *sighs*. Interestedinfairness (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

statement by Dbachmann

My involvement in this is pointing out proper procedure within WP:NAME to discuss arguable naming alternatives. My recommendations did not include "run to arbcom if you do not get your way". I do not have an opinion on which title is "better" and I am not interested in this arbcom case. I do not think that the arbcom should hear this, as it is a pure content dispute, like thousands of other toponymy article titles, there is more than one arguable location for this article, and it is purely a matter of consensus where the article will reside.

There aren't any points of user conduct here other than the more generic problems with tenacious Kosovo-related patriotic trolling. There already is an arbcom ruling on this, putting the topic under "article probation".

Interestedinfairness (talk · contribs) is certainly a candidate for {{User article ban arb}}, but since there is already a ruling on this, the matter would seem to stand to administrative discretion and does not need to take another loop through arbcom. --dab (𒁳) 08:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Party 3}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Response to Cinema & interestedinfairness: My apologies, I'd assumed that the first statement would have been Cinema's as they're filed as the filing party above. Sorry for the confusion. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/8/0/0)

Initiated by Peter cohen (talk) at 12:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

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

Statement by Peter cohen

There is a roving content dispute on the use of terminology regarding the Israeli-occupied territories. I have identified 20 threads spread over ten article talk pages where this or related terminology has been disputed this year. There are many older discussions too. (This search contains a high proportion of valid hits.)

I have previously started a thread at WP:IPCOLL to initiate a central discussion on the terminology but the level of participation there has been less than in several of the threads elsewhere. Although there is no currently unaddressed conduct issue in this area, the history of problematic behaviour over similar terminology is such that it is highly likely that things will reach a level where Arbcom intervention will be necessary at some point in the future. Further the related RfC at Talk:Golan Heights generated various accusations and suggestions of misconduct. I am therefore requesting that Arbcom take pre-emptive action and mandate that a centralised solution be created to the content issue along the lines of those being reached regarding the naming of Ireland articles and the use of "Judea and Samaria" etc.

Discussion pages where the "disputed" v "occupied" or related terminology has been discussed this year include:

discussion first post last post duration
Talk:Golan_Heights#Pro-israeli.21_BIASED_article.21_Non_neutral 2009-01-01 19:38 2009-01-24 22:56
Talk:Status_of_territories_captured_by_Israel#Remove_Tag_Citing_Neutrality.2FAccuracy_Dispute 2008-01-27 08:35 2009-02-17 04:32
Talk:Avigdor_Lieberman/Archive_2#Cities.2FSettlements_in_occupied.2Fdisputed_territory 2009-02-20 14:01 2009-02-21 03:25 1 day
Talk:Palestinian_territories#Occupied_Palestinian_Territories_or_Palestinian_Territories.3F 2009-01-13 21:20 2009-02-27 07:47
Talk:Israeli-occupied_territories#reference_tag_broken 2009-03-09 04:15
Talk:Occupied_territories#A_modest_demand. 2009-04-18 06:09 2009-04-20 05:45 2 days
Talk:Jerusalem_Light_Rail#occupied_to_disputed_and_such 2009-04-19 17:37 2009-04-20 09:57 1 day
Talk:Golan_Heights#.22are_currently_part_of_the_State_of_Israel.22 2009-05-15 18:24 2009-05-15 19:42 1 hour
Talk:Israel/Archive_29#Disputed_Territories 2009-02-25 2009-05-24 19:23
Talk:Syria#Biased_Golan_heights_section_3 2009-03-27 04:42 2009-06-04 15:59
Talk:Golan_Heights#.22disputed.22_.22Jewish_communities.22 2009-05-26 07:40 2009-06-07 16:27
Talk:Ariel_(city)#Neutrality.3F 2009-05-25 04:05 2009-06-08 03:56
Talk:Golan_Heights#The_Neutrality_of_this_Article_is_Disputed 2009-06-10 15:59 2009-06-14 18:40
Talk:Golan_Heights#RfC:_Terminology_in_regards_to_the_Golan_Heights 2009-06-14 19:15 2009-06-23 07:14
Talk:Golan_Heights#Claims_of_occupation_in_the_lead 2009-06-23 08:13 2009-06-23 16:47
Talk:Golan_Heights#I_do_not_support_the_actions_and_views_of_Oren0_as_3rd_party 2009-06-23 08:51 2009-06-25 01:02
Talk:Golan_Heights#some_more_thing_left 2009-06-24 12:47 2009-06-25 08:18
Talk:Golan_Heights#occupied_territories 2009-06-26 02:44 2009-06-26 13:52
Talk:Israel#UN_Security_Council_Res._242_and_338_and_Disputed_Territories 2009-06-19 17:55 2009-06-28 15:35
Talk:Golan_Heights#Is_this_article_gonna_follow_the_rules_of_wikipedia_or_not.3F 2009-07-01 20:42

--Peter cohen (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC), most recent post 00:15, 2 July 2009[reply]

As requested below, I have now made a formatted list sorted by last edit and have also added a brand new entry which ahs appeared wince this request was opened.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note the request below and elsewhere for aprties to be added. I was waiting for a reply to my question on the talk page here on whom to add and I have also been away from hte net for 50-60 hours. I've started adding people and will be posting notifications elsewhere tonight (UK time). More will be added tomorrow.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nsaum75

I am the editor who opened the RfC on Golan Heights[15]. The article had been subject to edit warring over terminology related to how the Golan should be described. Editors had been fighting over whether to refer to land area as "disputed" or "occupied" by Israel; there were also edit wars over whether or not to call the settlements established by Israel as "Israeli Settlements", "Jewish Communities" or "Illegal Settlements". In hopes of trying to create some progress in the debate, I felt that the RfC should be opened as to at least establish a consensus as to whether the land area should be referred to as "disputed", "occupied", or some other variation.

During the period of time that the RfC was open, a number of new editors (with little or no edit history) began making posts stating similar positions.

In addition to new editors, a significant number of IP addresses (with little or no edit history) began posting similar positions.

At this point, I became concerned that there may be possible WP:MEAT, WP:SPA or WP:CANVASS involved, so I placed a neutral notice regarding Wikipedia's policies at the top of the RfC.[25], [26]. I also approached ANI and requested input regarding my concerns about possible WP:MEAT, SPA and CANVASS.[27]

After the RfC had been posted for a week, I made another post to the AN[28] requesting a neutral, 3rd party administrator check over the RfC and close it. This was met with disatisfaction by some editors, as the closing Admin had userboxes on his page that he was Jewish and supported the existance of an Israeli state.(see: Talk:Golan_Heights#I_do_not_support_the_actions_and_views_of_Oren0_as_3rd_party) It was argued that since the editor was Jewish and supported the existance of Israel, he "can not be considered neutral to this subject, of course he is gonna side with Israel."

The debate degraded to the point where there was an argument over whether or not the Arabic or Hebrew name for the Golan Heights should come first in the lead. (see: Talk:Golan_Heights#Arabic_text_before_Hebrew). There was a further issue raised with one of the main contributors to RfC, User:Supreme_Deliciousness, because of several anti-Israeli and pro-syrian viewpoints expressed on his userpage.[29]

In my opinion, as things currently stand, it has become next to impossible to find a fair and equitable balance between editors and sourced information, on both sides of the issue. Debate is always good, as it helps to improve articles by making sure all information is questioned and researched; and everyone is inherently bias to some extent (even if they do not realize it) however strong nationalistic viewpoints expressed by a several editors have unfortunately made it difficult for a consensus to be reached regarding balanced terminology in this and a number of other Arab-Israeli related articles.

Statement by Oren0

I became involved in this dispute when I responded to an AN post asking for a neutral administrator to close an RfC regarding whether the Golan Heights should be referred to as "occupied", "disputed", or something else. This RfC was flooded by new and anonymous editors, many of whom replied very similarly, starting with "reply to RfC" even if they were in a totally different section ([30] [31] [32] [33] [34]). There was very likely some meatpuppetry going on there. I closed this RfC, stating in a nutshell that claims of "occupation" or "dispute" should be mentioned in the context of who is making them (e.g. "Syria considers the land to be illegally occupied by Israel") provided such claims can be reliably sourced, and that Wikipedia shouldn't be in the business of making blanket statements regarding the status of lands where sources and nations may disagree (e.g. "the land is occupied"). I stand by this closure as the only WP:NPOV way to handle the matter, and another uninvolved administrator has indicated that he was going to close the RfC the same way but I had beaten him to it.

User:Supreme Deliciousness subsequently opened a talk page section questioning whether I could be considered uninvolved given that I have userboxes on my user page indicating that I am Jewish and that I support the existence of the state of Israel. I find the assertion that a Jew could not fairly close an RfC to be mildly offensive, though I do welcome the question regarding whether my support for the existence of Israel may taint my judgment. My response to this is that the vast majority of the western world supports the existence of the state of Israel. Especially in the United States, the opinion that Israel as a state has no right to exist is considered very rare. I don't believe that holding such a common opinion should disqualify me from being neutral. To the more general point of my involvement in Middle East-related articles, I have done very little editing in this topic area. Looking at my top 100 articles edited, the only two that show up in this field are Golan Heights, all of which occurred subsequent to the RfC closure, and Gaza War (#60, 8 total edits, most recently in February of this year). My talk contributions are similar.

I completely stand by my own neutrality at the time of this closure and maintain that it was really the only way for that discussion to be closed in accordance with WP:NPOV. I believe that read independently of who wrote it my RfC closure was entirely fair and reasonable. As for the larger issue at hand, this is a content dispute that hasn't risen to the level of needing ArbCom involvement IMO. There has been some edit warring and at least one block (User:Supreme Deliciousness for 3RR on a semi-related article) but nothing that requires ArbCom attention. I have also placed a warning on the talk page pointing users towards WP:ARBPIA and I think that's all that needs to be done here. In short, I see no compelling reason for ArbCom to take this case. Oren0 (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would probably be a good idea for Arbcom to jump on this before it turns into the usual shitstorm that all I/P related arguments end up as. Jtrainor (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am reading this proceeding with interest. i suggest that all parties try to seek a compromise solution. There is no need for this to degenrate into an edit conflict requiring action by ArbCom. I have been an active member of WP:IPCOLL at various intervals. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/1/4)

  • Comment I am leaning towards accepting this case, although wondered whether amending the previous West Bank/J&S case would be more helpful to facilitate finding a solution to the naming of the Golan Heights, which is technically not covered by the former case. To clarify, Peter Cohen asked me a couple of days ago for my opinion, and upon looking at the recent RfC was struck by its lack of clarity and structure compared with the soon-to-close Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Placename guidelines. Given there has now been a RfC on the Golan Heights, I suspect this is the port of final call (?) Addendum, depending on other arbs' views on the situation thus far, another outcome might be a motion for one or more neutral admins to chair a new and structured Request for Comment on the disputed naming guidelines on the Golan Heights within a two month time-frame. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query. I clicked on two of those discussions mentioned by Peter, and they were concluded prior to (or as a consequence of) the W&S case closing. I think it would be important to understand how many of those discussions mentioned by Peter occurred after the W&S case, and post W&S discussions are the ones we would want to review more closely. A chronological list, or table with start and end of the threads, would be very helpful. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline. I dont see community consensus to open a case, nor do I think that there is an obvious need for one. Another RFC would help, provided it is very well prepared with input from both sides. Formal mediation also would help. If there are user conduct problems preventing resolution, they need to be outlined to us. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions. Have the content noticeboards been used to draw some outside input? (Specifically, I am considering the NPOV and ethnic conflicts noticeboards.) If not, I suggest noting the disagreement (with discussion links) at both, asking for outside input and the attention of uninvolved administrators. Are there extensive conduct issues involved? If so, can these be handled on the community level? If so, what method would be best? If not, why not? Are you asking for a requirement that certain naming disputes related to the Israel/Palestine topic area be discussed centrally at the IPCOLL page? Or, are you perhaps suggesting that a centralized request for comments be utilized? If not, what exactly are you requesting? On the matter of topic, are you asking that this one specific dispute be bound by such a requirement or that all naming disputes meeting certain criteria be so bound? If the latter, what benchmarks would you suggest? --Vassyana (talk) 10:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - agree with Casliber that a good approach would be: "a motion for one or more neutral admins to chair a new and structured Request for Comment on the disputed naming guidelines on the Golan Heights within a two month time-frame". Carcharoth (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motion

The arbitration committee advises that one or more neutral admins chair a new and structured Request for Comment on the disputed naming guidelines on the Golan Heights within a two month time-frame.

Support:
  1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Should be a standard response to protracted naming disputes. But please, don't let's have all the naming disputes rushing to ArbCom. There must be a demonstration that previous attempts have been made to resolve the dispute, and preferably the mediation stages of dispute resolution would have the facilitation of such naming discussions as a standard part of their services. Carcharoth (talk) 00:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Vassyana (talk) 00:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. It certainly is worth the attempt. — Coren (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Recuse:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by SarekOfVulcan (talk) at 03:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

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

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

The article on web hosting company DreamHost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is hopelessly deadlocked between satisfied customers SarekOfVulcan and Scjessey, and ex-customer Judas278 and non-customer 194x144x90x118. Judas and 194x treat any positive information about the company as advertising or a conflict of interest on Sarek and Scjessey's parts. This has resulted in the article being fully protected for most of the past two months, first by SarekOfVulcan and almost immediately after expiration by PhilKnight, the informal mediator. Suggestions for new edits are met with claims of advertisement. Information such as the names of the founders of the company and that they met in college is challenged as controversial and BLP-violating. Civility has occasionally (or frequently) gone out the window on various people's parts. Reducing the auto-archive period from 90 days to 45 days was decried as abusive and disruptive, even though it reduced the talk page from 285K to 80K. There were allegations that Sarek misused his admin bit by removing a sentence and then fully protecting the article.

It is currently undergoingjust underwent an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DreamHost (2nd nomination) that seems quite likely to endwas closed as keep.

I have not filed an RFC/U, because there isn't just one editor with issues here, and I think it's fairer to subject all involved parties to scrutiny.

Current dispute

We currently have a slow-motion edit war over a new section of the article. On June 23, Scjessey added Category:File hosting. On June 30, Bjweeks removed it, but readded it after a query from Scjessey and commented "it might be helpful if the article explained or mentioned why it is in the category". I came up with a short section on the "Files Forever" feature, sourcing it to an Official DreamHost Wiki revision created by the company's founder explaining how it worked, and a Spanish-language blog called "Genbeta", which is listed in Google News and has about 60 pages of results in Google when searching for the name, to show that there was apparently more than just English-language interest in the feature. Judas reverted later that day, with the edit summary "If significant, you could find more than One Spanish language source, and self-published unreliable wiki" TheRealFennShysa reverted, asking for better rationales, and Theserialcomma took it back out, commenting "the file hosting section should be removed. it's not encyclopedic" and "removin the whole section. um, the source is a blog."

On the talkpage, he said "as an admin, i'd hope that you would know how wikipedia feels about blogs in situations like this" and "well, if you don't, i'll just tell you. the spanish language blog is not a good source and should be removed". I responded, "Why is it not a good source? How do you know it's not the Spanish equivalent to TechCrunch?" and pointed him to the RSN. He responded, "how about you prove that it *is* reliable? your spanish must not be as good as mine, because i took one look at it and discovered it's an unreliable blog, which is why i removed it. you added it back without knowing anything about the site, or that it even was a blog" and pointed me at the RSN. Scjessey commented, saying he'd like to see better sourcing added, and Theserialcomma posted, apropos of nothing in Scjessey's comment that I could see, "spanish blogs don't become reliable because you don't speak spanish." After some more sourcing discussion, including Theserialcomma's comment of "but don't listen to me; i only speak spanish and actually understand the site. edit war instead", Judas278 inquired, "Projecting forward, will you want to re-publish their entire marketing and PR campaigns here in this article, since you can find a self-published blog or wiki article by a founder, for each campaign? Is this the purpose of wikipedia.?"

Shortly afterward, 194x commented, "I'm gonna go out on a limb but these repeated attempts to include advertising material by Scjessey can in no way be considered good faith edits since he should be fully aware that this sort of conduct is not acceptable." (This, incidentally, is the metaphoric limb Scjessey was responding to in the diff 194x posted below.) This statement was inaccurate, considering that Scjessey had done nothing to the article since his addition of the category a week and a half previously. After Scjessey's comment, Theserialcomma said, "How exactly do you 'metaphorically' snap someone's limb off and smash them over the head with it", misconstruing the comment.

Earlier today, in a discussion about protecting the article while undergoing arbitration (if we get back to net +4), 194x said "Admission of guilt: It's like this the other day Scjessey suggested something and I responded to it with a *Strong oppose and some explanation but that's not really the way one is supposed to respond to such things, one is rather to try and discuss the matters and such but the thing is with this user Scjessey is that he repeatedly suggest adding advertisement material to the article and such and it has been discussed repeatedly before but he just doesn't take a hint so well one just simply loses his patience with him and doesn't assume good faith like one is mandated to do cause good faith seems so far fetched in his case and instead just tries to save some time by voicing his opposition in the clearest way possible. I also want to state that when it comes to this article that a new attitude simply isn't credible either. There you have it I'm guilty." (What I'm getting out of that is a refusal to assume good faith and an unwillingness to move forward. YMMV.)

Since then, Judas took the section back out with "most discussion disagrees with the addition, so removing" and I restored with "Nothing like a consensus to delete at this point. It's not advertising, and it's not controversial." (For those keeping score at home, that's one addition and two restorations by me, one restoration by TheRealFennShysa, two removals by Judas278, and one removal by Theserialcomma.)

ETA: Since Judas hasn't been able to obtain a clear consensus for his version of the article, he says that "Work to consensus seems gone." He also claims that because DreamHost hasn't answered all the questions that have been added to the Wiki page for the service, it's encyclopedic to say that "numerous unanswered questions remain."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ETA^2: I asked for further opinions on COI issues at the WP:COIN. The editor who responded found no COI issues, specifically stating that referral compensation did not create a COI. Judas made various familiar arguments, and was told that he might want to redact at least one of them. His response was that his arguments were plausible, to which the other editor stated that it appeared he was acting out of a personal grudge.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

Response to arbitrator Risker
  • Actually, I don't think this is a content dispute, because the disputes have been spread over every part of the article and talk page. It seems clear to me that it's a user conduct issue -- I'm just not sure whose conduct is the problem.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Judas278
Response to 194x144x90x118
  • Regarding "Let me start by saying that I've acctually only ONCE! edited the article and cosidering that I can not see how I've been responsible for the 'the article being fully protected for most of the past two months'":
  1. I didn't say that
  2. Reviewing your contribution history to the talkpage:
    • first edit: reverted by Theserialcomma without comment.
    • second edit, essentially the same as the first, plus "BTW if anybody goes ahead and deletes this section of mine again then you'll have a new warrior stepping upto the plate to participate in this little discussion of yours.": reverted by Dayewalker as WP:SOAPBOXing.
    • third edit, essentially the same as the first, plus "Feel free to remove this section and my remarks AGAIN which sparked this whole auto archiving discussion in the first place, I'll just put them right back up and then some.": reverted by Dayewalker as WP:SOAPBOXing.
    • next edit: included "archiving ... is an attempt to bury the evidence by the same people who have so far put a great deal of energy into making the entire article about Dreamhost seem like one big 'Ahhh all normal'."
    • next edit: included "Oh do not attempt to act like you're just being an honest wikipedian out to improve the online encyclopedia.", reverted by Scjessey for soapboxing
    • next edit: restored third edit, reverted by me for discussing subject rather than article.
    • next edit: restored deleted comments, reverted by Theserialcomma.
    • next edit: restored deleted comments, reverted in two chunks by Onorem for discussing subject and me for personal attacks. After a bit more of this, I semi-protected the talk page.
    • Later on, right after full protection on the article had expired: "This article is not protected so anyone is free to edit it at his own discretion.... I won't allow this article to be turned into a nice free biased advertisement for dreamhost." Shortly after this comment, PhilKnight re-protected the article.

So yeah, you have been responsible for a lot of the protection here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

I've been watching 194x144x90x118 (talk · contribs) for a while. Something appears to be not right. Their second edit ever is way too knowledgeable (and snarky) for them to be a new user. I suggest checkuser. Jehochman Talk 13:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the user previously edited as an unregistered account from that IP address, see 194.144.90.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Thatcher 13:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you check for the involvement of other accounts, or is it just the named account and the IP? I am not sure why this editor has been somewhat caustic from the start. 194, can you say whether somebody mistreated you at some point in your history here? Jehochman Talk 03:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Upon quick review it seems that 194 was on the wrong end of a bad sock puppetry permablock. That would tend to make a user feel grumpy. Jehochman Talk 04:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not keen to preempt the Committee, but it might be useful for these matters to be reviewed at WP:COIN or WP:NPOVN. This is the sort of case that those boards routinely process. Jehochman Talk 14:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Sjakkalle

I suggest somebody uninvolved give 194x144x90x118 counseling on how to avoid disruptive editing. Should that fail, they can be blocked by any uninvolved administrator. A case is not needed for such routine actions. Jehochman Talk 11:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the committee

Per my findings at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#DreamHost, I am prepared to indefinitely block Judas278 (talk · contribs) as a disruption-only account if they will not agree to refrain from further interaction with Scjessey. Judas278 appears to have used a prior account, Guantanamo247 (talk · contribs) which commenced harassing Scjessey with it's very first edit.[35] The user appears to be here only to bother Scjessey. That is clearly not allowed. Jehochman Talk 17:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Judas278

I welcome any productive steps. I am not familiar enough with the options to have an opinion on the best route. I believe significant limitation of Scjessey's participation is appropriate. In summary, SarekOfVulcan's statement, “Simon, please take another look at WP:OWN. You're way too close to this article to look at it objectively” was excellent advice, which unfortunately has not been followed.

I do not treat “any positive information” as advertising or COI. I do object to pro-company editors removing well-sourced negative information while adding positive information without using similar standards, or by claiming “non-controversial” exceptions. I am an ex-customer, not a fan, and I previously observed the development of this article. I began editing the article when I saw the COI, NPOV and SELFPUB tags being removed, without significant changes in the article to justify removal. Example: I suggested a positive addition, covering “ceph”, but did not know of sources for it.

Scjessey is much more than a “satisfied customer.” Without listing details, several different editors have said his editing at DreamHost appears biased by pro-DreamHost COI. Also, he is creator of an off-wiki web site intended to influence or discourage participation, including at Wikipedia, by “outing” personal information and user name(s). This information was provided privately to Philknight and is available privately on request.

Civility: No question Scjessey regularly “welcomed” new editors at DreamHost with prompt, un-discussed edit reverts and accusations of bad faith. The recent Restrictions as a result of his participation in the Obama articles seems to confirm that problems at DreamHost are not an isolated incident. In my opinion, his talk page activity appears largely argumentative and drives away other editors, rather than working to compromise or consensus. I think 194x got off to a “bad” start on this article because s/he stepped into a bad atmosphere, and the Talk page was soon also semi-blocked as a result, forcing him to register. On the whole I think s/he's been a somewhat moderating influence at DreamHost. I try to take SarekOfVulcan 's involvement with good faith, but I will say he does sometimes seem to use Admin power to excess, to force his desired outcome. His apparent attempts at humor sometimes work, but sometimes inflame or derail discussions. Judas278 (talk) 05:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

  • Response to SarekOfVulcan adding Theserialcomma: A voice of reason, from whom I learned to improve my interpretations of policies and guidelines. Was it simply disagreement over an edit, or a suggestion causing the addition?
  • Response to Jehochman talk page: Is it necessary to cast aspersions and doubts? I have listened to advice from other impartial editors, and modified my actions because of it.
Response to initiator/admin SarekOfVulcan

I await direction or questions from Arbitrators or impartial authorities. I thought this was the place for briefly determining a need for a case, not for arguing the case or "Long, rambling additions." Judas278 (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Scjessey

Although still somewhat bruised from my previous encounter with ArbCom, I would be delighted to see the committee accept this case. Broadly-speaking, I concur with the statement made by SarekOfVulcan. DreamHost has very few regular editors, which makes it easy for one or two individuals to disrupt the editing environment - the lack of participants also makes it easy for editors to make ownership claims. Of particular concern, however, is the behavior of a disgruntled ex-customer who has essentially destroyed a peaceful and productive editing atmosphere by attacking the subject, and then the editors, of this article.

Attempts to improve the article are constantly obstructed (again, fairly easy to do with so few editors to help establish consensus) and advice gained from informal mediation, requests for comment and third opinions is essentially being ignored. Suggestions for article improvement are quashed with claims of "advertising" or protracted meta discussion.

It is my hope that rather than taking punitive measures, ArbCom will instead focus on offering guidance to all involved parties (both named and otherwise) as to how to resolve conflict and return to productive editing. I also hope that this might lead to a wider discussion of the problems associated with single-purpose accounts, as I have found that these are a frequent source of disruption across much of Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself in broad agreement with statements made by arbitrators John Vandenberg and Vassyana. Until John mentioned it, I wasn't even aware of the Content Noticeboard. It seems logical to try to resolve content-related matters there before imposing on ArbCom. Likewise, the matters concerning editor behavior have really evolved from the perception that several parties have some sort of conflict of interest - something which should be resolved at the COI Noticeboard. I'd be more than happy to give those avenues a try, particularly because they would attract the welcome attention of uninvolved administrators. Even if that proves unsuccessful, the least it would do would be to help parties collect their thoughts/evidence, and provide arbitrators with additional material to help with their deliberations. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 194x144x90x118

Let me start by saying that I've acctually only ONCE! edited the article and cosidering that I can not see how I've been responsible for the "the article being fully protected for most of the past two months" let me continue by stating that I have not treated all positive information about the company as advertisements Line 930 the third edit.

Let me also state that I OBJECT! to the autoarchiving bot being abused The bots page the text that appears on it: "NOTE: Before setting up automatic archiving on an article's talk page, please establish a consensus that archiving is really needed there." . Bottom line, Don't use the bot unless you first establish a consensus. The acts of Sarekofvulcan and Scjessey were nothing less than gross abuse of the bot repeatedly changing its settings without first respecting the requirement that a consensus needed to be obtained. Something which can be compared to impaling someone with a white flag.

Now lets address the players involved

Theserialcomma

I fail to see how this user has possibly done anything wrong.

Judas

Scjesseys and Sareks complaint in the past regarding this user is that he is an SPA but only being an SPA isn't an offense according to wikipedias rules.

Scjessey

Lets begin with viewing other peoples complaints regarding this user from his very own talkpage:

1!!! Complaint and "I will NEVER make any more donations like I have in the past." by User:Carterwj.

2!!! Complaint regarding personal attacks made by Scjessey, by User:Caspian blue.
3!!! Complaint regarding civility made by User:Bigtimepeace
4!!! Complaint from me regarding repeated personal attacks on the dreamhost talkpage.
5!!! Scjessey calling someone a "worthless coward".

Now lets take a look at the Dreamhost talkpage shall we?

1!!! Scjessey threatening violence or making an inappropriate joke "I swear I'm going to metaphorically snap that limb off and bash somebody over the head with it"
11:06, 11 March 2009 Innapropriate sock claims "I believe the disgruntled drive-by tagger is probably a sock, since the account has a single purpose with a limited history, yet seems able to wikilawyer adeptly."
00:27, 3 April Personal attack by Scjessey "Have you no interested in edititing anything else on Wikipeda, other than this crusade of hate?"
16:31, 4 April 2009 Personal attack by Scjessey "Why don't you go and learn the rules and then come back and try to be a productive Wikipedian, rather than a disruptive SPA?"
20:31, 5 April 2009 "You are being deliberately obtuse and tendentious because you have a grudge against the company. It is a complete waste of time trying to discuss this with you, because you have the red mist of DreamHost rage in your eyes" Personal attack by Scjessey.
01:02, 7 April 2009 Scjessey personal attack "You don't make good faith edits. All your edits are in bad faith, because your sole reason for editing here is to discredit DreamHost"
01:58, 7 April 2009 "Wikipedia is not your personal playground of hate."
02:29, 9 April 2009 "Also, since you are just a DreamHost-hating SPA, your "challenge" is essentially meaningless."
02:04, 4 May 2009 Personal attack by Scjessey "Sometimes the senseless outnumber the sensible - that's probably how Bush managed to twice get elected."
02:30, 4 May 2009 "I regard you very much as part of a coalition of the foolish,"
03:59, 20 April 2009 Personal attacks "You are way off base here. Your edits have the sole effect of attacking the company, whereas my edits are for the benefit of the Wikipedia project. It doesn't take a genius to figure out who has the conflict of interest."
04:14, 20 April 2009 Threats and personal attacks "If this were any other article I edit on, you would have been blocked long ago for being a disruptive SPA. You have escaped this long only because this is a low-trafficked, low-importance article. Now please stop your misrepresentations."
21:01, 27 May 2009 Personal attacks "If the banhammer doesn't fall upon you, I will simply be ignoring you from now on."

I'd dig up the diffs and show them to you guys but I just don't have more time today and besides all of this can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:DreamHost&oldid=299280215

Scjessey continued

1!!! As this link will show Scjessey has been editing this article disruptively for the past 20! Months or longer.
I'd also like to ask you to take a look at THIS!!! link but it proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that Scjessey tried to recruite Meatpuppets to change an AFD.
And HERE! we have a complaint from a user JavierMC regarding Scjessey and article ownership.

I ask: Is it fair to Wikipedia users that we wait another 20 months for these matters to be reviewed? --194x144x90x118 (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sjakkalle

Although my (brief) experience with 194x144x90x118 was not related to the DreamHost dispute, I think consideration of 194x144x90x118's conduct in general is in order. A couple of weeks ago he launched a series of personal attacks (e.g. [36])) and intimidation (e.g. [37]) against editors at the chess WikiProject during a content dispute, and the presence of this arbcom request also involving possible disruptive editing from 194x144x90x118 is an indication that this editor's behavior in general may require further scrutiny, possibly sanctions. I don't know about the other editors listed in the request, so I shall not comment on them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that a discussion has opened on this subject at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#DreamHost, where much of the potential case discussion and evidence is being discussed. I would encourage a final decision as to acceptance or rejection of this Arbitration request be made quickly, so discussion may proceed in the appropriate venue, rather than divided amongst several locations. ArakunemTalk 15:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dtobias

I have the distinction of being the one who started the Dreamhost article, years ago, but have not been a significant participant in recent editing, commenting, and squabbling regarding the article. I am a Dreamhost customer, so if that status is ultimately adjudged to be a conflict of interest I'll comply with any conditions placed on editing. I fail to understand what's so important that everybody is fighting so heatedly about it... "Can't we all just get along?" *Dan T.* (talk) 03:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

I'm waiting on direction from the arbitrators about opening this, as we're still missing some statements and three arbitrators still appear to be on the fence for this issue. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 21:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please hold on for now. I think a couple of us are waiting to see what might happen over the next couple of days. At the moment the case has fallen below "net 4" anyway, but that might change again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All users posting here should be aware that personal attacks will not be tolerated here and will be summarily removed by clerks or arbitrators on sight. RFAR has enough drama associated with it already without people insulting one another. Please maintain a basic level of civility and decorum, as you would anywhere else on Wikipedia. Thank you. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (7/8/0/0)

  • Decline at this time, in agreement with Vassyana. I recommend that the editors involved make use of the Content noticeboard and take other steps. Consider requests for comment and posting at business-related wikiproject talk pages seeking other opinions. This does not appear to be ripe for arbitration yet, and I would like to see more community involvement tried first. I do urge all involved editors to remain open-minded in reviewing other options here; whether or not one is a "satisfied customer" should be irrelevant to one's edits. Risker (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

actually, I think editor conduct and conflict resolution issues can be dealt with by normal community means. thus decline Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Accept:  Roger Davies talk 03:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. There are other avenues of dispute resolution left available. As an example noted by Jehochman, there are noticeboards suitable for handling and clarifying aspects of this situation. I'm also inclined to believe that an uninvolved administrator or two can be found to address any remaining concerns. I am open to being convinced that arbitration is necessary here, but I am skeptical to the notion that this dispute cannot be resolved at the community level. ArbCom should not preempt or supplant the community. On a broader note, the community should take note of this dispute. It is repeated throughout a significant portion of our company articles. Noticeboards discussions and other outside input from the community constitute a necessary step in clarifying policy in relation to those areas and (thus) better addressing these disputes. It is infinitely better for the community to establish this context and application. --Vassyana (talk) 10:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated comment. While a better picture of the dispute has been laid out in the expanded comments, no pressing reason is provided to accept this request. That is, this still seems within the community's reach to resolve. --Vassyana (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject at this time. Behavioural issues seem low-level and not beyond ordinary administrator intervention, if any is warranted. The content dispute is the core of this, and there are further dispute resolution options to pursue in relation to that, particularly ones that involve seeking outside opinion (this is especially true if party-internal methods such as mediation are not being productive). The request for comment linked to above seemed to attract only two uninvolved users; consider contacting a relevant WikiProject or advertising a request at a relevant noticeboard (though keeping relevant guidelines in mind). --bainer (talk) 05:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline - this is borderline, but the conduct and content issues can be handled by the community, with a bit more work. If that fails, please return here for arbitration, but all parties should be aware that poor conduct on both sides will likely be sanctioned, so it would be best for all concerned if they worked together to resolve this. Carcharoth (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. I don't normally reject due to inadequate prior steps, but I don't understand why this is an unresolvable dispute. Seems like a lame edit war, and with Judas' apparent retirement, I don't see what more we could do. Cool Hand Luke 20:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]