Revision as of 17:14, 31 August 2011 view sourceXeno (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Administrators103,386 editsm →Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/0/2): tally← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:25, 2 September 2011 view source AlexandrDmitri (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,569 edits →Astroturfing on Singaporean politics: declineNext edit → | ||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<br clear="all"/> | <br clear="all"/> | ||
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header}} | {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header}} | ||
== Astroturfing on Singaporean politics == | |||
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 01:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
=== Involved parties === | |||
:''Note, listed IPs as parties are non-exhaustive and their exact identities as distinct parties are hard to pin down''. | |||
<!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator --> | |||
*{{userlinks|la goutte de pluie}}, ''filing party'' | |||
*{{userlinks|202.156.13.10}} | |||
*{{userlinks|202.156.13.11}} | |||
**other IPs within the 202.156.13.* range | |||
*Singapore government IP addresses: | |||
** {{userlinks|160.96.200.34}} | |||
** {{userlinks|160.96.200.35}} | |||
** {{userlinks|160.96.200.36}} | |||
** {{userlinks|160.96.200.37}} | |||
*{{userlinks|218.186.16.233}} | |||
*{{userlinks|Geneva2011}} | |||
** Other sockpuppets, and suspected sockpuppets at ] | |||
*{{userlinks|Strange Passerby}} | |||
*{{userlinks|Zhanzhao}} | |||
<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. --> | |||
;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request | |||
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. --> | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | |||
<!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration --> | |||
*Link 1 | |||
*Link 2 | |||
=== Statement by La goutte de pluie === | |||
; Why I am seeking arbitration | |||
I originally sought to ask via RFC community input on the matter, a la ], which attracted ''huge'' attention on a relatively small number of COI edits. I saw my RFC/U as a good thing, since, it would draw matter to the whole attention, and I did not mind resigning my sysop bit in order to ensure that more community attention would be paid to the matter. Since then, this desired community attention has not occurred to any satisfactory level, and the fact of the matter remains that problematic anonymous users can still engage in tendentious editing while escaping the scrutiny and sanctions of the community. | |||
While there is sometimes conflict, I have worked satisfactorily with such established users as Zhanzhao and Strange Passerby.I respect their views and discussion, and we use talk pages frequently. I am seeking their statements only because they have been involved in the whole affair as witnesses: they are worthy and fair editors, and make constructive contributions to discussion. | |||
In contrast, many of the IP users in question are clearly not out to improve the project, but to enforce their agenda, cherrypicking policy and ] the system. The definition of ] is when some external goal becomes more important than the project. The integrity of the project has always been my utmost concern. I simply do not want Misplaced Pages to be debased to the standard of being a high-pagerank outlet for promotionalism and propaganda. Further attempted DR like mediation or RFC would not at all, get these editors to put the interests of the project above their external interests. As such, I am seeking to proceed to arbitration directly. | |||
While the (mainstream) press has not reported significantly on this phenomenon to mention it in any article, nascent citizen journalists have. I would like to point the ArbCom of other examples of likely government-sponsored "trolling" -- Misplaced Pages is not the only victim. to astroturf online communities. With a google search, we can find meatspace user johntan88888, who uploaded the "gay agenda video" which was confirmed to be the video that ] referred to in an accusation against the SDP. John Tan also happens to the name of a prominent SDP leader, and the name of an account on Facebook which went around different prominent opposition pages making derogatory comments about homosexuality, but did not have any of the public personal information that most other facebook users had -- that is, the account was likely registered as an "impostor attack account". I ask the ArbCom to consider this offwiki evidence that astroturfing a high-ranking site such as Misplaced Pages would not be beyond the ethics of possible employers involved. | |||
Succinctly, I detail some examples of on-wiki COI and . The list is far from nonexhaustive. | |||
Word count: 483 | |||
;Response to arbitrators | |||
: I intend to complete the request soon, but it is a lot of tedious, unjoyous work compiling diffs. ] (]) 04:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
: Much of the initial beginnings of the affair are now contained in a series of edits contained in ] (that had been deleted for separate, foundational copyvio concerns going all the way to 2005.) I would like to request (in order for me to compile my request properly) that those series of edits be undeleted so they can be subject to diff citation and public scrutiny. ] (]) 04:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
=== Statement by Strange Passerby === | |||
Short of a community-wide content and conduct RFC on the matter (a la ]), and with little prior dispute resolution, I will not be providing the Arbitration Committee with a statement and would strongly urge the Committee to decline the case until further DR has been attempted. ] (] • ]) 03:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
*Response to NYB/Risker: Indeed, the only past related dispute resolution has been about La goutte de pluie (] and ]) and her actions as an editor and admin (the latter of which she no longer is after resigning the tools). There has been little to no attempted dispute resolution with the IP address (granted, partially because it keeps hopping and imo there is a real concern of ]), but Elle (La goutte) has repeatedly in the past expressed an intention to file an RFC similar to the U.S. Congress RFC in 2006, so I am very surprised she has decided to come straight here. I would be willing to take part in any such wide-scale RFC, but will not take part in an arbitration request without such a prior RFC. ] (] • ]) 03:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
*It should be noted that there are two different issues here: one a content issue and the other conduct. The two are intrinsically linked here and I would advise the Committee to proceed very carefully not to end up straying too much into the content area of this dispute. I would much prefer ArbCom extend by motion the community general sanctions agreed on at ANI to cover all Singaporean politics articles, as FuFoFuEd suggests below. ] (] • ]) 14:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Please direct any questions to my talk page as I do not intend to take part in this request any further. ] (] • ]) 15:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
=== Statement by kinda uninvolved Ebe123 === | |||
Please accept this request even though an RfC is under process. Wikistalking is very bad for this encyclopeadia. ~~]~~ (+) {{Su|p=]|b=]}} 11:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
=== Statement by FuFoFuEd === | |||
ArbCom could pass by motion ] on the topic area. It's hard to file a RfC on and various other come-and-go ] accounts. While WP:AE has its limitations, it seems better suited for dealing with this type of problem. I note that the community already enacted 1RR+semiprotection for a few of the articles involved, but soon after that edit warring without any discussion spread to other articles. ] (]) 14:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
I see that the IP range in question has gained some blocks , and more of the IPs in this range have received edit warring warnings. That would have been held against a registered user in a topic ban discussion. ] (]) 14:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
Here's an example of interaction in this area: 203.116.187.1 a reference to a satirical film mentioned in Singaporean education, claiming it was "sensationalising issues". La goutte de pluie reverts claiming "cultural legacy" relevance. 202.156.13.245 La goutte de pluie without comment--although one can easily imagine that pro-gov't-policies editor sees that edit of La goutte as unsourced and possibly out-of-date POV because the EM3 stream was apparently abolished in 2008--and then La goutte reverts the IP for "wikistalking" . ] (]) 15:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
appears to be another problematic range see and their contributions. ] (]) 17:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
=== Statement by Cube Lurker === | |||
I'm not convinced that this can't be handled by the community. With the issue of tool usage already resolved we're left with making sure the articles follow ] & ]. More eyes on the articles by uninvolved admins and experienced editors seems the main thing that is needed.--] (]) 15:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
=== Clerk notes === | |||
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' | |||
*'''Recuse''' as I participated in ]. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 22:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/0/2) === | |||
*Awaiting completion of the request and further statements. The filing party should address, in the appropriate section, what prior dispute resolution attempts have been made and why they have not been successful (or, if steps have been skipped, the reason the matter should go straight to arbitration). Thank you. ] (]) 03:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
* Could a clerk please advise the filing party to make a statement? I'm not willing to consider a request without any narrative. I'd also be interested in any and all attempts at dispute resolution, including any RFCs (content or user), SPIs, requests for assistance at any noticeboards, etc. I have the sense that there has indeed been an ongoing problem here, but there's nothing in the request itself to indicate what kind of problem that might be. ] (]) 03:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
**Not to do the filing party's work, but for anyone following, ] and ] contain relevant discussion. (For those without a scorecard, La goutte de pluie, who signs as "Elle", is the filing party here.) ] (]) 03:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
***Thanks, Newyorkbrad. I note that, according to that RFC, there has actually been a fairly extensive history of trying to resolve this dispute, and the RFC specifically refers to concerns about the possibly inappropriate use of administrator tools, and La goutte de pluie has since self-requested desysopping. La goutte de pluie, I suggest you focus on the disputes and discussions that are accessible and noted on the RFC, as well as any related non-deleted threads; we do not need full evidence at this point to decide whether or not to accept the case. At this point, I am leaning toward acceptance. ] (]) 14:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
****Just as an FYI, the self-request was in the context of a recall and therefore any return of administrative permissions would need to be via new RFA. –]] 14:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
*'''Decline''' for now, without prejudice against considering the matter in the future. Given that an RfC is underway, I would prefer to see that method tried through to its end before we become involved. ] (]) 05:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
*'''Decline'''. We might be able to help if the problem persists in a month, but right now is too soon. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 12:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
*'''Awaiting further comments.''' –]] 14:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
*:'''Decline'''; this can probably be adequately addressed in other venues. The remedies suggested by FuFoFuEd could be sought at ]. –]] 17:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
*Minded to '''accept'''. The ANI report and follow up RfC focussed on Elle, and in particular the question of whether her editing was acceptable for an administrator. However, the behaviour of other parties, most of whom edit from IPs was also raised as a significant concern, particularly as some are editing from what appear to be government offices, so there is the potential for a parallel with the Scientology case. ] (]) 15:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:25, 2 September 2011
Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
Open casesCase name | Links | Evidence due | Prop. Dec. due |
---|---|---|---|
Palestine-Israel articles 5 | (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) | 21 Dec 2024 | 11 Jan 2025 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
Arbitrator motionsMotion name | Date posted |
---|---|
Arbitrator workflow motions | 10 January 2025 |
Requests for arbitration
Shortcuts
About this page Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
Guidance on participation and word limits Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.
General guidance
|