Revision as of 18:49, 14 April 2014 view sourceNewyorkbrad (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,486 edits →Arzel: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter: question← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:21, 14 April 2014 view source Sphilbrick (talk | contribs)Administrators178,668 edits Removing request for arbitration: declined by the CommitteeNext edit → | ||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}} | <noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}} | ||
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=53%</noinclude>}} | {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=53%</noinclude>}} | ||
== Battleground Off of Rupert Sheldrake == | |||
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 18:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
=== Involved parties === | |||
<!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator --> | |||
*{{userlinks|Askahrc}}, ''filing party'' | |||
*{{userlinks|Vzaak}} | |||
*{{userlinks|76.107.171.90}} | |||
*{{userlinks|Barney the barney barney}} | |||
*{{userlinks|QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV}} | |||
*{{userlinks|David in DC}} | |||
*{{userlinks|74.192.84.101}} | |||
*{{userlinks|Lou Sander}} | |||
*{{userlinks|Liz}} | |||
*{{userlinks|Second_quantization}} | |||
*{{admin|Callanecc}} | |||
*{{admin|JzG}} | |||
*{{userlinks|Krelnik}} | |||
<!-- 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. --> | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
*Second_quantization | |||
* | |||
* | |||
;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried (This is a relatively small sample; this has been a contentious issue with many more discussions, ANI's, and related AE's than would be feasible to list here) | |||
<!-- 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 --> | |||
*Attempted Talk Page Resolution: ] (impossible to list completely; 20 pages of archived material), ], ] | |||
*Attempted Sanctions: ] | |||
*Attempted Noticeboard Discussions: , ], ] | |||
*Attempted AE: ] | |||
*Attempted AR: (determined to be a legitimate issue that needed to work its way through the resolution steps above), ] (original Arbitration on the issue) | |||
=== Statement by ] === | |||
<div class="center" style="width: auto; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;">''I apologize for the greater than 500 word length.''</div> | |||
There is a culture of ] at ] which treats editors outside a particular group (including ], ], ], and to a lesser degree ] & ]) as enemies that are held to a different standard than the dominant skeptical editors. These editors have ignored ], practiced reputation destruction of those who have ] concerns and repeatedly declared that anyone who has a different POV on the Sheldrake page should be blocked from it, pursuing battleground through harassment on & off WP, including barrages of blocking attempts and canvassing among those on the skeptic "side." The very assumption that there are "sides," let alone a right and wrong one, ] and has resulted in a hostile environment where there didn't need to be one. | |||
I submitted an AR about this in , which was returned with the suggestion I again try normal channels to resolve the ] issues. My addressing this "Us vs. Them" mentality as recommended has resulted in persistent harassment, something many other editors on this page have faced. Fringe v. Skeptic should '''''not''''' be the issue; I am a skeptic myself but consider the behavior on this page to be in violation of ], ], ] and ]. | |||
The information below is representative of the problem. | |||
*'''Establishing Battleground''': A number of editors (generally skeptics) repeatedly insist that there are clear "sides" and that theirs is the only acceptable POV (, ], ], ], , ). These editors claim that they need to defend the page from large numbers of pseudoscientists, despite the fact that out of the to the page, known skeptics have made '''1,043''' edits to Sheldrake, while those who disagree with them (many of whom present BLP issues rather than Fringe) have made '''372'''. They consistently refer to any dissent as illegitimate and proof of incompetency, woo-pushing, stupidity or trolling behavior. Example: | |||
:<small>''"Seriously though, you should leave the Sheldrake page alone. The forces of reason won “the battle for Rupert Sheldrake’s Misplaced Pages page” and it’s time for you to accept that. ]"'' </small> | |||
*'''Harassing the "Opposing" Side''': There has been systemic abuse of those who have either contradicted these vocal editors or argued on behalf of those who have been harassed, (, , ), especially typified by the hostility shown ], who has never edited a Fringe article but merely pointed out battleground behavior. Editors are warned that if they want to avoid harassment they should never edit ] again. (, , ) This harassment does not stop within WP. ], who has argued in nearly every Sheldrake sanctions case in favor of blocking dissent, has been prominently cited in both the both the and Tim Farley’s skeptic blog ridiculing the non-skeptical WP editors on Sheldrake. ] edits transparently as ], has posted on the and promoted and defended the harassment and of a WP editor. | |||
*'''Silencing the "Opposing" side''': In addition to denigration, the same collections of editors canvass one another to gain support for SPI/AE's intended to silence differing opinions (, , , , ). Ironically, these procedural attacks increase the more that an editor complains of being attacked, and rarely include significant evidence of disruption or abuse. Reputation destruction is conducted by preserving their own accusations as "character" evidence for later, larger cases. (, ) | |||
*'''Failure of Existing Measures''': Semiprotection does nothing against established editors and Revert-Restrictions do not address the problem of ] tactics that target editors rather than articles. My own case demonstrates what it is clearly retaliation, as ''every'' procedural has been initiated ''immediately'' after I've complained about one of the skeptic editors: | |||
<small> | |||
##'''''Action 1''''': When I could not maintain an edit no matter how much I discussed/negotiated or how minor the change (ie. removing redundant quotes, fixing punctuation), I filed an to address an aspect of the ] behavior. | |||
###'''''Retaliation 1A (Within 1 Day)''''': The ANI stalled, but within hours Vzaak sent a message to Barney_the_barney_barney telling him to "check his email," and a few hours after that Vzaak filed an ] against me, pushing for my blocking. | |||
###'''''Retaliation 1B (Within 1 Day of SPI's End)''''': When the SPI ended with just a warning Vzaak immediately ] insisting that I was a deceptive harasser that ''needed'' to be blocked. (The case was tabled for lack of any evidence) | |||
##'''''Action 2''''': I was threatened by other skeptic editors that further complaints would lead to my blocking. (, ), culminating in obscenities and personal attacks. I ] against the most offensive editor when I discovered '''he was canvassing other editors to try and block me''' despite months of avoiding any Fringe article. The AE led to the temporary sanction of 2 skeptic editors for PA's and ], despite their attempts to ]. | |||
###'''''Retaliation 2 (Within 1 Day)''''': The very next day after the AE, ''another'' SPI was leveled against me by a different skeptic editor, even after an ] that a CheckUser confirmed I had absolutely no connection to the crime. I am shocked at being accused of criminal behavior as what seems to be for editing disagreements.</small> | |||
In summation, we have a group of editors adopting a ] mentality, turning editors who could otherwise be productive into outcasts by attacking their reputation and harassing them away with what, in extreme cases, ] on ]. This is resulting in needless SPI’s, AE's, battleground activity, discouraged editors and a violation of the spirit of Misplaced Pages. Editors should not have to live under constant attack if they cross a group of experienced editors, no matter their POV. Whether the solution is blocking/bans (topic or general) for these harassing editors or blanket interaction bans is up to the ArbCom, but the status quo is not working. | |||
:@], please stop spreading the falsehood that I have a TBAN on ] or any other topic. I don't have ''any'' bans and this is the second time I've pointed this out, yet you keep bringing up this fictional ban and then argue for a block. Also, I am not anti-NPOV or any of the other things you rattled off. I'm not trying to curtail how anyone edits, in fact my AR is saying that ] trend is exactly the problem that needs to be addressed. Also, please do not add editors/admins to the Involved Parties list without telling either myself or the party you add (]), it creates the appearance that I was trying to hide information from them. () | |||
:@], here are a few quick retorts: there was one SPI against me that carried a warning, which though I disagreed with the admin's decision I respect and abide by it. You've since brought that SPI up as justification to dismiss/block me in every policy interaction I've done since, along with the turn of phrase in my ''work of fiction'' that I removed hours after I wrote it when I realized it could be misinterpreted. You can't continue to harass someone for something just because the punishment wasn't as severe as you wanted. You talk about my vague aspersions (it's a coincidence that '''every one of your 3 cases''' against me came 1 day after I issued complaints?) but your rejoinder is effectively a rehash of old accusations, the majority of which have been dismissed. | |||
:@], I apologize for not informing you, I didn't think it relevant since we've had few interactions and I was issuing no complaints against you (). As to your response, all I can do is reiterate what I said above: I'm not arguing about Fringe, but editor conduct. Fringe articles ''should'' be critical, they ''should'' reflect science and ''should'' state that Morphic Resonance has no scientific backing. I don't generally edit ] and don't want to turn WP into a loudspeaker for pseudoscience. Saying that I'm some woo-pusher is as false as claiming that there's a TBAN on me. | |||
:Also, with all due respect I feel the push to ] is unwarranted and misrepresented. I didn't violate any sanction, ban or even suggestion, and there's no shopping here. I edited Sheldrake, saw it was suffering from intense ] and tried to mediate some middle ground. Since then I've been treated like garbage, and when I've complained about it people try to block me; that's what this AR is about. All of the prior attempts to resolve this are at the top of the AR, and ''the prior AR concluded with a recommendation that I pursue this through these very channels''. I think if you look into my case beyond Barney's accusation you'll find I've never violated ] and that I've been very patient with ''a lot'' of hostile behavior. | |||
:@], that's an excellent question. I've tried handling this through ANI and AE, but the problem is that each time I present a case there, a motion to block me always appears from another editor with connections to the one I filed a case against. It's broader than a simple feud between two editors or disruption on a single article, this is a systemic (though I wouldn't argue systematic) trend of retaliation ''for the very act'' of filing AE's. | |||
:@], to expand on the above, ] covers content and edit warring, ] and discretionary sanctions relating to pseudoscience articles, but does not address this more recent problem of broader ]. ARBSCI allows for sanctions if Editor A is uncivil to Editor B, but imagine if ''Editor A tells Editor B to stay off a page or else, then Editor C (a longtime affiliate of Editor A) immediately tries to get Editor B blocked if they don't. Editor A claims they didn't actually do anything, while Editor C insists their block attempt had nothing to do with Editor A's threats''. '''Now imagine this happens in the exact same way four times.''' That is the problem of collaborative retaliatory harassment that ARBSCI does not address, but which a lower threshold for interaction bans could resolve. | |||
:@], you do not seem to understand what this AR is about. It has nothing to do with what you've edited at Sheldrake, it has to do with you uncivil, obscenity-laden behavior towards me, as well as your efforts to get me banned when I call you on it. Speaking of stalking, you neglect to mention that I only filed an AE when I discovered you were trying to build a case to get me banned after I'd been ignoring your insults for weeks. And I highly encourage people to read the statement 76 links to, it's the type of PA-filled vitriol that got them ]. | |||
:@], I did not accuse you of outing a WP editor; Vzaak did that. (, ], ]) What you did do, however, was promote the outing and harassment of that editor off site. You’re mentioned here because though you may have posted only once to Sheldrake, you’ve been involved in the battleground mentality occurring there. Your one post to Sheldrake was regarding another which references ] on the Sheldrake article. You're involved enough to want to research/read that book on the issue - write a blog , act as a liaison between . You’re involved enough that only you and Jerry Coyne had the same link to ] which is not linked to anything except your site and the New Atlantic. If you were just a blogger this wouldn't be an issue, but since you’re a blogger who posts extensively about encouraging battleground on an article you've also commented on, it's unrealistic to claim ignorance here. | |||
:Finally, please note that WP editor did not deliberately reveal his actual name. The site you pointed to is a publication posted ''after'' being outed that reviewed the steps taken by certain WP editors to expose personal information about that editor on WP. That editor, who I have my own issues with, nevertheless had a right to privacy that they repeatedly asked others to respect. The consequences for editors so outed are being derided publicly on , with entire articles being created to and then being . This behavior perpetuates a battle mentality off-WP. | |||
:'''@], @], @]''', I can see how it seems that discretionary sanctions/AE's should resolve this, but the simple fact is that they aren't. When several editors work in concert to harass another editor, it makes it incredibly difficult for that editor to defend themselves. Every single time I've tried to press a complaint against one editor, two or more of their associates accuse me of misconduct and try to get me banned, meaning that there's a very powerful disincentive to confront these people. It's like reporting a crime at the police station with the criminal's friends waiting outside the door for you; it won't do you much good to see the accused put away if his friends take you out. The result has been an exodus of editors who are willing to stand up to them, many of whom have told me privately that they think something needs to be done but think they'll get harassed for saying so. That culture of silencing dissent is the problem, and singular AE's and sanctions don't resolve it. '''''A lower threshold for interaction bans''''' might, barring any major overhaul of the sanctions system. That way editors who are feeling overwhelmed could apply to keep their harassers from referencing them in any way, which cumulatively could resolve a lot of the editor-editor attacks. | |||
::@], first of all, I'd been mediating this article since October of last year, I am no one's proxy and only started seeing "proxy" bandied around when I brought up these harassing behaviors. One of the main contributions to this battleground mentality is the way you misrepresent diffs and evidence to misrepresent other editors and their actions. You repeatedly make serious claims regarding editors with little but circumstantial evidence. The reason things have "died down" in the past two months is because more than half a dozen editors have been harassed away from the page, blocked or sanctioned. Next, I find your effort to describe the number of procedurals against me misleading. There were two SPI's from you, an AE from you, and "evidence" 76 was admittedly gathering for an additional AE against me. I count 4 there, and I'd mentioned 3 from you earlier, for clarity. Finally, from what I can tell, Tumbleman failed in his case against you because he filed it with the wrong board, yet despite an apparent resolution you continued to pass around his personal information after the fact. Regardless of what he's done, if an editor requests that you not share his full name, you don't. The fact that he let it slip in an edit did not give you ] to advertise it. | |||
:@], please don't let the fact that I'm still online fool you into thinking the current discretionary sanctions work. Most of the editors who have complained about the people listed above have either been banned or bullied into submission over the past few months (), and the failure of the current AE system is that every time I try to use it, I'm hit with one or more retaliatory accusations that are wearing away at my time and standing. Again, I think a simpler appeal for interaction bans would be an easy, efficient remedy, since that would minimize disruption, distraction, harassment and retaliation. | |||
=== Statement by ] (]) 19:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC) === | |||
Working with clueless anti-], anti-] anti-Consensus and anti-Misplaced Pages editors such as {{user|askahrc}} is very frustrating for all parties. We get that. People are imperfect, but we usually get there in the end. The ] mentality here is all coming from {{user|askahrc}}. Believe it or not, I'd rather not be dealing with this sort of thing. | |||
<s>This is a clear violation of {{user|Askahrc}}'s topic ban from ]-related articles. That was given for a good reason; we do not need to go over them again; they are in the archives. Thus ] applies, and as a result of this clear violation, I unfortunately think a lengthy ban for {{user|Askahrc}} is necessary, and here is a good place to discuss how long that should be. I suggest indefinite which doesn't mean infinite.</s> | |||
: It appears that {{user|Askahrc}} wasn't topic-banned, unlike several other users. This may have been because he'd gone quiet. Since he's indicated that he wants to continue his ] fight over this, I suggest therefore that a topic ban per ] is appropriate now. (note: An uninvolved admin can impose this per ]). ] (]) 11:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
=== Statement by vzaak === | |||
* As with Askahrc's last arbitration request and ANI, we are presented with a deluge of accusations lacking supporting evidence. | |||
* Two administrators concluded that Askahrc had been harassing users through an IP sockpuppet. As the SPI outlines, Askahrc was bullying editors while behind a sockpuppet as a prelude to bringing an arbcom case about editors being bullied. | |||
* In the ANI Askahrc initiated in February, I noticed that he cited an old IP troll from November, using it as evidence against others. That raised my suspicion, leading to the SPI and the finding that Askahrc was the IP in question. | |||
* Discovering the person who was harassing users constitutes harassment of the person who did the harassing? | |||
* Askahrc has been evincing a strong battleground mindset throughout. In the role-playing he did while sockpuppeting, Askahrc promoted a battleground atmosphere by disparaging and threatening editors. He has been writing polemics on his talk page against those he considers his opponents (e.g. ), for example he likens the ANI he brought against editors to a revolver. | |||
* Because Askahrc had cited his own sockpuppet in the ANI as evidence against others, and because there were additional concerns, I brought an AE case regarding the recent behavior after the SPI concluded (which was for old behavior). In the AE at least two administrators considered the evidence to be actionable, including the administrator who handled the SPI. However the AE was tabled due to lack of recent activity from Askahrc, along with a note that there is a "low bar" for reporting subsequent disruptions. | |||
* Regarding ], there is a good amount of evidence connecting Askahrc to the ] article, and the SPI was just a checkuser request. As the arbitration committee knows, I contacted the functionaries mailing list about the matter weeks before the SPI was filed, so it wasn't "retaliation" for 76.107.171.90's AE. I wasn't even aware of the AE, as it occurred during my three-week wikibreak. In addition, I have made clear that I consider 76.107.171.90 to be a problem, and he seems to despise me. | |||
* There are many baseless ] in Askahrc's overlong statement, and in a 500-word response only some can be addressed. I have not argued for "blocking dissent"; I have not suggested that Askahrc be blocked or "''needs''" to be blocked; I did not say that Askahrc was a "dangerous user"; I did not "accuse" Askahc in my response to Alison; I have not said there are "enemies" or "sides"; I have not engaged in ]; the ''New Republic'' and other sites link to ] I made, which is neutral and straightforward. | |||
* I covered the ] issue in the ANI, the epitome of which is the ] matter which has been pointed out to Askahrc four times. The "fixing punctuation" Askahrc mentions was not a fix but a violation of LQ. As long as Askahrc continues to interpret a simple LQ correction as battleground or ownership behavior, there is little hope of getting across more complex guidelines and policies. | |||
* Askahrc was previously sanctioned for wasting the community's time. | |||
] 19:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
:* {{ping|Barney the barney barney}} Askahrc was not topic-banned. | |||
:* {{ping|Askahrc}} | |||
::* You are the one bringing this arbitration request alleging that catching those who harass others is harassment. I reference events in the past because you continue to make allegations about events in the past. | |||
::* You are the one making the aspersion that the outcome of the SPI "wasn't as severe as wanted". That's your idea -- you are the one inserting such nefarious interpretations, even of simple things like a ] correction. | |||
::* It has been explained several times that the SPI was about past behavior and the AE was about recent behavior; the administrator who handled the SPI, Callanecc, recognized that distinction and acknowledged that the recent behavior was actionable. The SPI was ''not'' dismissed; it found that you had been harassing users. | |||
::* There have been '''two''' SPIs, not three. As explained, the first came about because you made a revealing error in your ANI that led right back to your past misconduct. I've given evidence that the second SPI cannot possibly be "retaliation" for the 76.107.171.90 AE, but you've ignored that evidence while continuing to make assertions contrary to the evidence. | |||
::* You have presented '''one''' case to AE. The advice from the last arbcom request was to use AE, not ANI. | |||
::* As explained before, it doesn't matter in the least that you changed "revolver" to "hip", meaning gun. | |||
:* Note the Sheldrake article was recently assessed by ] as B-class, the highest that can be given for an initial assessment, and with no complaints. | |||
:* The last time I edited the Sheldrake article was February, and I only did a few edits that month. The activity surrounding the article died down long ago. I still do not see the relevance of this arbcom request. | |||
: ] 03:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
:* Unfounded accusations continue to pile up. Again, there were '''two''' SPIs -- I have no idea where Askahrc is getting "four times" (just yesterday he said three). Askahrc got caught using a sockpuppet to harass users, and now appears to be using this arbcom case to exact retribution on the person who caught him. | |||
:* In addition to other actions listed here, Askahrc has been proxying blocked user ]'s aspersions around Misplaced Pages, bringing them now to this arbcom case. Tumbleman already tried the "outing" claim by taking it to a noticeboard, with no success. Now Askahrc is trying it here, and it is as frivolous now as it was then. For good reason, Tumbleman was blocked indefinitely, with administrators calling him "pure ]", "likely just a troll", and "thoroughly disruptive editor, and either a troll or else someone with serious ] issues, as well as a ] approach to other editors". Askahrc has since teamed up with Tumbleman off-wiki to keep the senseless drama flowing here to Misplaced Pages. | |||
:] 20:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
=== Statement by JzG === | |||
Presumably the <s>nominator</s> ''editor who added me as a party'' would eventually have got round to letting me know about this. | |||
I can sum this request up in a few words: "Boo-hoo, I didn't get what I wanted, let's go round the loop again in the hope we get a different answer". | |||
The problem on the Sheldrake article (and the related article {{la|Deepak Chopra}} is very simple. Misplaced Pages's policies do not permit uncritical coverage of fringe beliefs, the subjects of biographies of individuals who hold fringe beliefs often do not like that. They very often mobilise supporters to come to Misplaced Pages to demand changes. I could name a dozen articles that have been subject to offsite collusion, email campaigns and the like. <s>], who signs as "The Cap'n" above, is topic-banned from Sheldrake, and this request seems to be an attempt to end-run around that ban.</s> | |||
''I see there is no TBAN in place for ]. My fault for taking things on trust rather than checking. The substantive point does not change: Askahrc wants to change the article in a way that is not compliant with policy, a significant number of people have prevented that, he wants that to change. This is not the venue, and that is not the correct outcome anyway.'' | |||
Our job with fringe subjects is to patiently explain policy, firmly exclude those who refuse to accept policy (including the requester here), and to strive for an article which, if the subject can't bring themselves to like it, would at least look fair to an outside observer. {{la|Rupert Sheldrake}} was, last time I looked at it, perfectly fair. | |||
Unfortunately the subject disagrees and has taken it upon himself to include Misplaced Pages in his accusations against the scientific community of some giant conspiracy to suppress his conjecture of "morphic resonance", based on the refusal of the scientific community to accept his conjecture without, you know, proof, and all that tiresome science stuff. He's written a book, The Science Delusiuon, which is an extended piece of ] along those lines. The requester appears to be a supporter. | |||
It's been going on for a long time, the article should probably be under discretionary sanctions if it's not already - I don't know because it's at least a couple of months since I even looked at it or its talk page. | |||
Similarly, I am unaware of any active dispute or attempt at resolution of same. It's a simple matter of ] until you get the answer you want, or get banned, IMO - and given that the "battleground" exists solely because of off-wiki solicitation to partisans to press for non-compliant content, the ] may already be in flight. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
=== Statement by Callanecc === | |||
My involvement has been purely in an administrative capacity and I'd rather keep it that way, unless evidence is needed later on or the Committee would like a statement from me. | |||
{{Reply to|Barney the barney barney}} I've ] to where the community TBAN was enacted, this was after I'd ] for related incivility and casting aspersions. You didn't provide the link last time, yet you have repeated the same claim here without evidence. Would you please provide the link now or remove the claim. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 00:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
=== Statement by jps === | |||
Why can't this be handled through ]? Specifically, ] covers these matters. I don't see why there should be another case on these matters. ] (]) 01:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
@Cap'n: ] is always a risk at this website. Filing a case instead of going to the AE board won't insulate you from that. ] (]) 02:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
=== Statement by Jehochman === | |||
] appears to cover this dispute, as the comment above suggests. If the original poster wants to proceed with this request, he or she should please explain how the prior decision fails to address concerns, or why it should be modified. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
=== Statement by Krelnik === | |||
Frankly, I find most of this request and in particular my naming in it in quite misleading. I have never edited Rupert Sheldrake's bio, nor related pages. I made to comment on the usefulness of a source I had read and others hadn't. That single isolated comment is being misrepresented here as "posted on the Sheldrake page". The link in the original statement that says I post "off WP" is a link to a Facebook post made by someone else, referencing me. | |||
As for the - not only did I not out this editor, the editor (at great length) by building an entire website around his grudge against Misplaced Pages. I do blog about Misplaced Pages at my blog, that is true. I've written a number of how-tos and guides to help new editors. In other postings I have not only , but admonished the commenters on my blog not to do so. Frankly, I suspect ] is attempting to harass and silence me by dragging me into this action involving pages I have never edited. --] (]) 19:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
=== Statement by 76.107.171.90 === | |||
''per https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ABarney_the_barney_barney&diff=603815241&oldid=603809162 I'm requested to post http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:76.107.171.90&diff=603814875&oldid=603807598 from {{user|76.107.171.90}} as he can't edit this page due to protection. 76 says:'' | |||
The fact that I’ve been named as a party in this case despite the fact that I have not been active on ] since the 9th of November (and have never actually edited the article) is further evidence of Askahrc’s refusal to stop stalking me. I suspect he is mad that his last action against me only resulted in a (entirely unjustified) 48-hour wrist slap. | |||
If certain Misplaced Pages editors appear distrusting or even hostile towards Askahrc it likely stems from their having read an off-wiki polemic he wrote in which he refers to his enemies on Misplaced Pages as “bullies”, “unethical”, “arrogant”, “antagonistic”, “scoundrels”, “knaves”, “pisspoor bastards”, and “scurvy dogs”. | |||
If any of you have the time I would encourage you to read my statement at ] in which I explain (in a tragically longwinded fashion) all you’d ever want to know about Askahrc’s misbehavior on and off Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 00:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)" | |||
=== Statement by ] === | |||
As a few of the arbitrators have already noted, the subject matter of this case is normally considered to be in the area of ], and as such is already subject to ] as a result of a previous arbitration. Any conduct issues that interfere with the resolving of content issues can be dealt with by ]. The filing parties do not state any failure of the Discretionary Sanctions and their enforcement. I ask the remaining arbitrators to follow those who have already voted to decline the case. ] (]) 05:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
=== Clerk notes === | |||
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' | |||
*'''Recuse''' <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 23:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
=== Battleground Off of Rupert Sheldrake: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/8/0/0> === | |||
{{anchor|1=Battleground Off of Rupert Sheldrake: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small> | |||
*Discretionary sanctions are already authorized for this area. Therefore, if there are behavioral issues that need curbing there is already a mechanism in place. '''Decline'''. ] (]) 17:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
*'''Decline''' and refer to ]. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 09:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
* As pointed out, previous decisions on pseudoscience cover this, and AE should be utilized instead. <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup><small>(<font color="#ff6600">]</font>)</small></sup> | |||
* '''Decline''' per Beeblebrox. This complaint can be resolved without further committee involvement because, contrary to what the complainant contends, the article is already under discretionary sanctions. ] ]] 22:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
* '''Decline''' Discretionary sanctions appear to be sufficient. No prejudice against AE admins bringing this here in the future. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 09:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
* '''Decline''' as within the scope of ], an option that has not been exhausted at this point. ''']<font color="darkgreen">]</font>''' 14:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
* I also agree that this can be handled at AE and vote to '''decline''' on that basis. To recapitulate basic policy, the Sheldrake biography may not be misused to claim that Sheldrake's theories enjoy support in the scientific community, because this would be a false statement. Beyond that, it is frankly bizarre that Sheldrake's page is so much better developed and has been discussed so much more thoroughly than the biographies of dozens of scientists whose discoveries and theories enjoy wide acceptance and have improved our daily lives. ] (]) 16:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
*'''Decline'''. ] (]) 18:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Arzel == | == Arzel == |
Revision as of 19:21, 14 April 2014
Requests for arbitration
Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
---|---|---|---|
Arzel | 3 April 2014 | {{{votes}}} |
Case 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 |
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
|
Arzel
Initiated by Casprings (talk) at 17:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Involved parties
- Casprings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- Arzel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Numberous other editors who took part in the WP:RFC/U
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AMrX&diff=602607930&oldid=601390526
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AArzel&diff=602607796&oldid=598358040
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
Statement by Casprings
During an WP:RFC/U, there was significant disagreement regarding the behavior of Arzel and other editors who took part in the WP:RFC/U. The pages in the WP:RFC/U largely relate to American Politics in general and not the Tea Party Movement, which there has been an Arbitration case on.
In the dispute, some editors believe that Arzel acts on the belief that Misplaced Pages reflects a "liberal bias". He thinks that mainstream media and academic writing reflect this bias and tries to correct that, by balancing "liberal" views with "conservative" ones. However, that is contrary to the policy of neutrality, which requires views to be presented "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Many editors believe that he has shown WP:Battleground behavior in correcting these perceived biases.
On the other hand, some editors feel that the RFC itself is an example of battleground behavior. They believe the RFC is supported by numerous left-leaning editors due to their objections to the right-leaning editor disagreeing with edits they make that largely favor their left-leaning views. They argue that there is a group of partisan editors objecting to another editor impeding their efforts to make Misplaced Pages articles more partisan.
I request the Committee look at this dispute and help to resolve it. This could include sanctions on either side of the dispute, interaction bans or other remedies.
@Seraphimblade I would give two reasons why this requires a full Arbitration. The first is the topics of the pages covered in the RFC relate to American Politics, not a sub-category. While it was a quick look at the pages linked in the RFC, I did not see any pages that directly involved The Tea Party Movement. Second, this is a dispute that is persistent and will not be solved by the parties involved. If one looks at the discussion involving a suggested close, this has been the state of the dispute for years now. This seems to be the type of dispute that the arbitration committee was designed to look at.
@Robert McClenon : The dispute is more complicated than between two editors. The original title of this was WP:RFC/U on Arzel not the user himself. If, there is use of battleground behavior by editors to go after Arzel, that should be looked at. Likewise, if there is battleground behavior to protect Arzel, that should be looked at. If one looks at the WP:RFC/U, it is clearly divided into two camps. This is more complicated than you imply.
@Robert McClenon I am trying to be neutral in describing the dispute. I am also trying not to suggest solutions. I would assume one would want to look at the dispute first and then find solutions.
@SalvioI don't grasp that this is not "ripe". The basic framework of the dispute has a long history. Arzel's conduct has been questioned in the past and one group of editors has an issue and the other group defends him. For example,1, 2,3, 4,5 . Many of the same editors (including myself), have took part in these previous disputes. This is long-term and is more than simply the editors conduct. If it was the editors conduct, one could just suggest a topic ban. However, if the community is divided into two groups over the conduct, that becomes difficult.
@Salvio I don't really care. You guys are the experts on this. That said, a question and one point. First, how effective has it been for the tea party movement? Next, doing it to all of American politics seems a little broad to me. It is really, Articles that are currently politically controversial in the United States . These articles draw alot of editors, many of which push a POV. I would admit that is why I first came to Misplaced Pages. I think I have tried to improve, but that is what got me here.
@User:Worm That Turned as I said above, you are the experts. However, if I were to think of two reasons, they would be as follows. Aren't the vast majority of American Politics article reasonable safe from edit warring? Free Soil Party will be free from edit warring, for the most part. Plus, Arzel wasn't really a part of the Tea Party Movement case, that I can find. He got grouped in, but not not sanctioned.
Statement by Goethean
AGK's statement is puzzling, as Arzel was an involved party to the Tea Party Movement case, but avoided sanctions. Arzel undoubtedly sees that outcome as vindicating his behavior.
Outside View by Robert McClenon
I don't have a clue what Casprings is asking the ArbCom to do. The ArbCom has the power to ban Arzel. I don't think that is in order. I disagree with Arzel and think that he is a biased right-wing editor, but he is no more biased than some other right-wing editors. The ArbCom has the power to impose topic bans or interaction bans on Arzel. In the RFC, I didn't see any identification of any particular editing restrictions that would be appropriate. I agree with AGK and disagree with Goethean as to the Tea Party Movement. Arzel was not sanctioned, but the area was put under discretionary sanctions, so that if Arzel blanks any sources that he dislikes (possibly because they criticize the TPM), he can be sanctioned. It is true that Arzel's controversial edits have gone beyond the TPM to American politics in general, but Casprings doesn't propose a remedy. I would ask the ArbCom to delay a decision on whether to accept or decline for two or three days and give Casprings a chance to explain exactly what he or she is asking the ArbCom to do about or to Arzel. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Update
Based on the most recent statement by Casprings, it appears that the real problem is the Casprings and Arzel do not like each other. If any action is to be taken, it should be an interaction ban. I disagree with Arzel's view that biased sources should not be used at all. They can be used as to reliable content by filtering out their bias. Because he has a habit of deleting such information, the purpose of the user conduct RFC, Arzel is a biased right-wing editor, but he is no more biased than other biased editors who are allowed to edit. Misplaced Pages can deal with editors like Arzel by discussing and reverting their deletions. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
If there were a more effective ArbCom, I would recommend that this case be taken for the purpose of an interaction ban. I do not think that the "community" at the noticeboards does well at dealing with such conflicts. However, it appears that the current ArbCom does not do well at dealing with contentious areas (which is its purpose) either. I do not want to see this case further delay the adjudication of real issues such as gun control or Austrian economics, or any such real future areas. Due to the inability of the ArbCom to deal with cases in a timely manner, declining this case is the least undesirable action. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Further Update
I still don't understand what Casprings wants. He or she is clearly more optimistic about the ability of the current ArbCom to deal with a poorly stated case, in which the filing party gives very little clue as to why a case is required, than I do. I concur with User:Collect that an interaction ban would be in order. If the ArbCom had a record of timely action in 2014, I would suggest that the ArbCom do this by motion. As it is, I still recommend a decline. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Arzel
Since this has been repeated a number of times now by Casprings, perhaps they can provide some links showing me trying to balance out liberal sources with conservative sources. I have stated several times that I don't think clearly biased sources should be used at all. I have tried to keep the articles I have been involved with largely free of partisan sniping. Hell, I have recently been trying to keep rumors out of Scarlett Johansson's bio and she is hardly a conservative. As for the TPM, I am really not seeing the connection there as I have not made an edit to that article for several months. I am getting a little tired of this.
@Salvio, I am not sure why this discussion of discretionary sanctions of Tea Party is even a part of this. For one I was not sanctioned and two I have not even edited the page since the sanctions went into effect. I effectively sanctioned myself from that page. Maybe you should just ask Casprings exactly what they are hoping to achieve. Arzel (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- IBAN
I don't think this is what Casprings is after, and I am not even sure it is necessary. I haven't initiated any contact with Casprings in several months. I think my only interaction with them has been via the drama boards where they initiated contact with me. However, I will voluntarily pledge to continue to not initiate any contact with them, I can't promise that they won't continue to initiate contact with me though. Arzel (talk) 03:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Collect
If one uses an analogy of fruit ripening to the concept of a case for arbitration ripening, this case is barely at the pollination stage. It appears far more likely to benefit the community and to reduce drama board usage to IBAN Arzel and Casprings at this point, and the TPM bit has naught to do with their apparent grating on each other. An IBAN should be worded in a neutral manner, making no assignment of blame, but simply to facilitate more orderly discussions either editor. Collect (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
@Salvio: The issue has absolutely naught to do with "American Politics," it has to do with two specific editors who should know better. If one suspects the issue is political, the exact same types of editors are found on all political, sexual, religious, philosophical and economic articles, with parallels in each and every category.
I have suggested in the past at UT:Jimbo that "silly season" edits are a major problem on Misplaced Pages, with such "major scandals" as traveling with a dog in a protected dog carrier on the roof of a car getting major play on Misplaced Pages with multiple articles, or having a major Baptist minister being labeled a "homophobe" because he supports the official teachings of that church.
If I recall correctly, the aim of Misplaced Pages is to produce an actual encyclopedia, not a collection of political, economic, sexual and religious tracts taking aim at anyone who is "wrong" whether they be Palestinians or Israelis, Ukrainians or Russians, Libertarians or Authoritarians, Argentines or British, Labour or Tory, and so on.
If the ArbCom ever decides to do something of real substance they should officially state that any editor who appears to be promoting any specific point of view about a topic in a manner designed to denigrate the topic should be subject to sanctions, for, in practice, it is the "show the world how evil this person or group is, or this topic is" mentality which has caused many problems on the project (looking back at most ArbCom cases, this is what I suggest should be one of the core principles and would have been applicable in many). If this means we do not actually "show how evil that man or group or topic is" then so be it. Collect (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
@WTT: As I noted, the issue is unrelated to the TPM case completely -- it is an interaction problem between two editors, and thus should be dealt with as such. If the area is "broadened" then it would end up being "all contentious articles, broadly construed" in the long run. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Statement by North8000
I think blameless disengagement between the two would be in order. Beyond an iban because it appears that other normally exempted venues have also been the arenas. North8000 (talk) 10:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Statement by NE Ent
I don't see there being a case here. The fact that some editors on Misplaced Pages don't like other editors is neither new nor exceptional, nor is it required for folks to collaborate. The filer tried to make the case at the RFC/U and failed to get a clear consensus.
I am disappointed the phrasing of the first two committee declines seem to assume misconduct on the part of Arzel in stating they should be dealt with by enforcement of existing discretionary sanctions. NE Ent 11:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- A case would preferable to expanding DS's scope. NE Ent 11:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Statement by MrX
I am listed as a party to this case, presumably because I created the RFC/U. At the heart of this case is a user's editing conduct and interactions with other editors which are well documented in his editing history, with specific examples listed at the RFC/U. I reject any theory that this case is about some people not liking other people; people simply taking sides in a political dispute; or personal biases.
As far as I understand, this is exactly the type of case that should be arbitrated. This is a user conduct issue at its core. All other avenues of resolution have failed and the community is deadlocked, leading us to this venue of last resort. The case is broader than TPM because it encompasses American politics, biographies, Fox News, global warming, civil rights, football, reality TV, etc. I don't see how AE can address these long term issues that fall outside of the scope of the TPM case.- MrX 18:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment by Cube Lurker
Placing the entire spectrum of US politics on discretionary sanctions may sound good, but I fear it could turn into a nightmare. Politics seeps into nearly all areas of life, and the number of articles that broadly construed touch on politics is incredibly large. To throw 50% of the encyclolpedia into WP:AE over this disagreement is killing a fly with a cluster bomb.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Arzel: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <2/1/0/5>-Arzel-2014-04-03T22:14:00.000Z">
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)
- The complaints made at the RFC relate to Arzel's conduct on pages the committee have already arbitrated. Remedies from our earlier decision can therefore be used if Arzel's conduct is continually and significantly disruptive: the complainant should simply request at WP:AE that Arzel be topic-banned under the discretionary sanctions of Tea Party movement. In my judgement, we do not require an arbitration case to recover old ground. Decline. AGK 22:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)"> ">
- As for the conduct on pages not under the scope of Tea Party movement, I do not agree it requires an arbitration case. There simply isn't anything there that the community can't resolve and that requires a full committee hearing. AGK 21:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- NE Ent, I made no such assumption, nor should my vote be read as though I did. AGK 21:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- I would like to see statements as to why this requires a full arbitration case rather than requests for enforcement of the discretionary sanctions already put in place from the Tea Party Movement case. Seraphimblade 07:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- A note that I have seen and am actively reviewing presented evidence regarding this matter. NativeForeigner 09:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- I would also note that I have not been ignoring this request, I just don't have much to say about it yet. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- I've just spent some time reviewing this, in particular the last RFC/U, which clearly failed to resolve anything. There seems to be broad agreement that there is a problem, but there is significant disagreement regarding whose behavior is more problematic. That strongly suggests that, despite the name of this case request, there is more than one editor behaving in a manner that is not desirable, and that the community has tried and failed to resolve the situation. I am not at all convinced that this all areas where disruption is occurring are under the area defined in the Tea Party case. I am therefore minded to Accept this request, though I am still open to the possibility of motions explicitly expanding the Tea Party discretionary sanctions into these other topic areas. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm still on the fence, although I'm currently leaning towards voting decline as not ripe for arbitration; I'll wait for more statements, however, before making up my mind. Salvio 11:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Question for everyone: would the extension of discretionary sanctions to the topic of American politics be considered enough or would you prefer a case? Salvio 09:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- On second thoughts, I agree with Cube lurker. Accept. Salvio 17:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Question for everyone: would the extension of discretionary sanctions to the topic of American politics be considered enough or would you prefer a case? Salvio 09:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- I can see that the Tea Party discretionary sanctions are not sufficient here, but since the topic is so similar and there are a number of familiar faces, I would prefer to just extend the discretionary sanctions. Could any of the parties explain to me why that would be a poor idea? Worm(talk) 09:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- I think a key question is, what would we extend them to? Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)