Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Arbitration​Committee

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Wikipediocracy-related conduct		21 October 2024	4/3/2
Marine 69-71	Motions	26 October 2024	0/0/0
Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area		6 November 2024	0/0/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	10 Oct 2024	24 Oct 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

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

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

Giovanni33-John Smith's

Initiated by Durova^Charge! at 03:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• John Smith's (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• El_C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Durova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Giovanni33[1]
• John Smith's[2]
• El_C[3]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mao: The Unknown Story
• Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mao: The Unknown Story 2
• Third Opinion
• WP:RFC: 3 attempts[4],[5][6]
• Straw poll

Statement by Durova

In response to WP:ANI#User:Giovanni33:_patience_exhausted.3F I reviewed Giovanni33's block log and confirmed sockpuppetry and implemented an indefinite block. This turned out to be a controversial decision. Although the block withstood a request for review, both the ANI discussion and the CSN discussion failed to reach consensus. I gave Giovanni33 an unblock offer that let him craft lesser remedies and he proposed two that would both have included reciprocal remedies for John Smith's, so I suggested community enforceable mediation but John Smith's rejected that as false parity. It is not easy to craft an effective consensus solution for how to handle any difficult but long-established editor, so I offer this to the Committee. Upon posting I will give both Giovanni33 and John Smith's limited unblocks for the purpose of arbitration. Durova^Charge! 03:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

To the best of my recollection I have had no prior interaction with either Giovanni33 or John Smith's. When John Smith's contacted me offline I disclosed the fact immediately and explicitly extended a commensurate offer to Giovanni33. When some editors proposed linking John Smith's conduct to the block on Giovanni33 I replied that tu quoque is not a defense and repeatedly offered to examine evidence regarding John Smith's conduct as a separate matter. Such evidence was not forthcoming as of this arbitration request, but (as seen below) my fairness and impartiality were beginning to come under challenge. No dispute is worth my reputation, certainly not this one. Durova^Charge! 04:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I opened this request at the juncture when I did and named El_C as a party because El_C undermined the attempts to broker a community-based solution. After this post I requested that he change course to a more productive direction. These responses followed.[7][8][9][10] Negotiations of this sort are a delicate undertaking under the best of circumstances, but with a fellow administrator openly and persistently doubting my competence the odds of success rapidly diminished to near zero. El_C's long history and evident partisanship also weighed in the decision. Durova^Charge! 19:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

As noted above, there have been at least six prior attempts at formal dispute resolution. That is more than most of the cases accepted for arbitration so, rather than being premature, I would characterize this request as somewhat tardy. I had no involvement in the disputes until a few days ago or I would probably have brought it here sooner. Durova^Charge! 21:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by ElC

This edit war has been going on for years. Durova's hastily and without discussion imposed an indefinite block, which effectively sided with one of the parties. From then on, she seemed inclined / willing to give John Smith the upper hand in any settlement, which he promptly took advantage of. Giovanni has been facing concerted prejudice due to unpopular in-1st-World politics in combination with an infamously-cited lengthy block log, whose activity, however, is mostly limited to one year ago. I'm at a disadvantage here because forces which favour banning Giovanni are participants in the Committee mailing list, so their view is likely to be better represented. El_C 03:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Passage above retracted with apologies to Dmcdevit. Also, I was not attempting to stain Durova's reputation, that is a gross overreaction, although, yes, I do direct certain criticisms. Her action, by placing an additional censure on Giovanni, seemed to have inspired John Smith to think is can continue to edit war, as he has been for years, over the issue for years to come. So, he essentially said: 'provide me with a highly advantageous remedy, or I'll be taking it to arbitration where Giovanni will be banned for sure.' El_C 04:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, I'm not sure why Durova lists me as a party. Not that I mind, but perhaps her opening statement can account for this. El_C 06:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what John Smith expects me to retract. My interpretation of his "offer"? Well, sorry, but I'm not prepared to do that. El_C 09:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

With respect to John Smith's latest comment directed at myself: at no time did I use sarcasm, nor am I undermining anyone. El_C 11:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

---

What I find also of interest is that Durova opted not to wait for Giovanni33 to answer her question about seeking an informal solution. Why? El_C 09:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I will withdraw at Giovanni request, of course. Perhaps it would have been prudent to wait for him to return. Whereas I don't so much mind having the Committee members look into this with the intensiveness and extensiveness of an arbitration case, he may well prefer trying out an informal solution first (and, in fact, he did submit a proposal), and this is not ElC-Durova-Giovani-JohnSmith, after all. I still feel that Durova placing herself as "broker" was a mistake. That should have come from someone who treated both parties evenhandedly, such as Dmcdevit, as opposed to herself, who has placed severe censure on only one of the parties. Additionally, her willingness and seemingly active participation in shifting an active discussion from ANI to CSN, where it merely lined up the fifty percent supporting/opposing in a poll-like manner, and was a priori not a bi-lateral undertaking, was, likewise, questionable. This, culminating with her linking to and then, to my astonishment, copying J. Smith's diatribe as a legitimate proposal, which indeed I objected to. I do/did not mean to be offensive when I call/ed it a diatribe, but... view it yourself. And, when we decode what it says, yes, it basically asks for some sort of an advantage for that set of articles. Now, there is definitely, in my mind, the potential for an informal solution succeeding, with or without Durova at the helm (but the with poses additional limitations), and I stress: if both parties wish for me to find something else to do, I don't mind at all. There seems to be no shortage of temporarily dead Japanese Prime Ministers for me to attend to, instead. El_C 21:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by John Smith's

First of all, I would like to rebut El_C's misrepresentations of my attempt to resolve the Giovanni matter. I did not say provide me with a highly advantageous remedy, or I'll be taking it to arbitration where Giovanni will be banned for sure. What I said was that although supporters of Giovanni might not like tough measures against him (which were very similar but more flexible than what User:Endroit had proposed), if consensus could not be reached it would probably be escalated to arbitration (which is what Durova has done) where more severe measures would probably be imposed on him. I never made the threat to do it myself. More importantly it was not highly advantageous for me because if someone wanted to pursue a case against me they still could. I was trying to reassure Giovanni I wouldn't game his revert-parole, a measure many people thought a possible solution.

I would like El_C to retract his comments on these points.

As to the case, from the discussions on WP:ANI it is clear that Giovanni has fallen into conflict with many people on many articles since being here – I am just one of these people. When Giovanni thinks he is right, he will try to veto any changes to a page or push his choice even if he is the only person doing so. People he disagrees with are often characterised as being “right-wing” and/or dismissed as unworthy of discussion/his good faith, even if they're outsiders/non-partisan. He has also wikistalked me – I do not know if other wikipedians have been victims of this. He has had many last chances (for example his promise to reform in 2006 and again in 2007), yet keeps falling into trouble and gaming the system. Giovanni has shown he understands the rules well and will try to stay within the letter of the law, whilst going against it in spirit in every possible way.

I'm not sure why El_C is named but it might be because some view him as partisan and part of the Giovanni problem (i.e. protecting him) – see User:DHeyward's comments on CSN – as well as the fact he essentially vetoed any community action that didn't impose the same restrictions on me, despite the fact Giovanni has been up for community discussion more than once and I have never been. I think he may have been frustrated by seeing a friend of his in trouble and without realising it wanted to punish me for the fact Giovanni's behaviour on Wikipedia had finally caught up with him, or he wanted to reduce the criticism of Giovanni by putting half the blame onto me. Of course this is ridiculous because by far the majority of my conflicts involve Giovanni, whereas he will argue and edit-war against almost anyone.

El_C's refusal to withdraw his comments on my offer, even after a very clear explanation of what I did say, is very regrettable - I think it shows somewhat a lack of impartiality on his behalf. John Smith's 09:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

El_C, you appear to try to be undermining Durova. You should note that you are in party responsible for this being elevated to arbitration when you insisted on a very unequitable and false "parity" in demanding that I be tied to any restrictions levelled on Giovanni. If you had not made sarcastic and unhelpful comments about my proposal and been more flexible in working something out, rather than trying to punish me for Giovanni's edit-warring across Wikipedia, we might not be here. John Smith's 09:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

El_C, whenever anyone on Wikipedia says "X is interesting" in regards to what another user has done, it normally means "look at this behaviour - it's suspicious". That is an attempt to undermine. John Smith's 11:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

_________________________

CBDunkerson, I rejected the idea that I should be placed on 1 revert parole along with Giovanni given I've never had as much as an RfC on me, let alone been brought up on WP:ANI. Additionally, if you removed Giovanni from the frame I wouldn't have had most of those blocks - if you removed me from the frame it wouldn't really affect Giovanni's block log history because he fights with people all over the place on multiple articles. This isn't about a block count as much as it is Giovanni's behaviour. John Smith's 18:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC) _________________________

Bigtimepeace, many users sadly edit-war on Wikipedia. As a result they gain blocks. However to suddenly dump a user on 1 revert parole without even having their behaviour discussed once is rather severe. People like you objected to Giovanni getting indefinite blocked because of the lack of discussion, or somewhat. Yet you want me to be placed on parole without any real discussion? I don't see how that is a balanced approach.

The fact Giovanni is the main reason I have edit-warred is actually very important. If someone is wikistalking you with impunity (as has been shown), gaming the system and trying to get you blocked by putting up false 3RR reports, etc it is not easy to stay calm. When someone like me feels no one cares or takes note of what is going on/the person tormenting you has an admin to back them up, you either withdraw completely from wikipedia or you try to fight your corner. That doesn't justify edit-warring, but it makes it more understandable.

You complain I won't admit responsibility whilst at least Giovanni has, but I don't believe that is the case. As User:Endroit said in regards to Giovanni's proposal here, This appears to be an effort by Giovanni33 to shirk responsibility by blaming it all on one user. He may have later begrudingly stated he is partly responsible, but I don't think he actually does think that. He will say anything to get let off the hook - he's done it before when he promised to behave every time he faced a real sanction. This seems no different to me.

I don't think any admin can place someone on parole - there's an official process that needs to be adhered to. John Smith's 21:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I have edit-warred and should not have let myself be drawn into such behaviour - sorry if I wasn't clear on that, but because I wanted to address the matters separately I was saving most of the comments for myself later. However, I dispute that the general opinion we should both be placed on parole - if anything the general opinion was that both myself and Giovanni's behaviour should be dealt with separately. If you want to avoid an arbitration case I suggest you intercede and convince El_C not to keep opposing this method of addressing our behaviour, as he seems to be tarnishing everyone who thinks otherwise with the brush of "political bias" or some other stigma. John Smith's 06:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

______________________

Durova makes a good point. Sadly many stages in dispute resolution have been tried in regards to the various disputes (Giovanni at the centre of all of them) and they've not worked. More importantly the community seems very split on how to deal with the matter - without arbitration it is impossible for consensus to be reached on what we should do next. That would leave admins to enforce their own blocks, and given El_C's partiality to Giovanni that might lead to wheel-warring.

I should point out that I have never been opposed to this being resolved without arbitration (I certainly don't think it's the best solution). All I have said is that all the parties concerned should be judged on their own merits, rather than people like El_C insisting we both be lumped together and arbitrarily put under the same restrictions without a thorough discussion. This can all be avoided if he and a few others would agree to address the matters separately. Arbitration is only inevitable if they insist on the aforementioned false "parity" by which I am punished for Giovanni getting into trouble for the umpteenth time, which will never gain community consensus. John Smith's 21:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC) ______________________

Hong, you're not quite right when you said I would assure Giovanni I wouldn't play with a parole placed on him - it was actually a guarantee because it would be backed up by a fairly punitive response if I broke my undertaking. The reason I offered nothing more was because I rejected his demand that I be "judged" at the same time as he was. I was prepared for a discussion about myself but only if it was separate.

If he only reverts Gio's edits once, is this considered gaming Gio's revert parole or not?

Actually I was very clear. I said that if I started reverting any changes he made on a list of previously agreed articles reserved for him then I would receive the ban - so one revert would be enough. Otherwise there would be no point, would there? John Smith's 20:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Limiting a revert restriction for you only on a number of articles would essentially allow you to game his revert parole on articles we didn't think of or articles that have not been touched yet. Hong, if I did that it would be rather blatant and obviously get me in trouble - my proposal was giving Giovanni some "personal space" that he could be sure I wouldn't intrude upon. On the other hand a complete ban on changing anything we do to any article would be rather impractical and open to abuse. John Smith's 21:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a restriction on the both of you from reverting each other's edits on any article Well that's a subjective concept. It doesn't mean much and is open to dispute. Giovanni accused me of reverting when I was making different changes each time to the articles in question.

If the two of you are dedicated to stop edit warring with each other, I would think that this should be a pretty fair solution.

I was happy to stop, until Giovanni started vetoing everything I wanted to do.

Limiting the solution to only a number of articles is just asking for more edit warring, because you two have a history of edit warring across multiple articles. Not if Giovanni was placed on 1RR, which he did agree to and the community seemed reasonably happy with. As I said, he kicked this off recently when he decided he had a veto on what could be changed and what could not.

By the way, Hong, you've wikistalked yourself such as here, here and here. Forgot about that, didn't you? Also I do have an interest in things like the Holocaust (I did make an improvement here that Giovanni did not change) and philosophy - can you say Giovanni has an interest in the Royal Navy and Japan, or show that he was trying to make pro-active improvements? John Smith's 22:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC) __________

PalaceGuard008, who did Endroit have a disagreement over on the Senkaku Islands page? Oh surprise-surprise - it was you! I do wonder if your comments here are part of a grudge you have against him. It is not sensible to characterise someone as "pro-Japanese" and "anti-Chinese" because they disagree with you. You should not label people in that fashion.

As for myself, I strongly refute the implication that I am anti-Chinese. I made a joke about the Chinese Communist Party and no more - don't overreact.

The fact you appear to associate Communism with China itself may betray your own bias and lack of objectivity. This is in addition to your rather ridiculous assertion that Endroit is partisan in this because we are both "anti-Chinese" or some such nonsense. You have to do better than that to show some sort of relationship above the sort of day-to-day interaction one sees on Wikipedia. John Smith's 09:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by CBDunkerson

First there was a proposal that Giovanni33 be indefinitely banned on AN/I. After that failed to achieve consensus the same proposal was made on CSN. There was no consensus there either. Now we've got this ArbCom case. Those discussions are worth reviewing for background. In the past year Giovanni33 has been blocked four times for edit warring, once for 3RR twelve months ago and three times for edit warring without breaching 3RR. Due to reversals (in one case by the blocking admin after 10 minutes) and adjustments these four blocks make up ten entries on his block log. In the same time period John Smith's has also been blocked four times, all for 3RR violations - those four blocks, with reversals, accounting for six of the eight entries in his block log. Based on this recent history I would have to say that there seems little reason why Giovanni33 would receive an indefinite block and John Smith's only 48 hours. Giovanni33 does have a more extensive block history prior to the past year, but John Smith's first edit was only a month before that year began (on 08/15/06)... his two other 3RR blocks (6 total) having been given in that first month. Both are certainly guilty of extensive edit warring and should receive blocks of increasing duration for repeated violation of that principle, but I don't see four blocks in a year as 'exhausting patience'... and if it were I can't see how it would be so for one and not the other. All that said, I don't see that an arbitration case is needed given that the community has already reviewed the matter extensively (twice) and found no consensus for action more drastic than blocking or revert parole - which Giovanni33 indicated he would accept, but John Smith's rejects as implying a 'false parity' between their actions. --CBD 18:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Bigtimepeace

I think this was taken to ArbCom prematurely and I do not think the committee should take the case. There was an ongoing discussion on the matter which should continue. The best way to go in my opinion is to place Giovanni33 and John Smith's on 1RR parole and/or give them a topic ban so the edit warring stops. This has been suggested by numerous parties and Giovanni has basically agreed to it, while John Smith's has not. I think the evidence is clear that both of these users are consistently edit warring with one another, and I don't think the fact that John Smith's does not consent to being placed on some kind of parole is particularly relevant though it would have been nice. It is also not relevant to argue, as John Smith's does, that he would not have edit warred were it not for Giovanni. The far more basic truth is that he would not have edit warred if he had simply decided not to edit war, and I find his unwillingness to take responsibility for his own behavior (as Giovanni at least has on his talk page) problematic. I'm not sure what the process would be exactly, though I think any admin could do it, but I think the 1RR or topic ban remedies should be imposed on both of these users. We simply don't need an ArbCom case to impose these remedies and to deal with these editors, both of whom make good contributions but need to be moved to separate corners.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify in response to John Smith's reply to my statement above, I do not think he should be placed on some kind of probation without any discussion, as I said I think the discussion should continue. One of the posts on ANI gave me the impression that an admin could unblock both of you with the stipulation that you would be on 1RR parole but I could be wrong about that. Even if an admin could do that I do not think they should do so unilaterally, but only after a number of people had weighed in on the remedies proposed by Giovanni and others and if the general opinion seemed to be that both of you should be placed on some sort of parole. I think this is the kind of thing that ideally could be worked out elsewhere, rather than in a lengthy and time consuming ArbCom case. I do continue to think that admitting some responsibility for your own edit warring would be a good idea.----Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved BenB4

I do not understand why the proposals along the lines of those at User talk:Giovanni33#An unblock offer failed, other than that they clearly were not given enough time to succeed. There is a reasonable and good-faith counter-offer at User talk:John Smith's#My suggestion, and no reason to believe that the two are not open to further negotiation. It doesn't seem that the administrators involved put a lot of effort into reaching a mutual compromise. Perhaps they thought it has already been too much work, or will be, but there is no way arbitration is going to be less work.

I recommend rejecting the case for now. If the administrators involved can't get something worked out in a week, it will be simple to reinstate this RfA. ←Ben^B4 02:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Endroit

Caution: There are MULTIPLE issues involved here. One is related to the AN3 report filed by Giovanni33 (resulting in a 48hr. block for both), the other is related to Giovanni33's long term behavioral problems (resulting in his perm-ban). And now a 3rd issue has emmerged, which is John Smith's long term behavioral problems.

Unfortunately ANI and CSN lead to no further consensus, because multiple issues were involved which could not be appropriately addressed. WP:CEM was suggested but was rejected, as CEM probably cannot address all the issues either, and so all the issues ended up here.

Here, in more detail, are some of the things which I believe to be the issues for this Arbitration:

1. Whether the AN3 report filed by Giovanni33 was in good faith or in bad faith, and whether it was a WP:POINT violation by Giovanni33 (Opinion seems to be split on this)

   Technically, there was NO 3RR VIOLATION. There is no "version being reverted to", so the "1st Revert" on top portion of the report may not even be a revert. The "4th Revert" on top was self-reverted, so that doesn't count. And the "3rd Revert" is unrelated to the first 2 reverts.

   The bottom "4 Reverts" occur over a span of 2 days rather than 24 hours, so isn't really a 3RR violation.

   Giovanni33 apparently forced the issue at AN3 despite there being no 3RR violation technically.

2. Whether Giovanni33 was wikistalking other editors

   I mentioned at ANI that Giovanni33 may have been stalking John Smith's in early March, this year. In addition to that incident, a few days later, Giovanni33 wikistalked John Smith's into Type 45 destroyer just to revert-war, causing John Smith's to get blocked for a 3RR violation. Giovanni33 appears to have been stalking John Smith's ever since. And now in Giovanni33's controversial AN3 report, HalfShadow said Giovanni33 appeared to be wikistalking John Smith's.

3. Whether the RfM Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mao: The Unknown Story 2 needs to be resumed, perhaps in the form of WP:CEM as suggested by Durova.

4. Whether Giovanni's self-imposed 2RR, promised during an unrelated incident, is relevant here. Also, does this automatically imply that Giovanni33 & John Smith's penalties should not be on par with each other?

5. Whether other recent incidents by Giovanni33, involving MONGO and others, should also be reviewed. The allegations were serious enough then, for them to request an RFCU at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Giovanni33 in July (although sockpuppetry was not confirmed).

Unfortunately, because the admins at ANI have disagreed as to where to go from here, intervention by Arbcom is strongly urged.--Endroit 02:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• PS: This may (or may not) be relevant here: There seems to be a tight-knit collaboration among editors who support a particular political ideology, relating to Marxism and Communism. Within the umbrella of Marxism/Communism are Marx (in Europe), Mao (in Asia), and Che (the Americas). My question is, is this "comradery" among editors a friendly one? ... Or is it disruptive? Evidence of disruptive collaboration may be combined with the ongoing arbitration Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds.--Endroit 17:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

__________

• In response to HongQiGong: I'll note your accusations in good faith. However, John Smith's overall disruptions were largely confined to the dispute which had been covered by an ongoing RfM until this incident occurred. You can provide the case against John Smith's, and we'll see if they have merit on their own, rather than being part of the ongoing content dispute. HongQiGong, noting that you have participated in this same content dispute (based on your edit-wars with John Smith's), I suggest that if Giovanni33 remains indef-blocked, you can take over in his place, to resolve the content disputes with John Smith's. (WP:CEM may be pursued, as suggested by Durova.)--Endroit 13:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• 2nd response to HongQiGong: I said "John Smith's overall disruptions were largely confined to the dispute" in reference to the larger picture. Also, as far as the content disputes go, if nobody is willing to step in and pursue WP:CEM on behalf of any indef-blocked editor, the dispute can end right there. Perhaps, HongQiGong, you just need to redefine the issues so that a proper WP:CEM can be pursued with John Smith's.--Endroit 16:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by HongQiGong

I would say I'm pretty familiar with both Giovanni and John Smith's behaviour, and have had conflicts with John Smith's himself. What I can say is - both editors are very stubborn and discussions on content disputes with them rarely lead anywhere except them still insisting on making the edits they want. Granted, this describes a lot of editors, and even myself at times. But it becomes problematic when they start edit warring with each other, especially across multiple articles. John Smith's is not innocent of many of the accusations that have been thrown Gio's way. Wikistalking, edit warring, gaming the system, etc etc. I am neutral as to whether or not equal sanctions should be placed on both editors, but John Smith's has seem to only offer his "assurance" not to game any possible revert parole that may be placed on Giovanni. This is hardly good enough without outlining what, if any, consequences would be incurred if John Smith's chooses to break that "assurance" and does game Gio's revert parole. Another thing is, while a revert parole can be finely-defined, what exactly does John Smith's "assurance" entail? If he only reverts Gio's edits once, is this considered gaming Gio's revert parole or not? Maybe the two editors need equal sanctions, or maybe not. But regardless, if sanctions are spelt out for Gio, let's do the same for John Smith's - exactly how many reverts is he allowed, exactly who is he not allowed to revert against, for how long, etc? These things need to be spelt out or it's basically pointless and open to argument and interpretation for any possible future offenses. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Replies to John Smith's Actually I was very clear. I said that if I started reverting any changes he made on a list of previously agreed articles reserved for him then I would receive the ban - so one revert would be enough. Otherwise there would be no point, would there? Fair enough. But it would make infinitely more sense if both of you are prevented from reverting each other's changes on any article, not just a "list of previously agreed articles reserved for him". We've already seen how the two of you edit warred across multiple articles. Limiting a revert restriction for you only on a number of articles would essentially allow you to game his revert parole on articles we didn't think of or articles that have not been touched yet. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In response to this comment - [11]: I didn't suggest a "complete ban". Just a restriction on the both of you from reverting each other's edits on any article, or at least unless you two actually agree with the reversion. If the two of you are dedicated to stop edit warring with each other, I would think that this should be a pretty fair solution. And I know I don't have room to talk because I've edit warred myself, but I've seen plenty of other editors who always discuss before reverting, or they impose 1RR on themselves without any problems. Limiting the solution to only a number of articles is just asking for more edit warring, because you two have a history of edit warring across multiple articles. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In response to this comment - [12]: Yeah, I remember those reverts I did. Except I wasn't wikistalking. We were having a dispute on the use of BCE/BC, and those edits were related to that dispute. If you'll remember the discussion you initated at ANI, a number of editors commented and you were the only one that kept insisted that you were being wikistalked. Getting back to you and Giovanni - well, when it comes to edit warring, it takes two to tango. You should know by now that nothing really justifies edit warring. You're saying that you edit warred because Gio was vetoing everything you wanted, and Gio is basically saying that he edit warred because you were POV pushing. I don't think admins really care for either of those reasons. As for possibly placing restrictions on you two, like I said, there's no guarantee that you won't game a possible 1RR restriction on Gio unless we spell out what the consequences are, and unless it applies to reverts you do to his edits on any article. Otherwise you could chase Gio to other articles and revert his changes - and we've seen you do it before - without stated consequence. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

In response to this comment - [13]: Come on John Smith's. Who's trying to game the system now? I'll link up again the two instances of wikistalking that I found - The War Against the Jews, and Theory of everything. These two articles are topically completely unrelated to the dispute that was ongoing. You made those reverts during your dispute with Gio at Mao: The Unknown Story, and you have never edited those articles before that. But lest editors may misinterpret my comments, my intention is not to say that Gio himself is innocent. I am stating that John Smith's is just as guilty as Giovanni is, and if restrictions are to be placed on Giovanni, than we need to also spell out exactly what restrictions should be placed on John Smith's so that he doesn't game Gio's restrictions, noting that they've shown a tendency to edit war across multiple and unrelated articles. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking In response to Endroit's uneven accusation of wikistalking on the part of Giovanni: I reviewed the old content dispute at Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story. The two editors have edit-warred across multiple articles as early as April of this year. Some of the articles are notedly related to Mao: The Unknown Story. But a couple of the articles (The War Against the Jews and Theory of everything) are definitely not related, and you can see from the article histories that John Smith's first edits on both of these articles are to revert Giovanni's edits, which of course resulted in edit warring between the two. These reverts were done during their content dispute on Mao: The Unknown Story. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to Endroit I would hardly call editing articles he's never edited before (and which were not named in the RfM) only to revert Gio's changes "confined to the dispute" they had. Like I said, John Smith's is just as guilty of many of the things that Giovanni has been accused of - wikistalking, edit warring, etc. Yes, I did participate in the content dispute at Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story, and that's how I became aware that the two editors dislike of each other. And you can see at the end of this conversation that once I found out the two editors were edit warring across multiple articles, I basically got tired of the dispute and largely left it alone for the two to figure it out amongst themselves. I support Gio's edit in that content dispute, but at that point I began to suspect that they were/have been disputing less so on the strengths of their arguments, but simply because they don't like each other. So no thanks, I won't be "taking over" Gio's place in these inane disputes. And yes, I have edit-warred with John Smith's. In fact, all three of my blocks were the result of edit warring with him. Which only goes to show that John Smith's doesn't just edit war with Giovanni, he edit wars with other editors as well. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Deskana

I originally requested arbitration a while back, but it was rejected in favour of trying mediation. Since then, there have been two mediation cases that have failed (1, 2). Giovanni was blocked indefinitely, and has contested the block. I think now is the time for arbcom to investigate the behaviour of all involved parties, and sort this matter out. --Deskana (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by PalaceGuard008

This comment is strictly related only to User:Endroit's comments about camaraderie among editors with a certain political ideology. I agree wholeheartedly that the issue of political ideology extending into both content distpues and administrative action is one worthy of concern and further examination. For example, User:Endroit repeatedly edit-wars on Senkaku Islands with a clear pro-Japanese, anti-Chinese ideological slant (see history and Talk:Senkaku Islands), along with his comrades in ideology. It is therefore interesting to see User:Endroit rise so eagerly to the defence of User:John Smith's, who, I hope, would not object to being characterised as anti-Communist China (see, for example, the last userbox on User:John Smith's). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Clarification for User:John Smith's: I do not equate Communism with China. In my view, User:Endroit has an anti-China view, and User:John Smith's has an anti-Communist China view. The two are not equivalent but are related. Secondly, I am not trying to cast in a negative light any anti-Communist China sentiment. There are many people who object to Communist regimes, and for good reason too. Thirdly, that I was involved on Senkaku Islands does not disqualify me from commenting - in fact, it probably better qualifies me to comment on the issue. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Giovanni33

I am ambivalent as to the necessity of arbitration at this stage. I still think this is premature, and rushed, as I had assumed that the community had the ability to impose a reasonable and workable solution short of going to formal arbitration, even without John Smith’s agreement—something that is always ideal but not practible as he rarely deviates from hard line stances, nor does he realize there is a major problem with his tenacious editing behavior of his own causing. So there are good reasons for considering arbitration, although I believe that a simple revert patrol (together with a possible Mao related topical ban) would work.

I’m also equivocal because the origin of this case stems from a serious error, on the part of the admin taking the action against me--instead doing anything against John Smiths. She relied on my past block log, specifically the past sock puppets. I think this is a big mistake. Also, the fact that the cited “divided community” in fact stems from a political divide among right/left editors who are quick jump on their political opponent. If we discount these actors, there is no real major division, there was acceptance of my proposal as being reasonable, and opposition for to the blocking admins one sided actions against only me.

To be clear, I don’t want John Smiths banned. I think he can be reformed, and I hold no personal animosity against any editor. My motivation was for his edit warring to cease because I saw it being harmful for WP. Hence, my report to ANI to report the 3 RR violation [14]; there I pointed out only some of the scope of his edit wars, gaming the system, and pov pushing. I did not edit war with him over most of his edit wars, which take place with other editors--not me; I stayed clear as he edit wars over silly things such changing dating systems (BC vs CE). But when he was violating Undue Weight in main history articles, I felt compelled to step in to stop the pov pushing. I certainly was not the best editor do this, or perhaps even to bring this to the admin board, as this prompted the usual political opponents who are always quick to bring up my past block log at every occasion, including past socks, etc, and saying I should be banned--hoping that an admin takes the bait. This time it succeeded, and I think that is an error. In WP, we do not ban established editors who have shown to be reformed based on practices that predated their reformation as a basis for severe sanctions. That is what was done in my case, and why I stand before you today. I also note that since then the admin who took this action against consensus, has been one sided, focusing only upon me, despite evidence of John Smith's behaviors. I'm at a loss as to why this is the case, but I am willing, as always, to do what is asked of me provided its reflective of consensus and based on reasons and principals the serve the interests of WP.

I should clarify my statement that this arbcom case stems from a serious error: I point out the reasoning of the blocking admins actions on my talk page. She explains that that it was the puppetry that resulted in her taking the actions, without which it would not have been done, and therefore I would not be here today. See: [15] But this aspect of my past is not relevant today. Everyone who does not have a political axe to grind against me—-including many honest opponents---all agree that this is really a thing of the past. Yet, it's the reason I'm here now. Therefore, because of these reasons, and, moreover, because of the fact that John Smith and I are in an unfinished mediation over these issues (the result of which should solve this particular edit conflict across articles), I think this arbcom case is premature. On the other hand, I can see how it could be accepted as there are real issues it could deal with, as well.

Concerning the sock issues, I left a mini confession about this issue on my talk page: My past puppets: a reformed and now honest wikipedian on the talk page, for brevity sake. Suffice it to say that falling into the temptation of using puppets is something that happened over a year ago, when I first joined the project. Since a years time in between I have had no indications that I ever resumed with such antics. I have edited in peace, close to a year without even a single block. For more about this, see the further reading statement I made on my talk page here: [16] The issue raises the important question: can editors who reform themselves ever be released from the burden of an old but negative block log? History is good, but if one can never qualitatively break with the past, in terms of judgment, then it only encourages editors to start over with a new identity. I’m a classic case of an abuse of the use, meaning, and merits of using a past block log against a reformed editor, when we see the use of the past year old sock issues constantly being brought up to seek my banning.

My colorful block log is almost always cited by ideological opponents, and presented for proof positive for punitive action. But, a careful analysis of our respective block logs reveals John Smith’s is fact worse despite initial appearances, discounting puppetry on mine: his extensive edit warring and pov pushing over many issues with multiple editors reveals only the tip of the iceberg. In fact, block logs do not do justice to the breath and scope of the problem, as they are often products of both chance and active opponents (those that quickly report you, and admins who quickly act to block, while others who go under the radar but do the same or worse in practice). So in actuality, what his block log shows (as bad as it is—and the same goes for many editors who want to see me banned, btw), can only be partly helpful. Yet, while I think he has been very lucky and fallen under the radar; nonetheless his block log is worse than mine in respect to edit warring (repeated actual 3RR violations). Mine was close to a year ago.

That I had a "relapse" with edit warring with him stems from the content of what he was pushing, and I reported it (and admin pointed out what was happening on my talk page, and I know enough about the subject to intercede). Yet, for doing so, and reporting it, action was taking against me instead. Then when that action against was rejected by the community, this arbitration was opened. So on that basis I think there are two ways to look at this:

• 1. Reject case as still premature: edit waring issue was addressed already with a block--probably appropriate (although only John Smith violated 3RR and I didn't). That I accept fault for edit warring; its done and over with and the 48 hr block served as a warning (converting it into a perm ban was wrong and overturned); Let the mediation continue, as its only about 1/3 done. I think either party would accept the conclusion of that mediation as binding.

• Or, 2. if this arbcom is accepted, it could cut shorten this process and, I'd hope, impose a solution that effectively cures the edit warring problems with John Smiths, and I'd happily volunteer to share the penalty for the greater good.

My proposal regarding John Smith and myself was for the community to impose either a 1RR parole or a topical ban on Mao related articles. I thought reasonable and gained some acceptance among most editors. The latter would solve the undue weight/ pov pushing--his inserting the revisionist Jung Change theories (not even a historian), into main history articles--one of the main issues he edit wars about. When the edit warring is combined with adding content that violates an important WP tenant (undue weight), its doubly bad. That is when I stepped in to counter him. His extensive edit warring over silly issues such as dating systems (BCE vs BC), I did not enter, as I don’t about most disputes I encounter. I may revert once or twice at most, preferring instead to just discuss at talk, or simply walk away. I’ve done this many times. This shows improvement over my early days on this issue. Even the blocking admins states that my edit warring appears to be a relapse only. But, John Smith does not do this. He reminds me of myself when I first started to edit here over a year ago. And, yes, this includes his gaming the system, using meatpuppets, and socks. I find the evidence against him in this respect compelling.

So while I proposed equity as a solution to stop the edit warring, I don't think there is equality between us--his edit warring far surpasses mine, over several articles and over several other editors. Also, the content of the POV pushing is another differentiating factor. Yet, I agreed to assume parity in terms of sanctions. I believe the community can do this without arbitration, either now, or if and when the mediation fails. In either case I have confidence in WP, and the arbitration committee to look into the facts and make an appropriate decision, if they should choose that course.Giovanni33 17:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Xmas1973

I support arbitration in this matter because the activities of Giovanni33 have become far too disruptive to go without comment. He starts edit wars with other users on flimsy pretexts and proves unreasonable when discussing matters under dispute. The evidence for this has been well documented by other users here. As for the other users, I do not see that their conduct in this case is anywhere near as bad as Giovanni's. He has had plenty of last chances, having had an indefinite block removed last year pending his good behaviour, discussions on WP:ANI, etc.. This is the first time the others' actions have formally been discussed, so I think it's a bit ridiculous for him to claim he is not the worst offender. Xmas1973 11:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Statements on this page should be limited to about 500 words, focusing on whether the arbitrators should accept the case for consideration. If the case is accepted, parties and others will have a full opportunity to present their evidence before the arbitrators make their decision. In this case, some of the statements are much longer than the recommended length. Editors who have submitted overlong statements are requested to shorten them promptly. Newyorkbrad 22:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Four votes to accept noted. Will open tomorrow unless the tally changes. Picaroon (t) 18:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

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

• Accept. Longstanding issues related to user conduct. Prior attempts to deal with the situation have broadened the conflict instead of resolving it. Since the community is divided about how to deal with the situation, the Committee needs to decide how best to resolve it. Will examine the conduct of all involved parties, of course. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. Kirill 02:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. James F. (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Requests for clarification

Place requests for clarification on matters related to the Arbitration process in this section. Place new requests at the top.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zacheus-jkb

I would like the Arbcom to confirm that User:V. Z. is an alternate account or a sockpuppet of User:Zacheus, and is subject to the decision. (Originally, the account V. Z. was the user's real name, then it was blocked on the user's request, then it was - again on the user's request and to protect his privacy - renamed to V. Z. and the user created another account Zacheus to use [he indeed confirmed that they are operated by the same person], but the block did not carry over after the rename.) - Mike Rosoft 17:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there some reason for this request? A user can have more than one account as long as they are not used abusively. Thatcher131 17:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; in fact, I have an alternate account, and it's an open secret which one it is (hint: look at the history of my user page). On Czech Wikipedia V.Z. was known to evade his ban using sockpuppet accounts (I don't know of any evidence of their misuse on English Wikipedia), and also had a habit of wikilawyering, so I would like it to be explicitly declared. - Mike Rosoft 20:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Given Zacheus was put under restrictions, it would make sense along the lines of the recent incident with Vickers on AE, no? Daniel 09:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I am uneasy about this request because it is so vague. Certainly it is part of the case evidence that V. Z. and Zacheus are both accounts used by this person. He changed the name of the V. Z. account because it was his personal name; the account still links to talk page edits signed with his real name. However, neither account has contributed much lately and there are no accusations that Zacheus has been misbehaving, so the only outcome of this request is to call attention to the prior case and its particulars. Thatcher131 17:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Deathrocker

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker resulted in Deathrocker, now called Daddy Kindsoul (talk · contribs), being placed on revert parole. This was violated at least seven times in the following year and resulted in seven separate, logged blocks. Since that time, this user has been blocked twice more, most recently by me for one year as provided by the remedy.

Daddy Kindsoul claims that the revert parole was for one year only and that he is no longer under any sanction. I can find no reference to a time limit in the arbitration case. My question, then, is whether or not the remedies in this specific case were to apply for one year only, were to apply until the user had gone one year without violating the parole, or whether the parole was indefinite. --Yamla 15:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I find no reference in the arbitration decision to any time limitation. There may be other issues relating to this block that are discussed on the user's talkpage in connection with his original unblock request, but they can be addressed at the administrator level if the user wishes to pursue the matter. Newyorkbrad 14:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that? I disagree with the 1 year block for the reason that the original remedy did not provide the escalating clause. (The Enforcement section did =.=) However, I do believe that he is on revert parole indefinitely if a date wasn't mentioned (unless someone willing to clarify this?) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 02:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus in regards to user:Halibutt behavior

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus case dealt with Eastern European topics, currently I, and several other contributors, have problems with on of this case involved parties, namely user:Halibutt's disruptive conduct practice. I asked assistance for solving this problem on several places [17][18] and I was informed that the proper place would be WP:RFAR itself. Current problems, involving Halibutt, includes continuing neglect towards WP:POINT, WP:AGF and general harassment of various contributors. For more detail explaining my problem please see my post at Arbitration enforcement. I would like to receive assistance solving this situation, because such disruption of particular contributor done on Wikipedia could be harmful for the future of the project. Thank you.--Lokyz 21:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The case of User:Halibutt is indeed one very important to this ArbCom case. Halibutt was once a very active member of this project, among the Top 200 most active contributors, and an author of several Featured articles as well as many DYKs. However months - if not years - of insults and baiting (with "are you a liar hallucinating between interludes of POV pushing and peppering Wikipedia with propaganda?" being my favorite example of comments that are allowed to go unpunished, thus certifying that CIV/NPA are dead policies) from several users with rather strong POV and a feeling of ownership over many areas Halibutt was interested in (ex. history of Poland-Lithuania) eventually resulted in Halibutt drastically limiting his activity in the project. Despite the harassment he faces, Halibutt still occasionally comes back and contributes to an article, or creates new ones - only to receive in return comments like "your metaphors really show your level of culture and bias", "You been whining... So why don't you have the balls to simply leave, as promised so many times before?". Just a few days ago, Halibutt expanded one article, only to be flamed on talk. The comments he recently left on my user page, and to which I assume Lokyz refers above, illustrate the problem. Yes, Halibutt's post is not the most diplomatic, and he makes some generalizations I strongly disagree with. But he also nails the problem: several POV-pushers, Usenet-type flame discussion warriors and pure trolls are driving good content creators away. User:Halibutt is not the only one who has limited his activity, due to harassment from certain editors (many of whom named as parties in my ArbCom); I could name several others who decided that they find no pleasure in contributing to the project in exchange for constant insults and sniping (originating, among others and often enough, from Lokyz, ex. [19], [20], [21]). This is why CIV/AGF/NPA policies were invented in the first place: to prevent fans of sniping and commenting on other editors from driving away those who prefer a more civil and academic discource. Nobody can say that driving content contributors away is good - particulary if the said contributors never violate our policies unless grossly baited. But this is what's happening, right here, right now. Gross incivility is going unpunished, baited users either lose temper and join the trolls and/or leave the project. This is the real problem, threatening the entire project and turning it into an arena where we are seeing the wiki-version of 'survival of the fittest' - only those with most foul tongue and thickest skin survive, the rest gets banned or leaves, disgusted. I can only hope ArbCom will address this issue before it is too late.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

He only received those comments after posting a 1000+ word rant calling everyone in a row trolls, ultras, morons, idiots, nationalists, etc etc. on your talk page. That it was not an outburst of frustration is proved by five of his postings of the same content. The mess on Narutowicz page started not after he expanded it, but after he unilaterally moved it without any discussions knowing perfectly well that it will be challenged (we been there so many times before to assume otherwise). While his productive edits are welcome, such distruptive behaviour is certainly not. Renata 15:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You got the order of the events a bit wrong. 1st, Halibutt expands the article. 2nd, he moves it as per his sources. 3rd, move war erupts, with Halibutt getting flamed at talk for daring to move the article he destubbed and expanded. 4th, Halibutts post the "rant" complaining about the editors who flamed him. 5th, one of the editors who flamed him complains here about the rant. As far as I see it, the problem would never appear if certain editors would try to assume good faith and talk to the editor who expaned the article and presumably knows a thing or two about the subject - before they started flaming him and accusing of various things for daring to move the said page.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

A brief note. As per the obvious problem (above) where it is unclear indeed "who is more wrong" as well as another "Request for clarification" (see #Piotrus below), I would thoroughly welcome ArbCom taking the case back, analyzing the editors' behavior (including mine) and render a meaningful judgment to replace or add to the too vague one rendered and voted earlier. ArbCom took upon itself one a very messy case and in the end produced a non-decision whose consequences are bound to bring up these endless "clarification requests". I was tempted to start such requests on my own several times and decided not to since I did not want to be seen as the one who does not let the sleeping dogs lie, bygones be bygones, etc. The fact is that all dogs are awake and the proof is that these requests continue to pop up. Perhaps it is inevitable that the case needs to be brought to a more meaningful closure. Even if such would keep "an amnesty" intact, clarifying what parties misbehaved, which parties "are reminded" and what the offenses were are especially needed in view of the outright defiance of the involved editors to even admit to any wrongdoing. --Irpen 00:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I often disagree with Irpen. This is not the case here, I completly share his sentiments.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Polish editors or single Polish editor that is the first question. Violation of WP:AGF or violation of Wikipedia rules (like WP:RM) is another. POV bashing or contributions is a third. Generalization or research - that means specific, but by no means selective details is fourth.Knowing the subject or googling on occasion is fifth. And please WP:AGF - I'm not trying to insult anyone, I'm not pointing a finger at anyone, I'm not using metaphors like knives - I'm just asking direct questions.--Lokyz 00:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is part of Halibutt's post: " Better yet, wiki is like a town where you can visit all sorts of restaurants with different cuisines. Plenty of Polish pierogi bars, pizzerias, stylish French bistros, English fish'n'chips eateries, and so on. However, there's only one Lithuanian restaurant with flies in every dish and a psychopathic chef running with his knife from one bar to the other, just to kill some clients here and there.

Perhaps it's my problem that I like Lithuanian cuisine and would love to visit the restaurant. Yet, apparently I shouldn't. And I shouldn't even get near, as it's dangerous. The only remedies I know are to either kill the crazed chef (but I'd have to do it alone as there's nobody else to see the problem), open up my own Lithuanian restaurant (impossible, as the crazed chef would kill me) - or move to another town." [22] I find this language disturbing. Novickas 14:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Selective quoting is not the best method of citing somebody. And I'd hope that ArbCom does loook one day into the activities of the "crazed chief" and his friends. As amusing as the metaphore is, the problem is quite real.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You did recognize that selective quoting is not the best way? Then how about google or google books searches like for example "Lithuanian+nationalist" ? Meanwhile another question remeins open - did someone know the fact, or did he find it on your list and then googled selective? As for evidences - you might wwant to read the Talk:Antanas Baranauskas page - there you'll find plethora of "knowledge" evidences. I did especially like this one "Right... So a guy who wrote some poems in Lithuanian is automatically a Lithuanian, right? Err... wrong, my dear. Similarly, currently the article suggests Baranowski (as he called himself) was born in Lithuania, even though he was born in the Russian empire to a Polish family." Quite an amusing read, a good example how someone tries to expand an article using "knowledge". Most fun part is that this so called "knowledge" denies every fact, that does not suit it's beliefs - even Polish encyclopedias, clearly quoting him as "poeta litewski". If you'd read it as a whole, you'll soon find quite a recognizable behavioral pattern. And i do will try to describe it with metaphors, that's your speciality.--Lokyz 15:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

When I started Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus most of attention was concentrated on Piotrus disruptive conduct practices. However his allies, like user:Lysy, user:Halibutt, behavior in some extend was even worst, this especially include Halibutt conduct. Currently user:Lokyz listed problems traces its roots year back. Uncontrolled and disruptive manner of Halibutt’s edits resulted Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Halibutt , there community critically evaluated his misconducts towards ethical slurs directed towards Lithuanians, excessive neglect towards WP:POINT, inability to cooperate, attempts to derail article renaming processes etc. In my view after Halibutt’ RfC nothing changed in his behavior. Let me illustrate with some examples. Exactly the same ethnicity driven commentaries were produced and later. Excessive naming various contributors as trolls [23] even those, with whom he never interacted; the most shameful of those was his so called “leaving message” [24] there he accused editor of criminal act. As you may guess Halibutt never proven that such offenses were made, despite was asked. Now his friend Piotrus trying, by picking selective diffs, to show that Halibutt’s received criticism is for nothing. In other hand Halibutt harassed editors with impressive stubbornness [25]. These are “impressive” offensives as contributor Halibutt declared that he left Wikipedia (current status of his involvement is mystery to me) I am personally disappointed that those insults transited to main space, like [26], [27]. These are few examples of Halibutt’s past conducts. After Piotrus’ arbitration case ended in 2007-08-19 general amnesty was declared. In 2007-08-28 Halibutt started move-revert campaign on Stanisław Narutowicz article. When he was advised by several contributors to use proper procedures regarding article naming, Halibutt accused contributor of vandalism [28] . Later, completely ignoring WP:POINT, WP:OWN, started removing parts of article, portraying it like some sort of game [29]. While is not secret that Halibutt’s improved articles has original research, POV foundations I disagree with Hali butt’s neglect towards WP:OWN. Soon afterwards of main space disruption Halibutt turned his sight on administrators Piotrus talk page. Virtually Piotrus talk page was converted to attack page [30], were he attacked various editors and labeled them “ultras”, “blinded ultras”, “idiots”, “bunch of hammers” “people lacking honour” on the most nasty ways. As we can see in the past there were attempts to solved problems regarding Halibutt’s behavior, but those attempts did not prevented future Halibutt disruption. So I would like to receive suggestions from Arbitress how to deal with such Halibutt’s disruption practices. Particularly then contributor thinks, that disrupting Wikipedia is refreshing. M.K. 10:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

My comment: I would require to be convinced that User:Halibutt is currently a disruptive editor here. Some of what is posted above is far from relevant to that point. The page move story shows that in the end due process was applied. Perhaps it should have been applied sooner, but simply moving a page cannot be classed as disruptive. Charles Matthews 15:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Charles Matthews, let me point out directly that I see wrong on those edits. Without consensus article was moved for three times. [31][32][33]. In my view breach of WP:CONS. What about rationale under page title move “revert vandal” [34], then there was no vandal. What about removing article parts [35] in my view its is classical example of WP:POINT and breach of WP:OWN. How explain such “suggestion” on other article’s page [36] (such Halibutts behavior, during article’s naming procedure, was discussed earlier [37] as well.), another neglect towards WP:POINT. What about his “comments” regarding contributors, there they named as “rolls”, “idiots” etc. [38]. As my earlier presentation above shows, these are not new or isolated incidents. So how to approach these problems, advice is badly needed and soon. Thank you, M.K. 10:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:BURO. But I would advise everyone concerned to drop the combative attitudes right now. There is not unlimited patience with these chronic problems. Charles Matthews 13:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus

As an ArbCom clerk recently noted, "there are no enforceable remedies in that case". Setting aside the question "So what was the point of this entire case?" I would like to ask for clarification of the "Parties reminded" remedy: "All parties are reminded of the need to edit courteously and cooperatively in the future. Failure to do so will be looked upon harshly by the Committee, and may result in the summary imposition of additional sanctions against those editors who continue to act inappropriately." What is not clear to me is what are the recommended actions if an editor, named a party in the case (or otherwise familiar with it), is behaving in a manner that I believe violates WP:CIV and related policies and creates a bad atmosphere at discussion pages. Where, if anywhere at all, can I report this, without encouraging the criticism that I am 'forum block shopping'?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add to this a request for clarification.

1. All along I wanted to ask who among the editors are considered among the "parties reminded" to be viewed under the parole of the deferred punishment? Several editors who took part in the ArbCom did not have a single allegation brought against them at the workshop. Are they too on the parole?
2. Further, several editors alleged the abuse of gaming the WP:CIV as a shortcut in resolving the content disputes to one's favor. Also, along the same lines, is the devious behavior wrapped in a "civil" wrapper considered more WP:CIV compliant than an utterance of a profanity at the talk page?
3. Also, are the wikipedians allowed to maintain the laundry lists of grievances, black books and other forms of attack pages on en-wiki, other public servers of Wikimedia foundation and in the public areas of internet?

ArbCom did not make its position clear on any of this issues. And those issues are either urgent or already popping up.

I felt from the onset that the clarification on those positions are very much needed but hesitated about starting a request for clarification on that disastrous ArbCom as resurrecting unanswered question could have prompted accusations of "not letting bygones be bygones", "holding grudges", etc. But Piotrus took it upon himself to open the request anyway and since this is going to be studied I would like to add my questions to it. --Irpen 02:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

To answer Irpen's question based on view of a bystander:

1. This question would coincide with one of the clarification requests that I wrote below in a way. (See the A-A 2 section below.)
2. I believe that provoking someone to violate WP:CIV should get you in trouble, since instigators rarely get out of the case scathe-free. However, users shouldn't lose their cool under any circumstances.
3. About laundry lists, there's only 1 recent case that I, as a clerk, could recall, and that would be Tobias Conradi case. I'm not sure what the norm on this is, though.

- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 15:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 Remedy

As the closing clerk, I noticed some interesting problems with the remedy 1 of this case. The remedy 1 puts edit supervision on the editors sanctioned in the original case, however, at least 2 editors sanctioned in the original case was not named as a party to the newer case and was surprised/shocked of the development. I'd like some input from the Committee to explain the ruling on this. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 04:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, under this case, other editors who edit in a similar manner to the previously-sanctioned editors may be placed under the limitations of the original Armenia-Azerbaijan case. Do these sanctions expire one year after the editor in question is notified, or are they indefinite as no time limit is mentioned? The supervised editing remedy from the second case appears to be indefinite, as no expiration is mentioned, so my question is whether this is indeed the case and whether the other remedies are still meant to expire after a year, including on other editors brought in under the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 decision. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe this situation requires attention from the committee. Frankly, I was always troubled by remedy number 1, which took all the users who were placed on revert parole (revert limitation) in the earlier case, and now placed them on supervised editing (which I gather is a new term for some form of probation and/or civility parole) as well. This was done despite the observation that although some of the parties to the earlier case had continued to display problematic behavior, others had done little or nothing wrong since the earlier decision, and there was no real reason to be applying additional remedies to them.

The problem is magnified if, as has been stated, some of the parties to the earlier case were not parties to the newer one. The case was such a sprawl and so many editors were listed as parties (and there was edit-warring over the list for awhile) that the clerk handling the case probably assumed that all the (unbanned) parties to the earlier case had been listed again. (From now on, I will check for things like this in every case myself.) If that didn't happen, then at a minimum anyone who was subjected to a remedy without having been notified of the case should be entitled to have the case reopened and to be heard on this issue. Newyorkbrad 19:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops. See below.

As far as the duration is concerned, "until the situation improves" is probably a good rule of thumb. I am content to leave the decision up to the enforcing administrators. Kirill 19:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Replying to NYB, I was also the clerk in the original A-A case. However, this case was opened anew, so I did not add the parties from the old case to the new one. I never assumed that they were listed. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 20:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, there was no reason to look for the additional parties or add them at the beginning of the case. However, when a remedy showed up on /proposed decision (or originally in an arbitrator proposal on the workshop) applicable to "all the parties to the prior decision," we should all have checked then to make sure that all of them were parties in or had all received notice of the new case. My fault as much as anyone's. Newyorkbrad 20:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• With due respect to Kirill I think this is a non-issue and his motion is a mistake. Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 provides that any editor who edits disruptively on the topic of "Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area" may be placed on civility parole, 1RR and probation by means of a warning on their talk page. The fact that some editors in the first case were not notified of the second case is easily remedied by a note on their talk page. Passing the motion below would take a small group of editors who were placed on 1RR and exempt them from the civility parole and probation that applies to every other editor on Wikipedia following an appropriate notice. Thatcher131 20:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • They could be placed back on the remedy, yes; but only if they edit disruptively. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt; staying out of the second case does count for something, I think. Kirill 20:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Dren. I missed that remedy #2 still applied. Sorry. Thatcher131 20:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Thatcher, I had to look that word up. Clearly I have some remedial TV watching to do. More seriously, Penwhale, could you advise which users subjected to the remedy in the first case were not parties to the new case? (I ask you instead of doing the research myself as you know which users have complained to you already.) Thanks, Newyorkbrad 23:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Not so much of "complaining", but TigranTheGreat and ROOB323 were the ones affected. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 01:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
          • While User:TigranTheGreat was not included in the list of the parties to the second arbcom case, many users provided evidence of his behavior which they considered to be disruptive. So he was definitely a party to the second case, and he was well aware of it as he provided evidence himself. His non-inclusion was just a mistake, because most users considered all the parties to the previous case to be parties to the second one as well. On the other hand, no one complained about ROOB323, so he should be the only one affected. Grandmaster 06:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Just a quick note, since contributors in the 2nd ArbCom case ended up there due to pretty much the same disruptions as those in the 1st case, would not it be simpler to just place everyone on 1RR parole? I think this would significantly reduce the reporting and decision overhead, whether something should be considered a civility violation or not. Thanks. Atabek 14:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make and vote on such motions. Other editors may comment on the talk page)

Extension of remedies in Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

Those parties to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan who were not named as parties to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 and were not given notice of the proceedings are exempted from the extension of existing remedies imposed by Remedy #1 in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. They remain subject to Remedy #2.

See also discussion above. As there are currently 11 active Arbitrators, the majority is 6.

Support:

1. We messed up here. Kirill 19:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
2. James F. (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Paul August ☎ 13:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. There is a defect in noticing everyone in, but the remedy should properly apply to everyone. Fred Bauder 13:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Abstain:

Archives

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests (extremely sparse, selective, and unofficial)