Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Wikipedia:Resolving disputes contains the official policy on dispute resolution for English Wikipedia. Arbitration is generally the last step, when a dispute cannot be resolved by any other means including informal or formal mediation, or by asking the community its opinion on the matter.

This page is focused on discussing the Arbitration Committee itself (specifically, the information on the project page attached to this talkpage). Requesting that a case be taken up here isn't likely to help you, but those of us in the dispute resolution community would be happy to assist.

Please click here if you want to file an arbitration case.
Shortcut:
WP talk:RFAr or WT:RFAr
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University

  • Actually, this is up again following an agreement from the other party to now go into arbitration. [1]. we have been through the entire gamut. He has had admins repeat policy on the discussion page and still will not adhere. Just rely on personal attack.

Please note, this is not a content dispute.

I simply would like the policy matter of Wikipedia:Verifiability [2] clarified with or to this other user so that I can proceed with contribution without the consistent vandalism allegations from other IP address, bogus blocks being made upon me during which he can force through his POV and debate whis has persisted. The policy states;

Self-published and dubious sources in articles about the author(s) Material from self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material, so long as:

  • it is relevant to their notability;
  • it is not contentious;
  • it is not unduly self-serving;
  • it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
  • there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.

I don't see what fault I have in accepting it. 195.82.106.244 01:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The first problem with your case is that in the diff you provided [3] you were "offered the choice of mediation or arbitration" and chose arbitration. That is not a choice. Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution and the arbitrators will generally not hear a case unless mediation has been attempted and failed. Second, the arbitraotrs will generally not rule on what sources are acceptable or how to use them in an article. The arbitration committee is not empowered to hear content disputes, and no matter how you describe it, the question of whether certain sources can be included is a content dispute. The arbitrators will hear cases about disruptive behavior, or about editors who remove valid sources because they have a particular point of view about a topic, so I recommend that you offer some specific evidence of disruptive behavior like edit warring, article ownership, or trying to force the article to reflect a certain point of view and denying fair coverage to other points of view. However even then, the arbitrators may ask you to try mediation first. Thatcher131 02:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Mediation had also been attempted prior as per policy, as had RfC, admin requests, discussion, everything.
  • The question is not content dispute and no about which sources are acceptable. It to hold the other contributor to the Self-published and dubious sources in articles about the author(s) policy NOT guideline stated above and - hopefully to stop these bogus blocks and vandalism threats.
I have shown in detail he has gone out of his way to block me using bogus vandalism reports from IPs within the same area/ISP that he kept secret and especially for doing so, even referring to his editing usename Riveros11 as a third party.
Stated at length and in detail stating time and dates and edits here [4]
Thanks 195.82.106.244 03:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I have looked over your request for investigation and some of the linked comments. I think you have a strong case for arbitration but you have presented it poorly. However, given your claim that Riveros is a current recruiter and you are a former recruiter and trainer, and your intent to expose wrongdoing in the group, there is a strong chance that you would be sanctioned as well, either probation or banned from the article. It all depends on how good your sources are and how you have behaved in trying to add them. If the arbitrators feel you have been trying to libel the organization with poorly sourced or unsourced scandals, you're a goner. If they feel your sources are good and your efforts to add them are appropriately balanced, they may indeed sanction the other editor(s). Many cases come down in the middle, with some form of probation or article ban for both sides. It is very important to know that the arbitrators will consider the behavior of all parties and the person who brings the case will sometimes end up at the wrong end of the hammer. If you are willing to proceed knowing this is a possibility, I will try and help you present your case in a way that it will be more likely to be accepted. Thatcher131 03:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear Thatcher131;
Please see this link [5] It si about user 195.82.106.244. Here you will see plenty of evidence of this individual character (diffs are included) This dispute is about Content.
User .244 is an ex-mamber of Brahma Kumaris and has started this article here in Wikipedia. Obviously, his article has damaged the image of the institution where I belong to. If you would, please take a look at the archives. These archives will give you a pretty good picture of what has been going on. If there is no time for that, please get in touch with admin Jossi and user Sethie. These users have been "mediating" in a non biased way to improve the appearance of this article. Note that at this point, we have a version of the article by .244. He has reverted that article without previous discussion. In short, user .244 is using wikipedia to demonstrate his animosity towards a fine institution.
Best Wishes, avyakt7 14:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
It's hard to know after a brief review whether 195 is inappropriately attacking or you are inappropriately defending, which is why I indicated that arbitration cases can cut both ways. Thatcher131 15:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I admit that I was largely responsible for building this particular topic and would say that the "high point" of my influence was about here, [6].
I am happy to accept your judgement of whether that was unduly biased or an "exposé". (It was not finished or perfect but was a good base edit from which to work). Indeed, I had to face challenges over many objective facts from younger BKs that they unaware of, e.g. Kirpalani's prior involvement with the Vallabacharya sect and early opposition on behalf of the Arya Samaj to the Om Mandali and Om Niwas days of the BKWSU. [cited references available]. I am not concerned to raise issues about any person shenanigans.
  • Policy comes before content.
One cannot discussion content until policy is accepted by all parties. My question relates solely to the policy stated AND avyakt7 public acceptance of said policy. There are slightly extenuating circumstances here as the organization is religious, Hindu based and relatively new to the West from an academic point of view. Hence the specific request for a modicum of scriptural and purchaseable self-published resources.
  • And I am happy also to refer to the given reference, [7] as it shows Luis referring to himself in third person which supports the RfI above, [8] [9] which I only found following my discovery of which IP address he had been using to block me and others. 195.82.106.244 06:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thatcher131

Fools rush in, etc. If this case is accepted I will recuse as clerk. can we just clarify here, when one uses the word recuse, it generally suggests a disqualification on the basis of prejudice or personal involvement. Is this so?

Thatch, that other IP that Luis used to only block me from contribution came through as a sockpuppet. [[10] It is too hard to believe he 'simply happened to forget to sign in' on the one account he kept aside to block me so I would not work out where and he would look clean.

I just want to quote what you wrote on the checkuser page on my IP.

Dispute at Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University. Riveros11 and Appledell defending the article against an IP editor (195.82.106.244 (talk • contribs) who has been trying to insert poorly sourced negative information. Riveros11 reverts the article maintaining a reasonable attitude arguing against the quality and reliability of the sources. Appledell also reverts the article defending the organization but is less reasonable. Searchin man was targeted by the 195 editor as Riveros11, leading to the attempted disclosure of personal information by the 195 editor. (see separate case) The IP addresses have filed multiple reports at WP:PAIN, WP:RFI and WP:RFCU, which may be an attempt to intimidate the 195. user. All the IPs are in Tampa, and one signed as Avyakt7, Riveros11's signature, but I'd like to check to be sure. Thatcher131 03:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You have written that I suggested that child abuse within the BKWSU was tolerated which is ridiculous. Are you trully impartial?

Now we have positive confirmation that the Tampa IPs were Riveros11, do you stick with your "reasonable" statement? I have always stated that I am happy to use the same cited data as him.

195.82.106.244 06:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration clerks do not play a role in deciding arbitration cases, and in fact have the same rights as any other user as far as commenting on cases after they are opened. The clerk's role is mostly making sure people don't post in the wrong places and generally keeping the cases tidy. However, it is common practice that clerks who are involved in a case do not perform clerk functions with respect to that case. Presenting evidence makes me involved, even though I have nothing to do with the dispute. I originally looked into your evidence because I thought the dispute was interesting and had merit as an arbitration case, but was presented poorly with little chance of acceptance. I was certainly unbiased before I started, having nothing whatsoever to do with BKWS, new religions, or Hinduism in general in my private life. After looking at the evidence and behavior on both sides I believe there is a case to be made that only arbitration can deal with this situation, and as I said, based on the outcome of similar cases, I expect one or both sides could get banned from the article, or at least have their editing restricted. With regard to Riveros11 being "reasonable", that is a characterization of the personality of the named account, which, I suggested, was maintained by doing the "dirty work" (filing complaints) while logged out. This argument was necessary on the checkuser page to permit the disclosure of the IP addresses. It is usually inappropriate for the checkusers to disclose or confirm private IP addresses per the privacy policy, unless, as in this case, he has disclosed his own address by his actions. I made no comment regarding whether the filing of the complaints while logged out was an accident (your comment above in quotes is not a quote of anything I wrote) but the implication should be obvious. Finally, in this edit [11] you inserted a Controversy section containing, and I quote, "Documented incidents of child abuse within the organisation brushed aside by leaders as due to the bad karma of the children suffering sex abuse and outside of their responsibility, the perpetrators avoid punishment or reporting to police", so yes, you do write that child abuse is "brushed aside" which is pretty much the same as tolerated, as far as I understand the English language. Thatcher131 09:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for the confirmation of your neutrality.
No, "brushed aside" and "tolerated" are not the same. I would argue the first two in the case of the BKWSU, on the evidence originally presented and evidence presented since. I would not and have never argued the second. As stated, from my point of view, that would be a ridiculous claim to make and there is a clearly considerable difference.
Excuse my natural offense at having such prejudicial words put in my mouth. 195.82.106.244 04:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Riveros11 response to Thatcher131

Dear Thatcher131,
Please do not forget this: Thank you.
Dear SimonP; please take a look at this link[12] and this [13] If this is not considered to be a strong proof of user 195.82.106.244 sockpuppet with brahmakumaris.info and bkwsuwatch.. It will really surprise me that the obvious cannot be seen. BTW, If you have the chance to read all of his writings in the above mentioned post, you shall see that the root of the problem is content alone. That kind of content is just wrong for an on-line encyclopedia. Thank you. Bestavyakt7 01:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Ps: Here [14] you will see the comments below the video in Spanish. Take a look at "bkwsuwatch" endorsing brahmakumaris.info site... Let us see how is this being handled...
Best Wishes, avyakt7 01:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
More on it: I just found out that user Thatcher131 removed my comments. Claiming that "evidence" should not be placed here... I wonder if he realized that user .244 is doing that and his comments are there as well...Anyway, here is the link [15] I would really like to know from user Thatcher131 how a "traceroute" is possible without IP addresses... Can you do that by using just user names? How is this performed? and most importantly : Is user .244 coming from the same place as brahmakumaris.info? Why it was so easy for him to find that appledell, searchin man and myself are in different places and he/she did not mention about .244 and brahmakumaris.info? Something just does not make much sense ...
Best, avyakt7 01:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
If you want to make additional comments, add them to your own section, not in the Arbitrators' opinion on hearing the case section. You can certainly add additional evidence but concise requests are preferred and additional evidence may be added when and if the case is accepted. There will be a whole page just for evidence. Traceroute can be used to track a data packet to its destination, whether that destination is a domain name or IP address. In this case, brahmakumaris.info is hosted on a server with the IP address 213.230.203.86, which whois shows is in Leeds. (try www.dnsstuff.com) I'm not going to give a detailed explanation of how checkuser works on Wikipedia but see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/195.82.106.244. It seems that User:brahmakumaris.info was not posting from the same computer as 195.82.106.244. This does not mean they are not the same person, just that they did not use the same computer. Checkuser is an incomplete tool and sockpuppet determinations are best made by human judgement. Personally I think they are the same person, based on the BK forum posting you pointed to, plus the fact that they are both in England. However, that possibility, along with any remedies, will be for the arbitrators to decide. Other technical evidence mentioned in the checkuser case will not be disclosed publically but will be shared with the arbitration committee if they ask. Thatcher131 15:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved other users

I have moved the other user listed by Thatcher131 from the arbtration page. After reading up on the policy I can see no grounds for a third party adding them and loading the proceedings. I do not consider that any significant issues lie between myself and any other contributor, nor that their actions have contributed to the current situation. The policy issue is between Luis and I.

Well, of course you don't have any conflicts with TalkAbout, but this arbitration will examine editing the BKWS article by all parties, and he has reinstated some of your edits that were deleted by others. Bkismonb may be non-aggressive but he has also rather disturbingly indicated a sense of owership about the article. Searchin man was accused by you of being a sockpuppet of Riveros11. They may or may not be active and may or may not present evidence, but listing them as parties gives the arbitrators a chance to examine the entire case, and gives them the chance to participate should they choose to. Thatcher131 16:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal disclosures and Accusation of non-provision of citations

Riveros11 continues even on these arbitration pages to make prejudicial attacks. I added thebibliography section in 2 April 2006 and continued to add the majority to it. [16] Regarding my failure to once provide references October 2006 being the high point of the original article, I have continued to provide the majority of first 23 references the majority of which still remain on the page.

With regards to my making personal disclosures about the user, since 3 April 2006 as 70.119.13.124 he has signed comments as Luis or " Luis Alberto Riveros" [17], in this case including copy of an email sent to the Wikipedia Foundation, making no effort to hide it. 195.82.106.244 12:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rejection (reply to Caracharoth)

It would look better if the arbitrators made it clearer if they were rejecting the case because (a) they have briefly examined the dispute and think there is no case to answer, or (b) the person bringing the case has not provided enough details so the arbitrators cannot even begin to decide whether there is a case to answer. Carcharoth 00:12, 11 December 2006

This is my own opinion based on experience, but I suspect the reason for rejection is (3), no prior dispute resolution. The arbitrators generally only accept cases where there have been serious attempts at resolution that have failed, partly due to workload, and partly because arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution and almost everyone is happier with a negotiated or consensus settlement. It is certainly possible for someone to cross the line between efficiently "on the job" and ownership. Something along the lines of extensive talk page discussion or an RFC against Ral315 showing strong backing for such a position would generally be a prerequisite for accepting a case. Thatcher131 16:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Carcharoth 16:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • As a gentle suggestion, some explanation of a reason from each rejecting member might be helpful -- that way, Nathan could decide whether he needs to go back and do dispute resolution, gather evidence for a better submission to ArbComm, or just give up. (Five or six words would be fine "No evidence of dispute resolution," "No diffs adequately describing dispute", "Would obviously fail per WP:SNOW", or whatever). Thanks, TheronJ 16:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for injunction

In the open case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions, one of the issues is a series of several hundred non-consensus page moves. Evidently even with the open case though, one of the involved users, Yaksha (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is continuing with these moves. How do I go about requesting an immediate injunction, to get the moves to stop so that the ArbCom case can continue without interference? --Elonka 23:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

There would be a location for requesting a temporary injunction on the /Workshop page of the case. After discussion, if one of the arbitrators believes the proposal has merit, it would be posted to /Proposed Decision (which only the arbitrators can edit) for a vote. Newyorkbrad 23:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I took a stab a presenting it... Is this in the proper format? [18]. --Elonka 23:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm just a bystander here (and also have no view on the merits of your proposal), but it looks basically well presented to me. You should replace the section heading "template" with the caption, and including a few diffs never hurt anyone, either. Beyond that, I'm sure the Clerk for the case or one of the Arbitrators will do any necessary tidying. Newyorkbrad 23:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your help.  :) --Elonka 00:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_arbitration_945d.html"