Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
194x144x90x118		8 August 2009	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	7 June 2024
Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction	none	none	29 May 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads	none	none	4 June 2024
Amendment request: India-Pakistan	none	(orig. case)	7 June 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

194x144x90x118

Initiated by Erik9 (talk) at 05:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Erik9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• 194x144x90x118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Scjessey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dayewalker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• GTBacchus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• FisherQueen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/194x144x90x118
• Declined arbitration request: DreamHost

Statement by Erik9

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)

Statement by Sjakkalle

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)

Statement by PhilKnight

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)

Statement by Scjessey

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)

Response to Jehochman

The COI allegations were already handled at WP:COIN, if you recall. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

Statement by Jehochman

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)

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)

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)

Comment by Flyingpenguin1

ArbCom already rejected this once...[23]

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

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)

Statement by GTBacchus

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)

Statement by Dayewalker

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)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/0/0/2)

• 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)
• 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)
• Waiting another day or two for any further statements. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • 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)
• 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)
• Accept and offer to draft the case. Been a little while since I've done one. Wizardman 21:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Accept -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Accept Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)