Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
<Insert the case name>		16 January 2010	{{{votes}}}
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#POV tag at Israel and the apartheid analogy|POV tag at Israel and the apartheid analogy]]		14 January 2010	{{{votes}}}
Badagnani		12 January 2010	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

<Insert the case name>

Initiated by Durova⁴⁰¹ at 18:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties

• username1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• username2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• username3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• username4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Diff. 1
• Diff. 2

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Link 1
• Link 2

Clerk notes

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

POV tag at Israel and the apartheid analogy

Initiated by Fuzzy (talk) at 21:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Fuzzy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Ryan Paddy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• AfAR notice for Ryan Paddy

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Informal and formal mediation attempts by Kim van der Linde (• •).
• Declared "unmediateable" by the Mediation Committee.
• Previous RfAR: Israeli apartheid (Sep 2006), Allegations of apartheid (Oct 2007).

Statement by Fuzzy

I hereby request an arbitration on placing a {{POV}} tag at Israel and the apartheid analogy. This request is not about the content of the article, but for a decision whether the article is biased or unbiased. Word counting suggests some bias (70% of the text support the allegations while 30% criticize the use of the term). Countless references to the article lack of balance and POV have been made in the past three and a half years ( · · · • · · · • · · · · · · • · · · · ·  ⁂ · · · · · · · · · ·  • · · • · · • · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · • · · · · · · · · · · · • · · · · · · • • • · • • · · · • · · · · · · • · • • • · · · · · • • • • · · · · ·  ⁂ · · ·  · · · · • · · · • · · • • · · · · · • · · · · · · • · · • · · • · · · · • · · • · · – to name a few). The article was created by user who is now permanently banned from Wikipedia, and was undoubtedly created as POV fork of New antisemitism (compare Ⓐ Ⓑ, informal mediation Ⓒ following by Ⓓ, POINT – Ⅰ Ⅱ Ⅲ Ⅳ Ⅴ). Since its birth, the number of RfD/RfMED/RfAR of the article and its siblings ( • • • • • • ⁂ • • • • • • • • • • • • • ⁂ • • • – if I haven't missed some) suggests NPOV was failed to be obtained. The article has gone through numerous mediation attempts and was declared by the Mediation Committee as unmediateable.

Taking into an account the current state of the article, I believe it must be rewritten from scratch if NPOV is sought. Since I do not intend to go into POV wars, I can only suggest some formal criteria for obtaining a balanced article. I don't request any arbitration on the content, but merely request an acknowledgment that placing a POV tag is required and should not be removed until NPOV is agreed upon.

I am including Ryan Paddy, with whom I've entered a short edit-war (2RR – Ⅰ Ⅱ Ⅲ Ⅳ), as the only involved party. I am sure half of the editors over there are "interested parties", but since this arbitration request is not about the content, I would like the number of parties to be kept under control so this arbitration request won't become a nightmare such as that one.

To clarify myself, agreement on the content is not required for agreement on the controversiality of the article. Similarly, an acknowledgment on bias can be discussed, and this was done in the first RfAR. – Fuzzy – 22:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Ryan Paddy

Hi folks. Perhaps this case could address the various editors' behaviour of edit warring over the presence of the NPOV tag, rather than whether a tag should be present or not. It seems that the article is prone to edit warring over the tag, making the issue as much one of editor conflict as of content.

There are some editors who find the existence of this article offensive. There are other editors who feel the article doesn't go far enough. Both of these diametrically opposed positions lead some editors to tag the article as having a NPOV dispute. These are the wrong reasons. The purpose of the tag is to bring editors attention to an NPOV issue and fix it. The template usage notes state that an editor placing the tag should also initiate talk about it, that if talk becomes dormant then the tag should be removed, and the tag shouldn't be used as a badge of shame. While we do have some discussion on NPOV in talk, it's often not very constructive, and often the article is subject to "drive-by tagging" without talk.

The problem appears to arise due to editors who have a very strong POV on the subject of the article, to whom a neutral presentation of the opposing perspective seems outrageously biased and provocative. Such editors tag the article but seldom contribute to "fixing" any issues they perceive. That's not correct usage of the tag. It should only be present when there is currently a constructive discussion taking place. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Tarc

I have very few Israeli-Palestinian articles left on the watchlist these days, as I grew weary of dealing with religious extremists and the battleground mentality. This article is one of the few remaining, but it has been rather quiet for many months, apart from this minor POV-tagging kerfuffle. I see suggestions below of re-filing this to focus on editor conduct, but there's doesn't seem to be much of a basis for that, given how little activity there has been at the Israeli apartheid article lately. Tarc (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/1/0)

• Decline: "This request is not about the content of the article, but for a decision whether the article is biased or unbiased." That question actually is about the content of the article. I share your frustration, since Wikipedia lacks an effective means of resolving content disputes, but ArbCom doesn't touch stuff like this. I note that you don't seem to have used an request for comment yet; you might consider that, though there's no guarantee that it won't just expand the conflict. Steve Smith (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
• Decline: ArbCom does not decide content, such as tags. SirFozzie (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Hope it's okay to place here the comment Such discussions were held in the past. – Fuzzy – 22:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Decline. The main roadblocks to productive dispute resolution seems to be a hostile editing environment and an unwillingness to engage in cordial discussion (as as well as other tendentious behaviors). This particular dispute is the tip of a iceberg and any attempt to resolve the matter solely focused on this one point will be doomed to failure. Administrative intervention should be sought to resolve the conduct issues. The editing environment needs to be brought under control. That noted, if outside opinions are sought to select a final solution for matters, there are various content noticeboards (such as WP:NPOVN and WP:ECCN) and other available options (such as RfC and third opinions). The community has previously brought this sub-topic under control and I see no reason why it cannot do so again. Vassyana (talk) 10:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• Decline as content dispute. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• Recuse. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• Decline as content dispute. But a reformulated RFAR focusing on editor conduct, such as was done in WP:ARBMAC2 is an option. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Badagnani

Initiated by Bdb484 (talk) at 02:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Bdb484 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Badagnani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ronz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GraYoshi2x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Badagnani
• Ronz
• GraYoshi2x

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

The community has exhausted nearly every avenue for dispute resolution, and in many cases availed themselves of those options more than once.

• Talk page discussions such as this, which the user refuses to participate in;
• This small sample of posts on the user's talk page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8;
• Fifteen posts to the edit-warring noticeboard: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15;
• Eighteen visits to WP:ANI: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18;
• Two submissions to WP:MEDCAB: 1, 2;
• A request for comment;
• A request for mediation; and
• Blocking the user 13 times.

Statement by Bdb484

As a preliminary matter, it must be acknowledged that Badagnani has made many, many constructive contributions to the project. He is listed as No. 28 at WP:MOSTEDITS, No. 150 on the list of users by pages created and created some 1,300 articles altogether. He has foreign-language skills that make him a valuable addition to several WikiProjects that are otherwise underserved. He truly has the potential to be one Wikipedia's most valuable editors.

However, his communication deficiencies are as epic as his contributions. I'll attempt to summarize them, but for a more detailed accounting, you can review the list of attempts at alternative dispute resolution above, which chronicle the community's efforts to help him edit not just prolifically, but also productively.

As I see it, the most serious problem is Badagnani's chronic edit warring, including misleading edit summaries to disguise his reverts. Additionally, he has difficulty abiding by WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. He has refused to engage in discussions that could lead to mutually agreeable outcomes, opting instead to label editors as idiotic, accuse them of blanking because they remove single sentences, and so on. He clearly understands WP protocol, as he regularly admonishes other users to abide by it (be on the lookout for some his buzzwords, e.g. "hyperaggressive," "collegial," etc.), yet he pursues ownership of articles by insisting that other editors go to the talk page before making changes to articles that he has started/edited/watchlisted.

Additionally, there have been concerns raised about his persistent failures to provide appropriate sources for material he adds, especially on BLP articles; the addition of inappropriate external links; and his removal of citation-needed and other tags without addressing the underlying issues with the articles in question. Almost all of these issues are addressed in greater detail in the most recent ANI case.

An indefinite ban has been suggested by multiple parties. Given the upshot of his continued contributions, it's hard for me to say I think we should banish this guy. At the same time, literally nothing seems to have any effect on his behavior or even his understanding of why the community objects to his editing patterns. While I wouldn't necessarily object to this route, I'm hopeful that ArbCom may have a few other arrows in its quiver.

Attached as parties to the case are User:Ronz and User:GraYoshi2x, who I understand have been attempting to clean up after Badagnani for some time, though not always using the best methods. I am not personally familiar with their situations, so I'll let others speak to that situation. There was also a long list of other users suggested as parties. I'm not sure what the criteria is for attaching someone, so I've left them off. If anyone else wishes to add them, I would not object.

Thanks. — Bdb484 (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

As the ANI thread has now led to a block, pursuing this case is likely unnecessary. I would like to withdraw this request, if I may. — Bdb484 (talk) 02:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by GraYoshi2x

While I might not have used the best ways to cooperate with Badagnani, I know for a fact that he refuses to discuss with others during disputes. The few times he does leave a message on the talk page, he is quite vague and does nothing to address the dispute at hand, choosing rather to criticize editors as being "hyperaggressive" and being detrimental to building an encyclopedia. Badagnani's edit summaries are not very constructive either (mostly just a "+" or a "revert mass blanking, please use 'Discussion'"). It also seems that he becomes a bit WP:OWNy on articles that he has either started or greatly contributed to and instantly reverts an edit he doesn't like. As long as Badagnani continues acting in this way, he will be going directly against WP:BOLD and slowing the further development of this encyclopedia (or at least the areas he contributes to). GraYoshi2x►^talk 20:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Themfromspace

Since all of the previous dispute resolution methods have failed (with Badagnani's lack of participation at the recent ANI thread being the icing on the cake), ArbCom seems to be the only option left for dealing with him and getting a dispute resolution that will stick. I have only had one personal experience with Badagnani but it confirms the allegations posted by bdb484 above that Badagnani has been in opposition to good-faith article cleanup efforts and has not been willing to communicate with the editors when they attempt to engage him in discussion. His revert summaries are oftentimes crude and borderline-offensive, and he has continued the same behaviour after being told numerous times that it is disruptive. This is all well documented at his RFC and multiple ANI threads including one where he was blocked for the duration of one month for "chronic communication problems". Since he shows no signs of stopping the disruptive behaviour, and his recent feedback on the issue shows a lack of understanding of why other editors have a problem with his style of editing, I urge the ArbCom to take up this case. ThemFromSpace 06:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Crossmr

I wanted to add my experience with Badagnani so that this doesn't get confused with a recent problem or a problem only involving a couple users. A year ago badagnani was exhibiting this behaviour in a dispute. You can see the full list of diffs under #12 on his trips to AN/I. [1]. His communication style left a lot to be desired and he did little to make any kind of argument. What he did do was spend a lot of time making things up, slinging mud, out right lying, and making bizarre unfounded accusations. When challenged on any of these things he'd either tell me to moderate my tone (but couldn't demonstrate how anything I said was inappropriate) or insist we all get back to building an encyclopedia. Even with numerous users telling him to assume good faith, he carried on for days with countless personal attacks, insults, bizarre claims, and to this day hasn't provided a single diff to support any of the bad faith he hurled at me. His discussion style simply wasn't conducive to operating as a community. Any further challenge to the things he'd say or claims he'd make would go unanswered much like the AN/I threads or RfC that was started about him. After my interaction with him and constantly see chatter about him on AN/I and other places, and his outright refusal to communicate in a functioning manner, I can't really see any other place but Arbitration for this.--Crossmr (talk) 12:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

In response to Caspian, looking into those editors behaviour might be worth something, but in this context, not really. Badagnani's behaviour extends well beyond these editors. This isn't an isolated incident and in fact we could probably easily add at least a dozen other editors as parties to this. They all have one thing in common. Badagnani.--Crossmr (talk) 09:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Tbsdy lives

Please note that there is ongoing discussion about this editor on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Badagnani. A number of administrators have urged that ArbCom reviews this editor's contributions as he is proving to be a problem, but there is confusion about the best way of dealing with the situation. We would appreciate a ruling from ArbCom. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Propaniac

Badagnani's behavior is irrefutably disruptive, exhausting and demoralizing to editors who are trying to improve this encyclopedia but find themselves confronted by an immovable wall. He's been acting the exact same way and exhibiting the exact same problems for years, and clearly no other avenue of attempting to deal with it has helped curb the issues. Please accept the case in hopes of breaking this disruptive cycle. Propaniac (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

In response to Jehochman: "What is the Committee going to do here...?" My hope was that what the ARBCOM committee would do was act on the problem, which administrators so far have proven utterly and inexplicably impotent to accomplish, hence those 17 ANI reports, very few of which ended with any kind of consequence no matter how many people agreed that consequences were called for. If Jehochman is going to take actual steps to end the report-discuss-archive-forget cycle and solve the problem for good, I would be all for skipping ARBCOM. Propaniac (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

What is the Committee going to do here that could not be resolved equally well by an indefinite block until the subject makes a credible undertaking to stop edit warring and stop treating other editors poorly. A prior block for one months was served, but seems not to have been sufficiently motivating. At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Badagnani#Indef block I proposed an indef block. Unless the subject provides suitable assurances, or another administrator objects, I might proceed with that plan. Jehochman ^Brrr 19:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have done so. Jehochman ^Brrr 14:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Caspian blue

Once the case is filed and arbitrators response to the request, I don't think this should be rejected just because Badagnani is indef.blocked and the initiator wishes to withdraw the filing. Even not one third of the people involved or concerned about Badagnani's behavior present their view. Although Badagnani is a very "difficult editor", I don't think he should be treated "just like that" given his 4 year long prolific and generally good contribution to Wikipedia. Badagnani is not solely responsible for the 9 month long dispute with Ronz and GraYoshi2x brought to ANI. One of the two even wikistalked/baited/wiped out Badagnani's commnets/contribution crossing over "two other Wikipedia projects" such as Wikipedia Commons (8 file talk and Badagnani's user/talk pages) and Wiktionary (6 entries that Badagnani created) by using WP:SOCK ips last April. Badagnani stopped defending himself from onwards, so he seems to feel very weary, and highly sensitive to the Wikipedia affairs around him. The so-called "community decision" is largely filled with people angry with Badagnani. The decision does not look into the conducts of Ronz and GraYoshi2x. What if Badagnani "first" would have reported their inappropriate behaviors to ANI or provided diffs as evidences? The block makes me think that people with better WikiPolitics can be saved without any charge for what they have done. That is not fair of course. I will add more later.--Caspian blue 07:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Quiddity

If he returns, and has the inclination to defend himself at length, I think an arbcom case might be very useful. I see many of these conflicts (such as Talk:Goblet drum#List of translations) as being reducable to perfectly reasonable, but conflicting, wikiphilosophies. For example (to grossly oversimplify for brevity) I think of Badagnani as an extreme eventualist, and many of his 'opponents' as fairly strict immediatists. If an arbcom case could help emphasize the importance of each of these perspectives, to the other, then that would be ideal.

Many of the problems arise because of poor communication habits (all around, though Badagnani has many unhelpful habits (repetition of opaque generalities, etc)). Some of the problems arise because of Badagnani not [understanding, or paying attention to?] the WP:RS guidelines sufficiently closely.

He deals with a lot of limited-notability, or non-mainstream, or 'foreign' topics - often of stub/start quality - where I think a healthy dose of eventualism is often warranted, hence I've been trying to assist him.

I suspect Badagnani is either older, or less 'western' than most editors involved (based purely on his talkpage writing 'voice'). I echo Caspian's comment above, that Badagnani seems to have wearied of defending himself. However, he is exceptionally stubborn, and often stops communicating too early in critical discussions.

I'm not sure how much of the prior discussions the arbcom has (or will/would) read, and I don't wish to repeat myself too much. I've been trying to 'translate the perspective' of various parties, to the other, for many months. Key threads of which are at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive532#User:Badagnani and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Badagnani.

I'll leave it at that, for now. Hopefully some of those paragraphs are helpful. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/8/0/0)

• Accept - this certainly appears to be a conduct issue for which all other avenues have been exhausted. Steve Smith (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • • Decline as no longer necessary. Steve Smith (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Response to Jehochman: if there is consensus for a community ban, then that would supersede the need for this case. My impression from the swaths of ANI material generated is that the community has not been able to resolve it on its own. Steve Smith (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
• Decline. Despite the long-running nature of this dispute and the exhaustion of dispute resolution, administrators seem to be taking steps to resolve this matter. It seems clear that this editor has probably exhausted the community's patience. If the current discussion falls apart and/or no consensus can be reached, I will switch to accepting a case regarding this editor. However, we should not preempt the community resolution of this matter. Vassyana (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Interested to see the result of the ongoing discussion. Does look like the editor has exhausted community patience. If discussion breaks down, will likely look to accept to deal with on an expedited basis. Before we have a go, however, the community should have a say SirFozzie (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline, overtaken by events. Community handled. SirFozzie (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
• Decline as overcome by events. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
• Decline as moot. KnightLago (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
• Decline, appears to be currently handled by the community. - Mailer Diablo 18:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
• Decline as moot Fritzpoll (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
• Decline per above, with the comment that if this user is willing to change his behavior, an application for review of the indefinite block may be made to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. It is always sad when the wikicareer of a longterm contributor must come to an end in this manner. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)