User:Locke Cole/Sandbox3

= Requests for arbitration  =

Allegations of administrator misconduct
Initiated by  Some guy (talk) at 05:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

 * , filing party


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * - Notice to Casua sui


 * Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried


 * User talk:69.105.172.180
 * Requests_for_comment/Causa_Sui

Statement by Some guy
I feel that Causa Sui has demonstrated administrator misconduct by issuing a semi-page-protection inappropriately and directly contrary to page protection policy, and issuing an excessively long ban in a punitive manner. I have attempted to resolve this dispute through discussion and Request for Comment but complexity of policy and the dispute system in general is impeding the process and causing me extreme frustration which is impeding my ability to act calmy. I have, for example, been criticized for "wikilawyering", so I feel this is an appropriate venue since "wikilawyering" is apparently more acceptable here. I have been criticized for following Casua Sui's advice in posting at WP:ANI; I have been criticized and mocked for following dispute resolution step Ask about a policy, and I was even criticized for following the discussion guidelines on the RfC3 template. I feel that these criticisms of my attempts to follow policy significantly impact this situation and make ArbCom most appropriate. I hope I am understanding this system well enough to fill this out correctly. Additional notes regarding arbitrator decisions:'
 * ''Please note that has been blocked for harassment; a block request is pending. Adding this notice at the request of the blocked user.  Tan   &#124;   39  06:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was blocked for filing this request, so I was not block-dodging when I filed it.
 * I feel the RfC was severely compromised by inadmissable complaints against my behavior (again following policy, admin advice, etc) which created an unfair bias.
 * Most importantly, whenever I specifically address a policy and specifically show an action (page protection) has been absolutely contradictory with policy, nobody even responds to that complaint. I cite policy and other people say "wikilawyering", the title of an essay which is allowed to trump policy. Nobody els cites policy at all. Why do we have policy? How do we judge actions if policy is inadmissible? Should there just be one policy page that says "use subjective common sense"? I have nothing more to say. Some guy (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I withdraw my request and apologize for wasting the committee's time. Some guy (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Causa Sui
I have nothing to add to my statement at Requests_for_comment/Causa_Sui. For your convenience, and because it is unlikely that the RFC will be certified, I have reproduced it below. ⟳ ausa کui × 05:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Facts as I have seen them:


 * 1) As this RfC was being drafted, my username changed to . I am the topic of this RFC.
 * 2) In the course of routine operation at Requests for page protection, I came across this request by that his talk page be indefinitely semi-protected due to harassment by IPs.
 * 3) I semi-protected the user talk page with a 2 week duration until the issue could be sorted out.
 * 4) In that thread, the IP user began to respond in a harassing manner, which (in combination with a glance at his talk page) indicated that the claims of harassment were justified.
 * 5) In response, I issued a 1-week block to the IP user in question.
 * 6) The IP user demanded that I unblock him with the threat that if I didn't, he would "log into my Wikipedia account and I will fight both your block and your page protection...".
 * 7) He then submitted three unblock requests (1 2 3), and each was declined by independent administrators (1 2 3).
 * Now, this RFC is part of the execution of that threat. But the user went further than that. Now logged is as, he made posts to the blocking policy page , the protection policy page , the conflict of interest policy page fishing for opinions that might incriminate me. He also appealed to Jimbo's talk page.
 * 1) In retrospect, I decided that the semi-protection of the user talk page was excessive at two weeks and I shortened it manually. I did not shorten the block because the IP user was continuing to make threats of harassment, this time directed at me instead of his original target.

I have nothing else to say about this. The facts speak for themselves.

Statement by uninvolved User:Stifle
Doesn't appear to be ripe for arbitration yet; recommend rejection so the parties can pursue the earlier phases of dispute resolution first. Stifle (talk) 08:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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


 * As I'm a party in this dispute (and I haven't been active as a clerk for a very long time anyway), I'm recused here. ⟳ ausa کui × 05:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

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

 * Decline. I see no evidence of administrator misconduct or abuse, much less a pattern warranting arbitration. I would recommend to the filing party that he or she completely drop this matter, which appears to have become something of a fixation, and do something more useful if he or she wishes to continue with this project. It is quite arguable that the proper course of action here would be to summarily reject and delete this request as having been filed by a user evading a block, but it may be more expedient to allow the request to be voted through to the inevitable decline now, rather than have it return to us or otherwise pursued when the block expires. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The comment regarding block evasion is based on the fact that the filing party edited under his or her account name while the underlying IP was still blocked. More important, however, if that this still appears to be at best a minor misunderstanding that has escalated disproportionally. I still recommend dropping the matter and moving on from it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Decline, there has been unnecessary hostility and unhelpful escalation here, by both sides, but this does not warrant arbitration. It should not surprise user:some guy that the initial edits suggested to an admin that the editor behind that IP was not in the best of moods, resulting in heavy use of the page protection and block buttons.  The prevailing opinion at the RFC is that the administrator has not acted out of line with norms.  All of the individual actions are within reason on their own, however I can empathise with user:some guy that the pattern isn't pretty.  From what I am reading over at User talk:Some_guy, it looks like an unblock could be negotiated.  The RFC is not likely to be certified, but I have a lingering concern that IP editors regularly encounter semi-protection to prevent them from discussing a matter with another editor.  Sometimes it is warranted; other times it isnt.  I went looking for a WikiProject dedicated to our anon friends, and all I could find was one anon ironically in Category:Exopedianist Wikipedians.  Perhaps some guy, either user:some guy or another guy or gal, would like to rally our anons together to collaborate on an RFC to share their experiences. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Decline: I don't see an issue here for arbitration. Parties should pursue other avenues.  Roger Davies  talk 10:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Decline: per all preceding. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Decline. Per Newyorkbrad. --Vassyana (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Decline and motion to archive. Wizardman  16:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Decline per above. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 17:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Intel Corp - Butterfly Effect of Lawsuits
Initiated by  68.111.167.64 (talk) at 01:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

 * , filing party


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aboutmovies#Party_at_ArbCom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bigger_digger#Party_at_ArbCom


 * Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intel_Corporation#History_of_crippling_competitors_with_legal_bills

(notice there are 3 sections to this dispute, each labeled part 1, 2, and 3. Sections 2 and 3 contain the bulk of the debate about this particular line, but you can read section 1 for the building up to it, if you want)

Third opinion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Third_opinion&oldid=288210719 Note by "68.111.167.64": Pretty sure hawks of the Intel article gave the third opinion, because I warned them of it long before I requested it, and could make no logical sense of their reasoning.

Statement by 68.111.167.64
The last line (bold) in the following paragraph is being disputed: "During the time of the 386 CPU, Intel partook in suing companies that tried to develop chips that competed with the 386. The lawsuits were noted to significantly hamper or even cripple the competition with legal bills, even if Intel lost the suits. It is unknown how the technology market of today would be structured exactly if those competing chip companies had survived beyond Intel's lawsuits."

The only issue is that I can't cite this last line, but, as carefully explained in the discussion, it's not a "true or false" claim; it's just a call-to-insight on the naturally consequent SUM of what the reader already assumes, and NOBODY even challenges that. They say they just want it verifiable, for reasons unknown. (and it's impossible to find a source for something like this) I speculate (just speculate) that they are Intel investors, since they attack the line without an accusation of misinformation: it's just a blank, completely unexplained attack where they won't say WHY they don't like it (they even admit they don't challenge the line's message), which I say is evidence that 1) the line is not even subjective or open to debate about its message, and 2) the editors aren't to be considered valid "objectors", because their motives are unexplained and secret (they say it's just because "we don't know, because nobody has cited it". But I think the line's message, while obviously true to the core, is also crucially important for the reader to have in mind, for insight behind the entire shaping of today's technology world. Thus it's FAR from trivial, and yet too simple (and unchallenged in its message) to need citation. That, and it's not a "claim". It's a call-to-insight on what you already assume.

Statement by Aboutmovies
This is basically a case where the above IP editor inserted text that does not pass policies/guidelines and they have been told this by myself, and through three other editors that came via the 3rd opinion requested by the IP editor. There really is no dispute, its just one person railing against the Wikipedia machine who is forum shopping until they get the result they want. This is not ArbCom material, and at the most it calls for an RFC, but all is really a waste of time as the community is clearly against the text in the form it is presented. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Bigger digger
This is a content dispute that doesn't need the attention of ArbCom. I offered the WP:3O, having taken it from the project page here. It was the third third opinion I had offered that day and I reject the accusation that I might be a hawk, it would be nice if the IP editor could assume good faith in those who disagree with him. I keep a list of my third opinions and assumed this issue was finished as consensus was quite clear.

Finally, insufficient steps in the process of WP:Dispute resolution have been taken. Discussion on the talk page, request a third opinion and then an ArbCom case is too much too soon. I will suggest to the IP editor that they go to WP:Editor assistance. Bigger digger (talk) 09:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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


 * There's clearly no way this is being accepted at this point; I'd leave it up for a day or two so all parties are aware, but then archive it. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 03:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/9/0/0)

 * Decline. This is an editorial discussion. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Decline. per preceding. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Decline. Content issue, steps in DR issue not exhausted  — Rlevse • Talk  • 09:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Decline; this is a "clean" content dispute at this time. &mdash; Coren (talk) 10:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Decline. Getting opinions and advice from other users will help. Follow the suggestions for settling content disputes such as a RFC or mediation. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 10:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Decline per others. As a general comment (not really in my capacity as arbitrator), I think the consensus is right that statements along the lines of "we don't know what would have happened if ..." are simultaneously too generic and too speculative to include in most contexts. That sort of comment could be made about virtually any historical event, for example. But ultimately, as indicated, this is a matter for consensus among editors on an article, assisted by earlier steps in the dispute resolution process if needed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Decline.  Roger Davies  talk 21:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Decline. Wizardman  21:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Decline. --Vassyana (talk) 00:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)