Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/194x144x90x118/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

 * To update this listing, [ edit this template] and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

The serious actions of others
It concerns me to see such heavy actions being proposed against me while sanctions against others in this matter don't even seem to be under remote consideration from your part.

20 months of disruptiv editing of that article and I!!!! am supposed to be banned for something? I made a tough call do you really think that it is enjoyable or nice to dive into a can of worm like that? It most certainly aint but I am not one to put his tail in between his legs and run away so I have attempted to deal with the matter.

Scjessey has edited the article disruptivly for 20 months, it is he that you should be sanctioning not me.

Sarekofvulcan misused his admin powers in his pursuit to make the article look more favorable for his beloved webhost.

These matters they don't compare in any way to anything I am supposed to be guilty of, throwing a ban hammer on me without touching these users is a double standard.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 194x144x90x118, I have reviewed the evidence and consider it one-sided so far. While it is unlikely to mean that you avoid sanctions (your conduct has not been good), I did accept this case to examine the behaviour of all parties, so I cannot in all conscience vote until all sides have received proper scrutiny here, and I am sure that the key disputes are being resolved, rather than one side in a content dispute is being sanctioned for conduct while the conduct of those on the other side of the content dispute is not raised in evidence. I am going to take a close look at this and present some evidence, but I will be doing so from an arbitrator's perspective (one that looks at the behaviour of all parties). If you are unable to present evidence from your perspective, or need help presenting evidence, is there anyone you could ask to present evidence on your behalf? The other question I would have for you (and for the other parties as well if they are reading this), is to look at your own actions and say what you should have done differently, and how your conduct would change in the future? Carcharoth (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Mentoring
I noticed that 194x mentioned he'd be open to mentoring. Is that a solution that the committee is willing to consider, or are his offenses such that banning is the only solution? Just wondering. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that bans are not meant as a means of retribution, the question of banning v. mentoring is not so much about the nature and severity of the offenses. It is about the probability that the offenses will continue happening. Mentoring is used for people who, despite behavioral problems, want to contribute constructively. If they enter such an arangement in good faith, it can work. However, if they want mentoring as a ticket away from being banned, there is a grave danger that the same behavior will continue, and that the mentoring is a mere postponement of the inevitable. Unfortunately,I think that this is an example of the second variety. At the time of writing, 194x has made eight edits since indicating that the mentoring idea "doesn't sound like a bad one to me at all":
 * Insisting that his contributions to the Bobby Fischer article are civil, and that the concerns related to his editing of the EU article are "not something which can be covered in a request for arbitration" because the edits are "trivial", and because he did not edit the article itself.
 * Sarcasm directed at SarekOfVulcan.
 * Continuing confrontation with Scjessey.
 * Continuing his confrontational approach with Scjessey, saying that all the disruption is caused by him.
 * Another "Scjessey the vandal" post.
 * Continuing a confrontational attitude, accusing his opponents of "smearing Judases good name".
 * "You call yourself an administrator".
 * Accusation against Scjessey (Sarek ignored the bulk of your behavior); also accusations of stalking from Dayewalker with no evidence to back it up.
 * In short, all of these edits continue to insist that there has been nothing wrong with his conduct, and several of them contain more of the personal attacks which he is being sanctioned for. 194x has received a lot of chances, with plenty of feedback that his behavior is inappropriate. Yet, even after a user conduct RFC was opened about him, he used the EU talkpage to attack them with that the EU "wants our souls and the blood from our veins"; that is not the kind of edit made by someone who wants to change. My view is that Wizardman's proposed decision for a one-year ban is appropriate. Letting 194x continue to edit at this time, even under a mentoring scheme, will lead to more of the same behavior which has caused so much suffering. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if I were to advocate mentoring, which I'm at this point just asking about, it would be with the understanding that a failure to work productively with the mentor would entail an instant ban. The type of mentoring I would offer is one that very few editors are likely to accept; it's true. That's because I would insist on 100% compliance with certain standards: Never making any claim of any kind about other editors, period. Never reverting without obtaining consensus, period. Never flagging in courteous and respectful interaction, period. Most people would rather be banned than edit that way, it seems. Still I'm happy enough to suggest it as a possible last-chance scenario. I already know that you don't support this solution, Sjakkalle, so there's no point quoting more diffs at me. The type of mentoring I'm talking about, I would offer to any editor other than a common vandal, because it truly is a last-chance. I would personally throw the banhammer at the first sign of non-cooperation. I'd like to hear feedback from others, if they're interested in commenting. -GTBacchus(talk) 12:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Mentoring may be a possible option, but it is not very probable. Newyorkbrad's comment is highly illustrative of why it is an unlikely solution. He clearly lays out why lesser sanctions are unlikely to garner support. His comments are also noteworthy because NYB is anything but ban-happy. I cannot speak for the other arbitrators. In my opinion, considering this context, 194x144x90x118 has a heavy burden of proof in convincing us that he would actually be responsive to guidance and work productively under restrictions. --Vassyana (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am constantly on the receiving end of the worst of 194x's behavior, yet I would certainly support mentoring for 194x as a "last chance" per GTBacchus's suggestion. 194x is obviously an intelligent person who is more than capable of contributing appropriately to Wikipedia under the right circumstances, and Wikipedia's inherent strength comes from having as many productive editors as possible. Perhaps 194x could be encouraged to edit his/her watchlist to swap-out "conflict articles" for other articles and topics that may be of interest? I purged my own watchlist of Obama-related articles and added a bunch of new stuff in completely different areas that turned out to be an effective personal tonic (although ArbCom chose to ignore this when I was hit by a six-month topic ban 3 weeks later). I see no downside to giving 194x a chance with mentoring - the ban can always be applied if unsuccessful, and ArbCom can easily emphasize this in any ruling. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Vassyana, I agree that it's improbable. Most editors are not willing to work within the conditions that I would impose. That's true of most editors in perfectly good standing, and all the more true for editors who have displayed a tendency to combative behavior. I don't see that anyone would have to be convinced that he's "willing to be responsive", because the very first violation of the conditions would trigger an instant ban, with my finger pushing the button (unless someone beat me to it.) That's why it's a last chance. If the Committee thinks this would be an idea worth trying, then I'm willing to do my bit. The committee is of course welcome to take or leave this suggestion; I'm not too fussed either way, having no stake in this matter. I'm just putting the offer on the table. -GTBacchus(talk) 13:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Locus of the dispute
I disagree with this section, because the case was filed by someone who had no involvement with the DreamHost article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I worded this to take account of that: "The locus of the dispute between 194x144x90x118 and Scjessey is...". There were other disputes being examined here and presented in evidence (namely, the dispute over the Bobby Fischer articles). I chose not to examine that in detail because there was no extended history to that dispute. The disputes over the DreamHost article goes all the way back to 2006 and 2007. Also, the filer of the case mentioned 194x144x90x118's edits to the DreamHost article. But since you mention the filer, Erik 9, what dispute was he in with 194x144x90x118? Carcharoth (talk) 23:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh. I'm honestly not sure, and the wikistalk tool isn't terribly informative either. Erik? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This section gives the impression that the primary issue was a dispute between 194x and me, which I do not agree with. From my perspective, the dispute was created by COI claims and agenda-driven edits made by Judas278. 194x "signed on" to the Judas bandwagon somewhat later, and then (as I stated earlier) Judas "retired" to leave 194x "holding the bag". Since the Judas278 retirement, there hasn't really been much of a DreamHost-centric dispute at all. Rather it has been behavioral issues that include DreamHost, but have expanded to include other articles (matters I am personally not familiar with). I feel strongly that we could've avoided most of this unpleasantness if administrators had acted sooner - particularly when I raised the matter at WP:ANI in March.
 * That being said, I think it is important to note that I have been extremely impressed with the due diligence of Carcharoth in this case - a highly commendable and welcome effort. Also, I am happy that there has been plenty of healthy discourse between parties and committee members as this case has progressed - something that didn't seem to happen at all in my previous experience with an ArbCom case (Obama articles). -- Scjessey (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I was a bit surprised when I saw that the person who filed the dispute was Erik9; a user whom I have no prior experiences with, and whom I cannot recall was involved in any of the disputes listed. My guess is that he observed that the trouble had reached boiling point and went to ArbCom to extinguish it. If everyone in the disputes had agreed that they didn't want arbitration, Erik9's filing of this request may have been construed as the action of a meddling busybody. However, in this case it was only a question of time before someone, probably myself, brought this to ArbCom. A few days before Erik9 filed the request, I had already floated the idea to SarekOfVulcan of returning this to ArbCom due to the conduct issues spreading to the European Union talkpage . When I saw that someone else had beaten me to it, I was grateful that I didn't need to file the request myself. (Incidentally, I see that I have not been listed as a party, but I do consider myself a party to this case.) Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Would it help to change "the locus ... is" to "the locus ... includes"? Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. I'm thinking "the primary node" or perhaps the "hub of DOOM!" In all seriousness though, I think the wording within the section is fine, it is just that the title "Locus of the dispute" makes it sound as if this is the root problem, which I disagree with. A better title for the section would simply be "DreamHost". -- Scjessey (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Related discussion
Please see here for discussion related to this case. For a more readable version, read from here to the end of the page. I've asked those posting there to post here instead. Carcharoth (talk) 23:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)