Revision as of 21:30, 19 June 2009

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

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

Eastern Europe

Initiated by Jehochman at 19:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Digwuren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Offliner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Piotrus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• I have notified Digwuren, Biophys, Offliner, Sandstein, and Piotrus

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren
• WP:AE

Statement by Jehochman

We have an ongoing situation with battleground behavior over East European nationalism topics. The famous Digwuren case resulted in discretionary sanctions. Regrettably, much like the Scientology case, it is hard to apply discretionary sanctions at WP:AE due to multiple and retaliatory threads being filed, groups of editors who support each others' editing toward a common point of view, and lack of consensus among administrators about what to do. This time I hope the committee will look at the evidence, decide who's been naughty and who's been nice, and make decisions. Please do not send hard issues back to the Community when we have already failed to resolve them.

The most recent threads were here and here and here occupying about 50% of the discussion on that noticeboard.

The named parties are those who are most familiar with the recent threads, not necessarily those who have misbehaved. Additional parties probably need to be added. I am open to input from other parties about who should be included. Jehochman 19:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

I agree generally with Jehochman's assessment that the Eastern Europe-related threads that he and I have recently closed on WP:AE are indicative of battleground-like mentality between groups of editors whose points of view seem to be polarized around various political issues related to Russia. It might be worth a try for the Committee to resolve this slow-motion multiparty conflict by means of a case. Although I closed the AE threads as not actionable in part because much of the conduct objected to was already stale, the Committee – which has more time and resources for examining the conduct of the involved parties – might come to a different conclusion.

On the other hand, because wide-ranging discretionary sanctions are already available, the most that a case could provide in terms of remedies are likely to be topic bans, revert restrictions and the like, which can already be imposed with less bureaucracy through WP:AE should it become more evident who is currently in need of them. A "pox on both their houses" all-around topic ban might be more readily accepted coming from the Committee, but I am not sure whether we are already at a stage where we need it. What could be helpful, though, would be the (explicit) authority to impose discretionary restrictions with respect to articles or groups of articles, not only with respect to individual users.

As a procedural matter, I'm not sure whether I should remain listed as an involved party, because my involvement here is limited to participating in arbitration enforcement proceedings as an administrator.  Sandstein  20:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Digwuren

So, another battleground. Will this never end? Дигвурен Дигвурович_Аллё? 21:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by {Party 4}

Clerk notes

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

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

telaviv1: "trial" resulting from sockpuppetryaccusation

Initiated by Telaviv1 (talk) at 14:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• telaviv1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Icestorm815 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Rd232 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (also known as Disembrangler)
• Boatduty177177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

User_talk:Disembrangler#telaviv1 (Disembrangler is a "sockpuppet" for Rd232)

User_talk:Icestorm815#Telaviv1_.28talk.29_17:23.2C_17_June_2009_.28UTC.29_sock_puppetry

User_talk:Boatduty177177#You_have_been_blocked_for_false_reasons As this user is blocked he may not be able to access the notification

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

I pointed out that I was not notifed of the accusataions until after being found "guilty" (the process was improper and inappropriate for a democratic community) and that the evidence was very flimsy (absurdly so), however the case was archived and my comments ignored. So much for Kafkapedia.

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Telaviv1/Archive

See also my comments on the user page of "Judge Dredd icestorm" User_talk:Icestorm815#Telaviv1_.28talk.29_17:23.2C_17_June_2009_.28UTC.29_sock_puppetry

Statement by {telaviv1}

The evidence: Boatduty177177's second edit reverted to an edit of mine (on self-hating jews) and his 6th edit reverted to an edit of mine (on zionism). He made about 25 edits the rest of which were on articles I have never edited. We may have similar opinions or he simply likes my editing. The two subjects are both Zionism related. Note that most of my edits are on historical subjects while his are all current affairs. Two edits hardly constitute a pattern but for someone who denies the validity of my opinions it may be hard to accept that others think like me. A simple IP check would have verified the issue.

The accuser (slanderer!) (Rd232) previously made the following comment about me:

So we're discussing things here, and suddenly User:Telaviv1 (hello, wonder what their political perspective is?) swoops in and radically changes meaning and content of the lede: . I don't think so. Discuss first. Note also that the lede is supposed to merely be a summary of the body, and Telaviv1's changes were radical enough that that was certainly no longer the case. Rd232 talk 11:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I was offended by what I took to be a comment about my user name (I live in telaviv). Such a comment is inappropriate on any page but particularly so on a page dealing with antisemitism. We then crossed again later see Talk:Self-hating_Jew#Proposal:_Rename_the_article_.22Jewish_self-hatred.22

I accept that my editing may not have been appropriate (this is not relevant to the case) but found the attitude of Rd232 irritating and, what's more important consider a blanket denial of the existence of anti-semitic Jews to be denial of racism. I moved the article back because nothing was happening with the Jewish self-hatred page. Clearly my position has support but Malik Shabazz and Rd232 combine to prevent any other opinion being expressed on this issue. If the page was edited appropriataely, other viewpoints would be given expression. The issue is sensitive and the editing involved heavy handed denial of other opinions (resulting in edit wars).

It was after this that Rd232, using a sockpuppet, accused me of using a sockpuppet (accusing me of his practices!) resulting in both my user and Boatduty177177 being banned. He has thus effectively removed two users who were annoying him.

What was particularaly galling was the failure to allow me to express my opinion (eg to defend myself) and the naked injustice. I am using the arbitration procedure to restore my "good name". I also want an apology from the administrators involved.

I suggest you check the IP addresses for the two users (feel free to publicize mine) and the attached e-mail accounts (don't publicize this). If you wish to talk to me in person my phone number is REMOVED Telaviv1 (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Boatduty177177

Thank you for unblocking me. I was hoping to contribute positively to Misplaced Pages, but the behaviour I have encountered here makes me sad that such a good place is put to ruins by some anti-Israeli users who are clearly biased and unfair. I will stop editing on Misplaced Pages and I will return to edit with my IP address from time to time if necessary. This place is not worth it after all of this. But I hope one day it will become a better and more more fair place for everyone. Thank you. --Boatduty177177 (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Rd232/Disembrangler

• It wasn't my decision to close the Sockpuppet Investigation on the basis of my evidence alone. If CheckUser now says the accounts are unrelated, fine - I thought it was very unlikely. I trust this is an end of it; I have no wish to fisk old discussions. I will remark that I have never before seen a user put either a country or city name in as their username, and doing so seemed to me a political statement, though perhaps the type of edit the user made to the page with that type of subject influenced my thinking. I'd not have drawn such conclusions from a userpage statement of being from Tel Aviv. No stereotypes or racism here, thank you. Bygones. Rd232/Disembrangler (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• Checkuser shows the accounts are unrelated. Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Telaviv1 was apparently closed without checkuser, on the basis of behavior. Thatcher 19:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/0/0)

• Decline. Based on the checkuser finding of unrelatedness, Icestorm815 has unblocked. A notation should be made on the suspected sockpuppets page that the finding of socking has been reversed. I am sure that being blocked early in one's wiki-career is a traumatic and unfortunate experience, but the situation has been rectified, and everyone involved should proceed with editing to the extent they wish to do so. In connection with that future editing, incivilities such as referring to an administrator as "Judge Dredd" should be avoided, even if that administrator may potentially have made a mistake. Meanwhile, in the absence of reason to believe that this is anything other than an isolated potential error, quickly corrected, there is no live dispute for us to arbitrate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• Decline. As far as I can tell, ArbCom involvement is not needed at this time. If, I'm mistaken, please explain why. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• Decline Per NYB and FloNight.  Roger Davies 11:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

IPod Touch Criticisms Section

Initiated by at 20:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Dario D. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Atama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• HereToHelp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Groink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Amatulic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

(I posted the "subst:arbcom notice|IPod Touch Criticisms Section" tag on everyone's userpage. 'In a big rush, and don't have time to get links - use above ones to see userpages)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Maths,_science,_and_technology (request for comment - received one commenter, who didn't comment on the issue)
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Third_opinion&oldid=295656509 (third opinion. Received one opinion with a neutral conclusion)
There's no time to wait for the MedCabal, because the IPod Touch's new OS update comes out TOMORROW, and a new IPhone was just announced (reader interest is linked between the two), so the page will be hit with probably the most traffic of the year. (in other words, time is of the essence - this needs a firm resolution today)

Statement by Dario D.

The issue is quite simple, but broken into 2 sections. 1) Some users are (and have been for a long time - some going back over a year) putting up a stonewall against allowing any Criticisms section from being posted on the IPod Touch and IPhone pages. (even see here, the FAQ at the top of the page, saying Crit sections are no-no's. The same FAQ is posted on the IPhone page)... 2) I posted a detailed, pristine Criticisms section on the IPod Touch page, only to have to axed, then mixed into the article after I contested it. (you can see it here) The entire debate about this has actually taken place on the IPhone's discussion page (this section, and going all the way down to "HereToHelp defends his edits", and is actually quite simple. (you can get the entire gist of it by reading just a few posts in there) Simply put, I think Crit sections are allowed by policy (see below), and demanded by the readers for Product articles (I mean, these are stinking PRODUCTS - well-cited, weighty Criticisms are part of the life-blood of what reading product articles is all about, so if Crits don't have their own section, there's a severe weight issue... especially in a 10-mile long. Hiding massive, gaping Crits in other sections is like saying, "This isn't significant", even if 95% of all technology websites/newspapers/magazines/etc CAPITALIZE on these criticisms). Even though Misplaced Pages:CRIT is just a guideline page (not a policy page), the opposing editors cited it as their main justification, and so here's what said to them (about that Crits page): "Aside from ONLY stating the contrary, it says: "Evaluations in a "Criticism" section: A dedicated section can make dealing with criticism easier by keeping these aspects compartmentalized, as criticisms may be similar and can be combined in a fashion that will reduce repetition." Even Jimbo Wales is quoted saying they're legit and needed." (Btw, this whole thing even prompted me to propose a further clarifying ammendment for to the Misplaced Pages Criticisms article, because it leaves the playing-field WIDE-open for ALL "should-there-be-a-crit-section" disputes) And thus, as this has essentially boiled down to the interpretation of policy (or in this case, guidelines) the issue has stalled entirely, and we're just repeating the same stuff we've been saying since day one (this has been a LONG dispute). My last comment is just an observation that these guys are RUTHLESS about keeping the IPod Touch / IPhone articles free of defamation of ANY kind (which is why I speculated (just speculated) that they might've been Apple investors hawking the article. Stock value hangs in the balance if a nice, well-overdue Crit section goes up on either page, actually giving readers a balanced sense of what the flaws are, without having to read 10 miles of trivia on how the plastic base screw was first envisioned). Look at this timeline. This was when I posted a small Crit section on the IPHONE page, about the battery (I was going to add more stuff later).

• Here's the original Crit section I posted. You have JD Power (as reliable as anything), and MocoNews, an actual news company. I didn't bother digging up all 5,000 other sources saying the exact same thing, because I didn't think anyone would care (or NEED anything more).
• Then here we have HereToHelp moving it to the bottom of the Battery section. For some reason, he thinks "battery kit" packaging materials and needed tools (such as screwdriver and soldering iron) are of greater importance than the fact that the entire PREMISE of the battery received 2 stars from JD Power. (start noticing how the wording changes with each trimming of the paragraph)
• He then decides to axe the whole thing, because "I could find nothing on JD Power's site about the battery," and suddenly MocoNews becomes "One blogger is not a notable critic." So I put it back up, with replenished citations.
• Another user further butchers the section down to a single line, and when I revert it, Atama reverts my edit, and we're back to the discussion page to argue about MocoNews (which has a full staff of writers (7 of them), and is run by this news company).
• And finally, this is how the battery paragraph looks now. Notice the complete restructuring of how the whole thing is pitched (it's like some corporate marketing seminar did a field day on this). It doesn't even say what the rating IS. (edit by user AlistairMcMillan)

That's my take on this. I think this is just an issue of making clear what policy allows, and since the policy/guidelines ARE in fact painfully subjective (as far as I can tell) the proposed amendments that I'm pitching for the Criticisms page will (hopefully) make clear when exactly Crit sections are indisputable... because at the moment, any editor can come up with ANY conclusion about whether or not Crit sections are to be kept, or scattered into articles. (and in this case, gradually butchered till there's just nothing left)

Follow-Up Statement by Dario D.

(this is the message I just posted on Vassyana's user page, after seeing the "Declined" vote below. Thought I'd put it here too) You mentioned that Arbitration can take a couple weeks. Is that because of the policy-amendment issues I mentioned? (I've filed for Arbitration before, and I'm pretty sure it took no more than a day). This is incredibly frustrating for me, because it takes an entire afternoon EVERY time I file for any kind of intervention (done it three times just for this one issue already) as well as EVERY time I have to sit down and do war with these people (with as much absolutely useless circle-running now as on the very first day). I've done nothing at all on the issue for the last 3 days, just because of how time-consuming and draining it is, so I needed a break. Thanks for your efforts, but can something be done about this? I will remind you also that one week of "request for comment" resulted in 0 commenters, so I'm just drowning in article-hawks that I'm certain (for myself) are biased. (if nothing else can be done, at least an official comment on Crit-section policy on the ArbCom listing would help a huge deal). Thanks again.
Oh, and... Atama and Groink, as always, I enjoy how your arguments strengthen my case more than anything else. ;) -- 00:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Atama

I'll try to keep my statement short because this is a fairly simple issue. I'll put my points here.

1) Nobody has stated that criticism sections are not allowed in Misplaced Pages. They are simply not preferred, as can be seen in WP:STRUCTURE. My opinion is that they are a necessary evil at best; when notable, referenced criticisms or other content that reflect negatively on an article's subject are lacking in an article it is a quick and easy way to add them.

2) Criticisms are present in the article. For quite some time a number of editors (including myself) have worked to include criticisms naturally in the article. For example, the iPhone lacked certain Bluetooth profiles, this information was located in the section on Bluetooth. So the inclusion of a criticism section is not necessary.

3) Dario D. is the sole editor proposing this change to the article. At least a half-dozen editors have opposed this change. Accusations of bias, threats, and suggestions that those who disagree with him are Apple investors have been seen in his arguments, as well as assertions that he will attempt to make the changes he wants regardless of discussion.

4) Dario D. has stated that there is a need for people to see what is "wrong" with the iPhone, and that is the motivation for the changes he wants to make. This is clearly in opposition to WP:NPOV policy.

This is simply a case of a single editor attempting to push his own personal agenda on the article, in an uncivil manner, in opposition to every other editor who has gotten involved in this discussion, both established editors of the article and outsiders who have commented.

Statement by Groink

Here's the issues I have with Dario... I've dealt with the likes him several times through the years I've edited Misplaced Pages. And all of them can easily be summarized the following way: One-issue advocate. Doesn't have a deep history of editing on either the subject matter at-hand or in any articles that are part of the related WikiProject itself. Will grasp words like "discouraged" and will kick it up a few notches in order to mean something much more extreme, and work to the advantage of his cause. Will attempt to change the policies and idealogy so that they work in his favor, rather than to work under the guidelines and the spirit of the WikiProject. Will take WP:BOLD to the extreme level, and not work within the WikiProject. And, is usually screwed somehow by either the product or company, which is why he is so passionate about the issue. I believe Dario either purchased the iPod touch, or know of someone close to him who did, and later found out first-hand his problem with the battery. I think he's treating Misplaced Pages as a soap box, which BTW WP:NOT does not allow.

Even if Dario was right, his people skills deserves an "F-minus". I cannot believe that he claims to be a web page designer, because the content design concepts he keeps spewing out are totally wrong. He's basically treating Misplaced Pages articles like a tabloid web page he wants people to read and get out within just a few seconds; bring up the web page, read only the bad things about a product, and then walk away without actually understanding anything else about the product. As he claims that an article about a product should be different, let me remind everyone that even Consumer Reports does not write in the style he's pushing - and I'm a subscriber to that publication.

The type of people who come to a web site looking for the bad stuff are those who have an agenda, such as an extreme right-winger looking at the Barack Obama article for only the negative stuff, or an Apple fanboy looking at a Microsoft Windows article and walk away thinking only about the security flaws. The spirit behind WP:CRIT is not to allow Misplaced Pages become a source of propaganda material. Misplaced Pages does not exist in order to feed the kind of researcher that is only looking for the negative information. If the researcher must read through the entire article in order to look for the criticism, he is doing the right thing, because he's reading both sides to each criticism point. The many blogs Dario keeps citing - those are the places people will go to seek the criticisms about a product - NOT Misplaced Pages. Let the blogs spread the propaganda, and leave Misplaced Pages out of it.

As long as he keeps incorrectly believing how people read and use Misplaced Pages articles, this problem will not be solved. I feel this one issue is the butt of the problem. groink 23:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, man.... We have a monetary interest in Apple? That is REALLY pushing the envelope. Not only is it false, but it further demonstrates my earlier argument that Dario's primary inspiration for his edits is soap boxing. That's all it really is! Just look at his edit history. I've been working on dozens of other articles since this editor came out from literally nowhere. Again, this editor is a one-issue advocate! He has absolutely no interest in practicing basic rules of essay writing. I've written dozens of college term papers, scoring A's in all of them, and I continue to practice these writing rules. As for my interest in Apple, I do not own either the iPod touch nor the iPhone. I don't own shares in Apple. I'm a happy user of a Motorola Razr, and even purchased a Windows-based netbook w/wireless broadband over a smartphone. My only interests in these two articles are the multi-touch technology, and maintaining good essay writing skills. Again, separating the criticisms from the rest of the article, and creating its own section is lazy! It means that the editor has no clue how to embed the criticism into the writing, and possibly balance it with supportive information that counters the claims. The length of the article has no play in this - whether it is a long article or a short article, proper essay writing does not encourage the separation of criticisms. We're not editing Misplaced Pages for the sake of the lazy editors and readers. groink 02:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by HereToHelp

Most of what can be said, has been said, and the arbitrators seem disinterested (as well they should be). But I will briefly summarize my interaction with Dario D. on two levels: firstly, on the policy side of including criticism, and secondly, on his nature of editing and communicating.

Misplaced Pages requires criticism, if well-sourced and legitimate, but not criticism sections. The section that Dario added focused exclusively on the battery, which is why I moved it to the battery section. Including it elsewhere would violate NPOV because it would be possible for users to read the criticism out of context, or Apple's battery life estimates (optimistic at best) without input from third parties, effectively an unsubstantiated claim. However, it makes sense to put Apple's numbers first, because they are building an argument. I explained all of my reasons for reverting him on the talk page; Dario did not. We (all parties except Dario) decided that, while Moconews was a legitimate company, the article in question was not.

Dario's insistence on the prominence of criticism is POV-pushing. He has claimed that he can find "5,000" sources but yet gives us none. His arguments are unsubstantial rants; I indentified eleven logical fallacies in one of his posts. Per groink, he has a misconception of what readers want from Misplaced Pages; per me, he has a misconception about how the Misplaced Pages editing process works. It is not disruptive but rather evolutionary over an extended period of time, building on each others' work. His demand for an ArbCom ruling in a day demonstrates the antithesis of WP:NODEADLINE. I also feel that he has rushed the dispute resolution process and that ArbCom is not necessary. In years of editing, I have never been involved in an ArbCom case (that's how extenuating the circumstances must be), but from what I hear in the Signpost, both sides must have done something extremely dickish. That is not the case here; this is an isolated but very persistent POV-pusher. Please do not feed the troll and decline the case. HereToHelp 02:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Amatulic

There is not much I can say beyond my initial response and followup responses to the request for a third opinion. A well-sourced criticism section would be acceptable in the article, but poorly-sourced criticism doesn't belong there, and single-issue criticism should reside in an appropriate subsection. I agree with other statements above that no valid arguments have been presented as to why a criticism section in this particular article will be of greater benefit than incorporating criticism into appropriate sections. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What Dario wants to do is pull all the criticism out of the existing sections, and then pack them all into its own criticism section. Even if the entire criticism section is properly sourced, it is better writing style to, for example, mention all matters regarding the battery in just one section, than to force the reader to hop from section to section attempting to read everything there is to do with the battery. His argument is that the length of the article will play into whether or not a separate criticism section is warranted. This logic is baloney because, again, it would force the reader to move up and down within the article. The best method of writing, regardless of the media used to write the article, is to allow the reader to read the entire article top-to-bottom, and without having to move back up or hop around. I understand that, with the invention of linking and such, it allows for this style of lazy writing IMHO. And web designers like Dario has grasped this idiotic method of writing because the technology like hyperlinking allow him to do so. But at the same time, this practice is comparable to using GOTO statements in structured computer programming. It is bad writing style - simple as that. Arguments of inclusion (i.e. everyone else is doing it) doesn't do it for me. groink 23:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Decline. An arbitration case would take a couple of weeks, so the timing concern is not relevant. This is a matter for dispute resolution and potentially administrator intervention to address conduct issues. Regardless, there is no pressing reason to accept this request instead of allowing the dispute resolution procedures and community to resolve this matter. --Vassyana (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per Vassayana. Although normally I would wait for additional statements before casting a vote, in this instance the issues that Vassyana mentions (particularly regarding the timing) are dispositive of this request and not going to change. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per Vassyana and Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per Vassyana. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Decline. Wizardman 01:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per Vassyana. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per Vassyana.  Roger Davies 11:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

St. John's University (NY) Article

Initiated by Newyorkborn (talk) at 14:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• newyorkborn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• 208.120.47.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:208.120.47.96
• Diff. 2

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

For the past two years, a "contributor" (IP Address 208.120.47.96) has repeatedly prevented other contributors, including myself, from making minor edits to the St. John's University, NY, page that eliminate irrelevant and biased language. By viewing the Discussion Page for St. John's University, you will see that the user in question (IP Address 208.120.47.96) has continuously reversed edits by many contributors who have questioned the information 208.120.47.96 has inserted. By looking at his/her Talk Page, you will see that this user has been blocked in the past for "edit wars." My current request follows my efforts, over the past few days, to add neutral, factual edits about campus housing and to revise a negative reference to a 43-year-old magazine quote that adds nothing to the topic (about a faculty strike in 1966). The contributor reversed by edits again this morning and threatened me with being blocked if I tried another edit. Please help.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:St._John%27s_University_(New_York)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=St._John%27s_University_(New_York)&action=history
• http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Newyorkborn
• http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:208.120.47.96

Statement by Newyorkborn

For the past two years, a "contributor" (IP Address 208.120.47.96) has seemed to exercise illegal "ownership" over the page for St. John's University, NY, preventing myself and others from making minor edits that eliminate irrelevant and biased language. As the Discussion Page for St. John's University shows, the user in question (IP Address 208.120.47.96) has continuously reversed edits by varied contributors who have questioned the information 208.120.47.96 has inserted. As the user in question's Talk Page shows, he/she has been blocked in the past for "edit wars." This current arbitration request follows my recent efforts to add minor, neutral, factual edits about campus housing and to revise a negative reference to a 43-year-old magazine quote that adds nothing to the topic (a 1966 faculty strike). The contributor reversed my edits again this morning and warned that I'd be blocked if I tried another edit. Please help.

Statement by {Party 2}

Statement by {Party 3}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/7/0/2)

• Comment - I have just protected the article due to edit warring between the two purported parties here. I would ask that more experienced editors please review this content dispute and assist in sorting out the basic facts, perhaps with an RFC or third opinion. This does not appear to be ripe for arbitration, but does need some community assistance to sort out. Risker (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Decline, though acknowledging that community intervention is definitely needed as stated above. Wizardman 20:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Requesting assistance from an administrator here per Risker. On hold for now, though I hope this can be resolved well short of arbitration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per Wiz, Risker etc. Definitely other steps to be taken before coming here Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Decline. Not a case for arbitration. Please follow Risker's suggestions. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Reject per the above. -- FayssalF - 17:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Decline. Please follow the advice for dispute resolution provided here. --Vassyana (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Decline; this is still well within the community's reach. — Coren  12:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Decline  Roger Davies 16:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Talk:Self-hating_Jew#Progress