Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SubjectiveNotability (talk | contribs) at 19:51, 9 March 2020 (Reverted good faith edits by Bluerasberry: Rv (presumably accidental) re-adding of the entire jytdog case section; since it's been opened as a case, please make your comments on the case page (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search
"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC.

Shortcut

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Request for WP:IBAN as a measure against hounding and personal attacks|Request for WP:IBAN as a measure against hounding and personal attacks]]   1 March 2020 0/9/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland Motion (orig. case) 21 June 2024
Amendment request: Suspension of Beeblebrox Motion none 10 July 2024
Clarification request: Desysoppings none none 12 July 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Request for WP:IBAN as a measure against hounding and personal attacks

Initiated by Krakkos (talk) at 18:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Krakkos

Timeline: User talk:Krakkos#Timeline of edit warring, hounding, personal attacks, threats, casting of aspersions and bullying of Krakkos by Andrew Lancaster

Andrew Lancaster and i have been warned several times against edit warring.[2][3][4] I subsequently refrained from further edit warring, while Andrew Lancaster removed[5] my RfCs and completely rewrote the disputed page.[6][7] Rather than fixing that page further, Andrew Lancaster has now began to hound me, and sought, through edit warring, threats, personal attacks and casting aspersions, to remove my contributions entirely. He's threatening my "exit from Wikipedia and the removal of all" my edits,[8] stating that my contributions "will not last (on ANY article)".[9]

He's been hounding me at articles he has not edited before, such as Early Germanic culture[10][11] and Category:Romance-speaking countries.[12][13] Most recently, the same thing happened at the article Goths,[14][15][16] and i complained once more at WP:AN3.[17] EdJohnston warned us against editing warring and personal attacks,[18] and forbade us from additional editing at Goths.[19] Andrew Lancaster was later specifically warned against casting further aspersions against me.[20]

After EdJohnson's ruling, Andrew Lancaster posted a bullying message at my talk page, accusing me of "shameless dishonesty", said that i "lie and screw others", and that he and his "community" would cause my "exit from Wikipedia" and "the removal of all" my edits.[21] At Talk:Goths he later calls me a "sycophantic bully boy".[22] Jens Lallensack tells him that he will not participate in a discussion characterized with such personal attacks,[23][24] but Andrew Lancaster refuses to stop.[25] This makes it impossible for Lallensack to continue his WP:GA review of the article, which he earlier considered in "good shape" and wanted to improve.[26]

As a result of the continued personal attacks, i post a complaint at the talk page of EdJohnston.[27] EdJohnston gives Andrew Lancaster another warning for his blockable personal attack, and instructs him to make a revised post without personal attacks.[28] Andrew Lancaster rather makes a non-apology apology, doubling down on his attacks, trivializing them as "colorful rhetoric", says that he is "willing to defend" them, and concludes that i should "just stop trying to work against WP policy".[29] He further states that he is just trying to "help Krakkos be a normal editor".[30] He also states that "the recent "win" at the edit warring noticeboard is going to make Krakkos a worse editor", that " the "win" is not a real win", and that he will "have to be far stricter and less trusting of Krakkos".[31] This suggests that the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior behavior is far from over. Even after EdJohnston's repeated warnings against personal attacks, he writes that i have "a systematic tendency to try to make false claims"[32] and "misrepresent facts".[33]

EdJohnston long ago considered Andrew Lancaster's personal attacks blockable,[34] and has recommended me to file a complaint elsewhere.[35] The previous failure of such complaints to deal with the problem, has however convinced me that only an Arbcom ruling can effectively deal with the situation. Andrew Lancaster has floods talk pages continuously with new sections containing walls of text,[36][37] thereby making discussions confusing and unappealing.[38][39] He also casts negative aspersions against me, which may influence inexperienced editors.[40]. In a controlled environment with experienced editors such as Arbcom, this can be prevented. A member of Arbcom has privately encouraged me to contact this committee.

The poisonous atmosphere has discouraged or driven away productive editors from editing the subject area,[41][42] which is in the process of degenerating into a one-man show.[43] Terrified editors have contacted me about this privately, but are afraid to do it in the open, because they fear they will become the next target. I request the Arbitration Committee to review this unfortunate situation, in hope of having some sort of WP:IBAN imposed on Andrew Lancaster or even the both of us. Krakkos (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update 1: Despite repeated warnings (as described above) and the filings of this case request, the personal attacks are still ongoing. He's still defending these attacks as "colorful terminology",[44] says that he will "now start tracking" me,[45] and calls me a "partisan"[46] who has "systematic problems".[47] Krakkos (talk) 09:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To Robert McClenon

This case has previously been aired several times before multiple admins, who because of its convoluted nature have refused to become involved.[48][49][50] As a result, the situation has only gotten worse. The reason I'm seeking a solution here rather than at ANI is that in discussions Andrew Lancaster often floods talk pages with new sections and very long walls of text,[51][52][53][54], thereby making discussions utterly confusing.[55][56][57][58] The word limit of Arbcom can prevent such convolution, and arbitration has thus been suggested by members of the community.[59] In discussions, Andrew Lancaster casts aspersions, which may sway some of the unexperienced editors who frequent ANI against me.[60] In a controlled environment with experienced editors such as Arbcom, such obfuscation can be prevented. Also, a member of Arbcom has encouraged me to contact the committee. Krakkos (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Andrew Lancaster

My main concern is that more people than me need to look at this case and try to confirm or deny what is going on. A cross check should be done of the claims, context, diffs etc made by Krakkos above and elsewhere. (At first sight, the diffs posted in the first version of the claim above are quite misleading for example, sometimes in subtle but critical ways. See analysis of the post's references on my talk page)

Nutshell. This is "forum shopping" that has been going since January, aimed at effective article "ownership" (that is effectively what is demanded). It can be looked at in a short-term way, or as a bigger long-term problem. It potentially affects many articles which Krakkos treats as closely related (edits, actions, splits, copy-pastes). Comparing us, I am the bigger and longer-term "content adder" to almost all of those articles.

In the short term, Krakkos wants to eliminate me now because we are reaching turning points on a 2nd article wrt systematic POV pushing. I have announced some RFCs and RSN posts in preparation and asked for feedback. Krakkos probably rightly believes this will lead to more 21st century sources on the article Goths, which Krakkos has largely been censoring out of the article. The talk page of Goths explains more.

Another reason for eliminating me is that I said I would now start tracking and acting upon any misrepresentations made in talk page posts or edsums, because such misrepresentations have become a major concern to me. As a start, I publicly analyzed the misrepresentations in the most recent "edit war" complaint Krakkos made against me, here. The misrepresentations in that edit war complaint shocked me. (And then I apologized for my initial colorful review of the situation. [61].)

Rejecting this case would seem to be one valid short-term solution. I think consensus-based, policy-based editing will probably keep progressing slowly, as it already did on Germanic peoples. But I am not sure what Krakkos will do on future cases (not just with me).

OTOH, I can see a case for looking at this more deeply here. Put simply, I see that Krakkos seems to have systematic problems when working with others. For example: habitually and deeply misrepresenting and/or misunderstanding other Wikipedians, policies, and sources; and habitually looking for ways to catch editors by surprise (merges, re-names, splits, faits accomplis, precedents). Some of the January actions on Germanic peoples are analysed here. Krakkos later suddenly stopped editing or posting on that talk page when the consensus and policy was inescapable, then moved to the overlapping article Goths, and called for a GA review there. (The article did NOT seem to be in any way prepared for such a review. Despite announcing that review, Krakkos started a fundamental rewriting. I have mainly worked on the talk page and made a few edits which I think would normally be considered non-controversial even during a dispute.)

Krakkos and I edit many of the same types of articles. Most of what I saw over the years were questionable category changes about strange "ethnicities" and articles for non-notable scholars who are clearly being cited by Krakkos somewhere. It keeps under the radar. My first realization that all was not well was this strange but minor discussion, which I now see as typical: defensive/dismissive to advice from fellow Wikipedians, no matter how obvious the problem.

Response to statement by User:Robert McClenon

Maybe a TLDR would appropriate: IMHO this case, in its intended form, is not appropriate. Krakkos is simply in a POV-pushing content dispute. The editing community tends to work these out better than "the courts". Could be looked at: 1. Historically Krakkos WP actions are to a remarkable extent definable as a non-consensus systematic program - FYI aiming to portray all humanity in terms of 19th century style language-defined ethnic families. That is controversial. 2. I fear Krakkos has competence issues in understanding sources, policies and other editors, and judging how to react to them. 3. Krakkos seems to systematically escalate and exacerbate content disagreements (as here). Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

This statement isn't about whether the previous efforts to resolve the case have been tried and have failed. I know nothing about the issues that have led to this. However, based on very recent experience, I think that a lesson learned is that, if the ArbCom thinks that it needs to act because the community has failed or will fail to resolve the dispute, it should open a full case rather than act by motion. I advised the ArbCom to act by motion with respect to the Motorsports dispute between User:Mclarenfan17 and User:Tvx1. I was honestly mistaken, and fortunately the ArbCom opened a full case. Tvx1 has introduced evidence alleging a pattern of conduct by the other party that at least needs to be considered. This dispute may be similar. If there is a history of animosity between two users, ArbCom should accept and review evidence as to whether either or both of the users have acted against other editors also. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In looking over the history of the disputes between these editors, it appears that this arbitration request is premature because WP:ANI has been recommended by at least one administrator, but not yet used. I suggest that ArbCom decline this case and let these editors air their dispute before the community at WP:ANI, and see if there are any survivors. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by slatersteven

This [[62]] leads me to wonder about an IBAN. I am not sure if Andrew Lancaster's wall of text constitutes misrepresenting what a user has said (or even if it is pretending to be an RSN notice made by Krakkos, but it reads a lot like it might. Nor does Andrew Lancaster seem inclined to accept views that disagree with his own.Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But, yes, ANI is the best place for this.Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Request for WP:IBAN as a measure against hounding and personal attacks: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Request for WP:IBAN as a measure against hounding and personal attacks: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/9/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=944762687"