Requests for arbitration

Initiated by Carriedelvalle23 (talk) at 09:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Carriedelvalle23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• ZiaLater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [diff of notification ZiaLater]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Link 1 Smartmatic page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartmatic
• Link 2 COI Board: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Smartmatic..._again.2C_again...
• Link 3 Smartmatic page reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smartmatic&type=revision&diff=787241503&oldid=787096269

Statement by Carriedelvalle23

I am requesting the attention of the arbitration committee relating to user ZiaLater and the article Smartmatic. As a journalist living in the Philippines, I began researching the topic of voting and polling technology. During my research process, I came across the Smartmatic Wikipedia article. Through my research, I realized simple facts were incorrect on the Smartmatic article such as the founding year. As an editor, I corrected those facts and provided credible sources. However, ZiaLater reverted the article back to the original form. Rather than collaborating, ZiaLater continues reverting the article trying to make the article single user edited. ZiaLater demonstrates he/she has no regard for editing guidelines. Because of his/her disruptive editing, edit warring, and reverting the article, ZiaLater should be banned from making further edits on the Smartmatic article. I have tried explaining my edits with ZiaLater to come to a resolution. However, I was attacked and he/she reverted the edits, which were supported by facts, to protect his/her own version. According to the ownership of content, “Wikipedia content—articles, categories, templates, and other types of pages—is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or how high-standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page.”

Statement by ZiaLater

Statement by uninvolved Softlavender

Carriedelvalle23, this case will not be accepted by ArbCom because this is the wrong venue for your dispute. You need to start discussing the issues civilly on the talk page of the article (not on user talkpages or noticeboards). If you desire assistance, post a neutral query on the talkpage of the relevant WikiProject (listed at the top of the article talkpage).If there are any further issues, feel free to utilize WP:TEAHOUSE and/or dispute resolution. Softlavender (talk) 09:41, 27 June 2017 (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.

Clerk notes

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

Smartmatic Page Reverts: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/3/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• Decline there are many steps in the dispute resolution process before coming to the Arbitration Committee. These options are much faster than an arbitration case (which can last for a month or more) and much less stressful and demanding. My advice would be that you attempt to discuss this issue on the article's talk page in a factual, non-judgemental way and be prepared to change your mind. If that doesn't work you can try the suggestions at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. But the first thing you need to do is stop editing the article and instead go to the talk page and convince editors that the change you want made should be made. Softlavender's advice is very helpful as well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline we have various noticeboards and requests for comment to seek a wider opinion. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline per above. Mkdw ^talk 02:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) at 23:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Godsy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Legacypac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Special:Diff/788348872

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive917#MfD end run GAME
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive919#Godsy Disruption & GAMING the System
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Godsy back to Wikihounding - how to stop it?
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposing IBAN between Godsy and Legacypac

Statement by Godsy

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive917#MfD end run GAME is where I first noticed Legacypac's behavior. They were moving pages to the mainspace from the userspace of others explicitly to seek deletion (e.g. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 April 4#Graffiki). They were also moving pages from the userspace of others clearly not suitable for the mainspace. I reverted ~10/250 of the moves that were particularly bad, which led Legacypac to start Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive919#Godsy Disruption & GAMING the System, which in turn led to another user starting Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring. The community came down hard against Legacypac's positions there. Legacypac then largely took a long break (~9 months) after a month long block. Legacypac then returned and continued moving pages from the userspace of others to the mainspace. They no longer express that they want the pages deleted, but some get deleted, and they disagree with and fight restoration as was specified by the aforementioned request for comment (WP:UP/RFC2016 / B4). I was correcting related problems on multiple articles (something which is not considered harassment per WP:HOUND) that Legacypac introduced into the mainspace which led them to start Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Godsy back to Wikihounding - how to stop it? which led to them receiving a boomerang topic ban (Legacypac's false allegations there caused me to receive a hasty, what I believe to be bad, block early during the discussion). During that an/i discussion, they inappropriately reverted my acceptable closure of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Medieval jobs, which leads to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Medieval jobs. After all that, they personally attack me during a deletion discussion (as they've done before) and substantially change my comments which led to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Legacypac reported by User:Godsy (Result: Withdrawn). Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposing IBAN between Godsy and Legacypac was started after that by another user (where an administrator stated regarding that AN/3 report "[Another administrator] and I gave final warnings to Legacypac about this behavior about a year ago, nearly simultaneously and for the same edit. I'd have blocked had I seen any of the diffs at [that AN/3 report] in isolation, let alone together. I haven't seen Godsy doing the same, just diffs of him restoring his own comments, and would welcome evidence to the contrary."). I put this together hastily and may make a few adjustments here because I may be prohibited from doing so if that passes. I believe what has become slow burning disruption by Legacypac will continue (including Legacypac's disregard and disagreement with WP:NMFD). I believe if the committee reviews evidence that is presented in the form of diffs, not generalizations as have been thrown around elsewhere, the situation will become clear. I was more specific in regard to recent events because they're fresh in my memory, but there is much more that can be shown by digging into older diffs. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 23:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Legacypac

Statement by Primefac

It seems like this is just rehashing the IBAN discussion that's currently ongoing (which looks likely to pass), in which case I don't think any further action would be necessary. I think both users have been blocked enough for their spats (i.e. we don't need to retroactively punish anyone), and the IBAN will fix the issue going forward. Primefac (talk) 23:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions for Godsy: first, is this specifically about the back-and-forth between the two of you? If not, what are you actually asking ArbCom to look into? It seems to me like an IBAN will solve all of the problems you've mentioned, which is why I proposed one. Primefac (talk) 23:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cryptic

I'd like to say I have some small hope that the interaction ban will succeed, but I really don't. Both parties push at boundaries like they're sore teeth, neither has been willing to admit they've been in the wrong in any matter of substance, and both have enough champions/apologists/enablers (take your pick) that I expect any attempt to enforce the ban will cause more disruption than it resolves. If that last happens, this matter will be back here in a few weeks at most, and it'll be much messier when it is. —Cryptic 00:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Godsy links to a statement of mine [1] in the current IBAN discussion where I say I've only seen Legacypac engage in one specific sort of disruption. The context was a request by another user [2] (current iteration - second bullet point here) that they be both be specifically banned from that. I'll be presenting evidence against both parties if this is accepted. —Cryptic 01:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Davey2010

Give the IBAN a chance, if it goes tits up then come back - Seems pointless doing this whilst we're in the middle of an IBAN discussion..... –Davey2010^Talk 01:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

When I looked quickly a few minutes ago, the IBAN discussion on AN/I had a long list of "supports" and only two "opposes". I assume that admins are waiting for 5 days to go by before closing the discussion and instituting the IBAN. Given that, I would ask ArbCom to hold this case request in abeyance until we find out if the community-based sanction works or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:52, 1 July 2017 (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.

Clerk notes

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

Legacypac: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)