Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:31, 4 February 2007

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

• WP:RFAR
• WP:A/R
• WP:ARB/R
• WP:ARBREQ

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Misplaced Pages. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

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

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Current requests

Philwelch

Initiated by — Nearly Headless Nick at 14:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Philwelch (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Aksi great (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Centrx (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Cyberia23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• David Levy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dionyseus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• John Reid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ThuranX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

, , , , , , , , .

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

, , , (note CBD's comment), . This one is the latest in line –

Statement by Sir Nicholas

Philwelch has been an editor since 2 February 2004 and was conferred adminship status on 8 November 2005. Since then, Phil has made a handful of blocks – , and a good percentage of them are very controversial. Blocks were issued while being involved in disputes with the above-named users.

• Aksi great was blocked because he warned the administrators to cease making personal attacks against two other users (User:Nathanrdotcom and User:Samir (The Scope) – , , , . The block was overturned.
• MatthewFenton was blocked while Philwelch was in content dispute with the user. Usage of rollback tool to revert other users' edits and doling out multiple blocks against those (Dionyseus, Cyberia23) who disagreed with him at that time.. The blocks were overturned.
• Margana was blocked while the administrator was in dispute with them. (see edits on 17th August 2006), (user blocked while in content dispute).
• John Reid was blocked by Phil while being in dispute. .
• Centrx was blocked by Phil while being in dispute. The discussion on the administrator notice-board is here – .
• ThuranX was blocked by Phil while in content dispute – . . There is use of rollback tool as well.
• Steel recently issued a block on Philwelch so as to prevent further abuse of admin tools. This happened after Philwelch and David Levy were revert-warring with each other on Werdna's recent RfA. David had reverted three times, Phil reverted more than five times and used admin rollback as well. Freakofnurture removed the block after Phil's assurances that he would not edit – , .
• There is clandestine unblock as well. Administrator User:Samir (The Scope) issued a block on Phil's account for breach of WP:3RR on multiple articles on 20th August 2006. . Phil unblocked himself and while blocking himself again for a longer duration (indefinitely), he unblocked an IP address – , the IP resolves to the United States – .
• Many administrators have asked him to put an end to such unilateral blocking of other users while being in dispute – , ,
• I feel that per the long history of inappropriate usage of his status as sysop and potential admin abuse, ArbCom should mete out a strict resolution to this problem. My main contention is not about the validity of the blocks meted out, some of which were fair, some were not. However, they were all out of process. User has not shown self-corrective behaviour. Yours sincerely, — Nearly Headless Nick 14:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Update

Philwelch requested removal of his English Misplaced Pages sysop access on Meta, and the request has been granted. – . — Nearly Headless Nick 14:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Matthew

I met Phil Welch while he was making several “bold” merges to pages, my self and two other users did not agree with these merges and asked him to discuss this instead, all three of us make reverts to Phil’s edits (he also violated 3RR during this, no less then five times) – during the dispute Phil blocked us all (in contravention of the blocking policy) to gain an upper hand in the dispute.

Phil also stated on AN/I () in reply to his edits: “If you want to start a confrontation with me, you're going to lose, one way or another. If you want to talk to me, we can talk and work something out.” – Phil gave no warnings with his blocks and as they where not within blocking policy all were quickly over turned. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:JzG

Here's another incident: - blocked David Levy for "trolling", a completely baseless charge, David was unblocked almost immediately by an uninvolved admin. Abuse of admin tools is clearly involved, and ArbCom is, I believe, the only venue where this can be properly addressed. Also, it would be silly to pretend that Phil is unaware that his actions are problematic or that an unusual number of his blocks are overturned; overturning of blocks without agreement of the blocking admin is, in my experience, pretty unusual. An RfC would rapidly end up right back here, in my view. Guy (Help!) 17:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:David Levy

I am deeply troubled by Phil's conduct. In the incident involving me, he removed a good-faith question from an RfA page five times, including two administrative rollbacks: , , , , .

The question pertained to an IRC log posted at a site of dubious credibility. Konstable merely inquired as to whether the log was accurate (explicitly noting the possibility that it was an impersonation). There certainly was a very real possibility that the log had been forged (though it later turned out to be authentic), but no claim to the contrary was made. (The question asked wasn't "Why did you say these things?". It was "Did you say these things?".)

Nonetheless, some editors believed that the question was unfairly prejudicial. Phil took this a step further by assuming bad faith on the part of Konstable; in two of the reversions for which he provided edit summaries (as opposed to the two for which he used the administrative rollback function), he described Konstable's question as "trolling." As it clearly wasn't (and I believed that Phil had no right to remove a good-faith question), I reverted Phil's edits (with summaries) three times. (Majorly expressed agreement with me and reverted Phil's edit once.)

As I was in the process of reporting Phil's three-revert rule violation at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, Phil blocked me (the first time that I've been blocked in the two years since I began editing Misplaced Pages) for 24 hours (citing "trolling" as the justification) . (Steel359 unblocked me three minutes later.)

The validity (or lack thereof) of this block has nothing to do with which of us was "right," as both of us believed that our edits served to preserve the RfA's integrity. This was an honest content dispute (and one in which only Phil violated the 3RR), so for him to claim that I was acting in bad faith (and block an editor with whom he was engaged in a content dispute) is patently inappropriate and contrary to policy.

Steel359 blocked Phil for three hours, and Phil requested on his talk page that he be unblocked because we wanted "an opportunity to explain self before this any further out of control" . This seemed reasonable (and he subsequently promised not to edit the RfA or issue any blocks related to it), so Freakofnurture unblocked Phil. Phil's first post-block message (indeed posted at WP:AN/I) was not the promised explanation intended to calm the situation, but quite the opposite: a sarcastic, inflammatory remark . Only after I brought this fact to his attention did Phil actually attempt to explain himself, and these are the posts that I find most troubling of all.

Phil asserted that this was not a good-faith editing dispute and that his actions constituted "a justifiable use of administrative privileges" . He stated that he viewed his conduct as "necessary and proper" (and that he would not apologize) . He indicated that he "blocked for disrupting and tampering with the RFA process" (which is precisely how I viewed his actions, though I never would have exceeded three reversions, ascribed malice, or blocked an editor with whom I was engaged in a content dispute) and that it was "inconceivable to that intelligent people would not understand " . (In other words, the editors who disagreed with him are unintelligent.)

I realize that people make mistakes (especially in the heat of the moment), and I would have considered the matter resolved if Phil had simply acknowledged his errors and apologized. Instead, he's unwavering in his claim that he did absolutely nothing wrong. That, combined with the fact that this appears to be the latest of several such incidents, leads be to believe that he intends to continue engaging in such misconduct in the future (to the project's detriment). —David Levy 18:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:Dionyseus

I am yet another user who is deeply troubled by User:Philwelch's conduct. On August 19, 2006, Philwelch was blocking anyone he disagreed with on the Battlestar Galactica dispute. He did not issue a warning to me, he simply blocked me for my revert to the version of the article that was agreed upon by the regular contributors to that article. I asked him why he did not issue a warning to me, and his excuse was "Boldness is encouraged on Misplaced Pages".

The block he issued to me was punitive, that was unacceptable, one of the first things clearly stated in WP:Block is that "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages. They should not be used as a punitive measure." He was bullying editors, forcing them to agree with his version of the article, if they didn't agree he would block them. Finally when I was almost immediately unblocked I managed to get User:Philwelch blocked for violating WP:3RR twice that night, I and a few others managed to convince the other editors that they don't have to accept User:Philwelch's bullying tactics, and the community soon agreed that User:Philwelch's version was unacceptable.

Ever since this incident, I have seen many complaints about User:Philwelch's conduct in ANi. I strongly believe his adminship status should be removed to prevent further damage to Misplaced Pages. Dionyseus 21:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:Cyberia23

Honestly, I thought this was a done deal. Last I knew was after the bans and the complaints that followed, Phil decided to leave Misplaced Pages as he was blocked for violating the 3RR and I assumed he had his sysop privileges removed already. Although I was annoyed about being banned by him without him hearing me out first, I myself felt bad that he decided to leave and thought that something else could be worked out, perhaps a "cool down" period instead of folding up his tent and leaving. I haven't kept tabs on him, so anything Phil is involved with since the multi-ban issue, I am not aware of. Cyberia23 21:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:ThuranX

Since people won't let me disappear from this proceeding, I'm only going to say that although editors on the Rush (band) Page continue to refer people to the pop culture page, and to remove pop culture info from the main article page, and though the Pop culture page was created after suggestions by the review group for getting articles to FA status, it remains now as PhilWelch has edited it, and NO ONE will touch it. Make of that what you will. I certainly won't ever touch it again. ThuranX 22:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:Centrx

Not listed in Sir Nicholas's original summary are the recent blocks of administrators User:Centrx and User:David Levy. His block of User:David Levy, with whom he was edit warring and involved in a dispute, with a bogus reason, is summarized accurately above. His block of my user account User:Centrx for 1 week under a bogus reason was sudden and without warning after I deleted several odd redirects which unbeknownst to me had a prior RfD (under which Philwelch had an open threat against anyone who deleted the redirects). See example deletion log for what he means by "wheel warring". The subsequent ANI discussion, where there is a more detailed summary, a unanimous censure of the block, much incivility from Philwelch, etc., can be found at . Other noticeboard discussions of Philwelch's use of admin tools not listed above are May 2006 ("Go ahead and file an RfC. In fact, print it out and mail me a copy—I'm running low on toilet paper."),November 2006, December 2006. Also, note Philwelch's blocking log: the blocks listed above constitute every user account Philwelch has blocked in the past six months. He really does use the blocking tool just to block people he disagrees with. The major reason this has not been escalated earlier are that for some users, some people thought the users "deserved", in a vague general way, to be blocked, even though the block itself was wrong; for others, some of the users blocked were relatively unknown in the "community". A quote from ANI/130 characterizes it well: "Great idea Phil! Let's talk about it. Too bad you've BLOCKED EVERYONE who seems to have a problem with this issue today. So how are they supposed to retort?" At the very best, the behavior is heavy-handed and incorrigible, and rude, with deleterious effects on the users creating the encyclopedia. At worst, he is using admin tools as a threat and punishment to get his way in disputes. In any case, if it were to continue it would show just how easy it apparently is to be openly abusive of admin tools without consequence. —Centrx→talk • 06:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:Heimstern

I observed Philwelch's handling of the contested comment at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Werdna 2. In addition to David Levy's summary, of the situation, I would like to add the following: He used admin rollback to undo David Levy's edits , . The second of these rollbacks occured after Majorly had also reverted Philwelch's edits, including in the edit summary advice to use the talk page and not use rollback . Shortly before his second rollback and subequent block of David Levy, he unilaterally threatened to block any user who restored Konstable's question , even though he knew two other established users (David Levy and Majorly) disagreed with this. I questioned what policy would make such an action appropriate. . I received no reply. I believe that Philwelch's use of rollback, his threat of a block, and his carrying out of that threat on David Levy constitute abuse of administrator privilege. I also believe that his decision to edit war was unbecoming of an admin. In the interest of fairness, I wish to note that David Levy also edit warred, as Dmcdevit has observed , . Heimstern Läufer 06:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Lostintherush

I first came to know of Philwelch during Aksi Great's RFA when Aksi mentioned him in the answer to Q3. After that I noticed him when he blocked John Reid during his RFarb nomination (which I opposed). Thereafter Centrx and now David Levy. Throw in the other blocks mentioned and there is a clear pattern here. Blocking new users and non admins doesn't get one's actions under scrutiny, especially if the users simply walk away and dont come back. Blocking admins makes lot more noise. In both the scenarios, if blocking is done wrongly, it causes much harm to the encyclopedia. Unlike many other RFARs, I dont see shades of gray here. The actions look wrong to me whichever way one looks at them. I'd urge the arbcom to take this case to prevent further harm to the encyclopedia.

User:Philwelch has gone after being informed of this case . I hope that will not let the case to be rejected as he still has access to the buttons that can cause further harm. — Lost 10:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

According to his talk page he had surrendered his adminship. --Spartaz 15:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed (meta log). Christopher Parham (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I just saw it. What rule would apply to him getting the bit back? I am not sure if this is the place to be having this discussion. — Lost 17:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by freakofnurture

I unblocked Philwelch for several reasons.

• First, it was clear to me that both he and David Levy were behaving rather poorly: Phil for his excessive reverts and for blocking Mr. Levy with whom he was in a dispute, and David for restoring inflammatory content written by a user whose recent contributions have consisted mostly of disruption at RFA, for his self-serving interpretation of the three-revert rule rule as an entitlement, his howl for punitive blood, and his well-poisoning allusions to Phil's prior block log, and his "I've never been blocked before" hubris, all found in this one diff.
• I felt it less than ideal that the third involved admin unblocked one disputant two minutes after blocking the other.
• I believed Phil was acting in good faith, and under a broader-than-usual interpretation of (the spirit, not the letter of) WP:LIVING and Misplaced Pages:Remove personal attacks as he felt these guidelines pertained to the poorly-sourced negative material (pertaining to the non-pseudonymous editor and MediaWiki developer Andrew Garrett a.k.a. User:Werdna, who, additionally, is legally a minor) which he felt was intended primarily to sink an RFA. I agree with the majority of this assessment.
• Phil expressed a desire to participate in the discussion at WP:AN/I, and a willingness to stop editing Werdna's RFA. He's made good on both counts.
• I believed that blocking either party rather than discussion the points above would do more harm than good.
• I believe that admins blocking admins make baby Jesus cry, particularly if it results in otherwise decent administrators quitting the project, which may be the action that Phil is now taking.

Some four hours before being desysopped, Mr. Welch blocked himself indefinitely, with the rationale "no longer welcome in the community". Disagreeing with his assessment of the situation, and seeing that this RFAR had been filed and that his self-block would render him unable to participate, I unblocked Philwelch a second time.

If other participants feel that I should be named as an involved party on account of my actions, or (as I more cynically suspect) on account my words, so be it.

—freak(talk) 20:30, Feb. 4, 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved badlydrawnjeff

Mostly due to the clerk statement below that existed as of my signing this statement, any removal of this case would be helpful if it included whether the action taken at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Giano case apply here, namely Phil voluntarily requesting desysopping "under a cloud." Might save a good deal of hassle later. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Newyorkbrad

Over the past few months Philwelch made several highly problematic blocks, as discussed above. I was involved in the ANI discussion of several of them, and opined (I was not yet an administrator) that the users should be unblocked immediately and that Philwelch really needed to be much less quick to press the "block" button and to make fewer uncivil remarks along the way. I was particularly unhappy after a long-time user left the project permanently, apparently in reaction to one of these blocks. I do not and cannot fault Philwelch for the departure, but his subsequent comment to the effect that Misplaced Pages was better off without the user in question, in effect taking credit for causing a contributor's departure, struck me as unbecoming.

In two of these instances, it was proposed that the matter of Philwelch's blocks be taken to arbitration. I urged the blocked users not to pursue arbitration and desysopping at that point, hoping that Philwelch would take to heart the strongly expressed sentiment that he was blocking without sufficient cause and in instances where he was engaged in content or other disputes with the other editor. Even after I saw this case filed, I was hoping that it would be accepted, but that the final remedy could some sort of restriction on use of the block function, but a sanction short of desysopping as Philwelch did some good admin work in other areas.

The most recent events, this week's controversy concerning Werdna's RfA, involved a disputable issue as to how the question at issue should be dealt with. (I personally supported Werdna's RfA, for what it's worth, and would not have asked the question as it was posed.) Blocking was definitely not the way to resolve the issue, but I don't believe that anyone's behavior in that controversy, in and of itself, comes close to meriting an arbitration case. Nor would Philwelch's behavior potentially warrant any sanction other than removal or restriction of his administrator privileges, which he has now given up voluntarily. Accordingly I agree with Thatcher131 that the case is moot.

It should be emphasized that Philwelch's user account is in good standing and that he is welcome to contribute as an editor. Philwelch has self-blocked before when he thought he was leaving and has always returned, and self-blocks to enforce a departure are deprecated. Freak's action in undoing the self-block now to give Philwelch the option of returning again now was clearly correct and I would have done the same had I seen it first.

With regard to the possibility of resysopping, the precedent from the so-called "Giano" case is that someone who gives up admin status "under controversial circumstances" must go through a new RfA to regain adminship. I think it clear that resigning during the pendency of an arbitration filing counts as resigning in the midst of a controversy, and that the bureaucrats would not grant resysopping in those circumstances without a new RfA. However, another user on another page has disagreed and thinks that the situation is not as clear as I suggest. In lieu of a full-fledged arbitration case, or a potential dispute later as badlydrawnjeff says he fears, a comment from a couple of arbs confirming (or disagreeing with) my understanding might be helpful. Newyorkbrad 21:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

As Phil has surrendered his sysop access , do the arbitrators object if I simply remove this request as moot? Thatcher131 17:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Still want to accept the case to make clear Phil's status on return and clarify how that admin tools may be returned to him. FloNight 21:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/1/0/0)

• Decline. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC) There has been no RFC, and this is exactly the sort of matter where RFC can resolve the problem, or minimally, provide the Committee with a means to ascertain community views.
• Accept. There seems to be a pattern of controversial actions here, including administrative abuse involving blocking and threats of blocking. Given the recent lengthy discussion on AN/I regarding the controversy at Werdna's RfA and the repeated discussions and requests for him to stop already, I don't see how a RfC would be either fruitful or productive. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Accept, per Flcelloguy. Kirill Lokshin 19:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. Since the named party is a well established we need to get involved to clarify to the community and Phil, what his status is after his recent self request to desyop and self block prior to leaving the community. And put in place remedies to prevent future highly confrontational incidences upon his return to editing and possible request for return of tools. FloNight 20:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Accept per Flo and Flcelloguy. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 22:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Asian2duracell

Initiated by User:Wiki Raja at 22:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Wiki Raja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Asian2duracell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by User:Wiki Raja

The full explanation can be found at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Case filed against Asian2duracell

I am reporting user Asian2duracell in regards to his coninuous sock puppeting, trolling, and personal attacks towards myself and others. My first mode of action was to engage him in civil dialogue (from user to user). Since that did not work a third party had monitored the situation to try to difuse the tension on Dravidian people. With Asian2duracell not complying my next step was to ask for advice at the Administrator's Noticeboard. I was then directed to report to the Mediation Cabal where I had reported Asian2duracell for his behavior. Since then, I haven't heard from them. So, finally, now I am reporting to you. Also, this user has been blocked twice before in violation of the 3RR.

Here are a list of times he posted unacceptable messages to me and another user without posting his username in one message he admits to it:

• 01:22, 6 January 2007 - unsigned
• 20:58, 9 January 2007 - unsigned
• 21:08, 9 January 2007 - unsigned
• 21:54, 14 January 2007 - unsigned
• 22:06, 22 January 2007 - unsigned
• 00:53, 22 January 2007

Also, below is a list of times this user has engaged in personal attacks towards me. He is making me feel uncomfortable on Misplaced Pages by assuming what ethnic background I am in his personal attacks and name calling. Also, referring to me as a “boy”. He is also making personal attacks towards me and worse attacks in Tamil on another user’s talk page.

• 21:51, 8 January 2007
• 21:08, 9 January 2007
• 22:06, 22 January 2007
• 00:53, 22 January 2007
• 21:11, 23 January 2007
• 22:34, 25 January 2007

User Asian2duracell has had a previous history of racially motivated attacks on other users listed below.

• 7 October 2006 - unsigned
• 17:44, 9 October 2006 - unsigned
• 18:08, 9 October 2006 - unsigned
• 18:10, 9 October 2006 - unsigned
• 18:11, 9 October 2006 - unsigned
• 19:12, 9 October 2006 - unsigned

This user also has a history of not posting his name in other messages below:

• 22:06, 15 October 2006 - unsigned
• 20:18, 1 December 2006 - unsigned

What would you like to change about that?

User Asian2duracell has failed in the past to listen to the several polite warnings. He has also been blocked on 10:04, 10 January 2007 by admin for vandalism and a 3RR violation. This user needs to be blocked from further editing. It seems that he does not take advise and warnings seriously and is adamant on his POVs and forcing them down people's throats, thus making Misplaced Pages his propoganda machine. Instead of contributing to these pages, he engages in racially motivated personal attacks, foul language, and constant sock puppeting. He is not participating in legitimate problem solving debate with other users, but attacks. Furthermore, most of his posts often contradict each other. Therefore, with all these put together, it shows that he is involved in trolling.

• 23:35, 8 January 2007
• 03:19, 9 January 2007
• 22:52, 8 January 2007
• 01:44, 25 January 2007

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

Yes. I would prefer if you work discreetly, since the last time I reported Asian2duracell for his unruly behavior, he sent me a couple of threatening message on the following dates:

• 00:53, 22 January 2007
• 01:40, 22 January 2007

With Asian2duracells strong POVs he insists in continuous reversions and deletions from the Tamil people, Dravidian people, and Black people pages. When engaged in polite debateable discussion, he resorts to insults, foul language, and racially motivated slurs. When warned, he accuses and rebukes me. When he is reported, he sends threatening messages to our talk pages. During all these, he continues with his vandalism and trolling of these three pages. Asian2duracel has proven himself to be a troll, sockpuppet, and a vandal. All of these to which constitute to being a trouble maker and a hinderance to further editing and contributions made by other users to Misplaced Pages.

Comment by Chacor

This request follows a highly unorthodox format. WP:RFAR isn't WP:RFM. – Chacor 01:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

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

• Decline. Too much missing. --jpgordon 17:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Decline for now as well. Please also make sure to include diffs demonstrating that all parties have been notified. Also note that this isn't the MedCab, which seems to be where the format of this request is copied from. (Note: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Case filed against Asian2duracell should either be moved, deleted, or merged with this case, if accepted, when appropriate.) Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The Indian Institute of Planning and Management

Initiated by User:Makrandjoshi at 03:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• iipmstudent9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Makrandjoshi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The Indian Institute of Planning and Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Iipmstudent9

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Iipmstudent9

Statement by User:Makrandjoshi

IIPM is an unaccredited educational institution in India with several dodgy points. User:iipmstudent9 has been whitewashing the page, deleting text without citing valid wiki policy. Several validly cited pieces of information have been deleted. Currently the biggest point of contention is user insisting on deleting the word "unaccredited" from the introductory line, though the institute being unaccredited is a cited encyclopaedic fact admitted by the institute in its own ads. Justification given by user for deleting the word is pure original research. Justification for other deletions also do not cite wiki polci and all edits show blatant disregard for NPOV policy. The user has been given warnings, and was also invited to join an RFM which the user refused to sign. Continuing deletions without valid wiki policy means the user's behavior borders on vandalism. Request you to block the user from editing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Makrandjoshi (talk • contribs)

Statement by {party 2}

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/0/0)

• Decline as premature; please try one of the preliminary methods of dispute resolution first. Kirill Lokshin 19:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Decline per Kirill. Paul August ☎ 22:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Decline per Kirill, yes. James F. (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Decline. Premature. --jpgordon 23:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Decline. Premature. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Decline per Kirill as well. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Requests for clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process. Place new requests at the top.

Request for clarification on undeleted Marsden-Donnelly harassment case

Marsden-Donnelly harassment case has been undeleted after a DRV here. Rachel Marsden remains a stub. Given that the Arbcom found regarding the Rachel Marsden articles that it was "Better nothing than a hatchet job" and that the interpretation of WP:BLP which resulted in the previous state of affairs was "liberal" to the point that two named editors were "expected to conform to WP:BLP rather than the liberal interpretation they have applied", does the Arbcom consider it acceptable due weight that we have over 1,000 words on an incident involving Rachel Marsden before she achieved personal notability as a journalist and commentator (with a further 1,000 words on the incident cut after restoration but remaining in the history to be put back in at any time), and less than 200 words on the rest of her life? --Sam Blanning 15:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• I second this. It disturbs me that the coverage of this case is almost exclusively sensationalist rather than scholarly. It's not a test case, and if it weren't for the political agenda of attacking the subject it would possibly merit a short paragraph in a generic article on university administration procedures. Guy (Help!) 16:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• I disagree with the framing in the question, which starts from the assumption that this controversy is primarily an incident in RM's life. Our regular editors of Canadian topics seem to be of a clear consensus that the notability of the controversy is independent of what later happend in RM's life, and it would be notable even if she had vanished from the public eye thereafter. Some have, though I don't opine on whether the group would agree, even gone so far as to describe RM as a figure of dubious independent notability in a controverst on unquestionable notability, and thus would frame the question more in the form "Is it worth having a stub on a figure of no great notability if it prevents coverage of an indicident that of unquestionable notability." My personal opinion is that both framings are important ways to look at the question, and neither framing is correct in the absence of the other. GRBerry 01:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • GRBerry's comment is a good one, and it explains much of the feeling I had that I am not only in a different country from the other camp, but in another universe as well. The "correct" framing should be evaluated in terms of, "How would an ordinary reader, who knows nothing about Misplaced Pages contributors or Misplaced Pages politics, see this?" My opinion from the beginning has been that an ordinary reader would not see one article as a sub-article or fork of the other. Kla'quot 20:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with Sam and Guy, and I'm concerned that GRBerry overrode the deletion review, in which most of those commenting wanted to keep the article deleted. SlimVirgin 10:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• I missed the vote, so let me support Sam's sentiment here. ←Humus sapiens 10:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

  The DRV close included relisting at AFD. If deleting is clearly correct, why is nobody bothering to contribute to the AFD? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GRBerry (talk • contribs)

• Clearly, some sort of clarification is needed. However, if people on different sides of this ask questions separately, they are likely to be loaded ones. Perhaps one of the ArbCom members or one of the more experienced MedCab mediators who has not participated in the ongoing conflict over Misplaced Pages's coverage of Rachel Marsden could work with each side to develop a short list of questions to be posed to ArbCom. The two sides seem to have different interpretations of how to apply the remedies in its decision. I don't think it's fair to say GRBerry "overrode" deletion review. Endorse or overturn requires consensus, not merely a majority. The most that could be said is that he should have waited the full ten days before sending to AfD, although it's doubtful that we could have attained consensus even after that amount of time. JChap2007 18:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Wheel warring

GRBerry made it clear in his closing that "Anyone who has previously undeleted or speedy deleted and repeats that action is warned that this could be considered a wheel war." SlimVirgin has since deleted Simon Fraser University 1997 harassment controversy, after it was already in AfD. Please comment on this action. Kla'quot 20:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC

I believe (see my talk page for SV's explanation), that this was an honest mistake. It is unfortunate that trialsanderrors fixed it instead of having SV do so, as that means there are now two admins that have repeated an action. But this is something that I believe should not go any further, just a mistake. GRBerry 22:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I am less concerned about the wheel-warring than about deleting an article in the middle of an AfD. I think that that needs to be explained.Kla'quot 22:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Would this biographical stub be associated with depleted uranium?

I am prohibited from editing articles "associated" with depleted uranium, but what is and is not associated has never been defined. This has caused some difficulty, but not so much as to be insurmountable. For example, an arbitration clerk has claimed that Gulf War syndrome is associated with DU, while my erstwhile arbitration opponents insist that there is no such association.

I would like to create the following biographical stub:

John Taschner is a member of the technical staff in the Environment, Safety and Health Division of Los Alamos National Laboratory where he is involved in radiological transportation accident exercise planning. Prior to coming to Los Alamos, Taschner was Deputy Director of the US Navy's Radiological Controls Program Office in Washington, DC, and has held numerous key health physics management positions with the US Navy and Air Force. Since the 1970s, Taschner has served on several radiation protection standards committees. Since 1992, Taschner has been the Vice Chairman of the American National Standards Institute's N43 Committee, which writes radiation safety standards for non-medical radiation producing equipment. In the 1980s, Taschner received an award from the US Navy for convincing them to use tungsten instead of depleted uranium munitions in the Phalanx CIWS ship defense system. Taschner has been a member of the Health Physics Society since 1958 and is a member of the American Academy of Health Physics. Taschner earned his M.S. in radiation biophysics from the University of Kansas in 1966 and, in 1973, received his certification in Health Physics by the American Board of Health Physics.

My inclination is that Taschner's association with depleted uranium is not strong enough to consider his biography "associated" with DU. I respectfully request clarification from the arbitrators concerning their opinion on this question. In the event that the biography is considered associated with depleted uranium, I would request suggestions for how I should submit this request to other editors (because a non-existant article doesn't have a talk page.) If no comments are forthcomming within seven days, I will create the biographical article in the interest of making a comprehensive and accurate encyclopedia. James S. 19:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

And in comes the camels nose! Non notable biography and would not survive a Vfd as his name only brings up 79 hits in google Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Taschner easily satisfies Misplaced Pages:Notability (people) because he has made widely recognized contributions that are part of the enduring historical record in his field, and has received multiple independent awards for his work, as TDC's Google hits show (and is even more clear if you include his middle initial.) James S. 19:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification regarding Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University edit bombing

This concerns an article under probabion in accordance with an arb com ruling of 12 Jan 2007 .

Some intense editing took place between 28 January 2007 and 29 January 2007. Most of the edits were made by user Some_people (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has now been banned on the grounds of being most likely a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of user banned 195.82.106.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). During these 11 hours a total of about 50 edits took place about 28 of which were by user Some People. Up until that time some of us had been reverting edits by Some_People since we were quite sure that this was a sockpuppet due to the highly distinctive disruptive style, POV and bias, frequency and taunting edit comments.

During this burst of activity another editor, known to have similar views to 244, joined in the editing although perhaps not intentionally to cause trouble, TalkAbout (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), also Andries (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and one other editor who seems to be just spellchecking, Chris_the_speller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). User Riveros11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted the article 00:24 and 01:06 . Unfortunately, at this time more than Some People's contribution got reverted. The result of this was a stern warning by Thatcher131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that this was unacceptable . The outcome of the thread is what I would like some clarification on . If I am reading what Thatcher131 is saying correctly then this is how it seems to me,

• An editor may revert edits made by a sockpuppet of a banned editor,
• A valid edit by a non-banned editor may not be reverted even if it is on top of disruptive edits from a banned user,
• A non-banned editor can include content from the banned editor if it meets Misplaced Pages's content requirements etc.

To me, this exposes a serious loophole. It seems that it is now possible for a banned user to hijack an article overnight by making a bunch of edits through an anonymous proxy and if another editor drops by and adds to it then it is signed, sealed and there is not a darn thing any other editor can do to revert it any more. This is particularly a problem given the nature of 244's edits that Thatcher131 has accurately described in the thread linked to above. I am seriously concerned that we will see the same pattern of behaviour again unless there is some way we can prevent it. Suffice to say, the events of the last 24 hours have caused some grave concern amongst the "pro" editors. We are now looking at a seriously unbalanced article and to try and separate out the valid editor's contributions from Some People's is going to be a mammoth task, if that is what we are expected to do.

I suggest that it sends a bad signal if what appears to be a banned user showing complete indifference to the arb com ruling is allowed to "get away with it" in such a blatent way. I await some clear advice on how to deal with this problem should it arise in future.

Thanks and regards, Bksimonb 20:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to bring to your attention this link as well and the fact that the current article is a version of user "Some people" plus TalkAbout. User Andries had a minor participation in it. I have requested the article to be reverted to 17:30 Jan 28 2007 by Riveros11. I made this request to the current admin, Thatcher131 who so far is the only one who appers to handle/postpone our requests. Best, avyakt7 21:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not on, or anywhere near, the ArbCom, but a couple of observations. First of all, what's stopping you from going through the new edits and deciding what to keep and what to toss on the merits of the individual edits? Which exact words may or may not have originated from a banned user is clearly secondary to this. Secondly, if you have good reason to believe that an article-banned user is in fact orchestrating all this, then all legalism aside they're behaving badly and can be treated accordingly; if you need a hand, go to WP:AN/I or WP:AE depending on the seriousness of the problem and call in an admin. Following policy to the letter is not what's important. It's worth pointing out in connection with this that gaming the system - i.e. not quite violating a Misplaced Pages policy as written, or generally using the letter of the rules to subvert their spirit - is itself a violation of Misplaced Pages policy. PurplePlatypus 09:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest and pointing out the more appropriate places to post. I had a feeling I may have been posting in the wrong place but couldn't at the time find anywhere better. I thought at the time it was a "clarification" issue rather than a "noticeboard" issue since an admin was at the scene. I just couldn't at the time make sense of how things were panning out.

Not sure if the bit about "Wikilawyering" was directed at me or Avyakt7 but I appologise if I caused that impression. This was not intentional.

Please understand that an individual incident by itself may appear trivial when in fact it is just a tip of the iceberg to a long-running issue that may not be immediately obvious to those outside. Editors do get banned for good reason.

Since my original post above Thatcher131 has clarified things further on the article Talk page and I am now reasonably satisfied we know what to do the next time such an incident takes place, as it certainly will if recent events are anything to go by.

Thanks & regards Bksimonb 20:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification regarding Robert Prechter (and Socionomics)

Socionomics is one of the articles at issue in this Arbitration. On January 27, it was listed as being considered for deletion. I've been a contributor to the Socionomics article, though not in the period since the Committee agreed to hear this case; the other editor in this Arbitration dispute and I have both observed an unspoken "cease-fire." I do not want to break that cease-fire.

The RfD has raised issues that edits to the article could address, but I have gone no further than to make my case to "Keep." Nevertheless, the editors who have voted "Delete" seem aggressively eager to proceed, despite knowing that Socionomics is part of this Arbitration. I would greatly appreciate guidance from the Committee regarding these issues. Thank you. --Rgfolsom 16:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this is an offshoot of the problems caused by my 3 week Christmas vacation interupting the arbitration on Robert Prechter. It seems that User:Rgfolsom and myself are done putting in all our evidence, etc. on the Robert Prechter arbitration. I'd think it better if the ArbCom decided the issue as a whole, rather than have have socionomics deleted right away. I don't of course argue with editors rights to delete socionomics. Smallbones 18:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the Request for deletion can run its course without affecting the arbitration. Fred Bauder 06:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification regarding Naming Conventions consensus finding

Should existing guidelines, such as those presented in the Manual of Style, be treated as a community consensus until and unless consensus is established to change them? Seraphimblade 11:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, anything that matches established community practice and is relatively uncontroversial can be assumed to enjoy a community consensus, regardless of where it happens to be written down. I would be wary, however, of extending that to those points in the MoS that don't match actual community practice (and there are a few, usually on the more obscure MoS pages) unless there has been an explicit consensus that they be adopted. Kirill Lokshin 13:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

In this case, what brought the question on was a section in Misplaced Pages:Manual of style (dates and numbers) on binary prefixes. This section states that the use of XiB prefixes (such as MiB) should be used rather than notation such as megabyte where the binary representation is more accurate. This guideline was adopted by consensus some time ago, but recently was disputed after a newer editor attempted to actually make the recommended changes, and those changes were reverted (in many cases while being called "vandalism".) The dispute has not reached the level of a consensus to change the guideline. Are there any recommendations for such a situation? Seraphimblade 13:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, given that the MoS doesn't appear to correspond to what article editors are actually doing in practice, it's somewhat questionable whether it (still) enjoys consensus in this case. I would suggest starting a (widely publicized—try leaving notes with the relevant WikiProjects, and on the talk pages of some prominent articles) discussion with the intent of figuring out what the MoS should say on the topic (rather than the somewhat narrower yes/no question of whether what it currently says is correct). Kirill Lokshin 13:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Thank you for your help. Seraphimblade 13:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification on James Randi and Sathya Sai Baba

User:Andries posted a note to Talk:James Randi demanding that the link to James Randi's webpage be removed from the article. Given the threat of banning in the post, I'd like the arbitrators to make clear their opinion on this.--Prosfilaes 13:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

My request for an indefinite ban was sarcastic. I think and hope that this case will be decided too in the pending case Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2/Proposed_decision. Andries 20:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

In context, I agree it's clear that that was not a serious proposal or interpretation. Newyorkbrad 20:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The point at issue here is whether Andries' interpretation is correct or incorrect. As I understand it, his interpretation is that no site which contains any poorly -sourced criticism of Sathya Sai Baba may be linked to by any article, regardless of the subject of the article. This means, for example, that because a former British Member of Parliament wrote an Early Day Motion criticising Sathya Sai Baba in 2002, and this motion remains on the website of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, that linking to http://www.parliament.uk is not allowed by any article – whether or not that article has any connection to the Early Day Motion or the MP concerned.

I can't believe that this interpretation is accurate, because of its immensely far-reaching implications. The alternative interpretation is that the remedy only applies where the article contains some assertion related to Sathya Sai Baba, and that seems to be what was intended. Sam Blacketer 22:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not have any interpretation, because I have become thoroughly confused about what is allowed and not. Andries 22:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The threat and this request verge on disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point. This remedy applies to "article or on a talk page regarding Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him." The remedy has been extended to Robert Priddy because Priddy's entire reason for importance, according to you, is that he is a critic of Sai Baba. He controls 4 web sites, one of which is appropriate for inclusion in his biography and 3 of which are not, because they deal exclusively with criticism of Sai Baba that is based on personal experience and non-reliable sources. You are in danger of being banned from these articles because you did not change your behavior after getting amnesty in the first arbitration case against you, by edit warring over the inclusion of the negative links. James Randi is not affiliated with Sai Baba or his organization, nor does his fame rest on being a notable Sai Baba critic. Therefore, the fact that you can find two pages of criticism on his website is entirely irrelevant. Thatcher131 23:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the prompt clarification. I did not edit war on the entry James Randi. So a relevant link to a website with poorly sourced critical information about Sathya Sai Baba is fine as long the entry does not mention Sathya Sai Baba? Andries

Following Thatcher131's way of reasoning, the links to the websites of Basava Premanand (the famous opponent of Sathya Sai Baba) are forbidden too, just like in the case of Robert Priddy. Or am I mistaken? Andries

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)

Archives

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests (extremely sparse, selective, and unofficial)

• Misplaced Pages arbitration
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution
• Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee