Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:12, 18 March 2007 view sourceFloNight (talk | contribs)Administrators20,015 edits reject← Previous edit Revision as of 23:14, 18 March 2007 view source FloNight (talk | contribs)Administrators20,015 edits Remove as rejected after discussion on mailing listNext edit →
Line 302: Line 302:
---- ----


=== Request to review indefinite block of ] ===
:Initiated by ] at 03:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


==== Involved parties ====
*{{userlinks|BabyDweezil}}
*{{userlinks|SlimVirgin}}
*{{userlinks|Cberlet}}
*{{userlinks|Smeelgova}}

; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

*SlimVirgin
*CBerlet
*Smeelgova

; Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried:
*This is the community review of the ban . ] <sup>]</sup> / <sub>]</sub> 03:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

==== Statement by ] (revised) ====
I am requesting a review and relief from the current indefinite ban I have been put under and an examination of the activities of the involved parties named here—in particular ] and ]—in bringing this ban to pass.
I have recently returned from a one week block, stemming from edit wars that took place in articles related to Scientology.] I had edited articles rife with ],], ] etc issues, but came up against intransigent edit warriors and reverters, most notably, ] (some examples here]here]/ ], here]/ ], here], here] (resolved here] after I posted to BLP board).
I (& some others) felt the penalties were less than fair; I accepted them and returned to editing resolved to not allow myself to be provoked into 3RR violations and the like. However, in response to a single posting of mine,] inresponse to a personally abusive noticeboard posting by ], ] silenced me with a block, and then instituted an indefinite block proceeding] that effectively retried me for the issues already ruled on, ''based solely on a single response to a personal attack'' by ], all of which I was effectively blocked from responding to.

From about September 2006 through this January, Chip Berlet, Dennis King and myself were heavily, and often contentiously involved in editing the ] entry, for which I had requested a peer review] as well as informal arbitration. ] became involved in the course of my providing balance, and dozens of reliable sources to the article, and began inserting claims from his own work, forcing into the article as many variations of his demonstrably minority POV “cult” claims. I endured months of unrelenting personal attacks from Chip, who regularly referred to me as a "cult apologist," "totalitarian Orwellian sanitizer" and the like. I basically pleaded with ], who had intervened in defense of ] (and admitted at the time that she knew nothing of the issues and Berlet's characterization of my being a "cult editor") to provide me relief from ]'s incessant, unrelenting cult baiting and abuse.]. She would not help, and continued, and continues to enable these attacks while penalizing responses to them, and apparently still accepts Berlet's cult baiting as fact, rather than personal attacks based on his hostile POV. I note also that the ] article currently contains SIXTEEN paragraphs directly referencing Berlet’s claims and THIRTY-ONE paragraphs relating to the charges in general; my contribution has been largely to provide balance to this flood of largely fringe criticism. Yet ] claims that somehow my editing of articles such as ] has left them wildly unbalanced and uncritical.<br />
Late in February, ] created the article ], about a 1987 Berlet pamphlet attacking Nwman, Lenora Fulani, et al as “totalitarian cultists.” I began editing that article, which had some serious errors (including characterizing the report as a “book.” ] immediately began , and falsely accusing me of from sources I supplied etc. Berlet then entered, accusing me of “incompetent research” (my publication dates for this obscure publication were reversed and I missed that a journal version dated Sept/Oct 1987 was not mailed until Nov 1988). ] then filed a complaint on the COI noticeboard (referenced above), calling for my banning, without notifying me (though quietly notifying ]), and referring to me (yet again) as an “uncritical supporter” of a “political cult.” ] began the proceedings that quickly resulted in my indefinite ban, arrived at in a discussion I was unable to respond to due to the ban, amounting to a “piling on” while I was silenced. ] began burying material from the Talk Page of the article directly relevant to my case, relenting only after an admin’s intervention.

I do regret the intemperate characterization of Berlet as a “paid propagandist” (rather than ““paid writer”) for the politically partisan publishers of his report). I apologize for my strong tone (provoked as I was by the notice, the circumstances of its posting, and the perceived attacks on myself that I was in it). I do not think my response has warranted such a strong penalty, and likewise, I feel that rehashing all the previous issues (for which penaties were served) is unfair. Thank you for your attention. ] 20:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

;Replies by ] to ] moved
*], please indicate where in my "tirade" I violated ]. You are the main editor showering admins and user pages with that accusation against me; now is your chance to elaborate in an open forum. ] 04:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
*Thank you, ], I'll take your refusal to respond to my request that you elaborate in this forum on your charge that I violated ] in my arbitration request to simply be just another of your string of similar charges against me, which upon examination always turn out to be frivolous. ] 04:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
*], with regards to my arbitration request, you claim above that'''"in the above tirade the user continues to violate ]"'''. I've asked you repeatedly to indicate how. You refuse. Please note, your ongoing habit of making serially false complaints against me—which are no small factor in the penalties I have suffered—is why I included you in the arbitration, so that the committee can get a first hand look at how you operate and your incessant attempts at poisoning attitudes towards particular fellow editors, basically because they ''disagree'' with you and have corrected some of your errors. ] 15:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
*No, ], I asked you to provide a basis for your statement above ''"in the above tirade the user continues to violate ]"'' You are the one "turning this into a point-counterpoint," by refusing to provide that basis. I'm suggesting you don't have one, and thus, once again, (and as you have been doing for weeks all over Misplaced Pages) you have falsely accused me of violating ]. ] 15:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


;Reply by BabyDweezil to Milo
Since ], in discussing our "debates" (sic) neglected to supply the relevant DIFF in his clinical assessment of me above, . Apparently my supplying a brief clarification of a source's use of a neologism (taken directly from the source) is indicative of my pathology, as outlined by Dr Milo above. And I belated realize that my edit (obviously a product of a disturbed mind) contradicts ]'s own on psychology and cults, and i thank Dr Milo for helping me appreciate the error of my ways in ever questioning the apparently world renowned and respected clinical tool as a reliable source (my bad). I'll leave it to the Misplaced Pages Psychiatry Department to assess the rest of Dr Milo's clinical recommendations and "insights", since that is all outside my expertise. ] 17:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

:<small>{Milo has unthreaded his reply}</small>

;Final reply by BabyDweezil to Milo

Milo, I would be less than honest and forthright if I was to claim that I have the vaguest clue about what you're going on about in your statements and replies here. I thought I did, possibly, on your first go-round, but now I see I was mistaken. But thanks for weighing in. ] 19:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


;Reply by BabyDweezil to Tsnunami Butler
'''Addition by BabyDweezil.''' ] has declared himself victorious with my demise and the new King of these articles In ] continued his six month long and somewhat eerie imaginary conversation with ] on various talk pages (which he also imagines on as well, using the monkier "Wordsmith," and from which he incited a wave of vandals to hop onto Misplaced Pages) is now on one of his periodic scorched earth editing and personal attack and ] runs (which, like Chip Berlet's, are allowed to go unchecked). Some recent documentation . ] 14:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


;Reply by BabyDweezil to Anynobody
], thank you for posting those links, which I would be happy if ] members took the time to peruse, not simply as examples of "typical behavior by ]" but as an example of some "typical behavior" by the group of editors who guard that spiteful vengeful article--which exists only to have Misplaced Pages serve not as an encyclopedia but as an extension for some trivial Usenet madness--like hawks. ] 23:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

==== Statement by ] ====
BabyDweezil seems to be a follower of ], a Marxist psychotherapist who founded the ] and ], and who was briefly involved with ]. A 1987 report by ] referred to Newman's therapeutic methods as "totalitarian cultism" (Berlet, Chip. from '']'', ''Public Eye'', Political Research Associates, 1987).

In her support of Newman, BabyD has engaged in violations of ] and ], frequent personal attacks, withering sarcasm, and allegations that other editors are spies and propagandists, or that admins who don't agree with her are corrupt and vindictive. The result is that talk pages she posts on become toxic and practically useless.

I first encountered her on October 8, 2006, when I was asked to look at ] because of an edit war between BabyD, Chip Berlet, and some others, which seemed to be caused by Baby adding her own opinions. I , and (material unfair to Newman) because I felt there were a few in the lead and I wasn't happy protecting that version. . BabyD . The whole discussion is ]. I unprotected on October 12 to allow the BLP issues to be fixed. I next encountered BabyD on November 1, 2006 on the same page when she inserted a poorly sourced claim about a living critic of Newman's. I removed the claim and protected the page after she and another account restored it. I unprotected on November 3 when BabyD assured me she wouldn't restore it, although she continued to do so, and I had to threaten her with a block before she stopped.

That was the last direct contact I had with BabyD, but I could see from her interactions with other admins that she continued to cause trouble and was for 3RR, edit warring, or personal attacks, often responding by accusing admins of acting vindictively against her, for example . On February 16, BabyD posted ] (I can't get this link to go directly to the section; it's item six) to which almost everyone who responded pointed out that it was BabyD herself who was the problem. BabyD responded with , and comments such as A few days later, Bishonen , later reduced to one week, noting that BabyD spends her time "skilfully balancing on the very verge of being blocked for edit warring, for personal attacks, for disruption ... I'm very sure that the sum total of his/her impact on wikipedia is negative: that the poisoning of the atmosphere of talkpages, and the disturbance, annoyance, and sheer waste of time of other editors amply outweigh any good edits that may be hiding in some corner where I haven't looked."

Finally, on March 4, I saw of BabyD's accusing one editor of being a "paid propagandist" and "paid partisan," and that editor and another of being "spooks." I decided to block her indefinitely because further warnings and temporary blocks were unlikely to make any difference. Her predictable response was that the and that her "paid propagandist" allegation had been I posted the block for review on ] and it was ]. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 20:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

==== Statement by ] ====
*'''Uphold Community Ban''' I recognize that Arbcom has authority to review this decision, but feel that the ban was proper and issued only after repeated violations. I urge Arbcom to uphold the community ban.--] 18:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


==== Statement by ] ====
*'''Uphold Community Ban''' - All that I would say has already been said. Even in the above tirade the user continues to violate ]. For more information, see: ], ], and ]. The user is incorrect about what he perceives as "piling on." ], only a highly disruptive user, and other concerned/frustrated editors/administrators who have given him many chances. ] 04:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

**I have said all that is needed to say in this space. I think it is fairly obvious, and if not, more info is better seen by examining the links I gave above. ] 04:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
**That is not the case. I have simply taken the tack that I do not wish to get into a hurtful back and forth with you, which in some cases in interaction with other editors has just brought on more personal attacks. I prefer to let your past history and links above speak for themselves. ] 13:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
**And this is ''exactly'' why I did not want to get into this here. You are turning this into a point-counterpoint, back and forth match of some sort, that I simply do not wish to be a party to. Other users have already commented on your style of personal attacks. Your other inappropriate behaviour is self-evident in the links provided and your history of blocks, as noted by others. And your personal attacks are not limited to myself, but to many of the other editors you encounter, and have been noted by them as such. ] 15:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
**I was not referring to myself in particular, simply your style of personal attacks all over the place. "intransigent edit warriors and reverters", your allegations about Chip: "battle into the article", your incorrect statements saying I had " falsely accusing me of inventing quotes", when all I was asking for was a correct citation, for a quote that did not exist in a source you provided, your allegations and interpretations of "piling on", and even your weak weak apology of using the term "paid propagandist", in which ''directly'' afterwards you state "an overly pejorative reference to his 25 year employment with the politically partisan publishers of his report", defending your reasoning of ''why'' you said that in the first place! Not to mention claiming that your reference to him as a "spook" was "benign and respectful". It seems that after virtually every "apology" you give, you act ever so more defensive: "I apologize for my strong tone (provoked as I was by the notice, the circumstances of its posting, and the perceived attacks on myself that I was in it)." You seem to only be able to communicate with others ''through'' using personal attacks and harsh language and tone. This is unprofessional, inappropriate, and disruptive. And that is putting it politely. ] 16:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
*]'s statement Attacks 2 editors and 2 Administrators with baseless accusations. I think its ridiculousness speaks for itself. ] 00:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

==== Comment by Cyde Weys ====
The ArbCom cannot get involved here. BabyDweezil has already been banned by the community at large, which is a stronger ban than even the ArbCom can administer. It is not within the ArbCom's jurisdiction to so go against the will of the community on this one. --] 14:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
:We have jurisdiction. Whether it would be wise to exercise it is another matter. ] 15:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

==== Comment by Tsunami Butler ====

Although I think that it is probably true that BabyDweezil is something of a tendentious editor, some of the tactics she describes as being employed by her opponents deserve scrutiny by the ArbCom. I have seen the same disturbing pattern at other articles: Dking and Cberlet attempting to dominate article content through excessive self-citing, then moving to a tactic of speculating about the motives of editors who raise objections (in violation of AGF and NPA,) and finally calling upon SlimVirgin to ban their opponents. At the very least, Dking and Cberlet should be warned against further personal attacks, and SlimVirgin should be asked to recuse herself from using admin powers in content disputes initiated by Dking and Cberlet. She is clearly not acting as a neutral administrator in these situations. --] 15:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

:Note that since March 3, ] has asserted ownership over the article ], deleting substantial portions of the article () and engaging in a round of vicious personal attacks . There is a similar pattern at other articles formerly edited by BabyDweezil, such as ] (.) I think that it is worth investigating whether the banning of BabyDweezil was a partisan action designed to facilitate such behavior. --] 14:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

==== Statement by ] ====

It is my understanding that community banned editors may appeal their ban to ArbCom. Indeed, it would be troubling if such appeal were not possible. As one of the three primary coauthors of the ] guideline I'll affirm that BabyDweezil's block history is consistent with the profile of a disruptive editor and with past commuity bans. The discussion and closure were consistent with the guideline's present wording. My only involvement with this proposed case was at the ban discussion.

BabyDweezil does raise some interesting points that were not anticipated during the guideline's draft proposal phase. It may be worthwhile to augment either ] or ] with a requirement to notify the editor in question of a ban discussion and provide that editor (if blocked) with some means of response. Community bans are a developing aspect of Misplaced Pages - ] itself is a new noticeboard - and it's reasonable to implement some procedural refinements at this stage.

I leave it to the Committee whether to decide BabyDweezil might reasonably have expected any other outcome than sitebanning and whether community ban procedures should be refined by the community or via arbitration. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 18:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
:To elaborate, this ban discussion had a normal number of participants for a community ban. BabyDweezil professes a desire for specific notification and an opportunity to comment. This proposed arbitration may merit a hearing on that basis although I have also provided the editor a community-based option for resolving this concern: shortly before the editor was unblocked for the purpose of appealing to ArbCom I offered to accept a statement via e-mail and to reopen the community discussion on that basis. BabyDweezil did not make use of my offer. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 03:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
::Yes, ], and the offer is appreciated; however, as explained above, I'm questioning the whole manner which brought about my being brought before the community at all this time around, and the behavior of those responsible for the bringing it about--issues that would not be addressed simply by reopening the community discussion (especially with the amount of well-poisoning that has transpired as a result of my participation and opportunity for response being denied). And a "normal number of participants" msy have weighed in, but a number of those were editors not disclosing their previous involvement, while others simply noted the block log history, with no sense of the level of hostility and concerted and coordinated edit warring, provocations, and hostility I often came up against when editing Scientology-related artciles in particular. ] 04:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
:::It's easier for the arbitrators if you reply in your own section, BabyDweezil. Please strikethrough or add supplements rather than remove and alter text that I've already responded to. I strongly suggest you seek a mentor at ].

:::Between mid-November and the community ban proposal this editor received eight blocks from six different administrators. It is highly unlikely that this type of block history would result from a few isolated incidents or administrative misjudgement. Both common sense and precedent make sitebanning a reasonable possibility under those circumstances. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 14:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
::::BabyDweezil has contacted me to explain that an ArbCom member had advised this editor to proceed solely with RFAR. In that case I understand the decision to open a request here. I don't know the reasons behind that and respectfully request to be advised (via e-mail if appropriate) whether it would be better for me to terminate my community-based alternative offer. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 21:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::BabyDweezil followed my recommendation to join ] and is in discussion with a potential mentor. I don't know whether this would bear on the Committee's decision to hear the case, but in my experience editors who swiftly take up on the idea of formal mentorship have a better success rate at overcoming their onsite problems. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 02:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

==== Statement by Thatcher131 ====
I am recusing from clerking this case due to a previous disagreement with Cberlet over whether or not to take action against another editor who he was in a dispute with. I would like the Committee to look into Berlet's role in this case. He is named in the article {{la|Fred Newman}} several times as a "prominent critic", and his publication {{la|Clouds Blur the Rainbow}} (about Newman) is cited as a source. Cberlet has extensively edited both articles. Obviously he knows a lot about both subjects. However, when does an obvious conflict of interest such as this cross the line into doing more harm than good? ] 21:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

==== Statement by ] ====
I met ] while editing the ] article. I first assumed her strong objections were out of concern for Ms. Schwarz's feelings. I have now been forced to the conclusion that this type of behavior may be more common than I thought. For the consideration of the ] members and anyone interested I present these links as typical behavior by ] on the ] page. ]
]
]
]
]
I also feel I should say that an investigation of all editors involved is a great idea. While I personally think any incivility on the part of other editors toward ] is a response to her attitude of the same, I would very much like to know how you feel the community responded to ]. Thank you for your time, ] 22:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

==== Statement by Milo ====
I notice that many of the conflicts with ] (BD) involve BLP passions, in which BD can routinely claim somebody else started it. On the contrary, my debates with BD involved mostly ideas, and I think they reveal more about BD's underlying approach to editing consensus. <br>
I have one speculative insight into why BD might have too many frustrating conflicts with other Misplaced Pages editors. I'm deliberately categorizing it as speculative, so BD can simply deny or ignore it. That way I won't be further burdened with demands for evidence, since I experienced that no amount of evidence is ever enough for BD.
* I experienced BD's refusal to take strongly-evidenced points in a group debate, even when BD's own stated criteria were satisfied. , This consensus-divergent behavior is obvious, but it may be distracting group attention away from a subtle, but no less important issue.
* My insight is that BD's internal dictionary subtly morphs its definitions as necessary to support BD's current need in a debate.
* One operational behavior to reduce future conflict, would be an agreement to look up and use, during dispute, the definitions found in standard dictionaries of North American and British English.
* However, that won't entirely solve the problem, since BD refuses to take even strong debate points, and apparently engages in definitional quibbling to defend the internal dictionary morphs (see the previously linked debate thread).
I offer three reasons why this (speculative) insight might be useful:
# If Arbcom examines all the editors involved, insight into a little-noticed common factor causing conflict may be useful in making a group judgment.
# Should BD ever be allowed to edit Misplaced Pages again, this insight might provide one element of an operational behavior guide (a recipe) for reducing co-editing conflict.
# Despite my expectation of a routine public dismissal, BD can privately consider if this insight is valid, and if it turns out to be so, possibly gain some future conflict-reduction utility from it. That might eventually benefit Misplaced Pages, since BD can otherwise be expected to tell others that Misplaced Pages editors started it.
:] 12:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

;Reply to BabyDweezil

:• "DIFF" is unrelated. Check the dates. Our ''Bonewits' authority'' debate that I described in ''Statement by Milo'', took place circa Feb 7 at ]. The you supplied is Feb 17 at ]. Since ''Vitz list item'' took place 10 days after ''Bonewits' authority'', it couldn't have had any effect on our previous ''Bonewits' '' debate. (Hint: Revealing your logic-defying chronology is, probably, a normal thread-ender. Take the point of chronological invalidation and move on, so you won't make yourself appear to be a tendentious debater.)
:• I suggest that you look up the word "unique". Views are not ''"unique and authoritative"'' merely because you've not heard of them. In any case, if you disagree with content issues that happened months before your arrival, it's not relevant to discussions of your subsequent behavior — which in this case was ok.
:• I have no complaint about your interactions at ''Vitz list item''. I was the third of three editors to revert your ''Vitz'' edit, and you properly accepted that consensus.
:• ]; you're welcome. Hope it helps. ] 08:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


;Reply to Fossa

::• In the statement's second sentence, according to this web page , collected with this one Chip Berlet did refer as stated.
::• For further fact-checking:
::1) Which clause of the first sentence do you question?
::2) Where is your curriculum vitae, a list, or reasonably comprehensive text statement of the non-anonymous credentials you claim "in the field of expertise of cults"? ] 10:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


==== Statement by ] ====
I encountered BabyDweezil besides ] and, may I not so humbly say, myself, as one of the few NPOV editors in the field of cults and sects. He's also quite witty and his edits are fun to read. Of course, these edits run counter conventional wisdom, but they reflect the scientific point of view, which is despised by editors like Smeelgova or Feldspar (yup, a ]). Bishonen and Slimvirgin also fit the anti-cult agenda. You take your pick: Do you prefer the ] over the scientific POV? 00:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

:<small> {moved by the Clerk from Smee's section} </small> <br>
:With reference to smeelgova's complaint, I would attack 2 editors and 2 administrators: (Almost) Guilty as charged: I "attack" Anateus Feldspar, smeelgova, Slimvirgin and Bishonen as POV editors. These are not "baseless" accusations, but stem from my observations of their editing behavior. I have some credentials in real life in the field of expertise of cults, and I do not edit anonymously here. BabyDweezil's edits on the whole reflect social scientific mainstream, the edits of smee et al. reflect anti-cult activism. I know, BabyDweezil can at times be a bit abrasive (just like me), but he does not engage in character slandering in the way SlimVirgin does in below quote. <font color="#ff9900">]</font><tt><sub>]</sub></tt> 01:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

:About SlimVirgin's statement:
<blockquote>
''"BabyDweezil seems to be a follower of Fred Newman, a Marxist psychotherapist who founded the International Workers Party and New Alliance Party, and who was briefly involved with Lyndon LaRouche. A 1987 report by Chip Berlet referred to Newman's therapeutic methods as "totalitarian cultism" (Berlet, Chip. "Institutes for Social Therapy and Totalitarian Cultism" from Clouds Blur the Rainbow, Public Eye, Political Research Associates, 1987)."''
</blockquote>
:Is there any evidence on the truth of this statement? I don't think so. <font color="#ff9900">]</font><tt><sub>]</sub></tt> 20:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

::<small>{Milo has unthreaded his reply}</small>

==== Clerk notes ====
:Per ], the user has been "nblocked to file a request for arbitration. Editing is limited to Requests for arbitration and her own pages. Fred Bauder 18:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)." ] 15:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

:'''Recused.''' ] 21:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

:Talkpage note left for BabyDweezil to please remove threaded discussion and reduce overall statement length promptly. ] 17:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (6/4/1/0) ====
* Accept to review conduct of all editors involved. ] 18:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
* '''Decline.''' The available evidence would suggest that the community has only acted after a saint-like period of forebearance. ] Co., ] 22:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
* Decline, both on principle and on the specifics of the case. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
* Accept to consider length of block and perhaps conflict of interest. ] 05:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
* '''Decline''' for similar reasons to UC. ] (]:]) 23:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
*Accept per Kirill and Fred. ] ] 17:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
*Accept. The ArbCom can properly look at any community ban; but not necessarily as a broad-based case. I don't think a community-banned user has that by right (I mean, to bring a blunderbuss against all admins and others who interacted with them). ] 22:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
*I'm going to recuse because of past involvement with one of the users. ] <small>(])</small> 04:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
* Accept. ] ] 23:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
* Accept. - ] 15:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
* '''Decline'''. ''']''' (]) 23:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
----


== Requests for clarification == == Requests for clarification ==

Revision as of 23:14, 18 March 2007

Weighing scales Arbitration​Committee
Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Misplaced Pages Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

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:

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 10 January 2025

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/How-to

Current requests

Freedom skies

Initiated by JFD at 21:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

Freedom skies has had conflicts with many, many editors other than those listed above and they rightfully ought to be listed as involved parties as well; however, it was prohibitively time-consuming to look up each and every editor with whom Freedom skies has had conflicts.
I may list more involved parties as I learn of them or upon request from an Administrator.
The editors listed above represent Wikipedians from a variety of subjects who have had minimal or no contact with each other, demonstrating just how wide a range of articles Freedom skies has disrupted with his tendentious editing.

We may not receive statements from all listed parties right away. NinaOdell, for example, has not made an edit since January 27. —JFD 05:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Statement by JFD

I am requesting arbitration over the conduct of Freedom skies who, in the course of editing almost exclusively to force his nationalist views on a wide range of articles, has through repeated violations demonstrated his utter contempt for Misplaced Pages policy.

The above diffs are merely a small sample of Freedom skies' violations of Misplaced Pages policy. More will be submitted after this request for arbitration is accepted.

This arbitration has been requested because, despite repeated notifications of Misplaced Pages policy by a number of different editors, involvement in several mediations both formal and informal, as well as multiple blocks, Freedom skies persists in his disruptive conduct.

Statement by DavidCBryant

I first became aware of Freedom Skies' participation in Misplaced Pages when I responded to this RfC from Fowler & fowler. I spent about two hours looking through the article and reviewing the edits both F&f and FS had been making. It was clear to me that Fowler & fowler was documenting his edits quite carefully, and that Freedom Skies wasn't putting much effort into his research. It was also clear that FS was running around Misplaced Pages placing "protect" tags on Indian mathematics and on several closely related articles, reverting F&f's edits indiscriminately, and just generally acting like a jerk at the very time I was composing my comments in response to the RfC. So i wrote my opinion of FS' behavior.

This is the first RfC in which I have participated. After writing my initial comments I read the RfC procedures in more detail, and when F&f asked me to comment again, I tried to concentrate more directly on the content of the various edits to Indian mathematics, and less directly on the spirit in which they were made. I also exchanged a few messages with Freedom Skies, keeping it as cordial as possible. I was left with the strong impression that FS has a big chip on his shoulder, and seems to think that he can just cite a title of a book, plus an Indian author's name, and that's documentation enough for any citation. I could not even verify the existence of many of the references FS had inserted in the article, nor of the authors whose names he used. DavidCBryant 00:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by David Eppstein

Like DavidCBryant, I became aware of this case through the RfC at Talk:Indian mathematics. The editors of that article, and other associated articles, seems to have become factionalized into two groups. On the one hand, some feel that what's in these articles should be limited to known facts about written documents and solid scholarly consensus about the interpretation of those documents, that it's better to err on the side of understatement than overstatement. On the other hand, there seems to be a faction who believe that the article should contain as broad claims for priority on mathematical concepts as can possibly be sourced: if one or two writers can be found to have speculated that some document hints at knowledge of X, then the article should state that X was known at that time, and that it's better to err on the side of overstatement than understatement. I believe Freedom skies to be a member of the latter faction, both from his pattern of edits and from his statements in the RfC.

I include myself on the side who prefer understatement to overstatement (as no doubt comes across in my insufficiently-unbiased description of the two camps above), and feel not only that greater understatement would lead to improvements in this article but also that it is more in the spirit of Misplaced Pages's policies, particularly WP:V and WP:RS. Which is to say, I think some of Freedom skies' edits violate those policies.

However, I'm not convinced that censuring any individual will make much difference in this conflict. Freedom skies appears to be acting in good faith, and is hardly the only one in the overstatement camp.

—David Eppstein 05:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Freedom Skies

I'm on a vacation (and a much needed Wikibreak) and the timing surprises me. I have volumes to say about this but I'll keep it brief. The evidence produced in dispute resolution is incorrect. The Indian mathematics dispute saw me eventually end up in mathematics, outside of the areas of martial arts and Budhhism, to which I generally contribute. I sent a note to all parties involved, explicitely stating that "I have reviewed my future with the Indian mathematics article, and have come to the conclusion that since I am under time constraints and am under such pressure in real life that adequate responses or editing actions on "Indian mathematics" are just not possible for me right now." and pulled out despite the other party asking for a fresh start and explicitely stating "I am happy to work with you on this article". The other editors have not heard or seen from me yet.

The decline of Buddhism medcab case has not been solved due to my actions at all. It has been solved due to the simple reason that User:Tigeroo, another involved party, has been inactive. I bought this to Utcursh's attention and he suggested to wait for some more time. Tigeroo might be taking a wikibreak.".

The dispute resolutions have worked (and hopefully will work). Since the RfC at Indian mathematics I've been careful to not engage in edit wars. One such example is Taxila, where despite having legitimate references I pulled out as the situation may have escalated.

Many regards,

Freedom skies| talk  07:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: Following this message I have shifted my statements of response to Paul B, CiteCop and Rama's Arrow and my statement about the timing from this project page to here. I had already crafted and saved those responses on the project page and thought I'd shift them in case anyone is interested instead of blanking them completely.
Freedom skies| talk  18:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Dbachmann

If Freedomskies has indeed reformed and refrains form edit warring, arbitration may not be necessary now. There is no doubt he is editing in good faith, and that the episode is frustrating for him as well.

But, his behaviour has been so disruptive at times as to fall under blocking policy, no arbitration case required either. Since it is always difficult to block people who disrupt Misplaced Pages "in best faith", it would be useful for the arbcom to give their opinion which incidences would have qualified to be treated as falling under the disruption clause, in the interst of efficiency: nobody has an interest in an endless series of "Indian patriot" arbcom cases, all alike (1, 2, 3) which do nothing but waste dozens of man-hours which should go into writing an encyclopedia. My thoughts on nationalism on Misplaced Pages in general are here. Freedomskies isn't by any meeans an extreme example, he's just one among many many very parallel problems we keep running into. dab (𒁳) 10:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Paul B

I came across Freedom Skies almost by accident when looking at the Zen article. I engaged with him in a very frustrating debate. His edits were a familiar instance of Indian (or rather Hindu) ultra-nationalism of a kind that is to be seen in many Misplaced Pages articles. As Dbachmann says, he is by no means unusual. He sometimes edits in tandem with other individuals who have similar views. I do find his methods of editing and arguing to be extremely problematic, since he will act in a trial-lawyer fashion to squeeze any argument or evidence to fit his pre-conceived point of view. It has been virtually impossible to engage in a reasonable discussion with him. On the Zen article he persistently accused other editors of being part of a "Han cabal", as though the history of Zen were a matter of claiming it for either China or India. He refused a mediation on the grounds that the mediators were likely to be sympathetic to the "Han cabal". Paul B 15:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Djma12

My experience with Freedom Skies stems from the Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts article. Though I was initally frustrated by what seemed to be obstinate and nationalistic edits, he soon became engaging and cooperative when approached in an academic manner. I am happy to state that I have had, and continue to have a fruitful editing relationship with Freedom Skies.

I can understand how some editors may be frustrated. Some of his sources are sub-par, preferring quantity over quality. Furthermore, his wording has a tendency towards NPOV, often stating hypothesis as fact. However, I found this to be generally due to enthusiasm rather than bad intent -- he has been very flexible with me in working out these issues when I point them out.

Freedom Skies is a very passionate and strong-willed editor -- a classic example of a wiki tiger. When approached in a confrontational manner, he responds strongly. However, when approached in a cooperative fashion, he responds cooperatively. Though he can still probably tone down his personal attachement to articles, he is also making active efforts to improve his editing. He would do well to read WP:COOL, perhaps probation at the most, but there is no need to ban an improving editor making good-faith edits.

Djma12 19:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Bakasuprman

My experience with Freedom skies is that he has a good amount of reliable sources that he quotes on the Indian martial arts and Bodhidharma and related articles. This arbcom is a synthesis of his disputes with Chinese users on one type of article and "white" users on the other. There has been relatively little incivility from either side in this issue and this would be a complete waste of arbcom's time. I urge arbcom to reject this proposal.

Noting Paul's Hinduphobic statement above accusing freedom of Hindu nationalism, Freedom skies, AFAIK isn't even Hindu.Bakaman 23:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by CiteCop

The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to produce the highest-quality encyclopedia possible.
Unfortunately, much of Freedom skies' conduct is a direct attack on the credibility and accuracy of Misplaced Pages and, therefore, its value as an encyclopedia, by persistently making false assertions about the content of sources as well as citing questionable sources.

I asked Freedom skies to produce his sources for some claims he had made about ancient Indian scientific discoveries, including the calculation of the Earth's circumference and theories of gravity. I made a good faith effort to verify those citations by reading the cited sources. Not only did the sources he produce not support any of his claims, but the words "circumference" and "gravity" didn't even appear in a single one of the four sources he produced, nor did either of the quotations he attributed to those sources. Not only that, but the four sources he produced were all papers self-published by Subhash Kak who, on the subject of the history of science, is a fringe theorist.

This pattern of misrepresentation and questionable sourcing characterizes many of Freedom skies' edits, including those to Indian mathematics and the entirety of the Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts article. That's not an isolated incident; that's a modus operandi.

When a pattern of behavior is so persistent and so resistant to correction, it becomes increasingly difficult to excuse this as human error or an excess of enthusiaism. Past a certain point, it is simply an insult to editors' intelligence to ask them to continue assuming good faith.

When other editors attempt correct his edits, Freedom skies has been known to react with incivility, personal attacks, or the occasional edit war, typically marked by edit summaries like "removing sourced edits is vandalism" though his citations are misrepresentative and his sources questionable.
For example, he once told This Fire Burns "Actually, I can assert that India's achievements are inherently great. It's a fact, try living with it."
POV, soapboxing, incivility and rejection of consensus have never been captured with such concision. Not to mention peacock language.

Other editors are effectively blackmailed into compromising WP:RS with the threat of disruptive conduct.
That said, when an editor in a conflict with Freedom skies is willing to budge on WP:RS, his treatment of them becomes more civil.
His treatment of editors who insist on high standards for cited sources on the other hand...

The price of a fruitful editing relationship with Freedom skies and editors like him seems to be the credibility and accuracy of citations and, ultimately, the credibility and accuracy of Misplaced Pages.
Is that a price worth paying?

Statement by sbandrews

I only came across user Freedom skies in the indian mathematics RfC. While this user was certainly pushing a particular point of view he responded well to the RfC, was civil - in fact polite - and things quickly calmed down. That said the user was in the middle of exams and so didn't have time to participate fully. Don't we all push our own point of view? I didn't look at all the above difs - some seem rather old - people change. Regards sbandrews (t) 12:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Rama's Arrow

It is distressing for me to see 2 users for whom I have a lot of respect - JFD and Freedom skies - being unable to get along. I think this is where the problem lies. I would urge the committee to accept this case because it is complicated. To quote Sherlock Holmes, the featureless and commonplace crimes are the most difficult. There is no outright trolling, unconscionable personal attacks or brazen disruption. At the same time, the lack of authoritative guidance can lead to the situation worsening. I think this is a great opportunity for arbitrators to "guide" the parties on how to behave, how to treat each other and how to resolve content disputes without causing disruption through personal misconduct.

To be clear, I haven't interacted with Freedom skies over any article for 4-5 months now, but I largely share the opinion expressed by Dbachmann and Sbandrews. Freedom skies had been very boorish and aggressive, but that was 8-10 months ago. His personal conduct has shown steady and increasing improvement. At the same time, I see that it remains very difficult for several users to resolve disputes with him and he does continue editing with an emotional and biased mindset. No doubt, he needs to be sent a strong message. 10 months ago, I might have requested arbitration myself but as Freedom skies has improved his behavior and increased the quality of his edits, I suggest to the arbitrators to please keep that factor in mind. My personal suggestion for a remedy is probation for personal conduct and editing without bias.

Contrary to Dab's view, I think the committee can finish this case relatively fast as several notable precedents exist and if the workshop is kept limited to "constructive" suggestions and not the usual slugfest :) Rama's arrow 13:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Dangerous-Boy

Freedom skies is an excellent editor. There is no need to punish or reprimand him. His citations and research are accurate and he his only dispute nationalist chinese propaganda. JFD routinely changes articles Freedom skies edits to suit his extreme POV. I find it unfair that freedom skies has been subjected to this kind of tirade and it should be removed immediately. It was of time which could be contructively toward make wikipedia a better project. I find unbelievable that JFD has the nerve to bring such an arbitration toward freedom skies when he could be accussed of the same slander himself. Kindly remove this arbitration and let live go on. It is a waste of everyone's time.--D-Boy 19:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Wiki Raja

Freedom skies is very passionate about martial arts and India in general. I'd have to admit, he has edited quite a bit. So far, I have not seen anyone else take such an initiative in maintenance of the Indian martial arts page like him. Over the past several months I have also noticed a change in him after reading his and others posts in the Indian martial arts talk page. Rama's Arrow has also noticed this. I guess this is through after being on Misplaced Pages for a while. Also, sbandrews statement about Freedom skies civility on Indian Mathematics is an example. It is a learning process for all of us. I do agree with Dbachmann that Freedom skies has been editing in good faith. In regards to nationalism, ethnicity, religion, or ideologies, I feel that is the driving fuel for Wikipedians of particular interest just as long as we do not get into conflict with the other party in regards to POV issues. In that case, if there is no way for both parties to agree on a particular issue, then I recommend that POVs from both sides be presented to enhance NPOV and non-biasedness on Misplaced Pages. To be honest, there are much worse editors on Misplaced Pages in which Freedom skies does not come close to. In regards to this matter please let me suggest for both parties to engage in more constructive dialogue instead of arbitration. Wiki Raja 23:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Gouranga(UK)

I have had a somewhat limited amount of interactions with User:Freedom skies. He helped with edits in the Buddha as an Avatar of Vishnu article during a period of POV clean-up here in Nov 2006, and recently in the Yoga article here. In neither instance did I come across any cause to doubt his sincerity or competence as an editor. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 12:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by {party}

Statement by {party}

Statement by {party}

Clerk notes

Talkpage note left requesting Freedom Skies to kindly reduce the length of his statement (including rebuttals). Newyorkbrad 17:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

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

  1. Accept. - SimonP 14:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Accept. Charles Matthews 20:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Accept FloNight 23:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Discordian Works

Initiated by IamthatIam at 05:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

I am. IamthatIam 06:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Shii formerly known as User:Ashibaka has been notified User talk:Shii#Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration

User:Binky The WonderSkull has been notified User talk:Binky The WonderSkull#Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration

I agree with this request. Binky The WonderSkull 15:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Discordian Works (2nd nomination)

Talk:Discordian_Works#Cleanup

Talk:Discordian_Works#Mediation

Talk:Discordian_Works#What is a Discordian Work?

Talk:Discordian_Works#Mediation request

User Talk:Shii#Discordian Works

Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-10_Discordian_Works

Statement by IamthatIam

On 30 January 2007, Sysop/Administrator User:Shii, then called User:Ashibaka, made edits to the article Discordian Works including adding "This, too, is far too serious and self-important to be considered a Discordian belief." These edits were reverted by User:Drjon, who said the comments belonged on a discussion page, not in an article. A few hours after that on 31 January 2007, Ashibaka put the article up for deletion with an AfD. The decision on 6 February 2007 was Keep.

In spite of this, Ashibaka (now Shii) continues to gut the article. Editors IamthatIam (myself), Binky The WonderSkull, Drjon, and others have repeatedly asked Ashibaka to stop doing this, and to stop insulting Misplaced Pages editors. In response, Ashibaka aka Shii threatened to ignore the keep decision and redirect the article (essentially deleting it), by saying "Final warning, if you can't find a reliable source for anything on this page, I will redirect the article to Principia Discordia." (See Talk:Discordian_Works#Mediation request posting on 9 March 2007.)

Ashibaka/Shii was warned that he was close to 3RR by User:Teke on 8 March 2007. To be fair, I received the same warning. But I have, at least, tried to be civil.

Ashibaka/Shii has insulted our research with "I call bullshit on your sources...." Talk:Discordian_Works#Cleanup on 8 February 2007; insulted recognized Discordians with "Can Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter make statements for him about gay rights?" Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-10_Discordian_Works on 11 February 2007; and threatened to delete another article if we continued to disagree with him by saying "And if you say Discordianism encompasses everything, including the crap, then to say something is "Discordian" is a meaningless statement and we should delete the Discordianism article too" in Talk:Discordian_Works#What is a Discordian Work? on 12 February 2007.

Shii aka Ashibaka insulted a prominent Discordian (who took no side in the debate but provided help for us in a talk page) with "...don't call a bunch of random junk you made up yourself Discordianism" in Talk:Discordian_Works#Mediation on 11 February 2007, and said to an editor "Don't be a jerk" Talk:Discordian_Works#Mediation request on 4 March 2007.

I would like to see User:Shii barred from editing this article, at least for a substantial period of time; censured for his actions; and possibly removed as an administrator (or at least put on probation, if Misplaced Pages has such a thing--please forgive me my ignorance).

Thank you for considering my request.

Statement by Binky The WonderSkull

I agree with IamthatIam.

I made the mediation request because of problems we were having with Ashibaka who now calls himself Shii. But Shii is the one who got it closed! Talk:Discordian Works#Mediation request

Is this request still necessary or can I close it? --Ideogram 07:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
You can close it. Also, in case anyone else is counting, I am giving the editors above five more days until I redirect the article to something else for lack of reliable sources. Ashibaka (tock) 19:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It was closed four hours later before I even had a chance to comment! That's like the defendant deciding his trial should be over. And you can see Ashibaka threatened to redirect the article which is basically the same as delete.

Ashibaka or Shii called me a vandal and threatened to block me on User talk:Binky The WonderSkull#Warning

Please stop. Continuing to add unsourced or original content, as you did to Discordian Works, is considered vandalism and may result in a block. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 20:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ashibaka or Shii said editors called him a vandal when they didn't, and completely misrepresented our disagreements in Talk:Discordian Works#WP:3O

Summary of current discussion:
  • Shii: This article has no reliable sources. The claims made by unreliable sources are extremely dubious and do not belong on Misplaced Pages.
  • IamthatIam, Reverend Loveshade, Binky The WonderSkull: Shii is a vandal.
Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 15:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Just 25 minutes later, someone who claims to be objective, Moreschi, responded by saying that that Shii was right, and posted a long message at Talk:Discordian Works#WP:3O. Is 25 minutes long enough for someone to look through an article's history, discussion page, user pages, etc., and write a long response? Binky The WonderSkull 15:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by almost uninvolved Moreschi

My only involvement with this business has been to post a third opinion here. Since then, no one has responded in the slightest to the points I raised - in good faith, with complete objectiveness - about the remarkable lack of quality of the article in question. Incidentally, all I was doing there was commenting on the state of the article, not the whole dispute, with the side observation that calling good-faith editors vandals is usually a bad idea, no matter how much you might disagree with them. Comment on a shockingly bad article is something I can do in 25 minutes :)

Since, historically, the ArbCom has not taken content disputes, there remains the question of user conduct. There is no doubt in my mind that User:Shii has acted correctly and in good faith in trying to remove material from the article that was sourced purely to primary sources and existed purely to push a point of view. Sure, maybe Shii could have been more diplomatic on the talk page, but posts like this, describing Shii's edits as vandalism, hardly comply with our policies concerning user conduct either - WP:KETTLE etc.

The community can and wil take care of the content issues, and I don't think there's enough of a user conduct issue here to justify the whole Arbitration shebang. All that would come of an ArbCom case on this would be that Shii gets told to be more diplomatic and everyone else gets told to properly reference, to reliable secondary sources, material they add to articles per WP:ATT. Hardly worth the ArbCom's time at the moment, and there has been little meaningful dispute resolution to date: an article WP:RFC would provide clearer direction than ArbCom can.

As an aside, bringing this Arbitration request without discussing any of the points I raised on the article's talk page leads me to rather doubt the validity of this request. Doubtless just a case of "Get this guy out of the way through ArbCom so we get to continue to violate the polices concerning content inclusion". AGF only goes so far. No one has behaved very well here, but upholding the article standards - which is what this boils down to - is the affair of the community. Moreschi 15:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Reverend Loveshade

I don't intend to express an opinion about this dispute as this articles talks about me, in addition to several others. But I will comment on Ashibaka alias Shii's comment as shown above that I called him a vandal. I do not recall ever making any such statement, and invite Shii to state where I said this. Thank you and have a day. Reverend Loveshade 20:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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


Requests for clarification

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

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Agapetos_angel

In response to a request at my user talk page I performed an investigation on two IP addresses that have been active at the Jonathan Sarfati biography, which is one of the articles from which Agapetos angel has been indefinitely banned. At User_talk:Durova#AA_meeting Otheus, who appears to have acted in good faith, petitioned me to investigate the possibility that 60.242.13.87 and 58.162.2.122, both of which have been blocked or warned per this arbitration case, are not the same person as Agapetos angel. Otheus presented evidence both onsite and via e-mail in support of that possibility.

Upon investigation, I conclude that these two IPs are almost certainly the same person, unlikely to be Agapetos angel, and very possibly Mr. Sarfati himself. My evidence is summarized with a fair number of diffs in the thread and I can provide more upon request. Does the original ruling cover this situation? Please advise. Durova 06:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Appeal of probation

WP:RFAR/HWY was an arbitration case that placed me on probation in relation to highways articles because of a naming dispute that got ugly. However, not only have I refrained from disrupting the highways articles (except for one controversial block many months ago), but I have made over 13000 edits since that time. The naming dispute has also been satisfactorily resolved at WP:SRNC. Page moves have taken place, and there is peace at the highways section of Misplaced Pages. I have been influential in building the project infastructure (WP:USRD/NEWS, massive assessment of articles, infobox changes at WP:CASH, and much more). Thus, not as a license to disrupt articles, which I would not do under any circumstances, but as the removal of a blotch on my Misplaced Pages reputation, I am requesting the removal of my probation on Misplaced Pages. (Please make this motion separate from the other highways request below). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't involved with the Arbitration Committee back then, so looking at the past case quickly, it appears that there's no expiration for the probation, and that you were blocked in August 2006 for violation of this probation, as you mentioned above. Is this correct? Other arbitrators who were with the Committee then may also wish to comment here, since I'm not familiar with the case. Thanks. Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
This is correct. It was for changing the bolded words to match the article titles and for removing links to redirects (which is why I view it as controversial as these are normal Misplaced Pages activities). However, even if it was justified, it has been several months, the issue is resolved, I have made about 10000 edits since then, etc. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
As a member of the then-sitting Arbcom - I would be in favor of placing a time limit on that probation, based on the lack of recurrence of problems since then, rather than leaving it indefinite. It has been six months since the one and only block due to this probation, more or less - I would be inclined to let this provision expire. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


Appeal of probation

In July of last year I was placed on probation as part of the decision in this RfA. I do not believe this decision was just, and I believe that the unusual indefinite length of this probation despite the fact that I have never been a disruptive editor and that no evidence was ever presented against me is arbitrary and unfair. Accordingly, I've chosen to abandon this account in the meantime rather than to tacitly accept the legitimacy of this unjust probation by continuing to edit with it. In October I sought to have this probation lifted but, perversely, my appeal was rejected because I hadn't been editing in the meantime. However, since that time I have been editing without incident as An Innocent Man, and I believe my contribution history there continues to demonstrate that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a disruptive user--and, incidentally, it should be noted that I have not been editing any of the articles I'm putatively enjoined from "disrupting," nor do I have even the slightest shred of a shadow of a desire to ever do so again as long as I live. I would therefore like to ask once again that this unjust probation be lifted.

I am familiar with the rules governing the use of alternate accounts, and I believe my use of this one falls within the bounds of acceptability. I only created it because the thought of using my normal account while I am subject to an unjust probation sickens me. My only intent here is to clear my good name. —phh (/c) 13:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

  • It's a blot on my good name. I've been contributing productively here since 2003, a tenure longer than that of 99 percent of active contributors. I have never made trouble or asked anybody for recognition. It is wrong that I should be arbitrarily singled out and branded with a scarlet letter and held up before all and sundry as a member of some rogues' gallery when this very page is at this moment filled from top to bottom with tales of contributors who have attacked other users, vandalized pages, blanked pages, edit warred, wheel warred, abused administrative powers, and generally behaved far worse than I ever have or ever will, and I think we all know that only a small fraction of the people named will ever see any action taken against them of any kind.
If I am not engaged in problematic behavior, then I do not belong on a list of people who do. Unlike many—perhaps most—people here, I edit under my own name, not a pseudonym or online identity that can be discarded at will. Nothing is more important to me than my reputation. Nothing.
Who steals my purse steals trash; ’tis something, nothing;
’Twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him
And makes me poor indeed.
—William Shakespeare
—phh (/c) 05:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The findings of fact indicate there was a problem, your subsequent actions indicate that you have resolved it. Well done, that reflects very well on you. Probably better than never having had a problem in the first place, in some ways. One thing's for sure: you're unlikely to get previous findings overturned on the basis of subsequent actions. Have you ever heard of John Profumo? A man who was hounded out of office in one of the most notorious scandals in British political history, but was later honoured by the nation for his charitable work. To rebuild a reputation after a bad event requires real character. Guy (Help!) 10:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not trying to unring any bells, even one that should never have been rung in the first place. I am merely petitioning to have the probation lifted and my name removed from this list. Any additional rebuilding that needs to take place after that I'll be happy to handle myself. —phh (/c) 19:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
As I said above (under the appeal written by another user under probation from that case) I feel that placing a time limit on the probation would be a good idea. There has been no recurrence in more than six months, under either of your identities. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification of Derek Smart case

The recently closed ArbCom case for Derek Smart, found here had a number of findings related to sock puppets, single purpse accounts, and a decision regarding "surrogates" of Derek Smart.

I would like clarification from ArbCom on this case. Am I considered a "harmful SPA" with respect to this article? Am I considered a surrogate of Derek Smart?

In my defense, I would like to say that while I have a tendency to focus in on one article and stick with it, I am not a single-purpose account. A quick scan of my activity will show that I have pursued other articles besides this one (albeit following my self-described "one article at a time" habit). Furthermore, while editing this article I pushed no particular POV, sometimes making edits with content that reflected favorably on Smart and sometimes not. In the past I've been vocal in debate against SupremeCmdr and Warhawk/WarhawkSP. I think my position was best summarized by an anonymous respondant to the ArbCom case's workshop page, "Mael-num seems to me to be a neutral editor with a conservative view toward the negative aspects of the article subject's notability, who may have felt that after other editors had been banned from editing, there were potential troubles maintaining neutrality.". The consensus of other editors involved was that I was not working in collusion with SupremeCmdr et al. Which leads me to my request for clarification. Most important to me is that I would like to know that I am not seen as guilty of something I have not done. It's a matter of principle that I don't want to be seen as a sockpuppet, SPA, or POV-pusher. Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Mael-Num 03:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPA says that editing a small number of articles qualifies; and that this may be perfectly innocent. The general remedy speaks this way: Editors are encouraged to use judgment and discretion in enforcement of this remedy, rather than implementing it in a mechanical fashion. You may feel the finding of fact is harsh, but it is not now going to change. Charles Matthews 12:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that answers the question. Is Mael-Num a SPA? Personally I don't think he is, and I understand that it's editorial discretion as to who is considered one, but as Mael-Num was a party to the arbitration, and given the potential negative action he could suffer from editing the article if he is considered an SPA, I think it should at least be clarified as to whether he is or not. ⇒ SWATJester 19:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
My reading of WP:SPA is that User:Mael-Num is an SPA. Charles Matthews 22:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The decision states that Mael-Num was an SPA, and this appears to have been true as of the time that the decision was initially drafted. By the time the case was closed and the decision finalized, and certainly as of today, Mael-Num had diversified his editing activity and certainly is not an SPA with respect to the Derrick Smart article as of today. Whether the decision should be updated to reflect such changed circumstances, or supplemented with a note that administrator judgment should be used in determining SPA status for purposes of applying the remedy, is a matter for the arbitrators' discretion. Newyorkbrad 22:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I would again encourage admins, in particular, to apply 'judgement and discretion' here. There is no need to apply the remedy passed according to the letter. Charles Matthews 13:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make and vote on such motions. Other editors may comment on the talk page)


Highways

Rschen7754 (talk · contribs) and PHenry (talk · contribs) have appealed their continued probation in the Highways case. I believe that their continued probation is not necessary and move to end it forthwith. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

With 13 active Arbitrators and none recused, the majority for passage is 7.
Support:
  1. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. jpgordon 05:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 18:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Archives

Categories: