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 18:40, 18 May 2005 view sourceSannse (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users16,902 edits →[]← Previous edit Revision as of 18:47, 18 May 2005 view source Sannse (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users16,902 edits →Xiong: removed - no agreement to hear in over a weekNext edit →
Line 253: Line 253:
* Accept. ] 02:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC) * Accept. ] 02:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


==Xiong==
===Involved parties===

* ]
* ]

====Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request====
It's on ]

====Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried====
] ]. No, mediation has not been tried. How's the mediation committee doing these days anyhow?

===Statement by Snowspinner===
Xiong has been making statements that can readily be interpreted as threats against other users, as in

Also disruption to prove a point as in and , in which he tries to delete the deletion procedure for templates. His arbcom case below may also be considered disruption to illustrate a point.

He's also been uncivil, as in ("his actions are evil, a menace to the project")

To make it clear, Netoholic is not at present party to this case, nor has he expressed an interest in being one. ] 03:14, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Response to Grunt: I don't actually think you should merge them together - Xiong appears to be requesting arbitration on Netoholic's and my behalf against himself. As I've well shown now, you can't request arbitration against yourself, and so it seems like his case can't be accepted/merged/whatevered. ] 16:05, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

====Why to act on this case instead of waiting for the resolution on Netoholic====

Netoholic is getting a heavy, heavy sanction from the arbcom - one that puts him in the exact same status as Michael, quite frankly. This is not something trivial, and one of the major pieces of evidence that I imagine helped determine that sanction was his interaction with Xiong. If Xiong was also at fault in this - which I think he most certainly was, since he was calling Netoholic "a menace to the project" - then it seems fundamentally unfair to sit back and see if the situation gets better now that Netoholic is under heavy parole. If Xiong broke policy to provoke Netoholic to the point where he got that kind of sanction, surely that's worth looking at. ] 00:46, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

:If the goal is to sanction people who provoked Netoholic then why isn't Neutrality named? After all, Neutrality came in and reverted Neto in one of the disputes with Xiong. --] 03:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

::The goal isn't to sanction people who may have provoked Netoholic. After all, I reverted him a few times too, and I'm not requesting arbitration against myself (again). But I do think Xiong crossed the line - personal attacks, threats, flagrant disruption to prove a point - these are over the line. Getting into a conflict with another user that provokes them is no crime. Breaking social and formal rules in a conflict is bad. Netoholic was punished for his breaking of rules in this conflict. I don't see a persuasive reason offered why Xiong's behavior shouldn't be looked at. ] 03:36, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

::: I agree. The goal is not to sanction people, the goal is to make sure wikipedia runs smoothly. I don't see persuasive reasons offered as to how arbitration wrt Xiongs case right at this moment might improve the situation re Netoholic or others. ] 16:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

===Statement by Xiong===

This is obviously a duplication of the prior RfArb and an attempt to frame the debate. If ArbCom accepts this case and not the other, I shall move my comments here. &mdash; ]]]] 03:34, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

:Except, well, you can't request arbitration against yourself. Believe me. I've tried. ] 06:21, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

===Statement by Wgfinley===

Xiong has asked me to serve as his advocate for this case and we're in some discussions regarding this given my representation of Netoholic, I don't want them to conflict. As I've been Neto's advocate I'm very familiar with this dispute.

What I would like to say at this point is I encourage the Arbcom to reject this case while the remedies from Netoholic's case are implemented. Hopefully those remedies will lead to some cooling over templates and myself and Neto's mentors can mediate the dispute between the parties involved. Whatever the case, I don't think earlier resolution steps have been tried either. --] 23:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

:Two RfCs aren't enough earlier resolution steps? ] 00:37, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

::His first RfC turned into a fiasco with the Neto arb case coming into play there. His second RfC just got started and there's some who don't think it was necessary. The dust hasn't even settled from the Neto case, can't we leave the situation be and see if there's some improvement before we go running to Arb? --] 00:47, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

:::I answered this above, but I'll note again - because it seems unfair to let Xiong get off while Netoholic is being so harshly punished, particularly when Xiong crossed the line so flagrantly in provoking Netoholic. ] 01:01, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

::::Well, I guess that Neto got so harshly punished because you and Neutrality brought a case against him. Now, I argued that he had been provoked and that argument was soundly rejected. Just looks like selective prosecution to me. I think you can go out and "dig up dirt" on virtually every editor on Misplaced Pages because we've all lost our cool sometimes. I think the prudent course is to let Neto's case get wrapped up, see what those remedies do, see if myself and others can with with Xiong to foster a better working environment, if all that strikes out then by all means bring your case. I think a short Arbcom docket going into the Summer is a good thing!! :P --] 18:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

===Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (2/2/0/1)===
* Accept. ] 03:48, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
* What's going on? Why are we needed here? Is this a duplicate of the other RfAr or not? Is Netoholic involved or not? This and the other request (mainly the other request?) have gotten so utterly confusing that I have no idea whether I should recuse or not. In any case, if we accept one or the other - and I stress '''if''' - we should merge the two cases together, in which case I would be recused anyways. -- ]] ] 15:21, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
*Accept. Even if we don't merge the other one, comments and evidence can be introduced here just fine - ] 00:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
*Reject. let's see what happens with the changes that will be introduced with the end of Netoholic's case first (I understand that this case as written doesn't directly involve Netoholic, but would still like to see what changes it makes in the interacions within this group of editors) -- ] ] 01:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
*Reject ] 15:57, 2 May 2005 (UTC)




Revision as of 18:47, 18 May 2005

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

The last step of dispute resolution is a request for arbitration. Please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee.

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person you lodge a complaint against.

This is not a page for discussion, and arbitrators may summarily remove discussion without comment.

Current requests

Template

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless

Statement by party 1

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Statement by party 2

Please limit your statement to 500 words


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

The Number, Sollogfan, et al.

Involved parties

User:The Number and User:Sollogfan have engaged in persistent vandalism, personal attacks, and other behavior that has been perceived as trolling. They are also suspected of being sockpuppets.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

The following steps have been tried:

Statement by MarkSweep

The Number and Sollogfan have both been involved in the debate about the Sollog article. Their only contributions in the article namespace have been to Sollog (5 edits by The Number, zero edits by Sollogfan). All other edits have involved talk pages, user pages, etc. The Number and Sollogfan are listed together here because they have similar agendas, similar editing behavior, similar writing styles, etc., enough to convince a number of editors that they are controlled by a single party.

The behavior of The Number and Sollogfan shows the following general pattern: both make controversial comments or personal attacks, but are extremely thin-skinned and will complain incessantly about the supposed injustices inflicted upon them. For example:

Both users have engaged in personal attacks and have been subject to warnings and sanctions. The Number has engaged in vandalism and personal attacks, yet is remarkably thin-skinned. The Number has been reluctant to accept responsibility for his/her own behavior. Sollogfan likewise has engaged in vandalism and personal attacks, recently targeting the same users as The Number.

Another strategy employed by both users is to misinterpret and misrepresent warnings and comments left on their talk pages. For example:

In conclusion, The Number and Sollogfan have shown similar and equally problematic behavior, which has led to them being accused of trolling and sockpuppetry. Past behavioral patterns – using the RFC as a forum for the airing and amplification of grievances, as opposed to a constructive dispute resolution step – suggest that they are unwilling or unable to interact normally with other users.

Statement by party 2

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Sollog is in jail. Despite that fact Pomeroy and others persist in saying that Sollogfan is Sollog and is a sockpuppet. The very same group (hence the same response, I assume) targetted me. The same illogical approach. Pomeroy repeatedly posted sockpuppet nonsense on Sollogfan's page. That IS vandalism. Others stepped in - the same motley crew as targetted me - and deliberately ignored Sollogfan's POLITE request to Pomeroy to stop this. Pomeroy and others continued their vandalism.

These are facts and others just don't like it.

Sweep and others posted warnings....against retaliation. Apparently I and Sollogfan should just accept this vandalism. If you don't believe me go look at both our pages.

I repeat: SOLLOG IS IN JAIL HE CANNOT BE POSTING HERE The Number 10:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

To add on....where is the evidence that I or Sollogfan am/are Sollog? If there is NONE (and given that Sollog is in jail it would be pretty hard for him to post here) then ALL the accusations that I/Sollogfan am/are Sollog are wrong. Which means that pomeroy's persistent insertion of the sockpuppet image saying that Sollogfan/Number are/am Sollog is VANDALISM. Look at this:

This user may be an abusive sockpuppet of Sollog; see for evidence.

Now look at the 'evidence'. NONE of it is any proof whatsoever that someone in jail can (or would want to) post here using a false ID. The accusation (later) that these are trolling accounts ignores what ] trolls are. Pomeroy repeatedly put inflammatory pictures/comments on my and Sollgofan's pages. When we both complained and asked others to intervene we were simply reprimanded. The 'troll' is Pomeroy: "...Such individuals may have a sociological disorder, which is expressed through the Internet platform". Now if you consider just for a moment the IMPOSSIBILITY of Sollog being me or Sollogfan then you will see clearly that Pomeroy is a vandal and that this attempt by Sweep is simply misguided. It is highly relevant that Sollog is NOT me and I suspect is NOT Sollogfan - whatever JRM says. Once you agree that I/Sollogfan are not Sollog then the 'sockpuppet of Sollog' vandalising will be seen for what it is.The Number 14:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Gamaliel

I do not know if The Number is a sockpuppet of Sollog and that issue has never interested me. In fact, I have repeatedly asked other editors to refrain from referring to The Number as Sollog or Ennis (Sollog's real last name) and judge him/her by his own merits. Judged by him/herself, The Number is even more damaging than Sollog was. While Sollog and his puppets would merely vandalize, The Number specializes in insidious needling, constantly provoking other editors while relatively rarely crossing the line into clear-cut blockable behavior. Then when those editors react in a manner that is even slightly less than perfectly civil, The Number loudly complains that he or she is the wronged party, attempting to get other editors punished for "offenses" that usually aren't even remotely blockable, such as when User:Wyss removed The Number's messages from her own user talk page. From the beginning, I and other editors tried to deal with The Number in a civil and helpful manner, but his/her behavior was provocative early on. Then an anonymous editor, he took as his first name User:Hayah, the name of Sollog's cult, and then expressed indignant surprise when people reacted poorly to his name choice and assumed he was a Sollog puppet.

The Number has made 355 edits in five months, but it seems only four are actual edits to an article and all of those are to Sollog. S/he has loudly touted such insignificant and counterproductive contributions as the posting of a folk recipe copied out of a book to Talk:Impotence as "evidence" of his/her attempts to contribute positively to Misplaced Pages. However, it is apparent from The Number's contributions list, despite his/her loud protests to the contrary, that his/her only purpose here is to troll and critique and provoke other editors. The Number has wasted an astonishing amount of the time of over a half-dozen respected editors here, and it would be a detriment to this project if we allowed him/her to continue this nonsense. Gamaliel 18:36, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Ashley Pomeroy

Oh yes, I agree with this. In the previous RfC I maintained that The Number, although disruptive, was essentially harmless; both because he hasn't even tried to edit any articles, and also because whatever edits he has in mind would undoubtedly be reverted away immediately. However, his behaviour towards User:Wyss here is unforgivable, and sees to have driven her away from Misplaced Pages. This is a shame, as she was very helpful tracking down Sollog's various internet schemes, as detailed at great length in the voluminous archives of Sollog's talk page. And then there's stuff like this, which mock my beautiful, beautiful face. The summary above by The Number is a fair representation of his entire edit history, thousands and thousands of words of it.-Ashley Pomeroy 20:05, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (1/2/0/1)

  • Reject - I see it as being covered by the existing hard ban. Ambi 10:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
    Of whom, and where is it listed? JRM · Talk 10:36, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
    Sollog, presumably - David Gerard 13:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
    You see those bones over there? They once belonged to a dead horse. Yes, the trolling just goes on and on, and especially whenever you dare suggest mr. Ennis is behind it all. I hope we can at least discard the irrelevant notion that Sollog himself (banned or not) has anything to do with this. For all I care Satan is behind the accounts—I don't know if he's considered hard-banned, but it shouldn't matter. JRM · Talk 14:05, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
  • They appear to have become almost pure trolling accounts. That is actually generally considered blockable - David Gerard 13:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
    And both accounts have now been blocked by multiple admins as the obvious trolling/abuse accounts they are, so this RFAr may be moot. Note for the future: RFCs on obvious trolls just encourage them - David Gerard 20:13, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
    That would seem to be the case. In this instance, the trollish behavior was less obvious before the RFC, and a clear pattern only emerged during and after the RFC. As Gamaliel has pointed out, the blockable offenses were relatively minor, and so admins may understandably be reluctant to block the offenders for more than a few days at a time. --MarkSweep 21:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept iff not already covered by current bans. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 19:26, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Reject and block on sight ➥the Epopt 20:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Noah Peters

I have already wrote a lengthy case and cited evidence, but you closed the case when I did not have the time. I wish for it to be re-opened and a decision to be made.

See:

Thank you. Apollomelos 04:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (2/0/0/1)

Cantus

Involved parties

Netoholic is bringing this case against Cantus, on charges that he's failed repeatedly to abide by a previous ruling against him, continues to revert war, fails to gain consensus before making widespread changes, has performed vandalism, has misused anonymous proxies to bypass restrictions placed on him, fails to input edit summaries (particularly when his edits represent major changes), and is generally a persistent disruption to this project.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Netoholic

While I don't look forward to or enjoy bringing this case, I feel it is necessary in the best interests of the project's editors. I would say "the project", but frankly it is the constant stress and rework required where Cantus is concerned which is the most damaging aspect. This user has learned nothing since his previous Arbitration involvement.

  • Cantus has broken his revert parole on numberous occasions and has been given blocks of various lengths (Block log). These do absolutely noting to help him avoid the problems leading up to revert wars. After a block, his usual first actions are to re-revert each and every change. Please note this recent report where hs is shown to have broken the parole four times in one day
  • Wherever Cantus is in disagreement over a page, "slow revert wars" often start. No meaningful dialogue is happening, but Cantus persists in reverting at the rate of about once a day.
    • Terri Schiavo - May 9 to 14 - insertion of a particular template and bit of text. , , ,
    • Template:Europe - Mar 10 to May 11 - over a seemingly minor bit of formatting. , , , , , , ,
  • When blocked, or to avoid breaking his parole, Cantus has employed anonymous proxies to evade detection. For example, the history of "Developed country" shows, on May 13 and 14, IP addresses which are reverting to Cantus' preferred version. In Jan 2005, Cantus employed anon proxies to edit war with Gzornenplatz .
    • 200.83.181.18 (talk · contribs) has recently been used to perform edits which revert directly to Cantus' prefered versions.
  • Cantus fails frequently to submit edit summaries (contribs). Many of these represent reverts or major changes which were not noted.
  • On May 8/9, Cantus made a change to a very commonly used template (see Template talk:Infobox Biography#Death information). Before gathering further opinion, he implemented that change. At first, the change was made just to the template, but that broke all the articles. After User:PRiis fixed the template back, Cantus reverted the template to his version, and proceeded to make an alteration to about 250 articles without leaving edit summaries. This was all done before even 24 hours had passed since he first made his proposal.
  • Cantus' user page (as of today) has a misleading message indicating he is no longer with the project , but this is far from the truth.

I ask the Arbitrators to accept this case so that his status can be corrected as necessary. I also ask that an immediate injunction be placed, banning Cantus from editing any pages except his user space and pages related to this case. -- Netoholic @ 08:05, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

To Ambi
I'm intentionally limiting my evidence to occurences after the last Arbitration case involving him. The patterns are the same as noted twice before in Arb cases, so I'm not sure what sort of further dispute resolution is recommended by you. -- Netoholic @ 09:19, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

Ok, so now that you've been blocked from editing the Misplaced Pages and Template namespace, you feel so shitty that you want everybody else to suffer from your same punishment? I mean, bringing stuff from four months ago as evidence and declaring previous ArbCom rulings as steps in dispute resolution? This is all really sad, and I await for the arbitrators' quick dismissal of this baseless request. —Cantus…☎ 08:33, May 14, 2005 (UTC)


Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (1/1/1/0)

  • Reject. Please pursue other avenues of dispute resolution first - most of these are either not recent (and thus have been dealt with by prior cases) or are too minor to stand on their own. Ambi 08:16, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
  • This could be a dispute of substance. Before accepting or rejecting, I'd like to hear the opinion of Netoholic's mentors on whether it seems not a bad idea. Cantus should also note that Netoholic is not presently restricted in the manner described - David Gerard 11:01, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Recuse for obvious reasons. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 14:51, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

User:Wareware

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

I was instructed that I should notify Wareware and did so. deeceevoice 09:57, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm currently in the process of rectifying this problem. deeceevoice 10:45, 10 May 2005 (UTC) — Note that Wareware seem to have left Misplaced Pages shortly after the RFC was filed. I think what deeceevoice is asking for is, in the case he does not resurfaces (which seems likely), to render judgment on his actions in absentia. El_C 11:52, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

El_C, a non initiating party, has served the required notice. deeceevoice 13:22, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

I have remonstrated with User:Wareware to desist from his racist assaults on numerous occasions, but to no good effect. This matter is not a dispute per se; it is about an individual who uses racist vitriol without conscience, without remorse, without apology. Aware that his conduct is indefensible, in the RfC process the member has provided only weak excuses for his behavior and has not posted on Misplaced Pages in recent weeks under this user name. While I suspect Wareware has done so at least anonymously, this RfA addresses only the posts made under the user name identified in this RfA. deeceevoice 09:57, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Statement by deeceevoice

User:Wareware has displayed a pattern of repeated animosity toward, and disrespect for, me— and African people, in general— in a series of racist verbal assaults riddled with just about every anti-black cliché one might imagine, stalking me from one article to another. During this time, not one Wikipedian ever took him to task for his behavior, preferring to overlook it. Others chose to criticize me, instead. This silence on the part of others, IMO, sent a tacit signal to Wareware that such conduct is acceptable on Misplaced Pages. I've taken this action, because I think it is important that a different message come from the Wiki community about such comportment: racist verbal assaults will not be tolerated, and silence in the face of such behavior is unacceptable, as well.

Misplaced Pages is a noble effort, but the obvious paucity of black participants in the project adversely affects both the quality and quantity of information available about Africa and the African diaspora. While some nonblack contributions have been relatively well informed and reasoned, all too often, articles are, if not outright insulting and racist themselves, they evidence an ignorance and naivete that is frustrating, sometimes even laughable. (For the latest, appalling example of such an article, see the now expunged and redirected "African-American culture.") And the discussion pages are often even worse. It has been my experience that Misplaced Pages is a generally uninviting, all too often hostile, environment for blacks when the subject matter at hand is related to black ethnicity. Wareware's conduct, and the silence of others in the face of it, only contributed to an atmosphere that discourages ongoing, enthusiastic black participation in the project— and to the project's detriment. This is not an indictment singling out Misplaced Pages; in this regard, the web site is merely a virtual reflection of the real word.

Had the kind of responses prompted by the RfC in this matter been made in reaction to Wareware's earlier conduct, I believe he would have been discouraged from subsequent verbal assaults. But those who knew of it were silent to a man, and the vast majority of respondents to the RfC appear to have been previously unaware the situation.

IMO, Wareware's conduct is an insult to the entire Wiki community and should be answered with the harshest of sanctions. A clear message should be sent that there is zero tolerance for racist vitriol on Misplaced Pages. deeceevoice 09:57, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Wareware

Please limit your statement to 500 words


Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)


Requests for Clarification

If you need to clarify the precise meaning of a previous decision of the Arbitration Committee, your request should go here.

Misplaced Pages:Meta-templates considered harmful

In Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2#Meta-templates issue referred to developers, it was decided that the page would be referred to the developer committee, who woould presumably decide if we need a guideline to this effect. Please tell me what steps have been taken by the ArbCom to satisfy this ruling. A link to a Meta page or mailing list post would be appreciated. -- Netoholic @ 03:19, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

  • Since the developers are prepetually overworked and in all likelyhood will not be able to consider this question for some time, it is my opinion that until such time as they can 'officially' make a ruling on this, we should go with the recommendation made by Jamesday. That is, that we should try very hard not to make any one template used on more than a small percentage of the pages on the site. As such, given the ongoing edit war there, I think it would be best if Template:Sisterproject were blanked and protected, and its contents transferred to the various other sisterproject template, until such times as the developers can officially make a statement. →Raul654 19:07, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • On second thought, if both James and Tim have expressed the same opinion, I don't really see how much more emphatically they could do it. →Raul654 21:59, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • It does appear Netoholic was 100% technically correct. Jamesday's opinion on metatemplates was pretty clear: at least in MediaWiki 1.4, they create noticeable server load all by themselves. WP:VFD was recently switched from templates-in-templates format because that page alone, generating one and a half megabytes of uncacheable HTML every time the page was accessed by a logged-in user, was creating noticeable load on the server. See Tim Starling's mailing list post on the subject, and most of Misplaced Pages talk:Votes for deletion/May 2005 Part One. The real technical solution, of course, is to stop templates in templates from working at all; I'm now asking if there's any reason not to make this so - David Gerard 19:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Granted, this will make some templates stop working, but really, calling templates within templates was always a kludge and more "clever" than helpful. Most instances are easily solved by creating one or more additional similar templates and splitting the workload. It's usually trivial to keep "look and feel" from drifting after a split. -- Netoholic @ 19:32, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

CheeseDreams

It has been suggested , that User:The Rev of Bru is yet another sockpuppet of User:CheeseDreams which seems to have reactivated (they both have the same POV and act in similar ways). Would it be possible for this to be confirmed please? --G Rutter 14:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I'd already received email on this from someone whose judgement I basically trust, and if they can substantiate it enough that a third party would go "yup" I'll block the offender myself. CheckUser doesn't show anything positive - they use the same ISP, but it's one of the largest broadband ISPs in Britain and changes people's IPs regularly, so that really says nothing at all. But we're aware of this one and keeping an eye on it - David Gerard 19:55, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Whilst they share some points of view, there are some subtle differences. I do not think they are the same person. See also the comments CheeseDreams left on User talk:The Rev of Bru. There are also areas where there have been differences, which I would not expect of sockpuppets (such as The Rev of Bru's insistence on the CE/BCE notation system compared with CheeseDreams having to explain it - even to the extent of putting at the top of a page what CE/BCE notation was for those unfamiliar with it). I'm afraid Mr Rubenstein edits in a controversial area, and sorry that he has to put up with a rump of editors who are not prepared to discuss points in a proper academic way - The Rev of Bru and CheeseDreams are two such editors. Kind regards, jguk 19:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Look to yourself before you judge others. Vanity is a sin. - 81.156.177.21 (presumably the user under discussion, last few edits spell "Cheese" "Dreams" "Signing" "Off")

For what it's worth, here is a page I started, explaining why I felt they were the same people: User:Jayjg/Rev of Bru - CheeseDreams My enthusiasm for the project waned when I realized Rev of Bru was gone, and I found it very time consuming trying to comb through links of the various sockpuppets, especially when the User contributions button was rarely willing to go back more than 500 edits. In any event, the fact that one talked to the other on a Talk: page means little in my opinion; any reasonably intelligent person trying to maintain two sockpuppets would do the same. Jayjg 04:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the inactive user Dr Zen is (was) also a sockpuppet of CheeseDreams; similarly to 81.156.177.21's "Cheese" "Dreams" "Signing" "Off" edits, Dr Zen's last few edits were Fuck Off Cunt Bye. ral315 17:33, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Dr Zen was quite definitely not CheeseDreams; CD is Swedish living in the UK, Dr Zen is Australian; and they write completely differently. - David Gerard 20:21, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
I concur; Zen and Cheese are completely different - different interests, different writing styles, etc. Cheese might have learned that trick from Zen, but that doesn't make them the same person. Jayjg 17:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Confidentiality during mediation

I found this page tagged as 'notpolicy'. Could the ArbCom please clarify if this page is in fact in use, or not (and tag it as 'guideline', 'rejected' or 'historical' as they find appropriate)? Thanks. Radiant_* 07:59, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

This isn't an arbitration page. It's a page I wrote and used when I was on the mediation committee. It's not a policy page at all, just a page that can be used to set out and agree confidentiality conditions during mediation - I would ask participants to read and agree to the conditions before mediation started. It was available for other mediators to use, but I don't know if any did or not - although I have pointed someone towards it recently, for use in a mediation situation on another language version. I would suggest taking off any reference to policy, and seeing if current mediators want to keep it around as a resource for their use. If it's not wanted, then I'll move it to my namespace for my own reference -- sannse (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Archive

Category: