Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:05, 18 June 2007

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

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

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

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

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

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

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

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

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/How-to

Current requests

CharlotteWebb

Initiated by Kamryn Matika at 19:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• CharlotteWebb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jayjg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Not really appropriate here.

Statement by Kamryn Matika

As I'm sure you're aware, on June 15 Jayjg revealed on CharlotteWeb's RfA that she edits via TOR proxies. This caused a pile-on of oppose votes at her RfA and has led to much discussion on-wiki and on the mailing lists as to whether Jayjg's actions were appropriate and within the limits of the privacy policy. On 17 June CharlotteWebb posted a message to her talkpage that claimed that another checkuser had systematically blocked all the IPs she had used in the past three months, TOR proxies or no. This would indicate that there has been an abuse of checkuser privileges. There are have been many accusations of checkuser abuse here from Charlotte's supporters and ArbCom is the only place that has the power to issue a finding one way or the other. Kamryn Matika 19:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Sean William

The Ombudsman commission is that way. Sean William @ 20:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by John254

Despite claims to the contrary, the Arbitration Committee does have jurisdiction over allegations of improper disclosure of checkuser information. Per the checkuser policy, "Suspicion of abuses of checkuser should be discussed on each local wiki. On wikis with an arbcom, the arbcom can decide on the removal of access.". That being said, Jayjg's disclosure of checkuser information at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/CharlotteWebb did not violate the checkuser privacy policy, which restricts only the disclosure of "personally identifiable data". A statement that a user is editing through TOR exit nodes, without providing specific IP addresses, clearly does not constitute "personally identifiable data". Moreover, since editing through open proxies is a clear policy violation, disclosure of such information does not otherwise violate the checkuser policy. Therefore, insofar as this request for arbitration relates to Jayjg's actions, I would suggest that it be rejected. However, the claim that another user with checkuser access has been blocking every IP used by CharlotteWebb, even those that aren't open proxies, may merit investigation by the Arbitration Committee. John254 21:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Swatjester

As said by Sean William, this is outside the scope of the Arbitration committee, given the existence and directive of the ombudsman commission. If you have ethical complaints (not legal, or violation of process complaints), then you'll need to submit them through proper dispute resolution procedures: however given no policy violation exists, it's really a request of the ArbCom to legislate ethics; this is really IMHO the realm of the board. Swatjester 00:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

Pretty sure only the Ombudsman's office has the resources and powers to investigate the properly and take appropriate action. Abuse of checkuser is a foundation issue. --Tony Sidaway 00:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Chacor

"Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried" - "Not really appropriate here." That's because thie isn't an Arbitration case. As unpleased as I am over what Jay did and his continued refusal to at least accept any responsibility, this is outside the ArbCom's purview. The Ombudsman Commission awaits, though. Should the ArbCom decide to accept this I believe the focus of this case needs to be changed - not on how Jayjg used Checkuser, but rather his conduct in that RFA, and after that, both here and on the mailing list. – Chacor 03:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved kaypoh

Kamryn said that dispute resolution is "not really appropriate here", but ArbCom said this case is "premature". I don't know what the Ombusman thing is, but it sounds even higher than ArbCom. We should not bother Ombusman people if ArbCom can handle this, or maybe ArbCom and Ombusman can work together to deal with this. If ArbCom does not take this case, what should we do? We can't just leave this hanging there.

I think the ArbCom needs to look at five things:

1. Jayjg's telling everyone that CharlotteWeb used Tor

2. Jayjg's conduct after telling everyone that CharlotteWeb used Tor

3. CharlotteWebb's conduct after Jayjg told everyone that she used Tor

4. The blocking of all of CharlotteWebb's IPs - who did it, what can we do about it

5. The policy about open proxies - whether it needs to be changed or cancelled

Clerk notes

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

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

• Reject Premature. See no ArbCom case now. FloNight 12:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Certain satellites of Saturn

Initiated by Rebjon21 at 1704, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Med (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rebjon21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dicuya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Syntaxis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• User:Med was advised on his talk page
• User:Dicuya was advised on his talk page
• User:Syntaxis was advised on his talk page

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Another user (Dicuya) and I have discussed this matter on the talk pages related to three of Saturn's satellites (Pallene, Methone, and Polydeuces), requesting that the user "Med" refrain from altering the pages. S/he has ignored all of these requests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Pallene_%28moon%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Methone_%28moon%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Polydeuces_%28moon%29

Statement by Rebjon21

A user ("Med") insists on changing the name of the discoverer of three of Saturn's satellites (Pallene, Methone, and Polydeuces). He is obviously ignorant of the way in which scientific credit is given in such matters, and he is violating the protocol of the International Astronomical Union for the discovery of astronomical bodies.

(see http://planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov/append7.html)

Med cites both a NASA press release and a BBC news article as official sources for the discoveries when in fact only the IAU circulars that first reported the discoveries, authored by 'C.C. Porco and the Cassini Imaging Team' are the official sources. (The BBC article has been incorrectly written and they have been notified of their mistake.) Even NASA's 'official page' is nothing more than a press release which, in the presence of the official IAU circular that came out at the same time as the press release, is NOT an official statement of discovery.

The official attribution for discoveries of new moons or rings made by the Cassini imaging scientists in Cassini images goes to the Cassini Imaging Team. And that team is led by Carolyn Porco. The statements should read either 'discovered by the Cassini Imaging Team, led by Carolyn Porco' or `discovered by Carolyn Porco and the Cassini Imaging Team'.

Multiple attempts to resolve this dispute have been made by more than one user (Dicuya and myself) but Med, and to some degree another user named Syntaxis, continue to ignore all reasonable arguments to correct the erroneous amendments. Furthermore, it would appear he has an 'issue' with Carolyn Porco, claiming she is being abusive when in fact, she is following standard scientific ethical practices. Or alternatively, since it is obvious that Med is British, by use of the word 'dogsbodies', it may be that s/he has an issue with an American 'standing in the way' of non-Americans getting credit for 'their' discoveries.

Either way, Med's position is at best misguided and otherwise completely erroneous, and his/her revisions need to be permanently stopped.

In the interest of planetary science, can this matter please be resolved once and for all? In addition, can the entries for these satellites on other language versions of Misplaced Pages be changed as they are also incorrect?

Thank you.

Statement by Med

Rebjon21 is right on only one point, I insist in changing the name of the discoverer on those three satellites as they have not been discovered by Carolyn Porco as Rebjon21 and a few others (which i believe to be sock puppets) seem to believe erroneously. She is the leader of the Cassini Imaging Team though. Anyone involved in research knows that the leader of the team is never creditted for all discoveries made by the searchers within the team. Therefore the attribution of the discoveries to Carolyn Porco is at best a mistake ... as a contributor involved in this edit war claims to be Carolyn Porco representative, but i am sure it can only be a misunderstanding.... Actually Polydeuces has been discovered by Carl Murray and Methone and Pallene by Sébastien Charnoz. Due to the systematic reverts by Rebjon21 and Dicuya, I have tried to improve the version citing both the discoverer and Carolyn Porco as the team leader. However this version has been systematically reverted also. We have discussed about this problem with Syntaxis and hqb on Polydeuces talk page reaching a consensus: citing both the discoverer and Carolyn Porco as I was already doing actually. Unfortunately Rebjon21 and Dicuya hava kept removing of the discoverer name and adding Porco's one, taking no account of the consensus. On Polydeuces talk page, Syntaxis has also explained very clearly the IAU rules and why the individuals having discovered have not been named in the communication. An IAU communication is not an attribution. I have no issue with Carolyn Porco, i don't know her. I will just not accept that she sends people on Misplaced Pages (claiming to be her representative) to make her credited for discoveries made by searchers in her team without crediting them too. This would be a manipulation of Misplaced Pages. I will not answer on my nationality, this is clearly ridiculous. Finally i ask Rebjon21 and Dicuya to talk with Syntaxis, hbq and I on Polydeuces talk page and not force their own erroneous version. Med 18:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

I have redacted a sentence from one of the statements which, although submitted in good faith, appears to constitute a potential BLP violation. Newyorkbrad 05:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

• Decline. Quite premature; I don't see any evidence of bringing in third parties (for example, an article RFC); only the concerned parties have been involved at all. --jpgordon 16:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Reject as premature; at this stage, it's merely a low-key content dispute. Kirill Lokshin 23:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. Please follow all the steps in dispute resolution before giving up on working together. Bring in other experienced editors to help. FloNight 12:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Elvira Arellano

Initiated by LordPathogen at 17:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Evrik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ramsey2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Chicaneo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  

article:

• Elvira Arellano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• User:Evrik was advised on his talk page
• User:Ramsey2006 was advised on his talk page
• User: Chicaneo was advised on her talk page

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• RfC on Categories issue as well as archived prior discussion on it
• NPOV Dispute & Factual Accuracy Discussion #1
• NPOV Dispute & Factual Accuracy Discussion #2
• NPOV Dispute & Factual Accuracy Discussion #3
• Request for Mediation which was formally rejected by User:Evrik and informally rejected by User:Ramsey2006 and User:Chicaneo in this section of the talk page
• RfCs and Request for Third Opinion have also been made by me on related issues within this same article here and here with the same editors to no effect.

Statement by LordPathogen

Diff of deleted material in question
As part of a long running edit dispute for this article, at 13:39, 4 June 2007 User:Evrik added a POV dispute tag to the article. Several hours later on the same day he changed this to a NPOV and Factual Accuracy Dispute tag. At 14:33, 8 June 2007 User:Evrik proposed reverting back a month of edits as he deemed the article POV. I pointed out to him and his supporters several times that according to Misplaced Pages guidelines, "the editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies" and asked him for such specific instances of POV and factual inaccuracies. His reply, "How's this: every edit this month made by {{spa|LordPathogen}} has made the article unbalanced" accomplished three things: 1. it showed he failed to meet the standard for NPOV dispute as "simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag" 2. He has no actual basis for disputing the facts contained in the article and 3. That his NPOV and Factual Dispute are in fact personal towards me as the revert date he suggested was before any of my edits. At 12:48, 9 June 2007, User:Evrik with the support of User:Ramsey2006 and User:Chicaneo reverted the article an entire month, illegally in my view as he did not meet the burden of proof required for NPOV and Factual Disputes. The effect of this revert was that a significant amount of "well written and well sourced" (Admin Tony the Marine) content was deleted. This also had the effect of mooting an ongoing RfC on the use of categories Fugitives, Mexican criminal, Mexican American leaders etc. for the article Subject. Shortly thereafter, User:Evrik unilaterally and without consultation archived material as recent as June 5th that was relevent to current discussions. After attempting further discussion with the above parties, on June 10th I requested Mediation which was rejected by User:Evrik on 13 June 2007. User:Ramsey2006 and User:Chicaneo suggested working it out amongst ourselves instead of mediation, with that being predicated upon my acceptance of the illegal revert of the article by User:Evrik. Based on the long-standing content disputes with the editors involved coupled with what I strongly feel to be a violation of Misplaced Pages guidelines, I have come here in the hope that these issues can be resolved once and for all. Simple numerical superiority of a clique of editors should not overrule article integrity and Misplaced Pages guidelines, IMHO.

• As expected, User:Evrik argues against me personally as opposed to the facts of the case which is he reverted the article in question an entire month, affecting not only my edits but those of Misplaced Pages Administrators User:Will Beback, User:Rockero, User:Rich_Farmbrough and User:BorgQueen as well as other editors. As for 3RR, his ally Ramsey2006 in fact has also been blocked over this article and Evrik himself has been blocked for other articles five times in a rather short period for "trolling, civility, removing warnings" as well as "egregious violation of 3RR ." Not exactly the behaviour of someone who aspires to be on the Wikimedia Board of Trustees. As for being labeled a SPA by him, I have explained to this user why I choose not to edit multiple articles as well as pointed out to him that even if I were, "there is, of course, nothing inherently wrong with single-purpose accounts." Choosing to ignore that, he has repeatedly harrassed me by incorrectly using the "highly discouraged" SPA tag, something he has been told twice by Administrator User:MastCell not to do here as well as on MastCell's own talk page here. Ignoring that directive from an Administrator, he has called me a SPA yet again here below. As for the email, as Administrator User:Will Beback noted, "It's a general principle of modern life that posting private emails without permission is not a good idea". What was harmful, however, was Evrik posting my private email address on the board, even after I redacted, with no punishment. In short, this user violates clear directives from Administrators with no punishment. He posts private information, again with no punishment and he deletes material where Administrator User:Marine 69-71 expressly states "none of it's material should be removed unless proven as false," again with no punishment. Evrik calls me a vandal. That is sheer hyperbole for if he truly believed that, why not report me as such on the appropriate board? In fact, some such as Administrator User:Marine 69-71 "consider your contributions as positive and within the criteria of good-faith." No, this case is far from a simple content dispute among authors. As I see it, "consensus" does not mean that Wikiepedia guidelines such as NPOV disputes do not have to be followed. If that really were the case, then in effect "mob rule" becomes the deciding factor as to article content in Misplaced Pages. Accordingly, I should recruit 10 friends to come and "reach consensus" that the subject of the article in question is an alien from Mars and since we have numerical superiority, that is "consensus." Obviously that's silly. There has to be a certain level of article integrity regardless of how many people disagree with the content. Additionally, regardless of how many people are on how many sides, the guidelines of Misplaced Pages have to supercede simple majority vote, otherwise the truth is whatever the mob du jour chooses it be. I came here, to this Committee after pages of discussion, trips to the 3RR board, Requests for Third Opion, multiple Requests for Comment, Request for Mediation and on the advice of both Administrators and regular users. If this is not the right place to handle this sort of thing, then where is?
  Again, this is far from being a simple dispute over content. Rather, it is three distinct issues: 1. whether directives from Administrators have to be obeyed by all or only by some, 2. whether simple majority consensus is enough to decide the content of an article regardless of the facts and 3. most importantly,whether Misplaced Pages will stand up to enforce its own guidelines, such as those regarding NPOV disputes. After all, if Misplaced Pages will not help me help it, why should I bother? LordPathogen

• In the interest of not turning this into a running commentary, I will refrain from any further comments and apologize for the length of those currently present LordPathogen 00:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• RIGHT TO PRIVACY VIOLATION- Unfortunately and despite my previous statement above, I am compelled to point out that Evrik, has now posted my actual name and linked to my private email address as well as googled me on Will Beback's talk page. . I sent him a single email that was borne of frustration, and now he posts my personal data on the talk page of an Adminsitrator no less and far from being punished, gets a pass again after Will mildly points out I still have a right to privacy (Gee thanks!), but again with no punishement for him and the data is still there as I write. "Easily solved?" I don't think so. You can add violation of the right to privacy to the issues this Request for Arbitration should discuss. LordPathogen 12:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Evrik

This is not a dispute, but vandal fighting. This user is a {{spa}}. LordPathogen is a troll who is pushing POV and abusing process to try and bully the other users into agreement. Since LordPathogen started editing the article Elvira Arellano he/she has been blocked twice for violating 3RR. Additionally, one of those blocks also involved using two sockpuppets, one of which was blocked. During one of those blocks, LP sent me and one other user harassing emails and was unapologetic about it.

In one week, LP accused me of Suspicious editing behavior and harassment on WP:ANI – both times the complaints were turned aside. Also in the last week, LP has accused me of 3RR and another user of the same thing.

Currently LP is outside the mainstream of the consensus on the editing of that article. This user has spent a fair amount of time causing grief and making edits that violate WP:Point. LP is lamely trying to game the system and MastCell's warning is not only unjustified but is just giving credence to an account that is a thin mask for POV pushing and near vandalism. In a further abuse of process, a mediation request was filed. I declined that because it was more a personal attack than trying to seek consensus. This RfA is a furtherance of the abuse of process. I have resisted posting any notices to WP:ANI because I thought this user could be controlled. I also didn't want to escalate this further. --evrik  22:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• • It is disengenuous of LP to complain that I have resorted to personal attacks. Before posting the email, I went and checked wikimedia:Privacy policy and did not see a prohibition from posting the email. If there is a violation of a policy, I will edit my comments. He's the one who has gone out and posted to almost every venue available, and made this into some sort of edit war. Additionally, he was the one to send harassing emails to my personal account. --evrik  04:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Chicaneo

Statement by Ramsey2006

Statement by Will Beback

This is a content dispute that would be easily solved if it weren't for one editor who won't follow the consensus that patient editors have discussed on the talk page. While this is awaste of time for several good editors, it needn't also waste the time of the ArbCom. It can be resolved in other venues; an RfC may be the next appropriate step. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Reject. Neither mediation nor arbitration are appropriate venues to attempt to trump consensus in a content dispute. --jpgordon 17:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Reject, content dispute. Kirill Lokshin 20:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Reject, unless I'm missing something, I do not see a case. FloNight 12:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Appeal of His excellency

Initiated by Thatcher131 at 16:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC) as Arbitration Clerk, following receipt of e-mail from H.E.

Involved parties

• His excellency (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

N/A

Relevant links

• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/His_excellency
• Log of blocks following arbitration
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/MinaretDk
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/His excellency
• Discussion of proposed community ban

Statement by His Excellency

Hello. My ID is "His Excellency". I was banned from Misplaced Pages following a conflict with several editors whom I felt pushed an anti-Muslim POV. The block was supposed to have been for 6 months. Because of sockpuppeting, it was extended to a year.

Several arguments I would make in this regards.

Firstly, my edits have largely been productive ones. Adding sources, removing bias, etc.

Secondly, the terms of the arbcom finding proposed increased sanctions, a maximum up to a year, if I were to engage in language offensive to a particular ethnic group (nevermind I was engaging in a tit-for-tat against one who had constantly been attacking Muslims, as evidenced in my arbcom case). A permanent ban was never in question. Given my offenses that lead to a permanent ban drew from my productive editing to correct for another editor's bias, who was also already banned, the permanent ban is excessive.

Given the permanent ban goes against the ruling of arbcom, and that it was the decision of a single admin whose actions have long been considered by Misplaced Pages's Pakistani muslim community (I am neither Pakistani, nor a practicing Muslim btw), it can hardly be expected that an editor would willingly abide by such a decision as a permanent ban.

What is particularly bothersome to me is the rise of general allegations against other users that they are my sockpuppet, followed by their banning. User:Ibn Shah has been banned as my sockpuppet. Admin DmcDevit apparently 'confirmed' he is me, which I can say is not the case. Admin jpgordon did a checkuser and found Ibn Shah's info did not coincide with that of several of my known sockpuppets. It is therefore impossible that Ibn Shah could be me, since my IP range hadn't changed since I joined WP. For a while, User:BhaiSaab was accused of being me as well, and Dmcdevit similarly found us to be the same, although a myriad of editors (ask User:Netscott) argued that we had both been editing for a long time and that we had very different personalities and editing patterns. My fear is that all Muslim editors from the east coast of the US (or however far this dynamic IP range extends) who exibit defiance to anti-islamic editing, will find themselves banned with the pretext for it being that they are me.

What I'd like is for a fixed term to be set which I could wait out, after which I could participate on Misplaced Pages again. 4 months, 6 months, whatever. After that, I can edit and be held fully accountable for my actions. It doesn't benefit me to have to edit under a mask. It doesn't benefit you to have an editor on wikipedia who is made to feel he cannot be himself and edit within the community's system and therefore has to operate outside it.

Re: "Community Ban" : A look at the community discussion (link above) shows there was never a conclusion to that discussion. Members of the Islam pages dispute (mentioned in my first Arbcom case) including Merzbow, Tom Harrison, tried to persuade the community that I should be banned. User:Ben repeatedly pointed out that my original ban was expired. User:Durova ended the discussion acknowleging that there was much more going on behind the scenes and that he/she could not make a conclusion yet. The few who did support a ban were those who habitually edited Criticism of Islam or other such pages to push the anti-Muslim POV. My point is, the community ban discussion ended with no straightforward conclusion. Rama's Arrow placed his indefinite block regardless of that discussion. The arbcom case "Hkelkar 2" shows he is in the process of being desyopsed (sic?) because of his lopsided use of the block to silence users across one side of a content dispute while barely warning the other. From the Community Ban discussion: It appears there were no objections to the motion to close. BhaiSaab (talk • contribs) ban is reset 1 year, His excellency (talk • contribs) ban is reset 6 months. The banning administrators are asked to log actions executed at applicable locations to include the list of community bans and and applicable ArbCom enforcement logs. v/r Navou banter / contribs 09:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC). The indef ban was the action of a single controversial admin, not Arbcom and not the Community.72.68.192.91 15:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Merzbow

The sockpuppets, incivility, and POV-pushing have continued unabated, beginning days after his ArbCom ban was imposed last September (first sock was Shams2006 (talk · contribs)). See Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_His_excellency and Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_His_excellency. This editor has been the source of more drama and disruption that perhaps anyone except for Hkelkar (talk · contribs). In case anyone has forgotten what we left behind when his original ban was imposed, please refer back to this list of edits (presented in the ArbCom case) to which his targets (and they were many) were subjected to for months. (Recent examples: Tom is a racist, see WP:Fuckoff.)

There was nothing improper about the block extensions for socking, and about the community ban. The biggest issue here is that he has never apologized or even admitted responsibility for his disruption. In fact, he continues to peddle the nonsense that he's being ganged-up as a result of others' anti-Muslim prejudices, and that he's the hero. Tell me, what heroes make statements like this: "The Jews took note, and have taken every measure to stop me. They're an active bunch of snots...", and this: <Name redacted>, you're nothing but a traitor to your religion, siding with the people who ridicule your parents' religion. Don't post here."

Any condition of a return should involve nothing less than a complete apology, directly by name to the editors he's insulted and driven away, and at least a year away from the project with no evidence of socking. But there is no reason for ArbCom to take this appeal, the community can handle this quite properly, since there is now a community ban in place.

If H.E. wants to dispute CheckUser results, I believe there is a separate appeals process for that, at meta. But the editing patterns were similar enough that CheckUser was never really necessary (as several editors, including admin Tom harrison (talk · contribs), agreed). - Merzbow 23:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I should also note that "It doesn't benefit me to have to edit under a mask" is a direct threat to continue sockpuppeting. Curiously he says this while simultaneously denying allegations of socking. - Merzbow 00:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Ben was simply wrong, H.E.'s 6-month ArbCom ban was repeatedly extended before expiration because of sockpuppetry, by multiple admins, which a cursory glance at his block log will reveal. That dispenses with the argument that his ban had "expired". And claiming that these extensions are "invalid" because they weren't logged at the ArbCom page at the time of block (they were all logged back in March) is the worst sort of wikilawyering. The way out is simple. Stay away from Misplaced Pages for a long period of time, don't sock, apologize for past disruption, and the community will consider unblocking. - Merzbow 23:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Decline. --jpgordon 03:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Reject; I see nothing inappropriate about the community ban. Kirill Lokshin 20:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

59.144.161.143

Initiated by Wibbble at 22:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• wibbble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 59.144.161.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by wibbble

During a dispute over userguide-type content in HTC Wizard, 59.144.161.143 added more and more content to the article such as a great many external links. () Any attempts to discuss this have been like extracting teeth - 59.144.161.143 will only engage in any kind of discussion when pushed and pushed. I've gone to great lengths to try and reach consensus on an appropriate direction for the article, but 59.144.161.143 will only insist that deleting anything from wikipedia is wrong (, ). 59.144.161.143 has vandalised other articles (, , , ) in 'retaliation' for my edits to HTC Wizard, and refused to agree to mediation when I asked (). They refuse to acknowledge wikipedia policy and guidelines such as WP:EL and WP:NOT, and attempts to reach compromises such as moving content to other articles has largely been ignored. At this point, I do not feel that 59.144.161.143 wishes to follow established wikipedia behaviour and shows no interest in truly reaching or following consensus.

Statement by 59.144.161.143

Clerk notes

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

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

• Reject. Vandals can be blocked by any administrator; there is no need for arbitration here. Kirill Lokshin 20:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. --jpgordon 20:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Reject per Kirill. - SimonP 22:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Reject per Kirill. FloNight 12:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

Initiated by Hajji Piruz at 15:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC), merged with Hajji Piruz and his meatpuppets edit war on Iranian Azerbaijan related pages by Picaroon at 16:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Hajji Piruz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), formerly Azerbaijani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Atabek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AlexanderPar (talk · contribs)
• Pejman47 (talk · contribs)
• Alborz Fallah (talk · contribs)
• Behmod (talk · contribs)
• Alex Bakharev (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• I (Hajji Piruz) requested the arbcom, so I'm aware also
• Atabek

AlexanderPar Pejman47 Alborz Fallah Behmod Alex Bakharev

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• , , , ,

Statement by Hajji Piruz

Due to persistent personal attacks, canvassing, false accusations, harassment, attempts at splitting Misplaced Pages up along national lines, telling users what to and what not to edit, and abuse of Misplaced Pages’s rules, I’ve had enough. Atabek’s behavior is highly disruptive, especially towards me. He even rejected a peace proposal I had put forth, which I had done in an attempt to end the dispute. The only way to solve this issue is for Atabek and I, just the two of us, without any outside interference, post our evidence and let the third party neutral administrators decide what action to take. I can prove my innocence against Atabeks false accusations, I can prove everything I have just said about Atabek, and I can show his general disruptive behavior on Misplaced Pages. Atabek has never brought up a single piece of evidence supporting any of his calims against me, yet he persists, and the last couple of days took the last straw for me, I’m sick of being continuously harassed and having to waste hours of my time defending myself against things I didn’t do, when I could be making even more contributions to Misplaced Pages than I am now. I will post all of my evidence when the arbcom is opened, as I do not want to take up anyones time here. Thank you.

• You can speak to several admins, such as Tariqabjotu, who can confirm that the other users Atabek wants involved in this arbcom have nothing to do with our dispute. I dont know why he is getting into un-related issues, but there are also several suggestions of other users to include relating to other articles that I could also add, but again, this dispute isnt about any articles or any content, its about user behavior. This is a personal issue between Atabek and I. I'd appreciate it if Tariqabjotu can come here and confirm this, as he knows what this dispute is about better than anyone else except for Atabek and I. Including other users will not solve the problems that Atabek and I have with each other, they will worsen them. I just wanted to clear that up.

Statement by Atabek

I have indicated to the User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani earlier as I do now, that I have no interest in wasting community's time on this issue. Moreover, User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani did not completely try other methods of dispute resolution such as assuming good faith, CEM, seeking content mediation, or simply discussing on talk pages without emotion. Given these facts, I don't see a reason for his request for ArbCom attention at this point, as all he has to do is to assume good faith as advised . Nevertheless, I would like to bring some facts to ArbCom's attention:

• 1. After the ArbCom case , which was closed just two months ago, in which both User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani and I were placed on a revert parole, User:Azerbaijani has further filed and succeeded to change his username to User:Hajji Piruz.

• 2. User:Hajji Piruz then started his first personal attack upon myself in the form of editing my user page without permission. As you can clearly see, the purpose of the edit was intimidation and provocation, and that objective was clearly spelled out by User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani here . Note that at the same diff the user goes as far as charging administrators and ArbCom judges with corruption.

• 3. When anon IP sockpuppets of banned User:Tajik resurfaced on Safavid dynasty and started editting the page, User:Hajji Piruz started actively supporting those socks and even calling my legitimate attempt to stop sockpuppets as vandalism . Those same socks User:Tajik were registered as User:German-Orientalist, for whom User:Hajji Piruz even started a discussion page , but were later confirmed as sockpuppets .

• 4. Bothered by the attacks of User:Hajji Piruz upon myself on discussion pages in support of socks, I have asked him to assume good faith , yet the user has clearly responded that he "does not need to AGF" with regards to myself .

• 5. Frustrated even more by this disruptive behavior of User:Hajji Piruz, I requested help from User:Tariqabjotu. Here, I would like to note that User:Hajji Piruz has similarly targetted another User:Dacy69 on User:Tariqabjotu's talk page earlier . I have also requested help from User:Thatcher131 as the manager of the last ArbCom case .

• 6. Pursuing an endless discussion thread at User:Tariqabjotu's talk page and accusing me of canvassing, User:Hajji Piruz has managed to pursuade the former to support his campaign. User:Hajji Piruz was first advised to open a CEM case, and when I simply asked a 3rd party user for advise , User:Hajji Piruz immediately backtracked from CEM idea and further accused me on canvassing. He clearly chose not try this avenue of dispute resolution which I never rejected.

• 7. Continuing on, User:Hajji Piruz then convinced User:Tariqabjotu to file an RfC against myself , an effort which nevertheless failed to yield sufficient public support. Even some 3rd party users have noted that User:Hajji Piruz was clearly intimidating me and provoking a conflict . User:Hajji Piruz has even requested an RfC comment about myself from a sock for whom he made the talk page and even made comment generalizing along national lines . He stated his RfC desired outcome as banning myself from Misplaced Pages, which was his "approach" to dispute resolution, again no good faith.

• 8. Seeing the futileness of his efforts, User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani is now trying to continue on with his goal in ArbCom, wasting the committee's valuable time. Instead of assuming good faith, as he has been told here , he goes on revert warring and even clearly Wikistalking myself on the articles that he has never touched before as soon as I start editing.

• 9. Demonstrates disturbingly radical forms ethnic slander .

Overall, I ask for help with explaining User:Hajji Piruz that he has to assume good faith and try other avenues if he has personal disputes. As my history shows, I contribute to lots of different articles and have no interest in endless time-consuming reports and responses which have no use for encyclopedia. But I am forced to defend myself against this blackmail, wikistalking, intimidation, revert warring, and provocation by User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani.

If nevertheless, ArbCom approves the case, I shall note that I would like to include User:Houshyar, User:AlexanderPar, User:Pejman47, User:Behmod, and User:Ariana310 for revert warring and dispute engagement along with User:Hajji Piruz. But again, I prefer the path of disengagement, dispute resolution and path of ceasing to waste community's time. As I told him already, after my one-way attempts to AGF, I shall simply ignore his comments , because I don't like to engage with people who are clearly in Misplaced Pages for non-encyclopedic purposes and battling along national lines and . Thanks. Atabek 17:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved User:Grandmaster

This is another step in the campaign of harassment of User:Atabek by User:Hajji Piruz. Hajji Piruz was wikistalking Atabek for quite some time, and editing Atabek’s personal page by Piruz and adding Atabek to the category of sockpuppeteers was a culmination of this campaign. User:Hajji Piruz clearly stated the desired outcome in the RfC he started on Atabek, which is getting Atabek permanently banned.

From what I can see, Hajji Piruz sees Arbcom as a tool for achievement of his goal. Hajji Piruz has been aggressively editing Azerbaijan related articles for quite some time, which is why he ended up being a party to Armenia-Azerbaijan arbcom case. However, it did not stop him from continuing the same disruptive editing of the articles on the same topic. He was making controversial edits without consensus with other involved editors, which led to new conflicts. Now he tries to get rid of any opposition by eliminating users who happen to disagree with him. I don’t see how Atabek was disruptive and why Hajji Piruz, the person who was following Atabek to almost every page he contributed too and even made provocative edits to his personal page is not. I urge arbcom to consider behavior of Hajji Piruz and also a number of other users, who do nothing but revert pages in support of Hajji Piruz, which looks extremely suspicious. Grandmaster 20:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by user:Dacy69

I would like to draw attention to user:Hajji Piruz (formerly known user:Azerbaijani disruptive activity in Misplaced Pages where he drew several meatpuppets like user:AlexanderPar, user:Pejman47, user:Alborz Fallah and others to launch edit war on page Iranian Azerbaijan, Azeri cartoon controversy in the Iran newspaper, Ethnic minorities in Iran.

• Meatpuppets are appearing usually after user:Hajji Piruz starts edit war and make reverts for user:Hajji Piruz since he is on revert parole without any substantial comments on talkpages. Some of them only lately were involved in talkpages after some appeals to discuss issues before making edits. As soon as I touch the article user:Hajji Piruz and his meatpuppets remove referenced info.

• The dispute started on page Iranian Azerbaijan on the relevancy my multisourced edit . After dispute started I opened RfC, and accepted RfC initial proposal made by admin user:Alex Bakharev but other editors did not. Later dispute also arose on other related pages.

• user:Hajji Piruz and user:AlexanderPar changed the name article Azeri cartoon controversy in the Iran newspaper several times without discussion.

• Another important issue needs to be resolved is the use of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and similar sources. Some editors like user:AlexanderPar keep removing them, arguing that they are not neutral and can not be used in Misplaced Pages. As a result of user:Hajji Piruz and his meatpuppets activity certain Misplaced Pages pages are hijacked by Iranian government POV. Thus, integrity and neutrality of Misplaced Pages at some points is disrupted.

• user:Alborz Fallah made comment along the ethnic line and in spirit of battleground and this quite insulting about Azerbaijani literature ]. It is interesting to mention that this article appeared during the dispute though I don’t have problem with its content and assume good faith.

• Activity of user:Hajji Piruz should be thoroughly investigated. This is the only case where I can’t assume good faith. Having taken name “Azerbaijani” he was involved in edit war (that case was considered in previous Arbitration where I was involved too) and supported Armenian editors vs. Azerbaijani. Now he is waging edit war on many Azerbaijani related pages, making insults, e.g. , can’t work towards compromise, making false reports on ANI. He has history of backing banned user:Tajik and his socks, forging images, placing POV comments and violation of copyrights.

• I also request to investigate admin Alex Bakharev biased attitude to this case. I wrote to Admin Alex Bakharev several comments and emailed him but he did not respond but quickly blocked me for parole violation while he ignored to investigate user:AlexanderPar edit war. Plus - he changed his own initial opinion on RfC and supported Hajji Piruz and AlexanderPar

• I am fully aware that my own behavior will be investigated since I am on Arbcom parole. I admit that 2 times I was provoked and involved in edit war and got blocked for that.

Summary of request:

• Edit on page Iranian Azerbaijan and other abovementioned pages
• Use of sources like Amnesty International
• Name of the page related to anti-Azeri cartoon in Iran newspaper
• Edit war on the part of above-mentioned users.

Clerk notes

The parties here were both parties to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan and were sanctioned in the final decision in that case. Conducting a review of subsequent behavior under the heading of that case, rather than opening a whole new case, is an option. Newyorkbrad 15:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It has become clear that this case goes beyond just Atabek and Hajji Piruz - another Armenia-Azerbaijan request was added to the top of the page recently, so I have merged it with this one and retitled the section. Picaroon (Talk) 16:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

• Accept as review of previous case. If the existing sanctions are insufficient to resolve the problem, then we shall have to consider further ones. Kirill Lokshin 20:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

MEMRI

Initiated by Jgui at 15:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Jgui (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - initiator
• Armon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Isarig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Quaiqu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

article:

• Middle East Media Research Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Above parties have all been notified: Armon Isarig Quaiqu Humus sapiens

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Attempts at resolving this dispute have all failed. Talking to the other editors has been attempted - every edit that I have made to the MEMRI page (including reversions) has been accompanied with a statement in the Talk page describing my changes and why I have made it. I have repeatedly invited these editors to discuss and modify the text that I have added that they disagree with instead of completely deleting every modification I make (e.g. here and here and here and here). I have also attempted to resolve these disputes by disengaging; e.g. see here and here. Informal mediation was attempted for one of these changes, which led Armon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to promise to rewrite a paragraph that he considered an acceptable compromise (“I still haven't come up with one, but I'll give it a shot ASAP” Feb.28, 07). But he has never contributed that paragraph and the informal mediation collapsed here; afterwards he has continued to remove any version of this paragraph including an earlier version that he had written himself. In a final attempt to reach resolution I have invited the editors to appear before the Mediation Cabal in the MEMRI Talk page (e.g. here and here), and put notices on Armon’s here and Isarig’s here user talk pages, but they have completely ignored my requests, effectively refusing Mediation.

Statement by Jgui

Editors Armon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Isarig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (and renamed editor Quaiqu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – formerly Elizmr) are enforcing WP:OWN of the MEMRI page and preventing other editors from contributing NPOV properly-cited text. They feel free to make major edits without any discussion either before or after they make their edits (e.g. here or here or here, all of which have no contemporaneous Talk page discussion), but insist that other editors must pre-submit all proposed edits for prior consensus approval on the Talk page (e.g. here). Attempts to insert text without this approval (which is virtually never given) are immediately deleted often with no notice in the Talk page. This has been occurring for six months (e.g. see my comments here and here and here and here and here).

Further evidence of WP:OWN is the pattern of statements made by these editors on Talk pages in recent months: “You've been editing WP all of 2 days, may I suggest that a little humility is on order” (Isarig here); “Then I suggest you acquaint yourself with the subject matter before editing WP.” (Isarig here); “Y'know, I think you picked a lousy page to begin with on WP -I say this from experience.” (Armon here); “If you want to quote Hoffman in the article, you must show ... Hop to it.” (Isarig here); “If you're being ignored, it's only because I'm not interested in reading yet another filibuster about how hard done by you are." (Armon here); “You will either get consensus for your requested changes here (and so far you have failed to do so), or these changes will stay out of the article.” (Isarig here). “If there's consensus that it is NPOV and relevant we will add it.” (Isarig here).

These editors are applying a far different standard for their own edits than they are enforcing for other editors. Although they make their own edits without bothering to even note it on the Talk page, they block changes by other editors by completely reverting out their edits even when these changes are described in the Talk pages and even after they have been modified to address specific concerns. If pressed to justify their wholesale deletions these editors frequently make empty unsubstantiated claims (such as “POV”) until they are finally forced to fall back on “no consensus has been achieved” – by which they simply mean that THEY have not agreed (e.g. see the end of the discussion in the “No Response” section here).

The net effect of their efforts has been to freeze out many other editors. In the time period that I have been editing, I have observed these editors remove all traces of edits that were attempted by approximately twenty different named editors, plus several anon IP editors. In the process they have even caused editors to publicly give up in frustration, (e.g. here).

In a related matter, the admins Humus_sapiens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Jayjg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) may be aiding these editors in their endeavor to WP:OWN this page by protecting these editors and their edits. I do not know WP policy well enough to know whether the actions of these admins are prohibited or not, but their involvement on the MEMRI page has caused me to list them as involved parties so that this can be considered.

The abuses of these editors Armon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Isarig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Quaiqu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has brought meaningful edits of the MEMRI page by other editors to a halt. Furthermore, their actions have wasted many hours of time by sincere good-faith editors, and have caused some editors to give up entirely. I believe action by the Arbitration Committee is necessary to resolve this situation.

Thank you, Jgui 15:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved User:Jayjg

I'm not sure what this case is all about, but I'm not an editor of the MEMRI page, nor am I involved on its talk page. I protected the article once, in early March, after the article had been reverted 21 times in 3 days. In early May I reverted an IP editor who had inserted a WP:BLP violation. That is the extent of my involvement in the article in the past 2 years. I have no idea what the specific disputes on this article are about, nor do I care to learn. I've removed myself from the list of involved parties.

Regarding User:Nagle's dubious and irrelevant claims below, I'm also not an editor of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America page, am certainly not involved in the edit war there, and have no "position I favor" on it. I've also barely edited the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article (9 out of the last 1,000 edits), and on the others I've mostly been involved in trying to keep Nagle's original research out of articles he has apparently claimed as his WP:OWN. What is rather disappointing is that Nagle's comment is a typical example of editors using this venue as a platform upon which to piggyback their own private and unrelated beefs, in attempts to win content disputes. Expect a fair bit more of it over the next week or so. Jayjg 16:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:Nagle

Although I've certainly had disagreements with Jayjg (talk · contribs), he doesn't seem to have been involved with the MEMRI article. In recent months he's been involved with other activity which might be characterized as WP:OWN in Jewish Lobby (ongoing multiparty edit war for last several months), Allegations of Israeli Apartheid (subject of a previous arbitration), Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (used admin privileges to lock article in a state favoring his position), and StandWithUs (just wierd). But none of this rises to the level of something that needs a full arbitration, like the one last year. Mediation, maybe. --John Nagle 16:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:Commodore Sloat

I fully agree with Jgui that User:Armon and User:Isarig have ownership problems with this page (as well as several others that deal with Middle East issues). There was an attempt at Community-enforceable mediation on the Juan Cole page that resulted from similar issues. They exercise ownership over those pages and then protect their ownership vehemently, often personally attacking anyone who tries to make changes. They revert and delete without comment, and they only comment in talk after being pressed several times, usually to say that they've already discussed their changes (referring vaguely to discussions that were months old). When they are shown to be wrong over and over about something, they ultimately concede a minor change, but they continue to engage in mass reversions, disrupting the process of coming to any kind of consensus. In the ongoing dispute with Jgui, Isarig continued to revert entire blocks of text even while conceding in talk that some of the text was acceptable to him.

Regarding Jayjg, it is notable that one of his edits on the page, which he characterized as reverting a BLP violation, also changed "West Bank (occupied territories)" to "Judea and Samaria" -- a politically contentious change that could have used at least a bit of explanation. I'm not saying it was a bad edit, only that it is false to characterize his edit as simply protecting BLP. And it's also notable that when he protects a page involving these editors, it is always in the version one of these editors preferred. That was the case on his protection of the MEMRI page; it was also the case on the Juan Cole page. It is also notable that Jayjg has rushed to the defense of Armon in the Juan Cole mediation attempt, and became very abusive to me in that process. I think there is a larger behavioral issue at work here that transcends any specific focus on the MEMRI page. Looking at Armon's talk page, I notice that other users have commented on this problem. Armon deleted the comment as "trolling," but he never bothered to respond to it. Personally I doubt that Armon is a meatpuppet of Jayjg as some users suggested, but I do think that Jayjg is not a neutral admin when it comes to Armon (and Isarig). csloat 20:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Isarig's comments below, he is mistaken about my concern with Jayjg. I never said Jayjg used a misleading edit summary. I said that his statement above was misleading (it is above where he said it was a BLP-related edit). I'm not sure why it's a significant point for Isarig to take up. He is misreading me as attacking Jayjg for POV editing -- that wasn't my point at all. I simply was pointing out that he was not a neutral admin on these issues, and he appears to march lockstep with Armon and Isarig on every issue I have seen the three of them involved in. And at least a couple of other editors have noted that on Armon's talk page; Armon's removal of such notices as "trolling" certainly raises eyebrows.

Isarig's claims about my editing are, of course, wholly false. I have not engaged in disruptive editing and have attempted over and over again to mediate in good faith. The most recent mediation was closed after being stalled completely by User:Armon; Armon was arguing tooth and nail over a few words, and then he suddenly dropped out of the argument. After several days of not responding to the discussion, the mediator announced that he would give Armon a few more days to say something before closing the mediation. After that, I asked about the consequences of refusing mediation. After another week of silence, Isarig jumped in out of the blue (having totally ignored the substantive discussion in the mediation), attacking me over and over and over again, making the empty claim that I am "disruptive" in ever more histrionic (and personally attacking) tones. When I suggested mediation rather than continued personal attacks, he simply laughed it off as a "colossal waste of time." Another uninvolved editor was inspired at this point to note that it was Isarig who was wasting time. Isarig immediately attacked her and continued to attack her and threaten her (as well as me) in another heated exchange. Within a couple of days the entire page was filled with bickering between Isarig, myself, and the other user that had gone far astray of the actual attempt to mediate. His actions on the mediation page, in short, were the very definition of disruptive editing, and his actions in many many interactions I've had with him have been the same. csloat 07:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry - one last comment in response to Isarig below. He falsely stated that "several administrators commented on his behavior as being indicative of not wanting to actually resolve problems." This is totally false. Only one admin made such a comment -- guess who? User:Jayjg. He made this comment after what I saw as a series of unprovoked attacks against me on the mediation page, which finished with an unfair ultimatum. Jayjg then left the mediation, telling me that "You don't want to solve the problem," which was a totally unfair aspersion against my motives (and it is an aspersion which my actions clearly showed to be false). Again, it all points to the fact that Jayjg is not neutral when it comes to Armon. I'm not sure what the implications of that are, but it may suggest that he prematurely removed his name from the list of involved parties to this arbitration request. csloat 07:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

A comment about Humus Sapiens - I agree with him that his participation on the page was minimal. However, his minimal participation was used frequently by User:Isarig as evidence of an alleged consensus against Jgui's version (when the reality was there were 4 or 5 editors in favor of Jgui's version and only two arguing actively against it, Armon and Isarig). Isarig several times claimed there was a consensus the other way around, indicating that he was counting Humus' edits as votes of support. csloat 22:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Isarig

Underlying this request is a content dispute that dates back to December 23, 2006. On that date, as his very first set of edits to WP, Jgui , without any prior discussion, inserted several POV edits to the article, which have never gained consensus of other editors. These changes included material sourced to a blog which is not a reliable source, original research he performed on an archived version of MEMRI’s web site, and a highly POV and unsourced characterization of a controversy MEMRI has been involved in. These changes were reverted later that day by Quaiqu, who explained why - citing the blog issue in her edit summary and discussing the changes Jgui made on the Talk page of the article. Since then, a pattern has emerged: Jgui re-inserts the same POV, OR and non-RS material, while falsely alleging that no one is discussing his changes on Talk. Numerous editors (all 4 of those named in the above) revert the changes, after extensive discussion on the Talk page citing their reasons, Jgui then disappears for 3-4 weeks, and then re-appears, making the same POV edits, and repeating the same false claim that no one has been willing to discuss his changes with him. The editors repeat their reason for removal on the Talk page, and highlight the false nature of the “no discussion claims” (the archive has an entire section titled ‘Recent edits alleging "no response on Talk"’ – which repeated, again, many of the objections to the non-consensus edits) I don’t expect ArbCom (should it elect to hear this case) to make a decision regarding the actual content dispute, but the disruptive behavior of Jgui (and csloat) should be addressed.

I have been accused by Jgui of trying to own the article. That claim is far from the truth. Other than Jgui’s repeated re-insertion of the POV material, the only substantive recent change was the addition of a new controversy involving MEMRI. This material, suggested by JoshuaZ on the talk page was added to the article by RolandR. I edited the material to make it more accurately reflect the controversy, and in it’s current form, having been further edited by Abnn and Hnassif (two other editors who have a different POV about MEMRI than mine)- I have no problem with it being included in the article, despite the fact that it was not suggested or added by me, and despite the fact that it is highly critical of MEMRI. I have no objection to properly sourced, relevant material presented in a NPOV way. I object to Jgui’s edits because they do no to conform to WP policies- as I have explained at length on the Talk page.

Regarding csloat: His disruptive editing style has been the topic of several mediation attempts, all of which ended with no resolution, after several administrators commented on his behavior as being indicative of not wanting to actually resolve problems. This style is clearly demonstrated by his comments in his statement below. In an attempt to discredit Jayjg (who is not even a party to this ArbCom request), he accuses Jayjg of using a misleading edit summary – cloats alleges that Jayjg reverted something claiming it was a BLP violation in the edit summary , while also making a POV edit in the same revert. A casual inspection of the diffs provided shows this is invented out of whole cloth. Jayjg did not characterize his edit as a revert of a BLP violation – he simply wrote he was reverting edits by an anon IP editor – which he did. One of the POV edits by the anon editor was changing the official title of an Israeli executive to a POV one, and that change, among others, was reverted by Jayjg. Csloat misrepresents what Jayjg wrote in the edit summary, and further accuses him of some POV edit – never mentioning that this was a POV edit made by an anon editor that got reverted.

Statement by User:Humus sapiens

I don't see how I am involved in this, having made total of 5 edits out of the last 1,000 (that's going back to March 2006) including usual anti-vandalism, copyedits, etc., and I do not see how I "may be aiding these editors in their endeavor to WP:OWN this page by protecting these editors and their edits." ←Humus sapiens 10:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Accept. A long running dispute that we can hopefully help ameliorate. - SimonP 15:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. Kirill Lokshin 20:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Pak21

Initiated by Dm2ortiz at 00:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Dm2ortiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pak21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Dm2ortiz

User Dm2ortiz is being harassed by user Pak21. The incident started over a dispute started over page naming. This dispute is currently being mediated by a consensus of the Dungeons & Dragons Misplaced Pages project. Since the start of this dispute user Pak21 as constantly harassed me DM2ortiz about every single one of my postings. He has not commented on any other users in the group but has focused his full attention on me I have repeatedly asked him not to contact me but he ignores this and continues to harass. Dm2ortiz 00:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC) all of Pax comments were worded in such a way to bait me into negative responses. He showed he chooses his words carefully as to prevent it looking like harassment but it comes down to what someone asks to be left alone this should be respected. His behavior has been very juvenile the last few days attempting to find any and every reason in a way it's to get me in trouble rather than doing anything constructive. A quick look at the contributions list will show over the past few days Pax has done absolutely nothing on Misplaced Pages others then watch and harass. The question is why is he so concerned with what I am doing? why is he so concerned with me following the rules when he does a follow them himself? Answer a simple personal vendetta. Dm2ortiz 12:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Pak21

There's no way the ArbCom is going to take this one on, but just for reference: my first knowledge of Dm2ortiz was when he moved a large number of Dungeons & Dragons adventures from "<title>" to "<title> (module)" with the edit summary "WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons". Given the edit summary, I brought this up at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons#Module naming where it rapidly became apparent both that Dm2ortiz had not discussed with the project, and that his understanding of the naming policy was at best flawed. A clear consensus was rapidly reached, and I reverted Dm2ortiz's moves. He then reverted these moves again, claiming there was no consensus. I brought this up at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts#Pre-emptive disambiguation of Dungeons & Dragons articles, where an uninvolved editor agreed there was a consensus. In the meantime, Dm2ortiz spammed the talk page of every listed member of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons and create an entirely unnecessary "poll", again demonstrating his misunderstanding of policy with the comment that "I don't tink (sic) it's settled until everyone has a say". In any case, I proposed waiting a week and then reverting the changes.

The above dispute made me look at Dm2ortiz's contributions; I noticed that he had uploaded a large number of fair-use images, none of which had a fair-use rationale and many of which were much too big to be valid fair use claims. I brought this up on his talk page, but no action was forthcoming. Therefore, I tagged the images with {{nrd}}, which Dm2ortiz began reverting as "vandalism,". At this stage, I brought this up at WP:ANI#Removal of image tags where another uninvolved editor reverted Dm2ortiz's changes and cautioned him not to remove image tags without solving the problem. Dm2ortiz then started adding some very poor rationales to images, none of which mentioned the specific page on which they were used or why 800 pixel wide images were needed. I again tagged the pages and explained this to him, but this was simply met with more "vandalism" reverts and a response from Dm2ortiz of {{User DGAF}}. Following the advice at AN/I, I then tagged the images with {{ifd}}, where Dm2ortiz again demonstrated his lack of understanding of fair-use image policy by claiming that "Misplaced Pages policies states that high-rez images should be used when ever possible.", and then, to cap it all off, making a blatant WP:POINT nomination of Image:Ultramarines_Dreadnought.jpg, faking my signature along the way.

I think it's clear that there is one editor here who is acting disruptively, and it's not me. --Pak21 07:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Serpent's Choice

Although ArbCom certainly doesn't need a tangentially-involved editor to tell them that there is nothing here that needs adjudication, I would like to point out that this is well-in-hand at the community and administrator level. In fact, at current, Dm2ortiz is currently blocked for legal threats over the issues, ironically stemming from incorrect claims about fair use rationales. There's nothing to see or do here. Serpent's Choice 18:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Reject, premature and a fairly minor dispute. - SimonP 15:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Reject, community seems to be on top of this already. Kirill Lokshin 20:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. --jpgordon 00:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Zacheus-jkb

Initiated by -jkb- at 15:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• -jkb- (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

alternatively s:cs:User:-jkb-

• V. Z. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zacheus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (a problem, this user has several different accounts)

and all other accounts with different names here and other projects of wikimedia

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• see User:V. Z. (he was renamed to this, Zacheus is something not to be defined)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• here I could give you links to about one dozens of thousands of pages on meta, en.wiki, cs.wiki etc., please do not press me to this

Statement by -jkb-

I request an arbitration decision against the User:V. Z. as well as User:Zacheus as well as other obscure accounts of this user. User:V. Z. is a account of a former user, who was renamed here and who is banned on the Czech Wikiopedia since May 2006 (reopened yesterday).

I do this because:

• the user with several names published or enabled to publish my personal data on Wikimedia projects (and more over in several sites in internet as well)
• although he was banned for it on Czech Misplaced Pages and although he denied this on his blog one year ago he continued to claim that I was collaborting with a communist secret police and thus he dangered my family members still living in a former East European country

Some remarks to the first point:

• he published my real name and my domicile several times here and in internet
• on April 4th 2007 he threatened me on the Slovak Misplaced Pages that he will publish in internet a photo of mine which he made for this purpose (see OTRS Ticket#: 2007061010005551)
• on April 12th 2007 was this photo published in internet by his former blog colleague, here then User:Ross.Hedvicek (see also User talk:Ross.Hedvicek)
• on May 15th could therefore User:Semenač (another banned user from Czech Misplaced Pages) could upload the photo to Commons () and to use this in several harrassing pages
• further, he anounced legal threats against one of my colleague

All statements given here, all reasons, all articles etc. given here can be sourced on request.

I request to ban this user from Misplaced Pages at all. His trolling has been mentioned here several times, he destroys not only different projects but is trolling on meta (requesting there the removal of rights for stewards, check users etc., see also Cswiki issues as one example), has been warned several times ( by User:Thatcher131) not to import his problems in other domains, he describes on his blog stewards and the english wikipedia admins as fascists (some stewards will remember) etc.

Thanks for understanding and patience, -jkb- 15:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Some comments to comments

The times I could not believe some things going on here are in the past, now it starts to be funny. I have over 16.000 edits total here in the wiki projects. Since May 2004 I have experience not only with editing, but with the work of admin on several projects. I alone started the Czech Wikisource in April 2006 with 30 pages, now there are some 2200 ones. I made a request for an arbitration - „Personal attacks / publishing of personal data by user Zacheus etc.“, which was changed by Thathcer131 to the case „Zacheus-jkb“ with the comment, both will be banned as both are guilty () – long before the arbitration begun. Although Thatcher131 knows who Zacheus is from former incidents (see e.g. a recommendation to ban him as a troll - ).

After Zacheus promised to leave the project he was renamed, now he has at least three accounts here (some 20 or more blocked sockpuppets on cs.wiki – see ). He jumps around trolling and disturbing everywhere: on meta in Nov 2006 he asked to desysop admins and stewards like Datrio, Yann, Dmcdevit, Wikimol (check user on cs.wiki) - approx. November 2006, see also pages on meta like , the Czech Misplaced Pages is (post)communistic (e.g. and many more), the admins on en.wiki are fascists ( or ). Trolling on Meta again in last weeks (beeing banned - ), trolling on en in articles about A. Halman (see e.g. ), claiming mostly "me and Jimbo – we know it and we manage it..", showing his true point of view by an abscure question () after I have reverted () a perversity ( – category:Polish porn stars) in that article. Banned on cs.wiki for trolling, personal attacks and disturbing the project () – the block has been prolonged several times after repeating the same behaviour Blocked on sk.wiki two times in a short time for personal attacks and threatening () etc. etc.

He claims some stupid nonsenses in his statement here, which can be proved:

• No 1 – he published my data in the past, real name and domicile, see e.g. , after he threatende to do it, see e.g. )
• No 5 – after a admin on cs.source blocked a sockpuppet of him, he made legal threat against him in an email - etc. etc.

This is surely not the only case, which I had to think about last time. Sure, it is not bad but normal, that the anonymity of the internet forces trolls and psychopats etc. to troll here in the project. It is deeply iritating anyway to see their manipulative behaviour and disruptive actions and perverse attacks in different projects; but above all it is frustrating to see a great tollerance toward such individuals which forces and supports them here. Thus, I had to ask very often in the last time, if this project is to make an encyclopaedy, or if it is a place for a growing collective harassment, where authors who want to write have no place. And I saw a lot of good people who left in the past. And my time is not money but should be funny. -jkb- 15:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Zacheus

I am a former bureaucrat on cs: (from 9 March 2004 to 4 August 2005). I was desyssoped after -jkb-'s private request. (At first he denied it, then he had to admitted it.) On 10 September 2005 -jkb- blocked me there for the infinite time (not in May 2006 as he lied). Reason was: "I would appreciate if the community would shake off this element. " = speaking about me "I intentionally don't indicate examples of <my real name>'s bestiality, I don't have stomach to this." "Voting is not allowed to comment."

After that I transfered my activity on en:, but I soon began to be harassed by -jkb- again. He even established his own page where he tried to mix me up with vandals, although repeated user's checks proved I have nothing in common with them. That's why I dropped my long term account with my real name which I used since 23 December 2003. But -jkb- has spied my new account (Zacheus) and underage steward Datrio has confirmed to him that this is my new account.

That's why I asked for renaming and established 3rd account. I have no other account, although -jkb- frequently claims opposite even he knows pretty well he is lying. I succeeded in hiding of my 3rd account to -jkb- (I stopped editting most topics I liked and which -jkb- knew I liked.) Were it needy, I am ready to provide its name if it remains hidden to -jkb-. But -jkb- did not stop writing my real name under any possible occassion.

In that time (5 December 2006) I tried to reply to -jkb-'s cronies from cs: at my user page. Thatcher131 censured me for doing this and I have expressed my deep regret for doing that and never repeated that. After -jkb- continued to harass me with revealing of my real name I seeked a mediation. This was rejected since -jkb- refused to agree with it, although I notificated it to him. On contrary, -jkb- failed to place a notice on my talk page when he lodged this complaint.

Problem with -jkb- is, that he speaks non-understandable language, for instance: "Zacheus is something not to be defined". It is not only problem of his English, he is equally non-understandable in Czech. I don't know what -jkb- has meant by "User:V. Z. is a account of a former user". V. Z. is my account (he knows it) and I am not a former user.

Concerning -jkb-'s accusations:

1. I never published -jkb-'s personal data on any Wikimedia project, nor his real name, nor his domicile.
2. I never said -jkb- was a Communist secret police agent.
3. I never threatened him on the Slovak part of the Misplaced Pages. The whole story there was quite different: I published there a list of nicks I met in real life, one of them being -jkb-. He denied he met me. I wrote that I had done and that I was able to prove it by a photo. Then -jkb- confirmed he knew me, but never explained why he had lied at first.
4. I am not responsible for other people's actions (Mr Hedvíček or Semenáč), although -jkb- always tried to mix me up with vandals or other people – his favourite practice.
5. I never made any legal threat.
6. I never troll here or there. I admit I seek justice in cs: on Meta, but this has nothing in common with en: as Thatcher131 explained to me.
7. I stopped importing the problems of other projects after Thatcher131 explained to me that this is a bad behaviour. On contrary, -jkb- continued that practice, as recently as on 11 June 2007. He does not acknowledge any authority and he told us he was even disappointed by Jimbo's behaviour. In my view he refuses to cohabitate here with me peacefully, that's why he should be punished.

—Zacheus 06:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Reaction by Zacheus to Thatcher

I wish to thank Thatcher131 for his excellent summary of the case. Since the whole case is very complicated I wish to bring some additional clarifications.

I was not blocked as late as in May 2006, but already in September 2005, being labelled as the "element" or the "beast".

Decision of the Czech ArbCom is useless. It was made by two (rarely by three) anonymous arbitrators only (both easily identifiable as RuM & Wikimol), both having harsh disputes with me before. I asked many times for their recuses, but to no avail. Their finding that I "published the names of Czech editors" was not based by any evidence.

Concerning accusation of -jkb- that he was a communist collaborator, situation is much more difficult. First of all, I never wrote that statement to any Wikimedia project. Second, -jkb- is in real life a rather famous person. I wrote about him on my blog (which concentrates on media, politics, and history), but only truth.

My petition to change my account to V. Z. was not rejected, but only suspended. User Cynik accused me to be an anti-Semite, although he knew very well that I was punished for pushing pro-Israeli POV. I was so deeply injured that I stopped any further negotiation until this shameful personal attack is removed. But all the Czech sysops refused to do that.

I don't think that I have engaged in fight on meta or have much ill will there. I asked only for renaming and -jkb- to stop using my real name.

As to the article Reconcilee, I established it on 30 January 2006, because it describes the important phenomenon of the Czech Communist past. I was inspired by the cs: article from 26 January 2006. The fact that -jkb- was the reconcilee has been already included there. I deny that I established the article Jan Koukal.

I think that -jkb- at first unintentionally, but after my notice intentionally, mixed me with a vandal. I hoped that multiple user's checks would prevent him mix me with a vandal again. But to no avail.

I never posted -jkb-'s photograph to Commons. I agree that unintentional mentioning of my real name (for example in citing my earlier post to talk pages) is not is not a privacy violation per se. But I hold that both repeated and intentional doing this constitutes harassment.

I would like to add that the account V. Z. has 888 edits and my third account has 318 edits. To sum up I have totally 1440 useful edits on en: only, plus more than 6000 on cs:.

—Zacheus 15:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Reaction by Zacheus to -jkb-

I would like to add that -jkb- blocked me in the Wikisource, because I notified blatant copyvios there he had refused to take care of, for instance s:cs:Dva tisíce slov (the famous text of the still living person). He removed my notification as "vandalism" and intentionally falsely marked the text as "PD-manifesto", although he knew pretty well that is not in the public domain.

-jkb-'s distortion of reality is obvious, for example he wrote: Thatcher131 ... recommended "to ban him as a troll". In fact he wrote: "Dmcdevit recommended banning you (Zacheus) as a troll, and I am inclined to agree unless you will stop importing the drama from the cs wiki here." I stopped, -jkb- did not, because he continued to reveal my personal data, although they have no connection with my behaviour in en:.

I never promised to leave the project when I would be renamed. In fact, I gave this reason: "Reason: Breaching of my privacy by Egg and -jkb-."

I never said "the admins on en.wiki are fascists".

I was blocked on Meta by -jkb-'s friend. In my view, underage people like Timichal or Datrio should not be sysops. "Therefore, it has been decided that constables must, of course, have all of the qualifications of Citizendium members, and, in addition, have attained the age of 25 years old and be a college graduate."

I was never trolling in articles about A. H., but rather -jkb- intentionally breached WP:BLP by keeping her full name in the name of the article, although Jimbo Wales decided the opposite.

My question was not obscure. I did not see any "rv of porno-vandlism" in the edit. Does anybody see it?

I was not banned on cs.wiki for trolling, personal attacks and disturbing the project, although in cs: is everything possible. Cs: is ruled by the people like -jkb-.

The block has not been prolonged several times after repeating the same behaviour, but simply because I inserted some interwiki and this was considered as breach of the lynching made by -jkb-'s friends Rum and Wikimol (na mol means soused in English).

I never threatened anybody on sk:.

I never wrote about -jkb- on the wiki, but only about trockyist Jan Koukal.

30 January 2006 was before 5 April 2006.

I cannot remember that I made a legal threat against somebody (who?) even in an e-mail. I suppose, it is another -jkb-'s lie.

—Zacheus 15:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Matthew

Wait a minute... you're both accusing each other of stalking one another? Matthew 15:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher131

Pretty bold of jkb to file a case against V.Z. for revealing personal information when jkb has done exactly the same thing as recently as today. I'll have to check my e-mail archives to refresh my memory of this incident, but as it seems that neither V.Z. nor jkb can leave this incident alone, some form of banning is required. I have half a mind to simply ban V.Z. outright since he is the one who brought this dispute from cs wikipedia to en in the first place, but jkb's conduct is not above examination. Additional response possibly to follow. Thatcher131 15:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Background

Zacheus (former account V.Z. which was renamed from V______ Z______ his real name) was banned from the Czech wikipedia after an arbitration case there . The case included allegations that Zacheus published the names of Czech editors and that he accused -jkb- of being a communist collaborator . In the aftermath of the case, Zacheus attempted to change the name of his account on cs from his real name to V.Z. and was rejected there; there was a big fight on meta and much ill will on all sides, apparently.

After being banned on cs.wikipedia, Zacheus posted some material to his en user page (now deleted) in which he responded to discussion of himself that was occuring on the cs admins' noticeboard (see User_talk:Thatcher131/Archive7#User_talk:Zacheus for explanation and partial translation, see also here). I asked Zacheus to delete his user page and to stop bringing the cs drama to en and he did so.

In the past, Zacheus and -jkb- have made multiple accusations that each is trying to "out" the other's real identity. It appears that Zacheus has at least once created an attack article on en.wiki against a person he believes to be -jkb- — although Zacheus has never explicitly stated on en.wiki that so-in-so is the real name of editor -jkb-. (See generally User:-jkb-/Vandalism and impostors.) Zacheus has also accused -jkb- of wikistalking and trying to "out" him. There is also a persistent Czech vandal with a pattern of racist vandalism and attacks on -jkb-, although Checkuser established that the vandal was unrelated to Zacheus.

Zacheus (talk · contribs) has just over 200 edits. -jkb- (talk · contribs) has just over 500 edits.

What's new

It appears that the current complaint began with an editing dispute over 2006 Gdansk school suicide incident, an article with BLP problems, about the suicide of a 14 year old girl following an alleged sexual assault. Zacheus added the words "alleged" which -jkb- reverted with the edit summary rv of a quite insulting edit. At one point admin Thebainer blanked and redirected the article; -jkb- reverted and moved it back to the name of the victim. -jkb-'s action was reversed by Jimbo Wales . See Talk:2006 Gdansk school suicide incident for more. -jkb- complained to Jimbo (very negative experience for me) and including Zacheus' real name, bringing up the events on cs, and arguing that by deleting the article, Jimbo was supporting the efforts of vandals. Zacheus' reply.

Earlier in the dispute, -jkb- attempted to undermine Zacheus' position by referencing his banning on cs. This is the earliest direct conflict between them that I can find since December.

There is nothing in Zacheus' en.wiki contributions (after December 2006) to indicate that he is harassing or threatening to expose -jkb- or that he is in any way a disruptive editor. I do not know whether Zacheus is involved in the publication of a photo of -jkb- as alleged, but if so, it occured off-wiki and involved multiple editors. Based only on en.wiki contributions, -jkb- is the one who won't let this long-simmering dispute rest, although there may be more going on beneath the surface or on other language wikipedias. Thatcher131 16:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Final followup?

• See also the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive153#Breaching_of_my_privacy.
• Checkuser confirms that slovak user V. Z. is the same as User:Zacheus . I find it an unlikely coincidence that after threatening to publish -jkb-'s photo on the slovak wikipedia, that other users would just happen to post the photo to meta, unless there was some coordination.
• -jkb-'s repeated posting of Zacheus's name is not a privacy violation per se as his name is the former account name of V.Z., and there is ample evidence and discussion of this fact on wiki; however it does seem rude to keep bringing it up.

Statement by uninvolved Newyorkbrad

Thatcher131 has looked into this carefully and unless one of the parties refutes his findings with specific diffs showing additional, recent problematic behavior, I think we can take his statement as a fair summary of the situation, at least insofar as it is reflected on En-Wiki. If that is the case, it seems clear that both parties need to be strongly admonished to stay away from each other and enjoined that under no circumstances are they to discuss each other's real identities, off-wiki political activities, and the like, or to bring the very troublesome disputes from other projects here. Hopefully, at least one of the parties has already gotten that message, but it could stand repeating to both. Strong sanctions should then be imposed on either of the parties (or anyone else) if they were to engage in any further behavior of this kind.

Although these admonitions and instructions need to be given, I am not at all sure that the best vehicle for doing so is through a formal arbitration case. Opening a case will provide a vehicle for the parties to lambaste one another for both their on- and off-wiki activites and to continue importing here their disputes from other projects, and in fact would almost require them to continue criticizing each other on high-profile arbitration pages, while what is really desired is precisely for them to disengage from each other. Opening a case would also prolong consideration of a dispute that, if the parties abide by the instructions they are given, should be resolvable relatively quickly, and add to the committee's caseload at a time when it is busy with other pressing business.

Accordingly, I suggest that the case be declined, but with appropriate language in the arbitrators' comments advising both parties to immediately discontinue the types of behavior noted, and that administrators then follow up to make sure that the admonition is being heeded. This would of course be without prejudice to sanctions by either admins or ArbCom if this proves necessary due to future problems, which hopefully it would not. Newyorkbrad 14:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• Factored Z's response to Thatcher into proper section. - Penwhale | 02:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

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

• Accept, we can be a help sorting this out and giving sanctions, I think. FloNight 14:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Accept to look at all involved. - SimonP 17:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. Kirill Lokshin 20:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Requests for clarification

Place requests for clarification on matters related to the Arbitration process in this section. Place new requests at the top.

Husnock

In Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Husnock#Husnock cautioned regarding improper use of alternative accounts, the Arbitration Committee made note of Husnock's improper use of other aliases. To me, and others, it is quite obvious that 38.119.112.187 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 195.229.236.213 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are in fact, Husnock, operating under false aliases. I had blocked these IPs (mostly because the latter was abused in the past by other parties and the former was utilized by the user in question), but the user behind them is ruleslawyering to get the IPs unblocked. The primary reason the IPs feel they should be unblocked is that "Husnock was not banned," but under these circumstances, what should be done if the individual utilizing these IPs is in fact, Husnock?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Another page to make note of is User talk:CamelCommodore—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

38.119.112.188 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is also of note to this issue.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Husnock was not banned by the Arbitration committee and has not been community-banned that I can tell. (A decision that reads "Husnock is cautioned to conscientiously follow Misplaced Pages's Misplaced Pages:No original research and image copyright policies when he returns to regular editing " (emphasis added) can hardly be read as a ban.) The only recent contributions that could remotely be considered disruptive were an attempt to get the Camel Commodore account deleted (which is an odd request coming from an admin, and was easily dealt with) and the IP interjecting himself into an unrelated report on AN/I, which probably happens every day with some IP anyway. "What should be done if the individual utilizing these IPs is in fact, Husnock?" is to ignore him. I think blocking these IPs was unjustified and I have unblocked them. Thatcher131 12:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi

See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Tobias_Conradi#Post-closing_clarification.2C_May_2007 and Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tobias Conradi (2nd nomination) as it appears there still is some confusion about what is or isn't a laundry list, and whether listing bare diffs is listing grievances. ++Lar: t/c 18:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarification or at least comment would be sincerely appreciated. The MfD decision ("blank") is now at DRV... --Iamunknown 16:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to repeat here, the reason for the blanking was that the consensus in the MFD was to keep the page, but I was hesitant to invoke IAR and delete the page anyway because it appeared to be a violation of the ruling, so I blanked it instead. --Coredesat 22:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

In simple terms, is this a "laundry list of grievances" such as the user was prohibited from making? Given that the page discusses exactly one grievance, Tobias's belief that criticism of Misplaced Pages admin behaviour is censored, I find this 'interpretation' of the ruling to essentially recast it as 'Tobias Conradi is prohibited from criticizing anything about Misplaced Pages'... which ironically rather proves his point. If we want to have an open community that recognizes and adapts to problems we should bend over backwards to be tolerant criticism to ourselves and the project... not look for any pretext on which to ban and punish it. --CBD 14:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

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

Archives

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

• Misplaced Pages arbitration
• Non-talk pages automatically signed by HagermanBot
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution
• Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee