Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:53, 23 July 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

Jeffrey O. Gustafson

Initiated by John254 at 03:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Jeffrey O. Gustafson (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

A request for comment was initiated regarding Jeffrey O. Gustafson's conduct. Previous attempts to resolve the dispute are detailed at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Jeffrey_O._Gustafson_2#Evidence_of_trying_and_failing_to_resolve_the_dispute.

Statement by John254

As described on Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Jeffrey_O._Gustafson_2#Evidence_of_disputed_behavior, Jeffrey O. Gustafson has engaged in severe incivility and personal attacks, including personal attacks in logs of administrative actions, clearly improper and disruptive speedy deletions of images, and other misconduct. Despite the existence of a request for comment against him in which almost all established users commenting were critical of his behavior, Jeffrey O. Gustafson refused to respond on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Jeffrey O. Gustafson 2 at all, though he did characterize the RFC as "the witch-hu^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H RfC" in the course of removing comments concerning it from his talk page. . Since only the Arbitration Committee is empowered to decide whether users should retain administrative privileges, since serious concerns have been raised regarding Jeffrey O. Gustafson's conduct, much of it administrative in character, and since Jeffrey O. Gustafson has declined to provide a satisfactory response to such concerns, I would ask that the Arbitration Committee consider this issue. John254 03:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If, as a general rule, the Misplaced Pages Community intended images without proper licensing information, unused fair use images, and fair use images without rationales to be speedily deleted immediately, without the 7 days between placement of a deletion notice on the image and actual deletion, as provided for in CSD I4, CSD I5, and CSD I6, then Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion would permit such deletions. WP:IAR does allow the letter of official policies, including WP:CSD, to be bypassed in particular circumstances in which the literal application of the policy would be contrary to the goal of improving Misplaced Pages's quality. In other words, WP:IAR counsels editors to recognize that Misplaced Pages's official policies cannot possibly anticipate every conceivable circumstance, not to simply bypass the policies under all circumstances, without justification for each specific instance of ignoring them. In the case of the image related criteria for speedy deletion, a seven day waiting period is provided to allow editors the opportunity to remedy the deficiencies in licensing information or fair use status of images. Of course, in some particular cases, it may be advisable to speedily delete unsatisfactory images immediately; for instance, if such images are re-uploaded without the required information after an initial deletion. However, the Misplaced Pages community has determined that always speedily deleting images without the required information forthwith causes an excessive loss of content and discourages new users, and has expressed this determination in WP:CSD. I stand by my claim that Jeffrey O. Gustafson's image deletions were "clearly improper and disruptive".

Likewise, civility is an important consideration for all editors, but especially for administrators. One naturally does not expect perfect civility to be shown in all instances to disruptive users; however, editors should at least refrain from severe incivility, especially when directed at productive, good-faith contributors. Placing material such as this (directed against Viridae, a user in good standing, and a fellow administrator) into logs of administrative actions, which cannot be erased except by a developer, is quite simply unacceptable. John254 05:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

With regard to Jeffrey O. Gustafson's claim that, if his image deletions were actually improper, "there would be admins overturning most of my deletions, or a many DRV's over my actions" , and Mackensen's question "Are Jeffrey's deletions overturned at a higher rate than your average sysop?" , I would note that overturning Jeffrey O. Gustafson's premature image deletions would not remedy the problem that the seven day waiting period is designed to prevent, because it would not allow users to add the necessary information to images before they are deleted. Uploaders are far more likely to add such information to their images if they have the opportunity prior to deletion, than to do so if such images are summarily deleted, then undeleted later. Moreover, we might expect other administrators to refrain from unilaterally undeleting large numbers of Jeffrey O. Gustafson's improperly deleted images simply to avoid wheel warring. This respect for Misplaced Pages policy is to be commended, not to be taken as an endorsement of Jeffrey O. Gustafson's image deletions. Finally, bringing every improperly deleted image to deletion review would overwhelm the DRV process, due to the large number of images summarily deleted, and is therefore not a practical option. John254 14:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Jeffrey O. Gustafson

The RfC (from an uninvolved party, as is this RfAr) came about as the result of a rather stupid experiment in user talk page economy of archiving and replying, an experiment that failed. The deletion/undeletion of my talk was also part of the experiment, also abandoned weeks ago. Civility has always been my weak suit (I have a tendency to speak my mind to my own detriment and I have a pretty gruff bedside manner), but it is not willful, and it is unrelated to my use of administrative powers in the past six weeks, which has been limited to deleting images that are in violation of our fairly strict policies as I come to them.

"...clearly improper and disruptive speedy deletions of images" is a gross mis-statement. If even remotely true, there would be admins overturning most of my deletions, or a many DRV's over my actions, when there are not. The only complaint is that I don't wait the required time after tagging: I don't, IAR, and have explained myself sufficiently - I am providing a service, a necessary one at that, and I'm not the only one, either. I have ignored attempts to draw me into pointless conversations about issues in which I have no involvement... I have not edited the encyclopedia in six weeks, with only a handful of WP edits, and have no desire to be forced into conversations about all things wiki when I am not active and only using my admin tools. I have never wilfully ignored any attempt at anyone bringing any issue with any of my specific administrative actions, and have reversed myself where appropriate. My logs are open to review by any and all, as they should be. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Black Falcon

As the initiator of the request for comment (here), I feel I should comment. My views are effectively expressed in the RfC, so I'll try to keep my statement short. I have essentially three concerns regarding the behaviour of Jeffrey O. Gustafson:

1. His edits and edit summaries reveal a steady pattern of incivility and vary from dismissive to hostile to outright attacks. Though he has acknowledge that problem above, he does not seem to be willing to do anything about it. Moreover, I do not see that he will do anything as long as he subscribes to the view that he is "an executioner, not a teacher".

2. He has violated the speedy deletion policy on hundreds of pages (if not more), speedily deleting untagged images, speedily deleting pages per provisions of WP:NOT, which are explicitly stated as non-criteria, and speedily deleting pages with the deletion summary "useless" (seemingly a personal criterion). He has justified these actions by invoking IAR. IAR may be invoked to justify specific actions; it should not be used as an excuse for completely bypassing established consensus-supported processes over a period of weeks and for hundreds of cases. IAR is a key principle that is to be invoked in cases where the rules prevent improvement, not where one editor simply considers himself above the rules. Hundreds of images are tagged and deleted per speedy deletion criteria I4, I5, I6, and I7 after the requisite waiting period every day ... how are the images that Jeffrey deletes any different? IAR should be invoked when it is necessary to ignore the rules for the benefit of the encyclopedia; it is not a justification for overriding consensus to satisfy personal whims.

3. He has, for the most part, ignored or dismissed all attempts to share concerns about his behaviour. This is true of his handling of comments on his talk page in early July, of his responses to the AN/I thread about him (see this and this), of his refusal to heed the unanimous negative response to his actions at the RfC, and of multiple other attempts to talk with him (see here for a partial list).

Jeffrey O. Gustafson's general attitude and manner of interacting with others, in addition to his expressed contempt for the various steps taken to resolve this dispute (also noted by John254), makes it nearly impossible to communicate effectively with him in a non-official level. Given his persistent failure to consider concerns raised by numerous editors (including administrators), I believe an arbitration case is the only remaining option at this point. -- Black Falcon 08:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Response to Mackensen by Drewcifer3000

In my own experience with Jeffrey, he has deleted a total of 14 images which I have uploaded, a running total of 7 of which have since been restored for one reason or another. I believe I am in the minority here, but (in my opinion) only because I have pursued the case(s) of the deleted images to get them reinstated. Drewcifer3000 17:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

The votes to open the case are noted and the case will open on Tuesday. In view of my having commented in a related ANI thread, another clerk will handle this case. Newyorkbrad 16:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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

• Question: Are Jeffrey's deletions overturned at a higher rate than your average sysop? I note he has stopped deleting his talk page, which was one of the primary concerns raised by the RfC. Mackensen (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC) Accept. Mackensen (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. SimonP 13:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. As always, will look at the behavior of all involved parties. FloNight 14:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. Charles Matthews 16:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Diocese of Miami

Initiated by Student7 at 19:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Student7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DominvsVobiscvm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Notice left on DominvsVobiscvm's discussion page.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Student7

I have tried to convince DominvsVobiscvm that his edits to the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami and John Favalora are POV or non-encyclopedic. He doesn't seem to indicate that he is seeing my comments. This has been going on for a week or more. I have left notes within the articles themselves, with no answer. I have left messages on his user page with no answer. I have left comments on the lines I have used to revert the entries with no answer that is responsive to the question other to say that is what he believes. I have left comments on the discussion page with no answer. Until now, I had no idea he was even reading his user page.

Statement by DominvsVobiscvm

The fact that a lawsuit was filed, and that allegations continued to be made publicly at a respected political activism site, is newsworthy. Especially when we note that the lawsuit was dismissed (but are clear on why it was dismissed). Allegations do not have to be upheld in order for them to be newsworthy; otherwise, we'd be forbidden to have articles on the Duke Lacrosse players, or articles nothing that Judanita Broderick accused Bill Clinton of raping her, or that OJ Simpson was accused of killing his wife. The "Miami Vice" scandal was--and is--huge. The story surrounding it are indeed worthy of an online encyclopedia.

Clerk notes

The filing party has not completed the section above regarding prior attempts at dispute resolution. Please explain in detail what methods of dispute resolution, if any, were tried before filing this request for arbitration. As stated above, arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution, not the first step. If no prior dispute resolution has been tried, the filing party should explain why this is such an important matter that it needs to go to arbitration immediately. If you cannot make one of these showings, this request is very unlikely to be accepted. Newyorkbrad 00:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

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

• Reject. Way premature. --jpgordon 00:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. Arbitration is the last step of the dispute resolution process on Misplaced Pages. This minor dispute will likely be settled by getting other users involved. FloNight 12:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Decline. Premature. Paul August ☎ 17:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. SimonP 12:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Decline. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

List of Republics and other articles

Initiated by Nema Fakei at 23:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Nema Fakei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pmanderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sanchom (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• SimonP (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• WHEELER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Work permit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• PMAnderson
• Sanchom
• SimonP
• WHEELER
• Work permit

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Negotiation: Talk page participation between WHEELER, Pmanderson (Septentrionalis) SimonP, occasional other comments.

Informal Mediation: Having read through initial negotiation, I hoped to mediate informally and provide constructive suggestions to all sides.

Third Parties: WHEELER requested comment at the Village Pump (the diff shows the page at a state when the discussion was preserved: see the discussion body for the request itself, which was written prior to this diff).

Breaks: This particular round of controversy appears to have taken place immediately *following* a wikibreak on WHEELER's part. Various editors seem to have had intermittent 'cooling off' periods of a few days during this particular dispute.

Statement by Nema Fakei

A content dispute surrounding the definition of the word republic has spread to at least 6 different articles or their talk pages (I give the latter, being the more useful):

• Talk:List of republics - the main problem article at the moment.
• Talk:Republic
• Talk:Classical republic
• Talk:Roman Republic
• Talk:Res publica
• Talk:Politeia
• Talk:Res divina

I hoped and tried to prevent discussion from turning into a mess of accusations by focusing the debate on content, and by removing or linking crossposts to concentrate the discussion. In particular, I tried to sort out the list criteria for List of republics , specifically by inviting other contributors to propose wording (and offering to do it myself if they didn't want to) . However, structured debate has been abandoned again for less relevant posting.

When I realised my efforts had failed, I asked WHEELER, who seemed to me to be having the most difficulty engaging with content disputes if he had any suggestions as to how to proceed . His response did not suggest any . I have looked over other possible steps that come under the dispute resolution process, but I do not believe there are any more options there that would be worth trying.

The dispute has been characterised by instances breaches of the following policies - or allegations thereof (which I list):

• WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF
• WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE - Talk:List of republics passim
• WP:NOR has been a particular bone of contention , within the more general context of WP:V .
• WP:STALK has been implicitly invoked .
• WP:CABAL - ok, not a policy, but the theme has come up a few time, such as here: .

WHEELER in particular has been a frustration, as he has (or claims to have) no interest in editing outside this debate. He objects to the consensus process, so getting him to engage in it at all has been enough struggle without his periodic interjections to state that he's had enough. Time and page-clutter trying to get him back on track distracts from the content negotiations.

I do not ask the arbitrators to rule on content issues, but I will ask them to intervene to end the going-round in circles and in particular the constant incivility and accusations that are blighting the discussion pages. -- Nema Fakei at 23:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Statement by PMAnderson

I began editing Misplaced Pages just as WHEELER was going on a long break over to Wikinfo; so my personal interaction with him has been limited. But my conclusion, from seeing Talk:Banausos/archive_1 and the interminable archives of Talk:Republic is that WHEELER has always been like this, and always will be.

At the same time, I am not convinced that ArbCom can usefully contribute to the situation. His edits represent a narrow and specialized PoV, drawn from two books, one obsolete; they are not consensus, indeed, a tiny minority view, in any of the several fields they touch, and they will be reversed in due course by the consensus of competent editors. His contributions to talk pages are unreadable long paragraphs, full of accusations in capital letters, which can be ignored, like any other single purpose account, of which we have so many.

This is partly because I doubt he has much to contribute; he has a strong PoV, and no Latin whatever, as this edit shows. (iorum is a genitive plural; this belongs in the second or third chapter of a first-year Latin book.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Sanchom

My involvement was solely limited to an attempt to moderate the tone of WHEELER so that others might be able to work with him. I gave direction to comment on content, not other editors, but WHEELER quickly returned to a tone that made him very difficult to collaborate with. I explained this to him in this diff, to which he responded with a comment demanding ridicule for effeminate editors and characterizations of other editors as not being virtuous and not loving truth. At this point, I considered the best route would be to ignore the situation until WHEELER changed his behaviour such that I would be able to be of help. I left him with some final comments as points for improvement: at his talk page. Since then (20 June 2007), I have been out of touch with this situation. I would support an arbitration case solely on my interaction with this user. He has displayed a lack of assumption of good faith, civility, respect for talk page guidelines, and respect for other editors. I believe he would have much to contribute if he learned to work with the community instead of creating such an adversarial atmosphere. Sancho 00:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Statement by SimonP

I've had regular encounters with WHEELER for well over two years now. His tendentiousness, rejection of standard practices, and persistent incivility make him a very difficult editor to work with. He is not impossible to reason with, but even small compromises require huge amounts of effort by other editors. His contributions tend to be either original research, or the advancement of fringe theories held by only a few others. His pattern has been to strenuously push his views for a few weeks, and then disappear for some months, always returning to the same arguments each time. There was something of an improvement after Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/WHEELER, but recently his behaviour has been as problematic as it ever was, if not more so. - SimonP 13:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Statement by WHEELER

Look at the hostility here present on this page. It bespeaks what goes on here at Misplaced Pages.

This was posted at Wikinfo:

===cyber-bullies===
I think this is becoming a serious problem on wikipedia but not one that the administration have any wish to address. Groups of users now patrol wikipedia trying to enforce their wills on everyone else. They venomously and vindictively attack qualified contributors and deliberately hound them off the wiki for their own self satisfaction. If anyone accuses these people of bullying then they are blocked (often indefinitely). Anyone disagreeing with their viewpoint is labelled a spammer. They then attack anyone posting from the same IP address. It's a very unpleasant atmosphere and I was so glad to find this wiki to post to instead. It's madness over on wikipedia but I get the impression the nutters are running things.Ejn21 19:56, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

I am a target of one of these groups. I try to edit an article with references. They revert. I place copious amounts of references and they deny my references. They will not allow me to edit.

The Wikipedian Article states that there are VARIOUS definitions of republic. Yet, won't let me clarify or state one of these various definitions. For a fuller exposition of this go to User talk:WHEELER/Trouble with Republic articles.

They constantly denigrate my references. They disallow my references. They talk circles around me, aggravate me to no extant and then charge me with being abusive. They have this methodology down to a 'T'. I am trying to add Sparta to the list of republics. Check out the talk page, Talk:List of republics. Back in 13th December 2006 I added Crete and Sparta. It gets deleted. I provide copious amounts of evidence, 8 June 2007 with references. It gets deleted. No matter what I provide, it gets deleted, it gets refused. I am open to suggestions as of yet, these people will not let Sparta be on the page of List of republics. I even referenced Misplaced Pages's own article Classical republic which mentions Sparta and it gets deleted.

And I am not supposed to be frustrated and angry. These are what these people want. They want to fustrate me to no end so I get angry and get banned. That is their plan.WHEELER 20:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I had a modus operandi very long time ago with User:Kim Bruning that was very good. We recognized that there were two definitions of republic. There was the Classical one and a Modern definition. It worked allright until a bunch of people came on and deleted the Classical definition of republic. Most of it was not original research.WHEELER 20:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This is how sly these people are; User:Nema Fakei writes this in above complaint:

"When I realised my efforts had failed, I asked WHEELER, who seemed to me to be having the most difficulty engaging with content disputes if he had any suggestions as to how to proceed . His response did not suggest any ."

What he doesn't to tell you or fails to mention is that he goaded me in his "suggestions to proceed". In his suggestions to proceed, he says this:

"Please try to understand that the sorts of changes you're asking for are very much disconnected from the point and context of the sources you're quoting.

Here he is demolishing my references because I am "taking them out of context. I just had an article published on an online Journal in England The Spartan Republic. This is permanently displayed on their website in the Politics section. They accepted my article and published it.

Again, he goads me:

"The vast majority of the quotations you regularly adduce are similarly taken out of context, "

In the same response. What am I to do? Of course I respond. But now he can goad me, and so I get banned? They have an excuse to everything I reference. They nullify and attack my references.WHEELER 21:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Work Permit

Comment by uninvolved Newyorkbrad

User:WHEELER is a consistently uncivil and tendentious editor with a lengthy history of disruption. Even a quick scan of his current talkpage unfolds an appalling display of abusive name-calling spewed in all directions. It appears that WHEELER has been carrying on with the same unacceptable pattern of behavior for years now, and frankly should have been dealt with much sooner.

The question for the arbitrators to answer here is not whether WHEELER can be allowed to continue editing as he has been, but whether a full-fledged arbitration case is required to address this situation or whether a quicker resolution can be found. Newyorkbrad 01:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't previously aware of the prior ArbCom decision cited by SimonP, which appears not to have made its way into the list at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests. Given that there are no actionable remedies in the prior decision, I don't think this changes the analysis. Newyorkbrad 14:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Four votes to accept the case are noted. Case to be opened over the weekend absent further developments. In view of my comment above, another clerk will handle the case. Newyorkbrad 11:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/0/2/0)

• Recuse. - SimonP 13:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. We can deal with this more expediently than the community can, at this point. Kirill 13:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Recuse Fred Bauder 21:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. Agree with Kirill. I think that ArbCom can help sort this out better than the community now. FloNight 12:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. --jpgordon 14:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. Charles Matthews 10:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:41, 23 July 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.

Robert Prechter

The Robert Prechter case (decided about four months ago) indefinitely banned smallbones from articles related to Prechter. Smallbones’ equally aggressive hostility to Technical analysis was a key point in the outcome of the case, as is clear from this comment on the workshop page by an arbitrator.

“The problem is that you go a little too far. It is TA that you maintain is pseudoscience, not just the Elliot Wave. The problem for me is determining if editing restrictions are necessary for you as a result of habitual POV editing. Fred Bauder 11:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)”

In the past couple of days, smallbones has reappeared on technical analysis, with inflammatory comments and edits. I am requesting clarification from the Committee on whether smallbones’ participation in the technical analysis article is in keeping with the remedy in the Prechter case. Thank you.--Rgfolsom 00:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

As a third-party not involved in the original arbitration, I find Smallbones's edits to technical analysis be appropriate, modest, and consistent with Misplaced Pages rules. His only edits were to remove a passage that plainly violated WP:SYN/WP:NOR and to reinsert (once) a dispute tag that Rgfolsom inappropriately deleted through reversions on three occasions in 24 hours. The only POV-pusher here is Rgfolsom, who has WP:OWN issues with this article. THF 01:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Committee members may wish to assess the comment from THF in light of recent examples of incivility, name-calling, and unfounded suggestions of bad faith. --Rgfolsom 01:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to conclude that the "topic ban" would not apply to the technical analysis article. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:45, 23 July 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