Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:24, 5 October 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

Commodore Sloat

Initiated by Biophys at 02:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Armon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Notice has been sent to User:Commodore Sloat , and User:Armon Biophys 02:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

At least two conflict resolution efforts have recently took place:

• An RfC was filed about User:Commodore Sloat by User:Bigglove
• User:Commodore Sloat and User:Armon participated in a failed enforced mediation effort .

Statement by Biophys

I suggest to evaluate behavior of User:Commodore Sloat who seems to be in a constant struggle with many Misplaced Pages users.

I believe that Csloat was uncivil with at least six different users, who he blamed of "wikistalking", "lies", "jihad" and all sort of things: Of course he is well aware of WP:NPA policy, but even his reminders to others about this policy sound like a personal attack .

I think Csloat also transforms WP to a battleground and intimidates other users, as shows my part of the story (in chronological order):

1.Four months ago, we had a content disagreement with User:Commodore Sloat who deleted relevant referenced views of Yossef Bodansky and other reliable sources from article Operation Sarindar claiming this to be WP:SYN.

2. Besides this article, we had little interaction. I tried once to edit Criticism of Bill O'Reilly, but Csloat warned me that he will report me to ANI for wikistaling: , so I stayed as far away of him as possible. Next time, I tried to restore a more neutral version of article The Intelligence Summit (because it is linked to Operation Sarindar), and this time Csloat reported me as a "wikistalker" to WP:ANI: . Administrators decided that his ANI report was unfounded.

3. An RfC has recently been filed about Csloat by user Bigglove . I made a couple of comments in this RfC, one of which has been temporarily removed for some reason . Csloat apologized for his uncivil behavior and promised to work in a more cooperative manner. Unfortunately, this did not happen. After promising to be cooperative, Csloat blamed Bigglove of sockpuppetry, conducted permanent RR war with Armon and others, and finally, when Armon was gone and stopped editing anything in WP, Csloat decided to "take care" of me.

4. Csloat came to my talk page with a bunch of inflammatory comments in response to my comments during his RfC . I asked him to stop, but he refused. He stopped only after intervention of an uninvolved administrator: .

5. He came to edit article Communist terrorism that I am currently working with. He never edited this article before. He started making massive deletions of relevant and perfectly sourced text . Of course, I objected: but he continue deletions of perfectly sourced and relevant text: . He again blames me of WP:SYN. But I only cited work "Communism and terrorism" by Karl Kautsky in the article "Communist terrorism", and used other similar scholarly sources. What kind of WP:SYN is that? Finally, he nominated this article for AfD, exactly as he did previously twice with article Operation Sarindar.

6. I tried to talk with Csloat and convince him that we could simply stay away from each other's edits, as was recommended previously by an administrator , but Cslot refused, and the situation quickly escalated, so that another administrator had to intervene and recommend to bring the case to ArbCom . So here it is. Biophys 02:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I do not care much about Communist terrorism and another article. This is not a reason for arbitration. I just thought that behavior of Cslot is a community problem, based on my own experience and looking at his constant struggle with other users.Biophys 19:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV violations by Csloat - case study.

I could illustrate this by numerous examples, but let's consider only one last edit by Cslot that he made right now: . In the single edit, he deleted numerous mainstream views on the Communist terrorism, which are supported by reliable sources. Deleted views belong to the following notable experts: (1) Ion Mihai Pacepa; (2) Professor Martin Rudner; (3) Robert Conquest (4) Karl Kautsky; (5) Edvard Radzinsky; (6) Richard Pipes, (7) Karl Marx.

What exactly Csloat deleted? (1) An example showing use of the term "Communist terrorism" by Pacepa (Csloat wants to "prove" that such term does not exist); (2) simple expalanation by Rudner what is "terrorism" (in footnote); (3) discussion of Communist terorism origins by historians who trace it from Reign of Terror of the French Revolution and from Russian Narodnaya Volya ("People's Will"), which included several thousand followers and organized one of the first political terrorism campaign in history. They even killed the Emperor of Russia Alexander II who liberated Russian serfs (all of that is good and neutral encyclopedic content); (4) Reference to "The possessed" by Fyodor Dostoevsky (maybe a WP reader would like to learn what this great writer thought about terrorists? - he thought they are possessed be evil); (5) View of Marx, who said "There is only one way to shorten and ease the convulsions of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new - revolutionary terror" (after this deletion, a nota bene by Iosef Stalin in his book is irrelevant); and so on.

Note that Csoat did such outrageous deletion right here and right now. This example shows his audacity. He is completely sure that he can do in Misplaced Pages whatever he wants by simply making unsubstantiated claims that all the sources he deleted (see above) are WP:FRINGE, or that citing such sources is WP:SYN. Csloat provided no valid arguments at the talk page to justify his actions. He did this clearly against consensus, since at least three users, Hardyplants, Mamalujo, and me made their disagreement clear at the talk page or by reverting unjustified deletions of text. He did this after a warning that he violates WP policies: . He has been aready blocked for 24 hours for offensive modifcations of comments at the talk page of this article . He came back from the block, and started doing exactly the same immediately, regardless to this RfA request about him.

Now, imagine that he is doing the same in many WP articles (I can show this also for article Operation Sarindar if needed). Let's ask ourselves: do such edits by Csloat improve WP, or they damage WP articles and create frustration and fear among good users who worked hard to provide reliable sources?Biophys 00:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Commodore Sloat

First, Biophys has completely misstated the dispute at hand. This is a content dispute over Biophys' insertion of original research into two articles -- Operation Sarindar and Communist terrorism. In both cases I have objected and have removed the original research -- a synthesis of unrelated quotes that are strung together to make a political point. Every time I deleted material I explained the deletion in the edit summaries and in talk; Biophys has refused to engage those arguments other than to say that I am wrong and that I am deleting "sourced information." He has also gone through some extremely deceptive acts during these content disputes, such as falsely legitimizing his actions by blaming them on other users who have not participated in the page in months. Another example is his undoing of days of edits by another user, blaming his action on unspecified "disruptive editing" by me. He has also deleted a "totally disputed" tag from the Communist terrorism article over and over, against Misplaced Pages policy, without responding at all to the very clear arguments made in talk justifying the tag. At one point he replaced the tag with the NPOV tag and deceptively claimed that he was "including the tag, not mentioning that he was deleting the tag that more accurately stated the dispute. Another time he added more original research to the article stating in the edit summary only "OK let's leave your tag," not indicating at all that he had made other changes to the article. He also obscured the fact that in the very same edit he went ahead and deleted two other tags on sections of the article. This has been pretty typical of my interactions with Biophys, whom I have caught numerous times in outright lies on these issues. I don't think we would have this dispute at all if he would participate honestly in the discussions and not treat wikipedia as a battleground. But I also don't see how he has tried to resolve this dispute - he has simply edit warred and threatened to take me to arbcom - he has not tried mediation or a content RFC or any other form of WP:DR. I believe he is using my previous disputes with other users - most of which have been resolved - in order to escalate this to arbcom.

Second, User:Armon should not be included as a party to this dispute. He has not been on either of the articles at hand. It is true I have had disputes with Armon in the past, but I have no current conflicts with him and I do not see how he is involved in this dispute at all. Currently Armon and I have avoided interacting with each other and that has worked out fine. There may be interactions between us in the future but I for one have resolved to approach such interactions amicably and with every assumption of good faith. I simply don't see how he is involved in this dispute.

Third, Biophys "confirmation that other dispute steps have been tried" is completely deceptive. He mentions the RfC by Bigglove but does not mention that it was about an entirely different dispute. He also does not mention that the RfC led to an amicable and satisfactory solution. I acknowledged and owned up to poor behavior on my part and apologized completely and unconditionally for that behavior, letting everyone know publicly that even though I thought the person who brought the RfC was wrong about other things, that my behavior was uncalled for. It took some discussion to get him to accept my apology, but eventually the person who brought the RfC called for it to be closed and it was closed by consensus. Contrary to Biophys' claim, I think the RfC is an excellent example of dispute resolution being tried and actually working! But, more to the point, that RfC was an attempt to resolve a completely different dispute.

His second example of dispute resolution -- the failed attempt between myself and Armon -- is likewise a completely separate dispute. I don't understand why Biophys is dragging Armon into this, since Biophys has never been part of any of the disputes I had with Armon and vice versa (except in one case where Biophys appeared out of the blue to revert my changes; more on that one later). It is true that that particular CEM did not work out, and I was very upset that it did not. I tried to be very conciliatory during the CEM, but Armon refused to accept any compromise offered by me. One of the admins who got involved in the mediation attempt -- someone who shares Armon's POV on the content dispute, I might add -- pointed out his failure to engage constructively. It is truly unfortunate that that CEM did not work out, but it is entirely deceptive to make that dispute part of the current one I am having with Biophys on those two articles.

Fourth, Biophys list of 6 examples of incivility is also deceptive. I will not defend my actions in each one - I am the first to admit I lose my temper sometimes, and it is easy for someone to go through my three years of constructive edits to pull out some uncivil comments. But they are not relevant to any dispute I have with Biophys, and they are misrepresented here. Let's take them one by one: His first link is to my expression of frustration at another user who had been stalking my edits and appeared to be taking pleasure in reverting them. That occurred in June 2006, well over a year ago. Since that time I have agreed to a truce with that user and have been nothing but civil to him in the recent past. To bring up behavior from that long ago on a current RfAr seems petty and unfair. To try to enlist this user into this RfA seems particularly out of line.

Biophys' second link deserves some discussion, since it involves a more recent dispute that was actually with Biophys. It may explain why he is so mad at me and treats me like an enemy. Biophys came on an AN/I report that I had filed about Armon and blatantly lied about his own actions on another page. Biophys had appeared out of the blue on a page that I was involved in an edit conflict on with Armon only to revert my changes, not just once, not just twice, but three times. It felt like WP:STALK to me, so I wrote him a polite note to his talk page asking him to avoid what looks like harassment and inviting him to contribute to the discussion page if he felt like participating. In response he blatantly lied, stating that he had only made one revert on the page. I called him on this deception and he continued to lie, claiming that he only had one revert on the page and that it was a revert of an anonymous user. He continued to insist on this untruth in spite of the fact that I had provided the three links to show that he was wrong. The comment that he links to was my final expression of frustration at his lying -- did he really expect that he could simply make false statements in the face of the evidence? In any case, as I said in the comment, I was electing not to pursue the matter. It is very odd that he would cite evidence of his own lies in an RfA against me here.

Biophys' third link is an even more perplexing one. Here he pulls a comment that I made over two years ago -- back in April 2005 -- on a page totally unrelated to the present disputes. It is true I used the "F" word in the post and should not have done so. I was responding to a user who was making a completely illogical argument. I will add that I was later part of an RfC about that user's conduct and that user was reprimanded for his conduct during those discussions. I just don't see how this thirty month old dispute is relevant at all to the current discussion.

Biophys' fourth link is also two years old -- from October 2005. It involves a dispute with another user who had gone to numerous pages all over Misplaced Pages inserting known disinformation that I and other users would not allow on the page Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. I described that user's actions only slightly hyperbolically as a "little jihad" because I felt he was turning Misplaced Pages into a battleground by spreading disinformation all over Misplaced Pages. It was not meant as a personal attack.

His fifth link is to a more recent comment I made to Armon. I may have worded the comment itself forthrightly but I don't think it was uncivil and I think it accurately described the situation at hand. I also don't see how it is relevant here.

Next, he links to my recent dispute with Bigglove, the user who filed the RfC against me. The comment he links to was inappropriate and unfortunate, and I apologized unconditionally for it in the RfC and the RfC was resolved in a satisfactory manner. I don't see any evidence that it is connected to my dispute with Biophys.

Finally, he links to a comment I made in response to a user who told me to "fuck myself" and compared me to Joseph Goebbels. He said it sounded like I was making a personal attack when in fact I was quoting the personal attack that someone else had made against me and calmly noting that such behavior was unhelpful. Saying that it is an example of me personally attacking anyone is entirely deceptive.

After that list of links Biophys has a list of other claims against me; let's take them each in turn:

(1) He describes a content dispute and notes that I thought he was wikistalking when, during the content dispute, he went to another article and his only action there was to revert my most recent changes. That is the very definition of Wikistalking. I reported him when he did it again on another article. He falsely claims that "Administrators decided that his ANI report was unfounded" but in fact the only administrator to comment stated that while it wasn't stalking, "I would recommend participants not to follow the other party's list of contributions" and urged dispute resolution. To date Biophys has taken neither piece of advice.

(2) He describes the RfC that was resolved and then claims I entered a "permanent edit war" with Armon (which is not going on so it cannot be permanent) and that I decided to "take care" of Biophys. I don't know what any of this means but it sounds a little paranoid.

(3.1) he says I tried to delete his comment from the RfC. I did not. I believe another user moved it to where it should have been more appropriately, but the claim that I was removing his comments appears to be false. He provides no link to establish that so I'm not sure what he's referring to.

(3.2) He links to my comments on his talk page regarding his comments about planning future RfCs against me. I said that we should be trying to collaborate, and that we should try to work together in good faith. He calls the comments inflammatory but I do not believe that they are. I did restate the problems I had with Biophys frequent use of original research in Misplaced Pages, but I don't see how that is objectionable. Biophys then simply removed my comments from his page rather than engage the discussion; when I restored them another user asked me not to do that, so I didn't restore them again.

(3.3) He accuses me of "massive deletions of perfectly sourced text" on Communist terrorism. What I deleted was WP:SYN violations, and I explained every deletion in the edit summaries very carefully, and tried to open a discussion on talk. He refused to discuss anything other than to accuse me of deleting sourced text. He ignored all of the arguments about WP:SYN and chose instead to escalate this dispute to RfA. This is really a content dispute as far as I can tell. My argument here is that the sources he cites are not about an entity called "Communist terrorism"; they are about communists and about terrorists but they are not specifically about "communist terrorism." I suggested changing the name of the article to "Communism and terrorism" which would better address some of the issues he wants a soapbox for, but he refused that. I think he is wrong but I don't see how this rises to the level of arbitration.

(3.4) he says he tried to talk me into avoiding each others' edits but "the situation quickly escalated." What actually happened was he came to my talk page and threatened to file this RfA if I did not lay off of the two articles. That to me smacks of ownership feelings towards the pages in question. I sought advice from an admin User:Durova who has knowledge of some of these disputes and whose judgement I trust. She said I should consider arbitration as well, so I posted a note indicating I was willing to do so if we felt other avenues of WP:DR would not work. I do not feel that other avenues have been tried in this case, but if the arb committee feels that arbitration is appropriate, here we are. Biophys' claim that the situation escalated is wrong, however; he is the one who made the threat on my page and then made the report -- if it escalated it is because he escalated it.

csloat 04:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Note - after I posted the above, Biophys made a change to his statement claiming that "the situation quickly escalated, so that another administrator had to interfere." This claim is another example of Biophys distortion of reality. Durova came to that page and added her comments after I had solicited advice on her talk page. And she did not come to "interfere" with an "escalating" situation; she came to make a polite suggestion. csloat 07:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Addendum -- I'd like to ask Biophys to stop changing his opening statement here. I responded above to the statement he had originally presented. His changing of the statement makes it a moving target; I am hesitant to reply to the new information he has presented lest he change the statement yet again. I am going to be out of town for a few days and won't have much time to respond yet again to whatever else he adds; if this does go to arbitration we can deal with those issues then. However, I must object strenuously to his claim that "I just thought that behavior of Cslot is a community problem, based on my own experience and looking at his constant struggle with other users." I object to his generalization of this dispute beyond any limits. Bringing up comments I made 2 years ago as evidence of some kind of "behavior problem" is unfair and ridiculous. What specific behavior of mine has he observed in my recent interactions with him and other users that justifies an RfA? What precisely does he seek to arbitrate? I am happy to participate in any form of dispute resolution that might result in improvement in the encyclopedia or the community climate among editors. But I am not sure what to do with vague generalizations about my behavior that seem based only on the fact that I used the "F" word two years ago in an unrelated dispute with another user. csloat 21:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

iantresman indefinite ban appeal

Initiated by Iantresman at 14:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• iantresman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JoshuaZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tom_harrison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Art_Carlson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bladestorm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have notified all the parties listed above. Newyorkbrad 18:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Iantresman

• Fred Bauder temporarily unblocked me to file this request to arbitrate my 16 July 2007 indefinite community ban (discussion archive). I offer the following points in summary, which I would like opportunity to evidence and comment on, should my case be accepted:

• The Community noticeboard took just 5 hours and 11 minutes from starting the discussion, to banning me. I feel this was insufficient time for the community to fully discuss the matter, including having an opportunity myself to fully participate.
• One editor noted that he has "a bad feeling about this process", and subsequently noted that the banning editor had "refused to justify his block"
• Another editor subsequently noted that "I'm having a hard time finding a single shred of evidence against him here."
• Without having a chance to answer my critics, and with other editors questioning the process, and the lack of evidence against me, I feel that the indefinite ban was misguided and inappropriate.

• Hopefully other editors will not find it necessarily to merely repeat views from the Community discussion here.
• I wasn't sure whether everyone who took part in the Community discussion are "involved parties", and I believe that my "temporary unblocking" restricts my contributions to this page only. --Iantresman 14:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• I've added the Community noticeboard nominator, and the banning editor as involved parties, plus the two editors I mentioned who queried the process. I could add a dozen other names, but I feel we would duplicate much of what has already been discussed. --Iantresman 15:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• If my RfA appeal is accepted, I will show that JoshuaZ's assertions are unfounded, and he will present no diffs demonstrating "pseudoscience pushing" or improper editing regarding the legitimate description of minority views. --Iantresman 19:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• ScienceApologist below, omits to mention that when I accused him of "untoward behaviour" towards me, it was not only upheld by ArbCom,, I provided diffs as evidence, and although ArbCom cautioned him particularly to be civil, he continued to be uncivil toward me, . I have never solicited disruption of Misplaced Pages on other sites, though I have sought the help of experts, whose advice ScienceApologist subsequently interpreted as the exact opposite to that offered. --Iantresman 22:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• ScienceApologist below, accuses me of "untruths" (yet again, contrary to his ArbCom fingings, and without evidence). He omits to mention that when I asked for advice on the Halton Arp forum (unfortunately the message is no longer available), 20 minutes earlier I also asked for similar advice on the Bad Astronomy/Universe Today forum,... hardly the actions of someone intent on disrupting Misplaced Pages, but the actions of an editor seeking the advice of experts. --Iantresman 11:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Three editors have now accused User:Soupdragon42 of being a sockpuppet of mine, which I deny as I happen to know his identity, I am happy to work with Arbitrators to establish this (subject to respecting his privacy), showing that such unfounded accusations like this, are another reason why the Community ban was unsafe and unfounded. --Iantresman 11:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC) In addition to Soupdragon42's comments below, editors can further confirm my identity through my personal web site, and the registration of my web/domain, plasma-universe.com, I am not impressed that I have to jump through hoops and provide much personal information as evidence of my innocence, whereas others make unfounded allegations on which there are no demands of evidence. --Iantresman 12:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:JoshuaZ

It is possible that the community discussion was too short. However, the generally community consensus seemed to be clear. I do not think that I can do much that would be helpful other than to repeat my original reasons for requesting a ban. As I said then "This user is a general POV-warrior of all sorts of pseudoscience and fringe science ideas who seems to have overstayed his welcome on Misplaced Pages. His block record includes a 3RR on Eric Lerner, he has repeatedly POV pushing on a variety of articles and harassed editors who do not agree with him. For example, he repeatedly harassed User:ScienceApologist who eventually left the project over a variety of issues, including Ian's behavior. SA was a very productive editor with over 16,000 edits. Ian is now repeating the exact same thing with a relatively new user User:Mainstream astronomy Ian has been placed on probation by the ArbCom which has reduced but by no means eleminated his POV pushing. In summary, Ian is an incorrigible POV pusher and harasser who has in my opinion exhausted the community patience. Since the ArbCom's probation has not stopped him, we should consider a community ban." Nothing in that statement has changed or needs to be qualified at this point. There is no compelling reason for the ArbCom to reopen this matter. JoshuaZ 18:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Odd nature

Reviewing the events at the community discussion leading to Iantresman's ban, the facts are the block was put in place approximately 6 hours after his case was brought before the community and near 100% support for a ban. The discussion continued there for another 10 days afterward and approximately 90% of the 24 + participants there supported the ban. I see no valid reason for the Arbcom to override the community's decision. Evidence provided at WP:CSN along with Iantresman's block log showing he ignored the probation he received in the Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience to the point he received a block for violating it and another for trying to drive productive contributors off of Misplaced Pages are ample evidence that the community got it right. I urge the Arbcom to reject Iantresman's request. Odd nature 20:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Art Carlson

I stand by my comments made during the previous discussion. My main objection was that neither the specific reasons nor the evidence was clearly laid out. Concerning Ian Tresman, I know that he can be difficult to work with. Part of this difficulty is the energy he puts into Misplaced Pages and his unorthodox POV. Energy is welcome and an unusual POV can be fruitful as long as everyone is committed to keeping the articles NPOV. I think Ian embraces that commitment and the associated process. I, at least, have always found it possible to reason with him, and he is civil. I think a permanent and complete ban should be a last resort that goes too far in this case. At the very least, I think the supporters of a ban should be required to lay out specific reasons and evidence. --Art Carlson 20:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by ScienceApologist

I think that Ian's presence is entirely too disruptive. His peculiar devotion to his POV which includes catastrophism and opposition to mainstream astronomy has wasted the time and energy of contributors that could be put to better use. He has a tendency to be overly litigious to the point of absurdity: often resorting to recruitment of meatpuppets outside the boundaries of Misplaced Pages. He has a stated agenda of repositioning Misplaced Pages to conform to his fringe agenda: a kind of advocacy that has been precedent enough to ban others at this encyclopedia. Since being banned he has also used proxies to continue his advocacy at Misplaced Pages through his various internet enterprises. A permanent and complete ban is the only recourse when people game the system as much as this user has.

I note the following instances of Ian Tresman using a sockpuppet to argue at Misplaced Pages:

• User talk:81.31.38.19

I also note that Ian has initiated a ridiculous number of attacks against me throughout his time here at Misplaced Pages. He seems to be obsessed with me accusing me at various times of all manner of untoward behavior. He has advocated outside of Misplaced Pages at Halton Arp's forum and at the Thunderbolts forum for disruption of this website.

I never understood why he was tolerated here for as long as he was. That we are entertaining allowing him back is extremely unfortunate.

ScienceApologist 21:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I also note that the meatpuppets are out in force below. I encourage anyone interested to review the editing histories of the two users who posted below. ScienceApologist 21:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ian has now basically perpetuated an untruth regarding his solicitation for outside disruption of Misplaced Pages. In particular, in the very beginning of my editing activities at Redshift, he posted at Halton Arp's forum encouraging users there to promote their fringe viewpoints in order to get more visibility for their objections to the redshift-distance relationship. I find that his continued evasiveness with regards to the problematic patterns outlined in detail in the arbitration are only more reasons for the community consensus to stand. ScienceApologist 16:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Profg

As someone who was never a party to any of the noticeboard proceedings, I have gone back and extensively reviewed them. It's obvious that this procedure was rushed, and the "evidence" far from compelling. I urge the Arbcom to accept Iantresman's request. --profg 21:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Soupdragon42

I have also gone back and extensively reviewed the earlier proceedings. I am dismayed by the entire mess. The banning has a whiff of the Spanish Inquistion about it. I also urge the Arbcom to accept Iantresman's request. --Soupdragon42 22:45, 2 October 2007 (GMT)

Three editors have now accused me of being a sockpuppet of Ian Tresman. This is outrageous, but I can't say that it surprises me given the petty and vitriolic manner in which Ian Tresman has been attacked throughout. It highlights the rash and baseless danger of so many of the accusations being made.

I am amazed that Ian Tresman has maintained dignity and courtesy throughout this whole sorry process.

I am behind the www.plasmacosmology.net web site which focuses on the work of Kristian Birkeland, Hannes Alfven, and Anthony Perratt. The site differentiates between Plasma Cosmology and The Electric Universe, although ScienceApologist does not. He continually removed the links I provided to this site, and then accused me of edit warring! He is a pseudoskeptic to the nth degree; he demonstrates an irrational fear of the emerging electrodynamic paradigm which he perceives as threatening his cherished world view! 12:35, 4 October 2007 (GMT)

In order to put an end to this witch hunt I am happy to work with arbitrators to establish my identity.

Statement by Michaelbusch

As an uninvolved editor, I have also reviewed the available information, and find that Iantresman has no reason to justify his unblocking, unless he can demonstrate that he has reformed his conduct. This is not evident. Also, based on editing history, User:Soupdragon42 is a puppet of Iantresman, either a meatpuppet or a sock (looks like Apologist beat me to that one). Soupdragon42 has edited only Plasma cosmology, the associated talk page, the account's talk page, and the above. The first edit took place on 2007 April 29, while Iantresman's indefinite block was issued 2007 July 16, with an earlier block 2007 June 22 . Throughout May, Soupdragon42 seems to been coordinating edits with Iantresman to avoid 3RR violations (see history of Plasma cosmology). Michaelbusch 21:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Tom Harrison

Time spent on this is time wasted. Tom Harrison 22:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by MGmirkin

Feel free to see a number of my statements on the prior ArbCom request for ban. I'll try to boil it down and not rehash too much. I support Ian's request for removing or revisiting the ban decision. At least in part due to the fact that due process didn't really happen. As I recall, FeloniosMonk had leveled an unsupported accusation against Ian, to which he had responded (I believe with an ArbCom request asking FeloniusMonk to explain himself and provide proof) and which was pending at the time the Ban request was made. Generally, said request and or ArbCom issue should have been settled FIRST, as it was the precipitating event whereby Ian was accused of violating a prior ArbCom sanction. However, Ian was banned before the precipitating accusation could be resolved, thus he was banned from participating in his own defense on the original charge. to me that seems to be unfair play by those with a grudge against Ian. That's my personal view of the situation. Mgmirkin 23:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom shouldn't be about furthering a grudge or expelling someone who doesn't hold your particular point of view, but rather impartially reviewing evidence and coming to a sensible conclusion. As far as I saw in the banning RfA,it was short on "evidence" and long on "rhetoric" exposing personal grudges of certain involved parties. That really doesn't belong in a proceeding of that sort. I tend to believe that a better system of resolution is needed than polar opposite sides of an issue coming together and voting along party lines to either keep a friend or ban an opponent. Mgmirkin 23:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Aside from which, I do think that the punishment was more severe than the unsubstantiated original accusation warranted. Lesser sanctions than a "complete ban" may have been appropriate. Be that ban-from-controversial-topic(s) and/or probation on that or other topics, or some lesser remedy. Mgmirkin 23:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to declare any COI's, I do know Ian in real-life. And generally find him to be a pleasant fellow, and not prone to misbehavior. I think that his edits have generally been in good faith. Long story short, I simply don't think sufficient evidence was presented at the ban request, and as such it should be overturned at least on a provisional basis. And I think that a higher standard of impartiality & evidence should be effected in such ArbCom decisions. I realize WP isn't a court, but that can be problematic if charges can be leveled without evidence being proferred, without users negatively affected being given time to redress charges leveled against them, and said users can thus be inappropriately negatively impacted (by censure or ban). For this reason (Ian's ban w/o appropriate evidence or due process), among others, I've generally avoided WP as an unfriendly place to edit. Though I do occasionally still make what I hope are useful edits from time to time. Mgmirkin 23:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:Raymond arritt

A few have commented on the rapidity with which Iantresman's community ban was enacted. This was not a bolt from the blue, but rather the community standing up and agreeing after someone finally gains the nerve to say "enough!" to Ian's long record of disruption. Yes, Iantresman was singled out. He was singled out for engaging in a broad range of destructive behavior such as badgering other users, relentlessly Wikilawyering even the smallest of points, using sockpuppets, and so on. His statement above shows absolutely no indication whatsoever that he acknowledges any of these problems, and as a result I see no possibility that his participation could be a net benefit to Misplaced Pages.

Comment by uninvolved ^demon

Whether or not this user needs to be banned, I have no opinion to offer. However, the fact that WP:CSN took less than 6 hours to decide on this upsets me greatly. Bans are not to be handed out lightly, as they are not only a technical restriction on editing, they are also a message to the person being banned that "you are no longer wanted." The fact that only 7 editors (JoshuaZ, KillerChihuahua, Prosfilaes, Odd nature, JzG, SirFozzie, Tom Harrison) participated in the discussion other than Ian, I hardly consider it a "community decision" to ban. I think the usage of WP:CSN to institute these "quick bans" is rather unbefitting to the spirit of WP:AGF. No wonder the community jokingly redirects Misplaced Pages:Votes for banning to it. ^demon 16:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Uninvolved User:Rocksanddirt

While I believe I did participate in the WP:CSN discussion, and agreed that the user's behavior was excessively disruptive, I agree with ^demon. I would not really expect the arb comm to come to a different conclusion, but we do need to make the point clear to those who participate regularly at WP:CSN and those who want to use it as a 'ban my enemy' forum that the discussions cannot be and should not be rushed. --Rocksanddirt 21:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved ChrisO

The short discussion time and limited number of participants in the discussion does not seem very satisfactory, but that doesn't automatically invalidate the decision. Given the circumstances, I suggest that this would be more usefully dealt with by remanding it back to the community sanction noticeboard to be discussed more thoroughly. -- ChrisO 22:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Durova

Although I prefer community sanction discussions to last somewhat longer than this one did, the process argument appears to be quite weak, particularly so given the strong suspicions (with which I concur) that Soupdragon42 is a sockpuppet of Iantresman. Consensus was swift and nearly unanimous because this editor was a textbook example of disruptive editing. A banned user who attempts no basis for appeal other than process should at least take care that his own actions respect process. Durova 05:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Further comment by Soupdragon42

Three editors have now accused me of being a sockpuppet of Ian Tresman. This is outrageous, but I can't say that it surprises me given the petty and vitriolic manner in which Ian Tresman has been attacked throughout. It highlights the rash and baseless danger of so many of the accusations being made.

I am amazed that Ian Tresman has maintained dignity and courtesy throughout this whole sorry process.

I am behind the www.plasmacosmology.net web site which focuses on the work of Kristian Birkeland, Hannes Alfven, and Anthony Perratt. The site differentiates between Plasma Cosmology and The Electric Universe, although ScienceApologist does not. He continually removed the links I provided to this site, and then accused me of edit warring! He is a pseudoskeptic to the nth degree; he demonstrates an irrational fear of the emerging electrodynamic paradigm which he perceives as threatening his cherished world view!

In order to put an end to this witch hunt I am happy to work with arbitrators to establish my identity. 14:02, 4 October 2007 (GMT)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Accept, probation has to be given a chance to work, if it is going to be effective. It may take a year or two, but that is very different from an indefinite ban. Fred Bauder 00:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• As an aside, I was never especially convinced that "Mainstream astronomy" was a new user, but that doesn't excuse the behaviour. Mackensen (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites

Initiated by John Carter at 15:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Warlordjohncarter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as initiating party
• MichaelCPrice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ovadyah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Str1977 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Loremaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Notice has been sent to MichaelCPrice , Ovadyah , Str1977 , and Nishidani . John Carter 16:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

A request for arbritration was filed. MichaelCPrice initially agreed to it, and then withdrew from mediation, as per here.

Statement by Warlordjohncarter

The subject under discussion is the currently FA Ebionites. The article is currently in FAR as per here over concerns regarding the article's stability, neutrality and accuracy. Many of these concerns seem to be over recent additions added by User:MichaelCPrice. MichaelCPrice's in his additions has recently been found, as per this comment by User:Nishidani, to have, and I quote, "forged the evidence, and fobbed it onto Eisenman, with a combination of circular methodology, illegal synthesis, misattribution, and misinterpretation," Eisenman in the quote being a reputable scholar to whom MichaelCPrice has attributed comments from much less reputable individuals. MichaelCPrice has consistently defended the insertion of this fringe theory as being legitimate by the means described by Nishidani above, and had recently through his adamant refusal to work to improve the article and or address the concerns raised by the material he included caused the editor who had been working to keep the article at FA status, User:Ovadyah, to temporarily leave wikipedia, saying here he would leave the article's "carcass to the jackals". Michael's primary defense seems to be based on the idea that this theory which has received little attention by reputable scholars, in part because of the basically non-existent reputation of one of its primary proponents, is somehow required to ensure NPOV, despite the fact that the proponents of the theory are themselves at best dubiously qualified under WP:RS, and ignoring the fact that the amount of space given this fringe argument seems to be in the eyes of virtually everyone else a total violation of WP:Undue weight to what is seemingly very much a fringe theory. John Carter 15:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• I also must agree with MichaelCPrice below that the assumption of bad faith on his part seems to be shared by just about everyone who was worked with him on this article. Make of that what you will. John Carter 23:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by MichaelCPrice

The Ebionite article seems to attract editors with strong POVs but with an unwillingness to allow the presentation of other notable, reliably sourced POVs (such as James Tabor's) in a balanced and fair way, in line with Wikipolicies such as WP:NPOV. Rather than productively debate these substantive issues many editors resort to the consistent presumption of bad faith. This is a long-standing problem that needs addressing. With this bad faith practice stopped I believe the content issues can be resolved.

The most recent, indeed ongoing, example of this presumption of bad faith is User:Warlordjohncarter's example above: in response to User:Nishidani's analysis of a passage (in which the claim is made that I "forged the evidence") I provided some feedback in which I responded to all the points, accepted some changes, and suggested that the more appropriate fora for this discussion were other existing sections of the same talk page where these issues had already been discussed. This was to avoid the ongoing problem of text being taken out of context. Despite this, and rather than use the "page-up" keys, User:Warlordjohncarter accused me of bad faith (again) .

I withdrew from the mediation when it became clear that the bad faith issue was not going to be addressed. --Michael C. Price 19:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I must emphasize that this assumption of bad faith is routinely assumed by all the other parties here, not just User:Warlordjohncarter. If I change my views on something I am accused of shifting like a chameleon, If I don't change my views I am accused of obduracy. If I say I'm undecided I'm accused of egotism. And always the assumption of bad faith (evidenced even on this arbitration page). Needless to say the disputed substantive issues are not as straightforward as presented by others; the continued assumption of bad faith makes it impossible to have a rational debate about them, since the first thing lost when bad faith is assumed is objectively; I have always assumed good faith of the other editors, no matter how we much we disagree over content; all the other editors listed here consistently assume bad faith. One point I agree with Ovadyah about is when he says that the article can only progress "when this user conduct problem is dealt with once and for all." --Michael C. Price 07:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Just before I ever edited the article Tabor's POV that the Ebionites were followers of John the Baptist, as well as Jesus, was displayed in the first paragraph of the lead. The second paragraph featured (exclusively) the views of Eisenman. Now the other editors are claiming that these two sources are examples of fringe scholarship (despite an explicit admin judgement to the contrary) or even not reliable sources. All I am trying to do is restore the balance that has been lost and I am accused of bad faith, pushing a fringe POV, not understanding undue weight etc. --Michael C. Price 07:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Ovadyah

Indeed there is a long-standing problem here. However, the problem is not one of bad faith. It is a persistent pattern of editorial synthesis, purposeful misattribution, evasion, and obfuscation. As I have stated elsewhere on the talk page, Michael Price has repeatedly introduced content into the Ebionites article that is knowingly false with the intent to deceive.

He is engaging in an effort to push a fringe POV that is not stated even by the fringe sources he heavily relies upon. It is my hope that the article, now under FAR, can be restored to FA quality. But it can only happen when this user conduct problem is dealt with once and for all. Ovadyah 21:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Assumptions of bad faith, which Michael Price goes on so much about, happen for a reason. They are a symptom, not a problem. They are reactions to ceasless edit-warring, editorial bullying, personal attacks, a stone-deaf ear, and a contemptible regard for the opinions of other editors. As if this were not enough, there is a pernicious mendacity in his editorial behavior that requires other editors to verify his work and root out purposelful mistatements and misattributions. I agree with Loremaster's summary conclusion. This editor must be stopped from doing further damage to the Ebionites article. Ovadyah 12:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by GRBerry

I recollect at least one RfC this summer on the Religion/Philosophy subpage. The evidence issues were beyond my competence to address quickly, and I did not have time for an in depth consideration. I don't know if the community gave any input to the RfC. But I note for the committee that an RfC was also tried, in addition to an RfM. The talk page of the article also demonstrates at least one call on Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. GRBerry 21:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani

I chanced upon the page, to correct a minor mispelling, and, noting a disagreement between MichaelCPrice and Ovadyah, attempted a mediation, in which at first I gave some backing to MichaelCPrice. Subsequently, I found it impossible, even by extensive analyses, to get MichaelCPrice to at least see both the critical position others held, and to give some reflection to the frailties, extensively documented, of his own positions (I use the plural advisedly because, when he yields on what strikes others, after unnecessarily numerous comments from a majority of other contributors, as untenable, he changes his stance, but only slightly). Ovadyah, I think correctly, likened his attitude in these endless exchanges to the labile chromatic switches proverbially associated with chameleons.

'Michael, I can't help but notice you're constantly shifting positions like a chameleon. First, you made the absolute statement that archaeology supports a settlement of vegetarian Essenes at Qumran. Then you changed your story to Qumran after 31 BCE, then it was not Qumran but Ein Gedi. Now you're saying a whole group of settlements but not Qumran (Masada, Herodium Jericho, Ein Gedi, Ein Boqeq, Ein Feshkha, Kallirrhoe, Machaerus). I think you have no idea, and you are just grasping at any headlines you happen find on the web. From now on, please bring your evidence here in the form of direct quotations that we can read for ourselves.Ovadyah 20:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

To this Michael CPrice replied:-

'I have no problem with changing my mind about things. Glad you noticed.'

I think evidence has been provided that the passage he stoutly defended, while refusing to provide evidence for its several assertions, is definitely a 'synthesis' based on his guesswork, of two distinct books, which he conflated, and then attributed his own OR conclusions back to both authors. The point was obvious from the outset, but required a considerable amount of time and labour to do, and was met with a very late, perhaps last ditch, offer to reconsider a fragmentary part of it. I won't cite my own technical arguments, but conclude with the following exchange, which I think puts the finger on the problem.

'I produced a quotation of exactly what Pliny said about the Essenes, and pointed out to you that Pliny made no remarks about the Essene's vegetarianism. You made no attempt to correct this mistake in the article, even after several days, so I can only conclude that the statement you inserted into the article was knowingly false. Ovadyah 16:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

MichaelCPrice replied.

'I left the quote in because, for the moment, I am undecided.'

That I which I highlight, is the problem. Ovadyah meticulously gave detailed evidence that invalidated MichaelCPrice's claim, MichaelCPrice refused to adjust his post after the refutation, and when asked why answered that he wouldn't withdraw a false claim because (though false) he personally hadn't decided one way or another what he might do about it.

An article that achieved FA standard is at risk of being degraded, and some of its best authors disenchanted of maintaining its quality, predominantly because of difficulties one editor is making, virtually for everyone else. He doesn't appear to appreciate that 'collaboration' on a collective article is not a synonym for getting one's own way by sheer attrition Nishidani 22:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Loremaster

Months after having worked hard to ensure that Ebionites became a featured article, I chose to permanently stop contributing partly because I was no longer willing to tolerate MichealCPrice's use of wikilawyering to undermine the neutral point of view of the article in order to give undue weight to fringe theories and, worse, his systematic personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with him in order to intimidate them into surrendering to his agenda. Bottom line: This user must be stopped. --Loremaster 00:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Str1977

It is hard to say anything that has not already been said, so I will try to make this brief: the ongoing problem on Ebionites (and less pressingly other pages) is MichealCPrice's behaviour that has driven of two regular editors and made the Ebionite article unstable. In contrast to what he claims above, no editor has tried to removed Tabor's view from the article - it was rather ensuring NPOV in as much as Tabor's view is not the only scholarly view (that has been achieved), not giving it undue weight (not solved yet) and distinguishing Tabor's view from other views instead of creating a synthesis (not solved yet). Another problem has been the insitence on including things not directly relevant to the article, often creating a POV problem thereby. Recently the problem has been augmented by Michael's refusal to give references (stating that he gave them once upon a time). As for assuming bad faith: certainly some of his opponents hold Michael to be acting in bad faith but that is the result of bad experiences with him, so it is rather concluding bad faith. I personally think that Michael is honestly so much immersed into Tabor's view that he can't see anything else. OTOH, I have seen Michael assuming bad faith on practically every occasion. His withdrawal from the mediation also seems unwarranted as the issue to be solved was content and not behaviour. If we agreed on content, behaviour would no longer be a current issue. His withdrawal prevented this. And this is why we are here. Str1977 09:11, 28 September 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. We can help here. Good faith attempts at mediation by impartial editors have failed so I do not think further ordinary dispute resolution attempts will help. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. --jpgordon 04:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ned Scott-White Cat

Initiated by - Penwhale | at 04:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Penwhale (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as initiating party
• Ned Scott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• White Cat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Centrx (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Ned Scott notified White Cat notified Centrx notified

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Ned Scott's RfC

Further dispute resolution is unlikely to be possible. See these edits

Statement by initiator Penwhale

The history of Ned Scott and White Cat go all the way back to May, when Ned Scott decided to revert White Cat's edits of changing old signatures.

Since then, White Cat and Ned Scott have been constantly quarreling, resulting in the RfC linked above, which I won't reproduce here. White Cat accuses that Ned Scott has been harassing him on multiple articles lately. The breaking point is this edit, in which Ned Scott listed the article on AfD using an inappropriate comment (yeah, you are SO nominated for deletion.. hahahahahaha).

Regarding this RfAr request, I'm hoping that these two editors can stay away from each other.

I consider Centrx an (peripherally) involved party because he also had a hand in reverting the signature changes by White Cat.

Response to Shalom

It's not just the old signature revert war anymore. It's gotten to the point where they're warring over multiple articles as well as talk pages. - Penwhale | 04:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Shalom

I don't think this is a particularly complicated case. White Cat wants to change links to his userpage. Why, I don't know, and I don't care. Ned Scott wants to stop him from doing that. The result has been a lame edit war over changing links in talk page archives.

With due respect to Penwhale and the involved parties, I don't think the Arbitration Committee needs to bother with such a simple case over such an insignificant underlying issue. ArbCom has more important cases to worry about. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Ned Scott

I'm very sorry to the community for making a big deal out of the Cat signature issue. As I said on the RfC, at the time I felt the community backed me up, especially having other admins at the time who were also reverting him. The community made it clear that they didn't think it was worth the fuss, and I backed down from the issue. Cat's claims of harassment and stalking were unfounded.

I fully disclosed why I nominated the trek-dog article for deletion, because it was related to a discussion on WT:FICT, where I was already active. Cat came there because people were putting merge tags on articles he felt was notable, and I thought the best way to address it was to let the community decide in an AfD format. This was far more productive given his behavior in similar discussions in the past, where he would pretty much ignore guidelines, consensus, and anything else that didn't agree with him. I didn't think it was wrong or over the line. My edit summary for the AfD was simply that I felt it funny that a dog in Star Trek had an article, and nominating it was an obvious thing to do. Likewise, I didn't think highly of Cat's rationale for keeping the article. A bad response on my part, but this wasn't me seeking him out, or looking to harass him. Frustration got the better of me, having been in several discussions about fictional notability with him in the past.

Had it not been for the discussion on WT:FICT, and had the article been unrelated to that discussion, I wouldn't even know it existed. There are several articles that Cat is very involved with that I'd like to clean up, but I avoid because I know he has an attachment to those articles. I didn't think Cat had an attachment to Porthos (Star Trek), but only that he felt it to be notable (I looked at his contribs to see what articles he was referring to regarding the WT:FICT thread. I did not look at the edit history). Selecting the article because of his involvement was not because it was White Cat, but because it was one of the articles he was talking keeping in the WT:FICT discussion.

During all this, which happened last night, several admins where aware of the situation, and there was even a discussion on IRC about it. Some people felt it was in bad taste that I thought the whole thing was funny, and although I feel that's a bit of an over-reaction, I can respect that view. Never did I think it would result in me getting blocked 11 hours later, nor did I think an RfArb would be filed.

Is there tension between White Cat and myself? Yes. Do I seek him out, or does he seek me out? No. I personally don't think there is an issue here other than some lingering bad feelings (which I am guilty of), and the rest being a massive amount of over-reaction from White Cat. I even tried to make light of the issue, but that might have made it worse. I'm not even that active on Misplaced Pages as I was a year ago, let alone even seeing Cat around the place. If the community really is concerned enough about this, then I'm open to trying mediation. Taking this to arbcom is overkill, and would only feed the drama at this point. -- Ned Scott 05:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Additional statement by Ned Scott

I think there is some confusion here based on the comments by others. The issue of Cat's sig changes was resolved a long while ago, and there is no on going issue there. In addition, it's very unfair to me to make this sound like I was the only user who was reverting him, when there were others. However, I was the only one who defended my actions on AN/I discussions, which likely lead to the impression that I was acting alone. Further more, only during the last AN/I discussion on the matter was I ever told directly to stop, or was even given the impression that removing the changes was not acceptable, and sure enough I had given no further reverts (even before Cat put together an RfC on me). This issue basically ended on July 18th . I stopped talking about it on Augest 2nd .

I'd also like to reply directly to Riana's above statement, as it is a prime example of the misimpression people have gotten: "...I believe this boils down to Ned Scott's inability to resist a chance to taunt White Cat. Ned's involvement with WP:EPISODE sometimes seems to be a convenient scapegoat for his following White Cat and his edits, and White Cat often seems unable to take it into his stride..."

I never "follow Cat around", and the only time my involvement with WP:EPISODE has crossed with Cat is on Talk:List of Oh My Goddess episodes#Episode notability. A situation I handled very well, and I invite people to look for themselves. I can only assume you meant to say this is about WP:FICT, which is a situation where I've only nominated one article for deletion that he was related with, something I did not intend to be harassing, but rather as a way (the only way, in my mind) to actually show Cat that said articles were not notable (the topic of the WT:FICT discussion). Given how many times we could have easily crossed paths, and considering how many similar areas we are both interested in, I find it a little bit insulting that someone would say something like "Ned Scott's inability to resist a chance to taunt White Cat". I am not some petty school yard bully.

I let this last incident get to me and was down right rude to him, I admit that. I was wrong there, and I was wrong to get worked up about his sig changes. But quite frankly, those who feel this is a big issue are just buying into White Cat's attempts to generate drama. I almost desire this case to be accepted so that it can be clearly documented that I do not follow him around, or would even desire to be in a dispute with him. -- Ned Scott 03:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by ST47

Well, I don't think I've done this before.

My involvement here began when White_Cat first changed his name to White_Cat. He wanted to change his signatures from one format to the other, to keep them linking to his new username - he wanted the redirects deleted as well, and he used one to justify the other. At first he did it by hand, then he made a bot request. Mets501 approved for a trial, which is traditionally 50 edits, the bot went way over that and ended up on AN/I, and most of its edits were reverted by Ned Scott. We didn't want to approve the bot with the community against it until we were sure it was needed, so I asked White_Cat to explain why this way necessary, which is on that page, but for continuity I'll quote it here:

• I prefer to keep a consistent sig. When you look at an archive you can easily identify me this way. A lot of people would not know who "Cool Cat" supposed to be in about say a year. It helps people better identify me. I feel this is the responsible thing to do.
• In the past I had fancier sigs including sigs which displays all the barnstars I earned and stuff. I had been meaning to solve that issue for quite some time. This is the perfect opportunity for it.
• Is this entire thing critical? No. But it was never a requirement that bots are to be used for critical tasks only. I am letting a bot take care of a task I am allowed to handle manually to save myself time.

Myself and possibly two, possibly three, bot approvals regulars discussed this off-wiki, and in a nutshell decided that:

• Keeping a 'consistent sig' may not be useful, as required for bot policy (WP:BOT), and does not have community support.
• Cleaning up some old sigs does not require all pages ever signed to be edited
• Redirect policy says that links to redirects that are not broken need not be fixed
• As evidenced by the reversions and the ANI topics, this bot did not have community consensus.

And I denied the bot. That was May 27th. Since then, he had three other maintenance bots approved, and then requested this. Three bot approval members commented negatively, as did Deskana, a bureaucrat, and the request was closed.

That's really the extent of my involvement, plus I have school now, but I'll probably add more later.

Statement by White Cat

I'd like to referance to the signature comment above by shalom first as I believe this problem is an ongoing issue if the discussion on Centrx's talk page is any indication (and since he is an involved party). Help:Reverting#Do not reads (bold emphasis not mine):

So while the actual edit itself was no big deal, the revert of it is a big deal unless help pages are written just to pass time - which I do not believe they are.

Ned Scott has made many other "guest" appearances on discussions.

• This was not the first time I have encountered Ned Scott. One early example I do recall is as far back as July of 2006: User talk:White Cat/Archive/2006/07#Spellchecking archives.
• He was on two of my commons adminship requests. In first an actual participant and on second - well a commentator after the closure of it. User was never active on commons at any point. - Now I know this is beyond the scope of arbcom but this is demonstrating a behavioral pattern:
  • commons:Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Cool Cat (02)
  • commons:Commons talk:Administrators/Requests and votes/Cool Cat (03) (log)
• His other and most notable appearance was on the signature issue and the related deletion of my former userpage (User:Cool Cat) which Ned Scott repetitively recreated forcing a MfD. He reverted the closure of the MfD 4 times and even taken the matter as far as DRV and more. More evidence is available at the older version of the linked RfC. This entire signature-related nonsense created an artificial problem on weather or not updating signatures is indeed controversial despite it being "an insignificant underlying issue".

  Centrx was also mass reverting my wikipedia-wide signature alterations repetitively even inside my own userpace.

One other problem I have with Ned Scott is his incivility. He was warned and even blocked for it so I am under the belief that he is aware of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Most recent example includes the following:

• "You seem to be pulling that completely out of your ass. -- Ned Scott 08:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)"
• " You, on the other hand, would have the world believe that I have raped and beaten you. -- Ned Scott 10:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)"

I have exhausted all forms of dispute resolution. I have made my best effort not to escalate the matter. For example I have not attempted to fix my sigs since then until the issue was resolved. I figure he would probably revert me on commons or maybe even tr.wikipedia.

-- Cat 12:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Clarification to a point by Thatcher131

After a concern I had, it was User:Betacommand who recommended to raise the concern at WP:FICT. So I did not seek User:Ned Scott. WP:FICT is a major guideline and me meeting up with Ned Scott there was purely incidental. Same can't be said about the AfD nom. -- Cat 16:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Clarification to a point by Ryan Postlethwaite

I don't like wiki-drama or attention whatsoever. I do not like this specific attention at all. -- Cat 14:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to comment by arbitrator FloNight

Since I have never followed Ned Scott around in the first place and since I have no intention on starting now, meeting the condition is trivial for me. So Ned Scott is willing to "disengage" voluntarily... This isn't the first time I heard such a thing (such as with User:Davenbelle/User:Moby Dick/User:Diyarbakir) but if FloNight believes this can be resolved like this, I am more that willing to take that avenue.

The issue with signatures should still be addressed by arbcom since despite threads such as this or this, Centrx continued reverting signature fixes.

Since reverting should not be taken lightly, this isn't really a trivial matter. Centrx also reverted Moe Epsilon's sigs as well as mine despite the privacy concerns - which is also another very serious matter. I am uncertain if there were others that Centrx reverted. At the moment Centrx is not allowing our long term contributors to covertly remove personal information and instead is advertising the actual concern. This may be a privacy policy violation. If not by the word then by the spirit. Even such changes are not allowed by Centrx.

Issue has been to the WP:ANB/I many times with semi-conclusive discussions. There was a WP:3O (User talk:White Cat/signature) on the matter as well. I feel any other step of dispute resolution but arbcom on the ıssue such as RfC's and etc would be fruitless.

-- Cat 10:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

Not sure what there really is to arbitrate here, it's just two users that have created a petty argument and need their heads banging together, I wouldn't say the matters out of hand. Ned's not all in the wrong here, White Cat seems to like causing as many problems as he can with his signature in order to kick up a response, he loves the wiki-drama that comes with it. If this is accepted, then I would suggest taking a close look at both users conduct here as there does seem to be little bit of pointy behaviour. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved ^demon

I just wanted to echo Ryan's statements above mine. This is an absolutely stupid issue that isn't worth fighting over. I have every reason to believe that both editors have been acting in good faith, but I do feel that there might have been some pointed behaviors. With Ryan, I'm not sure whether there's anything to arbitrate, rather a firm reminder to both to always assume good faith (notwithstanding evidence to believe otherwise), to not disrupt Misplaced Pages to prove a point, and to remember to try and respect the community. While you may not agree with them at times, if everyone you encounter says "Don't do this," then don't go do it. ^demon 13:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher131

This issue is raised now because White Cat and Ned Scott are getting into each other again. It appears that after White Cat initiated a discussion regarding mass merge/redirects of fictional characters at WT:FICT (a page where Ned Scott has a long history prior to this incident), Ned checked White Cat's contributions and nominated Porthos (Star Trek) for AfD, based on White Cat's complaint that too many minor characters were being merged without AfD discussion. Ned also taunted White Cat regarding this nomination. This appears to violate an agreement made at RfC/Ned Scott to voluntarily stay away from White Cat. Ned was blocked for 24 hours for trolling White Cat.

The best way to resolve this situation would be for Ned Scott and White Cat to avoid each other as much as possible. When they do come into contact, through mutual involvement in articles broadly related to the topic of fictional characters, they should treat each other with respect, enforced as necessary by taps of the administrative cluebat. I don't think Arbitration is required at this time. If Ned Scott challenges the application of the admin cluebat, he should reflect first on whether he wants to substitute an ArbCom clueaxe. Thatcher131 14:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Riana

With apologies to any offended, I believe this boils down to Ned Scott's inability to resist a chance to taunt White Cat. Ned's involvement with WP:EPISODE sometimes seems to be a convenient scapegoat for his following White Cat and his edits, and White Cat often seems unable to take it into his stride. The best and least messy way to resolve this would be to tell them both to shake hands and act like grown-ups henceforth, and when they do come into contact with each other, to make every effort to ensure hackles are not raised. If administrative cluebatting is necessary for either party, I am happy to provide, but I'm not entirely sure that the situation currently requires full-scale arbitration. No need to escalate this - perhaps this is the wake-up call all parties need?

If the case is accepted, I do not think preventing interaction entirely would be very conducive to a collegial editing atmosphere, but if this interaction is somewhat limited, or supervised by an uninvolved party, that might work. ~ Riana ⁂ 15:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Moe Epsilon

I am mostly uninvolved for the most part between White Cat and Ned Scott's signature reverting when this all started (and haven't been around lately about the issue at WT:FICT), only commenting a few times about they're reverting of the signatures. Honestly, the reverting was nonsensical as White Cat is allowed to change his signature per guidelines. Ned Scott, following the conduct RFC has decided to taunt White Cat numerous times, and has also shown a total lack of civility at times

Also, while were on the topic of signature revision, Centrx is a named party here as reverting White Cat's signatures. I am also changing my signatures and Centrx is reverting, as he has also done with White Cat's signatures. Like White Cat, I am changing my signature for privacy reasons, and despite that and a full reasoning behind that which I well explained, Centrx decides to revert war with me over changing the signatures. (many other history pages can be provided). Although I haven't gone through the full process of dispute resolution with Centrx, I considered it harrassment that Centrx decided to continue to revert despite a plea for him not to and continuing to imply that archives being kept intact for accuracy is more important than my real life well being. Centrx, despite having some kind of issue with me, has a problem with signatures changing like Ned Scott did, and I think the issue of changing signatures needs to be settled in addition to Ned Scott's incivility towards White Cat being addressed in this arbitration case. — Moe ε 19:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Pilotguy

White Cat likes to create drama, Ned... well... Ned just needs to go do something else apparently. Seriously, though, how the hell is the AC supposed to fix this? Pilotguy 00:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Newyorkbrad

In the interest of brevity I won't repeat the background, which has been pretty well summarized above. These disputes have been festering for months and been a serious drain on administrator time. When Penwhale filed the case, I thought he was doing a useful service and that it should probably be accepted.

However, being named as parties to an arbitration request seems to have captured the parties' (particularly Ned Scott's) attention and brought home that the petty disputes with one another and Ned Scott's provocative behavior toward White Cat need to cease immediately. If the parties are ready to behave reasonably, we have achieved the outcome that is wanted and needed here. Given the time and effort involved in the arbitration process, I think it worth a final try to see if the parties can keep their promises to stay out of each other's hair before imposing a full-fledged arbitration case on this overburdened committee. Thus, the best result might be to decline the case for now, while emphasizing that it very likely to be accepted and sanctions imposed if problems resume and the parties wind up back here. Newyorkbrad 03:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by grateful-to-be-uninvolved Durova

Somebody needs to update the entry on this dispute to note that this has progressed as far as an arbitration request. Can't we all just get along? Durova 04:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by marginally involved AldeBaer

I'm not going to make a strong case out of this, but I wanted it stated here that although civility may not be Ned's strongest side and incivility of course never accomplishes anything useful, I can indeed relate to his feelings of exhaustion and maybe short-temperedness after repeatedly trying and failing to communicate basic issues regarding notability (which he does perfectly civil wherever I have crossed his way before). This should be considered, if only as a footnote: Some editors are really resistent against all attempts at getting across some fairly well-established basic notions about Misplaced Pages's nature as an encyclopedia. That's all. — aldebaer⁠ 07:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by invisibly watching O

For some time, I've been hearing all sorts of commotion between White Cat and Ned Scott. The first was the signature change. Then I've heard that there were different conflicts between these two after the signature incident (on ANI), and I believe that this is a case of stalking. These two users absolutely need to at least take a break from Misplaced Pages for a period of time, so as to let any further interaction diminish after these two have come back from break. However, if both parties are ready to behave normally after a little time, then we should be satisfied about that outcome. —O (说 • 喝) 20:45, 28 September 2007 (GMT)

Clerk notes

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

• As the initiator, I recuse from clerking this request. - Penwhale | 04:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Recuse from any clerk activity in this case. Newyorkbrad 08:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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

• Accept. Applying the clueaxe is needed since neither of the parties has the self-restraint to stay our of each others hair. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Per Ned Scott's comment to me, I'm willing to put off accepting an Arbitration case if both agree to stay away from each other. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. Kirill 12:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Reject, I say. To the parties, go away, do better in future, if either of you ends up in my office again ... well, it will not be a good idea to feature in Arbitration. Charles Matthews 14:11, 30 September 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.

Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 Remedy

As the closing clerk, I noticed some interesting problems with the remedy 1 of this case. The remedy 1 puts edit supervision on the editors sanctioned in the original case, however, at least 2 editors sanctioned in the original case was not named as a party to the newer case and was surprised/shocked of the development. I'd like some input from the Committee to explain the ruling on this. - Penwhale | 04:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, under this case, other editors who edit in a similar manner to the previously-sanctioned editors may be placed under the limitations of the original Armenia-Azerbaijan case. Do these sanctions expire one year after the editor in question is notified, or are they indefinite as no time limit is mentioned? The supervised editing remedy from the second case appears to be indefinite, as no expiration is mentioned, so my question is whether this is indeed the case and whether the other remedies are still meant to expire after a year, including on other editors brought in under the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 decision. Seraphimblade 06:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe this situation requires attention from the committee. Frankly, I was always troubled by remedy number 1, which took all the users who were placed on revert parole (revert limitation) in the earlier case, and now placed them on supervised editing (which I gather is a new term for some form of probation and/or civility parole) as well. This was done despite the observation that although some of the parties to the earlier case had continued to display problematic behavior, others had done little or nothing wrong since the earlier decision, and there was no real reason to be applying additional remedies to them.

The problem is magnified if, as has been stated, some of the parties to the earlier case were not parties to the newer one. The case was such a sprawl and so many editors were listed as parties (and there was edit-warring over the list for awhile) that the clerk handling the case probably assumed that all the (unbanned) parties to the earlier case had been listed again. (From now on, I will check for things like this in every case myself.) If that didn't happen, then at a minimum anyone who was subjected to a remedy without having been notified of the case should be entitled to have the case reopened and to be heard on this issue. Newyorkbrad 19:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops. See below.

As far as the duration is concerned, "until the situation improves" is probably a good rule of thumb. I am content to leave the decision up to the enforcing administrators. Kirill 19:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Replying to NYB, I was also the clerk in the original A-A case. However, this case was opened anew, so I did not add the parties from the old case to the new one. I never assumed that they were listed. - Penwhale | 20:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, there was no reason to look for the additional parties or add them at the beginning of the case. However, when a remedy showed up on /proposed decision (or originally in an arbitrator proposal on the workshop) applicable to "all the parties to the prior decision," we should all have checked then to make sure that all of them were parties in or had all received notice of the new case. My fault as much as anyone's. Newyorkbrad 20:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• With due respect to Kirill I think this is a non-issue and his motion is a mistake. Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 provides that any editor who edits disruptively on the topic of "Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area" may be placed on civility parole, 1RR and probation by means of a warning on their talk page. The fact that some editors in the first case were not notified of the second case is easily remedied by a note on their talk page. Passing the motion below would take a small group of editors who were placed on 1RR and exempt them from the civility parole and probation that applies to every other editor on Misplaced Pages following an appropriate notice. Thatcher131 20:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • They could be placed back on the remedy, yes; but only if they edit disruptively. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt; staying out of the second case does count for something, I think. Kirill 20:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Dren. I missed that remedy #2 still applied. Sorry. Thatcher131 20:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Thatcher, I had to look that word up. Clearly I have some remedial TV watching to do. More seriously, Penwhale, could you advise which users subjected to the remedy in the first case were not parties to the new case? (I ask you instead of doing the research myself as you know which users have complained to you already.) Thanks, Newyorkbrad 23:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Not so much of "complaining", but TigranTheGreat and ROOB323 were the ones affected. - Penwhale | 01:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
          • While User:TigranTheGreat was not included in the list of the parties to the second arbcom case, many users provided evidence of his behavior which they considered to be disruptive. So he was definitely a party to the second case, and he was well aware of it as he provided evidence himself. His non-inclusion was just a mistake, because most users considered all the parties to the previous case to be parties to the second one as well. On the other hand, no one complained about ROOB323, so he should be the only one affected. Grandmaster 06:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
            • "His non-inclusion was just a mistake" as in "Darn it, I forgot to add his name to the list"? If he (or any editor) was not on the list of involved parties in the second case, nor even told of its existence, then how can he be a party to the part 1 sanctions imposed in the second case? It is that simple, or wikipedia descends into a Kafka-esque justice system. Meowy 02:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Just a quick note, since contributors in the 2nd ArbCom case ended up there due to pretty much the same disruptions as those in the 1st case, would not it be simpler to just place everyone on 1RR parole? I think this would significantly reduce the reporting and decision overhead, whether something should be considered a civility violation or not. Thanks. Atabek 14:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think it is shocking that ANY editor can fall foul of these remedies without having any prior warning of their existence. If these restrictions are to be fair then there must be an earlier stage to the process where editors are first warned of the existance of these pre-existing remedies and that they run the risk of breaking then if they were to go about editing an entry that falls under those remedies in the same way as they would an "ordinary" entry. A warning should be placed on every wikipedia entry to which these draconian restrictions apply. Meowy 02:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

First, TigranTheGreat was well aware of the second arbcom case, as he was providing evidence on other users, while others were providing evidence on him. His non-inclusion was just a technical mistake. And I agree that some sort of warning would be good, but there are hundreds of articles covered by the remedy of arbcom 2, is it possible to add a warning to every one of them and who should do that? Grandmaster 04:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages isn't a "justice system". Basically, anybody who cannot behave or respect policy is out, justice or no justice. Nobody will be banned without warning, but, IMHO, there are topics that are so severely and systematically disrupted by ultra-nationalists, that need to impose "draconian" measures on misbehaviour by topic, not just by individual account (which are a dime a dozen), in the interest of maintaining a sane editing environment for serious editors. I have been saying this two years ago, and I am glad the arbcom is now seeing the need for this. dab (𒁳) 09:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Any editor who edits disruptively on this topic area may brought under the umbrella of this case by a notice on their talk page. A templated warning is available at {{Armenia-Azerbaijan enforcement}} which explains the situation thoroughly. Rather than apply the notice to thousands of articles, this notice is given to the editors involved (so far 6 in addition to the editors involved in the case itself). If you are arguing for two separate warnings, (i.e., a warning about disruptive editing before the notice about being placed under the remedies can be given) that would be nice, and many admins will do that, but ArbCom didn't require it. Thatcher131 10:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

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

Extension of remedies in Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

Those parties to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan who were not named as parties to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 and were not given notice of the proceedings are exempted from the extension of existing remedies imposed by Remedy #1 in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. They remain subject to Remedy #2.

See also discussion above. As there are currently 10 active Arbitrators, the majority is 6.

Support:

1. We messed up here. Kirill 19:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
2. James F. (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Paul August ☎ 13:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. There is a defect in noticing everyone in, but the remedy should properly apply to everyone. Fred Bauder 13:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Abstain:

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