Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:41, 15 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.

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/How-to

Current requests

Cberlet and Dking

Initiated by Marvin Diode at 12:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Cberlet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Will Beback (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Marvin Diode (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Talk page notifications:

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Attempts were made at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct/Cberlet, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct/Dking, and Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Rejected/28#Lyndon LaRouche and related articles

Note: I have undeleted the RfCs for the purpose of this request. Thatcher131 01:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Marvin Diode

Cberlet (talk · contribs · logs) and Dking (talk · contribs · logs) are the Misplaced Pages usernames of advocacy journalists Chip Berlet and Dennis King, who have worked as a team for over twenty years, mainly in activism against Lyndon LaRouche and his organization. They also work as a team at Misplaced Pages, and I contend that have used the project to aggressively promote their shared POV in violation of WP:SOAP. I keep Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Politics on my watchlist and I have responded to many requests, but I have not seen anyone else push an agenda with the sort of truculence that I have seen from Cberlet and Dking.

Lyndon LaRouche, as is well known, espouses many controversial and exotic opinions that are well outside the political mainstream. However, Cberlet and Dking are not content to let him be hoisted by his own petard. They have both written many articles and in King's case, a book, which claim that LaRouche's writings are full of coded or veiled messages. Berlet and King provide "decodings" that utilize the methodology of conspiracy theorists, in which they claim to be revealing the hidden, esoteric truth, that LaRouche is a closet Hitlerian fascist himself, despite his perpetual campaigns against a revival of Hitlerian fascism. As an example, Dennis King finds that photos from LaRouche's science magazine, of spiral nebulae and fusion plasma experiments, are "reminiscent of the swastika." To my way of thinking, the relevant Misplaced Pages articles should simply report, in summary form, that Berlet and King hold these views, particularly if they are of a highly speculative or "decoding" nature. However, Cberlet and Dking insist that this view must dominate the articles and be explicated at length. This raises numerous problems with policy, including WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE and WP:NOR. Recently an admin, citing BLP, removed comments about LaRouche that Cberlet had posted on his user talk page and two article talk pages. Cberlet, complaining of censorship, engaged in an edit war to restore the comments on his user talk page and was temporarily blocked as a result.

I proposed that when their views have appeared in mainstream publications, those may be used as sources and would not be disputed (this satisfies the requirements of WP:REDFLAG.) Although both Cberlet and Dking have denounced this proposal as censorship, I continue to believe that this proposal is consistent with Misplaced Pages policy and would be the simplest solution to a persistent problem.

Another policy issue which arises in this context is WP:COI. It is my view that both Berlet and King are exploiting Misplaced Pages to raise their public profiles and draw traffic to their respective websites. Action was taken April 15, 2007, and on subsequent days by the team at the COI noticeboard to remove WP:LINKSPAM by Dking (Dking has recently renewed his linkspam campaign.) One of the editors who conducted the LinkSpam cleanup later expressed this view: "Cberlet and Dking are both COI SPAs: single purpose accounts with very obvious conflicts of interest."

There is also the issue of tendentious editing and civility. Cberlet and Dking have been involved in many fierce disputes (not limited to the LaRouche articles.) I have watched these develop at a number of LaRouche articles; when a dispute arises, Cberlet and Dking immediately label their opponents "LaRouche followers" or "LaRouche apologists," which is inappropriate (regardless of whether it is actually true: at WP:NPA it says that one type of comment which is never acceptable is "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.") Cberlet and Dking have recently become more careful not to specify any individual editor, but this does not excuse the practice -- WP:POINT refers to "'Borderlining' (habitually treading the edge of policy breach or engaging in low-grade policy breach, in order to make it hard to actually prove misconduct.)" Cberlet and Dking then characterize these reputed LaRouche followers in the most offensive terms, including using the expression "house Jews" to describe Jewish supporters of LaRouche(.)

Finally, I would ask the ArbCom to address the conduct of Will Beback (talk · contribs · logs), who has often supported inappropriate edits by Cberlet and Dking, and wikilawyered on their behalf. He exerted himself to obstruct earlier efforts at dispute resolution such as the deleted RFCs, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct/Cberlet and Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct/Dking. I should clarify here that he acted mostly as an editor and not as an admin; Will didn't delete them himself, but instead encouraged User:El C to do so, after first disrupting the process by dominating the discussion with accusations against other editors. When the matter was discussed at the ANI, it was suggested that a request for mediation be pursued, but when that was done, Will Beback declined to participate, saying that it "appears mostly to deal with a behavioral dispute."

Final note: Cberlet has said that he is taking a one month break.

Statement by {party 2}

Statement by {party 3}

Statement by Will Beback

Despite his protests, Marvin Diode is obviously a follower of Lyndon LaRouche. There's nothing wrong with that, but his comments and actions need to be seen in the context of the history of LaRouche editors at Misplaced Pages.

Chip Berlet and Dennis King are acknowledged as the leading experts on Lyndon LaRouche. King wrote the only full-length biography of LaRouche, which was issued by a major publisher, Doubleday. They are routinely quoted in news stories about LaRouche going back more than 20 years. Since then the LaRouche movement has returned the favor, writing about the two journalists as being involved in a 1980s conspiracy funded by the (liberal) Ford Foundation and (conservative) Richard Mellon Scaife to "get LaRouche". However there does not appear to be any ongoing financial benefit to Berlet and King in their coverage of LaRouche. King's book is out of print, and he's recently uploaded it to a non-commercial website. Berlet works at a private research firm and is apparently mostly engaged in other topics. So I don't see how there is a COI on their parts.

OTOH, a succesion of accounts apparently belonging to LaRouche followers have had a very real conflict of interest in supporting their cause. The most famous and enduring of them is Herschelkrustofsky, who was a chief subject of three ArbCom cases and who has been found to use a string of sock puppets. The most recent HK sock account that's been identified, with whom Marvin Diode worked closely, was MaplePorter. Other accounts, most of which were probably HK socks, include:

• Weed Harper
• C Colden
• Cognition
• BirdsOfFire
• NathanDW
• ISTJester
• Sci.notes
• Ibykus prometheus
• AnonIPuser
• ManEatingDonut
• Tsunami Butler
• HonourableSchoolboy
• Don't lose that number
• Plus other past and current accounts

I believe that Cberlet's recent decision to take a "Wikibreak" was based on his frustration with facing this succesion of accounts promoting the LaRouche agenda through edit warring.

Marvin Diode says that Dking and Cberlet "utilize the methodology of conspiracy theorists" to reveal a "hidden, esoteric truth" about LaRouche. Considering that LaRouche himself is widely viewed as using conspiracy theories that depict esoteric truths about history, politics, and science, this charge is particularly odd. Since I've been editing Misplaced Pages and have researched both LaRouche and the media coverage of him, I'd say that the King and Berlet views of LaRouche are solidly within the majoritarian views of the subject, and that they have not engaged in improper original research.

Cberlet recently described LaRouche as a "notorious antisemite, sexist, and homophobe". It is certainly true that LaRouche is frequently described as "antisemitic". A judge in a libel case decided that calling LaRouche "anti-semitic" is a "fair comment". His 1980s AIDS campaigns in California were characterized as requiring the long-term quarantine of tens of thousands of HIV-infected individuals, a large percentage of them homosexual. Cberlet's error wasn't in using those terms for LaRouche, which are fully sourceable. It was in not maintaining proper neutrality by saying that LaRouche has been called an "antisemite" instead of saying he is an antisemite. That's a subtle distinction and should not result in major penalties.

The RfCs were decertified by another admin because there were no serious attempts by the involved parties to settle their differences prior to the RfCs. Prior to decertification I wrote outside views that pointed to problematic behavior by Marvin Diode and others. This is acceptable because RfCs (and RfArs) cover all parties and not just the initial targets. The mediation request initated by Marvin Diode did not seek to resolve content issues. Instead it asked whether Dking and Cberlet had violated policies. I declined to participate because that isn't the role of mediation. Instead I started an RfC that resolved the content problem. In a submission for the recent THF case, Marvin Diode claimed that Cberlet has engaged in the "unwarranted promotion of fringe theories" and wanted the ArbCom to "examine" his behavior. I have lost track of how many times LaRouche-related editors have sought penalties against Cberlet, but I think it's enough already. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher131

I would like to open my statement with a quote from User:WAS 4.250 :

I believe Marvin Diode accurately describes Berlet and King as advocacy journalists. Take for example Berlet's statement, "King and I took a train down to DC to celebrate the incarceration of convicted felon and neofascist homophopbic antisemite Lyndon LaRouche. We did not attend the trial, but we wanted to applaud and cheer as he was led off to jail." While they are experts in LaRouche, they are not unbiased journalists. Misplaced Pages's reliance on them to maintain the Lyndon LaRouche articles would be problematic even if they were perfectly behaved Wikipedians, which they are not. As noted in the RFC, Berlet edit-warred at Lyndon LaRouche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on 3 July 2007 over the insertion of source material that he wrote for Encyclopedia Judaica . Recently, Berlet introduced an inflammatory and derogatory statement about LaRouche on his user page and two talk pages ; I redacted the comments , and then briefly blocked CBerlet when he edit-warred to reinstate them. However, in researching this situation I found the same comments made in article space . Also note that Berlet's recent Wikibreak statement calls unnamed Misplaced Pages editors "aggressive bullies and stalkers", "racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, and Islamophobic bigots," and compares Misplaced Pages's failure to deal with LaRouche supporters in the manner Berlet would like to the complicity of the German people in Kristallnacht.

Berlet's behavior on non-LaRouche topics has been poor at times as well. He tangled with User:Intangible over labeling some political parties as "Far Right"; in the insuing Arbitration Enforcement discussion, Berlet's position amounts to, "I know it's a Far-Right party because I wrote a book about it." I attempted to suggest at Talk:Progress Party (Norway) that one problem with the article was that it criticized the party for being "Populist" and further criticized its economic populism, without actually reporting the views of any economists on why economic populism was bad or offering any alternative views. Berlet decided I was wholly inadequate, biased, and uninformed. As far as I could tell, he was content to use "Far Right" as a perjorative label for the party without providing any context or balance.

Dking has edit warred over the insertion of web sites he controls as sources and external links . He also edit-warred at United States v. LaRouche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over the removal of a quote favorable to LaRouche , including considerable disparagement of the source.

To be fair, many of the editors with whom King and Berlet have edit-warred have subsequently been blocked as suspected sockpuppets of Herschel Krustofsky, or for pro-LaRouche disruption in general, and checkuser Dmcdevit found that an IP editor who taunted CBerlet after I blocked him is a user with a previous ban for making anti-Semitic remarks.

In closing, it appears that in the neverending battle with pro-LaRouche editors, Berlet and King have been annointed the lesser of the evils, and have been given latitude to say and do things that would have resulted in Arbitration long ago for less well-known editors of less contentious topics. It may in fact be better for the encyclopedia that Berlet and King be treated this way—who else cares enough about LaRouche to maintain his articles in the face of strong pro-LaRouche advocacy editing? And it should probably be considered that any probation or revert parole that might result from this case (should it be accepted) will be a troll-magnet and will drop Arbitration enforcement to an even lower Circle of Hell. There does not seem to be an obvious easy answer. Thatcher131 02:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Krimpet

Looking at this as an outsider, it does concern me that our usual conflict of interest guidelines have largely been overlooked here. Berlet and King seem to have been given an unusual amount of leeway in editing articles they have a clear professional stake in, and in a tendentious and aggressive way to boot, as Thatcher131 and Marvin Diode have demonstrated above.

If, say, Michael Moore started openly editing articles on the Republican Party and healthcare, liberally citing his own works, edit warring, and labeling editors with opposing views dismissively, how would the community react to this? --krimpet⟲ 16:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Recuse, as I looked into the MaplePorter (talk · contribs) issue and blocked the account. Picaroon (t) 01:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you need to be recused over that. I doubt we can find any admin, be it a clerk or an arbitrator, who didn't block one disruptive pro-LaRouche single-purpose account. El_C 11:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll remove this once my statement is up. A brief suggestion: I strongly urge that this case be renamed Lyndon LaRouche 3 (per 1 and 2). El_C 11:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I regard this as another example of your playing defense on the Berlet/King team, similar to the deletion of the RFCs. The misconduct of Berlet and King is not limited to LaRouche articles. --Marvin Diode 13:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Recusal of a clerk is not a big deal. There are at least four of us active at the moment, and only one is needed in any particular case. Newyorkbrad 11:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about a big or small deal, it's about the shortage of finding someone who hasn't dealt with pro-LaRouche advocacy. El_C 13:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

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

• Accept to consider the behavior of all editors involved. Kirill 01:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Accept Fred Bauder 17:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Protection of Bible

Initiated by Luqman Skye at 07:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Luqmanskye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Shirahadasha (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

• None listed

Statement by LuqmanSkye

To avoid controversy, several readers requested that the sprawling Bible article be divided fairly into articles for the various bibles of the world. The Christian Bible did not have any independent article, though the Tanakh and Hebrew Bible already had their own articles. Without losing any information, an already-existing (redundant) disambiguation page (Bible (disambiguation)) was used to direct to separate articles for the various bibles. Without discussion, an administrator, Shirahadasha‎, reverted this refinement for no compelling reason, possibly a personal bias for his stated religion of Judaism, redirecting the Christian Bible article to the general Bible article, effectively deleting several high-quality additions to the Christian Bible article. He then locked the general Bible article after reverting all of the high-quality edits, even simple edits such as alphabetization. The general Bible article does not adequately treat the Christian Bible until its second half, focusing its first half primarily on the Tanakh and Jewish interpretations of it. There has been a consistent effort to place "Jewish" before "Christian" throughout the article even though this violates alphabetical order. There will be endless controversy with inevitably biased results until each Bible is allowed to have its own article on an equal footing. Deleting and redirecting improved articles for the various bibles, without comment, back to this general biased article and locking pages without discussion surely violates Misplaced Pages's policies. For an administrator to delete the new article on the Christian Bible and redirect it to a long sprawling general article for no compelling reason other than personal point-of-view is an abuse of administrative privileges. It would not be good to lose my high-quality edits and to waste my work implementing requested changes because of an administrator abusing privileges. It would not be good policy to disallow a fair article on the Christian Bible, with its Christian exegesis, as this document has been one of the most influential documents in the history of humanity. The sprawling Bible article has Christian interests consistently placed behind Jewish interests, with Shabahada immediately reverting any edit that does not follow this pattern. Please arbitrate in this case by allowing high-quality requested improvements to the articles for various bibles and by addressing the abuse of administrative privileges for personal point of view by Shirahadasha‎. After his reversion of my work, when I requested help from other administrators to resolve the issue, Shirahadasha claimed he wanted a discussion of the merits. Given his previous actions, using his privileges to revert all edits, including simple edits such as alphebatization, it does not seem to me that Shirahadasha will allow a consensus that violates his biased point-of-view. It is not correct for an administrator to disallow a fair article of the Christian Bible on an equal footing with the articles on other bibles. Please arbitrate in this matter as it is a very important one for a large group of people.

Statement by uninvolved Melsaran

Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process, and is primarily intended for conduct disputes. This is clearly a dispute over content, which should be settled on the relevant talk page. ArbCom can't help you to get your way, as they do not rule over content. If you and the other persons involved can't reach a compromise, you may wish to file a request for comment or a request for mediation. Arbitration is premature at this stage. Melsaran (talk) 12:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Wikidemo

There does seem to be a complaint in there about abuse of administrative power by User:Shirahadasha in editing and then protecting an article for POV reasons. However, arbitration is premature before asking Shirahadasha (or another administrator) to reverse the edit protection in order to allow for normal consensus editing of the articles in question. Wikidemo 19:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Random comment by uninvolved Adam613

By the way, I think Shirahadasha is a woman. The complainant refers to her as "him" repeatedly. Adam 19:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved User:B

An important part of the request - "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried" - is empty. Arbitration is the last step, not the first step. The protection is unquestionably incorrect in this case. The correct procedure is to (1) ask Shirahadasha to undo it herself (reminding her of the protection policy) and if she does not, (2) bring it to WP:ANI. As a side note, I don't see any logical reason to redirect Bible to the disambiguation page as there is plenty of useful content there ... but that's a content dispute outside the bounds of use of admin tools. --B 20:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved User:Jossi

ArbCom does not deal with content disputes, so this is the wrong forum. Pursue this in other fora as per dispute resolution. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/4/0/0)

• Reject. Premature. --jpgordon 17:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• Reject per Josh. James F. (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Reject per Josh. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Accept to make the statement that the Christian Bible, is a notable subject. Fred Bauder 17:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Alkivar

Initiated by nat at 21:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Nat (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiating party)
• Alkivar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Equazcion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Burntsauce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added by Penwhale

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Alkivar (talk · contribs) -
• Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) -
• Equazcion (talk · contribs) -
• Burntsauce (talk · contribs) - added by Penwhale

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Alkivar - Although the situation is not the same, it deals with a similar problem.
• WP:ANI thread which led to the RFC.

Statement by Nat

My concern here is the conduct of the sysop Alkivar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) in terms of the inappropriate usage of sysop tools. Before I found the WP:ANI report that had been listed by Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs), I was completely uninvolved with the situation between Alkivar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) and my involvement until requesting for arbitration was minimal. The evidence that was listed on WP:ANI was:

• and - The edit summary written by Alkivar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) was, and I quote, "since idiots seem inclined to continuously readd pop trivia to ENCYCLOPEDIA ARTICLES... this will be protected until said time the parties agree to stop." (end quote) Alkivar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) essentially involved himself/herself in the dispute, then he/she protected the page to lock out non-sysops from editing, and basically called editors who wish to add the trivia section, and I quote, "idiots" (end quote).
• - Indefinite blocked Equazcion (talk · contribs) based on "Attempting to harass other users: wikistalking". Although this might seem like the case and there could be a chance that there is, Equazcion (talk · contribs) was essentially restoring trivia sections of the articles and it so happened that Burntsauce (talk · contribs) (the user who Equazcion was accused of wikistalking) was removing the trivia section. In my opinion, is that this was just a case of content dispute and not wikistalking. In addition to this point, I would like to point out that Equazcion (talk · contribs) was not given any warning before being issued a block. Equazcion (talk · contribs) was later unblocked by Nishkid64 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), stating as the reason for unblocking was, and I quote, "User seems to have been acting in good-faith per discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Trivia sections. Indefinite block was a bit too much." (end quote).

Based on the evidence presented above, I feel that his actions were clearly not one should expect from a sysop. I was hesitant to file this report until I saw that this was not the first time his behaviour was placed under the microscope:

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Alkivar - An WP:RfC that was filed against Alkivar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on 27 July 2007 (UTC) for incivility. The statement of the dispute in the RfC was, and I quote, "The administrator User:Alkivar makes incivil statements to other users, particularly in edit summaries, and then either dismisses criticism of this behavior, or, in at least one instance, attempts to quash the criticism by invoking his administrator status.".

My goal in filing this report is to halt this disgusting misuse of sysop tools, and to ensure that Alkivar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) does not become a liability to the Community. nat 21:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Brief statement by uninvolved(?) Random832

I was the one who suggested that this should be brought here. If that makes me involved (does it?) I proably should be listed, but I had no part in the dispute leading up to this, until I saw the ANI posting. I will also admit I was unaware of the previous RFC; it just seemed to me his behavior in this incident alone, both in his behavior and in his dismissal (incidentally using the rollback tool) of other users' attempts to engage in discussion, was so egregious that something should be done. As for the dispute itself, I don't really care about pop culture sections, and I don't think it's relevant here. —Random832 22:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. In my opinion, it's not just his use of the tools themselves (if it were a one-time incident, I don't know if he's done this before, I'll be looking more closely at the RFC), but his absolute refusal to even discuss afterwards that he might have stepped over a line. —Random832 22:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Based on User:Lid's statement, I think that User:Burntsauce should be added as a party to this case. —Random832 13:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Equazcion

I wasn't aware of the RfC either, until I got blocked. At first I figured Alkivar was acting simply because he saw me making a lot of rollbacks of the same user's edits, without knowing about the larger situation, and figured it was reasonable for him to think it was stalking. Basically I just thought it was just a misunderstanding. Then I learned that Alkivar has been removing trivia sections and simply didn't like that I was replacing them. I feel it's very inappropriate for an admin to perform a block for a content dispute that he himself is involved in, especially an indefinite block of my IP, and with no warning. I was also unable to email Alkivar during the time I was blocked, although having never been blocked before I can't say whether or not this was supposed to happen as the result of a block. I learned afterwards of Alkivar's past issues and of his routine blanking of his own talk page sections where people comment on his behavior. I don't know if this is one of the diff's linked to, but here he protected a page due to people continuing to re-add a trivia section to an article, an inappropriate action to begin with, with a very inappropriate edit summary.

I don't think this person should be an admin. His use of admin tools has been inappropriate -- and very far from the objective/cool-headed stance that admins should have in situations of conflict.

That was an accident, I was unaware I had clicked it until it had been undone by Nishkid.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I assume you mean the email block was an accident, not the indefinite IP block? Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:25, 10/10/2007

Yes.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

←I'd also like to point out that Alkivar has done a number of questionable things with his user page. He's deleted vandalism from his history (diff) and then permanently fully protected his own user page. He had the protection removed once by another admin but he re-protected it again (diff). His reasoning is frequent vandalism, but we can't check that due to the revision deletions -- see his user page history, which shows little to no vandalism. Is it proper to use admin tools like this?

In all fairness to Alkivar, I believe that there is no abuse of tools there with his user page. Some admins do semi/fully-protect their user pages to avoid vandalism; and others do delete revisions from their user page, normally to remove grotesque vandalism. As for the other admin unprotecting the user page, that wasn't an appropriate unprotection anyway. If Alkivar, however, had fully-protected his talk page permanently, rather than his user page, that would be inappropriate. Acalamari 22:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

(Response to Durova's comment below) Wow. when Alkivar blocked me it was for reverting Burntsauce's edits. I had no idea Alkivar and Burntsauce had previously been "involved" with each other. No wonder we haven't heard from either of them yet. This is a rather appalling development.

(Response to Baseball Bugs) Just in case there was any question, I'm one of those editors skirting around the S-word. I agree this should be looked into. Equazcion • argue/improves • 02:03, 10/14/2007

Statement by Baseball Bugs

After the "idiots" comment cited by Nat, above, I posted a comment on the admin's talk page challenging that name-calling. He deleted that comment without response. . I tried three other times to engage him. No response. Knowing nothing of his prior history, I then decided to file a complaint on WP:ANI. Given the issues raised there, including taking sides in a content dispute and blocking the page, and blocking another user for not taking the same side (both actions since being reverted by other admins) I have concluded that Alkivar is unsuited to be an admin. I expect better behavior from admins than from the average editor. The fact that he appears to be disinterested in the various complaints made against him add to the argument that he should not be an admin. At the very least, he should be suspended for awhile and let him ponder the situation. Baseball Bugs 23:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for saying Alkivar does not respond. He just responds indirectly. Apparently the issues cited recently are "over and done with and no longer matter". Baseball Bugs 19:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

At least two editors are skirting around invoking the "S-word" as regards Alkivar and Burntsauce. Someone should at least take a look at the edit times of those two, and see if they overlap or are mutually exclusive, not that that would prove anything. Baseball Bugs 01:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:B

There are three administrative actions that are points of contention. All three have now been undone:

• Protection of Palatine uvula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (undone by B)
• Block of Equazcion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (undone by Nishkid64)
• Protection of Area code 205 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (undone by Edokter)

There are several other administrative actions I have noticed on a cursory glance of Alkivar's logs that, on the surface, appear questionable and should be explained:

• Protection of User talk:Phil Sandifer (logs) with the message "if i cant have my banner... you cant have your protection... how's them apples?"
• Two-week block of Wwefan980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), apparently in response to . The user has since left Misplaced Pages.
• Protection of Talk:Demonoid (logs) - as far as I can tell, there was only one IP vandal, who simply could have been blocked rather than protecting the page. In any event, indef protecting talk pages is usually a bad idea.
• Deletion of Misplaced Pages:What would Jack do? (logs)

I don't claim that the above is an exhaustive list, and it should be noted that the vast majority of Alkivar's admin actions are unquestionably correct and positive for the encyclopedia. This is merely what I saw on a brief glance that convinced me that it is appropriate for this action to go forward. Respectfully submitted, B 00:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved User:Iamunknown

Earlier I suggested at WP:AN/I that concerned individuals file an admin conduct RfC concerning Alkivar's actions (diff 1 diff 2). Problem is, as others pointed out, Alkivar is uncommunicative. This section of his talk page is an example of that. At any rate, I recommend that the Arbitration Committee consider this case, as otherwise it does not seem Alkivar will respond. --Iamunknown 00:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved east718

Being familiar with the history of this dispute, I endorse Iamunknown's summary and propose that Neil be added as a party as he is tangentially involved with the larger issues surrounding the case. east.718 at 01:30, 10/10/2007

Neil is on the "trivia deletionist" side and seems to have blocked another user, Wikidemo, on similar grounds as Alkivar did, and it was similarly lifted. See the discussion. This might not be the place to say this but I'm truly unnerved by this behavior coming from admins. Equazcion • argue/improves • 01:38, 10/10/2007

Ah, forgive me. I thought Wikidemo was a party to this case too. east.718 at 02:07, 10/10/2007

I don't think that this is related to this case, although I'll point out the (12 minute) block of Wikidemo was to prevent the further misuse of rollback tools while (successful) discussion took place. Neil ム 11:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

response self-refactored by Carcharoth to a named section following clerk request - clerk should feel free to remove this note when no longer needed.

response self-refactored by Wikidemo to a named section following clerk request - clerk should feel free to remove this note when no longer needed.

Precisely. What I'm seeing here is an admin who (1) is exploiting his admin tools as a "competitive advantage" to make articles come out the way he wants; and (2) refusal to discuss the matter with anyone who disagrees with him. Baseball Bugs 16:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

moved my comment and one response to my own statement.

Responses to a comment by Neil

NB. This was refactored from the thread that developed in the "Comment by uninvolved east718" section. Clerks, please feel free to refactor further and more cleanly if needed.

Couldn't discussion and/or warning have taken place first? And then the actions undone later if needed? Also, I think it needs to be clarified that what appears to be "rollback tools" is often people using the "undo" link in the edit history. I'd like someone to confirm whether I am right to say that before the undo button was installed as a default, people used tools to do rollbacks? Carcharoth 14:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Neil has brought up a claim that he blocked me during this dispute to stop me from misusing rollback tools in order to allow an ultimately successful discussion to take place. I respond that there was no productive discussion. There was an attempt at discussion at AN/I, that I largely initiated, but while the discussion was going on Burntsauce was busy re-deleting material that had been restored and Alkivar and Neil were helping out with those deletions. My position then, and now, is that out-of-process mass deletions of material should be summarily restored to avoid rewarding rule-breakers for their behavior by letting them have their way. However, I wasn't being so bold. I made an appropriate and reasonable edit to restore deleted "popular culture" sections to three articles, because I believed all three had valuable material that should not be hastily deleted. This was entirely in accordance with WP:TRIVIA and WP:CONSENSUS. Neil then blocked me indefinitely and without warning or discussion, for getting in the way of deletion shenanigans in which he was participating. His use of blocking privileges to furhter his side of an edit war he was fostering is suspect in the same way as Alkivar's. The reason he's not up for arbitration here is that his appears to be an isolated incident and he's been communicative and a lot more civil about it. The outcome was not a success at all. The result of Alkivar's and Neil's abuse of administrative privilege is that we're now stuck halfway, with half the sections deleted and half remaining, and everybody afraid to do anything for fear of getting blocked again. That brought everything to a tense standstill. That is not discussion. I'm not a party to this in a strict sense because I had no direct run-in with Alkivar. However, by adding his administrative weaponry to the rabble of POV-pushing editors he is one of the people behind the larger behavior problem in which I, other editors, and 300+ articles fell victim. Wikidemo 15:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I just want to add that Wikidemo's assessment seems the most accurate to me. I got similar threats from Neil along the same lines -- see my talk page, where Neil told me not to undo his edits, referred to the block by Alkivar, and implied that it would happen again if I undid his edits. Both Alkivar and Neil seemed to have engaged in the same misuse of admin tools in the interest of following the same agenda; the only reason we're not here requesting the same arbitration for Neil is that this seems to be an isolated incident in his case.

We need to keep an eye on Neil's edits. If he begins to follow the same direction as Alkivar, a case will have to made for him too. Abuse of admin tools should not be tolerated here on Misplaced Pages (see my statement further down). Davnel03 19:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved User:Lid

I have previously crossed paths with Alkivar peripherally through his relationship with User:Burntsauce, a user whose recent actions have subsequently lead to this arbitration case due to Alkivar's actions during it. Many months ago Burntsauce was in the habit of blanking professional wrestler biographical articles, citing WP:A, which at the time cause controversy as it was seen as vandalism rather than cleaning as the resulting articles often resulted in stating "X is/was a professional wrestler" and nothing more (references to this can be found here: .)

A pattern developed in which Burntsauce would remove most of an article, someone would revert, Burntsauce would revert to his version and Alkivar would fully protect the article on Burntsauce's version. This can be seen in the logs of articles such as Chris Candido, Orville Brown, Bob Saget and Rodney Anoa'i among others, usually Alkivar protecting due to an "edit war" consisting of one revert (see here: )

However the favouritism that Alkivar has for Burntsauce goes beyond this to when he overturned a block, with unanimous support on ANI, of Burntsauce's due to Burntsauce constantly ignoring warnings that prodding articles without edit summaries was damaging to[REDACTED] (see here:). It was shown that Alkivar had come online only so that he could unblock Burntsauce and immediately logged off again, even though the block was fully supported by all. Alkivar did not reply to requests as to why he unblocked Burntsauce in this situation leaving only his original unblock reason "ten of all trades should remember that blocks must be placed according to blocking policy".

The relationship between Alkivar and Burntsauce, and how Alkivar uses his admin tools to support this particular user specifically, is one I've had an issue with for some time and feel should be more closely looked at. –– Lid 12:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved User:Wikidemo

I had no direct confrontation with Alkivar. It started when User:Burntsauce, an editor I had never heard of, deleted "popular culture" sections from a couple pages on my watchlist, giving the cheeky edit summary "popculturectomy." That seemed presumptuous but I thought "no harm done" and went about my business. A little later I ran across User:Baseball Bugs' AN/I notice on User:Alkivar, here. It dawned on me that my two "popculturectomies" were among hundreds of other near-simultaneous deletions, and that Alkivar and others were following behind Burntsauce to re-delete those that people saw fit to restore.

In one instance Alkivar deleted a harmless piece of trivia from a sparsely edited article then immediately semi-protected it with the admonition "next person to readd the trivia section gets a boot upside the head." In another here, Burntsauce had done a "popculturectomy" to the Palatine uvula article. Baseball Bugs disagreed and reverted. Alkivar re-deleted and, having done so, immediately protected the article. That seemed weird. The section arguably falls under WP:TRIVIA, a guideline that says it should be left and integrated into the article rather than deleted. The palatine uvula is the subject of a lot of classic American cartoon imagery, and one can make a case that a discussion of that imagery is encyclopedic - it's that wobbling pink thing at the back of your throat you see in close-up in the Buggs Bunny cartoons when someone is screaming.

We're not here to talk content. I'm simply establishing that Baseball Bugs' restoring section is supportable and part of normal WP:CONSENSUS process. There was no problem with behavior, no edit war, nothing to justify taking the article out of the hands of editors. You use short-term page protection when an article is suffering an edit war or extreme vandalism, giving parties a chance to return to the talk page for consensus. That's why Alkivar's indefinite page protection is so surprising. His edit summary reveals his purpose: "...since idiots seem inclined to continuously readd pop trivia to ENCYCLOPEDIA ARTICLES." He wasn't trying to help this article (other than locking-in his preferred version). Instead, he was making the larger WP:POINT that trivia is bad. That may or may not be true but administrators are acting as editors, not administrators, when they take sides in a content dispute. They are no more important than anyone else, and have no special rights and powers. But here he used his power to game an outcome. Alkizar then deleted four successive complaints by Basebal Buggs on the matter, and a fifth complaint by User:Random832 that he was being uncivil.

I posted my summary on AN/I here, concluding that Alkivar should be counseled or sent back to admin school. If he wants to be an admin he needs to learn what admin tools are for and how he should present himself when using them. After that I got swept up in yesterday's incident against my better judgment. An hour after I posted my summary, Alkivar escalated things by blocking User:Equazcion, who was in process of rolling back Burntsauce's many deletions. Equazcion initially thought the block was an innocent overreaction. I pointed out that Alkivar had been warned numerous times on his talk page, and already had an AN/I report on his behavior by the time of the block. I don't know whether or not Alkivar was aware of the full debate on WP:TRIVIA or WP:AN/I at the time, but that's not the point. He should have been aware of the situation before he acted. Blocking shouldn't be done lightly or without having all the facts. I was appalled that two administrators and an editor who apparently had some kind of tool were contentiously deleting and simultaneously edit warring on 300 articles at a time. I warned Burntsauce to quit, and when he didn't I filed an AN/I report. I warned User:Alkivar about the user block. I participated in the WP:TRIVIA discussion on the matter. I butted heads with the other administrator, User:Neil, who blindsided me when he decided to block me for opposing him.

It looks like he Alkivar abused the block privilege for the same reason he abused the page protection feature, to have his way on a content issue. He was thoroughly involved in the dispute for which he blocked Equazcion. I don't know what the arbitration body's current thinking is, but using the block powers against a user simply for contradicting an admin on a valid content dispute is the kind of unambiguous abuse of privilege for which people could lose their adminship on first offense. There's no innocent explanation or excuse for the behavior.

-- Wikidemo 16:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Additional comment. Alkivar has blanked his talk page yet again, including information relevant to this dispute while the arbitration is underway, with a comment that this is "stuff thats over and done with that no longer matters." In isolation this is only one cavalier comment, not nearly as aggressive as some of the cursing and insulting ones. But put all these edit summaries together and it demonstrates a contempt for Misplaced Pages process and for other editors over which he is exerting administrative actions. It does not look like he will moderate his behavior unless forced to do so, hence the need for administrative oversight.Wikidemo 00:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Melsaran

Alkivar has a history of borderline conduct and questionable admin actions, a quick look through his logs reveals this, this, this, not to forget the mass (out of process) BJAODN deletion, and now he blocked a valued good-faith contributor whom he disagrees with indefinitely. This has gone too far, and I think it would be good if arbcom could look into this. Melsaran (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Davnel03

I think it is pretty clear from the evidence given above that Alkivar is and has been abusing admin tools. Another example of where he abused admin tools is here. He speedy deleted a subpage within a userspace, despite the fact that there were no votes for delete. Also, Alkivar indef blocked the user just two months earlier , so speedy deleting the page, despite a consensus not to just further heated the argument. In this particular discussion, it is pretty clear that Alkivar is only using admin tools to his clear advantage over other users who are not administrators. Whenever something begins to tremble out of hand, Alkivar has to for no reason resort to admin tools that are not exactly necessary at that point of time (page protection, blocks, image deletions etc.) Personally, I think Alkivar should be punished for his actions; if he isn't then other adminstrators might unfortunately resort to Alkivar's petty decisions. However, saying that, the discussion over at ANI concerning the trivia sections got very heated, and I feel that some of this could of been easily avoided if we co-operated with one another.

Alkivar needs to learn how to use admin tools properly and efficiently, not to abuse that at every moment, like he has been doing. Thanks, Davnel03 19:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Except that the admin in question refuses to participate in the "D" part of BRD. And why should one side "give in" to the other, as you suggest they do? Baseball Bugs 19:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Understood. Except that the other editors' edit war is peripheral to the issue in question, namely that the admin took sides in the edit war and used admin tools to accomplish that. Baseball Bugs 20:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Brief statement by uninvolved TJ Spyke

I have had problems with Alkivar several times in the past. The first time was earlier this year when he indef banned me for supposedly willfully ignoring WP:BLP (regarding him letting Burntsause misinterpret BLP by deleting all unsourced info rather than just controversial info). The banning came just 5 minutes after I went through and sourced the entire Brian Adams (wrestler) article. Since I had not violated BLP and had just sourced a article, the ban was overturned a few hours later. The second big incident came a couple of months ago when I got in trouble and my fate was being discussed at WP:ANI, right in the middle of the discussion (where the general consensus looked like it would be a temporary banning followed by probation), he decided to ignore the discussion and indef block me again. Finally, just last week he went ahead and speedy deleted a user subpage I had by claiming it was all OR (ignoring the fact that OR is not a reason to speedy delete a subpage and the page had already survived a previous MFD, meaning it shouldn't have been speedy deleted for that reason either). That deletion was quickly overturned with him admitting he shouldn't have speedy deleted it. TJ Spyke 20:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

_{new header added below by Nat to maintain format.}

Statement by uninvolved The Hybrid

To add to TJ's statement, every single incident after the first indef block was in violation of WP:COI. After the second block, Alkivar protected TJ's talk page citing a "continual removal of block templates", when TJ only removed one of them twice because he thought that more than one wasn't necessary. This on its own is perfectly understandable, but with the addition of his later revocation of TJ's email rights due to apocryphal abuse of the function, it becomes apparent that Alkivar had every intention of effectively banning TJ, which was in direct contradiction of community consensus being determined at WP:CSN (not ANI until much later on), and outside of his jurisdiction as an admin. Even if he didn't have a COI before this incident, he certainly had a COI when he came and deleted TJ's subpage outside of due process for illegitimate reasons. Alkivar is a good admin for the most part, of course, but those who get on his bad side need to be prayed for. The Hybrid T/C 03:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Even briefer statement by even less involved Wknight94

This discussion on WP:ANI led to the RFC. The ANI discussion contains a lot of accusations that are troubling at best. It led me to believe an ArbCom case was coming even sooner than this. Criticism from Jimbo Wales was removed as part of "worthless crap" and an editor was told not to involve himself in Alkivar's affairs until he is an administrator. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of Wknight94's statement by Daniel

For the record, the "worthless crap" edit removed all of Alkivar's "recent" messages, not just anyone in particular. Although this is traversing levels of wikilawyering, such an action probably doesn't merit a personal attack towards one user (Wknight94 cited it as the removal of Jimmy Wales' message above), but rather this was a sweeping removal of all messages on his talk page as is his prerogative. Whether Alkivar could have been more civil in doing so, or in general, will probably be discussed if/when this case opens. Daniel 23:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by totally uninvolved Irpen

Stumbled upon the issue at WP:ANI and was amazed really. So, we have an admin who edit wars over the content. Unhappy with the opponent disagreeing with his version, he indef-blocks a good-standing contributor and protects the article. Can anyone imagine a more text-book example of the abuse of buttons? That is setting aside lack of communication later.

It is a sad sight that such a blatant abuse cannot be dealt quickly and decisively by efficient means. Blatant editing abuse gets quickly addressed by blocking the wrongdoers but blatant admin abuse (much more potentially dangerous) requires putting together an ArbCom case, waiting for a week or two for it to get accepted and waiting for two months or so to get decided. The process is deeply in trouble because Misplaced Pages does not have an efficient way to deal with rogue admins. I urge arbitrators to decide this on the spot without procedural delays of going through a full-blown case and recommend the community to hammer out the community deadmninng process safe from troll-abuse but efficient. --Irpen 22:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

update

48-hours passed and nothing changed. Not a single more arbitrator cared enough to move forward this what seems like an open and shut case, even to vote accept or reject. Alkivar does not even bother to respond and seems like my prediction about the timeline above was correct or even optimistic. I believe something needs to be done to address the ArbCom's inability to perform its function responsibly. Arbitrators who are "away" or inactive for, say, over three weeks in row or over a total of 30 days out of any three months should step down and allow replacement to be appointed. ArbCom's inability to handle even the most trivial cases in an efficient way is untenable. --Irpen 21:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by non-involved Acalamari

For the most part, Alkivar is an efficient administrator. A look through his admin logs shows that he does very decent work, especially with images. Unfortunately, mixed in with that work, there's also a bit of incivility, possible out-of-process deletions, and also unnecessary e-mail blocks. I strongly suggest that Alkivar re-familiarize himself with certain policies and advice, such as WP:CIVIL and WP:ADMIN, possibly even WP:WAIN; and be more careful with, and put more thinking into, his admin actions in future (such as not using them in disputes). Better explanations of his actions would be helpful as well. Acalamari 23:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by relatively uninvolved Amarkov

Remember, please, that very few people are actively bad during every edit they make. So please don't do something like "oh, well we would give him a sanction, but since he sometimes does the right thing we won't". -Amarkov moo! 23:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Rockpocket

I note User:B, above, lists Alkivar's deletion of Misplaced Pages:What would Jack do? as "questionable". I, too, had concerns over Alkivar's use of the tools on that occasion. This is an essay that was mostly my work, and I noted it had been deleted by Alkivar without any justification in the deletion summary. Puzzled, I politely asked him on his talk page if he would mind explaining his reasoning. Five days later Alkivar deleted my request without providing an answer, his edit summary was nothing in this section is needed anymore. I could find no community discussion on why the essay should be deleted, and since no CSD criterion was provided and the deleting editor declined to justify the deletion, I decided to restore the essay. Alkivar's use of the deletion button appears be a somewhere beyond our accepted process, and it was compounded by the refusal to engage when asked for clarification. Normally I would have let it go with a shrug, except from the statements provided here it appears it is not a one-off incident. Perhaps its time ArbCom took a look. Rockpocket 00:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

My first interaction with Alkivar came shortly after I completed an investigation in which I concluded that Burntsauce was a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of JB196, one of the site's most destructive vandals. I invited concerned Wikipedians to contact me offline for the evidence - I didn't want to teach a prolific sockpuppeteer how to become better at what he did. Roughly half a dozen Wikipedians did request that evidence and support for the indef was unanimous until Alkivar overturned it without looking at the investigation. In order to avoid a wheel war I avoided intervention afterward. At Alkivar's RFC I commented to this effect and withdrew the comments in good faith after Alkivar claimed not to have received my earlier offer to present evidence and discuss it. At the time when I struck through my RFC comments I expected Alkivar to answer my concerns. He never did. It appears to me that Alkivar has been overusing the tools to protect someone who, in all likelihood, has already been banned from editing on another account. For several months I've regarded this arbitration proposal as inevitable and I urge the Committee to accept it. Community based solutions aren't feasible under these circumstances. Durova 15:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved R.Baley

This is a clear case of a sysop abusing the extra buttons. I am puzzled at what appears to be reluctance by members of the arbitration committee in taking up this matter. It has been 4 days since the case was filed and only one has voted to accept. Inaction or 'slow-action' by the Arbcom has far-reaching consequences, including an increased threshold for approval of new admins at RfA (imo). I urge the arbitration committee to take on and resolve this complaint. R. Baley 22:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Refactor threads?

If you would care I would be happy to refactor (without rewording) the threads by putting everybody's comments in their own section, and noting in the case of comments that don't stand on their own whose comment they are in response to. I don't know the protocol so I won't do that without permission.

Participants, can everyone please remember to stay cordial and listen to the arbitration committee members and clerk? Wikidemo 02:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• Please avoid threaded discussion on this page. If you have commented in another user's section, please refactor accordingly. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 20:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, now it's clear our requests are being deliberately ignored. This is...disappointing. Please move all inline discussion to your own sections, or it will simply be removed. Picaroon (t) 01:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Will open in 24 hours unless tally drops below the accept line. - Penwhale | 15:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Since it appears this case has been accepted, I'll get on with the long task of writing a point by point defense statement. It'll be up when i'm done writing it.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (6/0/0/0)

• Accept. There appears to be some cause for concern here. Kirill 04:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. James F. (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Accept FloNight♥♥♥ 01:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Accept Fred Bauder 16:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Frontline

Initiated by Liberal Democrat at 13:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Liberal Democrat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vrsrini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Article: Frontline (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

In absence of notification by the filer, I notified Vrsrini at User talk:Vrsrini (history). Daniel 13:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Liberal Democrat

The dispute with the user vrsrini was regarding the point on Anti - Imperialism which this party tried pointing out (along with many in the past) with sufficient sources that it was just Anti -Americanism ,which the current editor in Chief of the The Hindu group is endorsing at all levels,Standing on a high horse on issues like civil liberty and Freedom of press ,the magazine spaces articles and view points from media agencies Like Xinhua which appeared like a double speak/hypocracy,this was the only point many users in the past and this user now was trying to point out, but the contrarian editor vrsrini has tried discounting this down through out the period of time.For a better insight of what I'm trying to point out about Frontline magazine ,please find time to check out the following articles 1. 2. 1. 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberal Democrat (talk • contribs) 13:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by {party 2}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/4/0/0)

• Reject. Looks to be a content dispute. Also premature. Follow the earlier steps in dispute resolution as an Arbitration case is the last step. FloNight♥♥♥ 03:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Reject per FloNight. Kirill 04:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Accept Fred Bauder 14:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. --jpgordon 17:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• Reject per Flo. James F. (talk) 22:42, 13 October 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.

Suggestion for Motion in Prior case Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz

Re: Rex Germanus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have moved this here from the talkpage. Although the heading "Requests for clarification" is not clear, this is the customary location for proposals of this nature. Newyorkbrad 00:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Today I blocked Rex Germanus for one month for disruption at ANI. One September 30 he was blocked by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for 24 days for "WP:POINT, persistant conflictuabl edits, chronical failure to work for the project rather than use it for personal crusades" , but the block was lifted early on October 1 so Rex could participate at WP:CSS per an offer by Moreschi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Rex came to ANI today and made frivolous accusations and refused to desist, in spite of the fact that Jossi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) had previously warned him that any disruption after the unblock would lead to an immediate block. Arnoutf (talk · contribs) commented: "Agree with this block; any edits beyond his own defense (reason for restricted unblock) where a favour, Rex should have been careful not to abuse this leniency."

Rex Germanus' has been blocked repeatedly for edit warring, POV pushing and disruption. The community is thoroughly tired of these problems, and the opinions at the WP:ANI thread suggest that Rex has already been given many more chances than other editors who have been sitebanned. Rex has been blocked 9 times since he was put on probation.

Enough is enough. I request a siteban. - Jehochman 00:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

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[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] 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)

Carl Hewitt

To clarify the ruling in the Carl Hewitt case of February 2006 , I move:

1. The ban on Carl Hewitt's autobiographical editing was not time-limited and still applies.
2. The scope of the ban should include Hewitt's current research areas, such as concurrency, and all promotion of the value of the work of his past students such as William Clinger, work on the actor model, logic programming, and accounts of the development of major concepts of theoretical computer science. This is in addition to areas already ruled off-limits.
3. Given the scale of apparent evasions of the ruling during 2007, by the use of large numbers of IP numbers from the West Coast of the USA, semi-protection of affected articles may be applied for periods of up to one month, and to their Talk pages in cases of overbearing comments.

Charles Matthews 13:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC) (recused in the case)

As there are currently 8 active arbitrators (excluding 1 who is recused), a majority is 5. The editor whose conduct is at issue has been notified of this motion and invited to comment on the talkpage.

The motion has passed. It will be archived to the relevant case's page in 24 hours. Picaroon (t) 01:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 15:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
2. jpgordon 17:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Kirill 17:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
4. James F. (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
6. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

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 9 active Arbitrators, plus 1 currently away has already voted on this motion, 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