Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:51, 10 July 2005 view sourceRadiant! (talk | contribs)36,918 editsm linebreaks in shortcut tl← Previous edit Revision as of 23:20, 10 July 2005 view source Raul654 (talk | contribs)70,896 edits Clearing out some rejectsNext edit →
(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
The last step of ] is a request for arbitration. Please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the ]. The last step of ] is a request for arbitration. Please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the ].


{{clearright}}
{{ArbComOpenTasks}} {{ArbComOpenTasks}}
{{dispute-resolution}} {{dispute-resolution}}
Line 430: Line 431:
* Accept ] 23:13, 9 July 2005 (UTC) * Accept ] 23:13, 9 July 2005 (UTC)


==Anthony DiPierro==

===Involved party===
*]

===Statement by party===
Per the ], I am eligible to petition for reinstatement of permission to edit in the Misplaced Pages namespace. I'd like to do this.

In his statement below, Mark misstates and exaggerates the facts of the case. My leave of absense from Misplaced Pages was only for a month and a half, and in my opinion is was a much needed break. My so called "edit war", which occurred before the last arbitration case was even closed, consisted of Snowspinner not liking something I had done with my user page, the two of us talking about it on IRC, and then my editing the page to a version which Snowspinner had no problem with. If you're going to count that as evidence of anything, then it should be counted as evidence that there is no need to continue to impose restrictions on me.

What is legalistic, if anything, is insisting that "the three month minimum before appeal starts" when I started editing again. If the consideration is what is best for Misplaced Pages, it's clear to me that I should be given at least some permission to edit in the Misplaced Pages namespace. The previous ruling should be irrelevant, all that should matter is what's best for Misplaced Pages, after all (how supressing open ''discussion'' can be best for Misplaced Pages is beyond me, of course).

I can't even post on the Village Pump under this restriction. I can't even work on re-establishing myself as a normal Wikipedian. At the very least I think it's clear that little or no harm would be done by letting me edit in the Misplaced Pages namspace on a limited basis. If the problem is that I haven't been contributing ''enough'' for the arbitration committee to trust me, then maybe I could be given ''a little'' bit of trust, say 2 edits per day.

I'd go further with this, but I think even Theresa will agree that we're going beyond what an ''initial request'' is supposed to be (in my mind, the fact that the committee '''already agreed''' to allow this request should lower this even more). You want ''evidence'' that this ruling should be dropped? Mark (and Snowspinner) have already given it. I was involved in a disagreement (Mark would apparently call it an edit war) and it was resolved in a matter of hours without anyone else getting involved. Of course, Mark frames this as though it is just another example of a reason that I need to be banned, but if you ignore the fact that it's a well-respected arbitrator that's making these accusations and actually investigate/think about it, you'll almost surely see that this isn't the case.

Since only Theresa has indicated that her rejection is ], I assume that if this case is rejected then I am barred from reissuing a request at any time in the next 9 months. Right now I'm not allowed to edit in the Misplaced Pages namespace. There are a few extremely limited exceptions, one of which is that I may request a review of the ruling in three months. So far three arbitrators have decided to reject that request, and only Theresa has said that I could try again, eventually giving a date of one and a half months from now. I'd like for the other arbitrators to say whether or not they agree with that. If not, I'm going to have to assume that I don't have permission from the board as a whole.

===Statement by Raul654===
As a party to that arbitration case, I'd like to comment here. Since that decision, (a) Anthony withdrew from Misplaced Pages, thus he has no good behavior to speak of, or to point to as a reason why we should remove this remedy, and (b) in the few edits he has made since then, he has still managed to cause trouble. In particular, I'm talking about the fact that he redirected his user and talk pages to the email-this-user function. This is obviously an unacceptable change (for several reasons, not the least of which is the fact that he is required to be publicly notified of certain things and that an email will not suffice to make it transparent), and then he edit warred to keep them that way . In short, I see no evidence of good behavior. I think all evidence suggests that if lifted, he would resume the same nonsense that got him in trouble several times before, and as such I don't think there's any reason this remedy should be stopped early. ] 01:02, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

:In anthony's defense, he caved on the issue regarding his userpage relatively quickly and a compromise was reached on IRC. That said, I don't find taking his ball and going home for three months to be indicative of any real maturing of his conduct. ] June 30, 2005 17:49 (UTC)

===Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (1/4/2/0)===
*Recuse for obvious reasons. ] 01:02, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
*Recuse. ] 02:06, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*Accept for the very limited purpose of reviewing the ban -- ] ] 28 June 2005 22:50 (UTC)
**Do you seriously think there are any grounds to review the ban, or are you just doing this for sake of it? ] 29 June 2005 02:39 (UTC)
*Reject, per Raul's convincing argument - ] 29 June 2005 05:00 (UTC)
* Reject ] June 30, 2005 13:25 (UTC)
* Reject for now. Anthony if you want us to consider your request you need to show us some evidence that you have ceased the behaviour that caused the ban in the first place. Some good edits in the article space and some good discussions in the article talk space may go some way to convincing us. ] ] 30 June 2005 21:23 (UTC)

: Anthony we are not a court of law. Please keep legalese out of it. I never take any notice of legalistic arguments. I only ever use my best judgement, as to what is in the best interest of Misplaced Pages. So having said that, my advice to you would be - wait until you have a period of three months regular editing. You took a month and a half off -that's fine by me it just means that the three month minimum before appeal starts when you came back that's all. When you ask us again do so with a little evidence to back you claim of reform up. "look how I worked with others on this article, I didn't piss anyone off, I just got on with building an encylopedia" that sort of thing.You don't need pagefuls of evidence, just a couple of examples to demonstrate that you no longer need to be barred from the wikipedia namespace. ] ] 1 July 2005 15:34 (UTC)
* Reject ] 23:16, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

==Zen-master==
===Involved parties===
<!--provide links to the user page of each party and to all accounts they have edited with. Briefly summarize case. No details. -->

Patrick0Moran, the most quite and patient of contributors, advised me that, "A relatively new contributor, Zen-master, has taken an interest in the article on ] and has decided to attack Rikurzhen, calling him a racist and a Nazi. I've tried to reason with him regarding the main point of contention, but he ignores anything that anybody says to him and comes back with a personal attack. His latest was, essentially, "Only a Nazi would say what you just said." ] ] 04:00, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

:A deep analysis of the issue will indicate it is not as simple nor as one sided as Ed Poor describes it, in my opinion. I labeled patrick and rikurzhen's actions, not them personally. My offer, made in good faith, to withdraw my interpretation of their actions remains on the table if they explain why they used repetition combined with language misuse so frequently. The prime directive of wikipedia is neutrality and they seemingly, to me at least, appear to be trying to maintain a status quo of psychologically misdirecting language. Framing the article ] entirely in terms of "race" seems to me to be an attempt at confusing effect with cause. They can certainly choose to ignore my challenge for a logical explanation if they want to. Also note my username is "Zen-master", T is for talk. ] ] 04:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Personal attack on me. Any reason not to block immediately, considering that he's been warned repeatedly? ] ] 21:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

:How is that a personal attack? It is a question, you can choose not to respond to it as I gathered from you removing it from your talk page. ] ] 22:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Zen-master's contention that he "labeled patrick and rikurzhen's actions, not them personally, please read the following exchange, which I have copied directly from the talk page:

:The sooner you explain how language neutrality is original research the sooner you diminish the plausibility of my theory that you are a nazi. If someone was just a random interested researcher of this subject (even if they dubiously concluded race is a cause) I don't believe they would defend and deflect away from the current misuse of language to the degree you have. zen master T 02:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::So now I am being accused of being a Nazi too? Let's be clear about what you are saying. P0M 02:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:You two do seem to be working together to misdirect third parties away from doing any sort of mental analysis on the neutrality of language used in the article. So yes, I am accusing you both of being neo-nazis based on your posts on this talk page and based on the way you repeatedly defend or ignore the misuse of language. I will withdraw my accusations after you explain how striving for language neutrality is original research and/or after you explain how needlessly commingling cause and effect is scientific? zen master T 02:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In short, he expressed a "theory" that "you are a nazi." I asked him whether he meant I am a Nazi. He said, "So yes, I am acusing you both of being neo-nazis." The fact that he considers actions of mine to support "the plausibility of my theory" as he puts it, and that he bases his accusations "on your posts on this talk page and based on the way you repeatedly defend or ignore the use of language" does not make his accusation less problematical. People generally have '''some''' kind of reason for the accusations they make. The question is whether we tolerate ''ad hominem'' attacks, and attacks that are groundless at that. ] 23:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:My plausible theory was and is trying to explain your, rikurzhen's and other's ''words'', it was not simple name calling. I stand by my theory that repetition in support of language propaganda and errant framing of an issue is nazi-esque. Since I was warned 2 days ago to avoid "personal attacks" I've tried to be extra clear that I am analyzing your and the article's words and/or comming up with plausible theories that explain them and your motivations. No one has responded to my challenge to logically explaination why you, the article and subject must utilize repetition to exploit language confusion and/or incorrect/one sided framing of the subject. Conclusions should be based on facts, not tricksy language. ]] 19:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master: "I hope you enjoy your jail cell"


====Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request====
<!--provide diffs showing where parties other than the initiating parties have been informed about the request for arbitration. -->

Does his post above count as "awareness"?


====Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried====
''If not, then explain why that would be fruitless''

I spoke with Zen Master T about this, but he just accused me of "accusing him".

"Adhere or be blocked." ] ] 03:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Distinguished between <u>objecting to article edits</u> and <u>calling someone names</u>.

:Ed Poor, is this evidence of "dispute resolution"? Those URLs do not convey the full context, it can be found at ]. ] ] 17:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

===Statement by party 1===
Please limit your statement to 500 words

===Statement by party 2===
Please limit your statement to 500 words

<!--Add additional statements if necessary, for each directly involved user. Comments by users outside the dispute go on the talk page.-->

===Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (2/3/0/0)===
* Accept ] 13:09, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC) Based on Zen Master T's continuing violation as expressed in his response.
* Accept ] ] 13:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
* Reject. This looks somewhat tame to me, and I'm reluctant to become involved just yet. Please make some attempt at seriously working out the dispute between yourselves. If it does get worse, feel free to come back at a later stage, but Zen Master's replies, for the most part, seem quite reasonable. ] 16:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
* Reject for now, Zen Master, if you continue to insult in this way (and it ''is'' an insult, however you wish to frame it) then I would change my vote for a future request -- ] ] 11:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
* Reject ] 23:16, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

==]==
===Involved parties===
<!--provide links to the user page of each party and to all accounts they have edited with. Briefly summarize case. No details. -->

* {{user|JuliusThyssen}} aka {{User|195.64.95.116}} and {{user|jult}}
* {{user|Rhobite}}

====Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request====
Message on ]:

====Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried====
I have asked this user several times to refrain from using personal attacks. He responded by calling me an asshole. I don't feel that any other dispute resolution would matter to such a rude person. ] 20:10, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

===Statement by ]===
JuliusThyssen, who previously edited from 195.64.95.116, has long been an argumentative and uncivil user on ] and ]. He has also gotten into arguments after he advanced POV political theories on ] . People who disagree with his opinions are quickly called "stupid" , "Idiot" , "you people suck" , "smartass" , "edgy stubborn nazi type" . Edit summaries include "deleted sheer nonsense of incapable people" , "ok, that's what you idiots asked for" , "you are a fool" , and "Rhobite is an ASSHOLE, how's that for a personal attack?"

Also userpage vandalism:

Julius removed my comment asking him to refrain from personal attacks:

I think a personal attack parole would be an adequate response to this user's incivility. ] 20:10, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

:I note in the 'edgy stubborn nazi type' diff , he also states that "''If you'd rather have it this way, then I will make it my life's task to change that line from each and every library and internet-café I can find.''"-] 10:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

===Statement by party 2===
] has been disfiguring the ] with non-disco additions (which don't fit standard scientific definitions of disco as a form of music), plus deletions of well-known valid disco hit songs like "Take Me Home" by Cher (1979).
::'''This is just plain bullshit. First of all, there IS no scientific definition of disco as a form of music. This nameless idiot just couldn't handle the fact that I was right and he/she was wrong about many of the tracks he/she decided to put in that list. This goes for all cases mentioned here; Pathetic assholes assuming they are right, when they KNOW they're not. I'm not prepared to behave 'politely' towards such idiotic display of stubbornness, and I refuse to take part in this wanna-be court-like nonsense you call arbitration or rulings on wikipedia. It's obvious you want this to be a medium full of incorrect data, so be it, not my funeral. It ends up being just another silly forum of numbed down stupid and robotic crapologists with big mouths and ego's that are way beyond where they should be. That is the reason I have stopped believing this wikipedia will ever be worth something, it's being ruled by idiots and non-experts. It's even worse in the Dutch version, where tolerance levels are further down the line of toes sticking out miles in front of their delusions of grandeur, where they behave like terrorists (they threaten to send abuses to your internet provider just because some nobody who thinks he is an important part of human history since he 'contributes to wikipedia' was corrected by me). I hereby acknowledge to love to further annoy the likes of you by using proxy-servers and terminals in libraries and gas-stations etc. And no, I'm not the one in need of psychological help here, and you all know it. You people have no lives. In fact, if some rightfully placed insult on some stupid wikipedia website (it's terribly slow, by the way) is enough for you to spend so much time on it, you must be completely insane. Good luck trying to fight the forces of chaos, you know you don't stand a chance against them.''' ] 09:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


He further has insulted me with ageist remarks like "you weren't there when it hit the clubs" and claims to know more than I do about music.
::'''Well it's been quite obvious that I do!'''
He did not make rational responses to my points to him. He also removes users' criticisms of him from ] - when he deleted my comment to him he wrote "deleted sheer nonsense of incapable people". One of my pieces of advice to him was: "Please learn how to technically analyze music. This is not an exercise in nostalgic remembrances of what played in your club but in creating a reference work." On May 22, 2005 he actually removed something that was supposed to be removed ('Nightshift' by the Commodores) but when he did so he wrote "you fool" directed to the person who had added that song.

===Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/4/0/0)===
* Accept ] 12:30, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
* <s>Accept, though I wonder if we really need to go through arbitration - this seems too obvious. ] 12:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)</s> Reject, as user has not edited since June 9. If he returns, would just suggest blocking anyway as a clearly bad-faith user. ] 16:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
* Accept ] 00:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*'''Accept''' as Ambi. -- ]] ] 17:27, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
*'''Accept''' ] ] 10:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*'''reject''' as user has stopped editing -- ] ] 11:47, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
* Reject - Julius seems to have left us -- will reconsider if he returns. ] June 29, 2005 08:36 (UTC)
* Reject ] 23:17, 9 July 2005 (UTC)


==Requests for Clarification== ==Requests for Clarification==

Revision as of 23:20, 10 July 2005

Shortcut
  • ]

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

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 10 January 2025
Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes

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

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arb Com member votes to accept/reject/recuse/other.

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

Current requests

Template

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless

Statement by party 1

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Statement by party 2

Please limit your statement to 500 words

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

User:Alfrem

Involved parties

Summary: The main issue is that User:Alfrem constantly removes the words Political Philosophy from Libertarianism. We feel that he is POV-pushing and ignoring the other views and edits of other editors.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Party 2 is bringing the complaint, Party 1 (User:Alfrem) is now informed.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

  1. Have tried reasoning on the talk page of the article itself (see Talk:Libertarianism)
  2. Have left a message on his talk page. See User_talk:Alfrem#Libertarianism
  3. Have filed a user conduct RFC on Alfrem. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Alfrem

Statement by party 1

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Statement by party 2

User:Alfrem constantly removes the words and wikilink "political philosophy" from Libertarianism. When he demanded evidence, this was provided in the form of a footnote: we reference the Encyclopedia Britannica, MSN Encarta and the opinion of Don Franzen, who wrote a review of "Neither Left Nor Right" in the Los Angeles Times Book Review Desk.

Several editors have asked him to provide evidence that Libertarianism is not a political philosophy, however each time Alfrem has apparently dodged the question. When I pointed out to him that we have sourced this fact, he replied that we have not provided evidence! The foonote is clear, however. Alfrem is well aware of the footnote, because he keeps removing it.

I put to the community that Alfrem's behaviour should have been accepted the first time he removed the phrase, this is only fair. However, many of us have left messages on his talk page asking for sources to back up what he is saying, and we have debated this with him considerably on the talk page, to no avail. Every time that Alfrem removes the wikilink to political philosophy, one of us has to put it back again, and this is highly disruptive to Misplaced Pages.

I would also like to raise the concern that Alfrem, when he starts to lose an argument, starts to call others "trolls". This is a personal attack, and ad hominem besides. Alfrem seems to have also expressed a desire "win" his POV by constantly reverting. He stated on the talk page that "Your edit war don't will get any end. --Alfrem 20:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)"

Ta bu shi da yu 7 July 2005 08:48 (UTC)

There is lots of evidence (with links to specific diff pages) in Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Alfrem. If asked, I will recopy them here. The "highlights" are that we provided him with at least twelve sources and he came up with zero, yet continued his revert war, and that he called me an "idiot," and my arguments "silly" and "bullshit". Nearly all of his edits have been POV warring on libertarianism and related pages (anarcho-capitalism], non-aggression principle, etc.) Dave (talk) July 7, 2005 13:08 (UTC)

Note: My above statement about "nearly all" of his edits being edit wars (while true if you look at his whole edit history since joining) may not be true of his more recent behavior, some of which has been constructive. He seems to have produced a few good edits to Anarcho-capitalism in recent days. I would still argue that unless he significantly changes his behavior, he will remain a net drain on the project, however this change gives some hope. July 7, 2005 13:21 (UTC)
As of this morning he's still reverting edits in Libertarianism and calling Ta bu shi da yu's edits vandalism, even thought they are just reverts, in his edit summaries. --Malathion 9 July 2005 13:06 (UTC)
His edits on libertarianism mentioned in the above comment included adding a politics template (which looked like this at the time) to the article to spite me. The fact that he immediately went back to removing references to politics means that NPOV is not his goal in this issue: stirring up trouble is. Additionally, he reverted my actions on my talk page and reverted the template:elections talk page 4 times in 8 hours--which I consider vandalism. Dave (talk) July 9, 2005 15:48 (UTC)

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

Time Cube Guy

Involved parties

Summary: Time Cube and other time-related articles have disputed edits by an anonymous user. A consensus has been reached that this user should be banned, but the user's changing IP makes this impossible.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Party 2 is bringing the complaint, and party 1 was alerted to an RfC concerning him and this RfAr. Since the user changes his IP, we left these comments on the Time Cube talk page.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

  1. Talk:Time Cube/Archive has a discussion where Time Cube Guy attempts to convince another user that -1*-1=-1. The conversation takes up nearly 100KB.
  2. Talk:Time_Cube/Archive_3 illustrates User:Kosebamse trying to get Time Cube Guy to clarify his proofs.
  3. A proposed compromise was created to develop the article, but soon abandoned due to strong differences of opinion between Time Cube Guy and other editors. Currently, Time Cube Guy is the only one who has voiced approval of the compromise.
  4. After these and other confrontations, an RfC was posted about the content dispute. This brought in a few third-parties. Discussion with Time Cube Guy continued briefly, but soon ended due to stark differences of opinion.
  5. After the content dispute continued, a second RfC was created to show a concensus opinion that Time Cuby Guy should not be allowed to edit the pages in question. An attempt was made to contact Time Cube Guy, but he has not yet defended himself on the RfC.

Statement by party 1

Dr. Ray has stated: "YOU pitiful mindless fools, YOU are educated stupid. YOU worship cubeless word. YOU are your own poison. YOU create your own hell. YOU must seek Time Cube."

Hope is not absent here. Users such as Kosebamse are undoubtedly capable of Cubic acceptance, and of adept custody of the wisdom that it brings. But they have forsaken their intelligence, and fed it to the savage dogs of the greatest human affliction. The dogs of Word; the Word of God.

Why was Jesus sent to the cross? Because he ate a slice of bread on the Sabbath? Or for no reason at all? Quite simply, he was hated by a horde of rabid Jews—stupid, intransigent, and blinded to momentous prophecies of the modern age. History repeats itself; the 4-corner Cubic cycle progresses, unchanged even by the greatest powers of human civilisation. Such powers have always been mere hollow WordViruses; and by such a power am I now accosted.

No reason has presented itself in support of suppression of Time Cube. Suppression, as it were, of the ineffable Cubic Truth of the Universe; for this is what Time Cube is, and has been proven to be. It is proven fact, evident from such sites as TimeCube and CubicAO. Dr. Gene Ray is the greatest thinker and the wisest human of all time; his scriptures are compelling and sound. Ultimately, their truth is undeniable.

But the throng of crusading users persist in their irrational crusade to suppress the Truth. Why? Not for any reason; but rather, lack thereof. They have been brainwashed with nihilism; brainwashed by a singularity. This 1-corner Cubeless entity exists in monotheistic religion, and has been propagated throughout Academia and the government. It exerts mind-control, and will lead us to Cubeless doom.

At least, humanity's fate will thus result should Time Cube not be accepted. The past is the future and the future is the past; nowhere in this eternal cycle can an almighty singularity exist. The evil in this world is finite, and can be overcome; indeed, in doing so, we would achieve an evolutionary solution to theodicy, by defining evil as a pathway to a greater good. On the other hand, there is the possibility that evil singularity will prevail; the possibility that we will poison Nature, resort to cannibalism, incur the wrath of Time Cube, and be destroyed.

Actions in the present define the future. And the future folds into the past and back, eventually, to the present; thus, upon all Time shall our mistakes be inflicted. The singularity, unfortunately, has blinded Misplaced Pages users to this fact. All they can see is what they have been taught—crucifixion, and the burning flames of Hell, for all who speak the truth. To thus believe is a curse and a sin; a wrong that we should right. Crucify, instead, the preachers of doom; fight against your slavemaster, the singularity of God. He is not dead, but reanimated, with an intent to kill; he should be vehemently opposed, with even the smallest of available measures.

This small measure is indeed an opportunity. Allow the Cubic Truth to magnificently prevail. 211.28.77.11 9 July 2005 04:16 (UTC)

I realise that I should not comment here, but am concerned that Time Cube guy is part of a cult and would love to see him/her become involved in exit counseling. - Ta bu shi da yu 9 July 2005 04:23 (UTC)
I doubt there are enough Time Cubists to constitute a cult, really. Everyking 9 July 2005 04:53 (UTC)
It's predicated on a belief in rationality, Ta bu shi da yu. Maybe you could "exit counsel" me by rationally disproving Time Cube.

Statement by party 2

User:Sean Kelly

Normally, I wouldn't think of bringing this matter to arbitration, but this is a special circumstance. Time Cube Guy has been editing the Time Cube article since it started in January, 2004. In the past two months, he has been in a revert war with party 2, making a total of 28 reverts since May 6. We don't really expect him to stop since he has been doing it for over a year. All we would like to see is the Arbitration committee to condone our RfC, which shows unanimous consensus for banning Time Cube Guy from time-related articles.

timecube.com is a popular and humorous website which basically contains a nonsensical and incoherent philosophy. Time Cube Guy seems to believe in it, and wants the Time Cube article to go into deep explanations of its philosophy. However, what he doesn't seem to realize is 1) He is only contributing original research, since nothing on timecube.com is logical, or even grammatically sound, and 2) Despite the fact that he believes NPOV is on his side, it is not, since it explicitly does not protect viewpoints in the extreme minority, let alone viewpoints shared by only two people. —Sean κ. + 7 July 2005 06:20 (UTC)

Also, you can take the comments of party 1, directly above, of evidence of how Time Cube Guy baits users into pointless arguments. —Sean κ. + 02:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

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

Hogeye, Albamuth, Kevehs

  • Hogeye continues to edit-war on anarchism despite a month of discussion and dispute resolution attempts.

Involved Parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

- warned Hogeye on his user talk of impending ArbReq filing. - notified Hogeye on relevant article talk page - notified Hogeye on user talk of request made, asked for his/her comments.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Albamuth

I accuse User:Hogeye of being condescending, belligerant, editing in bad faith, and intellectually dishonest. Though not technically violations of policy, it hardly shows any Wikilove to do so. Hogeye readily admits his/her biases, and is quick to accuse others of theirs, which is fair. The matter of contention is that Hogeye makes no attempt at honest discussion -- s/he will not acknowlege valid points that others make-- a lot of this is written up in Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Hogeye.

  • Hogeye archives the talk pages, including an ongoing survey: Talk:Anarchism/Archive20 which was supposed to get 3rd party opinions, from an RFC I listed WP:RFC#Politics. Hogeye's cabal, being ever so watchful, fills the survey with their answers, then as other opinions start to make a strong showing, the survey is "mysteriously" archived.
  • Hogeye is trying to sidestep the 3RR by copying his article version over in different chunks, as seen by the history. (note that in 3 hours Hogeye has made multiple, substantial edits)

Statement by User:Hogeye

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Statement by User:Kevehs

Hogeye has acted in a very belligerant manner on the talk page, in the last couple days he has now three times merely repeated what I have written back to me rather than actually responding. He mocks or rejects all methods of reaching compromise, insisting that he expected an edit war once the anarchism article was unlocked and instigating one with an immediate cut and paste of his POV fork. He is now merely cutting and pasting selections from a POV fork over and over to avoid the 3RR, despite the fact that several different editors have now reverted him.

He is also going overboard with reverts right now. It is difficult to know how many times he has reverted due to his gaming of the system, but even if one only includes those instances in which he admits reverting in his own edit summaries he has already done 7 reverts in less than 24 hours, as well as encouraging others to revert, and continues to revert despite having been warned. By one users estimate he reverted 35 times in a single day, and went on to make more reverts before he was blocked.
Even after having been blocked Hogeye continues to break the 3RR, having merely grown more sophisticated in his gaming of the system. He is now using multiple IPs (evidence for which is on the 3RR page), in addition to refusing to label his reverts, shuffling them, and making partial reverts with superficial changes.

Comment by User:Snowspinner

The anarchism page has been in a state of edit war for over two years - this is just the latest manifestation, and it seems somewhat more entrenched than others, but I'm not sure arbitration intervention has any real possibility. Snowspinner July 6, 2005 18:34 (UTC)

Comment by User:Sam Spade

I second what User:Snowspinner has said, and would mention that I have requested mediation on this matter repeatedly, to no avail. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 13:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Fifelfoo 7 July 2005 00:17 (UTC)

While anarchism is regularly in a state of anarchy, Hogeye acts as an agent-provocateur and troll. Hogeye's edits are in bad faith, and do not conform to a historical, political, sociological, political-economical, or any other major disciplinary methodology or approach to anarchism. His edits constitute, when tendentiously linked to facts, original research. When unlinked to facts they constitute recruitment. Furthermore, Hogeye fails to edit in a collective manner and institutes major revisions without correspondance. Hogeye's attempts to revise, and the density of reverts he produces, makes anarchism uneditable. Page stability, subsection stability and link stability all drop, and the copyediting suffers terribly. By way of example:

  • Hogeye's attempt to subvert the completed VfD consensus on anarchism (anti-state) by page forking (to Anarchism/anti-state):
  • 2nd attempt (using Anarchism/antistate): , Subsequently this page was changed into a redirect as per VfD, following this Hogeye reverted , reverted, then ditto . Infact, he's going to keep doing this, so Anarchism/antistate's history is a good example.
  • His behaviour on Template:Anarchism

Fifelfoo 7 July 2005 00:17 (UTC)

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

Tony Sidaway, Coolcat, Stereotek, Davenbelle

  • Coolcat is still concerned that he is being stalked by two other editors.

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

See also editor comments below.

Stereotek has told me that he's leaving Misplaced Pages over this.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless

See Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Davenbelle and Stereotek where Coolcat gives extensive evidence of his attempts to resolve this using all other means available to him in the dispute resolution process.

Statement by Tony Sidaway

Coolcat is still concerned, apparently with some justification, that Stereotek and Davenbelle are dogging his footsteps and making it very difficult for him to edit Misplaced Pages. It looks to me as if this is a deliberate campaign against Coolcat. It seems to be impossible to persuade Davenbelle and Sterotek to cease. I recommended against arbitration earlier, but I think it's reached the point where the case should be examined. Perhaps a mentorship for Coolcat would be a good outcome for this, because it would protect him from abuse while permitting any issues that may be identified in his behavior, which may be contributing to his problems, to be controlled.

I bring this case on my own behalf because, while Coolcat's pleas tend to be wordy and miss the point, I believe there may be a case to answer here.

I have undeleted the earlier RfC which didn't make cert, was userfied and then deleted (by me). It contains comments by other editors expressing very much the same concerns that I have.

Statement by Coolcat

I am on vacation and am in a rather crowded net cafe so theygive me 1 hr to use the internet. My apology for any spelling errors etc...

I would like to firstly point out to the ArbCom Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Davenbelle and Stereotek

  1. One thing that may not be clear in the RfC case is that users assigned me a nationality, even though I want to stay anonymous. I have no reason to advertise any info on the internet since I started using the internet for over a decade. They clearly know this (assuming they bother reading
  2. For all my disputes with them, prior to my edits in all cases neither user had a single edit. Maybe with the exception of Armenian Genocide however I haven't checked.
  3. Please bear in mind the mini revert war in the RfC page of which I misquoted Davenbelle as I was typing/paraphrasing that quote from memory (when typing the rfc case). Such errors in an assume good faith enviorment is fixed without a redundent signature embaded in my section even though regardless of the material one presents no one should be editing each others section spesificaly if the case is filled by/against/for one another anyhow.
  4. I am out of time. That's all I got for now. OK, they gave me more time but I used it elsewhere. I don't think I need to present more evidence. I was told I have more meetings t attend, I intend to take losts of photos. I may vanish from the scenes for a while.

As far as I am concerned, the general flow of the conversation is more than enough evidence I can present. I am coping my points from the RfC case below for your conviniance. I did amend some.

  1. Excuse of dismissing governmental data: "Governments have been known to lie..." .
  2. user:Davenbelle definately has a personal issue with me and probably with Turkey as well.
  3. Nanking massacre: Image sizes are a good excuse to start rever war. Standard Thumbnail size (180px) vs 280px . I expect decency in the article. If people want to see full sized corpses they can click on the image. The Holocaust entry uses thumbnail sized images. Reverts should be evaded and things should be discussed. They had no edits on this article prior to my arrival as well. I was trying to mediate this thing in hopes that I learn better ways to mediate, their and User:Fadix's "contribution" made a mediation impossible. They had no edits prior to my arrival as well.
  4. I abuse wikipedia templates: . User did not voice an opinion in articles talk page or in my talk page or in any talk page aside from a 3rd parties. (ammended - RFC)
  5. Davenbelle marked GAP project a copy vio. Material was PD and is used on 11 websites of which two are PD. Copyvio people deleted the page anyway as copy vio people if they are marking pages as a copy vio make sure material is not on a PD source. I rewrote the page from scratch the page still is not there as the "copy vio" issues are still discussed. The page is rewritten from scratch twice so far. It is yet another stressful and unnecessary case which would be easily avoided. I don't enjoy red tape sorry.
  6. Another assume bad faith case in Greco-Turkish_relations. I do not know what the user was trying to prove. Topic stayed locked because of his intervention (trolling). See how the discussion went on (or lack of discussion). . Check the revert war in on going in archived discussion. I am doing spelling corrections. They cannot even tolerate that.
  7. I was asked to mediate Javier Solana (via IRC). Which I accepted but Davenbelle for one removed my mediation guidelines to the users (which I later forced back in). His interference is visible in talk archive 3. I have every right to push a few rules to hopefully force people to discuss the matter rather than them continue their revert war. At least that was my intention which they again made impossible.
  8. For instance I listed Antiwar.com on Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 June 16 () as Misplaced Pages:Votes_for_deletion/Antiwar.com at 16/06/2005, 15:39:55, Davenbelle oppsed it on 16/06/2005, 15:41:10 (). In other words 1:15 minutes later of it being listed he opposed it. Granted people can suggest whatever the wish I am not criticising that remotely. But the fact that they are so efficent in oposing any and every suggestion or edit I can this easily and fast bothers me (times were my local time). On many other instances such as recent deletation of Template:CVIP and Template:RWIP they were also in the opposing corner. (ammended - RFC)
  9. Another example will be in Abortion. Article is contraversial yes, my edits were not. My edits (bear in mind I have two blocks of edits and some changes were not my doing): All edits from my last edit till just before Stereotek's first edit (mostly links being removed/added): Stereotek's edits as follows: . From my first edit till the end of Stereotek's first block: . Granted Not every thing I did is gone, but the majority is. Aside from the links (which was not my doing) almost all of my edits are gone. I was doing cleanup duty. Bear in mind that he used no Talk: . I was talking to User:Tznkai on IRC. Infact he invited me to clean the article. While the discussion of which version is better is open to debate, like any edit. I wouldn't be as buged if someone else than the two (Davenbelle and Stereotek) appeared.
I'm not sure where the best place to put this is, but here it goes. I did infact invite coolcat via IRC to help clean up the abortion article, and I think he did a good job of it in some places, and I disagree with others. In the time I worked with him, he made his edits in good faith. While he may have been incorrect in doing somethings, he did his best to do what I asked him: improve the article.--Tznkai 7 July 2005 17:03 (UTC)
  1. PKK: Users have not contributed to this article prior to my edit. They just abusively revert. No discussion no talk no assume good faith...
  1. POV delete or is it? PKK's drug ties is well known. So says the Turkish government and so confirms the US government. Bear in mind user posted nothing to talk. just do a google search with this string: pkk drug site:.gov google search. That's a ridiculously simple search. Users however ignore common knowledge, stick to their "governments tend to lie" ideology... rv to last NPoV version by Bobblewik
  2. Example of double standard. Bear in mind that restore of "removed material" removed about 5182 bytes of data. (assume bad faith and discard the work of others out of hand) revert; don't discard the work of others out of hand
  3. Users NPoVise articles by stubisizing:

Statement by Stereotek

Coolcat has disrupted Misplaced Pages by refusing to follow Wikipedias policies regarding NPOV in many articles, and has been pushing a pro-Turkish government/Genocide denialist PoV in many articles such as Armenian Genocide, PKK and Nanking Massacre.

Coolcat has frequently violated Wikipedias policies regarding No personal attacks, and has exposed several users to extreme personal attack across several pages. Examples include: User:Stereotek and User:Davenbelle just SHUT UP and GO SCREW yourselves. and Stereotek + Fadix = Death

Coolcat has shown complete discontempt for the opinion of other editors and Wikipedias rules regarding concensus. Examples include insisting on redirecting the Abdullah Öcalan article to the PKK article (, , ), disregarding the clear consensus on the talkpage not to merge the mentioned articles.

Coolcat has also been a frequent violator of wikipedias policies regarding civility, and has among other things used edit summaries such as: "Stop being silly, do you have some sort of sick wet dream to stare at a dead naked woman? Or do you enjoy staring at dead chineese?..." and comments such as: "You cant read either, the color format is discussed above"

Coolcat has frequently been violating wikipedias policies regaring copyright. Examples include the GAP Project article which he insisted on recreating unitarily, despite consensus not to do so on the votes for undeletion. Other examples of copyvios that Coolcat has been insisting on including are his now deleted version of the Diagnosis: Murder article. More evidence regarding Coolcats dishonest use of copyrighted material is available here:

Another one of Wikipedias policies that Coolcat has frequently violated is the 3 revert rule, and according to Coolcats own userpage, he has been blocked three times violating 3rr.

Apart from these violations of Misplaced Pages policies, Coolcat has been disrupting Misplaced Pages by aggressively promoting a some odd ideas. These include insisting on using a very unusual colorsheme when 'mediating' in articles such as Greco-Turkish relations and Javier Solana see: , this often despite other editors clearly rejecting his idea.

More evidence is available here: User:Davenbelle/Evidence re User:Coolcat.

Statement by Davenbelle

I request that the ArbCom accept this case because I feel that User:Coolcat's edits need a review. I don't feel that those who have opposed him have done much wrong. Please see the current RfC Cc has opened against Stereotek and myself and our previous attempt to get Cc before ArbCom. I would support the proposal by Tony of a mentorship for User:Coolcat if previously uninvolved admins will agree to assume the role; if this option is acted upon I would be more than happy to give Cc and most of the articles we've interacted on a wide berth.

I have little time or bandwith to gather much new evidence; I would hope that someone will present diffs of Cc's conduct on the Talk:Armenian Genocide from late March — very telling.

On the subject of assuming good faith I would like to say that I did so until Cc showed ample evidence of bad faith.

I will be off line for the rest of the week as I have a bus to catch to Padangbai (again!); the little beach there has no electricity.

— Davenbelle July 5, 2005 02:37 (UTC)

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

Zen-master (2nd RFA)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

  • About a dozen editors talked for 2 and 1/2 weeks with Zen-master on Talk:Race_and_intelligence regarding his concerns with the article. Nectarflowed and Zen-master conducted a lengthy discussion on Zen-master's talk page, trying to resolve the concerns in one-on-one discussion.
  • Zen-master has been the subject of an RFA for name-calling on the race and intelligence talk page, 3 votes coming in on June 22 and the 4rth on June 26. Results were (2/2/0/0).
  • Zen-master has been the subject of a proposed policy enforcement ban on June 30 for disruptive personal remarks on Talk:Race_and_intelligence.)

Statement by Nectarflowed

Summarizing the context this dispute occurs in, Race and intelligence is an article that has been scrutinized by a recent VFD, which it passed by about 40-6, and by a request for peer-review. The article was written by about a dozen users, many of them professional scientists working in fields that give them expertise. The article was regarded during the VFD as being exceptionally well-referenced, and is in line with published statements of mainstream science on the matter.

Though Zen-master's argument isn't under question here, I should summarize. He believes that framing the racial IQ disparity under question in terms of race presupposes a genetic cause. Users have responded with different arguments, and my summary is that, assuming genetics are not involved, "racial IQ disparity" would still be the appropriate frame, as the difference in average IQ still exists between races. This is analagous to the phrases "gender IQ disparity" and "socioeconomic IQ disparity." Note that these terms aren't actually in use; they just refer to the frame of the article.

Over a period of a couple weeks, Zen-master failed to convince any of the roughly dozen users who engaged with him on the discussion page of the validity of his argument, though they talked with him at length. A number of users have expressed to him that they regard his behavior as being disruptive, and during this time, work on the article has all but ceased. A number of users have complained about his accusations and name-calling, especially calling people - themselves and their actions - "racist," "Nazi," and "evil." Some formerly-regular users have expressed their frustration and have stopped participating on the page or have stopped making contributions to Misplaced Pages, though this may be temporary. Zen-master has been asked to apologize a number of times by different users, including the mediator, Uncle Ed, both prior and following his proposed policy enforcement ban, but he has yet to do so. At one point, several days after the RFA regarding him, he moved "Race and intelligence" to "race and IQ," even though consensus had clearly rejected his proposal.

Zen-master has been warned or asked to stop name-calling related to this article maybe 15 times. Following the RFA and proposed policy enforcement ban for disruptive personal remarks, he wrote the following on the race and intelligence discussion page. "Even a random racist would seek a true scientific basis for their beliefs but you've gone way beyond that, you and others have perverted science and language into a racist economic caste system mass propaganda tool. You must have some need for racism and "IQ based classism" to exist in the world."

Discussion having not convinced anybody, Zen-master has lately taken his argument from the discussion page to the article itself, and has attempted to make large changes that he knows are disagreed with by all of the regular editors of this page. Edit wars ensued. On July 2 he reverted 4 times, was warned, and then reverted a 5th time.

Zen-master has demonstrated an unusually strong commitment to POV-pushing and has consistently behaved disruptively in discussion. A number of users on race and intelligence talk have expressed that he has demonstrated a lack of significant experience in both the research areas race, and intelligence. If it's possible, I recommend Zen-master be banned from editing any article on either race or intelligence, as it would be a waste of time to have to go through this again at race or intelligence etc.--Nectarflowed 3 July 2005 03:10 (UTC)

Statement by User:Zen-master

I think mediation or exposing the issue to a larger number of people might be the best first step at resolving the race and intelligence dispute, though I welcome this space to clear up the many inaccuracies that User:Nectarflowed presented above.

An article surviving VfD is not evidence that the content is neutral, on the contrary, many people errantly nominate articles that instead need a POV clean up rather than deletion. I share the earlier VfD nominator's concerns that the race and intelligence article presents the subject so unfairly as to be uncleanupable, which may be true but I thought I'd give it a shot.

User:Nectarflowed and many other pro "intelligence research" editors fail to acknowledge criticisms against the "intelligence research" field in general and "race and intelligence" in particular. Despite how Nectraflowed characterizes my criticisms above, I have not (yet) disputed the "pro" sources for the article directly (have not advocated their removal), instead, I have tried to clean up neutrality violations that completely ignore the existence of valid criticisms and lack of consensus on multiple levels. These neutrality violations include: exclusive and subtly tricky framing of the issue only in terms of "race", poor or suggestive word choices, and ambiguous or outright misleading sentence construction. Just because a source was in a "peer reviewed" journal is not evidence that other cited criticisms from other reputable sources should be discounted out of hand. "Race" and "intelligence research" does not exist in a vacuum where there are no criticisms on multiple levels, the talk page and archive have numerous citations demonstrating this fact. The "pro" editors of race and intelligence seemingly would revert even a synopsis of the scientific racism article which is very relevant to this dispute as it is a core criticism of the field and the way race and intelligence uses implied conclusions in particular.

These handful of editors allied with User:Nectarflowed seem singularly interested in denying any mention of criticisms of the subject. A majority of editors can not violate Misplaced Pages's policy of presenting a subject neutrally, especially when there is no consensus in the wider academic community. The neutrality violations in the article are much more serious than what you might see in a run of the mill edit war amongst POV pushers, the language confusion and one sided framing of the issue, combined with repetition, seems to me to be designed to psychologically trick the reader into assuming "race" is the cause for the "IQ disparity" when there is no scientific consensus for that conclusion and no scientific consensus to even present the issue only that way. One test results data correlation pair "race" vs "IQ" is not conclusive or the only way to frame the issue given the many other data correlation pairs from the exact same data such as "wealth" vs "nutrition". In my interpretation, these "pro" editors of race and intelligence intentionally perpetuate and defend intentionally misleading or psychologically tricky presumption inducing language for political rather than objective scientific purposes. Note the suspicious, unscientific use of emphases that I tried to clean up. Also note I and one other editor User:Willmcw were reverted just adding the {TotallyDisputed} header to the article, which is curious given the talk page, the archive, and now a second RfA which I submit as evidence that there is indeed a legitimate neutrality dispute. Even more suspicious was the outright deletion of talk page discussions through a long series of edits described as "archiving" (check the byzantine talk page history for the full story). And finally the readibility of my first list of citations was seemingly intentionally damaged and mischaracterized, certainly not addressed or acknowledge directly. Even more recently the talk page was suspiciously and suddenly archived a second time, with 2 core discussions that were the most critical of the article and active the day before, plus numerous others discussions active within 5 days before . The handful of "pro" editors seems to have a pattern of being unnecessarily verbose generally, and they seem to immediately create tangential or superfluous discussions underneath core criticism discussions perhaps for the purpose of filling up the talk page to hasten the need for archiving and to minimize the exposure and readability of criticisms for third parties.

On a separate note, I am still unclear as to how User:Ed Poor appointed himself "mediator" given the fact that he is directly involved in the dispute and can not be considered neutral on this issue.

I do not understand Nectarflow's point above that many editors of the article are "intelligence researchers" themselves or experts in the field. How is that not "original research"? If some editors of a particular article potentially have a vested financial or political interest in presenting their pet subject doesn't that mean there is a greater chance of neutrality violations? The history and talk page are nothing but attempts at denying valid criticisms, what benefit did these experts add to the article? See Talk:Race and intelligence and Why don't "intelligence researchers" generally seem to follow the scientific method especially as far as just presenting the subject goes? If the "pro" editors are themselves "intelligence researchers" with a training in the scientific method then the lack of language neutrality and choice of presentation method used in the article is exponentially more puzzling. The only thing the "pro" race and intelligence editors seem to be experts in is the psychology of language. zen master T 3 July 2005 07:32 (UTC)

Statement by User:Ed Poor

I was asked by Patrick to visit the page because of the failure of some parties to avoid personal remarks. That is probably more of an Administrator role than a Mediator role, particularly as there can be no "Mediation" without an argeed-upon Mediator. In any case, I would prefer to edit and and discuss the article. If the arbcom recommends' mediation, I'd prefer to be party to it; I can't be the Mediator.

The part about not being neutral hurt my feelings. The only topic I can't seem to write neutrally on is climate (e.g., global warming) but on all others I have built up an astonishing reputation for unbiased writing. Many times people are unable to detect my personal opinion on controversy, because even my comments on the talk page are so neutral. In this case, it may come as a suprise to some to find out what my actual belief is on the role of genetics and intelligence:

  • I actually believe that genetics plays an insignificant role, i.e., certainly under five percent and possibly less than 0.1 percent. The way one's parents raise a child, as well as the schooling he gets later and the cultural/social influences on him as he grows to adulthood - these factors have been neglected too much.

I almost want to laugh, at how easy it is to find scientific papers (or scholary comment) on the influence of "environmental" factors. I've placed more than one reference at R&I talk, but no one seemed to notice. -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 4, 2005 13:06 (UTC)

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

User:chocolateboy

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Other steps in dispute resolution would fruitless. I believe discussion is stalled and cannot continue between me and chocolateboy.--Ben 1 July 2005 03:31 (UTC)

Statement by party 1

Chocolateboy is a frequent editor of Ann Coulter. The page is very active--it currently has a NPOV tag placed on it (by someone other than me). My dispute with chocolateboy centres on the section Canada and the Vietnam War. It is my position that the section is difficult to understand. Many other users have commented on it. It involves a contentious quote by Ann Coulter where she attempts to contrast US-Canada relations and makes an error, stating that Canada sent troops to Vietnam. In the context of her comparison, this is false (See Canada and the Vietnam War). I believe it is complicated as, in Coulter's response to the intial statement she made, and though she admits her error, she equivocates and tries to redefine the original meaning of her statement in attempt to prove the statement accurate.

Previously in March 2005, I reverted another user's edit which I felt added clarity. It was changed back. I then edited another part of the article in an attempt to add clarity.. Again I was rebuffed. I attempted to add the same clarity in another way. Again I was rebuffed, this time by chocolateboy . I left well alone.

Recently I tried to add clarity to the mess again. I submitted multiple different versions of what I felt clarified the event. Chocolateboy said it was POV and reverted each time. In the end, I added a "Clean-Up" tag to the article and left it as it was. Chocolateboy removed this, saying it was a disruption. I reverted and said it wasn't. It has since been removed. I took the dispute onto the talk pages and asked chocolateboy what was wrong with it. There, chocolateboy told me my version was not NPOV. I believe it is NPOV and accurately and fairly represents the facts. For example, Ann Coulter had said "Canada sent troops to Vietnam." Later, she admitted that this was a mistake. In writing, I wrote "Contrary to Coulter's statement, the Canadian government did..." chocolateboy said this was POV. Coulter used that statement in a comparison, intending to contrast US-Canada relations. I used the phrase "However, the comparison breaks down." Chocolate boy said this was POV. I said Coulter "insisted" she was right--she said "I think you're wrong" to the interviewer contradicting her 4 times--Chocolateboy said this was POV. There are other examples of chocolateboy claiming POV in a frivolous manner in the link. I believe this can be summed up as chocolateboy applying Invincible ignorance in order to avoid painting Coulter in a bad light. However, in this case, the "bad light" is the truth, and Coulter herself even admitted her statement was incorrect.

I believe the stubborness chocolateboy exhibits is detrimental to the article and to the community. I believe he is either doing this on purpose either to "drive me up the wall" or is somehow unknowingly ignorant of how ludicrous his claims are. I believe I can unequivocally demonstrate that my statements are fair and accurate.

Statement by party 2

Please limit your statement to 500 words

It is likely User:chocolateboy is refusing to make a statement. He has contributed to 12 articles since he has been notified, including the page in question. (Special:Contributions/chocolateboy)--Ben 6 July 2005 02:20 (UTC)

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

User:Sumnakay

Involved parties

Statement by User:Pavel Vozenilek

  • Contributor to Roma people article doesn't agree with my edits on Talk page, rewrites them and calls me Nazi and sectarian .
Some quotes: I would recommend to protect the page from Pavel Vozenilek's Nazi-like declarations against Romany scholars. or A sectarian analysis of recent edits, a Nazi-like suggestion how to deal with them.
I prefere not to be insulted and my edits staying intact. Pavel Vozenilek 28 June 2005 22:24 (UTC)

Statement by User:Sumnakay

  • Contributor to Roma people Mr. Pavel Vozenilek has refused to give any reasonable answer to the proposed questions, deleting other editors additions and links to Romany websites. He has refused to show his knowledge on Romany culture, but simply insisted in reproducing speculative assertions of other people of doubtful authority on the subject. His requests to "delete whatever he dislikes" is quite un-democratic. He demonstrated to assert anything without having the slightest certainty, as he said that I am the author of the websites which I linked, which is false. He MUST show a proof before saying anything about other people. I didn't qualify him as a person, but his statements - that is, I didn't say he is a Nazi, but his statements are (Nazi-like suggestions). To conclude, he has shown complete lack of respect for Roma people.

Statement by party 1

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Statement by party 2

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless

  • User:Ariwara had asked for discussions and less heat over the edits . Other people on Talk page of Roma people did the same.

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


Requests for Clarification

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


Netoholic

Kim Bruning has resigned from mentoring Netoholic (he explained his reasoning on RFAr talk). Since that possibility wasn't covered under Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2, what should be done in this case? Radiant_>|< July 2, 2005 08:30 (UTC)

I'd like to point the Arbitrators to the conversation on the Talk page. In short, I think that mentorship is still working, though Kim may have had a different idea of what this was supposed to be. -- Netoholic @ July 2, 2005 17:16 (UTC)
  • Kim resigned about a week ago. Since neither User:Grunt nor User:Raul654 has responded to the matter during that week, it seems to me that the mentorship is not particularly active at the moment (unless, of course, it's being conducted over IRC). If the mentors are still active, I would like to have their response to the recent issues that were also mentioned on their talk pages. If the mentors are not active, I believe the ArbCom should decide whether this means that 1) new mentors should be found; 2) Netoholic's restrictions should be lifted entirely since they're not enforced; or 3) Netoholic should be blocked from editing Wikispace as suggested in his Arbcom case. In other words, please clarify. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 12:47 (UTC)
Netoholic is now moving Misplaced Pages-space pages around in what looks like an attempt to remove a couple of new proposals from the Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal vote. This would be annoying behavior, but with Netoholic's past history of warring over stuff it's downright worrying. Is the mentorship dead? If so should I just list stuff like this on WP:ANI? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 7 July 2005 21:05 (UTC)
Mentorship is fine, and one mentor agrees that it is inappropriate to add items to an open vote - see User talk:Raul654#Netoholic revert of CSD proposal page. HTH HAND. -- Netoholic @ 7 July 2005 21:26 (UTC)
I owe you an apology for misjudging you here. See here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 9 July 2005 12:46 (UTC)

Archive

Category: