Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:28, 25 January 2006

• ]

Request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. Before requesting 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.

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

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and (exceptionally) to summarily review new evidence and update the findings and decisions of a previous case. Review is likely to be appropriate if later events indicate the original ruling on scope or enforcement was too limited and does not adequately address the situation, or if new evidence suggests the findings of fact were significantly in error.

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 against whom you lodge a complaint.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arbitrators' votes to accept/reject/recuse/other.

This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

• Arbitration policy
• Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
• Developer help needed
• Arbitration template
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy/Precedents

How to list cases

Under the below Current requests section:

• Click "";
• Copy the full formatting template (text will be visible in edit mode), omitting the lines which say "BEGIN" and "END TEMPLATE";
• Paste template text where it says "ADD CASE BELOW";
• Follow instructions on comments (indented), and fill out the form;
• Remove the template comments (indented).

Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template

Current requests

Appeal by EK

I want to appeal my ruling now that the new arbs are in. (If this is in the wrong place, feel free to move it.) I want to reiterate a few things from last time, and also point out something new:

First of all, the basis for the old ruling was never clear. I agreed that I had been uncivil, and agreed to improve about that; at the same time, I believe I was always pretty mild in comparison to a lot of the bickering that goes on here, and that the stakes were high enough that it's not hard to see why a person would get too intense in their arguing. Incivility was not, however, apparently the basis for the ruling; the basis was the weak hypothesis that I do not research matters before commenting on them. I believe this is something that has a grain of truth to it (more on that below), but was deliberately exploited and misrepresented, not to mention exaggerated wildly, to make it the basis of the ruling in the absence of anything else that could be used against me.

As for the grain of truth, I do not always research things before commenting, that is true. I often make sort of theoretical or speculative comments; I look at what has been said by whoever raised an issue, and make a comment based on that, and the ideas that come to my mind about it, rather than researching evidence. I believe this is a totally valid way of approaching issues, although obviously insufficient if used alone. When I do this, I don't try to pretend that I'm doing anything more, I just make a few cautious observations and comments (very often I do more, but in these cases I am moderately to highly well-informed, and have often been observing things play out for a long time before they ever come up on AN/I). If you really want to get down to fundamentals about it, it could be seen as a representation of a belief in the importance of working out correctness on the theoretical level, in a deliberative way, as opposed to the style of making quick subjective decisions based on a simplistic and usually one-sided analysis of the evidence. This method tries to remain impartial and looks carefully at the kinds of ideas and perspectives that are at work in an issue, as opposed to coming at something from a directly practical (and generally punitive) direction, and tends more towards asking questions than making judgments. This is sort of a reflection of a general philosophy of mine, and one which I often apply on Misplaced Pages. I often preface statements like that by saying that I haven't looked into the particulars of the matter, and I get mocked for those disclaimers, and have them used against me, when in fact what I am trying to do is frame my comments and make clear where I'm coming from with them. The problem, I think, is a failure to understand the utility of that method, and conceiving of everything in terms of quick, individualistic decision-making based on cursory assessments of evidence; it fails to appreciate a more deliberative and collectively-oriented approach.

Anyway, having tried to explain all that (and that's a better analysis than I could have given you back in November, since I've had a lot of time to ruminate about it), I should also point out that calling me uninformed is, in general, quite incorrect. I spend a lot of time reading about things I never comment on, and sometimes I've even been personally involved in matters (on the perimeters of them), and yet in all cases my comments receive this condemnation of being uninformed. It's clear that that has been used as a weapon against me, wholly unjustifiably, and if the decision rests completely on that, as it seems to, then the ArbCom has a responsibility to undo it.

My final point, at least that springs to mind right now, is that the sort of "peaceful" atmosphere on AN/I which the arbitrators apparently value is really not very peaceful; it's just more of a killing field for the individualists/unilateralists to rampage through without nearly enough opposition. My presence on those pages helped to moderate them, because I made it a point to look closely at anything that struck me as involving admin power abuse or poor treatment, and did quite a lot of questioning and criticizing on the basis of that. It is hard for me to not think the controversies and wideranging problems that have been arising in the last few months are the result of this philosophy I've been opposing, and it's hard for me to not think that my ability to counter that philosophy through argument would not help keep things more reasonable and stable, at least in some small way. Everyking 06:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

(Reply to JF) I've done appeals through the ArbCom before, and successfully. I don't care what you want to call it. And I didn't say anything had changed, I said the ArbCom got it wrong last time and needs to review its decision. Everyking 08:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

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

• Reject; appeals go to Jimbo. If you wish, we could reopen the case, but I don't think that that would be justified (nothing has changed, by your own admission, except the constituents of the Committee). James F. (talk) 08:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Jeffrey O. Gustafson

Involved parties

• Talrias (talk · contribs)
• Jeffrey O. Gustafson (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Jeffrey O. Gustafson:

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Jeffrey O. Gustafson

Statement by Talrias

I am bringing this request for arbitration because I am very unhappy with Gustafson's response to the RFC linked above in the "other steps" section. He has not replied in any way other than to insist that he is called "Mr. Gustafson" - . There is no evidence to suggest that he has taken the comments made and issues raised in the RFC and I fear he will repeat his actions again. Everyone on the RFC, apart from Gustafson, agreed that what he did was a pretty straightforward case of "biting a newbie" and this is behaviour which should definitely not be condoned in an administrator. At the very least, I would like to see him acknowledge the points raised in the RFC and apologise for his behaviour. However I believe that due to the way he behaved towards the new contributor, whether he is an admin should be re-evaluated. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Mr. Gustafson

First and foremost, in relation to the Arbcom, Dr. J. wrote: "... he has clearly stated: 'For reasons all my own, I do not recognize the authority of the Arbitration Committee.' I have come to believe that this editor believes he is above policy, and even worse, is outside the authority of this Committee (and, one presumes, Jimbo, from whom the Committee receives its authority)."

I do not believe I am above any authority on this Project in which so much time I have invested, and which I truly love and promote to whomever will listen. My statement, which is right on my user page for everyone to see, is a reflection of my view that the RfAr process is broken, almost beyond repair. As I have clearly stated on my talk page, "this is not a statement on my views about the people on Arbcom, who are all fine editors. Nor will I ever do anything to obstruct arbcom." I have never done anything, nor will ever do anything, to hinder or slander the arbcom or their actions.

As for Mr. Jenkinson's RfC, as I have made very clear, I am aware of it, acknowledge it and the comments by others. I just feel that commenting on it will not help or hurt a thing. In the past, when I have erred, I have apologized and made inroads at reversing any errors. I do not believe my tretment "of" the editor in question (whose newbieness is doubtful, having been here more or less for 20 months) was out of line by any extreme degree, and still am of the opinion that spamming was involved, and a warning (though, in retrospect, less severe) was warranted.

--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Essjay

I cosigned the RfC against JOG; I felt his comments to Zedkatuf were completely out of line, and that his deletion of Project Galileo was completely inappropriate and out of line. (For the record, Project Galileo was unanimously kept when I listed it on AfD (for proceedural reasons) after restoring it. The AfD is here.) The issue was raised on his talk page by Talrias, and JOG had nothing but incivil and inappropriate commentary to offer; other administrators, including myself and now-arbitrator Sam Korn, left similar messages, only to be ignored. When the RfC was filed, the only response JOG made was to completley ignore the concerns raised, insist that he be addressed as "Mr. Gustafson," and criticize and insult anyone involved. I had hoped that he would take the concerns raised there to heart and make an attempt to avoid similar conduct elsewhere, but since that time, I have frequently noticed similar or worse conduct. It is his inappropriate response to other's valid concerns, and the history of similar actions that presses me into supporting this Request for Arbitration.

I don't expect any response (or perhaps a similar response to the one he gave during the RfC) as he has clearly stated: "For reasons all my own, I do not recognize the authority of the Arbitration Committee." I have come to believe that this editor believes he is above policy, and even worse, is outside the authority of this Committee (and, one presumes, Jimbo, from whom the Committee receives its authority).

As of 20:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC), I notice commentary on his talk page concerning:

• unblocking himself inappropriately,
• concerns about his inappropriate behavior on his RfC,
• more issues with out of process deletions,
• personal attacks on other contributors,
• personal attacks during the ArbCom elections,
• even more out of process deletion, and
• an open challenge on the authority of the Arbitration Committee.

All that in little over a week. I am almost afraid to look at the page history and see what else I may find, let alone to look through his contributions to see how many newbies have been bitten, how many articles have been deleted out of process, and what other incivilities and personal attacks have been made. I will not go as far as Talrias in suggesting what remedy the Committee should consider, but I certainly think the Committee needs to investigate JOG further and demand that he follow Misplaced Pages policy. Were it a single incident, I would be inclined to dismiss the matter as the occasinoal admin misstep and say "Everybody back to work," but the refusal to even engage in dialogue about his actions crosses the line into a matter that requires action. I share Talrias' fear that these actions will be repeated, frequently and numerously, if the Committee does not act. Adminship is a position of community trust, a stewardship of the community's best interests, and I cannot in good conscience say that I believe JOG has been a good and faithful steward. Essjay 20:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, since JOG insists on using titles, it is Dr. J, not Mr. Essjay 21:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to note, for the benefit of the Arbitrators, that I have received a message on my talk page requesting that I refer to JOG as "Mr. Gustafson" out of "respect." I belive this proves quite plainly what I have said before: JOG has no regard for others, only for himself. He couldn't be bothered to show respect to those of us who took the time to raise concerns over his actions by writing a response, but he can take the time to come to my talk page and leave a lengthy message demanding that he be addressed "respectfully." I withdraw my earlier statement; I fully support Talrias' request that JOG's administrator access be reviewed and, if his current actions are an indication of his overall conduct as an administrator, that it be revoked without delay. Essjay 03:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record, as there has been a gross misrepresntation of my intent, the dif in question, and my response. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/0/2/0)

• Recuse. Thank you, Essjay, for reminding me that I had commented. Sam Korn 20:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Recuse. Mackensen (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. James F. (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Dyslexic Agnostic and T-Man

Involved parties

• User:Dyslexic agnostic
• User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Dyslexic agnostic:
• T-Man:

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

mediation tried and proved extremly fruitless Benon 05:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

mediation was never tried in any formal fashion, no RFM ever raised. To say it was fruitless is quite subjective and without basis. Dyslexic agnostic 06:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Dyslexic agnostic

I will try to keep this on point.

Firstly, I will state that I challenge anyone to show me an edit I have done of T-Man that was not an improvement of his prior edit. Full reversions were only done when T-Man's changes were done without consensus or were effectively unintelligible, and those steps were supported by others.

I do regret some strong wording on my part in wiki talk pages and in edit descriptions; the frustration in dealing with this individual is sometimes difficult to contain. I would have appreciated a direct warning that my comments would lead to a 24-hour block; I did not receive such warnings, and I do not think that this counts.

The statement which led to my block, here, was strong but related directly to the extreme edits on Enemies of Batman. T-Man's tone of disrespect and rudeness with his "trivia lesson" here (his "fun massacre" of an "amature", as he puts it) towards the good-natured edits by Gillespee is quite unfortunate, and properly dealt with by Pc13 here.

I do wish to note that I too have put up with frequent insults and rudeness from T-Man, including this friendly comment and this Shakespearean prose... oh, and who can forget this gem, or this. I don't appreciate profanity on my talk page, which is why I frequently delete T-Man's comments to me.

Here's his very first message to me, highlighting his two obsessions: proving that Batman is straight and the so-called "Bat-embargo" (voted for deletion once, brought back without consensus by T-Man, and then voted out again.

Benon claims I am stalking T-Man... I urge you all to see that I do far more than follow this man. Who followed me to Batman? Who came unasked on my tails do get involved in the whole Limited series matter, moving pages so often that no one knew what happened?

I will tone it down. But I will not allow T-man to leave his damaged goods on pages which are important to me. If that is stalking, then impose the appropriate punishment. But I draw your attention to Misplaced Pages:Harassment: ] does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful.

Final word: I just want to edit. Dyslexic agnostic 06:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Statement by T-Man, the Wise Scarecrow

 (Please limit your statement to 500 words)

Statement by 3rd party Benon

I have been attempting to mediate a dispute over Enemies of Batman on the talk page of the article, however the dispute between the two parties seems to go a lot further thn that, inclusing stalking and harrasment

here is a nice selction of the evidnce pasted from the admin noticebaord:-

Block of Dyslexic agnostic

I have blocked him for 24 hours over a dispute over at Talk:Enemies of Batman between him and T-man, the Wise Scarecrow. Benon tried to mediate, and it appeared to be working, but then Dyslexic agnostic personally attacked T-man, calling his T-man edits "a waste of everyone's time." T-man may have been guilty of personal attacks earlier, but to me it seemed that he was trying to be civil and cooperative, so I didn't block him. A review of my actions would be great.--Shanel 04:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

hi ive been trying to mediate this with some help from shanel, howver im uncovering disturbing evidence of a "stalking" of t-man by dyslexic anyone care to comment??Benon 04:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA explicitly says that one should comment on the content, and not the individual. I really think that the statement is about the content, not the user. That being said, T-Man and DA have been going at it for a few months now. I would point out , , , , etc (I would suggest taking a look at that archive and seeing just how many threads are between DA and T-Man). This is from earlier today......which caused this . This prompted Steve block (talk · contribs) to suggest an RfC . (I can't say I'd certify it, but I'd certainly endorse one)

I don't think DA is an angel, I've seen him violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA before (Just not in this case), on a few pages. I think he was lashing out in frustration, as in addition to the Enemies of Batman article, T-Man was partially responsible for creating a few forks on List of limited series. Unfortunately, it seems like you've hit one of those little feuds that keeps going between everyone.--Toffile 04:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

yes but da seems to be appering on every unique article t-man is editing with a couple of hours, often blind reverting, now that is most defintly not acceptable, ive tried to mediate this dispute out but it seems to have proved rather fruitless :-( Benon 04:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be because of this. . Not acceptable behavior by any means.--Toffile 04:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

While I do not disagree with the DA block, I think that T-Man should just as equally be blocked for provoking him in a multiplicity of instances. I don't think "stalking" really is made out - it's simply that T-Man and DA both tend to watch the same pages and this almost inevitably puts them in conflict. I've "clashed" with T-Man before over his Bat-Embargo edits, and have tried to give him advice which he ultimately rejetced as unhelpful (which is his right), so he's probably going to say I'm biased, but my assessment of the situation places the cause directly on T-Man. His sub-standard command of English, his verbosity as opposed to encyclopedic style, his insistence (as a self-proclaimed expert) on POV-pushing and speculative info is all producing high levels of tension on the various comic-related pages. It's nearly impossible to sift out and copyedit the good stuff from the dross when sometimes it it hard to tell precisely what he means in the first place. T-Man has also derided, insulted and outright abused people other than DA. By only blocking DA, you're sending the message to T-Man that he has done nothing wrong; and that is a wrong message, not to mention an unfair one. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

t-man has been warned, we havent just let it slide, and i gave a stern warning to both parties during mediation Benon 05:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I left him a stern warning on his talk page warning him against such behaviour. I did not know the extent of his disruption before, but he's on very thin ice as it is with me.--Shanel 05:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

ive requested an rfc, if anone wnats to give there input on how to proceed it would be very welcome Benon 05:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

T-man, the Wise Scarecrow is now blocked for 24 hours as well.--Shanel 05:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Interested Party Steve block

I may be too personally involved in this, but I would question the block on a couple of grounds. Was dyslexic warned that he would be blocked on grounds of personal attacks? I've been wary to block either user on grounds of personal attacks because my reading of policy was that it wasn't implicit that such blocks are allowed in said policy. I'm also unclear on which user is stalking which, both having claimed the other as stalker. I also have to question why one user is blocked for a personal attack which the blocker in question decides is in response to personal attacks. I certainly agree with Khaosworks that you're sending the message to T-Man that he has done nothing wrong; and that is a wrong message, not to mention an unfair one. That's my initial thoughts on the block. Steve block talk 12:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: The header "Statement by Interested Party Steve block" was not added by myself but by another user.

Expansion. Having read through the page again, I still fail to see evidence of a clear warning that either party would be blocked for personal attacks. The best I can find is from Benon who states it is not nessasry to stoop to the level of a personal attack so please don't do, i dont want to but anymore personal attacks and i will be asking admins to impose sancations on either of you. This prompted the reply from Dyslexic that saw him blocked, namely: Benon, it's not a personal attack to say that T-Man's edits are bad, a waste of everyone's time, and that he only knows the animated series, not the comics. These are obvious facts. They affect our ability to edit and spend time on other important matters.

Now, taking all things as even I think this initial block was therefore ill judged. There should have been at least one more warning stressing that the language Dyslexic had used did indeed constitute a personal attack. I also have to say that this attempted mediation was rather badly handled. It seemed to me far better to try and let the two resolve their differences through their own means and at their own pace. There are certainly communication issues between the two users, and there appears to be a clash of personalities too. I think there is certainly a problem here, but I'm not sure bringing the two users together when tensions were high and the underlying problems were not being addressed was the best way of handling it. The problem that was trying to be addressed was one on content at Enemies of Batman, and there are other editors involved in building a consensus on this issue, not just the two which were summoned to the article's talk page to discuss the issue.

If the arbitration commitee agree to accept this issue it is my personal opinion they have to examine not just the actions of the two participants listed here, but also that of the mediator, who to my eye was not requested by either party. I think perhaps it would be better if this request was turned down and we instead evaluated the article and seek to determine where the good faith in building a consensus approach to it lies. Steve block talk 15:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• I actually warned DA a while ago, but he immediatly removed the warning from his talk page. --InShaneee 23:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

also blocking policy states:-

Users who exhaust the community's patience

There have been situations where a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where he or she finds themselves blocked. Administrators who block in these cases should be sure that there is community support for the block, and should note the block on WP:ANI as part of the review process. With such support, the user is considered banned and should be listed on Misplaced Pages:List of banned users (under "Community"). Benon 05:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

On reflection I've probably been too hard in some of my comments, especially on Benon, and I think I will withdraw from commenting further on the matter. It appears I am certainly an interested party. I extend an apology to Benon, to whom I did not fully extend the protocol of assuming good faith. Steve block talk 19:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Interested Party Toffile

A note to arbitrators, there has been almost no dispute resolution between T-Man and Dyslexic Agnostic. I do not know why someone has filed for an RfAr, but I rather emphasize that this should be rejected and taken to RfC instead.--Toffile 13:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I second this as being premature, although my cynicism tells me it'll turn up here eventually. A content RfC was filed regarding Enemies of Batman just prior to this RfArb. Although I feel that a user conduct RfC on T-Man should be filed instead, since his conflict goes beyond the Enemies article and beyond his clashes with Dyslexic Agnotic. Either of these RfCs should be allowed to run its course before this is brought up before ArbCom. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

another statment from benon

may i draw emphasis to this link http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Steve_block&diff=prev&oldid=36230507

& http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User%3AT-man%2C_the_Wise_Scarecrow&diff=35643620&oldid=35643508

may i also draw the arbitrators attention to a section of the blocking policy,and wiki-stalk policys

Users who exhaust the community's patience

There have been situations where a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where he or she finds themselves blocked. Administrators who block in these cases should be sure that there is community support for the block, and should note the block on WP:ANI as part of the review process. With such support, the user is considered banned and should be listed on Misplaced Pages:List of banned users (under "Community"). Benon 05:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

also from the Wiki-stalking policy:-

In the matter of Cool Cat (talk • contribs) (aka User:Coolcat) — a case decided on October 5, 2005 — the ArbCom voted that wikistalking was unacceptable in the following circumstances:

It is not acceptable to stalk another editor who is editing in good faith. (Note that everyone is expected to assume good faith in the absence of definite evidence to the contrary.) Once an editor has given reason to suspect bad faith, monitoring is appropriate, but constantly nit-picking is always a violation of required courtesy.

There are hundreds of administrators available to monitor problem users.

and

Following an editor to another article to continue disruption (also known as wikistalking)

The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor.

Benon 05:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason why a user conduct RfC is appropriate prior to an RfArb is precisely this: we need to gauge if any particular user has exhausted the community's patience, and that is best done by bringing the issue to the wider Misplaced Pages community via the RfC. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Statement by 3rd party Shanel

I first became aware of the dispute between Dyslexic agnostic and T-man through Benon. He had noticed them on #wikipedia-en-vandalism, and informed me that they were coming close to a 3RR. We both soon realized that there was a feud between them. Benon said that he would try to mediate, and I agreed he should give it a shot. After some warnings by myself and Benon, both parties appeared to be working together. However, they soon reverted to the same behaviour. The first party I had blocked was Dyslexic agnostic, for calling T-man's edit's a waste of time. When T-man ignored my warning to not to post any personal attacks, he ignored it and was blocked as well.

After being blocked, both emailed me. Dyslexic agnostic admitted to being frustrated, and T-man admitted he has a short temper and acted innappropriately. I exchanged about eight emails with him, and I referred him to the AMA, but he has not edited since his block expired.

While I do not have a much knowledge of this feud as Steve block or Khaosworks, it seems to me that it has been ongoing. They seem to cooperate for a time, before once again going back to personally attacking each other and/or stalking each other. For this reason I doubt an RfC or an RfM would work. I think that only an enforcable decision with consequences will help T-man and Dyslexic agnostic.

Note: T-man has given me permission to publish his emails to me.--Shanel 23:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Motion for consideration

May I make a motion that both editors in question be temporarily restricted from editing the article in question whilst this arbitration takes its course, to try and avoid the smoke bursting into flames? Benon 00:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Enemies_of_Batman&action=history

If I may speak, I oppose this. Benon should frankly back off, as he is too personally involved in siding with T-man. I am editing in cooperation with many other editors on Enemies of Batman and Batman, and have been doing so since long before T-Man. My edits and comments since my block have been nothing but civil and courteous, and in fact as you can see I decided it was fair to reincorporate the sense of T-man's recent edit right after I removed it. There will be no flames or smoke from me, sir; I will control my frustration, although frankly I am by far not the only one trying to do so: see here. Blocking me from editing when the very legitimacy of my block is still under question is manifestly unjust. Dyslexic agnostic 02:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not motioning against just you but both of you. Benon 02:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate it's not personal, but I also see it as a drastic request. If either of us act uncivil or inappropriately, then a block will suffice. For my part, I confirm again that I have no intent to ever be uncivil to T-man again. Dyslexic agnostic 02:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say, but he deserves to edit the Enemies of Batman Page. I hate blind reversing To me that means,to reverse deleting, not to reverse adding. Is blind reversing a blind reverse really blind reversing? I always try to meet my blind reverser in the middle point by changing the blind reversed info at least a little. I read somewhere that the actual right thing to do is always to copyedit and rephrase, which I always do.

However I checked the pages' history and he fixes links there before I went there. He was also first on the Batman and Superman page and he also deserves to keep editing there.I do apologise for believing he followed me there. He din't. Although, he follow me to some users' talk pages and that was frustrating. He admited to me to check on me "3rd thing on the morning" and to be monitoring me. He also admited not knowing about the topic on some articles where he always blind reverts me with insults on the summary. My advocate will provide those proves and some others about his ignorance of the topics if necessary. --T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 03:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, T-Man. I will meet you in the middle whenever I can. I likewise do not support a ban on T-Man's ability to edit Enemies of Batman, or any other page. Dyslexic agnostic 04:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is proof that I am really trying to work with T-Man... see his message to me regarding Enemies of Batman, and my reply... Dyslexic agnostic 06:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

request for a small clarification from the arbitrators

i am getting a bit confused by arbitration policy, are me and shanel as third partys also having our action scrutinised by the arbitration committe or just t-man and dyslexic agnostic? thanks Benon 05:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

oh and a note to the arbitrators, t-man is seeking an advocate before adding his statmentBenon 06:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

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

• Accept. The depth of some of the personal attacks cited above is quite worrying. James F. (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Sam Korn 16:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Mackensen (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. SimonP 20:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Accept ➥the Epopt 03:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Boothy443

Involved parties

• User:Jtkiefer
• User:Boothy443
• User:Aranda56

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Boothy443 -
• Jtkiefer - Yes, I am aware that I am filing a request for arbitration. Jtkiefer ---- 04:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Boothy443, as well as various attempts on Boothy's talk page

Statement by party 1

Boothy443 has been a long term disruptive influence on Misplaced Pages. He is repeatedly incivil, he repeatedly does everything in his power to prove a point even if it is only for the purpose of proving a point (i.e. his votes on RFA) and blocks against him thus far have been useless as have been attempts to work with him to change his behavior. Jtkiefer ---- 04:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Aranda56

• This is my first time making a statment in a RFAr so I hope I'm doing it right. Boothy443 concerns me dearly. He sometimes does good edits but it looks like he loves getting into controversy and he doesn't mind or care about it. Other users tried to solve that conflict via his talk page and his RFC, but with no success. He had been blocked plenty of times before including indefinitely for mass consent violations including WP:CIVIL,WP:NPA and WP:DICK and I noticed that after he took a one month wikibreak, he came back and quickly mass opposed every candidate who was running for arb-com for no apparent reason. I asked him why on his talk page and he replied rather silly, then quickly entered a edit war and was blocked for a 3RR on Category:Municipalities in Philadelphia County prior to the Act of Consolidation, 1854. I could give you plenty of other examples of policies that Boothy broke, but it would be too long to list. I've come to the conclusion that Boothy443 has violated WP:CIVIL, WP:DICK and countless other policies on purpose, has ignored requests to stop, and it doesn't look like he will stop violating those rules anytime soon. Thank you --Jaranda 05:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Voice of All

• This user has violated WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT and other various policies. He often went through RfA and opposed almost every nominee while ignoring any request to explain why, save 1-2 times a while back. He claims to just have high admin standards. He complains that people frustrated over his votes are just trying to oppress his right to vote. His RfA votes were effective at diving users who respect his right to vote, even if it is just to make an anti-admin point, and others who don't tolerate such balatant WP:POINT violations. Inciting frustration and division is the art of trolling. He also seems to show some sort of vandetta against all admins, finding any excuse to accuse them of incompetence. He violated WP:NPA and then complains "admin abuse" at times when his block is clearly warranted. On the other hand, he is not simply a vandal, but some sort of overzealous "anarchist" that wants to gid rid of admins at this site. Admins, however, are part of policy, and they are required in order to deal with AfD, CsD, vandals...ect; clearly, voting agaist them just because you disagree with having admins is against policy and WP:POINT. If he wants to change policy at Village Pump to get rid of admins, then by all means, he is welcome to try (although it wouldn't happen, and then he would rant on about the admin cabal again. Diffs for his numerous personal attacks and rudeness can be found on his RfC, which he completely ignored, in spite of its seriousness. He has made plenty of contributions, so perhaps probation can be considered as opposed to outright banning (indef. block).Voice of All 20:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Related discussion between Everyking and Jtkiefer

Discussion moved from statement section

• I've never seen him doing anything but making good contributions, including some very active vandal reverting—especially commendable when one does not have the advantage of rollback and has to do it the hard way. As an ArbCom candidate who he voted against, I am perfectly content with both his vote and refusal to disclose his reasons. While I don't doubt we've got some serious personality conflict here, and Boothy appears to be the main culprit, I encourage the ArbCom to seek a remedy that allows him to continue his encyclopedia work, if it chooses to accept the case. Also, in the first place, it would be nice if it would conduct a dialogue with Boothy and try to get to the root of these issues, and work through them constructively, instead of getting straight into deliberation with a punitive remedy guaranteed. Everyking 06:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • As you've said from what You've seen, if the arbcom accepts the case I urge you to look at all the evidence then you'll be able to make an entirely informed judgement with all the facts. Jtkiefer ---- 08:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I think what I've seen provides a pretty good assessment. But if my general assessment is staggeringly contradicted by some obscure diffs you'd like to present, feel free. I don't know, how are you saying I'm uninformed, anyway? I mean, I said the guy's done good encyclopedia work, and I also said there are personality issues involved, and that he seems to be the main culprit. I also included a nice appeal for dialogue and attempt at a non-punitive resolution as the first phase of the arbitration. Where exactly is the gaping hole in my understanding? Everyking 08:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Statement of Support for Jtkiefer

I hope I am following the correct format. I have an on-going squabble going on with Boothy. Aside from our differences, I think he is uncivil and vengeful.

I have tried to negotiate with Boothy on several pages involving Philadelphia. When I went to as for mediation he deleted his name from the page and left some choice comments. Boothy is the one reason why I sometimes fear coming to wikipedia. At one point he was following me around and reverting things I had done just to provoke me. Pages where he had never posted in the past. evrik 05:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I have been involved with reverting Boothy443 over the Philadelphia County/City contreversy. After initially supporting his opinion that there should be separate article for the City and county, but opposed his creation of a new category, following the lead of evrik. I can confirm the previous statements about breaking WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 14:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Statement/comment by Sjakkalle

The RFC mentioned in the request was about the dispute regarding his blanket opposition voting. I myself finally endorsed outside view no. 8, calling the dispute moot when Boothy disclosed his admin criteria to Acetic Acid and when he did support some very well qualified candidates such as Drini. I think that dispute was resolved fairly successfully and Boothy's RFA voting at least, has not been a problem since.

The dispute now appears to be about breaches of NPA, which I think is a different one from the dispute which caused the RFC to be filed. I recommend that if the Arbcom accept this case, that they limit it to Boothy443's conduct after the "Oppose All Admin Candidacies" incident. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (7/0/1/0)

• Recuse. Dmcdevit·t 05:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Reject, for the time being. Please provide evidence of an on-going dispute. Mackensen (talk) 12:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Changing to accept, based on Epopt's reasoning. Mackensen (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Accept. If Boothy's behaviour is not productive, this is something that we are tasked with looking at. James F. (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Accept, though I'd like to see evidence than is presented here. I don't believe Boothy's voting against all arbitrators is grounds for recusal. Sam Korn 16:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. I realize the RfC was on his admin voting (which I don't find problematic, at least not to the point of making a case out of it) rather than the general pattern of incivility which is the issue at hand, but his response to that and other attempts at dispute resolution suggest another RfC wouldn't be particularly helpful. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Accept — while the evidence here before us is scanty, the log of blocks of Boothy indicates that we should take a good look ➥the Epopt 18:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Accept on the basis of incivility and other questionable behaviour, rather the narrow basis of his admin voting. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 01:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Neutrality 03:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Instantnood 3

Involved parties

• User:SchmuckyTheCat
• User:Instantnood
• User:Phroziac
• User:Huaiwei

Instantnood has gotten worse since the last Arbcom case closed. The majority of his edits are now reverts and the number of people he revert wars with just goes up. Something has to be done.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Failed dispute resolution with Instantnood is well established. Other Misplaced Pages dispute resolution methods fail with the sheer volume of his edits.

Statement by SchmuckyTheCat

Instantnood has not changed his behavior since the last arbitration case was closed. So far he has racked up 9 page bans in 9 days.

In fact, his behavior has gotten worse. He's chosen not just to continue edit warring behavior, but to purposefully instigate edit wars. Each day he is choosing to go back (in some cases as old as several months) and make the same edits that were reversed the first time.

An important finding of the last case was that Instantnood "is reminded to make useful edit summaries". He isn't. He has continued to make very contentious edits (such as renaming political entities) without anything at all as an edit summary.

I've chosen, mostly, not to engage him. Huaiwei has not and has been equally page banned and admonished by administrators. However, a glance at Instantnood's edit history reveals it would be impossible to use established dispute resolution techniques because of the sheer number of problem edits. (See evidence below, are we supposed to file 17 article RFCs per day?) Huaiwei wouldn't be involved if Instantnood wasn't making the problem edits in the first place.

Evidence: Look at Instantnood's edit history for 20 January 2006. (And go back as many days as you want, it's all the same pattern every single day).

Discarding any talk page discussion are 24 edits to articles, categories, or templates. An astonishing seventeen of them are reverts. 71% reverts? Only one revert has any talk page discussion.

9 edits have no edit summary whatsoever, including reverts. Only a handful of the remainder are useful to anyone not involved in his dispes.

Evidence of re-igniting old disputes:

Statement by Instantnood

 (Please limit your statement to 500 words)

Statement by Phroziac

I recently blocked Huaiwei and Instantnood for 24 hours for their ForestFire activity, and asked them to stop. Instantnood said he doesn't think it'll help to reach an eventual resolution. The edit wars he's causing are *incredibly* silly. A quick look at the edit histories of several pages he has edited recently all shows obvious edit warring. This really needs to stop. Perhaps a temporary injunction preventing him from reverting would be helpful. --Phroziac _. o º 18:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC) (edited 18:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC))

Statement by Wgfinley

Schmucky's points are well taken. However, I feel that Huaiwei should be enjoined in this action as well neither of them have gotten the message that the edit warring has to stop. Instead, it has only spread. I do not agree that Instant is always looking to start a war but the three cases pointed out by Schmucky are telling and I promptly banned Instant from editing those cats when I read this filing.

However, Schmucky correctly dealt with this situation by filing Arb (although I think he could have also notified an admin). Huaiwei never acts in such a thoughtful manner, he too has initiated re-ignition of old debates , prefers to follow Instant about reverting him (an interesting case where Schmucky started it actually), refusing to stop the edit warring and in general ignores any pleas ( ) for him to stop. Before this recent round of bans he has been banned from 10 articles by three different admins with no signs of stopping. Instead of heeding the pleas for him to stop he chooses to engage in lengthy debates about it with whichever admin will make the mistake of trying to talk to him about it .

Unfortunately I am afraid all efforts to get both Instantnood and Huaiwei to reform their behaviors have failed and more drastic measures are required. --Wgfinley 19:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion by TenOfAllTrades

There's already a motion down below to extend the Instantnood and Huaiwei probation to cover all articles (not just China-related ones.) Might I suggest additional motions of the approximate formula

Should Instantnood/Huaiwei engage in edit warring, they may be blocked for up to one week by any administrator. After the fifth such block, they may be blocked for up to one year...

or something to that effect? It would save the paperwork of opening another ArbCom case, could be tacked on to Instantnood 2, and would get this section off the RFArb page. If the ArbCom wants to address any other issues(?) beyond the edit warring, then this suggestion perhaps wouldn't work. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

7 Day Blocks

Given their continued and incessent edit warring and article bans at a clip of more than one a day I have blocked both Instantnood and Huaiwei for 7 days effective immediately. Notice has been posted on their talk pages , on AN/I and on their block/ban log from their probation ruling . --Wgfinley 20:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

• Recuse, as past mediator. Dmcdevit·t 05:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• I'm happy for us to accept, but I would like to take the opportunity to point out that sysops are (and have always been) empowered to block people for being useless. James F. (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Like James, I'll accept if necessary. Nevertheless, can't we just extend Instantnood 2 to allow escalating blocks for such behaviour? Sam Korn 16:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Ditto: accept, and let's point out in our decision that this sort of trouble should be handled locally ➥the Epopt 18:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. - SimonP 21:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Danteferno

(Harrasment, Vandalism, Personal Attacks and MPOV by User: Danteferno towards users who have worked on the Gothic Metal article)

Involved parties

• Danteferno
• Leyasu
• Parasti
• Idont Havaname

Summary of case;

• Dispute between two users that has disintergrated into a flame war due to no adminstrative interference, leading one party to make personal attacks at any users editing an article the user has claimed as belonging to themselfs, vandalising a revision that was performed to the article reached by a consensus after a long discussion. User now vandalising page and exhbiting MPOV syptoms, and harrasing and attacking anyone who enters discussion on the talk page.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request;

• Notice to Danteferno
• Notice to Parasti

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Request for Mediation

• Notice was given to several admins that no part involved had seeminly come into contact with, asking for meditation and advice. Which admins however, are not so well remembered.

Some of the admins in question included User:MarkGallagher, User:FireFox and User:Sn0wflake. (Note that I was not an administrator at the time that I was mediating the debate.) --Idont Havaname (Talk) 06:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Other steps have been taken, and can only really be observed from the Talk Page on the Gothic metal article.
• Gothic Metal Talk Page
• Listing of Talk:Gothic metal on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Media, art and literature

Statement by Leyasu

Sometime ago the Gothic Metal article was revised from a version posted by Danteferno. A long discussion took place involving several users, including myself, as to the revision, and how best to implement it (See Talk Page Archives).

During this time user Danteferno made personal attacks against all users who worked on the revision of the article, as well as claiming the article was 'his' and it was the 'his NPOV version'.

After a consensus was reached for the revision to take place user Danteferno left Misplaced Pages, and the revision was posted. Subsequent edits have been made to the revision since, mainly by myself, to improve the articles content.

Danteferno has since returned, vandalising the article. Discussion has since been raised on the talk page about this, in which user Danteferno has made more personal attacks at users, mainly myself, and user Parasti including direct insults, and accusations of consipiring to vandalise Misplaced Pages. The user for a brief time also followed my edits reverting them, including minor spell edits. The user has also ignored consensus twice, claiming that it is not applicable without his agreement, which he doesnt give unless it is in his favour.

A consensus has been reached by users that the article does not need revising, at which Danteferno has now claimed he is changing what he claims is 'his' article, to 'his NPOV version' under the pretense other users dont have the right to edit the article without his permission. Requests to admins for advice and the mediation comitte have gone unasnwered, as well as most all attempts at peacefull dispute, to which user Danteferno has begun claiming that nobody likes myself or Parasti due to the lack of comments.

In regards to Idont's statements. I would like to point out that most arguments that ive been involved in, have normally not come into flame wars, or have been arguments of differing POV which both I and the User have settled ourselfs, with no hard feelings. The mediation case was a misunderstanding in my eyes, and i duely apologised for the way i spoke to the user concerned as i hadnt realised they disliked certain terms i used. Other incidents have mainly been minor issues in ideologies of methods of editing, and the most severe concern the Nightwish article, which, i made my view clear on, and the issue was resolved. In that case i removed inline citations on the pretense of RFA, without realising that inline citations are expected of RFA which other users involved in the discussion explained to me. I am in heavy dispute with user Aj Ramierz/WesleyDodds as such over several articles, but this user knows i respect him, and most of our disagreements are again over methods of editing, and differences in the way we would each individually tackle a problem. Leyasu 06:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Danteferno

User:Leyasu joined Misplaced Pages in November and since then has been reverting a number of articles adding unsourced claims, and each time other editors ask for him to cite sources, he either refuses, or accuses the editors of harassing him while he simultaneously attacks/harasses them.

He has called a number of Misplaced Pages users (including myself) "meglomaniacal" and in one case he was blocked for it. (See User_talk:Leyasu). He also wrote this in my talk page. In the case of the Gothic Metal article, he wrote a "revised" article, claiming the original (which had sources from reliable websites) was "POV" (He still has not provided evidence of this). He submitted his "revised" version without consensus (the only consensus provided is that "no one objected"; I had been offline at that time so couldn't add input, but there was still much objection to it, as evident in Talk:Gothic metal).

Rather than start another revert war, I added tags on the top of the page explaining that the article needed work/improvement, and he removed them, calling them "Vandalism." In fact, User:Leyasu has reverted a number legitimate edits in other articles, calling them "Vandalism", "POV" or "Bad faith edit", when the case was none of the above (See User_talk:Leyasu).

User:Leyasu's allegations that I personally attacked him are completely false; perhaps I have been short and abrupt with him, but so have others, as he has been uncooperative in citing sources for the edits he makes, and disrespects other editors greatly. The best way for this dispute to be resolved is that User:Leyasu either provides references in any of the articles that he edits (specifically Gothic metal), or a brand new article be written with a unilateral agreement that what has been written originated from proper sources. Thank you.

Statement by Parasti

I am not involved in the "original" gothic metal discussion that took part during November 2005. I have, however, partly read the archives concerning the mentioned revision.

On 2006-01-15 Danteferno added two templates to the gothic metal article -- {{cleanup-rewrite}} and {{citation style}} -- without stating reasons on the talk page. As the (by consensus) subpaged revision had been moved to the original article without any objections approximately three weeks ago, and seeing no recent discussions on the talk page, I reverted the article. Unfortunately though; leaving a message on the user's page would be far more appropriate. I did not expect Danteferno would take my edit as offensive and vandalism. I left a message on his talk page explaining why I had reverted the article, and I asked for reasons of why have the templates in the article (respectively, what's wrong with it). However, instead of answering, he seemed to have problems with the summary I added for my edit, where I mentioned consensus (see User talk:Parasti#"No Discussion" does not equal Concensus). I left another message (under the same section in the talk page, see link above), that clearly states what is expected from him. To which the reply was, that I have not spent enough time on Misplaced Pages to understand how it works, obviously unrelated to the question.

Danteferno also responded to a comment made by Leyasu on gothic metal talk page, calling me a "friend" of Leyasu, which I find offensive, as I do not know user Leyasu personally; and accusing me of "joining Leyasu in his 3RR violations on other articles", which I find rather amusing, as it is easy to check my contribution history to find his statement libellous. After explaining that his comment is a personal attack, and asking again what is it he considers wrong in the article, I finally got the response. That's basically it. -- parasti  02:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Idont Havaname

I've added myself as an involved party because I mediated the Gothic metal debate in November-December 2005 and have checked a few times since to see how debates on Talk:Gothic metal and other metal-related talk pages were going. In this summary, I will mainly discuss my interactions with them during November and December. I could provide dozens of diffs (at least) of Leyasu and Danteferno fighting with each other. See the expanded history of Gothic metal for more evidence.

At first, Leyasu did a WP:BOLD rewrite of the page, which Ray Dassen reverted; Ray hasn't made any further edits to the article. Leyasu restored his version, which I reverted again. After Leyasu restored his version yet again, Dante reverted it back to mine; so by then, 3 editors had reverted Leyasu's version. I tried to tone down Leyasu's version to make it more acceptable, but less than two hours later Danteferno and Leyasu were reverting each other - roughly two dozen reverts each in less than a day, and neither user was blocked despite my listing the violation on WP:AN/3RR (I was not yet an admin at the time). After the page was protected for several weeks, I was pleased to be engaged in productive discussion with Danteferno and Leyasu, and we started an extensive revision to the article in a temp subpage. However, after bringing out numerous policies (WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:CITE, etc.) we weren't getting as far as I thought. Danteferno left briefly, and Leyasu moved his revision into the main article after I had copyedited it (not knowing a great deal about the subject, or when/if Danteferno would return, I couldn't raise any further objections). Since then, Leyasu has received 2 12-hour blocks, rather than the standard 24 hours, for separate 3RR violations; administrators have gone easy on him. Danteferno has never been blocked for such violations.

I think that filing this RfAr was the latest of many incidents of Leyasu throwing mud at Danteferno, but I think the case should still be heard, with both users in mind. Reading Leyasu's talk page recently, I found that several other users, both admins and non-admins, have tried to reason with him and failed, and I think that stricter measures need to be taken to make sure that he abides by policies. Slaps on the wrist haven't taught him as much as they should have.

This is another mediation case from this month where Leyasu is involved.

--Idont Havaname (Talk) 06:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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

• Accept. James F. (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Dmcdevit·t 16:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Sam Korn 17:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Mackensen (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Accept ➥the Epopt 03:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 08:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Citing credible sources: Zeq and Heptor

Involved parties

• Ian Pitchford (talk · contribs) (filer of this request)
• Zeq (talk · contribs)
• Heptor (talk · contribs)
• Sean Black (talk · contribs)
• Zero0000 (talk · contribs)
• Kriegman (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Notice to Zeq
• Notice to Heptor

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Yes:

• RfC, 4 December, 2005 (1948 Arab-Israeli War) and 5 December, 2005 (Palestinian exodus).
• Direct appeal on Zeq's talk page, 7 December, 2005.
• Direct appeal on Heptor's talk page, 7 December, 2005.
• Extensive discussions regarding the credibility of sources on the article talk pages - here and here
• Mediation by Sean Black
• Appeal to Jimmy Wales
• Email correspondence with Wales, Sean Black and Jayjg.

Statement by Ian Pitchford (talk · contribs)

• Newspaper clipping: Jews Confident In Palestine Military Success', The Times, 6 May, 1948

I would be grateful if Misplaced Pages's policy that articles must cite credible sources could be enforced in the articles on the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and the Palestinian exodus. I have tried to get these two editors to abide by the policy without success. In this case the material being added to the articles is blatantly inappropriate and no credible sources have been cited at all, whilst that being deleted, (as for example, here), is quite clearly relevant, appropriate and well-sourced. I enjoy editing Misplaced Pages, but like most editors have limited time to spend on the project and don't want to waste the bulk of that time trying to make sure that editors comply with minimum standards. Is arbitration really the only way viable of making sure that policies are implemented? If so, I think it is going to be difficult to justify the time I spend on the project. --Ian Pitchford 20:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: The comments added below by Zeq, Heptor and Kriegman illustrate how the debate has been conducted for many weeks. A request for scholarly references is never answered with such references, but with additional unsourced claims and personal insults, even though it would have taken far less effort to open a few histories of the period and to report on what they say. Furthermore, I believe that mediation is inappropriate as I am asking not for judgment of a dispute between editors, but for Misplaced Pages policy on sources to be implemented. We don't mediate policy: we either implement it or we don't. Misplaced Pages has an entire task force dedicated to removing vandalism and challenging vandals, but there is no comparably efficient and expeditious mechanism for removing unsourced claims and for challenging those who add them, even though unsourced material damages the encyclopedia in much more insidious and destructive ways than simple vandalism. We need a "sources taskforce" to spare editors this unpleasantness and to leave them free to donate their time and expertise to the task of constructing an encyclopedia. --Ian Pitchford 18:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Zeq

Ian refuse to accept what was decided in the mediation: That the info that can not be sourced will be taken out and that the info that has sources will remain in. My agreement to the mediator is clearly indicated on the talk page. Ian "implemented" the mediator suggestion by removing sourced info. I suggested to him that if he has sources that say differently (from the sourced info in the article) he should add those sources to the text so we have both versions in the article. Instead he rushed to the ArbCom. (after both he and Zero wrote very starnge interpretations of the NPOV policy on the talk page such as Zero on Pal exodus talk claiming: "NPOV does not consist of multiple POVs" )

The problem in the Palestinian exodus article is not so simple. This article (please see talk page) 3 years ago was pro Israeli , now it is completly Pro- Palestinian (see version prior to the current protected one which is a bit more NPOV). For month and month editors have complianed about the lack of neutrality of that page (long before I have registed with wikipedia - just see the complete talk page one of many examples is ) but one after another editor are "chased away" from that page by those who seem to think they "own" it and do not allow any other editor there. This article is at the core palestinian narraitive of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Palestinian version is well desrve to be on that page but so does the other POV.

All I have to say about the problem is stated here: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=29193600#complete_failure_of_wikipedia_NPOV_policy and part of the solution is here:

User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=31513536#A_serious_suggestion_to_Mr._Wales

Statement by Sean Black

I am distressed that this has escalated to this point. I believe that this case does have merit, but I feel that my attempts to assist the parties in working out a compromise were at least partially successful. This may be a premature request, but I am confident that that the ArbCom will come to a sensible conclusion, whatever it is.--Sean|Black 22:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Heptor (talk · contribs)

The core of this dispute seems to be a quotation by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husayni. This mufti has collaborated with the Nazis during the WW2. Among other things he assisted in formation of Bosnian ] troops who fought Yugoslav Partisans, and also made broadcasts aimed for the Arab World, in which he agitated Arabs to support the Nazis. In one of those broadcasts he, according to Pearlman and Schechtman, expressed himself in following way: "Arabs, arise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you". Ian Pitchford is disputing credibility of Pearlman and Schechtman.

Ian Pitchford has also erased/commented out some other material regarding the mufti: . For example, I have not seen any explanation why he commented out that "the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was involved in much of the high level negotiations between the Arab leaders in the 1948 War."

The matter has been under mediation by Sean Black. Interestingly enough, both he, me and Zeq concluded that a compromise has been reached. I implemented it here. However, Ian Pitchford and Zero claimed there was has never been any compromise, and started removing material soon after. The page had to be protected again.

During the dispute, Ian threatened to submit the matter to ArbCom repeatedly (an example from my talk page), violated the 3RR ( more on my talk page) and immediately afterwards asked to protect the article as it was after his fourth revert, threatened to quit editing Misplaced Pages, complained to Jimbo Wales on his talk page and, evidently, also per e-mail.

I agree with Sean Black that this request is somewhat premature – mediation bore fruits before, and should have been tried further. But it also would be nice if the Arbitration Committee settles the matter once and for all.

'Addendum'

In light of statements by Ian Pitchford, and especially Zero, I will add a little to my statement.

1. As Kriegman stated below, both Zero and Ian Pitchford freely use biased authors, such as Mattar, while labeling those they disagree with as "liars", or useless for other reasons.
2. What Mufti said on Zero's scan is actaully quite similar to what he said according to Kriegman's scan, e.g. go kill jews.
3. It is an aknowledged problem that Misplaced Pages has systematic leftist bias. Both the Soviet Communists and modern days socialists seem to have something against USA and Israel (indeed, socialists of all kinds somehow seem to dislike Israel), and this shows in many articles. Zero and Ian Pitchford systematically sift available sources for information unfavorable to Israel. I hope Arbitration Committee will make a step to counter this problem.

-- Heptor _talk 18:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Zero

1. Zeq is one of the most obsessive POV-pushers I have ever encountered in Misplaced Pages. He has hardly any knowledge either of history, nor of the process of cooperative NPOV writing. His style is to delete large slabs of text he doesn't like and scream when he is reverted. His notion of NPOV is to add text like "mass of frenzied Arab rioters" then claim willingness to accept "the other" POV, as if a good article can ever be written by joining together different bits of gutter rhetoric. Almost every article he approaches becomes a battleground, and countless efforts to reason with him have not had the least effect. Please, oh please, do something about him.
2. The 1948 Arab-Israeli War problem: Zeq and Heptor want to present it as a war of Israel versus genocidal fiends. To this end they found some alleged "quotations" of the Palestinian leader Amin al-Husayni during WWII (when he was a Nazi collaborator, which nobody denies). These quotes come from a book by a Haganah spokesman Pearlman and were repeated by a book by Revisionist Zionist and Arab-expulsion advocate Schectman. Both books are regarded as propagandistic by academic historians, and I gave an example of a provable lie in Pearlman's book. No other sources are known even though Ian Pitchford and I have scoured the academic literature. Moreover, when I went to a contemporary report of the radio broadcast in question, I found a version that is quite different. None of this has any effect on Zeq or Heptor who want this "quotation" to appear and that's that. Nor have they established any relevance of this to the topic of the article, other than their own opinions.

Statement by Kriegman

I've been involved in this dispute from the beginning, to the point of being threatened by Ian that this would be brought to arbitration. I have only focused on the 1948 Arab-Israeli War article, in which I placed the original disputed quotation by the Mufti. I cited as a source a book by Davis & Decter. Zero claimed that this was not a valid source. He did not say why he made this claim, just that it was not valid. Finally, after much debate (that included a good deal of name calling by Zero), and after many revisions and reversions, he suggested that there was a connection between the Israeli government and the organizations that took over the publication of the Myths & Facts series that indicated that they were biased. I accepted this, as Zero seemed to know more about it than I. But then I discovered that Zero's and Ian's sources, e.g., Mattar, were just as associated with the PLO as Davis and Decter were with Israel. Something was fishy.

Statement by Christophe Greffe

Hello, I am new on wikipedia and this article is the first article on which I interact. I think whole problem comes from political issues and uses that this article can have. This is linked to the fact that the events it treats (war of 1948 - first arab-israeli war) still have consequences today (Israel - PA). This is article is therefore used as a battlefield of propaganda. I think that what is reported about Al Husseini broadcasts is true but I think this has nothing to do in this article where it is only used for propaganda matters. And there are other comments of the same type in the article concerning *both sides*.

I think arbitration should more focus on the global problem (ie how to deal at best the fact this topic cannot be neutraly treated) and not only on the problem of sources. I think this has come up to here only for "procedure" reasons and I don't think this is the real problem.

I don't have a solution but a suggestion : maybe some paragraphs on the article should be shared in two parts : "Following palestinian point of view...". "Following israeli point of view..." and some references should be allowed to be commented by "This allegation is considered to be myth developed by ... side to give bad images of ...". Therefore all point of views could be developed without *fights of words*.

Christophe Greffe 17:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

NB: sorry for the poor English - I am Belgian and my mother tongue is French.

Ramblings by El_C

While I consider the Hebrew Misplaced Pages quite decent on Arab-Israeli topics, and in general (and this despite its strong pro-Israeli bias — see Heptor's addendum five for the fun, if in my opinion highly simplistic, redetails), I do find it noteworthy that whereas En goes on to expend more than 500 words on the Mufti in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, He's מלחמת העצמאות, expends 0 words. El_C 00:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Zeq left a rather confusing note on my talk page. In it, he tells me that the Mufti's role in the Hevron Massacare is well known (when did I state otherwise?). He also appears to dismiss the entire Hebrew Misplaced Pages on the basis that some of their articles are not up to par and juxtaposes that to the featured article cited above (?). I think... It's difficult to tell. Finally, he cautions me not to copy something into Riots in Palestine of 1929 (writing: if you copy thisd into 1929 you will be reverted), but I don't know what it is I'm not allowed to "copy," though it was in any case unlikely that I would edit the aforementioned article based on his note, because again, I do not fully understand what is meant by it. I invite Zeq to write to me in Hebrew if he is having difficulties with English (which I can translate, if he so wishes). El_C 07:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Ramallite (talk · contribs)

1. It has been difficult to follow this long dispute, but I think it somewhat bears a close analogy to "Elementary, my dear Watson" or "Play it again, Sam". It is widely considered that Sherlock Holmes said the first phrase to his trusty friend Dr. Watson, and Humphrey Bogart's (or was it Ingrid Bergman's) famous line from Casablanca is equally well known. People have quoted, written about, repeated, and propagated these phrases for a long time - except they never happened. The phrase "Elementary, my dear Watson" was never uttered by Sherlock Holmes, and it's probably known by now that Sam was never asked to "play it again". Here, we have a similar situation where an often repeated phrase attributed to Haj Amin Husseini may also have never actually been uttered. The difference is that, while my examples come from the entertainment industry, this dispute deals with some editors of Misplaced Pages feeling that the inclusion of such a phrase that is commonly believed to have been said, but may actually not have been, in a Misplaced Pages article will only contribute to the continued propagation of a 'lie' which others can use to support their (often unfriendly) opinions or ideologies. These editors (myself included) prefer that Misplaced Pages not be yet another source that propagates unreliable but commonly believed information, and that it hold itself to a higher standard. On the other hand, editors who support the inclusion of this phrase rely on the notion that, despite the possibility of the quotation being false, the fact that it is generally believed is enough reason to include it since it is the reason why Israelis 'believed that they were facing a genocidal enemy'. Thus, to reconcile these two positions, it is absolutely essential that such a phrase, had it been truly uttered, be verified beyond reasonable doubt if possible.

Statement by Brian Tvedt

This is a very important case, and I hope that the arbitration committee will accept it. One of the issues at stake is that Heptor and Zeq have repeatedly inserted material that is "sourced" only to political advocacy websites that support their POV, even after having been warned repeatedly not to. If such behavior is tolerated, it opens the door to abuse of Misplaced Pages by all sorts of political operatives. For example, opponents of a politician standing for election could insert material into that politician's biography that is "sourced" only to websites created by political action committees set up by the opposing party. Brian Tvedt 02:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/0/0/1)

• I'm not sure. I'm minded to say "this is indeed policy; just implement it already, and ask on WP:AN/I or whatever for backup if you need it", but on the other hand, perhaps we should accept it to look as the policy violations apparently taking place. Would appreciate further commentry (esp. by other Arbitrators, or uninvolved parties). James F. (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Accept to examine all issues Fred Bauder 16:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. Charles Matthews 11:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Accept, though to consider Ian Pitchford as well. Dmcdevit·t 17:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Mackensen (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Accept ➥the Epopt 03:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Message to Arbitrators

We are all enetitle to at least get your response will you take this case. You seem to understand the garvity of the situation: Misplaced Pages has become a place for anti-Israel propeganda and you are hesitating to take a stand because either way will get you in trouble. I have argued fo a long time that Misplaced Pages is currently unable to deal with articles about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict with it's current policies and methods. Just take a look at Palestinian exodus and you will see what I mean.

It is time you make your rulling will you hear this case, limiting it to only the sources issue is dogding the real question: Can wikipedia really be NPOV ? If yes: Get the plolicis implemented, if not: Change the policies. Zeq 15:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I can explain the reason concisely, unlike either of you: that's an incoherent novel-length ramble you've assembled together above. We've seriously been considering a 500-word limit on AC pleadings precisely because of this sort of thing. See if you can state your entire problem in 500 words - David Gerard 22:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I can do it in much less than 500 words:

The problem is to apply Misplaced Pages NPOV policy about nakab and to apply it to all other articles in an equal manner. There is growing concern about wikipedia outthere and itis evident among other things in the lefty bias against Israel and the west. In artcles such as Hebron massacre of 1929 do you honestly think that the event depition should starts with "jews marched... calling..." This is a partial and biased description of the events. These are just examples. Misplaced Pages should work out a mechanism (such as this to prevent the constant edit wars and to make the articles truely NPOV. Zeq 06:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The rest of my comments is in . Zeq 06:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Requests for Clarification

Requests for clarification from the Arbcom on matters related to the arbitration process.

Descriptions of edits

The decision of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine was that he, I, and Robert West (who is still having technical difficulties with WP) should collaborate on a consensus version.

Since my return to Misplaced Pages, Ultramarine is continuing his habit of referring to edits he has made as the "good", "superior", "correct abd complete" version. I find this uncollegial, and ask if it is consistent with the spirit of the arbitration decision. Several diffs of such claims be found in the evidence in the case, and the usage has continued on Talk:Democratic peace theory, and I believe elsewhere. Septentrionalis 21:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Admin accountability

I would like to point out this signpost article to the ArbCom, which is about public opinion on holding admins accountable for their actions. Radiant_>|< 20:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Nobs01 and Others

It appears that none of the remedies in this case have actually been implemented so far. Does anyone know what happened? --TML1988 23:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

In Nobs01's case, he hasn't posted since 12/23, which is when the decision became final. --Woohookitty 06:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

But what about the other remedies? For example, Cognition has made many posts after the decision came down, and Lyndon LaRuche 2 has not been touched since last February. --TML1988 15:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Zen-master

I think it is time to ask for a banning of Zen-master. For how long, I do not know. But. Probation (which was prescribed for him at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Zen-master) has failed miserably with him. He was just blocked for violation of the 3RR on Misplaced Pages:Title Neutrality. It's his 3rd 3RR ban in the last 6 weeks. In addition, he has been banned from several articles for periods of time, including conspiracy theory and Misplaced Pages:User Bill of Rights. He also joined an edit war at Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, which if anything else shows continued poor judgement and lack of understanding of his probation, which is supposed to keep him out of any edit wars. I put a notice on WP:AN/I for others to chime in here as I believe I am missing an article or two he was blocked from in the last 2 weeks. --Woohookitty 07:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Seconded. Zen is belligerent, assumes bad faith, does not listen to other people, revert wars, and calls his opponents vandals. He is unable or unwilling to understand such concepts as consensus, or the fact that policy is not created by voting upon it, and has created or promoted several snarky policy proposals in an attempt to give false credence to his opinions. For instance, Misplaced Pages:Information suppression, which is a faux addition to WP:NPOV with the underlying intent of not allowing scientific sources to "put down" psuedoscientific articles.
• I would recommend putting him under the zero-revert rule, and banning him entirely from the Misplaced Pages namespace. But frankly he hasn't done much that is useful the last weeks. Radiant_>|< 10:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Many of Zen-master's violations stem from his crusade (over the past 7-8 months) to eliminate the term "conspiracy theory". There's been endless discussions on at least a dozen pages and a straw poll showed strong support for keeping the term. Zen is basically attempting to force through his opinion through Death by a thousand cuts, hoping that other editors will eventually wear down and give up. I'd support a permanent ban from any "conspiracy theory" related article as well as a several month ban from the Misplaced Pages namespace (perhaps allowing for AfD and RfA). Carbonite | Talk 15:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • That's the main issue with Zen and to me it's what demonstrates the failure of probation. The idea of probation is supposed to change people's ways. Well, if you look at zen's edits since his probation started, I think he's gotten worse, not better. He still doesn't even quite understand why he was put on probation in the first place. Probation is just wasted on him. --Woohookitty 06:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• I'd say it's time for a long term block of a month or more. Can we get a vote by the arbcom? --Woohookitty 16:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Herschelkrustofsky probation

At Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy, it says that "Deliberations are often held privately, but Arbitrators will make detailed rationale for all their decisions public." In the recent case, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others, this was not done with respect to the remedy Herschelkrustofsky placed on Probation; my user name appears only in the remedy (i.e., no finding of fact, or other explanation of, or justification for, the penalty.) I would like to request that the ArbCom correct this oversight. --HK 07:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't actually see detailed rationales publicly available for any recent cases. Has this fallen by the way (perhaps as a result of the backlog), or am I simply not looking in the right place? PurplePlatypus 07:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen detailed rationales. You usually just get a terse sentence or two. Everyking 07:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

A terse sentence or two would be a substantial improvement. I believe that a finding of fact is normally de rigueur. --HK 15:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I am trying very, very hard to WP:AGF here. If there's something I've missed I genuinely want to know about it. Having said that, there does appear to be a lot of resistance to the idea that there should be some accountability here, and I have a hard time understanding that to say the least. PurplePlatypus 08:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that there can be differences of opinion as to how much detail there should be. With as many cases that are as messy as the current backlog is, the statements of principles, findings of fact, and remedies are as much as I would expect. It does appear that in this particular case, the ArbCom accidentally omitted a finding of fact. User:Herschelkrustofsky had been on POV parole from the Lyndon LaRouche 2 case. The ArbCom probably intended to find as fact that he had violated the terms of the POV parole. I have not reviewed the evidence, but it appears that the action taken by the ArbCom is exactly what they would have done if they had found that he had violated the parole. I would suggest that the ArbCom re-open the case only to add that finding as the basis for the remedy. Robert McClenon 16:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the Nobs01 and others case is more-or-less an extension of the previous LaRouche cases- as such, I think you can use the findings there as further evidence for this remedy.--Sean|Black 20:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

We tightened up the Herschelkrustofsky remedy a bit, but the other remedies are based on the behavior of the different individuals involved. Nobs01, for example, was banned on the basis of personal attacks, not for the sort of idiosyncratic original research involved in the La Rouche cases. Fred Bauder 21:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The original wording of the remedy, as authored by Fred Bauder, hinted at the actual reason for the probation: "In view of the dissatisfaction expressed by Herschelkrustofsky with the decisions reached in this case, and the apparent lack of insight into any role his own behavior played in the creation and aggravation of the problems which gave rise to this case, he is placed indefinitely on Misplaced Pages:Probation." I had expressed strong (although not uncivil) opinions on the Workshop page, to the effect that the ArbCom was playing favorites by imposing servere sanctions on User:Rangerdude, and a "get out of jail free card" to User:Cberlet, when as far as I could see, the misconduct of these two users was more or less equivalent. There was no remedy contemplated against me until I expressed this opinion. Subsequently, arbitrator Raul654 removed this explanation, calling it "controversial," and replaced it with... no explanation. Then the remedy was voted up. Under the policies enunciated in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy, I am asking for some sort of formal (and public) explanation of why I am being sanctioned in this matter. --HK 07:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Would constantly making trouble serve? Fred Bauder 16:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Instantnood page moves

In the 'nood ArbCom decisions "1) Instantnood (talk · contribs) is restricted to proposing only one page move, poll of editors, or policy change relating to Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (Chinese) per week."

What should be done when he doesn't actually propose a move, but just uses subterfuge to get what he wants?

In the ArbCom case there was plenty of evidence in the start of the case that he was abusing the rename process by repeatedly asking for "Foo of Taiwan" to be renamed "Foo of the Republic of China". Now that ArbCom closed the case with that restriction above, he just avoids the rename process altogether. Yesterday there was an existing category Taiwanese newspapers that corresponded with the naming convention in Category:Newspapers by country (ie, "Foobarnese newspapers" as opposed to "Newspapers of Foobar"). To get what he wants without actually proposing a rename he created a parallel category (Newspapers of the Republic of China), put it in Newspapers by country and other parent categories, then deprecated Taiwanese newspapers by removing it from the parent categories.

Meanwhile, while the new category sits on CfD, with an overwhelming early consensus to delete, he's insisting that either his, or BOTH of the categories should exist in the parent categories .

So, he hasn't actually proposed to rename the the category, he just wants to create two parallel categories and move them around in the category structure. (Creating parallel forks isn't new behavior from him, but it fell through the cracks in the case.)

Also meanwhile, he's not "proposing a move" merely "seeking clarification" on another ROC/Taiwan move, Media in Taiwan.

And I'd also like the ArbCom to consider removing the words "relating to Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (Chinese)" from this restriction on his behavior. I'm mostly not involved, but he's currently edit warring with other editors on half a dozen articles related to the naming of food of all things and whether they should be named with Cantonese, Mandarin, or English. , etc. These aren't related to the Chinese naming conventions, but mere mortal editors shouldn't have to try and keep up with his proposals and unilateral moves.

- SchmuckyTheCat 22:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

What should be done when he doesn't actually propose a move, but just uses subterfuge to get what he wants? Then it counts as a move. As to the edit warring over food names, guess there are some general problems we didn't handle. Fred Bauder 03:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there an enforcement mechanism for this, or just an admonishment? (The same question could be said about the edit summary statement - "is reminded to make useful edit summaries.") SchmuckyTheCat 21:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2#Instantnood_placed_on_probation will have to serve. However, this requires an administrator with the energy and interest to look into it and actually do something. Fred Bauder 14:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

That was not a rename. Republic of China and Taiwan means something different. I am not proposing to move newspapers published in Taiwan to the parent category for the Republic of China, which Taiwan is, contemporarily, a major part of. The relevant Misplaced Pages policies, including the NPOV policy, have been listed here . As a matter of fact, user:SchmuckyTheCat tried several times to delink the category he has nominated to CfD from all other categories ( ), although the CfD is in process.

The disputes around the articles on food is not only around their names, and they're not related to the previous arbitration case. — Instantnood 21:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

It's your contention, not the communities, that RoC and Taiwan mean something different. The category existed, you delinked it when you created a new replacement category. A duck by any other name still quacks. SchmuckyTheCat 03:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

If you're not agreeing with the NPOV policies, please proceed to propose changes to them. Don't disrupt Misplaced Pages by reverting edits made based on those policies, and, to the worst, nominating something to deletion by producing false accusations there. — Instantnood 09:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

If the disputes over food names is not related to the previous arbitration case, then could you explain the administrative action of page bans in Barbecued pork with rice, Char siu, and so on? And yes it is not a rename. If it was you would have flouted the arbcom rules outright and STC wont have needed to post this here at all to highlight your gaming of the rules.--Huaiwei 15:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this entire exchange here with the numerous openly hostile comments Schmucky has made toward Instant or anyone who in anyway supports a viewpoint like Instant's or even advocates a modicum of decorum shows the action taken by the ArbCom just didn't go far enough here. The edit warring continues across several articles, Schmucky has flat out said he intends on being hostile and continue what sounds like a crusade when he describes it against Instant . The ink is hardly dry from the decision and the warring continues. --Wgfinley 04:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to comment, that my recent dealings with Wgfinley has been far from jovial, given his propensity in openly accusing the "opponents of instantnood" of all wrong doings, while continuing to believe instantnood is a victim of circumstance. I do not find STC's comments openly hostile in any way, and the source quoted above does not show his intention to be hostile or to launch a crusade against Instantnood, since he did insist that he at least still goes by the rules, something instantnood has spectacularly failed to do consistantly before or after the arbcom ruling. I would therefore read Wgfinley's comments with a pinch of salt.--Huaiwei 15:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, how is it supposed to stop it? You could endorse one side or the other but in most POV disputes, surely the two sides will not actually go, well, the arbcom says the other POV has merit so I'll just stop fighting for my POV. If anything, it shows the pointlessness of the arbcom, or any other empowered group of editors, getting involved in content disputes. Not that pointlessness will stop them, obviously. -- Grace Note

Netoholic

I would like to discuss my status with respect to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2.

The mentorship agreement specified that users Raul654, Kim Bruning and Grunt would act as my mentors. It said also "If the mentors think it is working, they can lessen or end their supervision of Netoholic's editing. If they consider it has failed — at the six month review or at any earlier time — the namespace and revert restriction in remedy 2 will take effect."

Over time, all three of my mentors ended their supervision for various reasons. On June 28th, Kim Bruning stepped aside as my mentor. Grunt became inactive as of July 5. On July 19th, Raul654 resigned recommending an alternate "probation" approach.

What I'd like confirmation is whether these resignations fulfilled the "end their supervision" clause. In the above linked resignations, neither Kim or Raul654 indicated that the mentorship failed, but mentioned leaving for personal reasons or because of the way the mentorship arrangement was designed. That arrangement was flawed because the community was asked to bring up concerns with the mentors directly. This meant that even minor disagreements were propogated to three different talk pages, which lead to a lot of stress.

In short, I'd like to ask to be relieved of any Arbitration edit restrictions presently in place. -- Netoholic @ 18:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

While I agree strongly that Netoholic should not be, at this point, under as draconian a set of restrictions as he currently is - particularly the template restrictions, where I think he's a needed force for pointing out that consensus does not get to override the developers saying "Please don't do this," I would caution on the other hand that edits such as do make me worry that some of the incivility problems have not corrected themselves. On the other hand, that Netoholic's behavior has in general improved while under parole seems clear, and it may be that the remaining issues can only be fixed through experience. So I, at least, offer my tepid support of this. Which, considering my history with this conflict, probably actually still counts for a lot. :) Phil Sandifer 18:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Netoholic and Snowspinner are actually working together. Holy goodness me! Net still needs to grasp the finer points of dealing with f*ckw diplomacy, but has come to both of us for help in these matters, with good productive effect. A strong caution about dealing gently with policy should remain - but he seems to be getting this point, which is excellent. We each have our strengths and weaknesses, after all ... - David Gerard 20:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Can we please get some comments here? Netoholic has been tremendously helpful of late in dealing with the requirements of WP:AUM, but has had to do so flouting his parole and editing templates... which is unfortunate, and a situation that ought to be brought to an end. Phil Sandifer 06:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I've been on Wiki-break for a while but one of the first things I checked when I got back was what Neto has been up to and I am pleased to see things have really turned around. I agree with David's proposal on this 100% and if I can assist in any way I would be happy to. --Wgfinley 20:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

While we're appealing this case, btw, can we also overturn the findings that say that AUM is not policy, since they imply a really godawful precedent that the community can meaningfully have a lack of consensus to obey the developers? Phil Sandifer 06:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not policy, because there are occasions where it is fruitful to use them. That doesn't mean it's not damn good advice and should still be followed. There must be a good reason to use a meta-template, and anyone who says otherwise is a fool. The MoS still should be obeyed, personal attacks must not be made, nor may original research be put into the main namespace. The ArbCom may not create policy. AUM completely fits in the template category without losing its effect. That said, I fully support any motion to remove Netoholic's restrictions on editing categories. I would, on the other hand, also support a motion to put him on probation with regard to the template namespace only. ] 19:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

With regard to Template:stars this user appears to have driven though a set of changes via bot that is out of keeping with the removal of the template which has not yet happened as far as I can see, still a confused situation. Anywaty his BOT remoaved references to the template:stars and replace with just e.g. (3/5) rather that the e.g. File:3 out of 5.png that was there before tamplate:stars was in use. Is this the right way to make mass changes. Kevinalewis 11:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Bots are the right way to make mass changes, but they should be used only once consensus has been reached. In this case, the TFD for Template:Stars was closed prematurely by Snowspinner. —Locke Cole 11:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It was? If it was, that's wholly my error - I must have read the date wrong. Phil Sandifer 02:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

See Template talk:Stars#Bot for my view.—jiy (talk) 09:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• What is the official line on this? Is Netoholic still banned from editing in the template namespace? Because from this and this, it sure looks like he is ignoring the directives put in effect when the mentorship disbanded. Bratsche 21:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Netoholic is technically prohibited from editing in the Misplaced Pages and template namespaces. However, several arbitrators (myself and David Gerard in particular) have expressed approval of what Netoholic has been doing vis-a-vis killing metatemplates and possibly creating some sort of exception for that. Raul654 21:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

While the meta-template problems outlined at WP:AUM have apparently become more severe over time the way Netoholic is going about addressing them is unneccessarily confrontational. With one template after another he has made un-announced changes, people have said 'ack, you broke feature XYZ' and reverted it, and he has reverted back and said basically that AUM takes precedence over their concerns. No reason for it. These changes can be tested in advance with old and new version of the template side by side before being implemented Wiki-wide... rather than making complete rewrites directly to the template with no regard to potential havoc throughout the article space. Advance notification on related wikiprojects might also be a good idea. --CBD _☎ 22:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

That is a gross mischaracterization. I have not caused "havoc" nor put in place any change which I could foresee as causing any problem. I am at your service if you ever discover an issue with any of my template renovations. Just contact me and describe the problem. Except for putting any meta-template back in operation, I will work with you. -- Netoholic @ 17:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm just saying that this, this, the stuff about Infobox pope above, and suchlike didn't need to be. The work you are doing is important, but it could be accomplished more smoothly with a bit more discussion and testing before implementation. --CBD _☎ 18:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Would a motion then be in order? If this position (allowing Netoholic to edit the previously prohibited namespaces) is prevalent amongst the ArbCom members, then it would be nice to put it into writing or some other format. Administrators such as myself are supposed to be strictly enforcing the ArbCom rulings on these matters. If Netoholic is allowed to act by the ArbCom contrary to the motions set down, it would be nice to let us know. Bratsche 23:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: Netoholic is the subject of a separate RfA at the top of this page for more issues with his behaviour. FearÉIREANN\ 23:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The "policy" that Netoholic appointed himself enforcer of (and the only reason anyone has turned a blind eye to his behavior) was written by himself, and only became policy because of his claims of a mandate of the developers regarding server load. No such mandate ever existed, according to lead developer Brion Vibber.

Can we please get a definitive answer on this? If not for this quasi-revocation of the ban, blocks against him would be warranted over and over, but we admins feel powerless to enforce them, especially considering that other admins would immediately unblock him, no matter what the infringement. We don't know what to do.

This issue is also being discussed on the Administrators' noticeboard and the Village pump. — Omegatron 20:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)

Motion to extend Instantnood and Huaiwei probation (4/0/0/0) (4/0/0/0)

As per dicussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Instantnood_and_Huaiwei, both parties have continued revert-warring and disrupting normal editing on articles outside the original probation.

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2#Instantnood_placed_on_probation is modified to: Instantnood (talk · contribs) is placed on Misplaced Pages:Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban them from any article or talk page which they disrupt by inappropriate editing. Instantnood must be notified on their talk page of any bans and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I.

Support:

1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 23:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
3. James F. (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
4. ➥the Epopt 15:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Comment:

• While I fully respect the decision of the members of the arbitration committee, in my own opinion I don't see the need to do so. Majority, if not all, of the disputes between Huaiwei and I have been around issues that are somehow Chinese-related. What is needed is to clarify what constitute "Chinese-related" in the previous ArbCom decision, instead of an amendment. Thank you. — Instantnood 18:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2#Huaiwei_placed_on_probation is modified to: Huaiwei (talk · contribs) is placed on Misplaced Pages:Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban them from any article or talk page which they disrupt by inappropriate editing. Huaiwei must be notified on their talk page of any bans and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I.

Support:

1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 23:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
3. James F. (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
4. ➥the Epopt 15:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Motions to extend ban on Ciz editing (6/0/0/0)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Ciz#Prevention_from_editing_Zoophilia is modified to:

Ciz (using whatever account or IP address) is prevented indefinitely from editing Zoophilia and its closely-related articles, or any editing related to the subjects of zoophilia, bestiality, animal sexuality, or human-animal relationships in any article, including their talk pages. Whether an article or page concerns these subjects shall be determined by the enforcing administrator.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 16:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
2. James F. (talk) 09:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
3. ➥the Epopt 23:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Jayjg 17:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Dmcdevit·t 07:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Ciz#Attempts_to_edit_Zoophilia is modified to:

If Ciz (using whatever account or IP address) edits Zoophilia or its closely related articles, or makes any edit which relates to zoophilia, bestiality, animal sexuality, or human-animal relationships in any article, or their talk pages, such changes made may be reverted by any editor and any administrator may, at his/her discretion, briefly block Ciz (up to a week in the case of repeat violations). After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 16:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
2. James F. (talk) 09:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
3. ➥the Epopt 23:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Jayjg 17:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Dmcdevit·t 07:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Ciz#User:_DrBat_--_continuing_breaches_of_previous_ArbCom_ruling

Motion to ban User:Pigsonthewing (7/1/0/1)

Upon review of Pigsonthewing's article edits for the month of December, I find nothing that does not appear to be edit warring. (Updated: It has been pointed out to me that he has some useful edits in the early part of December, but only one of any quality since the case against him closed on the 10th, and nothing but edit warring since the 12th. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)) His probation does not appear to be going well. In general his contributions elsewhere are divisive, bordering on wikistalking of Karmafist and possibly other editors, and his continued presence on Misplaced Pages is clearly creating more heat than light. Accordingly, I move that Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing be modified include the following remedy:

Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) (using whatever account or IP address) is banned from Misplaced Pages for a period of one year.

Support:

1. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
2. one well-sourced edit does not save him — a broken clock may be right twice a day but it should still be thrown out ➥the Epopt 00:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
3. per the Epopt. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Agree with Kelly. Also, Pigsonthewing has come back from a week-long block to continue the same old edit wars. Dmcdevit·t 06:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Long-term disruptive user. Charles Matthews 11:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
6. per Epopt and Charles Matthews. Jayjg 23:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
7. He's a net loss. Sam Korn 00:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Fred Bauder 18:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC) see Check this out on Google and you'll see this edit is well sourced.

Abstain:

1. James F. (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC) I have yet to be convinced (both that his continued presence is a net benefit to the encyclopædia, or a net hinderance).
2. He has made many good edits in the past, and continues to make some today, but to me it is clear that he is not currently helping the project. A long break is needed, as hopefully a period away from the project would allow so of the personal animosities to cool and the edit wars to be forgotten. However, a year seems excessive. Try several months, and if he is still disruptive when he returns then we can quickly impose a longer penalty. - SimonP 01:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Using my privilege of jumping the comment queue: When will this motion be concluded? At seven-to-one for banning (with a couple abstentions), hasn't it carried? Should we not notify the Clerk and the Executioner? ➥the Epopt 01:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Outside comment: I believe you've finally gotten his undivided attention . --Calton | Talk 10:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it was posted by POTW (talk · contribs), not Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs). He was blocked, but AFAIK that block doesn't affect his ability to post at his userpage (so there was no reason to use a doppleganger account). Checkuser could verify if it's really him though. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

As a follow-up, it was determined by Kelly Martin (via CheckUser) that POTW (talk · contribs) was not Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs). The comment has since been removed, and POTW (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Outside comment: I strongly disagree with this action. It is troubling that Pigsonthewing's many positive contributions in December were first stated to be non-existant, then described as one by the Epopt, and then as only 'some' by Kelly. Information on his contributions is easily available, yet portrayed inaccurately here. If this action is to be justified it should be based on a factual record. The start of this descent into acrimony was a false accusation of Pigsonthewing having violated 3RR, which was used to cover an improper (Sysop powers must not be used to win a dispute about content) block and page protection solely based on a content dispute. Similarly inaccurate accusations should not be the end of it. The ridicule and indifference to justified complaints which Pigsonthewing has received from the admin community in general has been shameful. That does not serve to deny that his response has been equally bad, nor that his contributions prior to this mistreatment sometimes caused disruptions. Yes, his behaviour has been reprehensible... as bad as that of some of his detractors. However, had the admin community not mocked him for daring to complain about the original admin abuse, not repeatedly blocked him for the most specious of 'offenses', taken action to stop blatant harassment against him, or otherwise treated Pigsonthewing with basic fairness this situation might never have come to pass. If any action is to be taken here the previous arbitration should be fully re-opened so that both cause and effect may be considered. Or we could forgive Pigsonthewing his trespasses in hopes that he will then forgive ours (provided we stop making them). --CBD _☎ 16:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why the community should listen to him on the Administrator boards for his constant troll requests while he didn't listen or respond to his rfc or rfar. He contributes nothing but exasperation to all those he meets, basically trying to game the system to quash those who disagree with his views. Just look at his recent contribs, over 95% of them are basically just trolling around on other user pages and various areas in gathering ideas and support in trying to attack me. A year isn't enough, but it's a start, and who knows, CBD might be right in the opinion that there's something reedemable in POTW, I hope he is, but I sincerely doubt it for the foreseeable future. Regardless of whether there is or not, it has to be evident that he's turned over a new leaf and I could feel secure that he'd never drive another user to fear of using his own name as in the case of Leonig Mig (talk · contribs), before issues like this stop coming up. karmafist 18:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, facts? Are you mad? He's a bad boy who's made some bad enemies. Deprive him of cookies but he's certainly made good edits, as any impartial judge could see, were they bothered a/ with impartiality and b/ the truth. -- Grace Note.

Archives

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests (unofficial)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution