Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:35, 10 March 2007

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

• WP:RFAR
• WP:A/R
• WP:ARB/R
• WP:ARBREQ

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Misplaced Pages. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

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

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/How-to

Current requests

Request to Review Article John Bambenek and permanent de facto censorship of the topic

Initiated by Echo16 at 03:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

N/A

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Echo16

The article John Bambenek has been the subject of several AfD's and DRV's. It's the belief that this article was deleted based on a political grudge, not because of any sincere effort to determine notability. Now, any mention of John Bambenek will be removed from Misplaced Pages and the poster will be banned. This INCLUDES attempts to review if the article should be recreated. It is the belief of this poster that the article is being censored because of his negative writing on Misplaced Pages (see Press Coverage for Jan.). Other avenues to address this have failed because accounts are immediately deleted and all attempts to deal with this are deleted. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/John Bambenek also.

Statement by JzG

You certainly can't say we have failed to debate this one:

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John Bambenek (3 January 2006, keep)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John Bambenek (2nd nomination) (8 March 2006, delete)
• Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 March) (15 March 2006, endorse deletion)
• Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November) (19 November 2006, endorse deletion)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John C. A. Bambenek (3rd nomination) (31 December 2006, delete)
• Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 4 (9 March 2007, deletion endorsed)
• Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 18 (24 December 2006, relisted at AfD)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John C. A. Bambenek (3rd nomination) (31 December 2006, delete)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jbamb shows that Bambenek sockpuppeted in favour of his article, so the single purpose account Echo16 (talk · contribs) who raised this request may well be Bambenek. Numerous similar accounts ahve popped up along the way. This and blanking and restarting Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/John Bambenek (which I have now restored to its May 2006 status and marked as inactive) appear to be his sole edits. In any case, there is no issue of user conduct to arbitrate, unless ArbCom wants ot formally endorse an indefinite ban of Bambenek and his sockpuppets due to chronic disruption. Guy (Help!) 10:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Reject; this appears to be more of a content issue (whether or not the article should remain deleted or not), and has undergone, from what I see, the proper processes already. (The RfC is also in progress, in any case, with one comment so far, pointing to the DRV.) Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Request to review indefinite block of User:BabyDweezil

Initiated by BabyDweezil at 03:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• BabyDweezil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cberlet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Smeelgova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• SlimVirgin
• CBerlet
• Smeelgova

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• This is the community review of the ban here. Navou / _contribs 03:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by BabyDweezil (revised)

I am requesting a review and relief from the current indefinite ban I have been put under and an examination of the activities of the involved parties named here—in particular Cberlet and SlimVirgin—in bringing this ban to pass. I have recently returned from a one week block, stemming from edit wars that took place in articles related to Scientology.] I had edited articles rife with WP:NPOV,WP:RS, WP:V etc issues, but came up against intransigent edit warriors and reverters, most notably, Smee (some examples here]here]/ ], here]/ ], here], here] (resolved here] after I posted to BLP board). I (& some others) felt the penalties were less than fair; I accepted them and returned to editing resolved to not allow myself to be provoked into 3RR violations and the like. However, in response to a single posting of mine,] inresponse to a personally abusive noticeboard posting by Cberlet, SlimVirgin silenced me with a block, and then instituted an indefinite block proceeding] that effectively retried me for the issues already ruled on, based solely on a single response to a personal attack by Cberlet, all of which I was effectively blocked from responding to.

From about September 2006 through this January, Chip Berlet, Dennis King and myself were heavily, and often contentiously involved in editing the Fred Newman entry, for which I had requested a peer review] as well as informal arbitration. Cberlet became involved in the course of my providing balance, and dozens of reliable sources to the article, and began inserting claims from his own work, forcing into the article as many variations of his demonstrably minority POV “cult” claims. I endured months of unrelenting personal attacks from Chip, who regularly referred to me as a "cult apologist," "totalitarian Orwellian sanitizer" and the like. I basically pleaded with SlimVirgin, who had intervened in defense of Cberlet (and admitted at the time that she knew nothing of the issues and accepted prima facie Berlet's characterization of my being a "cult editor") to provide me relief from Cberlet's incessant, unrelenting cult baiting and abuse.]. She would not help, and continued, and continues to enable these attacks while penalizing responses to them, and apparently still accepts Berlet's cult baiting as fact, rather than personal attacks based on his hostile POV. I note also that the Fred Newman article currently contains SIXTEEN paragraphs directly referencing Berlet’s claims and THIRTY-ONE paragraphs relating to the charges in general; my contribution has been largely to provide balance to this flood of largely fringe criticism. Yet Cberlet claims that somehow my editing of articles such as Fred Newman has left them wildly unbalanced and uncritical.
Late in February, Smee created the article Clouds Blur the Rainbow, about a 1987 Berlet pamphlet attacking Nwman, Lenora Fulani, et al as “totalitarian cultists.” I began editing that article, which had some serious errors (including characterizing the report as a “book.” Smee immediately began edit warring, and falsely accusing me of inventing quotes from sources I supplied etc. Berlet then entered, accusing me of “incompetent research” (my publication dates for this obscure publication were reversed and I missed that a journal version dated Sept/Oct 1987 was not mailed until Nov 1988). Cberlet then filed a complaint on the COI noticeboard (referenced above), calling for my banning, without notifying me (though quietly notifying SlimVirgin), and referring to me (yet again) as an “uncritical supporter” of a “political cult.” SlimVirgin began the proceedings that quickly resulted in my indefinite ban, arrived at in a discussion I was unable to respond to due to the ban, amounting to a “piling on” while I was silenced. Smee began burying material from the Talk Page of the article directly relevant to my case, relenting only after an admin’s intervention.

I do regret the intemperate characterization of Berlet as a “paid propagandist” (rather than ““paid writer”) for the politically partisan publishers of his report). I apologize for my strong tone (provoked as I was by the notice, the circumstances of its posting, and the perceived attacks on myself that I was in it). I do not think my response has warranted such a strong penalty, and likewise, I feel that rehashing all the previous issues (for which penaties were served) is unfair. Thank you for your attention. BabyDweezil 20:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Replies by BabyDweezil to Smee moved

• Smee, please indicate where in my "tirade" I violated WP:NPA. You are the main editor showering admins and user pages with that accusation against me; now is your chance to elaborate in an open forum. BabyDweezil 04:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Thank you, Smee, I'll take your refusal to respond to my request that you elaborate in this forum on your charge that I violated WP:NPA in my arbitration request to simply be just another of your string of similar charges against me, which upon examination always turn out to be frivolous. BabyDweezil 04:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Smee, with regards to my arbitration request, you claim above that"in the above tirade the user continues to violate WP:NPA". I've asked you repeatedly to indicate how. You refuse. Please note, your ongoing habit of making serially false complaints against me—which are no small factor in the penalties I have suffered—is why I included you in the arbitration, so that the committee can get a first hand look at how you operate and your incessant attempts at poisoning attitudes towards particular fellow editors, basically because they disagree with you and have corrected some of your errors. BabyDweezil 15:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• No, Smee, I asked you to provide a basis for your statement above "in the above tirade the user continues to violate WP:NPA" You are the one "turning this into a point-counterpoint," by refusing to provide that basis. I'm suggesting you don't have one, and thus, once again, (and as you have been doing for weeks all over Misplaced Pages) you have falsely accused me of violating WP:NPA. BabyDweezil 15:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by SlimVirgin

BabyDweezil seems to be a follower of Fred Newman, a Marxist psychotherapist who founded the International Workers Party and New Alliance Party, and who was briefly involved with Lyndon LaRouche. A 1987 report by Chip Berlet referred to Newman's therapeutic methods as "totalitarian cultism" (Berlet, Chip. "Institutes for Social Therapy and Totalitarian Cultism" from Clouds Blur the Rainbow, Public Eye, Political Research Associates, 1987).

In her support of Newman, BabyD has engaged in violations of WP:ATT and WP:BLP, frequent personal attacks, withering sarcasm, and allegations that other editors are spies and propagandists, or that admins who don't agree with her are corrupt and vindictive. The result is that talk pages she posts on become toxic and practically useless.

I first encountered her on October 8, 2006, when I was asked to look at Fred Newman because of an edit war between BabyD, Chip Berlet, and some others, which seemed to be caused by Baby adding her own opinions. I protected, and asked on talk whether there were BLP issues (material unfair to Newman) because I felt there were a few in the lead and I wasn't happy protecting that version. I outlined my concerns here. BabyD also raised some concerns. The whole discussion is here. I unprotected on October 12 to allow the BLP issues to be fixed. I next encountered BabyD on November 1, 2006 on the same page when she inserted a poorly sourced claim about a living critic of Newman's. I removed the claim and protected the page after she and another account restored it. I unprotected on November 3 when BabyD assured me she wouldn't restore it, although she continued to do so, and I had to threaten her with a block before she stopped.

That was the last direct contact I had with BabyD, but I could see from her interactions with other admins that she continued to cause trouble and was blocked eight times in 15 weeks for 3RR, edit warring, or personal attacks, often responding by accusing admins of acting vindictively against her, for example here. On February 16, BabyD posted a complaint on AN/I about Smeelgova (I can't get this link to go directly to the section; it's item six) to which almost everyone who responded pointed out that it was BabyD herself who was the problem. BabyD responded with personal attacks on all involved, and comments such as "Eeeek! help help!!! He's still stalking me, Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelp!!!!!" A few days later, Bishonen suggested a one-month block on AN/I, later reduced to one week, noting that BabyD spends her time "skilfully balancing on the very verge of being blocked for edit warring, for personal attacks, for disruption ... I'm very sure that the sum total of his/her impact on wikipedia is negative: that the poisoning of the atmosphere of talkpages, and the disturbance, annoyance, and sheer waste of time of other editors amply outweigh any good edits that may be hiding in some corner where I haven't looked."

Finally, on March 4, I saw this remark of BabyD's accusing one editor of being a "paid propagandist" and "paid partisan," and that editor and another of being "spooks." I decided to block her indefinitely because further warnings and temporary blocks were unlikely to make any difference. Her predictable response was that the block was vindictive and that her "paid propagandist" allegation had been "entirely accurate." I posted the block for review on WP:CN and it was supported by 12 other admins and editors. SlimVirgin 20:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Cberlet

• Uphold Community Ban I recognize that Arbcom has authority to review this decision, but feel that the ban was proper and issued only after repeated violations. I urge Arbcom to uphold the community ban.--Cberlet 18:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Smee

• Uphold Community Ban - All that I would say has already been said. Even in the above tirade the user continues to violate WP:NPA. For more information, see: Misplaced Pages:Community_noticeboard#Indefinite_block_of_User:BabyDweezil, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive206#BabyDweezil_redux:_proposing_a_one-month_block, and First thread on WP:ANI. The user is incorrect about what he perceives as "piling on." There is no cabal, only a highly disruptive user, and other concerned/frustrated editors/administrators who have given him many chances. Smee 04:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

I have said all that is needed to say in this space. I think it is fairly obvious, and if not, more info is better seen by examining the links I gave above. Smee 04:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

That is not the case. I have simply taken the tack that I do not wish to get into a hurtful back and forth with you, which in some cases in interaction with other editors has just brought on more personal attacks. I prefer to let your past history and links above speak for themselves. Smee 13:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

And this is exactly why I did not want to get into this here. You are turning this into a point-counterpoint, back and forth match of some sort, that I simply do not wish to be a party to. Other users have already commented on your style of personal attacks. Your other inappropriate behaviour is self-evident in the links provided and your history of blocks, as noted by others. And your personal attacks are not limited to myself, but to many of the other editors you encounter, and have been noted by them as such. Smee 15:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

I was not referring to myself in particular, simply your style of personal attacks all over the place. "intransigent edit warriors and reverters", your allegations about Chip: "battle into the article", your incorrect statements saying I had " falsely accusing me of inventing quotes", when all I was asking for was a correct citation, for a quote that did not exist in a source you provided, your allegations and interpretations of "piling on", and even your weak weak apology of using the term "paid propagandist", in which directly afterwards you state "an overly pejorative reference to his 25 year employment with the politically partisan publishers of his report", defending your reasoning of why you said that in the first place! Not to mention claiming that your reference to him as a "spook" was "benign and respectful". It seems that after virtually every "apology" you give, you act ever so more defensive: "I apologize for my strong tone (provoked as I was by the notice, the circumstances of its posting, and the perceived attacks on myself that I was in it)." You seem to only be able to communicate with others through using personal attacks and harsh language and tone. This is unprofessional, inappropriate, and disruptive. And that is putting it politely. Smee 16:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Comment by Cyde Weys

The ArbCom cannot get involved here. BabyDweezil has already been banned by the community at large, which is a stronger ban than even the ArbCom can administer. It is not within the ArbCom's jurisdiction to so go against the will of the community on this one. --Cyde Weys 14:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

We have jurisdiction. Whether it would be wise to exercise it is another matter. Fred Bauder 15:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Tsunami Butler

Although I think that it is probably true that BabyDweezil is something of a tendentious editor, some of the tactics she describes as being employed by her opponents deserve scrutiny by the ArbCom. I have seen the same disturbing pattern at other articles: Dking and Cberlet attempting to dominate article content through excessive self-citing, then moving to a tactic of speculating about the motives of editors who raise objections (in violation of AGF and NPA,) and finally calling upon SlimVirgin to ban their opponents. At the very least, Dking and Cberlet should be warned against further personal attacks, and SlimVirgin should be asked to recuse herself from using admin powers in content disputes initiated by Dking and Cberlet. She is clearly not acting as a neutral administrator in these situations. --Tsunami Butler 15:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

It is my understanding that community banned editors may appeal their ban to ArbCom. Indeed, it would be troubling if such appeal were not possible. As one of the three primary coauthors of the Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing guideline I'll affirm that BabyDweezil's block history is consistent with the profile of a disruptive editor and with past commuity bans. The discussion and closure were consistent with the guideline's present wording. My only involvement with this proposed case was at the ban discussion.

BabyDweezil does raise some interesting points that were not anticipated during the guideline's draft proposal phase. It may be worthwhile to augment either WP:DE or WP:BAN with a requirement to notify the editor in question of a ban discussion and provide that editor (if blocked) with some means of response. Community bans are a developing aspect of Misplaced Pages - WP:CN itself is a new noticeboard - and it's reasonable to implement some procedural refinements at this stage.

I leave it to the Committee whether to decide BabyDweezil might reasonably have expected any other outcome than sitebanning and whether community ban procedures should be refined by the community or via arbitration. Durova 18:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

To elaborate, this ban discussion had a normal number of participants for a community ban. BabyDweezil professes a desire for specific notification and an opportunity to comment. This proposed arbitration may merit a hearing on that basis although I have also provided the editor a community-based option for resolving this concern: shortly before the editor was unblocked for the purpose of appealing to ArbCom I offered to accept a statement via e-mail and to reopen the community discussion on that basis. BabyDweezil did not make use of my offer. Durova 03:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Durova, and the offer is appreciated; however, as explained above, I'm questioning the whole manner which brought about my being brought before the community at all this time around, and the behavior of those responsible for the bringing it about--issues that would not be addressed simply by reopening the community discussion (especially with the amount of well-poisoning that has transpired as a result of my participation and opportunity for response being denied). And a "normal number of participants" msy have weighed in, but a number of those were editors not disclosing their previous involvement, while others simply noted the block log history, with no sense of the level of hostility and concerted and coordinated edit warring, provocations, and hostility I often came up against when editing Scientology-related artciles in particular. BabyDweezil 04:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's easier for the arbitrators if you reply in your own section, BabyDweezil. Please strikethrough or add supplements rather than remove and alter text that I've already responded to. I strongly suggest you seek a mentor at WP:ADOPT.

Between mid-November and the community ban proposal this editor received eight blocks from six different administrators. It is highly unlikely that this type of block history would result from a few isolated incidents or administrative misjudgement. Both common sense and precedent make sitebanning a reasonable possibility under those circumstances. Durova 14:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

BabyDweezil has contacted me to explain that an ArbCom member had advised this editor to proceed solely with RFAR. In that case I understand the decision to open a request here. I don't know the reasons behind that and respectfully request to be advised (via e-mail if appropriate) whether it would be better for me to terminate my community-based alternative offer. Durova 21:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher131

I am recusing from clerking this case due to a previous disagreement with Cberlet over whether or not to take action against another editor who he was in a dispute with. I would like the Committee to look into Berlet's role in this case. He is named in the article Fred Newman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) several times as a "prominent critic", and his publication Clouds Blur the Rainbow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (about Newman) is cited as a source. Cberlet has extensively edited both articles. Obviously he knows a lot about both subjects. However, when does an obvious conflict of interest such as this cross the line into doing more harm than good? Thatcher131 21:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Anynobody

I met BabyDweezil while editing the Barbara Schwarz article. I first assumed her strong objections were out of concern for Ms. Schwarz's feelings. I have now been forced to the conclusion that this type of behavior may be more common than I thought. For the consideration of the WP:ARBCOM members and anyone interested I present these links as typical behavior by BabyDweezil on the Talk:Barbara Schwarz page. Talk:Barbara Schwarz/Archive 10#What's the point of this ridiculous, gratuitous article? Talk:Barbara Schwarz/Archive 10#What's this weird obsession with Schwarz all about anyway? Talk:Barbara Schwarz/Archive 10#Tilman--conflict of interest editing this article? Talk:Barbara Schwarz/Archive 10#Public service announcement for those apparently unable to access a dictionary... Talk:Barbara Schwarz/Archive 10#Tilman, time to recuse yourself per WP:COI I also feel I should say that an investigation of all editors involved is a great idea. While I personally think any incivility on the part of other editors toward BabyDweezil is a response to her attitude of the same, I would very much like to know how you feel the community responded to BabyDweezil. Thank you for your time, Anynobody 22:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply from BabyDweezil to Anynobody: Anynobody, thank you for posting those links, which I would be happy if WP:ARBCOM members took the time to peruse, not simply as examples of "typical behavior by BabyDweezil" but as an example of some "typical behavior" by the group of editors who guard that spiteful vengeful article--which exists only to have Misplaced Pages serve not as an encyclopedia but as an extension for some trivial Usenet madness--like hawks. BabyDweezil 23:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Per User:BabyDweezil, the user has been "nblocked to file a request for arbitration. Editing is limited to Requests for arbitration and her own pages. Fred Bauder 18:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)." Newyorkbrad 15:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Recused. Thatcher131 21:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Talkpage note left for BabyDweezil to please remove threaded discussion and reduce overall statement length promptly. Newyorkbrad 17:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/3/1/0)

• Accept to review conduct of all editors involved. Kirill Lokshin 18:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Decline. The available evidence would suggest that the community has only acted after a saint-like period of forebearance. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Decline, both on principle and on the specifics of the case. --jpgordon 00:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Accept to consider length of block and perhaps conflict of interest. Fred Bauder 05:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Decline for similar reasons to UC. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Accept per Kirill and Fred. Paul August ☎ 17:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. The ArbCom can properly look at any community ban; but not necessarily as a broad-based case. I don't think a community-banned user has that by right (I mean, to bring a blunderbuss against all admins and others who interacted with them). Charles Matthews 22:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• I'm going to recuse because of past involvement with one of the users. Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Requests for clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process. Place new requests at the top.

Appeal of probation

WP:RFAR/HWY was an arbitration case that placed me on probation in relation to highways articles because of a naming dispute that got ugly. However, not only have I refrained from disrupting the highways articles (except for one controversial block many months ago), but I have made over 13000 edits since that time. The naming dispute has also been satisfactorily resolved at WP:SRNC. Page moves have taken place, and there is peace at the highways section of Misplaced Pages. I have been influential in building the project infastructure (WP:USRD/NEWS, massive assessment of articles, infobox changes at WP:CASH, and much more). Thus, not as a license to disrupt articles, which I would not do under any circumstances, but as the removal of a blotch on my Misplaced Pages reputation, I am requesting the removal of my probation on Misplaced Pages. (Please make this motion separate from the other highways request below). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't involved with the Arbitration Committee back then, so looking at the past case quickly, it appears that there's no expiration for the probation, and that you were blocked in August 2006 for violation of this probation, as you mentioned above. Is this correct? Other arbitrators who were with the Committee then may also wish to comment here, since I'm not familiar with the case. Thanks. Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Recourse for unconfirmed credentials

In the depleted uranium case, I presented as evidence several recent articles from the peer-reviewed medical and scientific literature in support of my position, but my detractors, about six of whom claimed Ph.D. or M.D. credentials but were unwilling to verify those credentials or their identity, were unable to find any recent peer-reviewed reports counter to my positions, or even to even verify my own citations at their library. One or more of them were probably lying about their credentials. Almost any M.D. would, for example, have access to Athens or a similar full text database, or access to a reference librarian who does. Someone with a Ph.D. in metallurgy ought to have access to a library with J Phys Chem and similar journals from the 1960s. I see that Jimbo has proposed a new policy for verification of credentials, and I would like to challenge my detractors to verify their credentials in accordance with Jimbo's proposal. How may I do so? James S. 20:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as a non-arbitrator, there is no way to verify credentials at this time, and you're missing the point of Jimbo's message. It is not to, for example, force people you don't like to verify their identity or stop editing, nor is it to require such a degree in order to edit. Ral315 » 23:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages founder Jimmy Wales said ... that contributors still would be able to remain anonymous. But he said they should only be allowed to cite some professional expertise in a subject if those credentials have been verified." James S. 21:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This request is inappropriate, since it has nothing to do with the "arbitration process". Paul August ☎ 00:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, this is a very serious problem with the arbitration process. What is and isn't proper behavior (and responsible editing) often depends very much on the facts, and this is particularly true when editors make health claims about toxins. What if Dow Chemical wanted to get a half-dozen people to claim advanced degrees and go to work on Agent Orange, scrubbing it of peer-reviewed scientific literature as has been happening on the depleted uranium article? Shouldn't it be advisable and within the process for the arbitrators or parties to request proof of the advanced and medical degrees claimed, especially, as happened in the depleted uranium, when those degrees were assumed by the arbitrators to be real with no supporting evidence or even knowledge of the identities of those claiming the credentials? James S. 03:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That is only a proposal for consideration by the community and has not as of yet been adopted. It also does not have bearing on the results of your arbitration, and its findings and remedies will not be altered by this. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not? Do you think it is just to let stand findings which assumed the credentials were real without any evidence? When the proposal is adopted, I would like leave to raise this issue then. If that is not acceptable, then please let me know why. James S. 20:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Appeal of probation

In July of last year I was placed on probation as part of the decision in this RfA. I do not believe this decision was just, and I believe that the unusual indefinite length of this probation despite the fact that I have never been a disruptive editor and that no evidence was ever presented against me is arbitrary and unfair. Accordingly, I've chosen to abandon this account in the meantime rather than to tacitly accept the legitimacy of this unjust probation by continuing to edit with it. In October I sought to have this probation lifted but, perversely, my appeal was rejected because I hadn't been editing in the meantime. However, since that time I have been editing without incident as An Innocent Man, and I believe my contribution history there continues to demonstrate that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a disruptive user--and, incidentally, it should be noted that I have not been editing any of the articles I'm putatively enjoined from "disrupting," nor do I have even the slightest shred of a shadow of a desire to ever do so again as long as I live. I would therefore like to ask once again that this unjust probation be lifted.

I am familiar with the rules governing the use of alternate accounts, and I believe my use of this one falls within the bounds of acceptability. I only created it because the thought of using my normal account while I am subject to an unjust probation sickens me. My only intent here is to clear my good name. —phh (/_c) 13:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note An Innocent Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thatcher131 13:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Might want to log onto that account and make a diff saying that you and that account are the same for proof. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Voila! --An Innocent Man 17:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification of Derek Smart case

The recently closed ArbCom case for Derek Smart, found here had a number of findings related to sock puppets, single purpse accounts, and a decision regarding "surrogates" of Derek Smart.

I would like clarification from ArbCom on this case. Am I considered a "harmful SPA" with respect to this article? Am I considered a surrogate of Derek Smart?

In my defense, I would like to say that while I have a tendency to focus in on one article and stick with it, I am not a single-purpose account. A quick scan of my activity will show that I have pursued other articles besides this one (albeit following my self-described "one article at a time" habit). Furthermore, while editing this article I pushed no particular POV, sometimes making edits with content that reflected favorably on Smart and sometimes not. In the past I've been vocal in debate against SupremeCmdr and Warhawk/WarhawkSP. I think my position was best summarized by an anonymous respondant to the ArbCom case's workshop page, "Mael-num seems to me to be a neutral editor with a conservative view toward the negative aspects of the article subject's notability, who may have felt that after other editors had been banned from editing, there were potential troubles maintaining neutrality.". The consensus of other editors involved was that I was not working in collusion with SupremeCmdr et al. Which leads me to my request for clarification. Most important to me is that I would like to know that I am not seen as guilty of something I have not done. It's a matter of principle that I don't want to be seen as a sockpuppet, SPA, or POV-pusher. Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Mael-Num 03:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPA says that editing a small number of articles qualifies; and that this may be perfectly innocent. The general remedy speaks this way: Editors are encouraged to use judgment and discretion in enforcement of this remedy, rather than implementing it in a mechanical fashion. You may feel the finding of fact is harsh, but it is not now going to change. Charles Matthews 12:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

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

Archives

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests (extremely sparse, selective, and unofficial)

• Misplaced Pages arbitration
• Non-talk pages automatically signed by HagermanBot
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution
• Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee