Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:15, 7 November 2006 view sourceThatcher (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users28,287 edits →[]: opening← Previous edit Revision as of 14:57, 7 November 2006 view source Thatcher (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users28,287 edits →H. Elwood Gilliland: withdrawn, mooted by community banNext edit →
Line 217: Line 217:




=== H. Elwood Gilliland ===


: '''Initiated by ''' ] '''at''' 13:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

==== Involved parties ====

* ]
* {{Userlinks|Young Zaphod}} and his proven or suspected sockpuppets, including but not limited to ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ],], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]

; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
*

; Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried
* ]
* ]
* ]

==== Statement by ] ====

Someone assuming the name of H. Elwood Gilliland has used over 20 named sockpuppets and innumerable anonymous accounts to insert vanity references to "himself" and his projects in many articles. He has been most active in the ] and now-deleted ] article, but was active elsewhere as well. In the course of doing this, he has used multiple (proven by checkuser) sockpuppets to cast multiple votes on AfD comments, some of which influenced the outcome of the discussion. When his articles of choice are un-semiprotected, he edits them from anonymous IP addresses, some of which edits have left dispositive evidence as to the identity of the editor. When the articles are semi-protected, he uses registered accounts and avails himself of resources such as ] and ] to make the case that I am oppressing him. Applying my discretion, I had indicated to this user that while he is free to edit, he is not free to act disruptively and insert improperly sourced vanity references to himself, and have applied blocks until he indicates that he will stop. Since I have now substantively edited the ] article, where previously I was only acting in an administrative capacity, I'm no longer comfortable continuing in that manner, and feel that this should go before the Arbcom or the community. ] 13:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

===== Request to suspend =====

Given the arbitrator's suggestions, and that a community ban seems acceptable to the admin community (based on the WP:AN thread), I'd like to suspend this request and spare the arbcom having to deal with this. ] 12:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

==== Statement by FloNight ====
See thread about community ban.
] ] 00:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
==== Statement by {write party's name here} ====

: (Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

==== Clerk notes ====
:Four of the 5 arbitrators voted to accept if there was no community ban. As there is support for a community ban on the noticeboard and Nandesuka has asked to moot the case, I would like to close the request as withdrawn 24 hours from now unless an arbitrator objects. ] 14:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

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

*Accept. ] 15:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
*<s>Why can't we just block on sight? (And we don't already?) Does this really need an arbitration case? ]·] 00:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)</s> Reject, since there is now considerable support for a community ban on ]. ]·] 23:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
*Accept, unless a community ban can be instituted, which, frankly, would be preferred. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 20:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
*Likewise, accept, but if the community could get around to just banning them themselves, that would be great. Seems very clear-cut. ] (]:]) 02:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
*Accept while endorsing potential community ban ] 13:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
*Accept if ban not accepted, as above. ] ] 03:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
----


=== ] === === ] ===

Revision as of 14:57, 7 November 2006

Shortcut
  • ]

A 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 (ArbCom).

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 10 January 2025

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. If your case is accepted for arbitration, the arbitrator or clerk will create an evidence page that you can use to provide more detail. 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. Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after four net accept votes are cast; that is, four more accept than reject votes. When a case is opened, a notice that includes a link to a newly created evidence page will be posted to each participant's talk page. See the Requests section of the arbitration policy page for details. "Recuse" means that an Arbitrator has excused themselves from a case because of a possible, or perceived, conflict of interest. Cases which have not met the acceptance criteria after 10 days will be removed from this page.

This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Please do not open cases; only an Arbitrator or Clerk may do so.

See also


Purge the server cache


How to list cases

Under the Current requests section below:

  • Click the "" tab on the right of the screen appearing above the section break line;
  • 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

Iran-Iraq War

Initiated by ^demon at 23:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

Previous attempts at dispute resolution:

Request for Mediation which was Rejected by myself today.

Statement by ^demon

Copied+pasted from my rejection of the RfM:

Reject: I was going to notify the two non-signing parties that they needed to sign in order for Mediation to continue, but upon an inspection of Marmoulak's talk page, I came across this section. The comment made by Marky48 (diff), with the edit summary of "Say goodnight Dick," followed by his second comment lead me to believe he is not sincere in mediation, and merely wishes to impose punishment upon those disagreeing with him. For these grounds, I am rejecting mediation, as I feel it will not be conductive. I hereby refer the case to the ArbCom for a binding resolution.

Statement by {write party's name here}

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Comment from Uninvolved User Newyorkbrad

Based on the types of comments the arbitrators have made in other cases recently, I think they are likely to request more specific evidence that there is a problem with this article and the user conduct relating to it, including specific diffs, before they can consider accepting the case for arbitration. The diffs above and in the mediation request reflect some incivility, but do not yet establish problems at the level that usually lead ArbCom to accept a case. I'm just putting this here to save some time if the initiator of the case or anyone else want to post additional information before the arbitrators start commenting/voting. Newyorkbrad 01:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

Israeli POV

Initiated by Carbonate at 03:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Carbonate 03:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

As first party, you may feel tempted to add a summary here. If you do, make it a single sentence of not more than twenty words. Please make your case in your statement.

Statement by User:Carbonate

User:Isarig has accused me of numerous things including POV, SOAPBOX and OR while engaging in those very acts or requiring them for any compromise. Requests for mediation have been refused and any reasonable dialog has come from the neutral 3rd parties. The page in dispute was finally locked by an admin that is also pro-israeli after it was again reverted to exclude the chart in question. The comment on the lock was "work it out in talk" despite a refusal for any compromise in talk and a refusal to mediate. Although Isarig has not commited 3RR violations, other pro-israeli editors conviently show up when 3RR has been exhausted.

Requested evidence of edit waring

I would also like to add that no compromise was reached despite efforts by CP/M of Misplaced Pages Neutrality Project who made suggestions of which most (if not all) of the initial ones were implemented in the current version. After these initial changes were made, Isarig continued to revert at which point I filed for mediation. Almost five days passed before a response was made by Isarig or Tewfik to the medation and they pointed to further suggestions by CP/M which were found to be unacceptable by everyone else as compromise that was imminent and refused mediation on that basis.

Isarig also fails to mention in his statement that the numbers he wants included are contested as WP:RS in this and other articles which he is participating in an edit war. .

Statement by {Isarig}

I have not refused mediation. At the time mediation was proposed, a compromise was reached by the editors who participated in the content dispute, so there was no point in mediating it. Carbonate was the only one who refused that compromise. The POV nature of the chart he insists on adding is explained in detail on the Talk page. In short, a Pie chart can inherently present only one set of numbers, while there are multiple such sets in this case, and Carbonate insists on using just one set, and has explicitly admitted that set discounts the claims of one side.

Statement by Elizmr

I agree with the statement by Isarig above. Elizmr 22:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved party) JoshuaZ

This is largely a content dispute and in any event has not gone through any prior dispute resolution. JoshuaZ 04:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement by (not listed party) Amoruso

I agree with the statement by Isarig above. Amoruso 06:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Tewfik

In Talk:Casualties of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict#Compromise suggestion, CP\M suggested a compromise that was accepted by all parties (from both sides of the discussion) except for Carbonate, which is why the mediation opened then was deemed unnecessary. If mediation is felt to still be necessary, so be it, but the proper avenues of dispute resolution are far from being exausted. Tewfik 06:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Nielswik

I agree with Carbonat --Nielswik(talk) 11:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

Will Smith web site

Initiated by Mary888 at 11:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

HawkerTyphoon is aware of the request.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Nature of the conflict:is it possible to mention the fansite www.jazzyjefffreshprince.com as one major fansite about Will Smith in the external links?

Statement by Mary888

HawkerTyphoon suppresses constantly the link www.jazzyjefffreshprince.com that I add as one major fansite about Will Smith in the external links qualifying me of "spammer"! However, the website I mention is one major fansite about Will Smith(it's even THE major fansite). Why?

Because:

  • it's very informative (updates every day-I would say every minute-)
  • the forum has 1550 registered members(and there are more than 150 000 posts): the forum has the more members among all the will smith fansites!
  • the first will smith podcast in the world that can give you the latest news is...: http://www.jazzyjefffreshprince.com/multimedia/will-smith-podcast.htm
  • the site exists since 10 years (a proof of seriousness)

HawkerTyphoon has, according to me, bad arguments:

  • he wants me to prove it's a major fansite USING RELIABLE SOURCES but using reliable sources makes sense for proving some facts in the content of an article BUT there are no reliable sources for proving that a fansite is one of the best because it's an opinion...
  • he says I have to prove it's the biggest but the rule says:If there are many fansites for the topic covered by the article, then providing a link to one major fansite (and marking the link as such) may be appropriate.
  • in addition, he says "Links intended to promote a site, especially if that site's primary purpose is to advertise or sell products or services, or if the site requires payment to view the relevant content. This is colloquially known as external link spamming. ". But the very very very first primary purpose of the site www.jazzyjefffreshprince.com is giving informations! And here is what you can read when you click on "store":"Order the Jazzy Jeff & Fresh Prince Forever T-Shirt Now! Only a 100 of these will be available so be quick! This is a special limited edition T-Shirt to celebrate 20 years of Jazzy Jeff & Fresh Prince."

It's not a commercial site!!!

Statement by HawkerTyphoon (talk · contribs)

I'd like first state that I think an RfA is a bit much. Myself and one or two other editors have consistently requested a reason for the site to be included, and have been consistently told that we don't need a reason, because it's a "major fansite". When we ask for proof of this, we get told that we don't need it. Mary888 is a single-purpose account so far - and has only been editing regarding the entry of the fansite into Misplaced Pages. I am happy to include the fansite - when we get proof, one way or the other that:

  1. It's a major fansite
  2. It's got a reason to be included over all of the other fansites

HawkerTyphoon 17:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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



USER:Cbuhl79

Initiated by Blaxthos at 18:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

Primary Parties

Witnesses

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
Summary

USER:Cbuhl79 has continually abused Misplaced Pages policies and misapplied templates, admittedly out of spite. In-progress detailed info may be found at USER:blaxthos/RfARB_Cbuhl79.

Statement by complaintant Blaxthos

After one successful RfC user cbuhl79 immediately called for a second RfC on the same content, attempting to find other policies (WP:WEASEL, WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS) to use to effect changes he deemed necessary (wikilawyering). Cbuhl79 then made several unilateral changes (defying complete consensus) and possibly violated WP:3RR in the process. Cbuhl79 went to several places to try and solicit support (policy talk pages, uninvolved user pages, etc.), but was unable to find any editors who agreed with him. After the second RfC failed, user initiated a malformed RfARB, and on talk pages he admitted to continuing the conflict because he didn't like another user's conduct (me). The ArbCom summarily rejected his request, and Cbuhl79 was asked to let the issue die. User Cbuhl79 then went to my userspace and my talkspace and applied WP:NPA templates, without giving any examples of such (because they do not exist). This seems a very blatant abuse of wikipedia policies. I request the ArbCom to review this case -- if accepted I will provide a detailed timeline (with examples) of countless violations by Cbuhl79. /Blaxthos 18:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Addendum - I just discovered that cbuhl79 also misreported me to the WP:NPA noticeboard, further abusing WP:AGF as well as violating the proper protocol (just as he did with his RfARB). This only makes the case seem that much more serious. /Blaxthos 19:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Cbuhl79

I am not opposed to arbitration in this case to examine my own behavior and that of Blaxthos. This user has repeatedly and in bad faith accused me of vague policy violations instead of discussing content.

During a content discussion, Blaxthos explicitly stated that he did not believe I was acting in good faith based on the totally unfounded assertion that I was trying keep a statement out of an introduction. From this point on, the user has continually attempted to squelch any further attempts I have made to discuss the issue by repeatedly accusing me of violating Misplaced Pages policies . He has also made rude remarks to other editors who were previously uninvolved in the discussion (note the edit summary) . He repeatedly rebuffed every attempt at discussion by other (previously uninvolved) editors by telling them I was violating numerous policies, and advising them to read the entire discussion to see evidence. At least one editor did, and thought that I was acting in good faith .

I filed my earlier WP:RFARB thinking that the Arbitrators could rule on the content dispute, and also on the behavior of this editor. The RfARB was rejected on the basis of it being a content dispute. One of the Arbitrators advised that I seek help from admins on the behavior before trying arbitration.

I went to the NPA message board to make a post about his behavior. After posting, I realized that I should have put an NPA template on his user page as a first step. Note that I removed my post from the NPA board less than a minute later, placed the NPA template on his page, and indicated that I was willing to let the matter end.

Also note that I only made content changes after several other editors agreed. Note also that Blaxthos restricted his notification of this RfARB only to editors who explicitly agreed with his position on content of this RfARB. This is significant because he earlier found it appopriate to notify numerous users of my RfARB and suggested I was somehow hiding the RfARB Cbuhl79 20:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Witness Ramsquire(talk)

First, let me state that I am hesitant to question the good faith of any editor on this project. However, I must admit that Cbuhl, actions for the past weeks has frustrated me and left me perplexed. From his wikilawyering, to his refusal to listen to the explanations given by other editors, he has truly stretched the limits of good faith. That being said, sometimes newer users to this project often misunderstand certain concepts like "there are no rules" and the fact this is a community project. I believe Cbuhl just needs guidance on how this project works. Perhaps a reprimand here by the ArbCom would be sufficient. Placing a false NPA warning on a user's talk page, and violating Blaxthos userspace should not "just die". Especially when the user is insistent to use Wiki policies as a sword. Ramsquire 17:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Addendum to my earlier statement I just want to make clear that I would support some community action against Cbuhl based on his violations on Blaxthos's userspace, and the improper placing of warning tags. Taken together with his abuse of good faith of editors discussed above (namely me), these actions show a user who will violate the spirits of all Wiki rules, to make a point. Such an attitude is harmful to the community here. When I stated Cbuhl's needed guidance, I meant in the form of some sort of official action, and only suggested an ArbCom reprimand. However, something should be done with this user. Ramsquire 00:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Witness AuburnPilot

What started as a simple content dispute, soon became a referendum on one editor's behavior. As the dispute went on, all editors involved in the RfC came to an agreement; however, Cbuhl79 refused to accept that consensus. While consensus can change, Cbuhl initiated a second RfC just hours after the first was closed, very much in bad faith. Attempting to continue a resolved dispute, s/he grasped for any policy or guideline s/he could find to back up his/her position. While that in itself is not bad faith, after numerous editors explained why WP:NPOV was not being violated, and that WP:WEASEL is a guideline that doesn't always apply perfectly, Cbhul continued this dispute, engaging several uninvolved editors via the WP:WEASEL talk page and their individual talk pages. On top of this unending refusal to accept consensus, Cbuhl initiated a Request for Arbitration that s/he has admitted was only to make a point due to another editor's behavior. This easily could have been brushed off as a new user misunderstanding policy, but Cbhul interprets policy in what ever way seems to fit his/her position. Cbhul has even placed inappropriate warning templates on Blaxthos's user and user talk pages, which shows a clear misunderstanding of policy by an established, but misguided user. -- AuburnPilot 18:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Witness Gamaliel

The dispute at the article is (I hope) concluded but the underlying behavior of this user remains a potential future problem and should be dealt with appropriately. Gamaliel 23:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/2/0/0)

Requests for clarification

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


Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Highways - request reexamination of probation ruling

I'm told this is the appropriate place to come for this appeal. In July, I was placed on probation as part of the decision in this RfA. I do not believe this decision was just, and I have chosen not to participate as an editor at Misplaced Pages rather than continue editing while subject to an unjust probation. In the nearly four months since that decision, I believe, subsequent events have demonstrated rather starkly that arbitrator Fred Bauder's initial assessment of the cause of the dispute was correct, and that JohnnyBGood, Rschen7754, and I should never have been placed on probation in relation to this matter. In addition, the underlying dispute has been harmoniously resolved, which suggests that the need for probation, assuming such need ever existed in the first place, has now ended. Accordingly, I request that this probation be formally lifted. Thank you. —phh (/c) 01:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Motion made at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration.2FHighways.23Probation. Fred Bauder 20:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


In response to the points below: a) JohnnyBGood just left the project, leaving at least a few months of good behavior behind him (from July until now). b) My block was controversial, but if my probation is not lifted for a while because of it I will understand; however it should not reflect poorly on the other editors. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche

User:SlimVirgin reverted this edit by 172.194.169.47, with no editing memo explanation. I didn't see the need to do that, so I put the external link back in this edit. SlimVirgin then left a message on my talk page implying that I could be blocked for doing so. I asked for clarification as to whether she was threatening me with a block, and she replied with these words.

I don't plan to replace the external link on the Lyndon LaRouche article, but I would like to know whether SlimVirgin is accurately describing the Arbitration Committee ruling, and whether it really applies to an external link on the Lyndon LaRouche article. There are about 19 footnotes and external links to LaRouche websites on the Lyndon LaRouche article. Are they all forbidden by the Arbitration ruling as well? If not, what makes this particular link different? Please post your answer at Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche#Policy_Question so that other editors will be aware of it. Thanks in advance for your time. --ManEatingDonut 22:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin may have been confused. The relevant ArbCom ruling, in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche, states:
  • Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Misplaced Pages article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles.
Thus, LaRouche sources may be used for LaRouche articles. However the link that was added was not relevant to the biography of Lyndon LaRouche, and should haev been remoevd for that reason, not for violating this ruling. -Will Beback 03:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
First, for the benefit of the ArbCom, the issue is that the LaRouche publication ManEatingDonut wanted to link to was about a living person.
Will, I would interpret the ArbCom rulings as meaning that LaRouche publications may not be used as sources about third parties, regardless of whether it's in articles about LaRouche or elsewhere. (There's the ruling you quoted, and there was mention of the issue during a case involving Chip and again in relation to Cognition, but I'd have to search for them.) ArbCom apart, the content policies indicate that LaRouche publications may only be used in articles about the LaRouche movement to make points about that movement, and may not be used as third-party sources, whether in articles about LaRouche or anywhere else. The relevant policies are WP:BLP and WP:V. The latter says that sources of dubious reliability — defined as "sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight" — may be used in articles about themselves so long as the material "does not involve claims about third parties ..." SlimVirgin 07:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • SlimVirgin is correct here. The ban on LaRouche publications being used for any other subject than LaRouche and related subjects includes attempts to get around it by talking about other people on the LaRouche articles. LaRouche publications are useful sources about LaRouche's views about LaRouche himself and his organisations / affiliated parties, but are not acceptable sources about anyone or anything else. Will Beback is also correct that in any case the link given was not on topic for the article and thus deletable anyway. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


I have looked over the article in question (the one that was the target of the external link) and it appears to me that it is entirely "relevant to the biography of Lyndon LaRouche." It discusses many of LaRouche's various campaigns and issues. It is mainly a rebuttal of the theories of Berlet, theories which dominate most of the Misplaced Pages articles on LaRouche. But I am mainly interested in a precise clarification of what the Arbitration ruling means, because I have seen Berlet threaten other editors with this ruling as well (see Talk:National_Caucus_of_Labor_Committees#Disputed.) Perhaps there should be clarification on this example as well. The edit that appears to have provoked the threat is here. --ManEatingDonut 15:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The material on the external link mainly concerned Chip Berlet, not LaRouche, thus removal was appropriate. Fred Bauder 20:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There is an additional issue that was under consideration in the first LaRouche case - the fact that LaRouche organizations publish an extremely large amount, responding to all criticisms. Excessive citation of this material when describing controversies surrounding LaRouche leaves the mistaken sense of giving LaRouche the "last word" in every dispute. Phil Sandifer 23:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses, but may I also ask whether there was something wrong with this edit referred to above? --ManEatingDonut 06:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Seems OK, perhaps I'm missing something though. Fred Bauder 18:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)


Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways#Probation

Moved that JohnnyBGood, Rschen7754, and PHenry be removed from the probation imposed at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways#Probation. Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways#Log_of_blocks_and_bans shows that only SPUI continues disruption with respect to highway names. Fred Bauder 20:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. That the probation is alleged to be failing in regards to SPUI does not appear to be a good argument to remove it for the precise editors it appears to be succeeding for. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. PHenry and JohnnyBGood both left the project. That doesn't demonstrate good behavior, even though they may have empty block logs. Rschen does have a block for violation. Dmcdevit·t 08:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:

Archives

Category: