Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:50, 26 March 2005

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

• Arbitration policy
• Past case precedents
• Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
• Developer help needed
• Standing orders
• Arbitration template
• Contact the Arbitration Committee

Please place comments on the talk page, not here.

Structure of this page

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. Important points:

• Be brief. Put a quick list of the nature of the complaints. Place the request itself on this page, rather than a subpage, but if you need to, link to detailed evidence in the standard template format elsewhere.
• You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person you lodge a complaint against. You should confirm this by providing diffs of the notification at the bottom of your complaint.
• Please sign and date at least your original submission with "~~~~."
• New requests to the top, please.

New requests

When adding new requests, please give them an appropriate title as well as a subsection for arbitrator's votes.

Rex071404 4 (and 216.153.214.94)

Last November, the Arbitration Committee resolved a proceeding against User:Rex071404 by ruling, inter alia, that he would be banned for four months from editing articles concerning U.S. politics. Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404#Remedies While that limited ban was in effect, he was allowed to contribute to other articles, but he made only three edits to articles (using his User:216.153.214.94 account), and two of those three were in violation of the ban: this edit to John Kerry and this one to Stolen Honor. (Rex began using the "216" account while his main account was involved in arbitration. At that time he tried to pretend that these accounts were held by two different people. , Thankfully, however, he has since admitted the truth. )

Once the limited four-month ban expired earlier this month, he returned. In only a few days, he's already compiled quite a record:

• He vandalized Neutrality's user page, deleting its entire contents and replacing them with "bite me" (). For this he was blocked for 24 hours for vandalism.
• After that block expired, he entered into a revert war on Killian documents. Under another provision of the ArbCom's ruling, he was still within the six-month period during which he was banned from reverting any article (decision, item 4.1). He violated this ban and, in fact, violated it so frequently that he picked up a second 24-hour block, this one for his 3RR violation on Killian documents.
• Soon after that block expired, he vandalized my user page and vandalized my talk page, in both instances blanking the page. (I didn't even rate a "bite me".)
• He then immediately returned to the Killian documents article. Apparently in a snit over not having gotten his way, he blanked the article and blanked its talk page.
• Neither that petty act of venting nor his previous block prevented him from resuming his edit warring on Killian documents. As a result, and because it was his second 3RR violation on the same article within a few days, he was blocked again, this time for 48 hours.
• Of course, even a single revert was a violation of the ArbCom's six-month ban, and he committed other such violations. See, for example, this edit to John Kerry, where Rex's edit summary ("restore edits") makes clear that it was a revert ().

I won't try to list all of Rex's insults and other offenses against Wikiquette. One that's noteworthy, however, is that, apparently because User:Gamaliel was the admin who blocked him, Rex retaliated by posted trolling comments to User talk:Gamaliel (, , ), as well as to other users' talk pages.

Mediation has not been attempted. Rex already knows that this conduct is unacceptable. I can't see what purpose would be served by mediation with regard to these offenses.

Rex's four-month partial ban and two 24-hour blocks in quick succession were insufficient to persuade him to follow the rules. He has now been blocked again for another 3RR violation, but he has not suffered any consequences for the vandalism of my user page and talk page, or for his blanking of Killian documents and its talk page, or for his reverts to other articles that didn't reach the 3RR level. More generally, it's obvious that we have here a definite and unrepentant problem user. These piecemeal blocks are inadequate. I ask the ArbCom to impose a more substantial remedy for Rex's repeated misconduct and violation of the ArbCom's ruling.

Prior proceedings:

• The RfAr styled "Rex071404" was resolved with the limited four-month ban and six-month revert ban mentioned above (Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404#Remedies).
• "Rex071404 2" was closed (subject to being reopened) when Rex became inactive (Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 2/Proposed decision#Motion to close).
• "Rex071404 3" was not accepted as a separate case by the ArbCom, but was merged into the pending case (Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 2/Evidence#Comments and votes by Arbitrators (0/1/0/2)).

Notification to user. I've left notice of this RfAr on both of Rex's talk pages. , Of course, Rex can't yet respond here, as he's still subject to his most recent short-term block. JamesMLane 06:58, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comments and votes by Arbitrators (1/0/2/0)

• Recuse; I have had very unpleasant dealings with this individual in the past. I urge in the strongest possible terms that my fellow Arbitrators accept this case. Neutrality 07:07, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Recuse; strongly agree with Neutrality. Ambi 10:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Accept to investigate apparent serious breaches of wikiquette and previous Arbcom rulings. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 16:12, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
• Accept ➥the Epopt 19:37, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Snowspinner

Statement by Grunt

I seek to open an arbitration case regarding Snowspinner. I do this for the following reasons:

1. several users (Anthony DiPierro, Netoholic, potentially Everyking, and others) have indicated ongoing disputes with this user; Snowspinner himself acknowledges this and attempted to file a request for arbitration against himself to this effect .
2. I have encountered evidence of revert warring during recent cases of the above:
   • User:Anthony DiPierro/Shawn Mikula - revert war involving usage of {{delete}} tag.
   • brief edit war involving a notice at Misplaced Pages:Requests for de-adminship
   • contributing to a revert war in progress regarding Sydney Hilton bombing

While I do not have a personal dispute with this user, I nonetheless invite the above users to contribute any evidence they feel may be relevant to Snowspinner's conduct in this respect. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 04:21, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

Statement by Everyking

Snowspinner seems to think his admin powers entitle him to do a great deal more than what most other admins, including myself, do. He seems also to have a belief in following his own common sense rather than policy, or at least where policy is ambiguous he simply takes it upon himself to act rather than deliberating and discussing matters—he believes rather strongly in the wisdom of his own "common sense" and warns those who disagree with him: "don't be a dick". I do not mean it as a personal attack, but rather simply an observation, when I say that he has something of an authoritarian mindset which I, just as a Wikipedian, find incompatible with some of our ideals here. I think it would be very helpful if the ArbCom would formally caution him against this sort of thing, because it has been provoking a lot of controversies, and an admin revote would probably not be a bad idea. Everyking 04:37, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Netoholic

After long consideration, I would begrudgingly like to join in this arbitration case. Please also consider:

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Snowspinner - recently created regarding his use of admin abilities, particularly the propensity for blocking wars and other blocking actions unsupported by established policies.
• User:Orthogonal/Snowspinner Time-line documents many similar issues. The dispute between these two did lead to a mediation attempt.
• Civility - Snowspinner's attitude is dismissive, condescending, and terse to the point of rudeness. This is especially true towards non-admins. Disagreements happen, but mis-labelling people as vandals or trolls is unproductive. Admins should be held to higher standards than non-admins.
• Value - When one person generates so much more "heat than light", that is, generates a lot activity and focuses energy away from the tasks at hand, action is needed. Snowspinner is not a major contributor to the encyclopedia portion of the project, and he distracts or runs off quite a few valuable ones. The net result is that the project is suffering overall.

-- Netoholic @ 04:45, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

E-mail from Xed

I recently recieved the following e-mail from Xed, who requested it be placed here, and present it here, verbatim. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 14:36, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

Grunt

I request that the following to be put on Snowspinners arbitration section.

I would agree with some of Netholics statements on Snowspinners arbitration - specifically:

1. "Snowspinner's attitude is dismissive, condescending, and turse to the point if rudeness. This is especially true towards non-admins."

2. "When one person generates so much more "heat than light", that is, generates a lot activity and focuses energy away from the tasks at hand, action is needed. Snowspinner is not a major contributor to the encyclopedia portion of the project, and he distracts or runs off quite a few valuable ones. The net result is that the project is suffering overall."

An example of number 2: Snowspinner sneers at this article during my arbitration: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Xed/draft5&oldid=11427976 ... as a "minor article edit" and said that he "failed to see the good contributions" of mine. He goes on to say it's "absurd" to claim that I do any good work.

A few days later he creates this article http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Steak_and_Blowjob_Day which he says is "notable"

Like he did with me, Snowspinner is using the arbitration process to settle personal scores and deliberately provoke his targets into reacting to him. Meanwhile, the arbitrators just sit on the sidelines. When will it stop? Are the arbitrators afraid that if they try to stop him he will go after them? There's a two-tier justice system on Misplaced Pages. What does an admin have to do to be de-admined? Sacrifice a small child?

If bullying admins like Snowspinner were blocked, then Misplaced Pages would be a much more co-operative place. Instead, admins refuse to have any sense of responsibility or accountability. Aggression is the natural result, with admins knowing they can goad ordinary users without being punished themselves. The encyclopaedia is being warped by the power politics. The modern everyone-can-edit philosophy is undermined by the archaic power structure.

Xed

Reply by Snowspinner

I appreciate this, first of all. Let me weigh in quickly on the evidence thus far. I think the edit war on the Mikula subpage was a reasonable and good faith interpretation of the policies as they existed at the time, unclarified as they were by arbitration policy. The issue at hand was also, notably, not unreasonable - that edit war was regarding the removal of a CSD tag. Even if it was not a candidate for speedy deletion, it was inappropriate for Anthony to be the one to remove it. This was thus not, I don't think, an edit war as such. The other two were. In the case of RFDA, I can only say that I was attempting to keep a misleading piece of "policy" from being implemented without discussion. In the case of the latter, I joined an edit war to keep a POV pusher in check. I explained my objections on the talk page.

I will also note that, although edit wars are considered harmful, so are protected pages. We tolerate both of them in certain circumstances - namely when the alternative is to allow a determined and uncompromising editor to railroad an article into a state where it would be harmed. Are they the optimal mode of interaction on Misplaced Pages? Of course not. But they are at times a necessary evil. Snowspinner 04:37, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: The orthogonal timeline should be taken in some context - orthogonal also compared me to the gestapo and referred to me as a jackbooted fascist, and was before the arbcom when he left the project. Snowspinner 05:05, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Re Neutrality's vote: I would be inclined to argue that Snowspinner's previous request implies an implicit lack of faith in the workability of previous forms of dispute resolution in this case. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 04:53, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

Agree. Snowspinner has refused to mediate with many of the people named here, and specifically in my case. -- Netoholic @ 04:56, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

There's been an RfC against me, though it was a bit muddled. It was originally exclusively about the issue with The Recycling Troll. Then it was expanded by Netoholic to cover everything under the sun. It may be more useful to start a new one - the current one has probably gotten most or all of the signatures that it's going to get. As for mediation, I am willing to mediate specific issues, but I am largely unwilling to mediate regarding my conduct as an administrator, as I think that's a rather larger issue than is suitable for one on one mediation, and that it's the sort of thing widespread community input is suitable for. The previous arbitration case raised by me was a response to an attempt to add counterclaims to a case that I thought was already going to be pretty crowded - the Everyking case. As it was already a case pending arbitration, I went to arbitration. I am perfectly content to be routed through other dispute resolution processes as well, including an RfC with an actual point, AN/I, or anywhere else, really. All in all, I'm pretty laid back about the whole thing. Snowspinner 05:02, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

As for mediation, I am willing to mediate specific issues I'd like to mediate with you over the specific issue of your taking up a campaign against me. anthony 警告 13:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As a note, this user is out of town until Thursday evening, and may or may not be responding quickly to things raised here. Snowspinner 05:19, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

I have requested mediation with this user, but he has so far refused. (in other words, I have tried earlier steps in dispute resolution). That said, I don't want to get involved in this case at this point. Once my arbitration is over, if this is accepted (and let's face it, it won't be), if I am not banned from the Misplaced Pages: namespace, then maybe I'd be willing to get involved. anthony 警告 12:06, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Footnote: I merged John Gohde's request in here because the MO behind the problems described appears to be roughly the same as those cited by other users. I'd suggest arbitrators voting on the case make it clear if this case should be opened as one or if his request should be split off and treated separately. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:51, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

It looks like Neutrality has split it again. To note, I agree with that move, because I have a wealth of counterclaims against John. Snowspinner 05:23, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

In response to Theresa, indeed, Everyking does make a number of points that are important, and I thank him for his reasonableness in phrasing them, although I think his proposal that I should go up for re-adminship is something of an overstatement, to say the least. Common sense is a dangerous thing. We can't do without it, but its inclusion in our decision making on Misplaced Pages will inevitably cause problems. I think that it is telling that every user objecting to my conduct here has previously been brought to the arbcom, and all but one were sanctioned. On the other hand, it is also telling that a variety of people who I consider to make good contributions to article topics ranging from alternative medicine to medieval history take issue with my conduct. Certainly, the people I talk to a lot on Misplaced Pages support me. Of course, one naturally gravitates towards people who are likely to agree with one. What does this mean? I don't really know. m:Common sense. Bunnies. Snowspinner 16:15, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

I am quite disappointed that the arbitrators are not accepting this case, which has demonstrated far more merit than many have in the past. I suspect strongly that there is some subtle bias, which is probably not the fault of the Arbitrators. I understand it is hard to look at someone like Snowspinner, who has been on the side against so many that have been sanctioned by this body, and now take action against him.

In order to help demonstrate there is some need here, I have begun a petition of those wishing to show Snowspinner's admin status should be re-evaluated. I am unsure what will become of it, and it was started only recently, but I draw your attention to it - Misplaced Pages:Requests for de-adminship/Snowspinner'. I believe that there will eventually be a number of editors in good standing who will sign it, and it may form the basis for opening this case, or another in the future. -- Netoholic @ 22:08, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)

Comments and votes by Arbitrators (0/5/1/0)

• Recuse (for filing the request, and not for past dealings with user). -- Grunt 🇪🇺 04:21, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
• Reject, try earlier steps in dispute resolution. Neutrality 04:39, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Reject. Ambi 13:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Reject, evidence of revert warring looks sparse, certainly not worthy of us looking at it. As for everything else, there's a lot of opinions but no actual evidence presented of any wrong doing. Having said that, Everyking's statement does make some points that Snowspinner should take on board and learn from. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 08:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Reject. The other interested parties above may note the John Gohde/Snowspinner case looks like going ahead, but I'd expect they'll need much better evidence and objections than I see above - David Gerard 10:59, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Reject ➥the Epopt 04:50, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Reject, for reasons already mentioned. →Raul654 18:12, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Requests for Clarification

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

User:Robert Blair

The ArbCom recently decided upon the case of Robert Blair.

Since that time, there has been a significant number of edits by anonymous users on pages that Blair regularly edited. Many of these edits resemble Blair's editing style, though I have not yet amassed firm evidence for ban evasion.

Please would the AC a) advise on what actions should be taken if ban evasion is suspected, and b) make any changes or additions to the final decision, as they see fit? Jakew 14:13, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

Comments by Arbitrators

• If a ban is evaded through use of a sockpuppet, the appropriate action is to indefinitely block the sockpuppet account and notify the arbcom such that the ban timer is reset. If such actions continue for an extended period of time, file a request with us. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 15:15, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
• Concur with Grunt. Could we get a sockpuppet check from David? Ambi 23:50, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Probably not - I can only check back a week. Would need dev assistance. In the meantime, shoot the sock - David Gerard 21:47, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Agree, admins should block socks as soon as they are sure about them. Non admins should post any evidence they have (such as editing styles) on WP:AN/I so that an admin can take the necessary action. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 08:52, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Shoot the socks on sight, sanity-check with WP:AN/I. Robert Blair's editing style is, uh, pretty distinctive - David Gerard 10:59, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Iasson and User:Faethon

(CC to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Iasson)

There is currently an injunction in place against User:Iasson forbidding him from editing any deletion-related article.

Does this injunction also apply to User:Faethon and his sockpuppets? Faethon is still claiming to be a separate entity from Iasson. User:Aeropus II of Macedon (A Faethon sockpuppet) made an anonymous vote on Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/The Tetragrammaton in the Bible , and is apparently using, as his defense, the fact that he is not User:Iasson to get around the injunction. history

For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar behavior they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets. Although I contend that Faethon et al display similar behaviour to Iasson, I would like to ask for arbitrator clarification to see if the injunction also applies to the Faethon accounts, and to the Acestorides & the List of Greeks accounts. --Deathphoenix 20:19, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This may be a moot point now because User:Aeropus II of Macedon is blocked for being a public account. --Deathphoenix 23:33, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comments by arbitrators

• I see it's currently in play on WP:AN/I. If it's not seriously disputed, common sense (the identical behaviour, the public account status) would be enough for shooting on sight to be reasonable action in good faith IMO - David Gerard 17:55, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Matters currently in Arbitration

/Template

• /GRider - Accepted with five votes on 26 March 2005. Evidence to /GRider/Evidence, please.
• /John Gohde v. Snowspinner - Accepted with five votes and two recusals on 26 March 2005. Evidence to /John Gohde v. Snowspinner/Evidence, please.
• /RJII - Accepted with six votes and two rejections on 23 March 2005. Evidence to /RJII/Evidence, please.
• /William M. Connolley - Accepted with four votes and four rejections on 22 March 2005. Evidence to /William M. Connolley/Evidence, please.
• /Everyking 2 - Accepted with four votes and one recusal on 20 March 2005. Evidence to /Everyking 2/Evidence, please.
• /Iasson - Accepted with six votes on 20 March 2005. Evidence to /Iasson/Evidence, please.
• /Netoholic 2 - Accepted with four votes and three recusals on 20 March 2005. Evidence to /Netoholic 2/Evidence, please.
• /Dr Zen - Accepted with five votes and three recusals on 10 March 2005. Evidence to /Dr Zen/Evidence, please.
• /WHEELER - Accepted with six votes on 9 March 2005. Evidence to /WHEELER/Evidence, please.
• /172 2 - Accepted with four votes, one rejection and four recusals on 6 March 2005. Evidence to /172 2/Evidence, please.
• /Baku Ibne et. al. - Accepted with four votes on 4 March 2005. Evidence to /Baku Ibne et. al./Evidence, please.
• /Anthony DiPierro 2 -

  Request by Snowspinner: Accepted with four votes and 5 recusals on 26 February 2005.

  Request by Raul654: Accepted and merged with five votes on 2 March 2005. Evidence to /Anthony DiPierro 2/Evidence, please.

• /RK 2 - Accepted with five votes and one recusal on 16 February 2005. Evidence to /RK 2/Evidence, please.

Please also see Template:ArbComCases.

Archives

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution