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 01:57, 30 April 2006 view sourceTony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 edits →Statement by []: has the appearance of disputed content (and perhaps a rather contentious edit war) rather than vandalism← Previous edit Revision as of 05:19, 30 April 2006 view source Daddy Kindsoul (talk | contribs)19,776 edits →Statement by party 2Next edit →
Line 82: Line 82:
Now his block has expired, Deathrocker has been watching Leyasu, accusing him/her of sockpuppetry (], ]), which has regenerated this argument. This is getting beyond a joke with Deathrocker ] on the Admins' noticeboard. I'd like to see this dispute resolved once and for all. ''']''' (]) <em><strong>]</strong></em> 21:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC) Now his block has expired, Deathrocker has been watching Leyasu, accusing him/her of sockpuppetry (], ]), which has regenerated this argument. This is getting beyond a joke with Deathrocker ] on the Admins' noticeboard. I'd like to see this dispute resolved once and for all. ''']''' (]) <em><strong>]</strong></em> 21:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


==== Statement by party 2 ==== ==== Statement by Deathrocker ====
This case by Sceptre has already been thrown out once before, since that time I have made no violations of any Misplaced Pages policy.
: (Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries.)

It was during my one month ban that Sceptre tried to slap me with this before... it was REJECTED unanimously.

He then tried to flog a dead horse with a RFC on the same case, as it was redundant and already been rejected I saw no need to participate... and now its seems his good friend Leyasu (the same Leyasu who has violated ArbCon parole 5 times)... has asked him to bring the same case up again. In the past Sceptre has admitted been bias in Leyasu's favour.

Since returning from my block as mentioned, I haven't once violated any Wiki policies, or the 3RR that I was blocked for, I've made sure not go break the boundries of that...

I have however reported two suspected socks of Leyasu on the incidents board in the last week (anonymous IP's that only operate while Leyasu has been blocked) as their IP's were very similar to ones which were reported by ] and found to be "highly likely" socks of Leyasu by ].. I was doing a service to Misplaced Pages reporting a recurring problem.

Leyasu however did show up and personally attack me on the incidents board... claiming I’d pretended to be him or something, which is ridiculous, I have never tried to immite that user. Ever. And that I was blocked from editing the Gothic Metal article (which I’m not, though that user seems to think they own that article) .. I don’t see how this is “good faith” by Leyasu, spreading malicious lies on the incidents board which had no relation to the incident that I was reporting.

Another user told me about cases against Leyasu for the same thing here ] and suggested I detailed the latest suspected case... which obliged.

How this makes me viable for ArbCon is beyond me, It would actually be nice to see Sceptre’s admin powers removed, he doesn’t seem to use any logic while putting things like this up... has admitted been bias towards users before, and I suspect bias against me and anybody who reports Leyasu for suspected violating parole.

How anybody can be up for ArbCon parole for report suspected sock puppets (suspected by numerous other members too) is entirely ludicrous. - ] 05:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

==== Statement by ]==== ==== Statement by ]====
I've been involved in enforcement of arbitration remedies on ], to wit, a seven-day block for his fifth violation of his revert parole , so I recuse as clerk. I've been involved in enforcement of arbitration remedies on ], to wit, a seven-day block for his fifth violation of his revert parole , so I recuse as clerk.

Revision as of 05:19, 30 April 2006

Shortcut
  • ]

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.

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
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Armenia-Azerbaijan_3 none (orig. case) 4 January 2025
Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024

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

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

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

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


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

Deathrocker

Involved parties

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

Statement by Sceptre

Deathrocker has been acting rather incivil during his block on his talk page. This first started when I blocked him for four days to stop both Leyasu and Deathrocker edit-warring, which had me labelled as abusive, and that policy demanded he should be unblocked. This had actually been discussed on the admins' noticeboard, and there was a consensus that he should be blocked for disruption.

Now his block has expired, Deathrocker has been watching Leyasu, accusing him/her of sockpuppetry (Admins' notceboard post, Arbcom Enforcement post), which has regenerated this argument. This is getting beyond a joke with Deathrocker assuming bad faith on the Admins' noticeboard. I'd like to see this dispute resolved once and for all. Will (@) T 21:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Deathrocker

This case by Sceptre has already been thrown out once before, since that time I have made no violations of any Misplaced Pages policy.

It was during my one month ban that Sceptre tried to slap me with this before... it was REJECTED unanimously.

He then tried to flog a dead horse with a RFC on the same case, as it was redundant and already been rejected I saw no need to participate... and now its seems his good friend Leyasu (the same Leyasu who has violated ArbCon parole 5 times)... has asked him to bring the same case up again. In the past Sceptre has admitted been bias in Leyasu's favour.

Since returning from my block as mentioned, I haven't once violated any Wiki policies, or the 3RR that I was blocked for, I've made sure not go break the boundries of that...

I have however reported two suspected socks of Leyasu on the incidents board in the last week (anonymous IP's that only operate while Leyasu has been blocked) as their IP's were very similar to ones which were reported by user:Idont_Haveaname and found to be "highly likely" socks of Leyasu by user:Jayjg.. I was doing a service to Misplaced Pages reporting a recurring problem.

Leyasu however did show up and personally attack me on the incidents board... claiming I’d pretended to be him or something, which is ridiculous, I have never tried to immite that user. Ever. And that I was blocked from editing the Gothic Metal article (which I’m not, though that user seems to think they own that article) .. I don’t see how this is “good faith” by Leyasu, spreading malicious lies on the incidents board which had no relation to the incident that I was reporting.

Another user told me about cases against Leyasu for the same thing here WP:AE and suggested I detailed the latest suspected case... which obliged.

How this makes me viable for ArbCon is beyond me, It would actually be nice to see Sceptre’s admin powers removed, he doesn’t seem to use any logic while putting things like this up... has admitted been bias towards users before, and I suspect bias against me and anybody who reports Leyasu for suspected violating parole.

How anybody can be up for ArbCon parole for report suspected sock puppets (suspected by numerous other members too) is entirely ludicrous. - Deathrocker 05:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Tony Sidaway

I've been involved in enforcement of arbitration remedies on Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu, to wit, a seven-day block for his fifth violation of his revert parole , so I recuse as clerk.

Leyasu claims that he has been impersonated, and there is some circumstantial evidence to support this . A week or so ago, on the other hand, there was a request for a sock check on some claimed socks of Leyasu, and Jayjg then replied that it is "highly likely" that the IP addresses are him .

For the moment I am watching closely but, because of Leyasu's civil and apparently good-faith responses, taking his word for it that he is not socking. Despite errors, he appears to be making an honest effort to stick to his revert parole since his return, and is asking me to deal with what he perceives as vandalism on Children of Bodom. This is an encouraging sign and I have lifted a ban, which I imposed earlier today under his probation. on editing Black metal. I will be investigating this on my own account with a view to taking necessary action to enable normal dispute resolution to proceed on that particular article. --Tony Sidaway 22:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Upon examination, Leyasu's complaint is about what appears to my inexpert eye to be a nuance of heavy metal subgenre . Whilst I am not qualified to make judgements on heavy metal, it has the appearance of disputed content (and perhaps a rather contentious edit war) rather than vandalism that can be fixed by the techniques to which Leyasu has resorted. --Tony Sidaway 01:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Sam Spade (talk · contribs)

Involved parties

Summary: Sam Spade edit wars on many articles, fails to respect consensus, is uncivil, and accuses everyone who disagrees with him of bad faith and shabby agendas. Bishonen | talk 03:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC).
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
Details of attempts at dispute resolution before Sam Spade's RfC was brought are given in the RfC itself. Several quite elaborate fresh attempts were then carried out on the talkpage of the RfC, notably by User:Silence here and here.

Statement by User:Bishonen

Sam Spade wages POV war designed to wear down opposition, even where he is in a minority of one, by sheer unreasonable persistence in the face of consensus, as detailed by numerous editors in the "Statement of the dispute" in the RfC mentioned. I have not myself edited any of "Sam's" pages in a long time — I frankly can't stand it — but I remember what it was like. Depressingly, the RfC shows that the experience is still exactly the same. I think it's urgent for the sake of the encyclopedia and the community that the old dog finally does learn new tricks, as editors are still being stressed out and giving up on "Sam's" pages, the way I was and did. In an Outside view on the RfC that was signed by 29 people, I wrote specifically about Sam's imputations of bad faith and the lack of human respect he shows for those who disagree with him: "I've never seen him not impugn the motives of a critic. That sounds terrible, and I'm not saying it couldn't happen, I certainly don't watch him or anything, especially not since I gave up trying to edit those articles which he owns and guards. (Ah, sweet relief.) But in the interaction I've had he has always moved briskly away from the matter at hand and on to the bad motives and secret agendas of anybody who tries to argue with him." His attitudes and debating techniques can also be studied in his name-calling and self-righteous attacks in the RfC itself. Bishonen | talk 03:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC).

Statement by User:Infinity0

I am currently involved with an arbitration case of my own, so I regret that I will not be able to contribute much to this RfAr. However, I endorse and agree with what Bishonen has written, which also seems to be the general consensus of the people signing Sam Spade's RfC. I will provide evidence of disputed behaviour when needed. -- infinity0 11:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Cadr

I have not been directly involved with a page Sam has been editing for a few months, but in my 3 years on Misplaced Pages I've been involved in edit wars with him on at least two occasions (mostly relating to articles on Augusto Pinochet and Nazism/Socialism). I have looked carefully at the evidence presented in the recent RfC, and I endorse the two statements above. Sam could potentially be a very valuable contributor, but his attitude towards those who disagree with him has made it impossible for others to work with him constructively in many cases. He has made noises about calming down a little, but he has not really admitted to having done anything wrong, and given his past performance, there is little reason to believe that his behaviour will change in the long run, IMO. Cadr 15:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Mel Etitis

Like Bishonen, much experience with Sam Spade has led me, as far as possible, to avoid articles which he has pretty well taken over, such as Nazi mysticism, and those which he attempts to dominate, such as Human. The recent RfC demontsrated pretty conclusively, first, that his behaviour has remained the same since I first encountered him in 2004 (and discussion at the time, as well as earlier RfCs, indicated that he alrady had a long history of similar behaviour), and secondly, that he refuses to acknowledge community concerns. As he made clear there, and as he's made clear in his editing elsewhere, his view is that he's right, those who disagree with him are wrong (and are acting in bad faith, are "hoodlums", need to have the dirt on them dug, etc.), and that's all that needs to be said. When other editors disagree with him, he (often aggressively) cites the need for consensus (e.g., , , ); when consensus is clearly against him, he ignores it, and even explicitly sets himself against it ("The majority is usually wrong", as he puts it). While "consensus" doesn't merely equal "majority", all consensus is majority opinion.
I don't know what the solution is, but I do know that the problem that he poses is genuine and serious. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

infinity0

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Been disputing with him for months and months. Too complicated, believe me. RJII 19:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC) Here an administrator tried to informally mediate the issue of him citing a non-credible, non-published internet source: Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources (under "FAQs") but he still continues to cite the source.

Statement by party 1

infinity0 is extremely disruptive. Not in good way, as in bringing in new information that may be controversial but is relevant and notable, but in a bad way. He fights against credible and notable information. He fights against credible sourced information by deleting the information and deletes sources in order to maintain whatever false reality he wants to maintain in an article. Conversely, he fights to keep sources that are not credible in articles (unpublished internet postings by no-name self-proclaimed experts). In addition he engages in personal attacks, harrassment, and stalking by following me around to articles that he doesn't ordinarily deal with to delete my edits simply because they are mine (I can say this with certainty because he admitted to it). Others have witnessed his disruptions as well, as can be seen in his failed attempt at adminship.

Also, I must note he uses my vague "probation" against me for "tendentious editing" in a very unethical way. He keeps making complaints to adminstrators on Noticeboards in hope that an adminstrator will see that I'm on "probation," assume that I'm a bad guy, and consider any given edit of mine "tendentious" and ban me from Misplaced Pages. You can see a few failed attempts here: He has been warned to stop bugging the adminstrators about me and was warned by one: "stop using RJII's probation as a weapon against him." (jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC) -Adminstrators Noticeboard/Incidents. So, don't be surprised if he tries to do that here as well. Please do not fall for it. I edit very controversial articles in politics and economics and it's very easy to claim that I am engaging in "tendentious editing" but I am always enter information that can be sourced by credible sourced, write in an NPOV manner, and most always attach the source to the edit. I've don't usually considerit worth the trouble to file an arbitration case. I'm not that vindictive. I'm more concerned about the content than the person. But, in this case, infinity0 has been on a persistent mission to try to get me banned from Misplaced Pages and if something is not done about his disruptiveness, eventually an administrator will fall for his claims that I'm engaging in "tendentious editing" and I will be banned simply for fighting to maintain Misplaced Pages policy standards for credible sources and NPOV. I've contribued a wealth of information to the encyclopedia and I would like to continue doing so, but it's very difficult with someone determined to fight against NPOV policy and sourcing policy by any means necessary.

  • Example of personal attacks:

"In all honesty, you were being a dick. Let's forget that though. What headings do you suggest for the article? -- infinity0 20:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)"

    • Simultaneous personal attack and assuming bad faith:

  • Admits to stalking me after I confront him about it (following me around to articles that he has never edited before and deleting my edits simply because they're mine), then proceeding to lie by claiming that I have been stalking him (I'm trying to avoid him, but no matter where I go he comes to harrass me):

  • Example of deleting credible sources:

    • These sources were added because someone requested a source for the claim that "many" consider..... I informed him of this after he deleted them and he proceeded to delete them again calling it "spamming" when he knows good and well that more controversial claims need the most sources.
  • Example of fighting to keep non credible, non-published, sources IN articles:

Keeps putting them back in after the policy is stated to him that that is it an unpublished internet source. Here an administrator tried to informally mediate the issue of him citing a non-credible, non-published internet source: Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources (under "FAQs") but he still continues to cite the source.

  • He most recently filed an RFC against me, which was deleted because he could not find anyone else to agree to sign on with him: The majority of "observers" endoresd an observer's comment that said said "RJII's edits to An Anarchist FAQ were in generally in accordance with WP:NPOV and the edits of infinity0 and his associates generally were not" I saved the page before it was deleted, so I can provide record of this RFC upon request. The RFC is saved at before the input was made by other Wikipedians (again, I have the complete RFC saved with input from Wikipedians, if it is requested). Addendum: the RFC page has fortunately been restored for evidence. Take a look at the diffs for things that he is complaining about --there is nothing improper about those edits and discussion. It really leaves one wondering what the why the RFC was filed. It's just another phase of his harrassment of me and desperation to drive me off, or get me banned from, Misplaced Pages --so that he doesn't have to deal with my insistence on credibly sourced NPOV content.
  • Keeps violating the 3RR rule:

  • Has been fighting for months to keep it from being noted in the article An Anarchist FAQ that it was written be "social anarchists" when it says right in the FAQ "Lastly, to put our cards on the table, the writers of this FAQ place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism." Here is is deleting a direct primary source quote: At first he wouldn't allow it to say "social anarchists" at all, then after months of dispute he allowed "mostly" but obviously that's misleading --"mostly" implies that some of the writers are individualist anarchists --which is not the case.

Statement by party 2 (Vision Thing)

I agree with arguments RJII presented and I only wish to add following. infinity0 keeps removing relevant links that express criticism to socialism, trying to create the impression that pro-socialists ideas are dominant (1, 2, 3, 4 on the Socialism article and now he started the same thing on the Marxism 5). First dispute (on Socialism) ended with other user cutting number of pro-socialist links 6 & 7, but, not surpassingly, infinity0 immediately added several back 8, without attempt to discuss it 9. Also, on "An Anarchist FAQ" article, after an edit war, consensus was reached about term "reject" 10 but infinity0 soon deleted consensual sentence replacing it with his own 11, without mentioning it on the talk page even though there was discussion in progress just about that paragraph 12. He was also deleting comments on talk page 13, 14 and 15.

Just as I was writing this, he again started potential edit war by adding POV in POV tag 16 (claim that the FAQ is an open document) even though both RJII and I expressed our concern about "openness" of the FAQ 17. -- Vision Thing -- 21:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by party 3 (infinity0)

  • I point arbitrators to User:Infinity0/Drafts, containing evidence of his behaviour.
    • RJII is the disruptive one, as other users testify: .
    • He has been involved in numerous disputes with many other editors:
    • RJII has personal problems with An Anarchist FAQ, going as far as to lie about what it actually is .
    • RJII is currently on probation, and by the way he aggressively edits it seems like he has ignored this completely. That is why I have reported him so many times. According to him, all the times (about 5-6 IIRC) he has been blocked during probation it was because I am trying to get him banned. Not because he has done something wrong.
    • When I complain about his attitude, he says it will never change.
  • Vision Thing has made almost completely POV edits - eg, inserting of multiple links to one website, on multiple pages, and comments like this:

I have no time to participate in this arbitration. Sorry, but I have exams. All I can say is that both RJII and Vision Thing have done nothing but insert POV into articles. -- infinity0 19:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

My response has become long winded, and from the comments I have come across it seems most people don't have any views on the dispute between me and RJII. If this arbitration is accepted I will post evidence of RJII and my behaviour and my responses to the accusations made against me above.

However, most people seem interested in An Anarchist FAQ, and from their comments I feel they have gotten the wrong impression about it.

A note about An Anarchist FAQ

"An Anarchist FAQ" is a very widely-distributed document , and is immensely influential - see An Anarchist FAQ#Influence. It is mirrored on hundreds of websites and linked to on many many more. It is a very well known source.

I understand concerns about it being used as a secondary source, and I agree with most of them. However, in the vast majority of cases it has been cited, it has been used as a primary source as an example of what anarchists think. I hope this type of usage will not be blocked, because of the above reasons, namely that "An Anarchist FAQ" is a very important resource for anarchists.

As for concerns about the FAQ's neutrality: the FAQ editors are social anarchists but it has been complimented by individualist anarchists too . The FAQ makes a good faith attempt to explain individualist anarchism. It makes arguments against individualist anarchism, but the authors make it known these are only social anarchists' views.

The FAQ is only biased against anarcho-capitalism, and the sections against it take up less than 1/8 of the whole FAQ .

The FAQ says "the writers social anarchists". However, the FAQ is also open to contributions I have interpreted from this that that sentence is the main editors calling themselves as social anarchists, but anarchists of all types may have contributed content to the FAQ, since the editors make a good faith attempt to try to be neutral. My main concern is that RJII makes it sound like the FAQ is purely the work of social anarchists, and from this the reader infers that it is social anarchist doctrine, which it is anything but.

An Anarchist FAQ *will* be published by AK Press - I have confirmation; feel free to email AK Press if you don't believe me.

Clerk notes

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

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

User:Nlu v. User:PoolGuy

Involved parties

*User:Nlu
*User:PoolGuy, who has also edited as (at least) User:AMatchingPair, User:AlmostThere, User:AvoidingAvoidance, User:BringItTogether, User:CallingAllCars, User:DifficultToCommunicate, User:ExplorerLuver, User:FriendlyFriend, User:GettingRightToIt, User:GoldToeMarionette, User:GreatTerriffic, User:HereIsFIVE, User:HereIsFOUR, User:HereIsONE, User:HereIsTHREE, User:HereIsTWO, User:InterestingSituation, User:JustPassingThrough, User:KeepExplaining, User:Legitimiser, User:LookingForInformation, User:MiddleOfTheRoad, User:NinetyNinePercentGood, User:OriginalOne, User:PunchingBag, User:ReallyTryingHere, User:SeeingClearly, User:SpecificityIsBest, User:TheBringerOfPeace,User:ThePuddingHasTheProof, User:TryingToDoWhatsRight, User:UnderstandingUser, User:WaitingForAReason, User:WhyDontTheyCiteAPolicy, User:WillTryAnyway, User:Xtension, and User:YouDontGetIt.
Sockpuppetry continues. Newest one spotted is User:Zappada.
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

I (Nlu), as well as other admins, have repeatedly explained to PoolGuy (talk · contribs) why his sockpuppetry and spamming was why he was blocked, and he refuses to listen -- and in response, when blocked for violation of WP:NPA and WP:SPAM, resorted to much more egregious sockpuppetry (see above), with WP:POINT-violative user names and edits, to evade the block, as well as continuing to harass me and other admins. All attempts by me and others to explain what policies have been violated have hit a brick wall, as he continues to claim not only that he has not violated any policies, but that no policies have been cited. There is no likelihood that user will ever reform his behavior involving other steps of dispute resolution.

Statement by party 1

PoolGuy (talk · contribs)'s violation of policy started when he edit-warred over the article Pet peeve (a dispute I was not involved in) and used the sockpuppet GoldToeMarionette (talk · contribs) to spam other users to influence the AfD process over List of pet peeves. When his sockpuppetry was proven (see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_CheckUser/Archive/March_2006), rather than apologize, he insisted that what he did was not violative of any policies. He was then blocked, and then proceeded to create a long list of sockpuppets to harass me and to evade the block. Initially, I reset the block whenever a new sockpuppet emerged, but because during the block, he promised that if he was ever unblocked he would edit productively, I let the final block slide. Since block expired, he has tried to remove {{sockpuppeteer}} (not placed by me) from his user page, and I protected his user page; in response, he has resumed his harassment. See User talk:Nlu and its history. Despite promise to edit productively, he has also not made a single productive edit since the block expired. It is clear that user is using his Misplaced Pages account as a personal gratification device, not for productive participation in the community.
I am requesting that the ArbCom instate a lengthy ban and permit enforcement by indefinite block of both user and IP, to prevent the further creation of abusive sockpuppets. --Nlu (talk) 06:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by PoolGuy

A few users stated that they did not like the illustrative examples on Pet peeve . Over sixty users contributed to the development of the illustrative examples . PoolGuy simply restored content that concensus appeared to support. User:GoldToeMarionette notified the article contributors that the illustrative examples were the subject of an AfD . The AfD went smoothly without controversy. User:HereToCleanup removed the posts at the completion of the AfD in accord with a verifiable Misplaced Pages Guideline Misplaced Pages:Spam#Internal_spamming that states "Clean up your mess. For example, after engaging in cross-posting to promote some election, be sure to remove those cross-posts after the election is complete."
Despite strictly following the on Misplaced Pages:Spam#Internal_spamming, User:Android79 submitted a on User:GoldToeMarionette and User:PoolGuy . Despite there being no basis for completion of that request User:Jayjg based on the policy and procedure for completing an WP:RFCU.
User:GoldToeMarionette did try to demonstrate there was no basis for the RFCU, however User:Hall_Monitor indefinitely blocked GoldToeMarionette simply for being a sockpuppet. GoldToeMarionette never violated Misplaced Pages Policy or Guidelines , and no one has ever been able to find or cite a violation. Having a sockpuppet is not a violation of Policy according to Jimbo Wales , so Hall Monitor should never have blocked, especially without any warnings or other administrative actions toward User:GoldToeMarionette or User:PoolGuy.
User:Hall_Monitor never responded to email communication seeking to unblock the account. User:Hall_Monitor left Misplaced Pages shortly thereafter . User:Nlu had denied the unblock request on User talk:GoldToeMarionette. Nlu protected the page to prevent additional communication by GoldToeMarionette. Other accounts attempted to communicate this very simple issue to other Admins. Nlu prevented all other attempts to communicate through blocking . There has never been any abuse or harassment, just attempts to engage in dialogue about the basis for User:GoldToeMarionette being blocked. Despite Nlu's claims above he has never cited a single policy violation. He has laid false claims of WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT which User:Lbmixpro tried to identify however after PoolGuy demonstrated that none of that could be a basis for administrative action User:Lbmixpro unprotected the PoolGuy talk page to allow communication to resume there.
Nlu claims above that PoolGuy has harassed him, however the contrary is actually the case . Nlu has pursued PoolGuy in the efforts to find an Admin who is reasoned enough to see that the administrative action against GoldToeMarionette was unjustified and worked to prevent the communication . He even tried to ridicule . Just because a sockpuppet was used does not mean something was done in violation of policy. No sock ever violated 3RR, voted, vandalized, or other prohibited behavior. It simply has not happened. Evidence can be provided for everything stated. There are several false statements made by Nlu above (and elsewhere) those can be demonstrated. The unjustified account blocks, page protection, and tags claiming the user is abusive need to be removed. Thank you. PoolGuy 05:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

I am not in active dispute with PoolGuy but came across this via WP:AN.
The user page of PoolGuy's admitted sock User:GoldToeMarionette is a clear indication that he is conducting a breaching experiment. As far as I can tell, that violates WP:POINT right there. He is also engaged in wikilawyering and various other disputatious nonsense. The mature thing to do would have been to put his hands up when caught trying to astroturf the AfD; instead he complains that this was not explicitly forbidden by guidelines (ignoring long precedent and the fact that we have a policy against disruption).
There is ample precedent for blocking users who are clearly and knowingly gaming the system, which establishes that simply running a sock farm in and of itself is considered disruptive and rapidly leads to exhaustion of the community's patience. We don't need a policy making it a blocking offence to act like a dick, and listing every possible example of dickish behaviour, WP:BP already allows for blocking of users who are being disruptive. Pool Guy seems to be engaged in an experiment to try to prove that his particular disruption is not disruptive because it is not explicitly listed. I would invite PoolGuy to see what has happened to previous sockpuppeteers before complaining that his sockpuppetry is acceptable. Right now he is simply begging for an indefinite block and a block-on-sight policy for all current and future sockpuppets. Mass sockpuppetry has nothing whatsoever to do with building an encyclopaedia. Just zis Guy you know? 12:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Party 3

I have numerous experiences with this individual, and I request to be included in this arbitration hearing. My first experience with Poolguy was on March 28, 2006, with User:HereIsTwo issuing an unblock request which I found RC patrolling. As usual, I read his reason and assumed he was autoblocked. . However, I became suspicious since his talk page mentioned that he was a sockpuppet. I asked him what he was going to do with the sockpuppet account. Shortly after, Nlu mentions on my talk page about the sock . Based on that information, I refused to unblock him and left the situation alone.

I inadevertanly encountered him again while RC patrolling, as he blanked a section at BJAODN stating it wasn't funny. Without reading the actual section and only its title, I though it was funny and reverted. As a result, another one of his socks issued me an npa notice. . I sent my reply to him, assuming this was part on an unrelated issue, but later found out it wasn't. He responded to my reply on my talk page using another sockpuppet . I shortened the BJAODN page to just the header to respect the whole situation, ; but he deleted it anyway.

Shortly after, another one of his socks asks me to help him find a reason why he was being blocked . I stated my findings with him as well as advised him to sit out the block. . He refuted stating most of the violations were already taken care of and reqested for me to unblock his socks. I turned to Nlu for advice on what to do from that point on, , as well as asked Fred Bauder to investigate. I also denied his unblock since he did make the sockpuppet to evade a block .

Later he notices there was no response from Bauder and suggests someone else to step in . I soon find out that this whole issue is expressed at the admin's noticeboard, where he was complaining about the actions of the admins. I repeated my warnings and advice to him as well as asked him of how useful his socks are. He once again ignores me and creates yet another sock and apologizes that I wasn't able to help him. I blocked his account and he came back using another sock stating his blocks weren't justified. .

Realising that he will not stop creating these sockpuppets, I unprotected PoolGuy's main talk page in hopes he'll stop the socks, then blocked the sock acct he was using. . I voice my intentions to Nlu

That was the last action I made before learning about this RfAr. I would like to see a final resolution to this whole issue, in hopes that PoolGuy can understand and accept the policies he has violated. --LBMixPro 07:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Outside Party

I personally had brief run-ins with both User:PoolGuy as well as User:Nlu. User:PoolGuy is the one who I felt at the time, was mistreated my Nlu. This incident was one of the reasons that caused me to file an arbitration against Nlu and Jiang last month. In the arbitration, I included PoolGuy's name in the list of involved parties, however he refused to participate. The arbitration was eventually rejected. It is clear that PoolGuy did more HARM than good to wikipedia and such users are not fit to be in such a great project like wikipedia. Nlu is a little rough and incivil to new users at times and his temperament is below average; however, he, without a doubt, is an exceleent admin who makes tons of useful contributions. Recently, PoolGuy posted an NPA tag on my user talkpage, which was later removed by Nlu. I don't believe there is any wrongdoing in this and such an incivil user should definitely be penalized by the arCom. --Bonafide.hustla 23:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

Tobias Conradi

Abusive and disruptive in the following content areas:

Involved parties

  1. William Allen Simpson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), petitioner
  2. Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), respondent
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by party 1

This list is a sample, there are too many to give a complete accounting in a few hundred words. With respect to petitioner William Allen Simpson, these have taken place over a period of 5+ months.

Folks are reminded that 4 months ago, the Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Tobias Conradi#Proposed Solution by William Allen Simpson asked for a suspension:

"Please quickly suspend this user for several months, to prevent massive ongoing damage, and provide time to analyze and repair recent damage. I'd have asked for permanent banishment, but the general thing seems to be for some limited period of time.
"Conradi should be prohibited from future alteration of such placenames, and/or related templates and categories.
"I never imagined that a single user could do so much damage so quickly without prompt action, and would continue after warning! In the mundane world, there'd be a torte action and permanent injunction.
"This kind of extreme behaviour and lack of comity is the very thing that gives Misplaced Pages a bad name among professionals, along with the unreliable content among educators. It should result in the strictest sanctions, especially as s/he has been around awhile."

Site search indicates discussions of edit warring on the German sister project all the way back to 2004, where Tobias Conradi has been previously blocked, and "This user became closed" after his (Google translated) 19:44, 17 February 2006 edit summary "If your brain so for a long time needs is that not my problem. Go perhaps to your delete policeman coffee drinking...." Apparently, not tolerated there!

Conradi has on many occasions violated policy Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks:

Conradi has on many occasions violated policy Misplaced Pages:Civility:

Nor are these merely isolated instances pertaining to a single party. Conradi has also attacked Golbez (talk · contribs), John Reid (talk · contribs), and TexasAndroid (talk · contribs) in edit comments and commentary content:

Conradi has on a number of occasions violated policy Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule:

Conradi repeatedly violates policy Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles:

Conradi repeatedly violates policy Misplaced Pages:No original research:

Most recently, Conradi twice disrupted the CfD process, confusing the issues by interjecting copious commentary, usually without name and date, and by recruiting several editors at the last moment with "urgent" pleas, garnering just enough to prevent the 2:1 consensus:

The original responders include regular category patrollers, political experts, and elected officials. An actual count of unbiased responders shows a clear consensus by a large margin in favor of administrative divisions.

Background: This issue came to my attention upon the complaints of professors in our local universities, whose students have begun to use "Wikipedian" terminology instead of the standard terms of art.

During the past year or so, the naming conventions for political geography have been altered from the standard terms of art to a nomenclature that is not widely accepted. Administrative divisions have been renamed to "subdivisions", "subnational entities", and during recent debate, renamed again to "country subdivisions". These are fundamental structural and organizational issues that affect the entire English encyclopedia in this field.

Many/most of these changes from "administrative division" to "subdivision" and "subnational entity" were done by a single person, Tobias Conradi. For example, France.

The now well-established consensus regarding these naming conventions was recorded at the proper Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (places) guideline. In particular, these govern selecting terms, the order of terms, and capitalization of terms.

For many months, Conradi has refused to follow the guidelines, even after the most recent RfCs, and moves the entries back to his prefered scheme over redirects, sometimes with long caustic edit commentary. See the many recent moves.

Statement by party 2

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

Clerk notes

This may possibly be, at least in part, a misfiled request for comment or policy proposal. --Tony Sidaway 14:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

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

user:merecat

Involved parties

User:Prometheuspan user:merecat (and others) Merecat has been illegally deleting my comments, repeatedly, to a talk page Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

I have left a message for merecat on his talk page. I'm not sure what a "dif" is, or, how to "show" one, but i will look at the examples below and try. User talk:Merecat

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Request for comment has allready been tried. Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Merecat Request for mediation is apparently Voluntary, and as near as I can tell, Merecat has no intention of submitting to mediation. Further, I am informed that Mediation carries no consequences, and as far as I am concerned, this looks like grounds for banning. More importantly, it is clear to me that without real consequences, this behavior would continue, and it is extremely abusive.

Statement by party 1

User talk:prometheuspan/ArbcomCase

Merecat has repeatedly deleted my comments to a talk page, has lied and misrepresented doing so, and is gaming the system to keep the article stalled. Please just go look at the edit History, I think that more than prooves the facts, and says as much as needs to be said.

The rebutal by merecat focuses on events that transpired after the first few times that merecat deleted things illegally. I did put a lot of information up that was poorly formatted; it was copies of things he had illegally deleted. Under those circumstances, it is hardly reasonable to assume that it is fair to assume that i should go off into some closet with him. The rebutal is frankly more lies. Also, the copyright violation was alleged, i contacted the editor and have permission. And, merecat did not only delete the article, but deleted the link to the article, AND my comments. Prometheuspan 00:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC) I hope that this is the propper way to do this, somebody told me i have to be the one to present the evidence. I wish i knew how to shrink the things down, but i am a total newbie with extreme dyslexia so you will have to forgive me. This is a partial list, I will continue to search the history when i have the time. Prometheuspan 03:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Christopher parham now joins Merecat in illegal deletions.

my first post of the argument to write article.

my post of valerie plame

This may be the one time that Merecats actions were not clearly biased.

I have gone far back enough now in the edit history to show that this is a pattern of merecats.


I would also like to add that merecats illegal deletions are not limited to me, and include deletions of other editors, including Nescio. Prometheuspan 20:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

Prometheuspan is a late comer to the ongoing difficult dialog at Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. Granted the dialog there has been slow lately, but the enormous amount of garbled talk page information Prometheuspan posted there has not helped. I have been very explicit in my willinginess to talk with Prometheuspan. However, what I asked him to do was organize his bulky concerns onto a sub page which I had created (since deleted by somenone) and to which, I had posted a link on talk. Also, one of the things Prometheuspan had posted which I did delete (rather than attempt to organize) was an "ad" for an MSN broswer bar (that deleted MSN ad originally arrived as part of a much larger posting by Prometheuspan).

I am uncertain what Prometheuspan's complaint is, other than he's suffered the passing indignity of my attempt to organize his concerns so as to talk with him about them. As soon as it became apparent that Prometheuspan had no intention of utilizing the sub page which I created for his bulky material, I desisted from advancing that idea.

Frankly, I would not be surpised if Prometheuspan is actually a sleeper sock who has sprung into action trying to cause chaos on this article's talk page. This article has been the focus of considerable dialog and also an RFC, which if you read the full details of, you'd see there is only limited support for those who are doing most of the complaining. I do not feel that Prometheuspan's interaction has been extensive enough to warrant this complaint.

It's clear that no lasting harm has befallen either Prometheuspan or the talk dialog as a result of my attempt to address his concerns onto a sub page. Prometheuspan could easily shrug this off and post some actual questions to me (regarding the article), one at a time, on that talk page. Instead, what we got was an enormous data dump by Prometheuspan and his needlessly shrill reaction to my efforts to address it.

If Prometheuspan is not in fact a sock or talk page vandal and has been offended by my edit summary asserting there was vandalism, then I apologize. He too though, must make efforts to actually dialog, not just post reams and reams of disorganized material. This case should be remanded for dialog between Prometheuspan and myself - aimed at specific concerns which he has about specific edits or point I've raised in regards to edits at Rationales to impeach George W. Bush.

As it stands right now, the whole cloth of Prometheuspan's complaint here is that he's rushed in with an enormous data dump on a talk page and has made no realistic effort to manage the consequences of that - other than to extensively complain about me.

One final note: when posting this RfA, Prometheuspan said "I wish i knew how to shrink the things down, but i am a total newbie with extreme dyslexia so you will have to forgive me." and when posting a talk page comment elsewhere said "In fact, an interesting side point, I have asperger syndrome, and dishonesty is sort of like nearly incomprehensible to me." I ask that the veracity of those two statements be measured by the extremely concise and cogent posting left by Promethusepan recently on Jimbo's talk page, here. Merecat 13:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Christopher Parham

Although Merecat has occasionally overstepped the bounds of appropriate behavior, his conduct regarding Rationales to impeach George W. Bush has generally been acceptable, though not very helpful in resolving the continuing content dispute. The RFC against Merecat was related to that content dispute, and not the evidence presented above. Regarding this dispute, the comments of Prometheuspan's that were removed by Merecat were somewhat disrupting the talk page by their poor formatting and enormous length -- Prometheuspan was initially unreceptive to suggestions that he use a subpage, rather than the main talk page, to create new drafts of the article. He has since moved his work to a subpage of his user space.

In one of the diffs Prometheuspan provides, Merecat was legitimately removing the full text of a copyrighted news article from the talk page. In the other diffs, Merecat's action was inappropriate -- especially the edit summaries -- but this is a minor dispute that does not warrant Arbcom attention at the moment. It can probably be resolved peacefully in time if someone neutral is keeping an eye on the situation. I urge rejection. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Muhamed

Involved parties

(Provide links to the user page of each party and to all accounts they have edited with. Briefly summarize case. No details.)
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
(Provide diffs showing where parties other than the initiating parties have been informed about the request for arbitration.)
User:Cool Cat - By posting this I am aware of it. :)
User:Muhamed
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Muhamed
  • User does not know English (or any language as a native speaker) and all my attempts to comunicate with him resulted with either an insult (in a foreign language) or mumbling (I cant make sense of it).

Statement by party 1 (Cool Cat)

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries.)
  • This arbitration case is here as Admins are hesistant to take action as I do not believe we ever had another case where a non-english speaking person making mass number of recategorisations before.
  1. The user in question mass tags articles of his choosing with Category:Kurdistan which alone is not necesarily disruptive. Initialy he prefered the edit summary Removing Pro Türkish-Mongolian propaganda for his adding of Category:Kurdistan. Later changed it to +Cat... after being warned by an admin I contacted via IRC to investigate the matter.
  2. His overal attitude is insultive. The RfC page has more spesific examples of his incivility. Though it should be noted the user does not use talk pages much for perhaps obvious reasons.
  3. User votes on AfDs and/or any vote concerning Kurds. Since he cant understand arguments, he really shouldn't be voting.
  4. I also did not like his involvement with my RfA which I view as trolling. The RfC has the spesific diffs.
--Cool Cat out 08:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I see language assistance offered below. Not that I object to that but do we really want non-english speakers to show this kind of an edit behaviour? Isnt it disruptive? --Cat out 20:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I believe it is required to know english to contribute to english wikipedia with the only exception of interwiki links (which still requires english so you know what you are tagging). --Cat out 13:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment by outside party (User:Phr)

Muhammad's German appears sort of servicable . I think he asked Banes there to withdraw his support vote for Cool Cat's RFA, claiming Cool Cat is a Turkish nationalist for trying to get the Kuristan category deleted. I suggest asking for German or Arabic language assitance at WP:RD/L. I'd offer such help myself but my German is not really good enough for something like this. Phr 14:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Outside statement by LukasPietsch

Muhamed seems not to have made any edits for a month, since the day after CoolCat's RfC was filed against him. I'm therefore not sure how this is an open conflict right now. Suggest to reject without prejudice now, and wait if and when he comes back whether his behaviour will have changed. As for languages, he says somewhere that his native languages are Arabic and Kurdish; his German isn't much above his English either. Lukas 18:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

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

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

Lou Dobbs

Involved parties

Case Summary: Disagreement on the neutrality and usefulness of links involving the Lou Dobbs article. Two of the editors refuse to follow the guidelines set forth by Misplaced Pages regarding WP:EL and have shown extreme bias.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

A formal and public notice regarding the arbitration was made on the talk page located here Talk:Lou Dobbs diffs available at the following

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

I've tried disputing NPOV and allowing for other editors to comment. Before any time summarily passes the links in question are readded, the editors in question cite reasons and agreement made between themselves or no one at all. They claim threats have been made but when asked what threats? There is simply no response or the discussion topic is switched. This is all available on the talk page of the article in question. I've had no choice but to refer to the guidelines repeatedly and i'm now here to find some civility.

Statement User:216.254.126.222

I've said all I have regarding this matter on the talk page. To summarize I believe that external links linking to a person should adhere to the guidelines set forth here WP:EL. I also believe that no matter how much one may disagree with a person. Linking to a site that does nothing but lambast the individual without any fact, partiality, neutrality or general deceny should not be tolerated. Misplaced Pages isn't a magazine. Based on the statement below I must update this statement. Concensus has never been agreed upon because the guidelines have not been followed; therefore, we've never been able to come to, or arrive at any general common sense. Furthermore, this is clearly something that is devolving into a revert war. I'd rather a specific guideline be created when dealing with external links to figures in the public and their relation to the articles in question (As WP:EL has guidelines as to what it appropriate and not I don't see the issue). Or at the very least a statement of arbitration on the article in question. So that others who see the links and disagree with them being in the article will have this to refer to in the advent that this request is summarily declined. I'm doing my best to avert future reverts on the article in question while also placating the parties in disagreement.

Statement by User:Will Beback

This is a content issue. The question is whether a couple of critical external links should be included. The consensus of other editors is that the links are legitimate. Reasonable people may differ. This should be resolved through discussion between engaged editors (more are welcome). -Will Beback 08:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement of Wizardry Dragon

This user has been continually reverting the links disputed despite talk page consensus that the links are legitmate and should be included. He has been warned continually of the Three-Revert Rule and of Misplaced Pages editing policies but has persisted. It would seem that he is disrupting Misplaced Pages to prove a point, something I have warned him(/her?) about twice now.

The someone stressful issue is that (s)he would continually cite Misplaced Pages policies while failing to follow them himself, as I've noted above, (s)he seems in breach of both the Three-Revert Rule and of the guideline against disrupting Misplaced Pages to prove a point.

I've tried to be as civil as possible, despite the fact (s)he's tried my patience - if anyone has suggestions as to anything I could do differently or better, I'm open to them. -- Wizardry Dragon 21:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Avillia

This extends far beyond the simple content issue. The person in question has been threatened twice by administrators for removing the links. Threatened with blocking for vandalism. Over a editing dispute. If nothing else, this needs to be investigated. Also, as to the removal: What happened to WP:Bold?

Statement by User:Postdlf

I watched the talk page discussion for awhile without getting involved (I had previously contributed a good deal of the article's content, though not the links in question), and finally stepped in only to counter an obviously solitary flouting of consensus because one person is upset that he is not getting his way. After the editor kept unilaterally removing the links, I threatened to block him first for vandalism, and I finally did block one of the above IPs for violating the three-revert rule after four separate editors (including myself) had restored the links. Arbitration is inappropriate because the underlying content issue was already discussed and resolved, and this is only an attempt to avoid that resolution because one editor does not like the outcome.

Statement by non-involved user Stifle

This does not appear to have been posted to WP:RFC yet. I recommend trying that first. Stifle (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Appeal for leniency on behalf of User:Rgulerdem

Involved parties

Case summary: Indefinite blocking of User:Rgulerdem by User:Cyde and User:NSLE (who acted with approval from WP:ANI). User:Johntex is appealing the block at the request of User:Rgulerdem, who is indefinitely blocked with a protected talk page.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Johntex has informed the other 3 parties. , ,

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Johntex has posted to WP:ANI asking if there might be room for some leniency in this matter. This did not result in any change to the blocking. Johntex unprotected Rgulerdem's Talk page so that he could detail his positive contributions. This resulted in no change in heart by the blocking admins, and Rgulerdem was accused of continuing to be uncivil. His talk page was reprotected. Given the history between Rgulerdem and the blocking admins, I don't think continued discussion will help. NSLE has posted to Johntex that the next step should be to give the Arbitration Committee a chance to reveiw the situation.

Statement by User:Johntex

I believe there is room for leniency in this case:

  1. Upon joining Misplaced Pages, Rgulerdem made good edits and engaged in good discussion. , ,
  2. He got into trouble because about showing the cartoons at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy: . Although he did made mistakes (Eg. 3RR violations), he also engaged in many attempts to help others understand how some people feel hurt by these images.
  3. He started on a proposed policy called Misplaced Pages:Wikiethics. This has not been a popular proposal, and there has been incivility both by Rgulerdem and towards Rgulerdem.
  4. User:NicholasTurnbull gave Rgulerdem what he called a "final warning" but he did not provide specific examples of problem behavior.
  5. Rgulerdem questioned whether Misplaced Pages has a "final warning".
  6. User:NSLE gave a link to a policy that does not mention a final warning., so it did not answer Rgulerdem's question.
  7. User:NSLE protected Rgulerdem’s page with the statement that Rgulerdem was engaging in trolling and incivility on his talk page. I don’t agree these actions were trolling or uncivil.
  8. User:Cyde indefinitely blocked Rgulerdem, without providing any specific cause.
  9. Rgulerdem contacted me by e-mail and asked me to unblock him. I declined to remove the block., but I did unprotect his talk page so that he could speak about his positive contributions.
  10. Rgulerdem provided information about his positive. Unfortunately, he also made complaints about those who have blocked him, although I had specifically asked him to “… not make any remarks which could possibly be construed as personal attacks, or which could possibly be seen as being uncivil..." I do not think anything he said was a personal attack or uncivil, though he was argumentative when I had specifically asked him to stick to the positive.
  11. Rgulerdem then spoke directly to NSLE saying "Please note that, I am not editing here in Wiki based on your mercy. If I were you I would quit this threatening-style talks as it does not work.". At this point, NLSE re-protected the page.

I do believe that Rgulerdem has behaved badly in the past, but he has served his penalties for those actions. I agree he has tested the community's patience and caused many people to spend a lot of time on him.
On the other hand, he has made some positive contributions. He has worked hard and in good faith on a proposed policy that is important to him. He has suffered insults and incivility on the parts of people who oppose his ideas.
Most importantly to me, the "final warning" and "indefinite block" came about without a specific cause. I have no doubt the blocking admins feel Rgulerdem is a time-sink at best and a hazzard at worst. Also, there was little opposition to the block at WP:ANI. However, I wonder if readers at WP:ANI were able to hear both sides of the issue, since the user was blocked and had his page protected at least part of the time. I ask for the block to be reduced to

Statement by User:Aaron Brenneman

This seems just a little bit early for ArbCom. Either the block stands (i.e. no ArbCom involvment) or it gets lifted (no ArbCom until when/if something else goes pear-shaped.) I'd suggest a pseudo-mentorship: He's clearly passionate, if more than a little bit rough around the edges. *snort* 11R violation *snort*
brenneman 05:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Cyde

Rgulerdem's block log speaks for itself. It was hardly just me who felt the ban was justified. I urge the ArbCom not to bother taking this case. In addition, this is my response to the post by Netpari (talk · contribs · count) below:

Rgulerdem was blocked for being persistently disruptive over the span of many months. May I point out that it is ludicrous to (1) compare him to Socrates and (2) suggest that I should be more lenient on him because he is a Muslim. Socrates is a non-sequitur and I practice a strict policy of separation of church and unblock.

--Cyde Weys 02:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:NSLE

Resid has previously been blocked for incivility, disruption, 3RR, WP:OWN and sockpuppetry. I once blocked him 50 hours for sockpuppetry. For some reason, a glitch in the system allowed him to resume editing, and I reblocked him. He then claimed I was biased and had an agenda, claiming I blocked him for no reason, and later claiming that since the glitch unblocked him he should be free to edit.

After his 50-hour block expired, he went back to revert warring at Misplaced Pages talk:Wikiethics. He then accused someone else of vandalism, which violates WP:AGF, and when I reverted his edit, and User:Netscott his next revert, he listed us both, as well as innocent user User:Rory096, at WP:AN/3RR, and I blocked him 15 minutes on disruption of 3RR vio page as there was no 3RR.

He has been downright disruptive and I see no reason why the ArbCom shouldaccept this case to lift a block on someone who's obviously not here to contribute cohesively and conducively. NSLE (T+C) at 08:51 UTC (2006-04-21)

This is not Resid's first block, and in the past when we've unblocked him he's just continued to be incivil and disruptive, and I don't forsee that changing. When the block was posted to ANI (link above) many admins and non-admins alike agreed with the block. Resid's complaint to the mailing list received similar responses. NSLE (T+C) at 01:20 UTC (2006-04-22)

Clerk notes

This appears to be a case of a community-imposed indefinite block resulting from extensive discussion . If the block is to be reversed, this can be done by further discussion; there seems to be no suggestion that Misplaced Pages policy is being breached, and the paths of dispute resolution appear to be open and operating to the full. --Tony Sidaway 01:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

As a result of a mentorship offer made by Johntex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and endorsed by discussion on WP:AN/I, rgulerdem has been unblocked.

--Tony Sidaway 16:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Raphael1

I hope, that nobody minds, that I leave a personal note here. I am very sorry for Rgulerdems block since he has been a very thoughtful and passionate editor, who never exhausted my patience. Raphael1 20:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others re Biological psychiatry

Involved parties

Case summary: repeated POV-tagging of Biological psychiatry by Cesar Tort and Ombudsman

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

Editors Cesar Tort and Ombudsman did not respond to requests for mediation/arbitration.
Request consent for arbitration from Ombudsman (no response):

Request consent for mediation/arbitration from Cesar Tort (no response):

Statement by User:Joema

Case concerns repeated POV-tagging of Biological psychiatry, apparently motivated by strong anti-psychiatry feelings primarily by two editors: Cesar Tort and Ombudsman

The parties are in two opposing groups: Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs everybody else.

Cesar Tort and Ombudsman have repeatedly POV-tagged Biological psychiatry, despite repeated entreaties by several editors to stop. They have strong anti-psychiatry feelings and want the article to extensively reflect that viewpoint. However there's already an article on Anti-psychiatry, where most of such content belongs. That has been tactfully pointed out to them multiple times.

There is broad consensus the article in current form is NPOV, well-referenced, and encyclopedic in tone and content. Two editors disagree: Cesar Tort and Ombudsman.

They've been begged to stop POV-tagging the article multiple times. They have not responded to requests for mediation. They feel very strongly about the topic, but apparently don't understand an encyclopedia article is not the forum to express those feelings, or at least restrict them to Anti-psychiatry. Regretably, at this point arbitration seems the only choice. Joema 01:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Rockpocket

While not deeply involved in the dispute this request addresses, i was asked to comment having worked with Cesar Tort on an extensive re-write of Anti-psychiatry. I concur with Joema's position, whose contribution to biological psychiatry i have praised , and attempted to explain Misplaced Pages's position on pseudoscience and WP:NPOV . I, with others, have also encouraged those who dispute the article's content to contribute their material to a more suitable article . I believe Cesar Tort's position, while misguided, is in good faith and that lack of response to requests for mediation is due to not understanding , rather than wilful disregard for the dispute resolution process. I take no position on Ombudsman's motives, though i believe her/his use of the NPOV tag is also misguided. Rockpocket 06:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


Statement by Cesar Tort

I am so new to Misplaced Pages that I did not even know of the existence of this page until today, thanks to a personal communication of Rockpocket.

I only posted twice the NPOV tag and explained my reasons extensively in the talk page. When I felt outnumbered, I stated I would not post it again.

Though I am willing to keep that promise, I would like to know if I am allowed to (at least) continue to discuss the issues in the Talk Page? Please remember that I arrived to Misplaced Pages last month and that I was unaware of the policies (which explains why I did not respond to Joema —I had no idea what she was talking about). —Cesar Tort 20:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


Statement by non-involved party Stifle

This appears to be a content dispute and does not appear to have visited WP:RFC yet. I urge rejection without prejudice. Stifle (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Threaded discussion moved to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration

Statement by Ombudsman

Steering articles toward the ever elusive npov state is typically very difficult on medical articles, especially given the fact that conventional medicine criticism is frequently rebuffed, reverted, and/or almost uniformly reviled by defenders of medical establishment pov. To name a few among the contrarians and critics who have been hounded, harassed, and/or banned, Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC is no longer contributing to psychiatry articles, Irismeister and Lir have been banned after disputes over iridology, and Leifern has been dealt with mercilessly for having the temerity to try to bring balance to articles related to the vaccine controversy, etc. Joema hasn't seemed to be too much involved with the vexatious shenanigans that have gone on in the past, so the apparent threat to take a content dispute directly to arbitration just looked like an off the wall example of the type of behavior that led Cesar Tort to write, on his talk page, that this particular tempest had intimidated him as a new user. Precisely because of a very pov interpretation of npov guidelines, good faith efforts aimed at restoring and maintining a reasonable amount of context and critical analysis in the biological psychiatry article have been met with the usual cascade of Wikilawyering, dubious accusations and procedural diversions that led to Francesca's departure and Cesar's expression of concerns about intimidation. Joema doesn't seem to have been a ringleader in these unrelenting assaults, but the raw torrent of diversions (and much worse) flowing from the conventional medicine aherents just isn't proper, and some means for mitigating these problems need to be developed. There seems to be a double standard at work here, exacerbated by the fact that most members of the Wiki's conventional medicine lobby are quite articulate, and that they seem to be able to throw up npov tags willy nilly, or delete content, or inflame ruckuses with little or no fear of being sanctioned in any way, shape or form. Attempts to insert noteworthy critical views, explicitly condoned by npov guidelines, often can't be preserved or even inserted edgewise in the first place. The experience suffered by Leifern, who was outnumbered after the vaccine critics article was hijacked and replaced with an extraordinarily pov article, is another sad example of the difficulties associated with going to bat on behalf of another editor dutifully trying to keep an article npov with a simple tag. In the meantime, it would be appreciated if the diversions were allowed to die down again, so that attention to actually writing good and npov articles can resume. Ombudsman 22:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Fuzzform

I agree with the statements by parties one and two. Joema pretty much summed up the entire dispute. Regarding the above statement by Stifle: there is already a clear majority in support of Joema's edits. If you read the talk page, this is quite clear. I don't think that input is needed from non-involved parties. The issue is not so much about content as it is about improper tagging of the article (with the POV tag). If the issue was about content, Cesar Tort would be the one requesting arbitration, as he is the major opponent of the article's content. The POV tag has been removed numerous times by several different people. Ombudsman has nearly violated the three-revert rule by reverting to the tagged article three times in row in 25 hours (1 hour less and he would have been blocked), despite its having been removed by three different people. To sum it up, the issue is over repeated improper use of a tag, not over content, and therefore it should not be rejected and/or moved to the WP:RFC page. Fuzzform 00:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Midgley

I agree with the accounts given by Joema, and JDW. My involvement is quite peripheral, but having done some work on a previous version of the article I was quite happy that the large rewrite of it had achieved NPOV. I do not think this matter is completely separate from the other RFC on Ombudsman, nor from his habit of writing essentially the same article over and over in anything to do with vaccination - and indeed quite considerably on this page. The specific page here probably means notably different things to different people, anti-psychiatry is a good example of the meaning to at least one, and is an appropriate place for information on that. Midgley 18:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Inquiry by completely and utterly uninvolved party User:PurplePlatypus

Not directly related to the case, but here's a factor that might be exacerbating these problems, and in any event may itself be a problem. (One of the above statements does obliquely refer to it.) Doesn't the username "Ombudsman" run afoul of the "No confusing or misleading usernames" rule? I particularly draw attention to the text "Users have been blocked in the past for choosing usernames that... gave the impression of being "official". PurplePlatypus 22:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Andrew73 on the username issue

This was actually the subject of a prior RfC in August 2005, e.g. see , , , etc., though no consensus was reached. I do find it amusing that there is an Ombudsperson as well "The Invisible Anon" who posts under 86.10.231.219. I guess an Ombudswoman would gild the lily. Andrew73 02:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Requests for Clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process.


Crotalus horridus

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway

The enforcement for Crotalus horridus conflicts with the enforcement provided in the userbox remedy. Presumably the enforcement applies only to Crotalus's probation should that be invoked. Or can admins choose whichever they prefer? (And, if they can, could 5 two-week blocks result in triggering the year-block even though the remedy would not have been invoked since it limits blocks to a week?) -Splash 16:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, we (I?) didn't do that too well. The options are to remove the enforcement from Remedy 1 or to specify that the enforcement only applies to Remedies 2 and 3. I support the former. Sam Korn 17:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
<ping>. I guess it's not especially important since Ch appears to be abiding by it, but it's at least untidy to let it lie. -Splash 23:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al

Since the conclusion of the Arbitration case, StrangerInParadise (talk · contribs) has continued to assume bad faith and make disruptive edits with the StrangerInParadise account while maintaining a separate, older, user account. Thus, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al is modified to include the following remedy:

StrangerInParadise restricted to one user account

StrangerInParadise is restricted to one user account. Any sockpuppet accounts will be blocked indefinitely and the main account blocked for up to 48 hours if this is violated.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 14:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Archives

Category: