Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fred Bauder (talk | contribs) at 13:34, 12 August 2004 (→[]: Deleted due to inconclusive deadlock). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• ]

The last step of Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution is Arbitration, (see arbitration for a general overview of the topic). If, and only 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.

See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy, Misplaced Pages:Arbitrators, /Admin enforcement requested

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

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Earlier Steps

Please review Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution for other avenues you should take before requesting Arbitration. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request for Arbitration will be rejected.

Current requests for Arbitration

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. Be brief - put a quick list of the nature of the complaints. Link to detailed evidence elsewhere if you need to. New requests to the top, please.

The numbers in the ====Comments and votes by arbitrators (0/0/0/0)==== sections correspond to (Accept/Reject/Recuse/Other).

Guanaco and MyRedDice vs Lir

Guanaco and MyRedDice continue to abuse their powers, insisting on a revert war at My Arbitration Defense Page. Guanaco is the same user who has banned me without just cause, both here and at the so-called "unofficial" IRC channel. This is yet another clear example of my being denied due process. Every user has the right to defend themselves without infringement by sysops and supersysops -- these users must cease and desist.

I've answered them multiple times. I'll answer them here -- I have no sysop accounts, and I've never claimed to. You people can't even honor the principle of letting someone present their own defense -- you should be ashamed!Lirath Q. Pynnor

I think its getting pretty old too. Its a goddamn defense page; I have the right to create one, and the right not to have a bunch of jerks editing warring with me over it. If you think its "old" mav; THEN TELL MARTIN TO STOP. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Comments and votes by arbitrators (0/4/0/0)

1. Reject. Lir, please just answer the questions MyRedDice is asking you. Fred Bauder 12:21, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
2. Reject; second Fred's request. James F. (talk) 23:33, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. Reject --the Epopt 16:28, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4. Reject -- Lir stop requesting arbitration about every user you get into a dispute over. That is getting real old. --mav 04:44, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

172

172 has been reverting me at New Imperialism and he refuses to discuss the matter. I request that the arbitration committee examine this uncooperative behaviour. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I strongly request that User:172 be examined by the arbitration committee, regarding a general tendancy towards edit wars and incivility. Sam 04:09, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See Dialogue below for an interaction. Sam 22:19, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I also request that User:172 be examined by the arbitration committee, because of his extensive edit wars with VeryVerily, and Lir.--Plato 22:08, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A note: 172's proposed solution to the problem at New Imperialism was a poll between the two versions - virtually identical to what Lir did at one point on Saddam Hussein. I'm interested in how Lir distinguishes between the two. Snowspinner 12:52, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. We appreciate your concern. I do not recall ever requesting a poll at Saddam Hussein -- however, we will take your point into consideration. Lirath Q. Pynnor

172 has repeatedly deleted contributions by others in the "Evidence" section. I'm disturbed by his actions in this regard - surely a party in an arbitration case should not be permitted to delete contributions by other parties? The issue is being discussed at . -- ChrisO 19:30, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade, Lir, and Plato did not follow dispute resolution procedure so they should also be considered defendants. 172 14:05, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, we have -- but you continue to reject mediation. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Evidence

• link to evidence
• 172 has thrice removed evidence from this page.

If people could refrain from removing evidence, that'd certainly help. I don't appreciate my job being made more difficult. Thanks. Martin 17:51, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I believe Muriel G would also agree with this request, the following exchange is from her talkpage:

• As you have learned, by arguing with 172, the cabal is real. They are a group of petty tyrants with no respect for common decency -- their goal is not to make the wikipedia better, but to make the wikipedia theirs. Lirath Q. Pynnor
  • Thats why i moved to wiki.pt :) Muriel G 10:25, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No she would not. I never dealt with 172 (except in VfD) so i couldnt have an opinion on the matter. And i apreciate if people refrain from putting words into my mouth, especially when they are grossely out of context. Muriel G 18:34, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nobody put any words in your mouth; in the above exchange, you clearly stated that 172s actions were "why i moved to wiki.pt". If you mispoke -- that is your fault. I would guess the real problem here, is not that Muriel objects to 172s behaviour; but that she is afraid of being labeled a "troll" and facing future punitive actions by the cabal. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I don't think Muriel needs her mind read, her motivation intuited, or her opinions stated for her. Nor is she in any danger of being labelled or punished on the basis of a label. - Nunh-huh 02:48, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

But she apparently needs you to speak for her... Lirath Q. Pynnor

• I'm speaking for myself. - Nunh-huh 03:52, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dialogue

• User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive_August_2004#172
• User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive_August_2004#172_revisited

Comments and votes by arbitrators (1(+1)/0/2/0)

1. Recuse Fred Bauder 12:18, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
2. Accept. James F. (talk) 03:23, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
3. Leave hanging while the two existing Lir cases are resolved - the outcome of those two may render arbitration in this case unnecessary. Martin 23:52, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4. Recuse - Involves Lir which biases me in favor of 172. --mav 09:58, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Matters currently in Arbitration

/Template

• /JRR Trollkien - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes, on April 20, 2004. Evidence to /JRR Trollkien/Evidence, please. For discussion and voting on this matter see /JRR Trollkien. Note that this case is accepted solely to determine whether, under existing Misplaced Pages policy, it is acceptable for sysops to ban obvious trolls.
• /ChrisO and Levzur Accepted for Arbitration with three votes (there were 3 recusals) on May 2, 2004. Evidence to /ChrisO and Levzur/Evidence, please. For discussion and voting on this matter see /ChrisO and Levzur.
• /Lir - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes, on 6 July, 2004. Evidence to /Lir/Evidence, please. For discussion and voting on this matter see /Lir/Proposed decision.
• /Lyndon LaRouche (Herschelkrustofsky, Adam_Carr, John_Kenney, and AndyL) - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes on 6 July 2004. Evidence to /Lyndon LaRouche/Evidence, please.
• /User:Guanaco versus User:Lir - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes on July 11, 2004. Evidence to /User:Guanaco versus User:Lir/Evidence, please.
• /User:PolishPoliticians - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes on July 27, 2004. Evidence to /User:PolishPoliticians/Evidence, please.
• /RK - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes and two recusals on August 1, 2004. Evidence to /RK/Evidence, please.
• /Avala - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes and one rejection on August 8, 2004. Evidence to /Avala/Evidence, please.
• /Lance6wins - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes and one rejection on August 8, 2004. Evidence to /Lance6wins/Evidence, please.
• /K1 - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes and one rejection on August 8, 2004. Evidence to /K1/Evidence, please.
• /Rex071404 - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes on August 8, 2004. Evidence to /Rex071404/Evidence, please.

Rejected requests

• Avala vs various users - Rejected - try other forms of dispute resolution first, please. Discussion moved to User talk:Avala

• Matter of Hephaestos - Rejected - due to lack of community desire or allegations. Case referred by Jimbo Feb 19, 2004, rejected Feb 26, 2004. Discussion moved to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Hephaestos.

• Wheeler vs 172 - Rejected - please try mediation first. Discussion moved to user talk:WHEELER

• Cheng v. Anonymous and others - Rejected - refer to wikipedia:username for name change policy. For content dispute, try other forms of dispute resolution first, please. Discussion moved to User talk:Nathan w cheng.

• WikiUser vs. unspecified others - Rejected due to lack of a specific request.

• Simonides vs. "everyone" - Rejected - referred to the Mediation Committee.

• Sam Spade vs. Danny - Withdrawn

• Sam Spade vs. AndyL - Withdrawn

• Raul654 vs Anthony DiPierro - Withdrawn after agreement of both parties (see standing order).

• RickK - Rejected - referred to the Mediation Committee.

• Mike Storm - Rejected - please try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process.

• Lir (IRC blocking claims) - Rejected due to either a lack of jurisdiction (the IRC channels are not official), or a failure to follow earlier steps.

• Sam Spade vs. 172 - Rejected - please try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process.

Completed requests

• /Theresa knott vs. Mr-Natural-Health - Decided on 11th Februry 2004 that Mr-Natural-Health would be banned from editing for 30 days (i.e., until 12 Mar 2004). The vote was 6-2 in favor of banning, with 2 explicit and 1 de-facto abstention.

• /Plautus satire vs Raul654 - Decided on 11th March 2004 that Plautus satire is to be banned for one year, up to and including March 11 2005. The vote was unanimous with 8 votes in favour and 1 de-facto abstention; a further vote in favour of extending the ban indefinitely was held but not met.

• /Wik - Decided on 15th March 2004 that Wik would have a three month probation during which he may be temp-banned in certain circumstances. There were six votes in favour, three opposed, and one de-facto abstention. Further decisions and minority opinions can be read at /Wik.

• /Irismeister - Decided on 31st March 2004 that Irismeister would be banned from editing all pages for ten days, and banned from editing Iridology indefinitely. Decision can be found at /Irismeister/Decision.

• /Anthony DiPierro - Decided on 25th April 2004 to instruct Anthony with regards to his VfD edits, and refer other issues to mediation. The vote was unanimous with 6 votes in favour and 4 de-facto abstentions. Note that the case was accepted solely to investigate use of VfD.

• /Paul Vogel - Decided on 10 May 2004 to ban Vogel for one year. Further discussion and proposals are available at /Paul Vogel/Proposals.

• /Wik2 - Decided at /Wik2/Decided on 21 May 2004.

• /Mr-Natural-Health - Partial decision on 25 June 2004 to apply a three month ban. Possibility of further decisions. For discussion and voting on this matter see /Mr-Natural-Health/Proposed decision.

• /Irismeister 2 - Partial decision on 03 July 2004 to apply a personal attack parole. Possibility of further decisions. For discussion and voting on this matter see /Irismeister 2/Proposed decision.

• /Mav v. 168 - Closed on 03 July 2004 with an open verdict.

• /Cantus - Decided on 01 Aug 2004, apply a revert parole to Cantus and other remedies.