This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Morven (talk | contribs) at 22:22, 26 July 2007 (→Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/0/0/0): Accept.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:22, 26 July 2007 by Morven (talk | contribs) (→Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/0/0/0): Accept.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) ArbitrationCommitteeDispute resolution (Requests) |
---|
Tips |
Content disputes |
Conduct disputes |
Misplaced Pages Arbitration |
---|
Open proceedings |
Active sanctions |
Arbitration Committee |
Audit
|
Track related changes |
A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Misplaced Pages. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.
To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.
This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.
Please make your request in the appropriate section:
- Request a new arbitration case
- Request clarification or amendment of an existing case
- This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed
- Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
- Arbitrator motions
- Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
Open casesCase name | Links | Evidence due | Prop. Dec. due |
---|---|---|---|
Palestine-Israel articles 5 | (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) | 21 Dec 2024 | 11 Jan 2025 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
Arbitrator motionsMotion name | Date posted |
---|---|
Arbitrator workflow motions | 10 January 2025 |
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/How-to
Current requests
First Vision
- Initiated by 74s181 at 01:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Involved parties
- John Foxe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 74s181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Wrp103 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Storm Rider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- COGDEN (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Jade Knight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Robert Horning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- 74s181 - User_talk:74s181#Request_for_Arbitration_-_First_Vision
- John Foxe - User_talk:John_Foxe#Request_for_Arbitration_-_First_Vision
- Wrp103 - User_talk:Wrp103#Request_for_Arbitration_-_First_Vision
- Storm Rider - User_talk:Storm_Rider#Request_for_Arbitration_-_First_Vision
- COGDEN - User_talk:COGDEN#Request_for_Arbitration_-_First_Vision
- Jade Knight - User_talk:Jade_Knight#Request_for_Arbitration_-_First_Vision
- Robert Horning - User_talk:Robert_Horning#Request_for_Arbitration_-_First_Vision
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- Talk:First_Vision#Reverts_after_good_faith_edits
- User_talk:John_Foxe#3RR_violation
- Talk:First_Vision#Time_for_action
- Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_mediation/First_Vision
- User_talk:John_Foxe#3RR_Violation_on_First_Vision_article.2C_July_23.2C_2007
- A Request for comments has been ongoing for over two months.
- attention over the issue has been raised on related wikiprojects requesting assistance.
Statement by 74s181
- The complaint is about John Foxe. Other parties were listed as part of the RFM, and may have useful comments.
- There have been multiple attempts to explain WP:NPOV policies to John Foxe. He wants what he wants and reverts any edit that he doesn't agree with.
- He believes that the 'Mormon' editors are ganging up on him to push 'Mormon' POV.
- He rejects WP:NPOV policies.
- A recent comment from John Foxe can be found near the end of Talk:First_Vision#Breaking_the_collaborative_truce
- I'm the only holdout; I'm also the only non-Mormon. My gut feeling is that the whole mediation business is a Trojan Horse. I'm especially suspicious of the Request for Mediation because the "Issues to be mediated" are references to Misplaced Pages rules and not sentences in English like most of the issues in other mediation cases. I'm not even sure the issues are specific enough to be accepted for mediation. Frankly, Les, every time you start citing Misplaced Pages rules, I tune them out as Mormon smokescreen.--John Foxe 23:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Further note - John Foxe is always very careful to maintain his Eddie Haskell appearance. The comments to his edits will say things like 'remove POV', 'restore deleted material', 'stylistic tweak', when in fact the edit is something totally different, sometimes exactly the opposite of the description. Also, comments on the talk page like "And my past experience at Misplaced Pages has been that men of good will, regardless of personal belief, can find a way of reaching neutral wording," are examples of this, his 'will' has been anything but 'good'. I mention these things because if you only take a quick look at the edit history you won't get the full picture. I did a full analysis of what John Foxe said vs what he actually did, see the later part of Talk:First_Vision#Reverts_after_good_faith_edits.
Occasionally John Foxe reveals his true intent. The first time I saw this was the The Churchillian Defense. He is also sometimes more honest in his comment when he reverts as in:
- 17:18, 9 July 2007 John Foxe (Talk | contribs) (71,559 bytes) (I prefer the earlier version)
More recently, after I submitted a 3RR report, John Foxe responded with the statement:
- I will not be bullied, gentlemen. Truth is more important to me than my reputation at Misplaced Pages...
But then he shifted back to Eddie Haskell mode with:
- Nevertheless, I more than welcome another attempt to reach NPOV for this article... --John Foxe 17:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Another example. user:Visorstuff responded to my 3RR report and protected the page. After protection expired, John Foxe started again with the same behavior. Visorstuff asked him to seek consensus here, then warned John Foxe that he would protect the page again if necessary (it was, and he did). John Foxe responded this way:
- I'll be glad to discuss any material in the article new or old. But if you'd like to protect the page again, I support that action as well.--John Foxe 15:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
This sounds very cooperative, but as we actually began to discuss the changes:
- I just don't want any mention of "critics" and "believers" in the text...--John Foxe 20:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- In my view almost any solution is better than introducing the views of critics and believers. Especially if it's a solution that makes the article shorter... --John Foxe 23:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- There's no reason to mention non-believers or believers here.--John Foxe 20:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- There's no need to mention a "contradiction" at all.--John Foxe 20:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think differences in the accounts can be mentioned without using the term "contradiction." Again, I'm dead set against having the text say, "Critics say..., but Mormons believe." ...--John Foxe 20:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
My biggest concern with John Foxe is that he is eiher unable or unwilling to understand and edit in accordance with WP:NPOV. 74s181 12:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Statement by User:Robert Horning
I want to start out here by noting that I appreciate the fact that John Foxe does represent a POV that is different from many of the others who are working on this particular article, and that he is not alone or unique in holding this particular POV (as can be the case for some users on Misplaced Pages). This particular article, First Vision, is about a fundamental religious experience that is the foundation of a substantial religious movement, perhaps even the genesis of a whole different religion... depending on your POV and how you define these concepts.
As one of the original editors who raised NPOV concerns about the edits by Mr. Foxe and the general tone of this article, I have not been very comfortable with how this basic idea has been presented on Misplaced Pages. Foxe here is claiming "truth", but whose truth? This is a description of religious beliefs and is a matter of faith, but what is presented in this article is not a description of these beliefs but rather a systematic approach to discredit the faith's founder and quoting information from original sources out of context.
The repeated abuse of the revert tool is also something that is very troublesome to me. I don't necessarily object to a blatant reversion of obvious vandalism, but that has not been the case here by Mr. Foxe. He appears to recognize the 3-revert rule, but pushes right to the limits of Misplaced Pages acceptability by the letter of the rule. I haven't seen more than a couple reverts in a 24 hour period of time, but instead waits the requisite 24 hour "cooling off period" and does the revert at the next possible opportunity. In other words, this is turning into a more protracted revert and edit war than something immediate and intense. There have been dozens of reverts by Mr. Fox extending over many months of editing, with only a couple of those to remove content added by blatant vandals. In all other cases it has been to cull content that does not fit his POV.
The other huge issue I'm raising here is that this revert/edit war has as a casualty of denying the ability for new Misplaced Pages users to make any sort of meaningful contribution to the article. When I've added even very minor changes, such as cleaning up spelling or adding links to other Wikimedia projects (of particular note was an attempt to add a link to Wikisource for original documents related to this article), I've had my edits removed out of hand simply because of the perception that I and others participating with this disagreement are acting in bad faith. As it stands at the moment, I do not feel that I can make any meaningful contribution to this article. If this was my first experience at making a contribution to Misplaced Pages, it would be a very negative experience and certainly would not be something that "anybody can edit". Mr. Foxe has repeatedly mentioned that only a small select number of individuals ought to be considered qualified to make any meaningful additions to the article. I certainly am not in that list. --Robert Horning 15:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Statement by John Foxe 18:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Although it is true, as 74s181 has said, that all the other named parties (as well as Visorstuff, who protected the page during the edit war) are Mormons, they are not necessarily acting as part of a conspiracy. I would especially like to commend Visorstuff for his impartiality and COGDEN for his knowledge of Mormon history, which I acknowledge is superior to mine.
The essence of the debate at First Vision can be reduced to two basic issues:
First, my Mormon opponents would like to ensure that historical facts be labeled “criticism” so they can be answered by Mormon apologetics under the formula: “Critics say,” but “other scholars reply.” For example, the first account of the First Vision was not published until twenty years after it is said to have occurred (and in England to boot). If this statement is a fact—as much a fact as that Mars is a planet—then it is my view that it cannot be characterized as “criticism,” as an attack on Mormonism made by “critics.” (Yes, I do understand the importance of how and where such facts are presented, and I’ve always said that such matters can be worked out through collaborative discussion.)
Second, we have at this article a situation in which the majority opinion—that the Mormon religion is false—is represented by one editor, and the minority opinion—that it is true—is held by everyone else. In such a case, a nose-counting “consensus” will ensure that the minority editor who holds the majority opinion will lose at every significant juncture.
Finally, I doubt that the on-going discussion at First Vision has been more intense than would be revealed by the talk page of any important article on politics or religion. The level of discussion has not been especially vicious or uncivil, especially on my part. I must say, however, that it is frustrating to have my civility and attempts to reach compromise used against me as evidence of my guile. John Foxe 18:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Clerk notes
- (This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.)
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/0/0/0)
- Accept. To look at user conduct not settle the content dispute. Please remember this as you leave evidence and comments. FloNight 16:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Accept, likewise. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Requests for clarification
Place requests for clarification on matters related to the Arbitration process in this section. Place new requests at the top.
LaRouche editors again
NathanDW (talk · contribs · count · api · block log) and Don't lose that number (talk · contribs · count · api · block log) (DLTN) are supporters of Lyndon LaRouche. Both are single-issue accounts who add favorable material about LaRouche, remove anything negative, and add negative material about people they see as LaRouche's enemies. They've been warned several times about the ArbCom rulings and BLP, to no avail. NathanDW has been editing for 20 months and has 183 mainspace edits; DLTN since February 2007, with 351 mainspace edits.
I would like to block the accounts indefinitely for BLP violations at Chip Berlet, one of the articles covered by LaRouche2 (see Modification of LaRouche 2).
On July 20, an anon IP with no other edits, 24.117.110.173 (talk · contribs), added an anonymous geocities website as an external link. This is a personal website that contains actionable libel against Chip Berlet and myself, alleging some big conspiracy and repeating material about Berlet from Executive Intelligence Review, which is a LaRouche publication, and about me from Misplaced Pages Review. I believe it is maintained by Nobs01 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log), a user who was banned for BLP violations against Berlet.
Threeafterthree removed the link. DLTN restored it. I admin-deleted the edit on BLP grounds. DLTN restored it again ; Tom Harrison removed it; NathanDW restored it.
Both accounts have been warned about ArbCom and BLP violations before. I issued BLP warnings to NathanDW about his edits to Chip Berlet on November 20, 2006, March 4, 2007, with a final warning on March 5, 2007.
DLTN was blocked indefinitely on April 10, 2007 as a sockpuppet of Tsunami Butler and HonourableSchoolboy, after checkuser showed all three accounts edited from within the same narrow range. I unblocked DLTN because there was one indication of a difference between him and the others, which I won't repeat here, and I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt. He was unblocked on condition that he stick to the ArbCom rulings and make no BLP violations. I had to warn him about BLP again on April 26, 2007. WillBeback also recently appealed to DLTN for a change of behavior.
I don't think this situation is ever going to change. The individuals behind the accounts are either clueless or malicious, and for our purposes it doesn't really matter which. Feedback from the committee about the proposed blocks would be much appreciated. SlimVirgin 18:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- The blocks seem justified. Fred Bauder 21:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. They look correct to me. If your own name hadn't been dragged into it, there'd be no question at all about the propriety, so it's right to ask. --jpgordon 22:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for the responses. I'll go ahead with the blocks. Cheers, SlimVirgin 01:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Robert Prechter
The Robert Prechter case (decided about four months ago) indefinitely banned smallbones from articles related to Prechter. Smallbones’ equally aggressive hostility to Technical analysis was a key point in the outcome of the case, as is clear from this comment on the workshop page by an arbitrator.
“The problem is that you go a little too far. It is TA that you maintain is pseudoscience, not just the Elliot Wave. The problem for me is determining if editing restrictions are necessary for you as a result of habitual POV editing. Fred Bauder 11:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)”
In the past couple of days, smallbones has reappeared on technical analysis, with inflammatory comments and edits. I am requesting clarification from the Committee on whether smallbones’ participation in the technical analysis article is in keeping with the remedy in the Prechter case. Thank you.--Rgfolsom 00:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- As a third-party not involved in the original arbitration, I find Smallbones's edits to technical analysis be appropriate, modest, and consistent with Misplaced Pages rules. His only edits were to remove a passage that plainly violated WP:SYN/WP:NOR and to reinsert (once) a dispute tag that Rgfolsom inappropriately deleted through reversions on three occasions in 24 hours. The only POV-pusher here is Rgfolsom, who has WP:OWN issues with this article. THF 01:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Committee members may wish to assess the comment from THF in light of recent examples of incivility, name-calling, and unfounded suggestions of bad faith. --Rgfolsom 01:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- I would tend to conclude that the "topic ban" would not apply to the technical analysis article. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment. I will respectfully ask you and other administrators to please look again at the most recent activity on the Technical analysis article and talk page. smallbones has alleged a conflict of interest where none exists, erroneously argued on behalf of other editors, claimed a non-existent consensus, and then reverted edits that were in place just as a true consensus appeared at hand.
- The previous arbitration took more than three months to decide. It would be tedious indeed for the Committee to go though it again regarding the same behavior, the same editor, and a very similar article. Thanks for your consideration.--Rgfolsom 19:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Motions in prior cases
- (Only Arbitrators may make and vote on such motions. Other editors may comment on the talk page)
Archives
- Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
- Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests (extremely sparse, selective, and unofficial)