Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests - 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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fred Bauder (talk | contribs) at 14:32, 4 November 2004 (→[] and []: Removed after acceptance). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:32, 4 November 2004 by Fred Bauder (talk | contribs) (→[] and []: Removed after acceptance)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Shortcut
  • ]

The last step of Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution is Arbitration. Please review the Dispute resolution for other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request for Arbitration 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.

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

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

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

Structure of this page

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

  • Be brief - put a quick list of the nature of the complaints. Link to detailed evidence elsewhere if you need to.
  • You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person you lodge a complaint against.
  • Please sign and date at least your original submission with '~~~~'.
  • New requests to the top, please.

The numbers in the Comments and votes by Arbitrators (0/0/0/0) section corresponds to Accept/Reject/Recuse/Other.

Current requests for Arbitration

Jayjg

This admin protected the POV version of Cultural and historical background of Jesus rather than the NPOV version. I think this is an abuse of adminship. CheeseDreams 08:53, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Check m:The Wrong Version. ] 09:16, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
OTOH Jayjg did revert to one side's version (not the pre-edit war version: see diff) before protecting, which admins are not supposed to do when both are equally belligerent in the edit war, which was the case here. (I've since reverted the article to the last version before the present dispute started.) I agree that this is a misuse of admin powers, but it certainly could have been an honest mistake rather than an intentional abuse. —No-One Jones  09:24, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Actually, I thought the version I was reverting to was the version before the edit war. And I've seen other admins revert to a stable version before protecting. Jayjg 15:18, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
By the way, I'm assuming that one can revert to a stable or pre edit-war version of an article before protecting, is that correct or not? Jayjg 17:59, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, one may revert to a stable version before protecting, and it seems in this case that you were just mistaken about which version was stable. I think CheeseDreams should retract the complaint. —No-One Jones  19:12, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I am of the opinion, given some of the other edits that Jayjg has made, and a comment on his talk page by Slrubenstein, that Jayjg made the change to support his POV, and then protected it. It is possible that he made an honest mistake, but I find it odd that the version he chose should have been by Slrubenstein, whom I was having the "edit war" with, which was an edit AFTER I made my first change. CheeseDreams 19:38, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A comment made by Slrubenstein makes you think I did it to protect a POV? I thought Slrubenstein was just reverting you to the original version; with the incredibly poor performance I've been getting on Misplaced Pages recently, I frankly wasn't able to sort through the whole edit history. I'm amazed I was able to revert it at all; as it was, it took me almost 25 minutes from the time I restored the older version until I was finally able to mark it as protected. Jayjg 21:11, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg was acting in good faith. I was having problems with CheeseCreams and did ask Jayjg to look at the page in question. In fact, he protected a version of the article that did not include many of my changes. For the record: I made a number of changes -- some were restoring material that had been deleted previously, some involved adding new content, deleting new material that I felt was vague and uninformative, and improving style. Since then CheeseDream has reverted every change I have made. At first he was uninterested in any discussion. However, I explained my changes, he responded, and I provided more explanation. Nevertheless he continued to revert every change I made. I do believe mediation will be helpful here. Slrubenstein

It is very hard to see that this incident is sufficient in itself for making an arbitration case, even if it was thought that Jay was acting in bad faith (and I don't think he was). Unless there was a continuing pattern of events that could not be resolved by discussion, the correct course of action was to complain on the appropriate talk page, sound off for a while, then get over it. I trust that the arbitrators will decline this case. And, from personal experience, let me note that chosing which version to protect so that everyone is happy is impossible. The admin's unhappy task is to make a decision using his/her best judgement at the time and I don't see a good reason to suspect Jay of doing otherwise. --Zero 13:32, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

  1. Reject, while there was no basis for reverting before protecting, and doing so violated policy, it was an isolated event not a pattern of wrongful actions. Fred Bauder 13:32, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Reject. De minimis non curat arbitor. --the Epopt 14:01, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. Recuse. Jwrosenzweig 15:56, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

RickK

He banned someone at Larry Sanger over an edit dispute, even though the person was not engaged in vandalism, or anything even remotely similar to vandalism. The person banned was simply adding two brief edits, noting that Sanger only teaches introductory philosophy courses (which is shown by Sanger's official Ohio State website) and that Sanger claims to specialize in certain areas (however no proof has been shown). RickK used his sysop powers to censor Mr. Sanger's vanity page, in violation of the rules on NPOV. RickK has repeatedly refused to discuss the issue, either with the person he banned, or with others at the discussion page. It is clear that the arbitration committee must rule on whether sysops are allowed to ban anyone with whom they disagree. The Misplaced Pages continues to slide down a very slippery slope... Wert

Comments and votes by arbitrators (0/5/0/0)

  1. Reject. No evidence of prior attempts to resolve dispute. Also, the complainant's edit history makes me suspect he/she is a reincarnation. →Raul654 18:11, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
  2. This user's edit history seems solely confined to attempts to add language to the article on Larry Sanger that the takl page's consensus indicates is unjustified. Numerous users, including Jimbo Wales and Larry Sanger, have indicated their disagreement with these edits by auto-reverting them and/or talking about them on the discussion page. I do not see that RickK's conduct in this has been anything but an appropriate administrative response to either a returning user attempting to "troll" an article, or else a new arrival who hopes to slant the article against Larry Sanger without the justification of evidence. If, as Anthony seems to suggest, there have been other arbitration-worthy actions, I suggest that a case be brought on that evidence. On the evidence here presented, I reject. Jwrosenzweig 20:04, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. Reject: insufficient evidence. Give us something to work with. --the Epopt 21:58, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. Reject, not much to this. Fred Bauder 22:54, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Reject. No evidence of RickK doing anything inappropriate. James F. (talk) 11:52, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Aranel

I am requesting arbitration because user User:Aranel keeps removing all my contributions to Favicon article without good reasons:

  • 1. Removal of link to useful resource which gives information which you cannot find in article.
  • 2. Removal of FAQ section. Reason: "I'm sorry, but the FAQ format is not appropriate to an encyclopedia". I was unable to find this in Misplaced Pages guidelines.
  • 3. Removal of Troubleshooting section. Reason: "this is not a technical support site, after all" but article gives code and instructions on adding favicon to website. And if favicon doesn't work - it is extremely useful to know possible reasons!
  • 4. Removal of my examples of favicons with new images which are cropped and not so easy to understand as my examples was.
  • 5. Removal of link to Icon Edtitor. There is note about about icon editors in article and it's normal and useful to have link to one of the editors.

All my contributions were removed by fake reasons.

Discussions gives no results, because User:Aranel continues edit wars and deletions of relevant material.

Vitaly 10:03, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dear Fred Bauder, I don't mind against link deleteion - I do not want my relevant and useful contributions to be deleted.

By the way - we started to offer this service AFTER link was deleted from Misplaced Pages. Vitaly 11:18, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Fred, please, look again at changes 2, 3, 4, 5. They removed useful information.
Vitaly 12:05, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Press Release

Instead of reasonable resolution of conflict you have grown this tiny issue of some User:Mzajac having personal attack and stalking on me, which continues like a chain reaction between his friends (User:Mzajac -> User:Timo Honkasalo ->User: Aranel -> User:HappyDog -> User:Farside -> User:Mirv) - you can easily tell that they have common interests and when one cannot answer reasonably to a discussion, his friend takes a turn, to a HUGE issue of group harrassment and deletion of everything possible.

I am going to write "Misplaced Pages: Crash Course" article on major web news sources and you will receive public attention, what you will say then? Don't you think it is self-destructive way to your community?

Misplaced Pages is ONLINE and 💕. It is itself built based on links and it cannot exist without the rest of WWW.

Principles of Misplaced Pages broken by the above mentioned members:

  • 1. Assume good faith. Misplaced Pages has worked remarkably well so far based on a policy of nearly complete freedom to edit. People come here to collaborate and write good articles. Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette
  • 2. Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible, and stay within the three-revert rule except in cases of clear vandalism. Explain reversions in the edit summary box. Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette
  • 3. "Don't ignore questions. If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think it's appropriate" Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette
  • 4. "Concede a point, when you have no response to it; or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste. Don't make people debate positions you don't really hold."Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette

Vitaly 17:18, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comments and votes by arbitrators (0/5/0/0)

  1. Reject. You twice tried to insert links to your website which sells custom favicons for $49.99. Misplaced Pages articles are not a vehicle for advertising and self-promotion, see Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not. Fred Bauder 11:12, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Reject -- the insertion of FAQs, Troubleshooting, etc., may not be explicitly prohibited by policy (though I'll look around, since I had thought they were), but by their very nature they oppose the encyclopedic goals of this project. Answering questions and troubleshooting would imply the "right way" to do something, and NPOV isn't about telling people the "right way". At most, a description of an item's purpose and function should exist in the article, but it doesn't appear to me that your edits had that simple goal in mind. Discuss your proposed additions at Talk:Favicon and see what the community consensus is. I think you'll find that Aranel was accurately expressing the will of the community in editing as she did, but if not, then your additions could certainly be made. Jwrosenzweig 15:10, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. Reject -- everything Fred and Jwr said, plus I see no indication that you tried the earlier steps in the dispute resolution process. --the Epopt 16:41, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. Reject. Totally agree with Fred. →Raul654 18:08, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Reject. James F. (talk) 11:52, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Users Ruy Lopez, Shorne, and VeryVerily

I request arbitration with User:VeryVerily for the matter described below at "VeryVerily and reversion" (entry "User:VeryVerily") and, most fully, at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/VeryVerily. My request for mediation, now in its third day, has gone ignored by VeryVerily, who has failed to accept or decline mediation despite several requests. I believe that arbitration is the only appropriate avenue at this point, and I request quick action, as VeryVerily is riding roughshod over numerous articles.

Since there are already two other cases involving VeryVerily, it has been suggested that this one be merged with one or both of the others. I am willing to merge it with the case filed by User:Christiankavanagh, listed below.

As user Ruy Lopez added his name to the request for mediation, I have taken the liberty of listing him as a party to this request as well. Thank you for your attention. Shorne 10:45, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

  1. Recuse Fred Bauder 11:40, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Merge with VV case below --the Epopt 13:17, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. I agree with Epopt on the merge -- any evidence here should already be going to the evidence in that case. Jwrosenzweig 19:05, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Users Shorne and Fred Bauder

User:Shorne engages in edit wars on the articles, Great Purge, Communism, Communist state and People's Republic of China. He claims to be removing POV material and demands documentation, but no matter how minutely referenced, removal continues. Most references are unacceptable in his view including references which are generally accepted in the scholarly community. When negotiation is attempted he pleads lack of time and energy, but continues to have plenty of time and energy for his edit wars with me and other editors. Extensive discussions on article talk pages have been to no avail, see especially Talk:People's Republic of China, for example this edit: . Mediation has been refused, see Fred Bauder 22:09, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Comments and votes by Arbitrators (3/0/1/1)

  1. Recuse Fred Bauder 22:09, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Accept. James F. (talk) 16:24, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. Accept. The Cunctator 06:04, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) I'd love to see more evidence...
  4. Abstain until more evidence is presented -- Fred, I need more than one diff to tell if there is a pattern of behavior in need of addressing. Jwrosenzweig 19:38, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  5. Accept. →Raul654 06:59, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)


Matters currently in Arbitration

/Template

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.
  • User:JRR Trollkien 2 - Inconclusive deadlock: 3 votes to reject, none to accept. Archived at User talk:JRR Trollkien
  • Tim Starling - Rejected.
  • VeryVerily - Rejected - please try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process.
  • Xed vs. Jimbo Wales - Rejected - lack of jurisidiction over Jimbo, private email, lack of initial litigant's involvment, and various other reasons.
  • Emsworth vs. Xed - Rejected
  • Gene Poole vs. Gzornenplatz - Rejected - please try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process.
  • Mintguy - Rejected
  • VeryVerily vs Gzornenplatz - Rejected
  • Request to re-open Anthony DiPierro - Rejected - October 27, 2004, see discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro
  • Chuck_F, 203.112.19.195 and 210.142.29.125 - Rejected, consolidated with /Reithy

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.
  • /Irismeister 2 - Decided on 03 July 2004 to apply a personal attack parole. 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.
  • /Lir - Decided on 23 Aug 2004, blocked for 15 days, revert parole applied, and other remedies.
  • /Mr-Natural-Health - Decided on 26 Aug 2004. There was an earlier partial decision on 25 June.
  • /User:Guanaco versus User:Lir - Decided on 30 Aug 2004.
  • /Lyndon LaRouche (Herschelkrustofsky, Adam_Carr, John_Kenney, and AndyL) - Decided on 12 Sep 2004.
  • /User:PolishPoliticians - Decided on 18 Sep 2004, personal attack parole applied to PolishPoliticians and all new accounts on affected pages.
  • /ChrisO and Levzur Closed on 20 Sep 2004 with an open verdict; no ruling necessary, as Levzur has ceased contributing to Misplaced Pages.
  • /K1 - Closed on 28 Sep 2004 with an open verdict; no ruling necessary, as K1 has ceased contributing to Misplaced Pages.
  • /Kenneth Alan - Decided October 1, 2004, User:Kenneth Alan banned for one year. Enforcement provisions may be added before case is formally closed.
  • /JRR Trollkien - Closed October 2, 2004, with no findings of fact or decision. JRR Trollkien has long since left.
  • /Orthogonal - Closed October 14, 2004, following his departure from Misplaced Pages. Subject to reactivation should he return.
  • /RK - Decided October 14, 2004. RK is banned from Misplaced Pages for 4 months. Further, he is banned from all articles directly or indirectly related to Judaism for 1 year.
Category: