Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:16, 28 September 2004

• ]

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.

What belongs in Requests for Arbitration

• The Complaint including enough links to evidence that an Arbitrator considering the matter can find examples of what is being complained of. Include links to any policy which applies.
• The Response which should address the matters raised by the Complaint. Again, links to edits or other evidence are useful.
• Any Complaint by the defendant against the user who made the original Complaint as well as against other users who have seconded the Complaint or were intimately involved in the events complained of.
• Information regarding what steps of the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution procedures were followed. Not the details, especially not what happened during any mediation.
• Users may join in the Complaint by seconding the Complaint or elaborating on it, but by doing so they implicitly respresent that they wish to be a party to the case and are thus subject to counterclaims which they may have to respond to.

What doesn't belong in Requests for Arbitration

• Comments regarding the viability of the Complaint by persons not involved in the matter.
• Comments regarding how the matter is to be titled or the effect of choosing one title or another.
• Any posting by anyone who is not involved in the case. These are welcome on the talk page.

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)==== sections correspond to (Accept/Reject/Recuse/Other).

Current requests for Arbitration

User:VeryVerily

VeryVerily is endlessly reverting a controversial passage of the PNAC page. His version demolishes a strawman of the opposing side of the discussion, and falsely paints the issue as being resolved in favour of his own interpretations when in fact it's a matter of much debate even in mainstream media sources.

He also accuses me of just reverting everything he does, which I feel is a bit unfair because he was the first to revert (04:44 on the 25th of September). My version presents both sides of the issue, his presents only his own and the strawman.

I've tried to be reasonable but he just doesn't seem interested in any opinion but his own. He seems determined to make the article conform to his own worldview.

VeryVerily "rejects" mediation on the grounds it will be a waste of time and that the discussion isn't complete (when in fact, as a glance at the discussion page will reveal, it's just going around in circles). Is there anything that can be done? I'm a new Wikipedian and this annoying dispute is completely ruining my enjoyment of this place. Thanks. CK 13:10, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

User:Rex071404 3

I've titled this request with a "3" to distinguish it from the two pending arbitrations concerning this user.

Complaint: Rex has abused the Misplaced Pages:Vandalism in progress page by listing good-faith editing disputes. In related and unrelated instances, he has made personal attacks on other users by calling them "vandals" for nothing worse than disagreeing with him.

Evidence. There was a content dispute at the Stolen Honor article, in the course of which Rex reverted other editors twenty times in one day (by SWAdair's count -- see ). The article is about a video that criticizes John Kerry, and the dispute concerned whether to include certain information about the video's producer. Rex's edit summaries included multiple reiterations of such phrases as "remove once again the tag-team POV vandalism" (see, e.g., ); "restore page which is under attack by POV edit vandal" (see, e.g., ); and "restore page which is under attack by POV sockpuppet vandal" (see, e.g., ). In addition to these uncivil summaries, Rex added three listings to Misplaced Pages:Vandalism in progress, publicizing to the whole community his personal attacks on two of the editors who disagreed with him about the content of the article. See (against Antaeus Feldspar); (charging Sahara with being a "sockpuppet reincarnation of Antaeus Feldspar" and with vandalism); and (listing Sahara again 24 minutes later). Rex's attack on Sahara came on the latter's first day as a logged-in contributor to Misplaced Pages. Aside from the Stolen Honor dispute that prompted the improper ViP listings, Rex has made other accusations of vandalism in cases of editing disagreements; see, e.g., ("rv - Feldspar appears to be a sockpuppet or vandal") and ("restore again after JamesMLane's umpteenth POV vandalism").

Why mediation not attempted: Rex has previously engaged in such conduct and has been warned to desist. He listed an edit dispute as vandalism. . His improper addition to ViP was soon deleted by an uninvolved admin, —No-One Jones, who commented, "editing disputes are not vandalism; please do not bring them here". He also took the trouble to explain the point at greater length on Rex's talk page. Of course, he shouldn't have needed to do so. Just a few weeks earlier, Rex himself, in complaining to the Arbitration Committee about Neutrality, had quoted a warning left for Neutrality by Guanaco, stating that disputed edits to the John Kerry article were not vandalism. Mediation is not sought because Rex has already been advised of the policy, and has even referred to it himself when he finds it convenient. He simply refuses to follow it. Mediation can't tell him anything he doesn't already know, and the Mediation Committee and the parties to a mediation don't have the authority to change the existing policy.

Policies violated:

• Substantive editing disagreements are not vandalism; this rule applies even if one editor contends that another has violated the NPOV policy. Misplaced Pages:Vandalism#What vandalism is not
• Stating or implying that another user doesn't sincerely believe in the merits of a challenged edit violates the policy of assuming good faith.
• The "Vandalism in progress" page is to be used "only ... for repeated malicious vandalism". Misplaced Pages:Vandalism in progress
• Accusing other users of being sockpuppets or vandals violates the no personal attacks policy.
• Attacking Sahara on his or her first day violated the policy of "don't bite the newbies". (Incidentally, when Rex's attack prompted Sahara to reciprocate with personal attacks, several of us explained to Sahara why this was improper -- and Sahara apologized. One might think that Rex was a newcomer and that Sahara had been here more than two months, instead of the other way around.)

Proposed remedy: Some of the information above has been presented to the committee in the earlier of the pending arbitration proceedings, as background to the discussion of Rex's having threatened an anonymous newcomer with a ViP listing . That proceeding concerns many other issues, however. This complaint asks that, for the specific offense of repeated improper listings on Misplaced Pages:Vandalism in progress, Rex be banned for 24 hours. The points addressed in the two pending proceedings would not be covered by this one-time limited ban.

I am authorized to state that Antaeus Feldspar joins in this complaint. JamesMLane 06:23, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

User JamesMLane states "I am authorized to state that Antaeus Feldspar joins in this complaint." I ask: How could there be such "authorization intimacy between those two unless the is and was collusion in the relentless edits between them at Stolen Honor? Also, please take notice that very shortly after Sahara quit injecting those malicious edits, Gamaliel (another of the early tag-team revert warriors on that article) came on line and between he and I, we arrived quickly at a compromise text. Which I might add, has not been complained about nor modified by "Feldspar", "Lane" or "Sahara". Also, please note that the edit which I kept reverting was vandalism (see it here ) in that for no valid reason it had ? marks in several places instead of ' as in "John Kerry?s".

Please also note that JamesMLane has stated to several other users in the recent past that he has it as a personal goal to drive me off the WIki with a hard ban. And, please take note that both Gamaliel and JamesMLane have an odd habit of arriving at pages which I've created and then making problems for me there.

As written by me originally, Stoneln Honor was eminently fair andd NPOV. The only bona-fide issue that came up was that the Republican/Sherwood Nexus was complained about as not being made clear. However, it took many reverts by me to actually extract this concerns from Gamaliel and JamesMLane - who would not be clear on the talk page about what bothered them.

At no reasonable point during the dialog, did those two simply come out and say "we want to show the Republican connection". But, as soon as it became clear ebnought to see that's what JamesMLane wanted, I got on it immediately both in standing aside while JML made an edit and by defending his edit when others came in and egregiously modified it wihtout talk dialog.

The simple fact is that Gamaliel knows darn well that piling on oodles of anti-sherwood information is not appropriate at the Stolen Honor] page as there does exist a personal article page for Sherwood so his personal details - which accuse him personally (as in the "moonie" attack) belong there. Here in its entirity is my attempt at dialoging with the insitgators of the edit war (please not that they do not offer counter arguments to the poinst I raise (reposted here, vebatim) Please note that the bolded text is that resulted in the edit war and is made bold here for clarity:

additional material deleted

I removed this material just now with edit summary which explains reason for removal: "remove additional sherwood personal material - please repost this on sherwood personal article - Stolen Honor is article is not about Sherwood, per se but other article is". ] 17:34, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

:While Sherwood shared in a group Pulitzer for investigation of a fund-raising scandal involving a Vatican cover-up, the neutrality of his reportage has been questioned. In 1992 the PBS program Frontline examined Sherwood's book Inquisition, which claimed to be an independent investigation of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon. During that investigation, a letter surfaced in which James Gavin, an aide to Reverend Moon, stated that he had reviewed the book before publication, and suggested revisions that Sherwood had promised he would incorporate before the final manuscript went to the publisher. Sherwood had previously worked for the Washington Times, owned by Moon and the Unification Church.

I don't have too much of a problem, except what is the criteria for removing content of a central figure on another page, i.e. Glenn Smith on TfT and John O'Neill on SBVT?? I would suggest looking at either or both criteria to set policy rather than on a case-by-case basis:

1. Person has a significant amount of information that would go beyond a mere stub.
2. Person is known for any significant reason beyond founding the group.

Just a thought. --kizzle 17:40, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Feel free to make John O'Neill and Glenn Smith pages. This in fact, is the right way to go. Also, the infor which should go in on the personal pages ias all the personal flaws and foibles. They must go there so that any tit-for-tat edits and rebutals do not glog up related pages. This is the rule that was intsituted at TfT and which get rebuttals off that page: TfT argumwents are about issues relating to GWBMSC and for that reason are shunted there. Same thing here. Sherwood persomnal issues are about Sherwood himself. Glogging SH is POV edits such as Gamaliel is demanding is farcical. ] 17:57, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If this stuff on Sherwood goes, all of the info on Sherwood should go, including the "decorated Vietnam veteran" and "pulitzer prize winner", as none of that relates to SH either. You can't keep the good Sherwood info and then ship off the Moonie stuff to another article. ] 17:44, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gamaliel, you are totally off base again. A limited about of personal detail is fine as it helps segue the atricle flow in a rational manner. You are simply trying to inject "moonie" accusations here to discredit Stolen Honor itself. Frankly, the more you edit, the more it;s clear that your bias is the soruce of conflict. ] 17:53, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No matter how many words you put in bold it won't change the fact that you are sugarcoating Sherwood's background by including only positive things about him like his pulitzer and his Vietnam service and excluding negative things about him like his moonie connections. ] 17:59, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The "Tom Ridge" connection is included at JML's insistance - as it tends to show Republican connections - a valid point to raise in a partisan race. The "moonie" accusation is a more generalized slur and belongs only on personal page -if anywhere. Also please note for the record that Gamaliel (see above) expressly calls the "moonie" connection a negative. This is precisely what I have said Gamaliel is up to: trying to insert POV material to drag down Sherwood and with him, the validity of the documentary itself. POV bias laid bare! ] 18:00, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Way to go Perry Mason. ] 18:12, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

By saying to exclude all the Information, Gamaliel is attempting to INCLUDE POV stuff? Lyellin 18:17, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

I thought the key point of the passage about Sherwood's book was not that he had ties to the Unification Church, but rather that, while purporting to produce an independent investigation, he was actually giving the subject of the investigation prior review of the text, and even making changes requested by the subject. This violation of normal journalistic procedure is relevant to his credibility. JamesMLane 18:53, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

JML, if (and only if) you can make a rational case for journalistic flaws, provided that there is a genuine - and reported on - issue there, then it would be enough to detail that issue on the personal page and have a one or two sentence pointer link to that page. Personal problems belong on the personal page. I am simply amazed at how you are disregarding the very principles you've previously insisted on regarding segregation of material. Frankly, you are simply trying to muck things up here. This is the lowest you have ever stooped. ] 18:58, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would like to share the following information which Rex just left on my talk page:

If you restore that text again, I am going to file an RfA against you. Rex071404 19:16, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

He is, of course, referring to the text discussed here, which he has currently reverted five times in about 2-3 hours. I assume that, if it comes to the RfA he threatens, I will have witnesses that the issue had not been "already been debated and resolved", as he claimed? -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:37, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex just makes it up as he goes along. Let him file, there's already two open RfAs against him. It'll just save us the trouble of filing the third. ] 19:42, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Suffice it to say, based on the utter failure by JamesMLane and Gamaliel to use dialog based on Consensus decision making to raise and discuss to a conclusion their concerns, makes it clear that they have no interest in doing anything but stoking controversy. Please see this edit here where JamesMLane basically admits to sockpuppetry (perhaps via Feldspar or Sahara) and please see this verbatim dialog between myself and gamalile where I aske him to got to mediation with me:

Mediation requested

Gamaliel, would you accept mediation with me? I believe, based on your overt hostility, that the issue is now ripe. ] 02:07, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex, what do you think the point of mediation would be? My issues are with your accusations, insults, and flagrant disregards for the rules and norms of wikipedia. Are you willing to change your behavior and act like a rational editor? ] 02:32, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My issue is that you are overtly hostile to me, going out of your way to compound difficulties rather than difuse them. Take a cue from Wolfman. He and I differ greatly, but he is not hostile to me (nor me with him). ] 03:39, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Obviously we have a very different view of what is going on, as you see yourself as victim and justify your negative behavior on that basis. We can discuss this for years, but nothing will change until the root problem is addressed, and that root problem is your negative behavior. ] 07:08, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In my view, based on how Gamaliel and JamesMLane keep intentionally and agressively confronting me across a limited few articles (including those I've started and have been helping to develop), I feel that those two are POV edit war instigators in "sheeps clohting" and should be viewed as such. I ask the arbitrators to view the end result of my contributions to Lawrenece v. Texas where other than the intentional hassles user Neutrality dropped into my lap, the edits and talk page dialog when smoothly and the end result was accepted by other enitors gladly. In fact, other than the disruption caused by Neutrality's failure to dialog there, that was a pretty good example of Consensus decision making and compromise. Also finally, please note none of these complainers who were hell bent to inject anti-Sherwood material inot Stolen Honor have since or during done much of anything to Carlton Sherwood. This I feel underscore my accusation that these trouble makers (Gamaliel and JamesMLane) has as a singular goal, not the creation of an encyclopedic referrence about Stolen Honor but rather, the injection into that article of "negatives" (as Gamaliel referred to it) so as to damage the credibility of a documentary which is quit damming to their champion John Kerry. The arb committee ought to remember that those two were prime movers of the complaints against me then and still now. And the only ongoing nexus is that I am pro-Bush and they are pro-Kerry. Lastly, other than perhaps there being too many external links which damn Kerry, I'd like to hear from the arbitrators as to whether or not Stolen Honor is merely a POV screed. If it's not, then I think I have done a good job of shepherding it to a decent state. I would have preferred though, to not have to battled G and JML to get there. PS: I am utterly convinced that Sahara a "sockpuppet" and I think the timing of the 1st edit by that user name in the height of the edit battle helps show this. ] 16:16, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[====Comments and votes by Arbitrators (0/1/0/0)====

1. Reject, with a caveat - drop this summary into the evidence page for the (already extant) Rex case. →Raul654 07:39, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
2. Reject. Please add this to the existing case. Fred Bauder 11:47, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

User:Netoholic

Netoholic’s propensity for conflict has gone on for some time now. Much of it is well-documented at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Netoholic. The RfC, however, was largely ineffective due to his assertion that, because no one certifying it had been involved with all of the disputes, its certification was invalid. Although I find the irony of the idea that Netoholic had done too many bad things to be actionable on RfC amusing, I find this disturbing, to say the least. To my knowledge, there are four central concerns with him.

1. His edit war with JamesF and others, which culminated in him accusing JamesF and others of running a bot, and listing them on Vandalism in Progress with no meaningful cause.
2. His edit war with Mintguy, in which he repeatedly removed a poll and reinstated an expired poll, demanding an extension of the poll until it gathered consensus. The poll, having majority opposition, was clearly never going to do this.
3. His refactoring of comments, often removing informative information. One example is at , though really, you just want to look at the entire edit history of that page.
4. Delisting of articles on VfD ( and .

His refactoring is, in many ways, the most severe problem, as he has continued it, most recently on my talk page at . As is often the case, what he is removing is not a personal attack.

Finally, and possibly not actionably, Netoholic opposed my request to run a bot to handle Templates for Deletion at Misplaced Pages Talk:Bots in the section titled Snowbot. The manner of his objection, particularly with its links to my edits, makes it clear that his only objection was that I had previously objected to his running a bot. Aggravating this was that he PMed me in IRC repeatedly while objecting to inform me that I was a “fuck.” A sample exchange follows:

<NetAway> lmao SnowBot. so if I object....

<Snowspinner> If you object, I'll ask you what you object to about me running a bot.

<NetAway> no, my objection should be enough, ya fuck.

<NetAway> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Guanaco&diff=6173231&oldid=6172763

<NetAway> How do I phrase "you're a fuck" in a nice way, to allow me to reply....

At one point, this spilled into the #wikipedia IRC channel:

<Snowspinner> Hey, I'm curious - someone just told me that there was a consensus that I was a fuck. Now, I'd probably vote neutral on a poll as to whether I'm a fuck, but I'm just curious - is there in fact consensus that I'm a fuck? Straw poll.

<cimon> Well, we can all improve.

<ugen64> i would support that argument, as you are a member of teh sekret cebal

--> Cantus (~Cantus@CM-lcon5-181-160.cm.vtr.net) has joined #wikipedia

<ugen64> hi cantus

<Netoholic> I would say you are a fuck, but you're also a channel op.

<bumm13> hi cactus

<-- Cantus (~Cantus@CM-lcon5-181-160.cm.vtr.net) has left #wikipedia

<Netoholic> so i guess i can't say that

I know IRC is not presently actionable, but I contend that his vote against my bot was clearly meant to be construed by me as a claim that I am a fuck, and is thus a personal attack.

Mediation, in this case, will not prove fruitful, simply because I am not inclined to mediate with someone who has repeatedly called me a fuck. Snowspinner 19:02, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

My last comment there is perhaps more flippant than it needs to be. Let me clarify. I repeatedly told Netoholic that, if he would simply avoid any fracases like the ones listed above for a month, I would drop my objection to his bot and even apologize. I pointed him towards situations that I thought he'd handled badly.

Every time I did this, I was called a fuck.

Netoholic's continued abuse of me has driven me away from active editing on Misplaced Pages. This is not a situation that can be mediated. This is persistant harassment of the same level of ferocity and malice that characterized Kenneth Allen, Mr. Natural Health, Irismeister, and others, coupled with the cleverness to do it through unregulated channels. There is a level of abuse at which mediation is no longer useful or possible. Netoholic has passed that level. It is not reasonable to ask me to go into any negotiation that assumes good faith with a user who has reiterated, again and again, that he considers me to be a fuck. That level of contempt poisons the well far beyond what any negotiation based process can salvage. Snowspinner 21:29, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

While the RFC is persuasive, why have you not attempted mediation? →Raul654 07:40, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Because I'm unable to figure out how to assume good faith at this point. He calls me a fuck privately and then moans publicly about how he's tried to discuss this reasonably but I just wouldn't listen and blew him off. I'm not sure how to mediate with a liar like that. Snowspinner 14:20, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

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

1. Recuse (obviously). James F. (talk) 20:19, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
2. Reject, try mediation Fred Bauder 20:57, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

User:Orthogonal

Orthogonal has engaged in a persistant campaign of harassment against me, beginning with his objection to my arbitration request against Avala, and continuing to the present day. This harassment has largely taken the form of personal attacks against me, many of which can be found on his userpage at User:Orthogonal. Note particularly the section in which he compares me to the Gestapo, his accusations of sysop abuse, and his link at the top about a “farewell” gift, the text of which contains his claim made in IRC that I am a kiddie fascist with training wheels on my jackboots. Less severe, but still troubling, is the entire rest of his page, which is, at this point, mostly about his criticism and dislike of me. Indeed, this seems to summarize his entire Misplaced Pages interaction these days. Virtually all he does is attack me and make votes on RFA in which he sarcastically remarks that it's so easy to remove sysops, so why not promote people.

Although his userpage indicates that he has departed, this appears to be complete fiction. Less than 24 hours after his announced departure, he resurfaced to argue against my using a bot to automate tedious aspects of managing Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion, making claims that are misleading at best, and lies at worst, such as that I have removed votes opposing my own vote. In defending these claims, he called me “incompetent to run a bot – or to make any other important decisions for Misplaced Pages.”

An RFC has been attempted at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/orthogonal. Mediation was also attempted, but he withdrew from mediation as part of his “departure.” To date, despite his accusations of persistent abuse on my part, he has made no efforts whatsoever to settle his dispute with me, and has repeatedly refused suggestions from multiple people that he should start an RfC, or request arbitration if I’m such a systematically abusive sysop. Instead, he directs all attention to his user subpage User:Orthogonal/Snowspinner Time-line, which contains exactly one accusation of abuse, that I blocked User:Robert Brookes for personal attacks. This, apparently, is my pattern of persistant sysop abuse.

Orthogonal’s campaign against me has, with his refusal to allow me to run a bot to automate a simple and tedious task, effectively forced me into indefinite wikibreak, simply because I cannot handle this level of abuse. I request action against this user so that I can get back to work on the project. Snowspinner 15:44, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Note: this case was accepted for mediation, but has been archived after the mediation was inactive due to lack of action by the disputants and the case was listed here. see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_mediation/Archive_10#User:Snowspinner_and_User:orthogonal for more information.

BCorr, Chair of the Mediation Committee, 16:53, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Given that much of Snowspinner's official actions of that I object to, Snowspinner has justified by quoting Raul654 , , and given that Snowspinner, after announcing that my "harassment" had caused him to leave Misplaced Pages , may have conferred with Raul654 , and given that Raul654 is a member of the Arbitration Committee, I wonder if Raul654 might consider it in the best interests of Misplaced Pages to avoid any appearance of impropriety (not that I think there is any collusion) by recusing himself from this matter? -- orthogonal 17:39, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments and votes by Arbitrators (3/0/2/0)

1. Accept. Previous steps in the dispute process have clearly not resolved the dispute. →Raul654 17:02, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC) - Recuse. I think orgthogonal makes a good point, although I still strongly encourage other members of the arbcom to take the case. →Raul654 20:28, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 17:24, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
3. Accept. James F. (talk) 18:16, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
4. Recuse, owing to prior attempts to settle the dispute outside my role as arbitrator. Jwrosenzweig 20:09, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
5. Accept. Nohat 20:21, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

User:Mintguy

User:Mintguy has violated the blocking policy repeatedly by his actions of blocking users over edit conflicts which he is part of, particularly regarding User:Kenneth Alan. His actions violate the Unpopular opinions policy, among others, and the behavior constitutes abuse of Admin privileges. I request that appropriate action be taken against Mintguy. This request comes after Jimbo Wales stated on the Misplaced Pages mailing list (WikiEN-l) on Tue Sep 21 19:11:25 UTC 2004 :

Absolutely it is not a valid option for someone who is involved in editing the article. The first and foremost cardinal rule of ethics for sysop powers is that you must never ever use them to win a dispute about content. If we allowed that, it would be the end of NPOV and the beginning of SPOV (sysop point of view). --Jimbo

Subsequent other replies to the Zero0000-related email thread give further support for this position.

Most of the evidence for this can already be found in the archived RFC located at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Mintguy, along with other abuses such as "Three revert" and ad hominem roll-back reverts of all Kenneth Alan's contributions. I believe this constitutes enough evidence to re-evaluate his status. -- Netoholic @ 05:37, 2004 Sep 22 (UTC)

I also find a massive problem with Mintguy's thuglike tactics in which he responds to his friends' talk pages with something like a sentence but that doesn't convey an open message, in reference to myself or Netoholic. I fear that they are coordinating a conspiracy about both myself and Netoholic and Mintguy is doing the chief brokering of this issue between them. He has taken it upon himself to bullying and the several circumstances I have seen him leave a blurp on his allies' talk pages really do concern me when they are absolutely in reference to what has been going on with the campaign to remove myself and Netoholic. Køn Olsen 22:34, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A similar arbitration (regarding User:Zero0000 was recently accepted based solely on a block done in the "heat" of an edit dispute. I feel the recent block of myself (documented in the RFC also) is sufficient cause for acceptance of this matter, the same as the previous one. -- Netoholic @ 23:39, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)

Two comments. First, I am not sure where mediation would help here - this is a complaint from multiple users about one admin's use of those powers. If this were a simple editorial dispute, I would agree and would have pursued that. Perhaps an Arbitrator could explain. Second point, if it looks like this is going to be rejected, I would ask the Arbitrators to run it by Jimbo, since I don't see any difference between this and the Zero0000 matter - except that further abuses have been voiced against Mintguy than blocking against policy. Again, I hope the Arbitrators can be more verbose as to their reasons. -- Netoholic @ 01:38, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)

Jwrosenzweig -- I think you mis-read my request. While the minor items in the RFC were not met with support, the new charge (in which he blocked me personally) was only recently added, for "record-keeping". Overall, I did not expect to have to present all my evidence here in the first request. On it's face, though, Mintguy and I were both editing the same page, disagree on its content, and he blocked me as a direct result of that -- clearly not a course of action which should be supported by refusing this matter. There are other examples (perhaps minor) which show use of admin-only privileges to settle editorial disputes, on such things as spelling. Almost no effort was made by him in any instances todiscuss the concerns, rather than take these actions.
I have to raise concern as to your impartiality in this matter. You've contacted Mintguy directly to offer advice to him and other comments ("I like you, Mintguy, and I know you have Misplaced Pages's best interests at heart."), so I would now ask you to consider recusing yourself from this. -- Netoholic @ 07:24, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)

Current system time is: 2025-01-10 16:48 UTC

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

1. Reject -- the RFC does not show sufficient cause for arbitration. Jwrosenzweig 22:28, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
   • In response to Netoholic's request for further explanation, I would say that, though Mintguy is being accused of a similar action to Zero's, the evidence is different -- the block is far less clearly for personal content reasons, and unlike Zero, Mintguy's actions do not seem to be taken in open defiance of policy (which is a clear signal to arbitrate, in my personal opinion). I consider the other charges against Mintguy to be almost universally without merit -- they are extraordinarily minor charges that have the weight of community consensus strongly opposed, and in the absence of a clear policy violation, I'd say consensus is a reasonable guide. Jwrosenzweig 20:34, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
2. Refer to mediation. Accept if Mintguy refuses to accept mediation. Martin 15:27, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
3. Reject. Mediate first. --the Epopt 22:24, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
4. Reject. Recommend mediation. →Raul654 22:30, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
5. Reject, no prima facia case, Fred Bauder 14:41, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
6. Recuse, though it makes no odds. James F. (talk) 18:16, 27 Sep 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.
• /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.
• /Rex071404 - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes on August 8, 2004. Evidence to /Rex071404/Evidence, please.
• /Kenneth Alan - Accepted for Arbitration with five votes on August 22, 2004. Evidence to /Kenneth Alan/Evidence, please.
• /RickK vs. Guanaco (ab initio "The Matter of Michael") - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes on August 29, 2004. Evidence to /RickK vs. Guanaco/Evidence, please.
• /172 - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes and two abstentions on August 30, 2004 (delayed due to overlap with previously running cases). Evidence to /172/Evidence, please.
• /Gene Poole vs. Samboy - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes on September 11, 2004. Evidence to /Gene Poole vs. Samboy/Evidence, please.
• /Cantus vs. Guanaco - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes and one rejection on September 11, 2004. Evidence to /Cantus vs. Guanaco/Evidence, please.
• /Rex071404 2 - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes and one rejection on September 19, 2004. Evidence to /Rex071404 2/Evidence, please.
• /Jimmyvanthach - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes on September 20, 2004. Evidence to /Jimmyvanthach/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.

• 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.

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.

• Dispute resolution