Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:36, 1 October 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 and User:Gzornenplatz

This user has reverted Template:Sep11 nine ten times without once editing the talk page or giving a reason in edit summaries other than things like "utterly ridiculous". Just what must happen before the arbitration committee deals with this case? Obviously there's no mediation going to work here. Gzornenplatz 23:02, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

This arbitration page stuff sure is fun. Maybe I should list every user I don't like here. Seriously, is this page going to become a circus? NB: There is a pending mediation request between me and Gz, not that it really matters, since Gz has no intention of mediating with me, he wants me banned. VV 23:08, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comment to Jwrosenzweig: The fiasco is about VeryVerily refusing to explain his reverts, whereas I have perfectly well explained my reasoning for removing this POV link. Apparently you prefer that I behave just like him so that the template will be in a permanent state of edit war or protection rather than finding a permanent solution to this. Gzornenplatz 23:35, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Further comment: So now we have two arbitrators declaring "frivolous" a complaint about a user who reverts ten times without the slightest explanation. If this becomes the majority view, this can only mean that the committee is officially approving of the behaviour of reverting ten times without the slightest explanation. In view of Jwrosenzweig's "discovery" of what the content of the dispute is about, it must be noted that the content of the dispute is of course entirely irrelevant, this is solely about the acceptability of VeryVerily's conduct of this dispute. Even if you find someone else's edit blatantly wrong, if that user is not clearly a troll or the like, you have to give a reason when you revert and you have to engage that user's arguments in talk. Gzornenplatz 11:55, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Comment to Fred Bauder: He doesn't even start talking on the talk page, obviously he's not interested in mediation. And what do you mean, until VeryVerily requests acceptance? Of what? Arbitration? Gzornenplatz 13:25, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily may wish to pursue a complaint against you, but mediation would have to be requested first. Repeatedly removing the link to the September 11 Memorial was not acceptable as it is a sister Wiki. Fred Bauder 11:36, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Comments and votes by arbitrators (0/3/0/0)

1. Reject -- I went to the page and discovered the fiasco is apparently over Gzomenplatz wanting to remove a link to the Wikimorial (or Sep11wiki, depending on what we decided to call it, I can't remember) from the Sept. 11 table of links. One of the more frivolous requests I've seen. Jwrosenzweig 23:20, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
2. Reject - James (Jg) hit the nail on the head. →Raul654 02:03, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
3. Reject until competion of mediation and User:VeryVerily requests acceptance Fred Bauder 13:07, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

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)

Utterly frivolous. Arbitration is obviously premature. His claim about me being the first to revert is demonstrably false. VV 22:57, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Umm...demonstrably false, unless someone looks for the first revert, which was by you at 04:44 on the 25th of September. CK 01:48, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I corrected this falsehood in Talk, yet he repeats it. Oh well. VV 01:51, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Veryverily is simply lying, and I urge interested parties to examine the PNAC edit history themselves in order to see the truth. CK 02:16, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Update: there is also a summary of the dispute, with some comment from a disinterested moderator, on the talk page: CK 10:18, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm the "disinterested moderator" CK mentions above (not that I consider this a particularly "official" role, I just happened by), and at this point I think I'm satisfied enough that the talk: page discussion is going nowhere that I'll add my voice to this request. VeryVerily seems to be arguing vigorously against a position that is not actually being taken by those he's arguing against (both the editors on the talk page and the version of the article he was disputing), and I think the version he wants to replace it with is highly POV. I've tried at great length to explain why I think this but it just doesn't seem to be helping and VV has rejected all the other approaches to dealing with this that are suggested on the dispute resolution page. Bryan 01:32, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily deleted this comment with the summary "outside comments belong in talk." This is not an outside comment, I'm seconding this request for arbitrarion in accordance with the last bullet point in #What belongs in Requests for Arbitration. Bryan 04:45, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My comment copied from Talk

The conversation is indeed starting to head to nowheresville, because BD is simply not processing what I am saying, whether out of laziness or, whatever. However, he is not an involved party here. VV 04:07, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mediation was declined. See Requests for mediation archive 10 for details.
BCorr, Chair of the Mediation Committee, BCorr|Брайен 13:25, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Votes and comments by arbitrators (1/0/0/0)

• Accept, mediation requested but refused, Fred Bauder 12:56, Sep 29, 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, Stolen 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:

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Rex's copy from Stolen Honor talk page (Because Rex's wholesale copying of material rather than linking to the version of the talk page that supports his contention made effective editing of this page difficult, I have moved that material to a subpage of its own. I hope this will make the actual issues clearer. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:47, 28 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:

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Rex's copy from second talk page (Because Rex's wholesale copying of material rather than linking to the version of the talk page that supports his contention made effective editing of this page difficult, I have moved that material to a subpage of its own. I hope this will make the actual issues clearer. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:47, 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 Lawrence 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 have 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)

Also, please look at this and this to get a flavor of how JameMLane goes out of his way to make edits which look as bad as possible for Bush ] 16:46, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea why I am mentioned extensively above other than Rex's dislike for me or my membership in his imaginary anti-Rex conspiracy. Most of the quoted text above has nothing to do with the charges that he abused the Vandalism in Progress page. ] 18:14, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also, please see here where User:Gamaliel and User:Antaeus Feldspar between have ganged up to harras the latest page I created. this is typical of Gamaliel, he hassles me at just about every page I create or am involved in. ] 23:19, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am a regular participant on Votes for Deletion and I vote on many articles that do not involve Rex at all. I voted on at least a half dozen articles today alone. There is no collusion here, just paranoia. Again, I do not see why he is bring me up again here or what this has to do with the stated charge of Rex's abuse of Vandalism in Progress. ] 23:55, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As a party to this Request, I would like to hereby reiterate my support of the facts put forth by JamesMLane, and address the Response by Rex. My apologies if in any place I fail to follow the proper form through my inexperience with this process.

Rex did in fact take inappropriate steps to attempt to bar a good faith edit to the Stolen Honor article. My edit was reverted, and Rex left false information on my talk page, telling me that the issue had "already been debated and resolved" . He made no claim at this time that the edit was "overt vandalism", a charge he would later make. He did state that "If you restore that text again, I am going to file an RfA against you." However, since he made no references to any policies he claimed I was in violation of, there was very little way to interpret it except as a warning not to contravene his personal wishes about what was to go in the article and what was not. Certainly, had he actually believed me to be in violation of any Misplaced Pages policy, his obligation would have been to assume good faith and notify me of which policy I was violating.

The claim of "vandalism" did not surface until his edit summary of 19:15, 27 Sep 2004, when he described the edit he was reverting (for the fifth time in less than two hours) as "POV vnadalism ", despite Misplaced Pages policy that even an actual NPOV violation is not vandalism. He did not profess on the talk page to believe that he was dealing with "overt vandalism" until he was notified that he was in overt violation of the three revert rule, at which point he professed to believe that my "repeated injection of inappropriate content" was "overt vandalism" (again, in defiance of actual Misplaced Pages policy) and professed to believe as well that he was not bound by the three-revert rule in cases of "overt vandalism". Another user asked Rex to cite his reference for that assertion; Rex has failed to do so.

Rex has made wild accusations against me accusing me of religious bigotry, claiming that I "hate moonies" (despite my never having edited any other article that even touches on the Unification Church), and accusing me of bad faith for changing Rex's chosen section title of "Sherwood's personal page", which assumed not just one, but two points in dispute (that the edits were "personal information", and that they belonged on "Sherwood's personal page".) Even when I changed the section title a second time, to a neutral description of the edits under discussion ("Sherwood information on Stolen Honor article") Rex changed it to the even more POV version "Personal attacks on Sherwood do not belong in Stolen Honor article". At no point did Rex voice any actual argument why "Sherwood infomation on Stolen Honor article" was unacceptable, but further attempts to keep the section title as one that accurately described the material under dispute in a way that endorsed neither POV were reverted along with an accusation in the edit summary naming me as an "edit vandal".

At this time, a new Wikipedian, Sahara, seeing the fray, stepped in and began to revert Rex's deletions of the disputed material, which he was still describing as "vandalism." Based on no evidence other than her edits, professing to find her ability to edit wiki syntax suspicious, and never having attempted to speak directly to her, he immediately began referring to her as "the sockpuppet vandal". Though he had no evidence whatsoever that Sahara was or is a sockpuppet, let alone of whom, that did not stop him from asserting as fact that she was a sockpuppet of myself on Vandalism in progress. Twice. He made the same personal attack on myself there, accusing me (falsely, as we have seen) of vandalism, sockpuppetry, and ignoring the talk page. It is my understanding that Rex knows quite well from previous experience that an edit dispute is neither vandalism nor to be listed on Vandalism in progress -- the original Request as filed by JamesMLane makes the citations.

Rex continues to make insinuations that I am a sockpuppet, whether by simply putting my name in quotes (, ) or by professing to find it odd that JamesMLane described himself as "authorized to state that Antaeus Feldspar joins in this complaint." It would be a breach of the assume good faith policy to leap from that authorization to the conclusion that I am a sockpuppet. It is far more than that, however; it is deliberate deception on Rex's part -- since he visited my talk page both before and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Antaeus_Feldspar&diff=6215651&oldid=6215319

after] JML submitted this arbitration request and knew that I had authorized JML to submit this arbitration request on my behalf as well as his own.

Despite Rex's occasional pretenses to value consensus, my suggestion of a means by which we might achieve actual consensus was immediately shot down by Rex in a dismissive manner, claiming that I was "beating a dead horse". When remonstrated for his incivility, Rex's reply only spelled out his previous "beating a dead horse" comment, by linking to a non-encyclopedic article he had created seven minutes previously, which spelled out that by using that idiom, he was stating that "a particular request or line of conversation already foreclosed, mooted or otherwise resolved". So in one edit, he purports to JamesMLane that he believes "It is equally important that your concerns be heard and accomodated by the group as anyone else's"; in his very next edit to that same article he derides any further conversation about the article content as "foreclosed, mooted or otherwise resolved."

Since he had brought the Beating a dead horse article to the attention of everyone following the article, I followed the link to the article, and found it nothing more than an explanation of the idiom. Rather than trust my own judgement in the matter, I checked Misplaced Pages's deletion policy and found that it, did, indeed, fit the description of articles that did not belong on Misplaced Pages. Following proper Misplaced Pages procedure, I listed the article on Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion. Rex may describe this as "a vindictive listing by a disgruntled editor who has been in a revert war with me and is stalking my edits" but the fact is that the edit is completely in line with Misplaced Pages policy. This is an insult to my character, describing my actions as "vindictive" and "stalking his edits" instead of assuming good faith.

Whether Rex actually believed his characterization or not, it was a characterization he proceeded to live up (or rather, down) to. He began a series of what I can only characterize as harassment edits, to articles in which he had never shown any interest before, reverting my edits and calling them "nonsensical", describing my comments as "confused", inserting "facts" of dubious veracity and dubious relevance on others. It would strain imagination to believe that he was not himself "stalking my edits" as he had accused me of. But he went even further than this; there is no benign explanation for his edits to my talk page ( ,) merely to inform me of what my watchlist would already have notified me, had I been interested enough to watch that article for changes.

Rex's "Response" to this Request for Arbitration consists not of adequate explanation for his outrageous behavior but merely more of the same behavior: falsely asserting that consensus was (at some point) reached and therefore anyone who doesn't agree with that consensus (!!) is in the wrong; repeating his personal attacks on myself and Sahara and JamesMLane with accusations of "collusion" and of sockpuppetry, of which he misdescribes this passage as an admission; attributing ulterior motives to edits and to editors he disagrees with; in short, Rex's "defense" serves to verify his offenses.

Rex has raised many accusations. In my opinion, none of them, save one, is even faintly credible; to show that I am acting in good faith, I will explain the evidence that Rex has purported to believe is proof of my "vandalism" (despite the fact that he was publicly making that accusation before the phenomenon that he now cites as "proof" began.) The evidence is this: after certain of my edits, characters that had previously appeared on the edited page as "'" would subsequently appear as "?" -- hence, "Kerry's" would become "Kerry?s". As I speculated previously, and subsequently confirmed, there are certain characters that appear in my browser as if they were apostrophes, but they are not, nor are they saved as apostrophes when the page is edited and saved. I have in fact investigated with a hex editor; an actual apostrophe is ASCII 27, and the "apostrophes" that appear as question marks after saving are ASCII 3F -- apparently "smart quotes" inserted by editors that some people use.

Rex's charges are again shown to be baseless; while there is a technical problem (caused by two computers; the one which puts a 'smart quote' where a real quote mark should go, and mine, which renders it as it was intended but saves it as it actually is) it is just that: a technical problem. Rex's accusation that this constitutes "vandalism" is just like all his other accusations: preposterous. That being said, if any Arbitrator actually does find any charge of Rex's against me credible enough to wish me to answer, I stand ready to answer. (Just to underline the absurdity of Rex's pretense that he abided by Misplaced Pages policy, trying to accomodate all good-faith edits, while I plotted to vandalize the article with formatting errors -- here is an error that Rex himself made, which I fixed -- which Rex himself then reintroduced into the article by repeatedly reverting my edits regardless of their actual content.)

As for proposed remedies: I freely admit that I do not have experience in this area, and so I do not know what is typical for such egregious behavior (if indeed anything can be 'typical' for such egregious behavior.) I do know, however, that it has to be something that does not require cooperation on Rex's part; he has shown time and again that, whether his disregard for all community standards stems from willfulness or actual incapacity, it is total: he may make occasional pretenses to abide by the rules, and even cite them when he perceives it to his advantage, but he can never be trusted to obey them. I would state that nothing less than a ban can be appropriate for Rex's misdeeds, and I will hereby state that, for whatever my judgement is worth, there is no upper limit to the length of that ban where I would believe it "too long".

-- Antaeus Feldspar 05:52, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What A. Feldspar neglects to mention is that of the (5) active editors who were working on Stolen Honor prior to his arrival (3) of them had more or less agreed to keep the majority of Mr. Sherwood's personal information on the article page which deals with Mr. Sherwood personally, that being Carlton Sherwood. That can be confirmed by reading this Talk:Stolen_Honor/Archive which is the full page of talk that had been archived just prior to Feldspar's arrival on the scene. Suffice it to say, if you read that archive, you will see that there had already been much dialog on the same issues that Feldspar and Sahara jumped in with both feet over. Suffice it to say, at the article Texans for Truth my nemesis JamesMLane had gone to great lengths to insist that only precisely on-topic text and links were going to be allowed, in other words, things which he asserted were tangential to TfT had to go on the George Bush service controversy page. Now comes this article which I started and both he and Gamaliel insist on stuffing it with information that is critical of Sherwood's activities or past that are not related to the documentary itself. This entire dispute boils down to JamesMLane, Gamaliel, A. Feldspar and Sahara in series demanding that material which readily fits in at Carlton Sherwood be inserted both there and at Stolen Honor. Suffice it to say, since I had already endured so much hassle over so little simply to clear the deck with the few cooperative editors at Stolen Honor, it made no sense to me to just sit back and let a series of editors who, offering no rationale justification for the actions were demanding the insertion of "attack material" regarding Sherwood. That and the odd "?" issue (for which I do now accept Feldspar's belated though cogent explanation) combined with the fact that all (4) of the editors who revert battled me in series were all reinserting the exact same text - without dialog on talk page let me to stand my ground and fight back. At this point, I still suspect Feldspar as being either a spare identity of one of my long term editorial opponents, or at minimum, a very skilled user (look at that edit above!) who could easily have agreed to take some time and talk, rather than join in on a "let's overpower Rex" pig pile. As for Sahara, I remain extremely suspicious of "sockpuppet" status there. Even so, I call the attention of the editors to the current (as of this edit) status of Stolen Honor. Frankly, I do not see how anyone looking for NPOV can reasonably object to it's composition. This argument simply boils down to several like-minded editors singularly focusing on pummeling me into submission and/or building a portfolio of complaints so as to ban me from the Wiki. Personally, I'd like to know, has Feldspar created even (1) article worth reading? I've recently started Fulbright Hearing, White cracker, Gil Clancy, Jay Alan Sekulow, Useful idiot, Axis of Eve, Stolen Honor, Lake of fire, Beating a dead horse and others. Frankly, I simply do not understand why it is JamesMLane and Gamaliel have been so persistent in chasing me from article to article. And as for A. Feldspar I did snoop at a few of his edits today. However, nothing I did there was baseless . Rather, a few minor tweaks were done on some pages from his contributors list both for the sake of the edits themselves and to see what his reaction would be. Also, I added some nice material to the Dedham Mass page and have initiated a discusion at ME 262 Talk page - both of which Feldspar got snotty with me about on his talk page. Personally, I think his call for a long Wiki "ban" backs up my suspicions that he is somehow aligned with JamesMLane, et al, beyond this Stolen Honor issue. Lastly, I will note that JamesMLane has the most annoying habit of simply quitting a thread of dialog when it's pointed out to him that he's wrong. If you count all the edits that he and I have clashed over, across every single page we have dialoged over, unlike user Wolfman and even now Kizzle, JML has never, not once (to my recollection) ever conceded that I have been right about even one single point - not one. Suffice it to say, Wolfman and I have duked it out the the past, yet the detente I launched under the initiative "Wolfpeace" (and adopted in good faith by Wolfman - see my talk page) has led to us being able to collaborate on Sponsorship of legislation by John Kerry without problems. Even now, the newcomer Kizzle who initially was caught up on some edit issues, has moved towards peace mode with me concurrently as I have to him. Frankly, it is users like Gamaliel and JML who reject peace (I have offered it to both on their talk pages and both have declined) and who (as Gamaliel does) stoked the flames of hostility by calling me a trouble maker on the talk pages of new users. Suffice it to say, I will be glad when election 2004 is over. I predict that JML and Gamaliel with cease chasing me around beginning Nov. 3rd. ] 07:37, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'll try to keep this brief for sanity's sake:

• What Rex doesn't tell you is that the article contained such positive pro-Sherwood irrelevancies such as his Vietnam decorations and his work on a government anti-terror website. What we wanted to introduce was a couple lines on a book he wrote about the Unification Church, specifically evidence that the book was in fact approved by the moonies. Evidence that a journalist is less than impartial is surely more relevant to an article on a documentary by that journalist than that journalist's work as an government webmaster or what he did in Nam.
• I voted on the Beating a dead horse article because it showed up on VfD, where I am a regular participant, and I would have found it anyway because he posted a message on Talk:Stolen Honor saying "Gamaliel, you are Beating a dead horse". How can he say I am chasing him when he posted a link to the article directed at me?!
• People are aligned simply because they agree on something that Rex disagrees with? Apparently consensus is now evidence of conspiracy.
• I did not "reject peace". Rex wants mediation, and I asked him if he would kindly stop insulting me saying things like I have a "warped, spiteful mind" , an insult he leveled about a half hour before his latest peace overture. He has declined to say whether he would stop personally insulting me. Why should I have to go through mediation to get someone to stop calling me names?
• For a third time, Rex has typed in a lot of text but failed to address the charges at hand, namely his abuse of Vandalism in Progress. These charges have nothing to do with me and I played no part in filing this request, yet he keeps bringing me up, I guess because I'm on his hit list. ] 08:00, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Again, Rex's "defense" only serves to confirm his offenses.

• He confirms that what he described as "overt vandalism", he knew to be an edit dispute instead;
• He repeats personal attacks on myself and Sahara, accusing us of sockpuppet status;
• He debates in bad faith, assuming the very points under dispute ("attack material") as fact;
• He assumes bad faith, seeking a preposterous explanation ("Kerry's" became "Kerry?s" after Feldspar's edit because Feldspar is a vandal) when one of his intelligence could clearly construct a legitimate explanation (it is a technical problem -- which was already explained)
• He admits that his edits are motivated by his desire to get a "reaction" from me;
• He blames other users for his problems instead of taking even the slightest bit of responsibility for them.

Rex is impossible to deal with. He cannot be trusted to heed his responsibilities to Misplaced Pages. He clearly knows them, well enough to give them lip service, well enough to cite them if it fits his needs of the moments -- but he ignores them when they are inconvenient, and invents new rules that he pretends to be Misplaced Pages policy.

Is it, as Rex claims, the fault of others who cannot accomodate his point of view? This would not be a laughable 'defense' if Rex could even pick a point of view and stick to it. As it is, Rex purports one minute to find it very important that JamesMLane's views be represented in consensus, and the next minute to find it utterly unreasonable to even entertain the possibility of my views being so represented, while purporting to believe that I am JML.

His harassment edits continue, and he admits that they are to "see what reaction would be." Why, certainly, he purports that the edits are "for the sake of the edits themselves" -- this is about as believable as the jealous ex-boyfriend's pretense that he just happened to have twenty errands that day that took him directly past his victim's house, and that those fifteen people who called that day and hung up without saying anything were fifteen wrong numbers that just happened to call that day, et cetera. It is clearly nonsense even without looking at the edits themselves, but if you wonder whether they are in fact edits that improve the article (, , ), then take the opinions of other editors on the matter.

There is no way to co-exist with Rex because he can never see a situation where he doesn't deserve to get his way. If a single person speaks up to oppose his views, that editor is refusing to abide by consensus. If two people agree on anything that opposes his views, that is evidence that they are colluding against him, or perhaps the same person. If someone reverts his edits, they are perpetrating and perpetuating an edit war; if they decline to continue the edit war and seek some more reasonable means of resolution, they have yielded.

The mere fact that Rex's abusive, deceptive behavior occurs in a thousand separate lies and harassments cannot be allowed as reason to take them one whit less seriously. He has shown that, whether unwilling or actually mentally incapable, he cannot be trusted to abide by his responsibilities to Misplaced Pages. There is no reason he should be allowed its privileges.

-- Antaeus Feldspar 20:39, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The problem with Feldspar, is that he is simply unwilling to admit it, even when he is proven wrong on the facts as they apply to an article. See Talk:Dedham, Massachusetts. Also, please see the article itself and the edit he reverted me on three times there. ] 20:45, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I rest my case; this is the very same edit on which Rex took my choice not to pursue a revert war as yielding. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:44, 29 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)

Given that Snowspinner has publicly admitted that "the personal attack was the part of my claim I knew was kinda dodgy" and that he admits that Netoholic indeed only engaged in (emphasis mine) "low-grade 'needling' on Misplaced Pages, while fanning the flames in IRC", (both at ) it seems clear that Snowspinner's claim for Arbitration is fatally flawed.

Snowspinner is essentially admitting that 1) Netoholic's "personal attacks" against Snowspinner on Misplaced Pages did not rise to a level justifying Arbitration (and the Arbitration Committee, as Snowspinner knows, has no jurisdiction over IRC , and Jimbo himself has opined that the "No personal attacks" policy probably should not apply to IRC) and 2) that Snowspinner knew his claim was "dodgy" when he made it -- that he knowingly and willingly exaggerated the case, if not entirely lying.

Snowspinner, then, has as much as said he knowingly made a false claim before the Arbitration Committee and moreover that the claim was for relief he knew was outside the Arbitration Committee's traditional jurisdiction. This alone should be enough to dismiss Snowspinner's claim as frivolous. Whether Snowspinner should be sanctioned for knowingly making such false claims is of course up to the Arbitration Committee.

I also note that the Request for Comment against user Xed had as its principle allegations the making of frivolous claims for Arbitration outside the Arbitration Committee's jurisdiction , a view certified or endorsed by sixteen Wikipedians, including Snowspinner himself.

-- orthogonal 23:51, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This intrerpretation is wrong in several respects. First, Snowspinner's claim WRT Netholic's transgressions in Misplaced Pages proper center are not based solely on personal attacks - in fact, the RFC lists several actions for which I find this case acceptable for arbitration (none of which is the personal attacks). Snowspinner himself said that the most severe problem is Netholic's tendancy to edit other people's comments. The (alleged) personal attacks are an aggrivating factor, not the primary cause of action for the case. Second, I suggest you do not accuse another Wikipedian of lying, when in fact the record (the RFC, in this case) seems to support this case. →Raul654 02:10, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

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

1. Recuse (obviously). James F. (talk) 20:19, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
2. Reject, try mediation Fred Bauder 20:57, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
3. Abstain, for the moment. I'm torn between recommending for mediation and accepting. I'm discussing the matter with the mediation committee right now, so I recommend the other arbitrators don't vote until I get back. →Raul654 02:23, Sep 29, 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)

While I do not think I have "harassed" Snowspinner, as a reasonable person could construe my statements at as a personal attack on Snowspinner, and as Misplaced Pages has a Policy of Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks, and as I have long argued that Policy should be adhered to without "fear or favor" and without exception, I ask that the Arbitration Committee enforce that Policy by banning me from Misplaced Pages, along with whatever other sanctions it feels are required to enforce that Policy or any others.

(To be frank, I had intended to leave Misplaced Pages for reasons unrelated to Misplaced Pages and having to do entirely with my personal life, so I will not pretend this is a great hardship -- the practical results will be the same --, nor do I see myself or do I wish others to see me as any sort of martyr; but I would be being a hypocrite if advocated rule by Policy and not Personality, without also insisting that Policy should apply to myself as well.)

-- orthogonal 03:16, 29 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 09:49 UTC

Comments and votes by Arbitrators (0/4/2/0)

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)
     • I would respond to Netoholic by saying that I have no problem with censuring or even banning someone I like and who I know has Misplaced Pages's best interests at heart if they refuse to follow policy. I like Jimbo and I am positive he has Misplaced Pages's best interests at heart, but as I indicated before, I would hold him to the standards of Misplaced Pages policy if the need arose. I don't think I need to automatically recuse myself from arbitrating any case involving a user I have publically or privately indicated respect for or friendship with. However, I will admit I had come close to choosing to recuse in this case, and as it would also be your advice that I do so, I will recuse myself in the interests of propriety. Jwrosenzweig 21:25, 28 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