Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Monicasdude (talk | contribs)
3,505 edits
Line 98: Line 98:
* {{user|Ardenn}}
* {{user|Ardenn}}
* {{user|TKE}}
* {{user|TKE}}
* {{user|Calton}}
* Approximately ten John Does who will probably add themselves. (Use {{tlp|user|yourusername}}.)
* Approximately ten John Does who will probably add themselves. (Use {{tlp|user|yourusername}}.)
Monicasdude is alleged to persistently assume bad faith in others, ignore consensus, make personal attacks, and remove warnings and messages from his talk page.
Monicasdude is alleged to persistently assume bad faith in others, ignore consensus, make personal attacks, and remove warnings and messages from his talk page.
Line 103: Line 104:
Swatjester has wikistalked Monicasdude and cast bad faith AfD "votes" in an attempt to offset Monicasdude's position.
Swatjester has wikistalked Monicasdude and cast bad faith AfD "votes" in an attempt to offset Monicasdude's position.


Calton has edited this page several times to remove or alter statements by Monicasdude, and included personal attacks in his edit summaries.
Calton has edited this page several times to remove or alter statements by Monicasdude, and included personal attacks in his edit summaries. Calton is persistently uncivil and makes personal attacks.


; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Line 116: Line 117:
* [[User:Ardenn|Ardenn]] - I've had arguments with Monicasdude
* [[User:Ardenn|Ardenn]] - I've had arguments with Monicasdude
* [[User:TKE|TKE]] - I've seen what's been going on regarding the AfDs of the past several days between [[User:Monicadude|Monicadude]] and other editors.
* [[User:TKE|TKE]] - I've seen what's been going on regarding the AfDs of the past several days between [[User:Monicadude|Monicadude]] and other editors.
* {{user|Calton}} -- voluntarily joined this case, as well as here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Calton&diff=prev&oldid=47352065]
; Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
; Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
Two RFCs: [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Monicasdude|1]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Monicasdude 2|2]] have failed to cause any change in behaviour.
Two RFCs: [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Monicasdude|1]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Monicasdude 2|2]] have failed to cause any change in behaviour.

Revision as of 08:20, 7 April 2006

Shortcut

Request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. Before requesting arbitration, please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee.

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Historical elections (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Aug 2024 03 Sep 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) Motion none 26 July 2024
Clarification request: Appeal methods for Lima Bean Farmer topic ban none none 12 August 2024
Amendment request: German war effort none (orig. case) 13 August 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) none none 17 August 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and (exceptionally) to summarily review new evidence and update the findings and decisions of a previous case. Review is likely to be appropriate if later events indicate the original ruling on scope or enforcement was too limited and does not adequately address the situation, or if new evidence suggests the findings of fact were significantly in error.

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person against whom you lodge a complaint.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arbitrators' votes to accept/reject/recuse/other.

This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Please do not open cases; only an Arbitrator or clerk may do so.



How to list cases

Under the Current requests section below:

  • Click the "[edit]" tab on the right of the screen appearing above the section break line;
  • Copy the full formatting template (text will be visible in edit mode), omitting the lines which say "BEGIN" and "END TEMPLATE";
  • Paste template text where it says "ADD CASE BELOW";
  • Follow instructions on comments (indented), and fill out the form;
  • Remove the template comments (indented).

Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template

Current requests

Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs)

Involved parties

Rms125a@hotmail.com, and his various sockpuppets and anonymous IP addresses, has persistently and blatantly breached several Wikipedia policies, including WP:NPA, WP:NPOV, WP:3RR and WP:SOCK.

Confirmation that other parties have been informed

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Demiurge

Problematic behaviour includes inserting virulent anti-Irish/anti-Catholic/anti-Croatian POV into articles, vitriolic personal abuse, revert wars and a wide array of sockpuppets. A user conduct RfC was filed, but the user flatly denied all wrongdoing and the sockpuppetry and aggressive POV editing continued. Examples of each category of disputed behaviour (much more evidence and examples provided in the RfC):

Statement by party 2

 (Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)

Monicasdude

Involved parties

Monicasdude is alleged to persistently assume bad faith in others, ignore consensus, make personal attacks, and remove warnings and messages from his talk page.

Swatjester has wikistalked Monicasdude and cast bad faith AfD "votes" in an attempt to offset Monicasdude's position.

Calton has edited this page several times to remove or alter statements by Monicasdude, and included personal attacks in his edit summaries. Calton is persistently uncivil and makes personal attacks.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Two RFCs: 1 and 2 have failed to cause any change in behaviour.

Statement by User:Stifle

I first interacted with Monicasdude in February 2006 when discussing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ross C. DeVol. He voted for speedy keep, and I suggested [5] that this may not be a valid vote (although I admit now that it was at the time). Monicasdude replied [6] accusing the nominator of vandalism and accusing me of repeated bad faith AFD nominations. When I asked him to quote one such nomination [7], he replied with a cryptic comment [8] which did not cite any actual bad faith AFDing by me, before deleting [9] the entire conversation from his talk page with the edit summary "obsessive personal attack refactored". My request not to do this [10] was summarily dealt with the same way [11].

Monicasdude also regularly makes bad faith and/or vandalism accusations of nominators to AFDs, when voting Speedy Keep. [12], [13], [14].

He also makes personal attacks against people voting to delete on AFD [15], [16], [17] .

I also beg to incorporate by reference the evidence and accusations at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Monicasdude 2.

Later addition

Statement by User:Monicasdude

I urge the Arbitration Committee to quickly reject this matter and, metaphorically, spank Messrs. Stifle and Ong and send them to bed without supper. I also urge the committee to state its disapproval of Stifle's electioneering, soliciting users involved in entirely unrelated matters to support his claims, as well as Mailer Diablo's parallel efforts at vote stacking. As for the RfA:

  • First, Stifle misrepresents the history of his dispute with me; it began after I opposed his speedy deletion nomination of Fly_(artist) here [18] and criticized the practice of tagging an article for speedy deletion while its initial author (a rather new user) was still writing it.
  • Second, since Stifle's dispute with is entirely unrelated to the previous editing disputes he mentions, there have been no previous attempts at formal dispute resolution in this matter, and an arbitration request is clearly premature -- especially given the frequency with which consensus in the relevant AfD discussions lines up with my positions.
  • Third, Stifle made a series of posts on my talk page demanding that I change my vote in an AfD, with an increasingly rude tone and stronger elements of personal attacks. When it was clear the discussion was unproductive, and increasingly hostile, I cut it off and refactored the matter. Many users are much more aggressive in removing such material, and their actions are not seen as inappropriate. Since he now admits that his position there was incorrect, I find his insistence that his error be preserved for all to see rather, well, odd. Stifle does not like the term "refactored"; "redacted" will do just as well. I used "refactored" to indicate that the text remained in the page history, and that I had not asked an administrator to entirely remove offensive material, as other users have done.
  • Fourth, Stifle cites several allegations of bad faith he says I made. Alleging bad faith is not itself inappropriate, since Wikipedia editors regularly behave in bad faith, and he does not claim the allegations were incorrect or baseless. (Indeed, with regard to the first of three he cites, Mr. Ong made a stronger allegation of bad faith [19], where I had said only that the nomination gave the appearance of bad faith and asked the nominator to explain it.) Also note that in the third example cited, my comments are a response to a thoroughly uncivil personal attack by the AfD nominator, and I believe the bad faith in that situation is quite clearly demonstrated.
  • Fifth, Stifle alleges personal attacks in three matters where I comment on policy violations or criticize editing practices. Nothing about such statements is inappropriate, and they are not personal attacks. I believe that editors who summarily tag articles from new editors for deletion, without making any efforts to assist them or to verify the substantial accuracy of their own position, are violating WP:BITE and damaging the integrity of the Wikipedia project. I believe that editors ought to recognize an obligation to verify claims of non-notability that they make; to do otherwise violates their WP:AGF obligations towards the authors whose work they proposing removing, since there is so often no reason to believe the authors held a good faith believe that the subjects they wrote on were notable. And I believe that an editor who openly admits outright ignorance of a subject should not presume those involved in the field are non-notable and call for deletion of pertinent articles, as was the case in one of the disputes he cites.

Frankly, AfD is a cesspool of bad behavior, marked ongoing incivility toward, often personal attacks on, the authors (and sometime subjects) of articles targeted for deletion. Such bad behavior, whether malicious or grossly irresponsible, should be identified and criticized much more frequently than it currently is. The requesters in this case ardently and enthusiastically propose and support deletion on a virtually wholesale basis, too often in defiance of consensus guidelines and criteria; I suspect the real reason for this request is frustration in my success in opposing their positions. And their positions actively damage Wikipedia: driving away editors, especially new editors, acting in good faith; offending the subjects of articles who happen upon discussions in AfD disputes (often via Google) and find themselves maligned, and removing worthwhile subjects/articles from the project over defects in form, when Wikipedia policy and guidelines clearly call for improvement rather than removal. The Committee would do better to shut down the deletion processes entirely rather than give this pique-driven request serious consideration. Monicasdude 18:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few words of support from Jimmy Wales, quoted without authorization or permission

The things that turn up in one's email. Not written with regard to this case, of course, but months ago, and not intended as any claim or endorsement or personal support from the benevolent dictator. (And not sent to me by him or on his behalf.) Just an example of minds thinking alike. I quote the most relevant section and add a link to the full text

"We have gotten to a cultural state where "Gee, I never heard of this" seems to be a good enough excuse to nominate something for deletion, RATHER THAN raising legitimate issues on the talk page first to see if anyone can help improve the article.

In this case, the nominator should have said "Gee, I never heard of Fawcett or Playboy, and this New York Times thing sounds fishy, and I looked in Google and found only n listings for the name, so I wonder if there's a problem here.

Then, pop a note on the talk page. "Hey everybody, I don't know much about publishing or science fiction, but I never heard of this guy and had trouble verifying the information. It's probably my own lack of searching skills, so I wonder if anyone can help me out here. Is this article as good as it could be?" I went through a rather tortured process yesterday in which I had to really put my foot down to put a stop to a CfD vote which was taking place without _any_ community dialogue or discussion first. I do not know the exact solution to this problem, but this is part of an ongoing problem with have *most particularly with bios of living people and existing companies*. "I haven't heard of this" seems to be an instant excuse for "non-notable" and "AfD", which is offensive to the subjects, when the real approach should be _at a bare minimum_ and effort at dialogue with other editors *before* jumping to a "vote"." [20]

In the full text, the author describes this problem as "a sickness in the process" and described the AfD process (then VfD) as "ludicrous." I doubt I said anything stronger than that. But quite a bit that parallels it. I therefore modestly propose that ArbComm join Mr. Wales as a party to this case if it decides to take it up.Monicasdude 21:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Since that statement was made, VfD has been changed to RfD with the three step process discribed above, SPEEDY is an official policy and PROD is being tested to delete articles that creators won't/don't care about - they can contest using RfD. Your "support" from Jimbo is out of date. T K E 02:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response to JIP

JIP posted a comment on my talk page which he admits came across as uncivil and insulting, whatever his intentions. I removed it and asked him not to make such posts in the future. He does not claim incivility in my response. I am baffled as to why taking his post at face value could be seen as objectionable, or why he believes any user has an obligation to immediately respond (or respond at all) to unsolicited comments. Monicasdude 19:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Swatjester

I believe Swatjester violated WP:BITE and said so. WP:BITE describes how new editors should be treated, and the guideline is not limited to prohibiting nasty posts to or about new editors. It calls on experienced editors to assist new editors in correcting their mistakes. Swatjester tagged a new editor's article for deletion while the editor was still writing it, made no timely attempt or offer to help, and has apparently driven the new editor away. I believe that is fairly described as a WP:BITE violation and have previously explained my position in more detail here [21] Monicasdude 20:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Jareth, Mailer Diablo, and Kirill Lokshin

If the committee elects to take up the grievances of this growing crowd of ochlocrats, I hope it pays careful attention to the entirely spurious RfC these three users framed. I would be ashamed of myself if I had let it change my behavior. The three of them insisted -- quite explicitly -- that Wikipedia's core policies of NPOV, NOR, and verifiability, were subordinate to consensus, and could be disregarded by agreement of editors. I think the response I gave then, at the link Lokshin provides, states my position as well as I would do now, and commend it to the committee's attention. The RfC itself is an outright cry of defiance against clearly established Wikipedia policies; it cites such mortal Wikisins as reporting an undisputed 3RR violation by another user and reporting a user (the same user) for violating the probation imposed by this committee. I am surprised they have come here at all; their complaints are more appropriately directed to a Committee on UnWikipedian Activities, since they propose ignoring Wikipedia's core policies and repressing disagreeing views, or perhaps to a comité de salut public. Monicasdude 23:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to User:TKE

I strongly believe that the statements made by TKE regarding the current state of the Afd process are grossly inaccurate. I therefore have reviewed roughly the last two dozen AfD nominations on which I voted keep, to see which view of the process is more accurate. There should be little doubt that the description I provide is more accurate than that presented by User:TKE:

The Handsomest Drowned Man In The World Talk page activity: none

N. Namasivayam Talk page activity: none

Idar Kreutzer Talk page activity: none

Bernd Sebastian Kamps Talk page activity: appropriate

AJ Roach Talk page activity: none

Sean Hood Talk page activity: none Afd nom 3 minutes after last edit by initial author

Ben myers Talk page activity: none Afd nom 1 minute after last edit by initial author

David Haugh Talk page activity: none

Chris Skrebowski Talk page activity: none Initial prod 14 minutes after article creation

Bernard Ramsey Talk page activity:none Initial prod 4 minutes after last edit by article creator

Prison Planet Talk page activity: none relevant Initial prod 12 minutes after article creation

Girl Power Talk page activity: none Initial prod 25 minutes after article creation

Robert Colin Boyd Talk page activity: none

Eire Og Talk page activity: none

Hamblen Elementary School Talk page activity: none

Emanuel Wynn Talk page activity: some

Lakeshore Catholic High School Talk page activity: none

Real bills doctrine Talk page activity: request for peer review, but not by nominator

Fred Carama Talk page activity: none Afd nomination 7 minutes after last edit by article creator, tagged as minor edit w/no mention of AfD

Insurance hall of fame Talk page activity: none Prod 1 minute after last edit by article creator

Timothy Kanold Talk page activity: none

Tari Schreider Talk page activity: none Prod 3 minutes after article creation

Thomas Bannister Talk page activity: none Prod 3 minutes after article creation

Subbaraju Raju Gokaraju Talk page activity: none

Rick Telander Talk page activity: none

Kristen Ghodsee Talk page activity: none (despite 2 prods)

Hikari Hayashibara Talk page activity: none related to deletion

Ernest Rides Again Talk page activity: none Prod 7.5 hours after last edit by article creator

I would think it quite clear that the practices I cited, and that Jimmy Wales earlier criticized, remain substantially unchanged. Monicasdude 05:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This is the last statement I'm making regarding this Arb; I do not wish to see punishment against anyone short of blatant vandalism, which has not occured. I do not disagree that many citations can be found for AfDs that are not appropriately labeled. As I mentioned below, most of the articles you cite deserve consideration of deletion; but sometimes it's obvious and the ones that aren't get discussion as proved by Hamblen Elementary School. I voted delete, User:Stifle agreed with your support. Concensus at work. I would like you to settle down and not be hostile, that is all. T K E 05:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I would absolutely keep Ernest Rides Again, though I think Ernest Scared Stupid is the best :) T K E 05:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:JIP

I have seen Monicasdude vote "keep", or even "speedy keep" in many AfDs, where I and most others have voted "delete". This morning I remembered I had never, ever, seen him vote "delete", so I decided to ask him about it: [22]. He reacted to this by removing my comment entirely from his talk page and accusing me of vandalism and insulting him: [23]. I admit my original message was formed very badly and read like an insult. This was not my intent. I was genuinely curious in a neutral, academic sort of way. I replied to him: [24], but so far he hasn't either replied to me or removed the comment from his talk page.

While I admit I came across as impolite in my original message, I feel that Monicasdude assumed bad faith and overreacted, resorting to terms like "vandalise". I don't know whether this makes me an involved party or not. JIP | Talk 17:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Swatjester

While I was not involved in the initial bringing of this case, I found it and feel the urge to join as a party. Monicasdude recently attacked me for my actions in an AfD. (My action was to nominate the article for deletion, I in no way spoke to the articles author). Monicasdude repeatedly attacked me personally and with an uncivil tone, accusing me of Biting the Newbie (impossible since I never spoke with them), questioned whether I was a deletionist "clown", accused me of doing "no shred of research", directly called me a "busybody editor", and refused to refactor the personal attacks when asked nicely. I have at no time been less than civil, even thanking him for his criticism, but Monicasdude still refuses to refactor his personal attacks and incivil tone. Monicasdude has a nasty habit of attacking other editors rather than attacking their positions. It's been shown time and time again on AfD. Enough is enough. 50 million elvis fans can't be wrong....Monicasdude assumes bad faith in everyone. I endorse Stifle and JIP's positions as well. I haven't provided diffs: the appropriate comments are still up on Monicasdude's talk page, and on the AfD page shown above. I will provide diffs upon request. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 18:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Jareth

I belive the second RfC summarized the bulk of concerns rather well. Monicasdude has a long history of biting most editors he comes into contact with, especially if anyone dare disagree with his viewpoint. After he disagreed with my assessment of a 3RR report things escalated over several days until he was blatently attacking instead of his usual snide and sarcastic remarks. The prior RfCs seemed to produce no effect on his behavior, so I believe this RfAR will unfortunately be necessary. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 19:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Monicasdude regarding Wikistalking by User:Swatjester

After adding his statement to this request, User:Swatjester went to virtually every AfD on which I had voted in the last 24 hours and cast contrary votes, mostly without any substantive explanation. [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] He did not "vote" on one AfD where all "votes" except the nominator's were in accord with mine. He did not make comments or "votes" on any Afds other than the ones I had addressed during that time. I would hope this resolves any questions of good faith, at least as between my actions and those of Swatjester. Monicasdude 20:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kirill Lokshin

As quite extensively documented in the second RFC, Monicasdude has a history of assuming bad faith towards anyone who disagrees with him (or even indirectly agrees with someone disagreeing with him). Once this has occurred, he acts in an incivil and confrontational manner—even more so than ususal—often descending to accusations of incompetence and outright personal attacks, particularly on administrators. His response to the RFC, unfortunately, was to further attack those bringing it, so it appears that arbitration is the only remaining option here. Kirill Lokshin 21:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mailer Diablo

From my previous dealings with Monicasdude (in which I filed the RfC), I strongly recommend that ArbCom accept this case to have a look at his behaviour, which has not changed in any way since. - Mailer Diablo 21:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

While I have not been involved in the current issues leading to this RfA, my prior history of editing pages Monicasdude edited was very consistent with the complaints raised here. In all cases, Monicasdude was disruptive, belligerent, hostile to all edits he did not make, and quite willing to "game" the system in whatever way he could find (opportunistically claiming policies/guidelines, while disregarding the same ones when they concerned him). In fact, I ultimately simply gave up on editing or watching the article Bob Dylan because it was simply too much effort and frustration while Monicasdude was there (an initial RfC against Monicasdude seemed to result in a month or two of better behavior, but he returned in full belligerence). Generally, everyone I've "talked" to who has dealt with Monicasdude agrees that his pattern is to drive other editors away from whatever topic he has decided belongs to him, through creation of a hostile atmosphere on those pages.

I encourage arbitrators to consider this current complaint. I cannot speak to the specific merits of the latest issues, but feel that they do at least merit more careful consideration.

Statement by Ardenn

This user has frequently insulted me and acted uncivil towards me. I have left comments on his talk page and he removes them citing "grafitti". He also insists on allowing personal attacks [32] [33] to stand. --Ardenn 00:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Calton

1) Says User:Monicasdude: Frankly, AfD is a cesspool of bad behavior, marked ongoing incivility...

Hmm, maybe he has a point. Let's see some examples:

  • another pointless, ineptly researched Afd nomination. [34]
  • As for "original research," nominator has track record of applying inappropriate tags in AfD discussions, and contents of article verifiable by simple Google search. [35]
  • When an Amazon check shows that Amazon physically stocks an author's books, you should presume that the author's ales meet the notability requirements. And if your instinct says delete, take the 5 minutes required to actually to the research. [36]
  • Given the verified CV, why do you argue he isn't notable? [37]
  • Nomination appears to be part of a "Get as Many Academics Out of Wikipedia as You Can" campaign [38]
  • Nominated for deletion one minute after being written, a sure sign that the nominator has made no effort to check out the NN claim. [39]
  • ... You can say that as often as you like, if you're insistent on demonstrating your lack of competence in using Google. Though it looks more to me like you just dislike her politics and want Wikipedia censored to remove references to somebody whose ideas you don't like, even though she's well known, treated as notable in press and commentary, and her activities are often reported. Looks more like censorship and badfaith than any real question of notability. [40]

Yes, it's Cheap Rhetorical Trick #3: Using the Debater's Own Words. There's more (many more) , but I'm getting tired of cutting-and-pasting them. This ought to be enough to give the flavor of the hostility, insults, high-handness, light paranoia, and -- given his whining about "cesspool of bad behavior" and "marked ongoing incivility" -- hypocrisy.

2) Also seems to have some residual bitterness over an AfD nomination he "lost" (didn't get his way on, or whatever you want to call it) over one "Air Force Amy", given how often he brings it up:

Inevitably mentioned, indeed.

3) Bad faith: slipped into the original introduction to this request Swatjester has wikistalked Monicasdude and cast bad faith AfD "votes" in an attempt to offset Monicasdude's position. [51] Note that he didn't even provide the common courtesy of "alleged", just stated it as a fact. I inserted the "alleged" and a note to the effect that Monicasdude had put that there [52], but he reverted that, preferring to keep his handiwork unannounced. [53] I have removed it entirely: if he wants that charge on the table, he needs to take responsibility for it instead of sneaking it in.

Update: Note that Monicasdude keeps attempting to slip in his own addition to the original charge, unmarked. [54] [55] [56]. Maybe it's an overweening sense of entitlement, or maybe he hasn't quite grasped the whole "Response by" format thing. --Calton | Talk 03:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


--Calton | Talk 00:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:TKE

Over the past several days as I have been watching the AfD page, I saw this happen real time.

First, neither Swatjester nor the other editors have been "wikistalking" Monicasdude. They are all regular contributors to the AfD page.

Second, Monicasdude has been a reversal of WP:BITE, in a new user attacking other editors. The user doesn't like criticism, plain and simple. Any disagreement sparks hostility and invites trolling, the examples have been provided above so I won't waste time repeating those. The user does not assume good faith nor want to be civil, as the responses here demonstrate. Mediation and arbitration are about settling disputes which requires compromise. The user's responses to this RfArb suggests that they will settle at nothing but "I'm right and they're wrong;" which is not a value to be held by the Wikipedia project.

Third, regarding the AfD process: I'm not sure why Monicasdude has such distate in the AfD process. The quote from Jimbo is nice, and that's exactly what the process is. The page is nominated, step two is to provide reasons why on the talk page, third is to list it. Now if you see just "NN Fancruft" as the reason, go to the page and see what's up in the history. Usually PRODs or SPEEDYs have been removed by the creator. Then check the creator's talk page; odds are a reason was given for the previous two steps and the editor hasn't listened. I rarely vote on articles listed that way, simply because it's not necessary. The serious AfDs have citations and whatnot provided immediately. It's a process that actually is followed well; I thanked User:Commander Bubble yesterday for civility in dealing with the deletion of their first creation. I'm really not sure why any of us are even here having this talk.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/0/0/0)

Mixvio, Rabinid and others v. Jmh123, Michigan user, Maria202 and others

Involved parties

The issue is actually content-related rather than interpersonal. It's whether or not a reference for John Paulus belongs on the related Clay Aiken page. Due to the nature of Paulus' stories, Jmh, Michigan and Maria (and others to a lesser capacity) feel the story is meritless and doesn't belong on Wikipedia, whereas myself and Rabinid (and others to a lesser capacity) feel it has achieved the requirements for inclusion. Given the nature of the conflict and because it's been drawn out so long and all other avenues for dispute resolution have failed, I feel the only way to resolve the issue is through arbitration.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
User:Mixvio - initiated request
User:Rabinid - [57]


User:Jmh123 - [58]
User:Michigan user - [59]
User:Maria202 - [60]

Third Parties:

User:ArglebargleIV - [61]
User:Hamiltonian - [62]
User:Hermione1980 - [63]
User:Katefan0 - [64]
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

There have been two quick polls that determined there was no clear majority nor consensus. I filed a request for comments here [65] for the second quick poll, a request for an advocate here [66] and finally a mediation with the Mediation Cabal here [67] which resulted in failure and the mediator said he didn't think the issue could be compromised. I suggested a break for a week which everyone agreed upon and when I came back with a plea for a compromise I was immediately attacked personally. Given the fact that all avenues of debate/discussion end up attacks between myself and other parties, I think the only way to solve this is to have the issue decided.

Statement by mixvio

I feel that the qualifiers for whether or not Paulus belongs has been achieved. The statements we've requested to be inserted are simple, verifiable ones stating that he made his allegations, that they were widely reported in tabloids, on Howard Stern, and in many gay publications, and that Aiken's representatives have declined comment in all but one instance. The opposition against the inclusion is by POV editors who are fans of Clay Aiken's. They've participated in previous debates against including details that they found "damaging" to Clay Aiken's image as a celebrity because they're fans of his. They are heavily involved in the John Paulus page and tried unsuccessfully to have it deleted. I feel that their opposition is completely biased and POV and they act as if their opinion is the majority and consensus when it's clearly been established that there isn't one and they have no authority in the issue. I don't feel that they will back down and I don't feel they're working in good faith for a compromise, evidenced by their personal attacks against me when we returned from a week-long break. I have been sarcastic and snippy in the past regarding this so I understand the frustration, but the point of the break was to come back fresh to start over and work on a solution. I was willing to do so, evidenced by my first post on the Clay Aiken talk page under the Compromise? heading. It was very polite and I spent the entire week of the break trying to come up with a compromise that took a bit of their position and a bit of mine. I was very surprised actually that it was shot down. It wasn't until several personal attacks against me that I responded in kind. Clearly they are against this and won't drop the issue as long as Paulus is around. - mixvio 01:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement on content disputes While it's my understanding that RFArs are typically not used for content disputes (and with completely good reason), I do implore the admins involved to realize that the scope of this problem is well beyond the usual dispute and is clearly a textbook example of an extreme circumstance. If the ArbCom completely refuses to deal with content disputes, then please direct me to the "Supreme Court" version of Wikipedia that does. Otherwise, if there is no actual medium for resolution, there clearly needs to be one. None of the users on the opposing side are working for a resolution despite their verbose claims to the contrary. Therefore, left alone as is, the dispute will remain a flame war until the near-month long protection on the Clay Aiken page is removed, at which point the dispute will become an edit war until an entire host of users are banned in the process. I'd rather it didn't go to that point. Aside from my strong disagreements with the ideological viewpoints in their camp, I have no personal issues with these people and that's why I didn't use arbitration against specific people. I don't want anyone banned. I want the issue to be decided, whether in my favor or in theirs, but I want it to be decided in a fashion where the decision is final and irrefutable. Left alone I do not believe -- and the talk pages, the personal attacks ranging from verbal to directly linking my personal website in the debate with intent to have my comments section attacked with a deluge of comments from angry Aiken-fans, the mediation attempts etc clearly prove this to be the case -- that this will be resolved ever. So again, I strongly ask that you realize this isn't a mere content dispute issue, this is a problem equally as important as the conflicts between users below. For this action has to be taken, the issue has to be decided, and all other methods have failed. - mixvio 22:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response to Jmh123: Though I probably shouldn't, I just want to take the time to use this as a case-in-point example. Despite the fact that I already included in my summary that some users have taken offense at things I've said, Jmh used this place to once again personally attack me. But, obviously, I've crossed the line. The hypocracy leveredged from their side of the debate is outstanding. - mixvio 04:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Maria202: Why not post some of your own comments, Maria, if you'd like to turn this into a personal character argument? You can't argue that I'm any worse than you, Jmh, or 6 because you're equally as rude, equally as intolerant, and far, far more of a bully than I could ever be. - mixvio 01:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Michigan user

Relating the issue to Wikiguidelines:

From the “Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons” guidelines:
"Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. This is a public figure and there are multiple, credible third-party sources; the allegation may belong in the biography, if it is made clear it's an allegation and not established as fact, linking to the New York Times article as a source."
In this case Paulus alleges a one night stand. The story was never reported outside of tabloids and gossip columns. No mainstream news media ever mentioned Paulus. There are no credible sources at all, only Paulus’ story. In addition Paulus was open about using the attention garnered to initiate a gay porn movie career – making his motives fairly obvious. I believe that the entire event is non-notable and that the push to include the blurb in the Aiken article is strictly for promotion purposes.
From the “Presumption in favor of privacy” section:
"In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives."

The issue here is two-fold:

1) This is unsubstantiated gossip 2) This is non-notable

I am strongly opposed to including unsubstantiated gossip into any article in Wikipedia, not just this article, and I believe that the WikiGuidelines are clear on that also. I would feel the same if the topic were drugs, or gambling or whatever. If you can not provide some evidence then it just does not belong here. No one has shown that the Paulus story has more substance to it than just one guys word (and that very suspect). Based on this reason alone I believe that there should be no mention of Paulus.

In general it is easy to smear a persons reputation – it is realistically impossible to put it back together after you did the damage. In this particular case, Clay has taken a vocal stand for a conservative approach to sex. An unpopular view in much of our society. It also makes him a target for those who would just love to take him down a notch. He is on record as saying that “it is better to wait” – and he gets challenged on that statement all the time. This is often misinterpreted as him saying that he is a virgin (which he has NEVER said). In addition, Clay champions many causes (BAF, Unicef, Ronald McDonald charities, Toys for Tots, Disney Make a Wish etc) which deal with children, and his reputation as a clean cut, conservative person is important to continuing that work. It would be very easy for Wikipedia to allow the Paulus story to be included and in so doing cause damage to Clay’s reputation that he does not deserve. Being gay would probably not effect his ability to work with these charities (I don’t really know and it is not the issue), but the reputation of soliciting casual sex from strangers on the internet, and engaging in unsafe sex would most certainly cause huge damage to his clean cut, conservative reputation. And to do this damage based on unsubstantiated gossip, no matter how many “allegeds” and “unsubstantiateds” that you throw in there, would be totally unfair and irresponsible.

All of which is hardly an issue – because the Paulus story is not notable enough to be included anyway.. The only place that it seems to be an issue at all is here. Why would Wikipedia want to document every person who claimed to kiss and tell? If we included the Paulus blurb then Wikipedia would be the ONLY vehicle for the spread of this claim, because no one else is talking about it, after it's 15 minutes of tabloid fame. And that is clearly against Wikipedia guidelines.

-- Michigan user 02:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by jmh123

This [68] says it all. If more is needed, read the failed mediation here [69]. -Jmh123 03:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Maria202

The Talk:Clay Aiken page and the Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12_Clay_Aiken page say it all. Mixvio's very first edit to the Clay Aiken article was March 9th. When his edits ran into opposition he used false accusations to request the article be fully protected and on March 10th it was locked. On March 12th he requested mediation even though he said he expected it to fail. He has repeatedly threatened to take us to arbitration. When the mediation failed he requested a one week break and everyone obliged him. The day the break ended (April 5, 2006) he requested arbitration. The facts indicate to me that he is not willing to compromise and will do whatever he feels is necessary to have it his own way. Is this what Wikipedia considers "good faith"? Here[[70]] is an example of what we have been dealing with. - Maria202 19:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hermione1980

I haven't really been following this issue closely due to real-life commitments. From what I can see, everyone started out acting fairly reasonably, but some users became increasingly frustrated when they perceived a lack of willingness on the other side to compromise. All that can be done now, I think, is remind all concerned about being civil. I recommend the arbitrators reject this case, as it is a content dispute.

Statement by Katefan0

I'm not quite sure why I've been listed as a party here as my own involvement has been rather peripheral, but since my name was raised, I'll say a few brief words. Some parties involved in this dispute have behaved poorly, but nothing rising to the level of an arbitration case. This dispute is a garden variety content disagreement, made to seem worse than it is by hand-waving histrionics on both sides of the aisle, and adjudicating it, in my opinion, is neither necessary nor a good use of the arbcom's time. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 02:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quote from the Aiken Talk page

I do not think that ANY of this trash belongs in an encyclopedia. The proposed solution mentions the exact incident that you want included, it just does not name the culprit. That is the compromise - you get the incident mentioned with references - we get to keep his name out. Anything else is just Mixvio forcing his will on everyone else. -- 69.19.14.25 23:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correct! - Maria202 23:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tough. You don't decide what goes in or out. - mixvio 23:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-- 66.82.9.83 00:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mixvio - please do not edit other peoples content on the arbitration page. I am putting back what you deleted. It is here to show why I am so frustrated with your unwillingness to compromise. -- 66.82.9.83 01:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since your irrelevent quote was reinstated solely on the fact that I removed it, I'll go forward and respond to it. The above, taken entirely out of context and grossly distorted, says absolutely nothing. I've spent the past month trying to compromise with you and the others. I've supplied suggestion after suggestion, I've followed all the rules in the dispute resolution process personally, I submitted the mediation request myself. I have constantly changed my wording from the intial submission of a few paragraphs to barely a sentence while you and the others have violently refused it and reaffirmed over and over that you wouldn't accept Paulus in the article whatsoever. Here, for example. [71] You consistently speak and act as if you're in control of the issue, IE, deciding what the compromise is when you have absolutely no authority, and as an unregistered user even less say in the issues here than the others -- junk tech complaints about satellite modems disabling your ability to register that I've never heard about once or not. I have worked to compromise many many times and I have bent over backwards to accomidate the insanity of you and the others. That you would claim I'm unwilling to compromise when you've repeated over and over that you'll never be satisfied if Paulus is mentioned in the entry is stellar in my opinion. You specifically are the least reasonable of any of the other users involved in the debate.
After a month of this, after a month of subjecting myself to abuse by you and the others, you're certainly right. I'm no longer willing to agree with your neutered "compromise" that addresses absolutely none of the complaints myself and the majority of users in two snap polls have with the article. That you think sitting around with others who share like opinions and brainstorming the best way to edit the issue out is a "compromise" I should be happy to accept is ridiculous and insulting. Perhaps you think I'm unwilling to go back and make as many history links to the things you, Maria and Jmh have said. I'm not. I'm just a bigger person than you are, because there's plenty of dirt to dig up if I wanted to make this a personal issue. How you brought my personal website in to the discussion twice and this mention corresponded with severe attacks on my site's comment function conveniently within a few hours of your links is a great place to begin.
Regardless, the RFAr is not about me or my conduct, or about you and yours. It's about the Paulus issue. I'd request that you actually stick with that instead of trite self-affirming links that prove nothing and only make it clearer to everyone with eyes and the capacity to read that you don't act in good faith, that you have absolutely no legitimate arguments (indeed only Michigan user responded with an argument to the issue at hand and not an attack against me) to the issues I've raised, and when it comes down to it you're unwilling to compromise and will only lash out violently when the image of your idol is questioned. If you want to make the issue about me, file your own RFAr and I'm perfectly happy to make my own link-history website for the admins to see you're just as rude and a bully as you say I am. - mixvio 02:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/2/0/0)

Bormalagurski (talk · contribs)

Involved parties

Kelly Martin (talk • contribs) (not really involved in all this) confirmed it was very likely that WikiMB was the same editor, or at least two editors working in close coordination. I was unsure about which consequences this should have for Bormalagurski (talk • contribs), and started asking for advice on WP:AN/I. However, the discussion quickly centered on the question whether he should be "believed", rather than the evidence.

Besides posting it on WP:AN/I, other steps towards resolution have not been tried. The question at hand is whether Bormalagurski (talk • contribs) can be said to have abused the WikiMB account (whether meat or sock), and whether (and how) this abuse should be sanctioned. To my mind, only a verdict here can resolve those questions.

Confirmation that other parties have been informed

Third parties:

Statement by Bormalagurski

Rather than explaining everything first, I would like to comment on EurowikiJ's "evidence". I am aware that the following text (which includes parts of EurowikiJ's statement) is longer than 500 words, but I feel it is neccessary for me to exactly explain all of the accusations, and I feel I've made it easier for everyone to understand my side of the story. The following is a EurowikiJ statement, and in between, my comments:

User:WikiMB has been created with the sole purpose of eventually obtaining adminship. Hence, ambitious goals, edit count link on user-page, spreading of good-will across Wikipedia, PR remarks on his and other user-pages. And a complete wall of silence between him and Bormalagurski. Otherwise, User:WikiMB's prospects of obtaining adminship are irrevocably gone.

User:Bormalagurski will later insist the second account belongs to his school-friend and that he ...also felt good having someone who might support me in a discussion. In fact that was the last thing Bormalagurski intended for WikiMB. Ever since his alleged school-friend appeared on Wikipedia and though WikiMB had contacted a number of other contributors, he NEVER, NOT ONCE, left a message on User:Bormalagurski's page. Conversely, User:Bormalagurski never left a message on his alleged school-friend's user page. In fact, prior to April 2 there is only one "close-call" incident on a highly-controversial Kosovo page:

    • Too bad EurowikiJ didn't quote the rest of my comment. I did say that I was happy when WikiMB joined Wikipedia, I felt I had someone who might support me in a duscussion. However, he has explicitly told me that he has no intentions in discussing controversial articles, and I have said this several times. I even asked him to help me out with some articles, and he only did very little, like in the article about Kosovo. -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 00:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have asked WikiMB to look at the article, simply because I think he could look at it from a more NPOV. He told me that he has no interest in articles such as that one, and only made a minor change, which I quickly noticed, since Kosovo is on my watchlist. -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 00:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • [03:31, 1 April 2006 Bormalagurski] - Bormalagurski, who is a frequent visitor on the page, edits the same table only 11 minutes afterwards. In the meantime, probably realizing his mistake of logging under WikiMB's account, WikiMB compiles a message of good-will that he leaves on the talk-page and then disappears:
Bormalagurski edits 8 minutes later the same table as it is shown above.
    • As I've said, I noticed what WikiMB edited very quickly, and divided the column to make it look better. Kosovo is on my watchlist, the 11 or 8 minutes (or whatever time interval it was) should've been shorter, I noticed the change ever earlier, but was trying to figure out how to divide the column. -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 00:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, on April 2 something even stranger happened on WikiMB's user page.
  • [|16:08, 2 April 2006 Luka Jačov] Luka Jacov, Bormalagurski-friendly contributor, leaves a message in Serbo-Croatian: "Boris, why do you have two accounts. Interesting that you also have the same goal - writting about all the places in Croatia. See you."
    • Yes, he did leave that message, WikiMB informed me of the message, and since I knew Luka better, he maybe thought that I would know why he did that. I deleted the message, and asked Luka why he left that message there, and he thought that WikiMB was a sockpuppet, solely for being in Vancouver, speaking Serbo-Croatian and having the letters MB, which someone might interpret as Malagurski Boris. He changed the message when I assured him that WikiMB is not a sockpuppet. -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 00:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • [19:24, 2 April 2006 WikiMB] WikiMB appears 5 minutes afterwards and translates the second phrase as if nothing had happened. Bormalagurski disappears until this morning April 5 when he leaves his first post ever on WikiMB's page. In fact they "both" stage a little show. Apparently they both leave a message declaring their innocence at the same time. Then these two proficient editors start publicly wondering if this coincidence might further improve their chances of proving that they are not the same editor. I must admit it is hilarious.
    • OK, I admit that was a stupid idea, and I guess the stupidity is softened by EurowikiJ's comment below that I'm intelligent. My idea to click at the same moment was stupid, and I quickly realised that it proves nothing, so I commented on that on WikiMB's talk page. He wanted to talk more, so we went online, where he has said that he is very disappointed by Wikipedia. -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 00:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In conclusion, User:Bormalagurski is an intelligent, but extremely disruptive and manipulative contributor. Any chance of him gaining adminship via proxy must be nipped in the bud. Therefore, block User:WikiMB who has been shown to be User:Bormalagurski's sock-puppet. EurowikiJ 09:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my closing statement, I'd like to thank EurowikiJ for his concern on keeping Wikipedia a nice place to edit, and I understand why he is pushing this so far, since I've offered to cooperate with him long ago, long before WikiMB joined Wikipedia, and he just denied my peace offer, and made it his goal to rid Wikipedia of a harmless Bormalagurski and his friend (who has done nothing but hard, honest work on this Wikipedia). Therefore, this is not about sockpuppetry, this is absolutely not about WikiMB, this is about EurowikiJ hating my guts and trying to get rid of me for making a few Serbian nationalist remarks in the past, which I have apologized for. Is it not the goal of Wikipedia to forgive users like me, who were brainwashed by their governments, who came here to believe that an encyclopedia should reflect only the opinion of one person, and eventually learned a whole different way of looking at things? Yes, I did make a few mistakes, but I've since made peace with a lot of users, and even started working with Dr.Gonzo, a Croat, on an article about human rights in Croatia. Sockpuppets? I have enough trouble with my own account, not alone handling another one and writing articles about small Croatian villages. I ask everyone to look at this problem from a reasonable perspective, and look at the explinations I have given. Also, if you decide not to forgive my mistakes, block me, but don't block WikiMB, he doesn't deserve this. -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 00:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aditional comment on the photos

  • One of the "main evidences" of this trial are the photos which WikiMB sent to Wikipedia. The photos are mine. Yes, I took them on my many travels throughout the world. I have sent them to Serbian Wikipedia (I am an administrator there) and have never shown much interest in sending them to English Wikipedia, since my main focus is the Serbian Wikipedia (where I have 10 times more edits than on this one). WikiMB has always liked those photos and asked me if I could let him send it to Wikipedia. I thought it might be a good excercise and made him a sub-page, send the first photo so he can se how its done, and he sent the rest. He is even planing on sending them to Commons. When Kelly heard the explination, a comment was posted where it says that thats not allowed, the photos were sent with false licences (WikiMB selected "self-made"), and I commented that I thought it was OK, if I, the creator of the photos, said it was OK. There was no reply. My point, once again, it that this is not about sockpuppetry, this is not about WikiMB, this is only about others who might not share my opinion, and who want to get rid of me by all means. -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 00:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WikiMB

I have to protest, WikiMB would like to comment, but he was blocked indefinately. -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 03:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Minister of War

Although I have had no dispute with Bormalagurski, I am the one who has collected most of the evidence on the sockpuppetry. After having presented it at her talk page, Kelly Martin agreed that they are probably indeed the same. Whether or not she also performed an IP check, I do not know.

The evidence supporting this is a vast array of small coincidences and inconsistencies, and the behaviour of WikiMB suggesting he is not a newbie as he claims. Although it is hard to convey such an impression in 500 words or less, I will try.

First of all, it certainly is a great coincidence to see both users, both hailing from Vancouver, both speaking Serbo-Croatian (whereas most people call it either Serbian or Croatian). However, they did not seem to interact at all. The suspicions only began when, user:Luka Jačov (perhaps also involved) leaves a message on WikiMBs talk page (in Serbo-Croatian) asking: "Boris, why do you have two accounts ;)?[77]. This message is promptly removed by BorMalagurski[78] (why would he want to remove a friendly comment from somebody elses talk page?), only to be replaced later by the same message without the reference to a double account[79]. Although the coincidences are already piling up, WikiMB responds to these edits by defending Boris Malagurski, saying "It is true that Luka left a message on my page saying that my name is Boris and that I have two accounts and it is true that Boris Malagurski erased it. He has been accused several times of having sockpuppets (even of being a sockpuppet) and we have talked about it extensively in school, he got angry that someone would attack me of being a sockpuppet and he erased it" [80]. Apparently they also go to the same school?!

This prompts me to do some digging in both of their contributions, uncovering several interesting facts:

  • WikiMBs first three edits [81] were to his user page, creating a subpage of photo's he had made (wow, how many newbies know how to create a subpage this fast?). Also, no photos were yet uploaded.
  • Immediately afterwards, he starts uploading his photos (how many new users know how to do that?), which do not seem to contribute to any article save his user page.
  • During this time, User:Bormalagurski is dormant (by the way, note the initials). WikiMB amasses a ton of edits in a short time, and posts his last message on 03:28, and lo and behold, BorisMalagurski posts his first message at 03:33 and continues to edit from that point onwards.
  • The day after (30 March), Bormalagurski is editing away until 05:31. At 05:38, WikiMB pops up and starts editing fervently, racking up several edits per minute, until 06:31. Sure enough, Bormalagurski starts editing at 06:39 (enough time to reboot). This taking turns in editing is a frequently recurring theme.
  • Most interestingly, Bormalagurski is an admin (!) on the Serbian wiki (his profile), and a review of his contributions [82] shows that the pictures WikiMB uploaded have all been made by Bormalagurski (A full list of this overlap is listed here.

The reaction of Bormalagurski has been telling. Every time he has been accused of something, it is always unjustly, and there is always a good reason. They went to school together, he had taught him how to edit Wikipedia, he had given the pictures to WikiMB [83] (though WikiMBs photo page mentions he made them himself). At one point, he even tried to edit simultaneously with WikiMB on his talk page to prove his point [84]. This is doubly strange as WikiMB has been blocked since yesterday [85].

Still, if anything, this simultaneous edit underlines the fact that WikiMB will turn out to be, at best, a meatpuppet and at worst, a sock.

Greets, The Minister of War (Peace) 09:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additional note. I am not involved in any of the disputes over content. I just happened to come across the sockpuppet, and investigated it. That is the extent of my role. It may well be that the Administrative action is obvious, but after having asked in WP:AN/I and after reviewing WP:SOCK and WP:BLOCK, I couldnt find anything. The only admin to react was User:JoshuaZ, who suggested an RFAr [86]. I came here, in good faith, believing that an RFAr was appropriate. The Minister of War (Peace) 12:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2

My report is 522 words long.

As it has been already established that Bormalagurski and WikiMB are either the same user or - and this is in my opinion unlikely for the reasons I will submit below - two users working in concert, I will state why it is essential that User:WikiMB be blocked.

User:WikiMB has been created with the sole purpose of eventually obtaining adminship. Hence, ambitious goals, edit count link on user-page, spreading of good-will across Wikipedia, PR remarks on his and other user-pages. And a complete wall of silence between him and Bormalagurski. Otherwise, User:WikiMB's prospects of obtaining adminship are irrevocably gone.

User:Bormalagurski will later insist the second account belongs to his school-friend and that he ...also felt good having someone who might support me in a discussion. In fact that was the last thing Bormalagurski intended for WikiMB. Ever since his alleged school-friend appeared on Wikipedia and though WikiMB had contacted a number of other contributors, he NEVER, NOT ONCE, left a message on User:Bormalagurski's page. Conversely, User:Bormalagurski never left a message on his alleged school-friend's user page. In fact, prior to April 2 there is only one "close-call" incident on a highly-controversial Kosovo page:

  • [03:31, 1 April 2006 Bormalagurski] - Bormalagurski, who is a frequent visitor on the page, edits the same table only 11 minutes afterwards. In the meantime, probably realizing his mistake of logging under WikiMB's account, WikiMB compiles a message of good-will that he leaves on the talk-page and then disappears:
Bormalagurski edits 8 minutes later the same table as shown above.

On April 2, however, there is the first contact on WikiMB's user page, albeit in a most unusual fashion.

  • [|16:08, 2 April 2006 Luka Jačov] Luka Jacov, Bormalagurski-friendly contributor, leaves a message in Serbo-Croatian: "Boris, why do you have two accounts. Interesting that you also have the same goal - writing about all the places in Croatia. See you."
  • [|19:14, 2 April 2006 Bormalagurski] Three hours later Bormalagurski erases the comment. This is his FIRST edit at his school-friend's user page!!! And it is a deletion of a comment that someone else has left for User:WikiMB
  • [19:19, 2 April 2006 Luka Jačov] 5 minutes after the deletion Luka Jacov leaves the same comment without the first phrase about the identity of User:WikiMB
  • [19:24, 2 April 2006 WikiMB] WikiMB appears 5 minutes afterwards and translates the second phrase as if nothing had happened.

Bormalagurski then disappears until morning April 5 when he leaves his first post ever on WikiMB's page. In fact they "both" stage a little show by leaving a message declaring their innocence at the same time (see my comment here for more details).

In conclusion, User:Bormalagurski is a very intelligent contributor that has shown impressive knowledge about the mechanisms behind Wikipedia. However, he is also an extremely disruptive and manipulative contributor. Any chance of him gaining adminship via proxy must be nipped in the bud. Therefore, block User:WikiMB.

EurowikiJ 11:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 3

 (Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries.)

Statement by Kelly Martin

There is no need for this matter to be arbitrated. Bormalagurski was caught sockpuppeting, and like many sockmasters, denies it. The evidence prior to using CheckUser was pretty clear (interleaved contributions, apparently orchestrated interaction to make the two accounts appear to be separate people, images uploaded by both editors on different projects both claiming to have been uploaded by the creator), and the CheckUser evidence itself merely served as the final nail in the coffin. Given that the evidence is quite clear, arbitration is not required because the appropriate administrative action is obvious. I am also concerned that parties opposed to Bormalagurski (and more importantly, to Bormalagurksi's point of view) are attempting to leverage his misconduct into a larger victory in their personal point-of-view war. I urge the Committee to reject this case. Kelly Martin (talk) 11:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JoshuaZ

Two points. First, Minister of War's statement has a minor error in it; I am not an admin. Second, one of my main reasons for thinking this should go to Arb Com was that I was uncertain that WIkiMB was a sockpuppet. However, the evidence given above erases any doubts I had in this matter. There is a residual concern that Bormalagurski will try something like this again, but that can be handled by keeping a close eye on him and doesn't at this time need Arb Com. My advice therefore was premature. I urge rejection of the matter without prejudice. JoshuaZ 13:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/0/0)

SqueakBox and Zapatancas

I, User:Zapatancas, first posted this request on April 3, (here) and SqueakBox deleted it some hours later (here).

Given User:Zapatancas record of vandalising my user page here and elsewhere I assumed it was part of the same treatment, ie not a serious request. I am bemused as to how someone with a proven record of vandalising my user page can continue to torment me as part of the same hate campaign here, and his personal attack on me in his statement "I have said I believe he suffers from a mental disorder because I think his behavior is only explained with that. I have never intended to offend him, only to explain the unfair abuse I have suffered." is a personal; attack that I don 't want to see on wikipedia so I removed it. This hate campaign has to stop, I am not accusing Zapatancas of being mad, his accusing me of being mad (a direct violation of wiki etiquette) as well as his hate campaign directed at my user page is just not on, SqueakBox 17:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

  1. User:Zapatancas
  2. User:Zapatero (former Zapatancas account)
  3. User:SquealingPig (Zapatancas sockpuppet)
  4. User:SquealingPigAttacksAgain (Zapatancas sockpuppet)
  5. User:SqueakBox
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  1. User:Zapatancas (initiated request)
  2. User:SqueakBox Message in SqueakBox' talk page
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

False. Zapatancas rejected mediation unilaterally without giving it a go. (SB)

(SqueakBox was chased away by Zapatancas' continued harrassment SB)

(By attacks he means reminding him of his sockpuppet accounts and his behaviour while using them, that is not a persobnnal attack, SB)

Statement by Zapatancas

- User SqueakBox has harassed me since May 2005. His harassment has consisted in: - * Personal attacks and insults against me (example). - * Throwing false accusations that I had created sockpuppets to vandalize his user page or about my behavior towards other users or towards him. An example can be found here. - * Vandalizing my user page inserting false accusations (here). - * Destroying my efforts and making it almost impossible for me to work on the Wikipedia and in deteriorating the quality of articles on which I have worked. (For example, here he has mixed the spelling of the article. It was demonstrated in an RfC that, in the present circumstances, the article had to use American spelling (an explanation given on the time can be found here). SqueakBox accepted the decision here). The article has used American English consistently for year.

- I have no much time to spend on the Wikipedia so I have concentrated 98% of my efforts on the articles about José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero (that is, that article and others related to it such as Zapatero's early years (1960-2000), Zapatero's years as an opposition leader, Zapatero and the Local and Regional Elections of 2003, Zapatero and the 2004 General Election, Zapatero's foreign policy and Zapatero's domestic policy). That has allowed SqueakBox to disguise his aggressive behavior towards me like a "normal" dispute between users in relation to a specific article. That is not the case. - - The case is that this problem has nothing to do with content. A look at Talk:José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and at the archived talk shows immediately that SqueakBox’s interest in the articles content is minimum. He rarely refers to the information present in the articles. He reserves the talk page mostly for general statements such as “this article is not neutral”, “this article is very bad”, “this article is a disgrace”, “this article is a piece of cr**p”, “this article needs to be cleaned up”, “the English of the article is very bad”, “Zapatancas vandalized my user page” or “there is a troll here,” referring to me, of course. Furthermore, he has never contributed anything new to the article and has rarely improved its format or its wording, as far as I remember. - - That this conflict has nothing to do with content is proved by SqueakBox’s recent statement in the mediation process by which he claimed that there were not pending issues (here), but he has insulted me from then (example). - To defend himself, SqueakBox will claim that I have vandalized his user page. It is completely false and he has no evidence. I have never been blocked. He will claim that I have said he suffers a mental disease. I have said I believe he suffers from a mental disorder because I think his behavior is only explained with that. I have never intended to offend him, only to explain the unfair abuse I have suffered.Zapatancas 16:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SqueakBox

I need time to prepare my case more fully and can only do this over the weekend, be assured now someone has agreed to take this case on that I will prepare a much fuller case, SqueakBox 15:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This concerns the behaviour of Zapatancas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who vandalised my user page here, has taken this decision because he is trying to prevenbt me from editing the Zapatero article. His characterisation of me as having a mental problem just above is a clear sign of his continuous hostility towards me. He has revetred every edit I have made at the Zapatero article regardless of content over the last 6 months. S/he has harrassed me continouosulty since May including a death threat (this is part of his or her attenmpt to have me erased for continuint to edit here). S/he has accused my wife of having affairs and me of having a psychiatric problem (see diffs below). S/he refuses to debate the issues on Zapatero. I went to mediation because s/he demanded that I sort mediation (s/he didn't actualy set upm the mediation him or her self, s/he said it wass my responsibility and if I didn't sort s/he would take me staright to arbitrationto. S/he then unilaterally rejected mediation when s/he discovered it wasn't another forum where s/he could humiliate me, ie that I wouldn't be forced to "apologise" to him or her. S/he is now claiming *this edit is blatant vandalism and was made only to destroy his or her works. *Here s/he accuses me of being a well known troll, patently false as not one person knows of me as such either than, apparently, him or her. *Here he falsely accuses me of harrassment for my edit. *Here, *here *here and *here he falsely accuses me of attacking the article. More personal attacks *here *here *here *and here he does the same. *Here he falsely accuses me of being a vandal when I have never vandalised a page here in *more than 17,000 edits. *Here s/he claims his or hers is the "real" version. Perharps s/he could explain to the arbcom what s/he means by this. *Here *and here s/he does the same. More clearly false accusations of vandalism *[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jos%C3%A9_Luis_Rodr%C3%ADguez_Zapatero&diff=prev&oldid=29141580 here] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jos%C3%A9_Luis_Rodr%C3%ADguez_Zapatero&diff=prev&oldid=29139689 here] *here *here *here

  • here *here
  • here
  • Here in the lower paragraph he makes a vicious attack. *Here s/he uses his user page purely to harass me by launching an uncalled for personal attack and *here again. Here s/he shows an obsessiopn with me which has characterised Zapatancas contributions for more than a year now, optherwise why mention my name in the edit. Here s/he accuses me of being SquealingPig, like yeah I would just go and vandalise my user page, that is not a reasonable assumption, especially given that Zapatancas himself has also vandalised my user page, talking in exactly the same style as SquealingPig and SquealingPigAttacksAgain.

Here s/he vandalises my user page]. S/e has refused to engage in discussion on the Zapatero talk page. This taking me to arbcom is clearly part of his or her attempt to erase me from wikipedia, as promised. My offence seems to be not allowing Zapatancas to forget his sockpuppet outbursts, or perhaps it was editing in a way s/he didn't like in the first place that caused this hatred of me. Well my wife hasn't forgotten his or her lies either and I was the one who had to take the flak for that, ie from my point of view we are dealing with a real-life abuser who has caused harm here, SqueakBox 14:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was then blocked and has now been permanently blocked. If he is not SquealingPig please can he explain this edit *where he vandalises my user page. It simply is not credible that this person was not Zapatancas, who already had 2 accounts (Zapatero and Zapatancas, though Zapatancas is not a sock of Zapatero), the language used is the same and he has kept up the virulenmt hatred towards me ever since. It is not credible given the timing and *this that Zapatancas is not SquealingPig. Look at the edit comments. Zapatancas says *[87] , "When you are a person who uses Wikipedia to attack other people and hurt their feelings, what is your right to include an absurb medal?", Squealing Pig *[88] says "Please tell me: why are you accessing the personal page of this bad person?" Here s/he accuses me of regularly destroying articles while also claiming I have no interest in the subject. The fact that I have also extensively edited Javier Solana, José María Aznar, Rodrigo Rato and a vast number of Latin American politicians puts the lie to this claim. Here he accuses me of harrassing him, yet in the edit the only change is legalise to legalize, how is changing legalize to legalise an act of harrassment.

Basically it has been extremely difficult to deal with the behaviour of someone who reverts all my edits to the Zapatancas articles, vandalsises my user page both as him or her self and using sockpuppets and now takes me to arbcom because s/he can't get his or her way at the Zapatero article and isn't willing to debate the issue, SqueakBox 17:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zapatancas is now [89] he vandalsied my user page to enforce WP:NPA after just accusing me of using devious arguments. How exactly does one enforce WP:NPA by vandalsing user pages? SqueakBox 13:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here he claims I need to talk with another user, Cantus, before makiong changes to Cantuis' previous edits. "Show a little respect", he says, which gives me the insight that he believes that altering (ie editing) the work of other wikipedia editors is showing disrespect which is a fundamental misunderstanding of the way wikipedia works where we don't have to discuss our changes with other other editors whose work we are changing with them first, we have to diswcuss the issue on the talk page of the article. Could someone explain this to Zapatancas, SqueakBox 15:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/0/0/0)

Administrator Abuse

 (User:Jpgordon)

Involved parties

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jpgordon

Summary: Jpgordon had a differing opinion with me concerning the contents of an article. Instead of discussing differences and coming to a consensus he chose to ban me citing the 3RR as a reason despite the fact that he engaged in reverting more than 3 times before me.

Jpgordon used his admin powers to fight his edit war and he has abused his admin powers. I am deeply disappointed in the way Jpgordon acted as an adminstrator. It has severely affected the way I view Wikipedia. I thought this was a place of freedom where one could help add to the knowledge of the world, but Jpgordon's actions would lead one to think that Wikipedia is nothing more than a place where despots and tyrants enforce biased and prejudiced opinions with an iron fist. I hope this will be dealt with in a fair and timely manner.

"Except in cases of spam and vandalism, an administrator should not block users for 3RR if they themselves have reverted that user's edits on that page. Instead, administrators in this situation should make a request at the administrators' noticeboard if they believe 3RR has been broken."

I have taken this excerpt from the 3RR page. Jpgordon committed exactly the offence outlined above. I was not vandalizing or spamming, I only added information to the article that Jpgordon apparently disliked. The article in question is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder Please refer to the history page of that article to see evidence of Jpgordon's abuse.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
 On Jpgordon's talk page: "Because you have abused your admin powers and violated 3RR laws I have referred you to Arbitration. 69.194.137.183 19:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)"
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Other steps have not been pursued because Jpgordon's malicious actions are not simply a dispute - a dispute is among equals and Jpgordon has used his admin powers to prey on others. Jpgordon's actions are an abuse of admin powers and I fear that I and other are at risk of further abuse at the hands of the admin Jpgordon.

Statement by party 1

I have always used Wikipedia as a reference source and considered it to be an informative and good resource. Never in my wildest dreams could I have imagined that adminstrators such as Jpgordon roam behind the scenes and manipulate information to their whims through abuse of admin powers. Yet this is exactly what has happened as can be seen on the history page of the gunpowder article. Jpgordon disliked the information I had added to the article and continually reverted my edits. With no choice, I was forced to revert Jpgordon's vandalism. Frighteningly, instead of entering into discussions about differences, Jpgordon immediately banned me based on a groundless claim of the 3RR. Jpgordon reverted my edits more than 3 times himself and then proceeded to ban me to further his edit war. I am a victim of monster admin Jpgordon's malicious abuse and I request that justice be served. Thank you.

Sincerely, 69.194.137.183 19:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jpgordon

See the history of Gunpowder, and the repeated requests and warnings regarding this editor's contributions. I was one of at least a half-dozen editors trying to get through to the anon to understand why his changes were not acceptable; eventually, I gave him the formal {{3RR}} warning; he persisted and received a 24-hour ban, upon return from which he started again with the same reversions, and initiated this case. I'll 3RR him again when he gets to 4 reverts again, probably in the next hour -- he's at three as I'm typing. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

  1. The 24-hour block expired and the anon piled right back in with precisely the same reverts. I have blocked again. Just zis Guy you know? 21:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is a garden-variety content dispute. Plus there has been no realistic attempt to use other methods of resolutions. The wrong process, and much too early. Just zis Guy you know? 13:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Stifle

I agree with JzG - this is a content dispute and should be at RFC. Previous steps of dispute resolution have been unjustifiably skipped. Stifle 19:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/2/0/0)

Arbusto, Just zis Guy you know?, David D.

Involved parties

  1. User:Pooua
  2. User:Arbustoo
  3. Just zis Guy you know?
  4. User:Daycd

Brief Summary: Dispute over what material should be included and how it should be included in an article regarding a controversial public figure.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  1. User:Pooua (initiated request)
  2. User:Arbustoo Message in his Talk Page User talk:Arbustoo
  3. Just zis Guy you know? Message in his Talk Page User talk:JzG
  4. User:Daycd Message in his Talk Page User talk:Daycd
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Extensive discussions regarding this dispute are documented on the talk page: Talk:Jack Hyles

This argument involves many more people than just the participants of Wikipedia, and has been ongoing since 1988. Each side has jockied for public attention. This entry in Wikipedia is the latest round. Considering that neither side has been able to convince the other of what the facts are in the case, it is unlikely that the matter will be resolved by discussion between sides on Wikipedia. Evidence of this is the edit war that has been ongoing on the page for several months. It is likely this edit war will continue for several more years, if permitted.

Statement by Pooua

Several people have accused Dr. Jack Hyles (the subject of the Wiki article) or his associates of various unsavory or illegal behavior, as reported by various news organizations and special interest publications. However, only this 3rd-hand hearsay has been presented in the Wikipedia article. I have demonstrated that the editors who are submitting this information do not know even basic facts about Jack Hyles, but are simply repeating what they have read in various publications. I, however, have some familiarity with the subject. I realize that if I edit the page to just that material of which the accuracy of the accusations can be substantiated, my edits will be reverted, as this has happened several times to other people. The accused insist on including scandalous material, regardless of source, accuracy, reliability, bias or significance, all on the ground that because the accusations were printed, they count as verifiable source material. As a result, the Wiki page is turned into little more than a gossip column, instead of providing an authoritative, reliable source of accurate information.

Statement by JzG

This is a content dispute, and there is a long history of whitewasing of this article, which has been policed by numeorus admins including me. Subject is deceased, so Siegenthaler concerns are not present (although of course we still have an obligation WP:V and WP:NPOV).

I think my last comment on the stated Talk page was "All non-trivial verifiable facts welcome." Obviously that is adding to the problem in some way not immediately obvious to me. Most of the non-trivial verifiable facts appear not to be especially flattering to the subject, a latterly controversial Southern fundamentalist preacher and founder of an unaccredited college much edit-warred by User:Jason Gastrich and his hosiery drawer. Subject apparently built up quite a reputation, but even people he was close to have been quite scathing about his latter years.

This seems to be a case of excess of enthusiasm. Pooua (talk · contribs) has only been actively editing WP for a couple of weeks (amazing that they should find their way here so fast, really). Just zis Guy you know? 21:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Arbusto

Pooua is upset that established sources post criticism about a person he is admitted to having a personal and emotional relationship with.[90] This user does not understand NPOV, in that, wikipedia does not have to be "nice" to characters they have to balance and report all opinions. That includes maintaining established and well-sourced criticism.

As Pooua admits, he wants the criticism removed. Now to get his way he has filed this RfA. This is a misued of RfA because this is a content dispute. Yet, this misuse was not intentional. Rather like NPOV, this user has not taken the time to read the wikipedia policies he is trying to use.

The sources he wants removed include the Chicago Sun-Times, Chicago Tribune, Christianity Today and the associated press. You can't just take someone to Arcom because they put in sources from the AP that criticize someone you personally knew.

Arbusto 23:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 3

 (Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries.)

Comment by uninvolved party TML1988

IMO, this is yet another content dispute, and the ArbCom has rejected many similar requests in the past. The above statement contains only accusations with no diffs and/or evidence of Wikietiquette violations. I urge rejection without prejudice. --TML1988 19:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved party JoshuaZ

Note that not only is TML1988 correct that this is solely a content dispute, but that no other forms of dipute resolution have been attempted. Even if this were not a content dispute, it would be premature to bring it to the Arb Com. I would also like to register disturbance with Pooua's declaration that "It is likely this edit war will continue for several more years, if permitted" which sounds very close to "I and my compatriots will keep edit warring until we get a version acceptable to us." JoshuaZ 20:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved party AvB

The statement by Pooua argues that the "accused" are guilty of abiding by WP:NPOV/WP:NOR, and of keeping Pooua from violating same. After removing irrelevant stuff, it reads: (...) as reported by various news organizations and special interest publications (...) 3rd-hand hearsay has been presented in the Wikipedia article (...) repeating what they have read in various publications (...) if I edit the page to just that material of which the accuracy of the accusations can be substantiated, my edits will be reverted (...) insist on including scandalous material (...) on the ground that because the accusations were printed, they count as verifiable source material.

Of course abitrators don't need me to point this out, but I just couldn't help myself. AvB ÷ talk 20:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by not invited to the party party Sam Blanning

Given the number of RfArbs that get filed which involve these three (JzG, Arbusto/o and David), they're either very good editors or very bad. I think I know which ;-)

Statement by semi-involved party Thatcher131

This is a fairly typical content dispute. I worked on the page for a couple of weeks, and because many of the allegations were pre-internet, I posted some newspaper articles from Lexis/Nexis to the talk page that supported the allegations, or at least showed that the allegations were printed in reliable sources. The content dispute can be broken down into two questions. Should the article discuss allegations of infidelity and doctrinal irregularities that were made in a reliable source but which by their nature are matters of opinion or unrpovable as actual fact. And, should criminal wrongdoing (including convictions) by persons closely associated with Hyles be included in the article on him. My own view was that there needed to be a close nexus between another individual and Hyles, which would bar some but not all of the disputed content. Unfortunately there were editors on both extremes, and I left the article, thinking I could be more productive elsewhere. I suspect that other forms of DR will ultimately fail due to the strong opinions of some editors, but we should AGF and give it a try. Thatcher131 14:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/0/0)

Messhermit

Involved parties

  1. User:Andres C.
  2. User:Messhermit


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  1. User:Andres C. (initiated request)
  2. User:Messhermit [91]


Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by party 1

I would like to ask the Committee to review the conduct of Messhermit. He seems to bear a personal grudge against me, wikistalking mi edits & accusing me of being an Ecuadorian POV-pusher bent on selling biased Ecuadorian propaganda.

  • Since I came to Wikipedia in October 2005, I have been subjected to massive reverts and personal attacks from Messhermit in a cluster of articles on the history of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian border dispute: [100], [101], [102], [103]. There was already one big edit war in October 2005. Being then a newcomer, I did make the mistake of letting myself be dragged into a personal dispute
  • On NPOV. He seems to have the wrong idea about the meaning of NPOV, regarding the importance of presenting all views fairly: [118], [119]. He claims to defend the neutrality of the articles against my alleged Ecuadorian POV-pushing to justify his massive reverting: [120], [121], [122], [123]. At times, he has stated that the Ecuadorian version of the border dispute is biased: [124], [125].
  • On Verifiability: He holds the view that sources without links on the internet have no place here: [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], so I have scanned books [135] to prove to Messhermit my good faith: [136]. If the English Wikipedia is to have quality articles about this rather obscure topic for the English-speaking world, many authoritative sources will have to come by necessity from books not available online, many without ISBN number, even those from the most prestigious Peruvian and Ecuadorian historians. If that requires scanning & translating books to support every reference note, I see no problem with that.
  • Finally there is Messhermit's disrupting behavior regarding the resolution of disputes. In an effort to break the deadlock, I brought forward my arguments & recommendations here for others to comment. The paragraph I proposed was read by two other wikipedians, Bmahoney and Neurodivergent. These are their comments: [137], [138]. This is Messhermit's position. He actually warns me in advance of his intentions to revert what he calls my POV:[139].

Statement by party 2

Regarding the Ecuadorian Wikipedist Behavior
  • This user has a long record of provocations, insults and bad behavior against my person.
  • Proof of this is the [War] in which the Ecuadorian Wikipedist not only mocked of my English skills, but also dedicated itself to spread lies and false statements against my person.
  • Not willing to compromise, this user clearly attempts to portray itself as a moderator, while there is proof in other pages that he was clearly conspirating against my person. This [page] demonstrates my point.
Regarding Wikistalking

After the incident with the Ecuadorian Wikipedist, I tried to keep an eye on those topics that involved Peru and Ecuador; that is, the War of 1941, the Paquisha Incident and the Cenepa War.

  • Beyond those articles, I have not being involved in any other discussion with the Ecuadorian Wikipedist.
  • I have not involved in the Cenepa War, which is the creation of the Ecuadorian Wikipedist and has raised several doubts regarding the article's neutrality by other Wikipedist (which, he without reasons, removed). [141]
  • It is not my fault that this wikipedist is only focused in articles that deals with Ecuadorian wars and his idea that Ecuador lost territory in favor of Peru.
  • Thus, I see no truth in the accusation that is raised against my person of being a wikistalker, since I'm not involved in other articles in which he is involved.
Paquisha Incident
  • The page that deals with the Paquisha incident was heavily updated by me (changing from more than a stub [142] to a more detailed article [143]), trying to achieve a NPOV article that will clearly avoid any partisan position in the article.
  • On the other hand, it was the Ecuadorian Wikipedist the one that started the controversy in this article, erasing what he didn't like and stating information that cannot be verify.
Regarding sources

Several points must be made here:

  • With no sources to support his claims, as any other serious wikipedist, I preceded to remove the contributions of the Ecuadorian Wikipedist.
  • The Ecuadorian Wikipedist then changes the issue, this time accusing my person instead of my sources or my contributions.
  • Wikipedia's purpose is to create accurate articles, and sources are integral parts of this idea. It is not possible to have articles that only present one side POV.
Conclusion

I conclude my defense. I have not committed anything that the other Wikipedist is accusing me off, and in the other hand I feel myself victim of a person that does not know the meaning of Compromise and only fights to see his own version of the events stated here in Wikipedia. Messhermit 17:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved party 68.39.174.238

Since this involves pages concerning Ecuador and its dispute with Peru, I'd like to bring up a previous vandal who attacked those articles: Wikipedia:Long term abuse/The Ecuadorian Pretender. I'm not suggesting either one of the parties was involved with that, but I felt it might be worth noting. If this is an inappropriate place to note this, let me know (Also letting me know where the exact protocol for these things is would be appreciated). 68.39.174.238 02:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Vandal

I totally repudiate those actions. The main dispute regarding the Ecuadorian-Peruvian topics is regarding the Rio protocol and the accuracy of the sources. At any time does the status of Ecuador as a sovereign and independent republic was put at stake. Messhermit 12:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An international dispute?

I would like to bring to the attention of the Committee two events that have ocurred since the opening of this case. One seems to be a minor retaliatory action in the Cenepa War article [144]. The other event is perhaps more troubling: Messhermit, whom a user search allowed me to know is an active contributor in the Spanish language Wikipedia [145], has been trying to present this case as a dispute between Ecuadorians and Peruvians, a fact that I became aware of by looking at his public contributions log in the Spanish Wikipedia: [146], [147], [148]. While I prefer not to pass judgement on the wisdom of taking personal disputes over to other Wikipedia projects, I would like to point out that this is an interpersonal dispute between Andres C. and Messhermit, not an international one between Ecuadorians and Peruvians. I would like to end this statement by pointing out, for what it's worth, that hordas ecuatorianas means just that, "Ecuadorian hordes". A horde of one, in this case. Andres C. 04:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

Eagleamn

Involved Parties

  1. User:Zerida
  2. User:Eagleamn

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

  1. User:Zerida (initiated request)
  2. User:Eagleamn [149]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Resolution was attempted here [150] and more information below.

Statement by Zerida

The issue started with a dispute regarding this subcategory [151]. A discussion followed here [152]. Before the discussion, User:Eagleamn requested protection [153]. The page was protected but not to User:Eagleamn's edition. He made another request to have the page reverted to the version he wanted. It was denied and admin suggested we resolve the issue on the talk page [154]. Then, User:Eagleamn made a Request for investigation [155]. An exchange took place between User:Eagleamn and the page's maintainer [156]. The maintainer provided a third opinion.

User:Eagleamn has repeatedly abused Wikipedia:Policy when:

  • He requested page protection to support his POV. This page [157] to which he used to link [158], and his comments over the aforementioned dispute, describe the basis of his POV.
  • He violated all three guidelines for making a request for investigation. It was a content dispute. He did not assume good faith nor inform me before (or after) making it.
  • He made repeated false accusations about me. He claims I violated 3RR more than once. For this, he relied on hearsay made by another user on my talk page with no attempt to investigate it; a user in fact with a known history on Wikipedia [159]. I subsequently cleared the comments [160] and later User:Eagleamn's. The charge that I violated 3RR on March 12 [161] is bogus; it doesn't apply to vandalism (by the same user who has been blocked yet again).
  • He refers to me as "he", thus adding another false assumption to his long list of violations, including of Wikipedia:Etiquette.

Recently, we ran into the same dispute when a user added a category here [162] which I reverted after looking at that user's random contributions. User:Eagleamn reverted my edit and accused me of vandalism, which I felt was insulting and glossed over the dispute we already had.

He filed another report [163], because I clear bad faith comments from my talk page, though lately I've done it randomly like with these [164]. User:Eagleamn did not mention or restore this example.

After that, he reverted several perfectly reasonable simple edits I made [165]

  • This is a revert by User:Eagleamn to a version with a clearly poorly written statement I had edited out [166]
  • He reverted information I contributed a month ago to this page [167], and to which I *provided* a reference despite his claim to the contrary [168]. His revert caused all subsequent edits made after me to be reverted as well, which is a disregard for the integrity of the article, virtually bordering on vandalism itself, not to mention a violation of NPOV.

User:Eagleamn has relied on the fact that I indiscriminately revert my talk page as his justification. However, I move the discussion to the disputed page when needed. I did call his vandalism charge "childish" in frustration, given the known content dispute. I feel that User:Eagleamn is waging a witch hunt to silence me because of his disagreement with perfectly valid contributions that I have indeed corroborated. — Zerida 09:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Eagleamn

I would like to begin by making it clear that I did not abuse my administrative privileges because I do not have any: I am not an administrator ("User:Eagleamn has repeatedly abused his administrative privileges when..."). I believe other resolution attempts are yet to be requested.

  • In any case, the link to my blog or the lack thereof, as well as cutting short my own user page are all my privileges as a user. According to WP:USERPAGE
You are welcome to include a link to your personal home page, although you should refrain from surrounding it with any promotional language.
  • "Removing warnings for vandalism from one's talk page is also considered vandalism"; WP:VANDALISM. User:Zerida removes warnings that are perfectly valid from the user's talk page. Since that is obvious vandalism, I believed an administrator should intervene. The user claims to have not violated the 3RR, and that was the justification to remove one of the warnings [169]; but according to the page history of Egypt, he/she has violated it at least once [170][171][172][173].
  • Reverting content that is not nonsense just because of misspelling, or because it is "a clearly poorly written statement" which I believe the user refers to this [174], without providing a reason in the edit summary or talk page leaves no choice but to revert the user's edit/reversion. Reverting my edits and calling them childish further illustrates my point[175].
  • Regarding the removal of older contributions, I do not claim I did not make any mistakes. I may have reverted a valid contribution, and I would have investigated my edit had I seen a note in my talk page. - Eagle(talk) 19:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that User:Zerida changed statement and hence my statement may not reflect my opinion on the new statement of the user. Please see [176] for the version I based my statement on.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/0/0)

Requests for Clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process.

Leyasu 1RR

In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu, the Arbcom put Leyasu under a one revert per day limitation, except in cases of "clear vandalism". What exactly is "clear vandalism"? Leyasu reverted edits to Children of Bodom twice today, saying that they were vandalism (this was, again, something that inspired some of the principles in their case) because the user who made them was a "serial vandal", when the two edits in question probably weren't. [177] [178] Does this merit a block on Leyasu? Further, am I allowed to block people with whom I was previously (or, for that matter, currently) in an ArbCom case, or is this a conflict of interest? --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the user just got blocked for it by User:R.Koot as part of a serial vandalism across various articles, including user pages and admin user pages (including my own) [179], then yes, im pretty sure it was clear vandalism. Ley Shade 23:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was changing the genre description of a band. WP:-( isn't clear about whether or not that is vandalism. At any rate, I read the rulings from the arbcom case again, and the revert parole is a limitation to one content revert per day, vandalism or not. So the parole has been violated; I do want the arbitrators to answer my other question, though. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If something is done to disrupt Wikipedia, personally attack the content/subject of the article, and is dont maliciously, it counts as Vandalism. After trying to engage the user on the talk page, alls i got was a stream of abuse about both the band and myself, and the blatant threats of further vandalism, which was then adeered to. Ive been selective in when to breach the arbcom, and have only done so in cases of notable problems. Most of the time, ive had other editors who are part of the WP:HMM do reverts, me being the look out guy for vandals. Ley Shade 23:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you can block me, as long as its for a good reason and its not because of baiting, which you havent done. I will however tell you to check the talk page and ANI board on the user who made the edits, as they are responsible for a series of malicious edits which i was first made aware of during an Article CleanUp Strategy on the WP:HMM. Ley Shade 23:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is not clear vandalism. Clear vandalism is "I JUST HACKED UR SIGHT LOL". Maybe it was vandalism. It wasn't clear vandalism, though. If it's arguable that it's not vandalism, it isn't. Sam Korn (smoddy) 10:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. If Leyasu wishes to stay within the spirit of the ruling, he should avoid these situations like the plague. Anything but the most obvious is vandalism is not a good idea. And yes, you should always find an uninvolved admin for circumstances like these; it shouldn't be that hard. Dmcdevit·t 07:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it has been very difficult. User:Leyasu continually involves himself in my edits and calls them "vandalism" when they are not(One example:[180])I posted a formal complaint on the Admins Noticeboard (No resp) and warned two Admins (No help). He has also falsely accused me (no evidence - just a libelous character attack) of being a "sockpuppet" of another user he has had problems with. If anything, this ArbCase has given him much more liberty. --Danteferno 12:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from myself, other members of the WP:HMM who i have devoted my Wikipedia time to working with have also been having to deal with Danteferno. If Danteferno's edits are checked, his only edits in the last month have been reverts of my own edits. A no evidence claim apparantly is the case of Deathrocker and Danteferno being the same person, even though a Check User confirmed they were both blocking their IP's since the check user was authored. The reason that the ANI Board and the admins didnt help Dantefernoe, is because both times Danteferno had bragged about using an anon to vandalise a page, and then reverted what i had done when i reverted the vandalism, thus when i reverted his edit from a notification from WP:HMM of vandalised articles, he went to the ANI Board to tittle tattle, and when refused there, went to other admins to try to 'force' them into banning me so he could 'revert my edits'. I have only broken my parole, has noted, during vandalism, and only done so when other members of the WP:HMM have asked me to do the reverts. I fail to see how this is me causing problems.
Also, in the case of this Diff [181], Danteferno was warned several times by user Spearhead about vandalisng articles in regard to this and other articles, and continued to do so. Not paticularly in the spirit of his parole itself, is it? Ley Shade 04:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Last I checked, it wasn't me, but you who was placed on Wikipedia:Probation for a year. The only penalty I was given was revert parole, which I have not broken - you, on the other hand, have violated it several times since your parole.
Your claim of me being the same person as another user is false. If you look back, the Admin who did the check said your evidence was "Inconclusive" -that's because there was no real evidence!
There's also nothing in that diff above about Spearhead warning me of anything, or that I was vandalizing any article - unless you this posted this diff by mistake, this never happened. Please stop lying about me and others!!!!
ARBITRATORS and/or ADMINS - Under the agreement of User:Leyasu's probation there was concensus that he could be banned from any article for any good reason. I ask that this enforcement be given on the Gothic Metal article to start. If you take a look at the revision history User:Leyasu has claimed complete ownership of the article, reverting out almost any edit not his and even removing a rewrite tag that was supported by other users on the Talk page. As User:Idont Havaname mentioned, User:Leyasu has been repeatedly warned about his behavior.--Danteferno 12:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Taken from Dante's Above statement:
  • Last I checked, it wasn't me, but you who was placed on Wikipedia:Probation for a year. The only penalty I was given was revert parole.
Dante has done this several times, and boasted that he can use his extra reverts as a means to revert any of my edits he pleases. Ironically, his only edits in the last month have been reverts of my own edits.
Taken from Dante's above statement:
  • There's also nothing in that diff above about Spearhead warning me of anything, or that I was vandalizing any article - unless you this posted this diff by mistake, this never happened. Please stop lying about me and others!!!!
Dante here claims he was never warned by Spearhead, but ironically, here is a diff of Danteferno deleting the warning from his talk page [182].
Taken from Dante's above statement:

If you take a look at the revision history User:Leyasu has claimed complete ownership of the article, reverting out almost any edit not his and even removing a rewrite tag that was supported by other users on the Talk page.

Please provide a diff for me claiming the article was mine, also please provide any diff showing me being warned for MPOV like you was by both Me, Snowflake and Parasti.
Taken from Dante's above statement:
  • and even removing a rewrite tag that was supported by other users on the Talk page.
Dante placed the rewrite tag and claimed that he was the consensus. After 2 RFC's, and a intervention from the WP:HMM and numerous admins, only 2 users still supported a rewrite, Danteferno and a user with edits only on the Gothic Metal talk page. This, is not a consensus by right, when several uses, a Wikiproject and 2 RFC's all deem the article fine.
Until Danteferno provides diffs for his claims, i suggest he stops making up things that can easily be disproved. Ley Shade 12:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice at the top of Bogdanov Affair

The ArbCom case Regarding The Bogdanov Affair ordered

A notice shall be placed at the top of the article Bogdanov Affair which links to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair which briefly explains that the Wikipedia article has, in part, been conflated with the external event, the Bogdanov Affair, due to participation in editing of the article by participants in the event. The notice shall include an apology for our inability to control this phenomenon and a warning that any editor which is determined to be a participant in the external event may be subject to being banned from editing.

The ArbCom case closed in November 2005 - four months ago. The notice is obtrusive, and I innocently commented it out, on the basis that someone clicking 'edit' would still see it, without realising that it had been ArbCom-mandated.

The ArbCom did not appear to specify when the notice would be taken down. How long will the notice remain there? --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Until it is unnecessary. Are there still puppets reincarnating violating the ruling and is the article still semi-protected? If so, I think it still serves a purpose. Dmcdevit·t 19:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think so - the most recent one appears to be Hourcas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - made two edits late last month, both to the Bogdanov article, with no edits elsewhere. --TML1988 20:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hewitt... again

Hewitt has returned as User:Anonymouser an several IPs in the 24.23.213.158 and 71.198.219.119 range (which can seen from the set of articles he edits, his unusual habit of making a very large number of very small edits to the same article in a short time period and the use of Harvard-style citations, as he is required to do while under parole.) Of course he has the right to return, but I feel that by using a difernet username and several IPs he is trying to evade his parole. More problematic is that is activly spamming a conference paper/talk. Several people who have not participated in is RfAr seem to have noticed this [183] and one of his IPs even got blocked for it. [184] —Ruud 15:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concur that User:Anonymouser appears to be (based on editing style and choice of subject matter) User:CarlHewitt in a new guise. He appears to be making the same kind of edits (promoting his own research) that got him RfAred in the first place, and which he was banned from making as an outcome of the RfAr. If these users are the same person, shouldn't the terms of the probation defined by the ArbCom for User:CarlHewitt also apply to User:Anonymouser? --Allan McInnes (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This may not be Carl Hewitt himself, but I suppose we can treat them as the same user for purposes of enforcing the decision. So, if this editor is disrupting an article they may be banned from that article, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Carl_Hewitt#Carl_Hewitt_placed_on_Probation. Fred Bauder 17:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Gastrich

Could you all take a boo at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Jason_Gastrich#confused_by_remedies ? Should the ban be concurrent with the rest of the remedies? Is that what you guys meant to do? Is it more of a drowned AND hung remedy, or did you mean all the other stuff to start after the ban lapses? Thanks! (moved the substance of this from Mindspillage's talk page) ++Lar: t/c 03:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion would be that the ban puts everything else on the back-burner for a year. I would say that they come in force after the year's ban is completed. Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I asked Mindspillage about this and got a slightly different answer. (it's all concurrent) I need to refactor the three(!!!) differnent partial threads started all back to one place, I guess... probably here? ++Lar: t/c 19:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with James' assessment here. The confusion stems from the fact that I made all of those proposals, and then Mindspillage came along and proposaed a general ban, which passed as well. In most cases if it hadn't worked out that way we would have just proposed the ban and left it there. In any case, there's not much use worrying about something that's a year down the line, as (to my knowledge) no one has ever withstood a yearlong ban without resetting it, and then returned to editing, except for Plautus who was swiftly rebanned. And Jason ranks among those I least expect not to cause the ban to be reset. Dmcdevit·t 03:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of resetting, there have been confirmed socks since the ban started. Category:Wikipedia:Sock_puppets_of_Jason_Gastrich is larger than it was at the time of the RfAr. Harvestdancer 14:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've duly reset the block to one year from the last verified sock usage, although because I can't spell it took three tries. Stifle 18:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crotalus horridus

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway

The enforcement for Crotalus horridus conflicts with the enforcement provided in the userbox remedy. Presumably the enforcement applies only to Crotalus's probation should that be invoked. Or can admins choose whichever they prefer? (And, if they can, could 5 two-week blocks result in triggering the year-block even though the remedy would not have been invoked since it limits blocks to a week?) -Splashtalk 16:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, we (I?) didn't do that too well. The options are to remove the enforcement from Remedy 1 or to specify that the enforcement only applies to Remedies 2 and 3. I support the former. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<ping>. I guess it's not especially important since Ch appears to be abiding by it, but it's at least untidy to let it lie. -Splashtalk 23:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)

Lightbringer banned

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lightbringer is modified to include the following remedy:

In light of his continued and flagrant violation of his restrictions using sockpuppets, as documented by Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Lightbringer and Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Lightbringer, Lightbringer is banned from Wikipedia for one year.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 06:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fred Bauder 17:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. We're generous. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 08:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=47377363"