Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:57, 20 July 2006

[[:|WP:RFAR, WP:ArbReq]]

A 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 (ArbCom).

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area		6 November 2024	0/0/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	10 Oct 2024	24 Oct 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	17 August 2024
Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy, et al	none	(orig. case)	7 November 2024
Clarification request: Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee	none	none	7 November 2024

Arbitrator motions

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. If your case is accepted for arbitration, the arbitrator or clerk will create an evidence page that you can use to provide more detail. 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. Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after four accept votes are cast. When a case is opened, a notice that includes a link to a newly created evidence page will be posted to each participant's talk page. See the Requests section of the arbitration policy page for details.

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.

See also

Arbitration policy
Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How to present a case - Recommended reading: An (unofficial) guide to presenting effective Arbitration cases.
Arbitration enforcement - Any user can request help here if it involves the violation of an ArbCom decision
Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
Developer help needed
Arbitration template

Purge the server cache

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

Coolcaesar

Involved Parties

Comfirm all parties are aware of request

Currently working on;update in a few days

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

User has been warned that further consequences will come if his personal attacks don’t cease on numerous occasions [1]

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

This user tends to use inappropriate language, and uses personal attacks for his own benefit in a situation. Despite the notices of his inappropriate actions (in list above) he continues to bring negative energy to the project, and tends to humiliate other users

[10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]

This user also tends to leave inappropriate and degrading comments as his edit summary. Since he usually does not back his statements up on talk pages, most of this disruptive behavior is seen in the edit summary.

[31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60]

User misuses the term “vandalism" in its context on a continuous basis

[61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66]

This user has a suspected sockpuppet-which he uses primarily to revert the edits of user:ericsaindon2, user:OC31113, and user:Mr.Executive

user:anaheimat

Statement by user:Mr.Executive

User:Coolcaesar has involved himself in many controversial pages in his career at Wikipedia. However, in most cases it is reasonable for two editors to disagree from time to time. This particular user tends to make derogatory comments, misuses the term of vandalism, and degrades the emotions of the people he disagrees with. Over the past two years, over 50 Wikipedians have fallen victim to his cruel comments and harsh reactions to disagreements on a page. He has been notified plenty of times for his egotistic attitude, and strong views, but continues to use his comments in a ruthless and inhumane way. This type of an extremely negative attitude disrupts the other editors who engage in normal conversations. These users do not deserve these comments they receive just for having a different viewpoint, yet find themselves humiliated with his comments in front of many other editors who read these personal attacks. As we all know, this type of editing and commenting does not provide any positive change to the Wikipedia community, and has gone on long enough. One major Wikipedia rule that is probably most shun upon is the devaluing and personal attacks toward new users who are learning their way around Wikipedia. Many users who edit a page for their first time do so incorrectly, but user:Coolcaesar tends to use personal attacks and their lack of knowledge against them. He is also suspected of having a sockpuppet, user:Anaheimat, which as an experienced Wikipedian, he knows that these are prohibited. Another tendency of this user is to revert edits continuously, as for he claims articles as “his own”, and leaves personal attacks on these edit summaries.

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

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

Humus sapiens abuse of Administrative Power

Involved parties

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Humus_sapiens; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Adam777; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Smitty_Mcgee; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Itsmejudith; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kusnetsov; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bhouston; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MSTCrow
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Humus_sapiens; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Adam777; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Smitty_Mcgee; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Itsmejudith; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kusnetsov; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bhouston; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MSTCrow

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

(Admin has taken ownership of article and is impacted my any edits to thus article personally)

Statement by party 1

[User:humus sapiens] is abusing his administrative rights. He has repeatedly reverted legitimate edits citing vandalism as the reason. His personal POV should not set presidence on page edits on Wikipedia. I wish to have his adminship revoked as he has shown a lack of neutrality and impartiality when it comes to edits on Zionist related pages. He is not the protecter of Zionism on wikipedia and is a administrator. He has flagrantly banned members or requested other admins who patrol the same articles to keep a POV base running to ban people who edit them. As a new wikipedia user, I find a neutral perspective lacking from many articles he has dictated. I added POV tags to an article only to have them removed and them banned.

--Oiboy77 09:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Humus Sapiens is attempting to portray Israel in a sympathetic, rather than objective, light. However, a recent development on the Talk:Israel page leads me to believe that a section on Israeli human rights abuses may soon be added to the article. If Humus does not attempt to block this procedure, then I believe that removal of his administrative privelages would be unnecessary. I understand that he does not want the article to lean in the opposite direction, and I think that this new section could be accepted by all parties.

--Smitty Mcgee 15:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have observed the same problems. He has used the same tactics on the Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad article as well. There appears to be a small cabal of user accounts that work on these related articles that he coordinates with to ban/revert statements and sources that contradict his apparent point of view. The guise is usually calling it vandalism. If you read his discussion page, it is a novel of response from people for whom he has left nasty comments/threats on their userpages. Should this behavior really be reinforced with Administrator privileges? I don't think so.

--Sarastro777 22:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Humus sapiens

Since there was no WP:DR and many users listed against me I "meet" for the first time, it is not clear to me where did I commit my "abuse of Administrative Power". Short background:

Persistent vandalism, POV and soapboxing by Oiboy77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) were reverted, criticised and reviewed by a number of editors. The following are a few attempts to explain/warn/reason with him on his own talk page:

I'm planning to add info concerning his contributions later. So far he was blocked by four different admins, included myself and his requests to unblock were rejected. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FrancisTyers ·

I'm going to make this very brief. I don't have any personal involvement in this, but received a message from User:Oiboy77 inviting me to comment. I recently posted some on the Deir Yassin massacre article. I note that he has also notified other people who expressed reservations about the content of the article, six at the last count. If this is normal procedure for RfAr, disregard this post, but it came across to me to be odd, RfAr is for when dispute resolution has failed, not for starting a pile on. - FrancisTyers · 17:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SlimVirgin

Oiboy77 has made all of 37 edits to articles, the rest to talk pages, since his first edit on June 29. Today, he posted to 16 user talk pages saying the user's "presence is requested at the Arbitration Re: Removal of humus sapiens admin privilages due to administrative abuse." [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Karimarie

Being involved in the events leading up to this RFAR, I feel the need to comment. Humus sapiens has, from my perspective, not "abused" his position as an administrator in any fashion. This RFAR, as near as I can tell, does not assume good faith as it assumes Humus sapiens is deliberately working against the aims of the Wikipedia. Indeed, per Sarastro777 above, it assumes that there is a cabal of users who are actively working to disrupt the Wikipedia. In my eyes, this RFAR is in violation of WP:POINT and is thus a needless exercise. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 03:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MSTCrow

In my opinion, this is a transparent attempt by users who have violated WP policy to remove a useful administrator for doing his job. Users are not given a carte blanch privilege to continuously abuse the article. - MSTCrow 06:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

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

A Y Arktos v. 203.54..

Involved parties

AYArktos (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

I have notified at Talk:Gundagai, New South Wales and Talk:Murrumbidgee River. These talk pages are the most often frequented and are at the core of the request for arbitration.--A Y Arktos\^talk 08:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Editor notified on talk page 203.54.9.43 (talk · contribs) --A Y Arktos\^talk 09:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

(If not, then explain why that would be fruitless)

In addition to article talk page discussions responding to and addressing issues raised by user and by user's behaviour:

Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 21#Gundagai
User talk:Longhair
- User talk:Longhair/Archive9#Another view needed
- User talk:Longhair#Editing issues.
- User talk:Longhair#AYs anon 13 July comments by Petaholmes

User talk:Petaholmes
- User talk:Petaholmes#Request for help / review 13 July

User talk:AYArktos (now archived)
- User talk:AYArktos/Archive05#anons contribution to Gundagai article - comments by User:Roisterer
- User talk:AYArktos/Archive05#anons contribution to Gundagai article - comments by Longhair 9 July and Robertmyers 12 July
- User talk:AYArktos/Archive05#Anon - response by Petaholes and Longhair 13 July

WP:AN/I
- Initial Posting from Robertmyers 13 July Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive120#203.54.186.125
- My request Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive120#Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Admin Stalking 13 July

I feel mediation or other resolution mechanisms will not be appropriate for this dispute as this user ignored requests in the past when asked to modify behaviour.

Statement by A Y Arktos

The editor has made a number of assertions, mainly on the talk page of Gundagai, including attacking a number of editors for holding views that differ to his own. These include attacks on Grahamec (talk · contribs), [89] [90] Robertmyers (talk · contribs) [91] [92] [93] and on myself [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101], including accusations of stalking. [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107]

The editor has been extremely argumentative when requested to cite sources and in accepting that textual analysis to reference a massacre (with no reliable sources supporting this analysis or the massacre) is unacceptable. [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115]

While some contributions may be useful, others are plain nonsense and also inappropriate 1st person comments, well after the editor has been asked not to include 1st person comments in articles.[116]

The editor steadfastly refuses to follow any talk page etiquette: will not sign or format entries and makes confusing insertions into the midst of comments by others. It is very hard to follow. I have given up reformatting and adding unsigned tags. However, an example of what can happen is the addition of a comment by (with signature of) User:Adam Carr which was inserted into a talk page discussion on a page to which Adam Carr had never contributed - but it was not at all clear from the formatting.[117] (I have no reason to believe the editor is Adam Carr editing without being signed in!) The contribution of that particular edit to the discussion about the article was also not clear.

I would like the Arbcom to consider whether semi-protection from time to time is an option for pages, such as Gundagai, Murrumbidgee River, and Hume Highway (including their talk pages), to prevent personal attacks and inappropriate edits? Similarly, as the editor evades blocks by relogging in, are range blocks appropriate? For examples of avoiding blocks see:

203.54.186.125 (talk · contribs · block log) resumed activity within 40 minutes as 203.54.186.127 (talk · contribs)
203.54.186.127 (talk · contribs · block log) resumed activity in less than 1 hour as 203.54.174.12 (talk · contribs)
203.54.174.12 (talk · contribs · block log) resumed activity as 203.54.9.206 (talk · contribs) within 2 1/2 hours despite 48 hour block
203.54.9.169 (talk · contribs · block log) (resumed after block expired)

I am also seeking a ruling that disruptive edits and edits adding information unsupported by reliable sources from the IP ranges can be reverted without further discussion. Relevant IP ranges are:

203.54.9.0/24 - 256 addresses ranging from 203.54.9.0 thru 203.54.9.255
203.54.186.0/24 - 256 addresses ranging from 203.54.186.0 thru 203.54.186.255
203.54.174.0/24 - 256 addresses ranging from 203.54.174.0 thru 203.54.174.255

The ruling would preferably make provision for any other IPs made from apparently the same editor, for example if he changes Internet Service Providers (ISPs).

Thank you for your consideration --A Y Arktos\^talk 23:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(PS for ease in use of pronouns, I am female.)

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. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Not sure if these edits count as a response. The editor does not sign and may not chose to post here but has referenced this request. --A Y Arktos\^talk 02:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding IP range

According to Whois, the entire 203.54.0.0/16 is operated by the same ISP - Telstra Internet of Southeastern Australia. As a result, it is entirely possible for the anon to edit under an IP with the third number being something other than 9, 174, or 186. 04:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/1/0/0)

Reject, this looks like it is more suitable for mediation at this point. Dmcdevit·t 01:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JzG

Involved parties

JzG; Socafan
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request: [118]; at Lance Armstrong article: [119]
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried: Tried to get a third opinion, [120] JzG first boycotted this ignoring that page's rules [121] [122] [123], refused to discuss at disputed article talk page and shrugged off specific complaints on a general level. Instead of discussing there he posted at my talk page, and when I asked him to keep the discussion to the article talk page where many questions were left open he refused and revert warred at my talk page, telling me I did not own my talk page and behaved as if he did. He finally blocked it and me and then even took advantage of my block for removing the POV tag at the article. [124] Repeatedly made derogatory, condescending and even racist comments showing no interest in a conflict resolution. [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131]

Statement by Socafan

When I added information that I found at other articles here and at wikipedia versions in other languages about Lance Armstrong JzG reverted me with a condescending remark. He went on to revert me without explanation [132] [133] [134] and finally told me that I should not edit articles before using talk - a practice I have never heard of at wikipedia, especially when it is about adding information we already cover elsewhere. He then told me to follow special rules about biographies of living persons, pretending that I tried to defame Armstrong although every piece of information I added was well known and statements made by third figures have been widely reported and in the case of Greg LeMond are very well sourced in our own article. JzG reverted five times [135], breaking the three revert rule, even twice after I had given special care for neutrality. He then blocked me although he was in a conflict of interest. He made racist remarks about the French as if they treated Armstrong differently out of anti-Americanism. [136] [137] As already shown above, he boycotted attempts of dispute resolution. When he had blocked me and my talk page he warned me that my edits could lead to libel suits by Armstrong's friend George W. Bush [138]. He had already written before that it was close to the Seigenthaler case. [139] I have not fabricated any information, have no reason to do so and only added well known facts. JzG chose his preferred version to protect the article in it, even again removing a POV-tag. [140] As all information was sourced, the wholesale removal of it is vandalism and the protection when in a conflict of interest is an abuse of admin power. Furthermore, another condescending comment shows there is no interest in a solution: [141]. JzG went on to violate standards for biographies of living people at the articles of two critics of Armstrong: [142] [143], in the latter case even falsifying the name and removing a category. Socafan 00:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have liked to withdraw the case as JzG apologized. [144] I do not quite know what to think about the biased edits made immediately afterwards though [145] [146]. I have to say that than going on with the same misconduct as before [147] and telling others that I am the POV-pusher [148] is not quite what I expect of someone who apologized to me. Socafan 16:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:JzG

Socafan states that I have a conflict of interest. This is false. The history of Lance Armstrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) shows that I have no significant edit history on that article, my involvement is solely the policing of WP:NPOV in the particular case of Socafan, who appears determined to use innuendo and guilt by association to give the impression that Armstrong is guilty of doping; this claim has been rejected by numerous dope tests and an official inquiry headed by the former director of the Dutch anti-doping agency. This report strongly criticizes the WADA for its actions. Socafan prefers to present the WADA's perspective, which is at odds with the fact that Armstrong is officially clean (WP:NPOV#Undue weight applies, I believe). The idea that the French-dominated Union Cycliste Internationale would allow a right-wing American, friend of GWB, to get away with doping, is absurd. Ivan Basso and Jan Ullrich have been suspended this year - UCI takes all doping extremely seriously. As a British cyclist with only a passing interest in racing I am unclear what motivation I might have for bias.

On 1 July it was reported that Armstrong had won a case against the Sunday Times for precisely this issue: it reprinted the allegations in the book L. A. Confidentiel in terms which implied they were true rather than simply that there were reasonable grounds for beieving they might be true: In a high-court hearing, Mr Justice Gray ruled that the meaning of the article as a whole implied that Armstrong had taken drugs to enhance his performance. He rejected arguments for the paper that the words conveyed no more than the existence of reasonable grounds to suspect. [149]. And that is where I am coming from. We really, really do not want Armstrong's lawyers calling the WP:OFFICE.

Socafan's latest batch of edits show, I think, the standards of "neutrality" he seeks to impose: [150]. Note the guilt-by-association and the reversion from the more neutral form of words I had produced to describe the Le Monde story. There is no discussion here, just plain old-fashioned m:MPOV. The allegation that I am refusing to discuss is false: I think we all know what the current view is on controversial content in WP:BLP; the default is to remove and talk about it. The point is not that the information is or is not sourced, it's the way it is presented, the overall balance, and establishing the reliability of the sources in question.

I blocked Socafan briefly because he refused to debate the neutrality of the content, revert warring and by implication insisting that its neutrality was beyond question. I blocked him again for 24h because he continued precisely the same behaviour, this time revert-warring with User:Netscott. I locked his Talk page briefly because he was removing warnings, questions and relevant comments (from me and others) about the dispute. This, he continues to do, with uncivil edit summaries, e.g: revert harassment (Netscott was pointign out WP:OWN); revert trolling when removing the comment Socafan, particularly when adding negative information on a biographical page of a living person it is imperative that you cite your reliable sources. Kindly refrain from adding negative information short of meeting these requirements. Other examples can be seen in the history of Socafan's Talk page - look for sumaries like "trolling", "harassment", "abuse", "innuendo". There has been no significant effort on his part to resolve the dispute. Posting allegations of racism and "rouge admin abuse" is not an attempt at resolution, it's an attempt to recruit allies, which is not the same thing at all. Step 1 is to engage on the Talk page of the article in question.

At every stage I have posted to WP:ANI to encourage peer-review of my actions. I have also taken time to explain to the best of my ability on Socafan's Talk page why what he is doing is problematic. Much of this has been deleted as "trolling" or whatever. I am conscious that I could probably have been more gentle, but this is a WP:BLP case and I am aware that the profile of such cases is particularly high at present. Had Socafan simply stopped edit-warring and gone to Talk, there would be no dispute to resolve.

In short, this is a perfectly normal example of tendentious editing on a biography of a living person. Socafan is Wikilawyering and clearly still refuses to acknowledge that the content he is pushing is anything other than neutral, despite being told by others that he is wrong.

Update: Phil states below I should not use admin powers in a content dispute. This is not a content dispute, it's purely a policing action. I had no significant edits on the Armstrong article prior to this and all my edits have been related to attmpting to solve the problem of potentially defamatory content as added by Socafan.

Update 2: Azmoc (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), who may or may not be Ackoz (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), seems unhappy with being warned for incivility [151]. As far as I was concerned this was a dead issue; clearly not. I guess in the interests of balance I should now go and invite every troll, POV-pusher, vandal and sockpuppet I've ever blocked to come and join the feeding frenzy :-)

Update 3: Having reviewed the incident diff by diff I have apologised to Socafan for being excessively abrupt with him. I stand by my judgment that the edits were problematic, and wold extend that to cover several edits made by Socafan since, and it appears to me very much as if the message re. WP:BLP and WP:NPOV still has not sunk in; Socafan's version is that Armstrong is a doper who has evaded punishment, mine is that he is an athlete with no record of doping against whom allegations of varying degrees of credibility have been made. But that is not a matter for this forum. Just zis Guy you know? 21:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Phil Sandifer

I think there's certainly a problem with JzG's actions on this article - I just found him reverting the article and immediately protecting it on his preferred version after a single edit from an IP - an edit I still fail to find what is objectionable about. And whatever JzG may say about the depth of his involvement in the article, he makes clear that he has a POV above, and makes clear that he thinks that POV is the guiding standard for how the article should be.

That said, this is a dispute between two users that is not worthy of the arbcom. JzG should not use admin powers in this content dispute, and both parties should endeavor towards a neutral presentation instead of one that flatters their viewpoints. If only we had a committee that could mediate disputes like this... Phil Sandifer 14:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Netscott

Through my own personal involvement with the events leading up to this RfAr I know that User:JzG was most certainly operating within the scope of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. User:Socafan was repeatedly introducing negative information and giving such information undue weight in the Lance Armstrong article. In particular Socafan was adding information that was in effect an indictment of Lance Armstrong through "guilt by association". User:Socafan repeatedly reverted my own attempts to remove such information. User:JzG did make attempts to utilize the article's talk page in an effort to educate Socafan prior to the re-introduction of such negative information but Socafan insisted that the information go into the article first and for discussion to occurr second. I made efforts to counsel User:Socafan on the talk page accorded him but he repeatedly removed my counsel in a rather hostile fashion and posted to my own talk page (while concurrently requesting that I not post on his). There is no case here and the Arbitration committee would do well to soundly reject this request. (→Netscott) 15:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Azmoc

I recommend hearing this matter. JzG is already planning to start a User:JzG/LA RfC against his opponent in the dispute, result of which, as he already started soliciting his friends for this, namely User:Netscott, check his TP, would probably be an indef block for his opponent. This shouldn't be a way to solve a content POV. [152] shows the same POV pushed into another article by this admin. This all (strong POV + reverting and protecting on his-POV version + planning to attack the opponent with a RfC without arbitrators)=clearly admin powers abuse. You should fucking hear this fucking case. (I was advised by Theresa Knott, that using colourful language is not fucking uncivil, I am trying to take it to the fucking extreme, if I found that shit appropriate). Azmoc 22:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone can see how this is in any way relevant to the Armstrong dispute perhaps they could let me know. Just zis Guy you know? 07:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration case is not about the Lance Armstrong dispute but about your misconduct. If a pattern of misconduct occurs in different cases this is relevant here. Socafan 15:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the user who made this comment has been blocked for making personal attacks, I'd say that it says a lot more about the users who accuse JzG of "misconduct" than anything else. FCYTravis 19:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all it is incivil to generalize "the users who accuse JzG of misconduct, second, if you have anything substantial to add to this case please do so but spare us with ad hominem attacks. Socafan 00:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Stephen B Streater

I've had hundreds of press reports about me, and thousands about my companies, so possibly approach this area from an alternative perspective. What I have found is that analysts these days frequently use Wikipedia as a source for their research when they write reports on companies. This covers both company articles and biographies of key management. Even for small companies, millions can be at stake. The sort of individuals who have biographies here are often highly successful, have big egos, and value their reputations. In the particular case of a sports star, where sponsorship can be extremely valuable, perception is reality, and a poorly researched or inaccurate biography could cause real financial damage. While it would be hard for Wikipedia to be flawless, an awareness of Wikipedia policies often taken for granted such as WP:V and WP:RS (the latter sources, subject to the libel laws, often check their facts) will make Wikipedia's future significantly more pleasant for all involved here. No organisation, even on the Internet, is above the law. The actions of admins such as JzG to enforce WP policies can only help protect Wikipedia as it moves increasingly into the mainstream. Stephen B Streater 22:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He did not enforce WP policies, he abused admin power to enforce his personal POV. He removed sourced content about allegations from third persons that were widely reported and claimed this was necessary to evade libel lawsuits. Socafan 15:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think enforcing Wikipedia policies is sufficient for now. I'm glad this case has been resolved amicably. Stephen B Streater 16:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

I've removed considerable threaded dialog. Please feel free to restore removed material in a more appropriate (non-dialog) form. --Tony Sidaway 20:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reject. JzG appears to be correctly interpreting en.wp's policy on reporting upon potentially-damaging, potentially-libellous rumor and speculation about living people. Arguments that 'other language Wikipedias have this info' or 'I read about it elsewhere' carry little weight here. I'm also afraid your comprehension skills are lacking if you thought JzG was being racist; rather, he was making the point that the anti-French sentiment popular among Americans in recent years leaves the French probably less likely to cover-up wrongdoing by an American for whom they have little love. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. JzG has behaved well here. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I protest the complete lack of an explanation for the rejection even after JzG was warned by another administrator and part of his actions undone. Furthermore, I would like to ask someone swearing at others and me to recuse from the case. Bad language in no way helps to resolve conflicts and be a good arbitrator. [153] [154] Socafan 01:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reject. Though, I think both sides could clearly have behaved better. - SimonP 17:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Jayjg had abusively blocked me before, I would like him to recuse as an arbitrator in this case. Socafan 00:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also reject; I am in agreement with Morven. However, I do advise Jzg to seek an uninvolved admin's help for any future action in this case. Dmcdevit·t 02:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Jones University

Involved parties

nobojo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (filer)
John Foxe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

An edit war was settled by adopting neutral, balanced language for the 'Bibb Graves' entry on the 'Bob Jones University' page. John Foxe began a new edit war by overwriting the compromise language and refusing to negotiate a neutral, balanced settlement in good faith. (He will argue, but he will not negotiate. For this reason, I believe mediation will be a waste of everyone's time.)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bob_Jones_University#Arbitration_Requested

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

John Foxe and I have hashed this out at nauseating length on the Bob Jones Univeristy 'talk' page. (Please see.) The upshot is that John Foxe will argue, but he will not negotiate. He insists upon controlling the content, wording, and format of the 'Bibb Graves' entry. When one party is intractable, mediation is a waste of time. I believe arbitration is the only solution.

Statement by nobojo (talk · contribs)

As the result of a previous edit war, the 'Bibb Graves' entry on the 'Bob Jones University' page was rewritten in compromise language that achieved neutrality and balance. For awhile it kept the peace.

Recently John Foxe broke the peace by overwriting the previously agreed upon compromise entry for 'Bibb Graves'.

John Foxe and I attempted at length to self-mediate on the 'talk' page. Or I did. He would not agree to a settlement on any terms except his total control of the content, format, and wording of the Bibb Graves entry. In short, he wants to rewrite the entry to his satisfaction and everyone else had better get on board.

I agreed to accept John Foxe's research to the effect that Graves was an 'Exalted Cyclops' (local leader) in the KKK and not the 'Grand Dragon' (statewide leader). He has reference books pegging Graves as 'Exalted Cyclops.' I have websites pegging him as 'Grand Dragon.' It seemed reasonable -- though certainly not conclusive -- for me to defer to his sources. It was my understanding that this was the only issue in dispute and with this out of the way, we could have peace. Wrong!

I told him that I would defer to his research, as he demanded, provided that he must allow the remainder of that entry -- i.e., the part NOT in dispute -- to revert back to the neutral compromise language. (Note: He has a habit of calling it "MY" language -- it's not mine...it's the neutral compromise language that kept the peace prior to his edit war.)

He refuses any settlement that does not give him total control of the content, format, and wording of the 'Bibb Graves' entry.

Purely as a means of pre-emptive self-defense, I must point out that he has been known to misrepresent my position. Such as when he refers to the compromise language that kept the peace as "MY" language, which he says I'm selfishly trying to impose on everyone else. There's only one of us demanding to control content, format, and wording to the exclusion of anyone else's input. Three guesses which one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobojo (talk • contribs) 00:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ADDENDUM

Here is the compromise language that John Foxe overwrote. I have no problem in changing Grand Dragon to Exalted Cyclops based on his research:

Bibb Graves, Grand Dragon of the Alabama Ku Klux Klan [155] and two-term governor of Alabama (1927-31, 1935-39). Graves was a graduate of the University of Alabama and Yale Law School. He earned a reputation as a reformer who improved public education in Alabama. Graves served as a member of the board of trustees of Bob Jones College, and a dormitory is named in his honor.~~[37][Dalhouse, Island in the Lake of Fire, 36][DAB, Sup. 3: 317-18]~~

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobojo (talk • contribs) 00:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Foxe (talk · contribs)

Every scholarly book and article about the Ku Klux Klan in Alabama identifies Bibb Graves as Exalted Cyclops (chapter president) of the Montgomery chapter. They also identify one James Esdale as Grand Dragon of Alabama (that is, the director of the state organization). So does the website of the Alabama Department of History and Archives.

My only objective in this controversy is to have the Bibb Graves entry on the BJU page begin with the phrase "two-term governor of Alabama (1927-31, 1935-39)." Any encyclopedia entry on Graves should start there, just as any entry for "Richard Nixon" should begin with "thirty-seventh president of the United States"—not with “organizer of the Watergate break-in.”

Here's the Bibb Graves entry on the BJU page as it stands now: "Bibb Graves, two-term governor of Alabama (1927-31, 1935-39) and Exalted Cyclops (chapter president) of the Montgomery branch of the Ku Klux Klan. A progressive who sought to improve public education in Alabama, Graves served as a member of the board of trustees of Bob Jones College and a BJU dormitory is named in his honor."

But I don't think there's anything sacred about that wording, except that if Graves' membership in the Klan is mentioned, so should his New Deal liberalism. (Graves and his friend Hugo Black had a lot in common.)

--John Foxe 19:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Will Beback

I believe this is a content dispute that could be handled best through mediation and other dispute resolution procedures. -Will Beback 18:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jossi

There is no record of previous steps for dispute resolution. Editors should exhaust these first. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by user:nobojo

Any call for mediation must presuppose that both parties are willing to negotiate. When one party will argue but won't negotiate on any terms other than total capitulation of the other party, then there is nothing to mediate. Mediation will merely result in this dispute remaining mired in argument - which I believe is exactly the objective of certain persons.

BUT I WILL CALL THE BLUFF:

John Foxe, if you are the reasonable sort of person who would be open to a negotiated settlement via mediation, then let's be reasonable right here. We can dispense with both arbitration and mediation. Being reasonable, I'm sure you realize that you've overwritten neutral compromise language. You might prefer your version, just as I preferred my original version. But you wouldn't want to cut those of us out of the loop who worked out that compromise language. That would be unreasonable. Which you're not.

So restore the neutral compromise language that you overwrote. Replace the Grand Dragon reference with the Exalted Cyclops language based on your research. And voila! We have a fair and equitable settlement that respects all concerned. (As opposed to one person demanding to control all aspects of the entry -- content, format, and wording).

Just post your acceptance below, and we will have a settlement and peace.

Comment by Rillian

This is a simple content dispute regarding NPOV presentation of Bibb Graves on BJU notable benefactors list. Discuss on Talk page and gain consensus should be approach, not arbitration at this point. Rillian 20:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by user:nobojo

It is not a simple content dispute. It is an edit war. That's why the page is currently protected.

Your suggestion to "discuss on talk page" is much too late. We have been there and done that to the point that most issues have been hashed and rehashed multiple times.

We cannot "gain consensus," because one of the parties will not negotiate in good faith.

I know you'll find this hard to believe, but I think some of his cronies may be coming here with the intention of derailing the arbitration.

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

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

Reject. Mostly a content dispute, though the edit warring needs to stop. Try mediation. - SimonP 17:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. There is indeed a lot of edit warring, but, as per Jossi and Will Beback, there ought to be prior attempts at dispute resolution first. Dmcdevit·t 23:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CoolKatt number 99999 (talk · contribs)

Involved parties

Rollosmokes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
CFIF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Crossmr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Lambertman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Kramden4700 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Rollosmokes is the initiating party
CFIF: [156]
Crossmr: [157]
Lambertman: [158]
Kramden4700: [159]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Request for Comment was opened on May 15, and has not yet been closed or ruled upon.
CoolKatt recieved a 24-hour block (July 11-12) for violating the Three-Revert Rule with WWOR-TV. He then attempted to circumvent his block but was stopped by an administrator. Upon returning from his block, he has resumed reverting WWOR-TV and has engaged in arrogant incivility.
CoolKatt has engaged in various instances of incivility, as well as unfounded claims of other violations, towards other users who challenge his point-of-view or makes changes made to articles he has edited. (eg. [160], [161], [162], [163], [164])
Mediation will be fruitless because, no matter what he says (eg. [165], [166], [167]) he has engaged in the same distruptive behavior over and over again. His attempt to ignore the block (eg. [168]) proves that he doesn't care about anyone else but himself. He must be reprimanded more severely.

Statement by Rollosmokes (talk · contribs)

I have been engaged in a dispute against CoolKatt for about two months. Those I listed as additional parties in this request, and a few others, are quite aware of what has transpired since then. He has engaged with myself in edit wars on WWOR-TV, WTNH, WCTX, WTXX, WVIT, WPHL-TV, KYW-TV, WCAU, WPSG, WLFL-TV, WTXF-TV, Westinghouse Broadcasting, and TVX Broadcast Group (among others), as he added irrelevant information or made unnecessary changes to these articles which, I though, constitued as being unencyclopedic, or simply of poor quality. I reverted his changes and, in most cases, explained why through either talk pages or the edit summary. But CoolKatt immediately reverted back to his versions and immediately accused me of committing vandalism and of claiming ownership of these articles. CoolKatt has also ignored requests from the Wikiproject Television Stations group to join a consensus on the inclusion of several out-of-market (foreign) television stations on templates {{Springfield MA TV}} and {{Susquehanna Valley TV}}, which he has repeatedly to his liking. I personally reverted both templates back several times, and he reverted each time, accusing me of WP:OWN and trying to make a point. He himself violates WP:OWN and WP:POINT when he adds tags such as "!-- Please do NOT remove the Hartford stations" in the Springfield template, or "!-- Do not remove the merge tag. Doing so is considered vandalism!", as he did during his effort to re-merge WGTW-TV and WKBS-TV (Philadelphia) after another user split the articles. CoolKatt has also accused myself and others of Wikistalking for constantly going over his work. But his beef with me has become more personal: he filed a RfC against me, which was deleted within 48 hours, and on July 1 he filed a Request for Investigation against me without my knowledge. Ironically, his most recent behavior has resulted in him being under investigaton for adding unsubstantiated information to television station articles. CoolKatt is arrogant, pompous, and believes that he is the end-all, be-all when it comes to opinions on articles he contributes to. He must be put in his place. Rollosmokes 18:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kramden4700

I had the misfortune of opposing his needless propsed merger of WPVI-TV and after a bit of investigation noticed he had plans for splitting KYW-TV as well, something which also was not needed. I also opposed his proposed re-merger of WKBS-TV (Philadelphia) amd WGTW-TV. Apparently bringing this to the light day and opposing him had put me on his bad side. I tried to be civil, but he seemed to act as if he was not the problem, but those who oppose him were and that WP:OWN did not apply to him. He needs at minimum a time out or possibly some other further sanction if this is a continuing pattern of behaviour. Kramden4700 20:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that he threatened me here User talk:Kramden4700#Channel 48 Kramden4700 01:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He has now accused me and two others of stalking him. See: User talk:Kramden4700#Request for Arbitration/CoolKatt. I simply disagree with him and then the threats start. I do not see how not agreeing with him or pointing out his speculations are in violation of WP:STALK. Something is very wrong here if bringing to light a disruptive vandal's future plans is wrong then I think I may consider leaving as people like this spoil the whole experience. Kramden4700 04:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Crossmr (talk · contribs)

Most of what I'll say here is a rehash of what I said on the RfC. I first encountered Coolkatt on an AfD. I wasn't even aware I had until after the AfD closed. I left an opinion but it wasn't on my watch list. Sometime after the closure of this AfD, I logged in to find a spurious accusation on my userpage that I was a sockpuppet of someone whom I didn't even know. This dif[169] shows the sock puppet tag. The proper process wasn't followed and it was simply retaliation for "agreeing with nom" in the AfD, who interestingly wasn't even apostrophe. Going back to look at the AfD as I barely even remembered it, I found [170] that Coolkatt had gone and accused everyone who called for delete a sockpuppet. He'd also left the same spurious sock puppet accusation on Opabinia's user page here [171]. Both her and I spoke out about it on the administrators noticeboard, but no administrator bothered to get involved. Seen here in my archives [172] he first claims that making numerous personal attacks on users is "the right thing to do" and then claims Apostrophe (whom I did not know) forced myself and others to recommend delete. He continues to say one thing and do another, claiming he'll behave then doing things like putting AfD tags on his RfC. Here [173] he blame's his behaviour on everyone else and refuses to take responsibility for it. here [174] I tried to reach out to him to give him some guidance but his immature behaviour continues unabated. --Crossmr 20:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CFIF (talk · contribs)

CoolKatt, has at times, bordered on being paranoid and physcotic (seen here talking about himself in the third person), making false accusations and legal threats against members, along with making false claims and odd statements. He has a whole slew of subpages filled with unfactual and fantastic which do no good for the encyclopedia. He has also made demands and acting like he is in charge (which is sooo far from the truth) and assumes everyone "knows his contributions are useful". Everything else has been pretty much covered by Rollo and Crossmr. --CFIF (talk to me) 21:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CoolKatt number 99999 (talk · contribs)

Pure, Wiki-stalking. I demand the slander against me stop. I am making many useful contributions, and this is the thanks I get? I demand this dispute end now. CoolKatt number 99999 22:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lambertman (talk · contribs)

Most everything I've witnessed has already been discussed. I can only add this [175] statement from Katt in which he says his speculation (as to the meaning of callsigns) should be taken as fact because it makes sense to him. Lambertman 23:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Amnewsboy (talk · contribs)

While not directly involved in this particular dispute, I'd like to add that CoolKatt number 99999 has, on at least one occasion, been cited for adding unverified information to Wikipedia. A separate Request for Investigation was filed[176] in regards to his additions to the page for the Arkansas Educational Television Network[177], and he was subsqeuently warned. In addition to the comment Lambertman pointed out, CoolKatt number 99999 also tried to justify that his call letter meanings were correct because "Maybe because those files were destroyed?"[178], even though there are no sources to support that. I also question the validity of the user's sub-pages with "Alternate" histories for television stations (WDAF-TV [179], for example) - although said articles are clearly marked as fictional, they also show up in Google searches for the subjects. I have had only minimal personal contact with the user, but I will say that I find his editing methods questionable at best. Amnewsboy 22:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow-up, CoolKatt number 99999 was blocked for 24 hours on July 19 for further violations of WP:V, then for a further 48 hours for violating it again [180]. Amnewsboy 06:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Morgan Wick (talk · contribs)

When I first encountered CoolKatt, I was a bit surprised at the level to which he was opposed, and I thought the RfC against him had spurious grounds. I even attempted to defuse the level of vitriol against him by pointing out that he has made constructive edits. But recently, he seems to have gone off the deep end. He has forgotten how to be civil, and has repeatedly claimed his contributions are "useful" without explaining how in the face of people trying to tell him they violate numerous Wikipedia policies. He has taken to violating WP:OWN in relentlessly trying to defend his versions of articles, getting involved in numerous edit wars. He has filed RfC's left and right, including one against A Man In Black (talk · contribs) for daring to oppose him on an AfD, and seems to be using RfC as a way to intimidate or get back at people who disagree with him [181], which is an abuse of RfC, and which isn't working, since not one of his RfC's has been certified. As noted earlier, he has accused people of sockpuppetry for disagreeing with him as well. He seems to have some paranoid tendencies, and his dealings with the Wikipedia community is starting to test even my patience. Morgan Wick 05:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/0/0/0)

Accept. Dmcdevit·t 21:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ericsaindon2 (talk · contribs)

Involved parties

Ericsaindon2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
OC31113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
69.232.62.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Coolcaesar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Will Beback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Ericsaindon2: [182]
OC31113: [183]
69.232.62.33: [184]
Coolcaesar is the initiating party
Will Beback: [185]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

RFC has been tried, more evidence available there
Ericsaindon2 has been warned that sockpuppeting is bad [186] [187] [188]
Ericsaindon2 has been warned on many occasions by admins and users that he should cooperate with the consensus of the Wikipedia community and basic rules like 3RR [189] [190] [191] [192] [193] [194] [195] [196]

[197] [198] [199]

Ericsaindon2 has been warned several times that his image uploads should conform to copyright law [200] [201] [202] [203] [204] [205] [206] [207]
Mediation would be fruitless because after several days of discussions, and after every one of his points was refuted [208], Ericsaindon2 (through his sockpuppet 69.232.62.33) simply repeated all of them virtually unchanged [209] instead of adjusting his argument, and then when that was pointed out [210], he fell back to name-calling [211].

Statement by Coolcaesar (talk · contribs)

User Ericsaindon2 has been engaged in continuous edit warring and repeated violations of 3RR on Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California since 5 April 2006 and possibly earlier. He has used at least known two sockpuppets, OC31113, and IP address 69.232.62.33. Anaheim Hills is merely a neighborhood of the city of Anaheim which lacks any kind of official legal recognition or defined boundaries. I and Will Beback have researched and explained this in exhaustive detail at Talk:Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California (see also the archives). Ericsaindon2 appears to have the primary objective of portraying Anaheim Hills as a city or city-like community on Wikipedia, in direct violation of all core Wikipedia policies: WP:V (he has no proof), WP:NOR (his view is original research not published elsewhere), and WP:NPOV (his position is a uniquely personal point of view that no one else endorses). Towards this end, his two secondary objectives are: (1) to add a infobox that resembles the standard city infobox; and (2) to move the article to Anaheim Hills, California. These issues have been carefully debated and the consensus of all editors involved with Southern California-related articles is contrary to his objectives. His actions have been reverted, he has been blocked, and the article has been protected several times (as indicated by its history and his block log). He has used sockpuppets to get around the blocks, in clear violation of Wikipedia policy. He also likes to upload images of questionable provenance in violation of copyright law. --Coolcaesar 00:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just found out about the CheckUser feature. I request any user with the CheckUser privilege to analyze the IP addresses of OC31113 and Ericsaindon2. Because the two users' have highly similar writing styles and interests, it appears that OC31113 is a sockpuppet of Ericsaindon2, but it would be nice to have evidence of identical IP addresses as additional evidence in this case. --Coolcaesar 16:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using checkuser I have confirmed that the two accounts used the same ip part of the time. Fred Bauder 12:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Ericsaindon2 just tried to reverse the meaning of this post.[212]. -Will Beback 20:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He let me use his account when some admin put me on a 7 day block, when I was only suppose to get 24 hours for one of those split-3rr's Will likes so much. --Ericsaindon2 10:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ericsaindon2 (talk · contribs)

For the past three months, I have been tediously trying to serve justice to the Anaheim Hills page, and put it back to the location where it sat for three years before I began editing it. I have put a tedious amount of work into the page, and have based all of my statistics on Census™ neighborhood by neighborhood to determine an overall Census statistics for the community. Since I worked 6 hours on gathering this information for all the areas south of the 91 freeway, Will Beback and Coolcaesar have continuously tried to keep it off the page, even though I continue to provide sources through Census. The infobox has been totally modified to meet a community standard, deleting all the details that are only true for cities. It even includes the city it is part of in the infobox, and is titled Community of Anaheim Hills, California, with a map that shows Anaheim Hills within Anaheim. There is no way that you can mistake the community as a city, for it is referenced 3 times in the infobox alone, not to mention in the article several times.

Next, the naming issue. The page sat at Anaheim Hills, California for nearly 2 1/2 years before I edited it extensively. After I edited it, user:Mike Dillon moved it to Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California after no consensus or talk about this. I moved it back, and he seemed to back off, and said that it was typical, but he didnt mind the change, so he let me keep it at that location. Then, user:COolcaesar came along. He stated that the ONLY location for Anaheim Hills, California was using the {community, city, state}, and that EVERY page used this format, and there were no exceptions. Since then, they have yet to find any page that clearly states that Anaheim Hills, California has to be at the {community, city, state} format. Since then, I have had the brunt of retaliation from COolcaesar, and have heard no proof for the statements he made about the format. The only rule stated by Wikipedia is that you use the most common name known for the topic, and that would be either Anaheim Hills or Anaheim Hills, California; and by no means is Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California the most simplified version of the name. Plus, rules have it that you must also use the most common name, which in this case is Anaheim Hills, California. When referring to our president of the USA, you dont refer to him as George Walker Bush, his legally technical name, you refer to him as Geroge W. Bush, which is what the page is named. Or we dont use Magnoliophyta when referring to a flowering plant, because the common name is flowering plant, although the government states it in an official document as Magnoliophyta. Now, the word flowering plant is probably never referred to in the official governmental plan directory, but just because it isnt listed there doesnt mean that it doesnt exist, and it is referrred to as a flowering plant on the Wikipedia page. It is referenced at the most common name. Now, using all these lies that could not be backed up, a highly manipulated straw poll, which sold all this unreferenced information to the voters lead to a minor defeat on my naming setup, and it was all because of them stating how the name had to be {community, city, state}, and there were NO EXCEPTIONS. Yet, they found no answer when I found hundreds of communities that didnt follow that setup (listed below), it was after the straw poll closed (which was closed convinently when they finally had the majority of the votes).

La Jolla, Boulevard, Campo, Cuyamaca, Dulzura, Santa Ysabel, Midway City, Ballston, Virginia, Clarendon, Virginia, Courthouse, Virginia, Fairlington, Virginia, Shirlington, Virginia, Virginia Square, Virginia, Oakhurst, Georgia, Downtown Berkeley, California, East Boston, Massachusetts, Charlestown, Massachusetts, Dorchester, Massachusetts, Hyde Park, Massachusetts, Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts, Mandela, Massachusetts, Mattapan, Massachusetts, Readville, Massachusetts, South Boston, Massachusetts, West Roxbury, Massachusetts, California, Ohio, Bond Hill, Ohio, Clifton Heights, Ohio, Beedles Station, Ohio, Bidwell, Ohio, Blue Ball, Ohio, Evanston, Ohio, Fort Ancient, Ohio, Greentree Corner, Ohio, Level, Ohio, Middletown Junction, Ohio, New Burlington, Ohio, Rinard Mills, Ohio, Pleasant Grove, Texas, Downtown Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Hawaii Kai, Hawaii, He'eia, Hawaii, Kailua, Hawaii, Kapolei, Hawaii, Mililani, Hawai'i, North Ko'olaupoko, Hawai'i, Salt Lake, Hawaii, Waimanalo Beach, Hawaii, Waipio, Hawaii, Ashville, Kentucky, Avoca, Kentucky, Ballardsville, Kentucky, Beckley, Kentucky, Beechland Beach, Kentucky, Berrytown, Kentucky, Bethany, Kentucky, Boston, Kentucky, Clark Station, Kentucky, Eastwood, Kentucky, English Station, Kentucky, Fairmount, Kentucky, Fisherville, Kentucky, Freys Hill, Kentucky, Greenwood, Kentucky, Griffytown, Kentucky, Harrods Creek, Kentucky, Hopewell, Kentucky, Hunters Trace, Kentucky, Johnsontown, Kentucky, Juniper Beach, Kentucky, Knopp, Kentucky, Kosmosdale, Kentucky, Lake Dreamland, Kentucky, Lake Louisvilla, Kentucky, Lakeland, Kentucky, Long Run, Kentucky, Longview, Kentucky, Meadowlawn, Kentucky, Medora, Kentucky, O'Bannon, Kentucky, Orell, Kentucky, Parkwood, Kentucky, Penile, Kentucky, Petersburg, Kentucky, Plainview, Kentucky, Prairie Village, Kentucky, Riverside Gardens, Kentucky, Routt, Kentucky, Rubbertown, Kentucky, Seatonville, Kentucky, Smyrna, Kentucky, South Park, Kentucky, Springdale, Kentucky, Sylvania, Kentucky, Thixton, Kentucky, Transylvania Beach, Kentucky, Tucker Station, Kentucky, Valley Downs, Kentucky, Valley Gardens, Kentucky, Valley Village, Kentucky, Waverly Hills, Kentucky, Whitner, Kentucky, Worthington (Jefferson), Kentucky, Downtown Memphis, Tennessee, Bay View, Wisconsin, Granville, Wisconsin, Milwaukee (town), Wisconsin, Algiers, Louisiana, Carrollton, Louisiana, Little Germany, New York, Downtown Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Manchester, Virginia, Mission Valley, California, East Syracuse, New York, Fayetteville, New York, Solvay, New York, Spenard, Alaska, Eagle River, Alaska, Eklutna, Alaska, Auburn, Rhode Island, New Tampa, Florida, West Tampa, Florida, Pinecraft, Florida

As far as the sockpuppets, I have none. I use my IP number before I log in sometimes to Wikipedia. But I have no sockpuppets. The users that claim I have sockpuppets only feel that because they think that everyone who agrees with me must be a sockpuppet, which is purely false. Many times in the past, many of these users that they claimed as my sockpuppets, Will Beback has blocked them when I break a rule, and I get blocked when they break a rule. So, wheter were guilty or not, we are continuously all blocked if one of us does something wrong, which is totally showing a lack of proof. --Ericsaindon2 16:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And referring to the behavior of the admin and his little friend, Coolcaesar. Over the past few weeks, Coolcaesar has been contributing to this dispute equally as I have. The difference is that he has hired this guard to protect him, Will Beback. Since this abusive relationship began, every action I make is scrutenized and reported to Coolcaesar to give him information from Will Beback, the admin. I, and all my supporters are allowed to make a combined 3rr's a day, yet each of them (Coolcaesars supporters have been given 3rr's each which is what the rule states). I can make 1 edit in 24 hours, but if someone else who supports me (even in one instance a bot made a revert in my favor) I get blocked. I dont know what the relationship between the two is, but Will Beback has coached him on his talk page about how to increase this nonexistent problem, and its believability from this honorable commitee. There was no problem until Coolcaesar created it, because I have off and on edited the page for 6 months with no problem until Coolcaesar showed up. Even to this moment, this abusive admin still has blocked my brother, and the block that was suppose to be 24 hours for one of our "combined 3rr's" has gone on for 9 days now, so he has been unable to comment here, but he is angry at them too. I understand the arguing of people when disagreeing, and this step is totally unnecessary. I dont see how two people who were equally involved in a dispute can only punish one, just because another has enlisted an admin who acts as his attorney, and information source. Its downright wrong. You can clearly see how the admin has used his abusive powers on the Anaheim Hills talk page, and being subjective to his punishments. He punishes everyone on the talk page who makes a rude comment to another editor, (which in total is about 12 or 13 instances) yet has never told the very bold Coolcaesar to keep his comments friendly. There are many examples of this subjective punishment on the talk page. If this goes to arbitration (which I hope it does not) I will not sit there and let these admins harass and abuse other editors if it is the last thing I do on Wikipedia. I hope that you will realize that Coolcaesar and I deserve the same punishment, if any at all for content dispute (which could be cured with mediation), and that Will Beback will learn that his adminship is not to be abused. --Ericsaindon2 07:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Will Beback (talk · contribs)

[Description partly adapted from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ericsaindon2]

Ericsaindon2's entire three-month editing career has revolved around one topic: a district of Anaheim, California called Anaheim Hills. The district has no official existence, hasn't been recognized by any government agency, and at most is simply a neighborhood of a larger city. Despite this fact, ES has been using Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote Anaheim Hills as a separate place. He hasn't promoted an independence movement, which might be at least considered a POV, but instead has sought to declare Anaheim Hills as a city by editorial fiat. He apparently created a "seal of the city of Anaheim Hills", drew (or copied) maps of the area, derived demographic data through calculations, added the article to lists of cities, and then edit-warred over the inclusions of the original research. During these content disputes ES has repeatedly ignored the consensus of other editors (including misusing straw polls), has used sock puppets, has violated the 3RR (and NOR, V, etc.), has expressed ownership of the article, and has disrupted the project to illustrate a point. (These complaints are documented in the RfC).

The RfC on ES, filed June 5, was certified by six users, and endorsed by four more, collectively some of the most engaged editors on the general topic of Southern California places. ES's own account was endorsed only by his sockpuppets. Since the RfC he has continued in the same behaviors. He has again been blocked for violating 3RR [213], disrupted the project to illustrate points [214], used an apparent sock/meat puppet [215], engaged in original research [216], made fraudulent references to Anaheim Hills as a city [217], and made personal attacks on editors [218]. There are more examples that we can documented if the arbitration request is accepted.

I urge the ArbCom to take this case. This RfAr is about Ericsaindon2's behavior, not the legal status of a neighborhood, naming conventions, or infoboxes, about which reasonable editors can disagree. ES continues to disrupt the project in order to advance his pet cause. Since the problem is entirely concerned with the one topic (albeit bleeding over into a number of similar articles in Orange County), a subject ban could be an appropriate remedy. -Will Beback 09:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A minor, but telling, point is that ES places fraudulent information on his user page. The old version, [219], claimed that he had been Awarded Ultimate Wikipedia Editor for the month of December 2005, though he has not been editing that long and there is no such prize. His current page, [220], claims that he is an admin and has made over 9000 edits, neither of which are true. -Will Beback 06:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anoher user just pointed out that user:OC31113, on his first day of editing, made this comment: I have not had alot of support up until this point on the page, and do truely thank you for putting the infobox back on, and keeping my hard work from being removed.[221] The infobox in question had been created by user:Ericsaindon2.

And the statement gathered from Daniel Bryants page from above. I took credit for Ericsaindon2's work because I did not want to give him a long description about who created it and why, so for the sake of briefness, I just told him I created it like Ericsaindon2 had left the message (because if I had told him the full story, I would have had to create my own archive on his talk page). --OC31113 21:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser request

Due to the allegations that user:Ericsaindon2 has used sock puppets, I request that the CheckUser tool be used to inspect the records in regard to user:OC31113. user:Es92808 is also presumed to be a sock or meat puppet, but it may not have been used recently enough to show up.

Suspected puppets and known IPS

Ericsaindon154 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Es92808 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
OC31113 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
69.232.62.33 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
68.183.42.219 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
69.232.54.105 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
69.239.57.7 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
70.237.91.134 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
71.144.105.17 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
71.128.23.163 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Local AOL IPs

Mr.Executive (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

On the other side, a posible sock account is being used to revert ES's edits

Anaheimat (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Statement by OC31113 (talk · contribs)

Over the past two weeks, as I start fresh on a new account as for I moved from the east coast to Orange County, I have involved myself in local pages under a new screenname while still editing under my previous screenname in New York on a continuous basis. I am not a sockpuppet of user:ericsaindon2, and far from it. I agree with him at times, and others I dont, but that does not justify giving me punishment every time he does something to irritate the admins, and visa versa.

Well, on to the topic at hand. I have become involved in the page after user:ericsaindon2 found me to be knowledgable, and asked if I could assist, so I stepped in. I was shocked at the deceit that the admins and Coolcaesar fed to the voters during the straw polls about the policy that the only setup possible for a community was community, city, state. This was totally false, yet the minority at the time (being Eric, the correct party in the matter) was outweighed by the manipulated voters and the deceptful admins. I agree with Eric's arguement that Anaheim Hills or Anaheim Hills, California is the most simple name in referencing the page, as well as the most common, the most basic naming procedure. The infobox was a little weird to begin with, but after a while it grew on me. I understood why he put it there, and after explaining that he performed a census by census tract evaluation of Anaheim Hills, he compressed the valid information into an infobox that was customized just for Anaheim Hills. It states the City it is part of, shows where Anaheim Hills is located within Anaheim, and is titled Community of Anaheim Hills. So, I feel that all of those points of reference will lead to no confusion. He explained how he did this, and why he did this, yet was attacked by Coolcaesar while Will Beback acted as his patrol officer waiting for me or him to break a rule so that we could be blocked, and temporarily silenced. (Even if I made 2 reverts and Ericsaindon2 made 1 in 24 hours on the page, we were suspended for 3rr, even though all WIll did was add the two totals up-which was totally unfair)

And about those copywrighted images. You know, and I know it takes a while to learn Wikipedia, and all of those images were done within days of the creation of his account. The images I downloaded my first week were copywrighted, and I didnt know how that worked, but I fixed them. As I am aware of, Eric has fixed most of them, and allowed others to just be deleted, and since he was probably learning the way around Wikipedia, I dont see how this could be held against him. If you look at the images he has "recently" uploaded, which is about 50 images, they all had proper tagging, and if they didnt, he fixed it at the admins request.

I urge you not to take the case because its a conflict of ideas, and Eric is trying to prove a well based point, and like other users, he refuses to be manipulated by unture statements that swayed popular opinion, like the admins and involved parties did in this case.

Eric is also very beneficial to other pages, having added 24 infoboxes to cities in Orange County that lacked them previously, and working on the template:Orange County, California to add communities, and reword it. He is an essential party in the Orange County community and city articles. The statement Will Beback made about him making controversial and self promoting edits to other community pages is totally false. I found one instance where he did that on the Anaheim Hills page 5 months ago, and he reverted it due to the opposition. I only see positive change on all the Orange County community and city pages, and positive additions, and none of those edits have created controversy, and all of them were legitamate in those respective articles. This "pet cause" expained by Will Beback is nothing but with the goal to improve the project, and has no basis. Since he has not made any negative edits to the Orange County Community or City articles, the only "pet cause" he could have is positive. A subject ban would be davastating, for Eric has edited all Orange COunty neighborhood articles and cities in good faith, and has done it more extensively than anyone I have yet to see. I do think that the statement "he has an ultimate plot to destroy the community and city articles" is totally nonfactual and unable to be proved, and if that is his goal, he sure is making it difficult for himself with all these constructive edits he has made to these articles.

All this is is a disagreement between two parties who have 2 different views about the ways on the page. It seems to be a debate between Wikipedia Policy (Ericsaindon2) vs. Legal References (COolcaesar). A mediator might be more appropriate than arbitration, because both Ericsaindon2 and Coolcaesar were equally involved in the childish arguement. It would be unfair to suspend him (or not) without suspending the instigator of the problem (the creator of the issue that was not an issue before he brought it up), Coolcaesar. --OC31113 08:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

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

Accept Fred Bauder 20:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked him for a month based on this edit [222]. Fred Bauder 17:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Full disclosure: I am a resident of Anaheim (not the 'Hills' part). Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Dmcdevit·t 23:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for clarification

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

Everyking

Pursuant to discussion on the arbitration committee mailing list, Everyking has recently been causing more problems. Following our previous decision, he has instead begun harassing administrators on their talk pages. He has resumed editing Ashlee Simpson articles in the same fashion we previously sanctioned. Extraordinary Machine lodged a complaint on the ANI, and I recieved one in private from someone else (that person has refused to lodge one formally because he/she is fed up with EK from previous run-ins).

Per previous discussion, I'd like to propose the following remedies:

Everyking is banned for two weeks for recent offenses
Everyking's current prohibitions (his ban from editing the ANI, and from commenting on other admin's actions except for their talk pages, RFC, and RFA) - set to expire in November - are extended ~~indefinitely~~ for one year, until November 2007.
Everyking is placed on standard probation for all pop music articles - any admin may ban him from any/all of them for any misbehavior on his part
Should EK harass other admins over their non-editorial actions, any admin may block him for up to two weeks per incident, escalating to one year per incident after the fifth one. Raul654 22:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Although I would prefer a much simpler remedy, I can support these sanctions ➥the Epopt 23:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The other, simpler one that I thought of would be to ban him from everything except the main namespace (articles, but not talk pages) and his own use and talk pages. Raul654 23:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would go even simpler than that ➥the Epopt 05:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer an extension of only one year. Fred Bauder 00:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I can live with that (duly adjusted). Raul654 16:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I can live with this as well, although given Everyking's inability to learn to behave better, I'm minded towards a complete ban from Wikipedia for a time. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do I get an opportunity to argue in my defense? Let's consider a few things:
1. Ashlee articles—exactly what am I doing there that the ArbCom considers so terrible? I mean, actually look at the articles and their histories and tell me. There's a couple of reverts, but I wasn't the only one reverting, and the situation seems to have settled down now into a compromise, at least a de facto one. Also, there was far more discussion going on than there was reverting—in fact, if you just look at the histories, you'll see there was hardly any reverting at all. There was no "revert war" in any meaningful sense—the only thing close to one happened on an article about a Jessica Simpson song, but again in that case, too, the situation seems to have settled down into a de facto compromise. To sanction someone for this is utterly, entirely absurd. Not only was the whole situation a pretty minor one (not even close to the explosion of conflict the articles saw 18 months ago), it seems to have settled down anyway, and I wasn't even the one with the aggressive stance—I was taking the defensive stance.
2. Talk pages—the ArbCom ruling specifically granted me the right to discuss admin actions on the relevant admin talk pages. Am I now going to be punished for exercising that right? People would block me before and tell me to take it to the admin's talk page. So I do that, and this is what I get? Why was that exemption created to begin with, if I was just going to get attacked for making use of it? Not to mention there isn't much of this going on anyway. The last case was regarding EM threatening a user who was obviously acting in good faith, but was younger than most of us and was a little confused about how to do some technical things.
3. No credit—where is the credit for actually following the ruling as it was spelled out for me? I have always strictly observed the AN/I prohibition. I haven't been blocked by anyone for any reason in several months. To hear Raul tell it, I've been constantly violating the ruling, which is the exact opposite of what I've actually been doing.
4. Ruling consistency—Ashlee articles pertained to EK1; this is EK3. How can you fit anything pertaining to EK1 under a revision of EK3?
5. The opposing party—Who is the opposing party here, anyway? It appears to be none other than the ArbCom itself—in that case, how can I possibly get a fair hearing from them? Or is it whoever sent that private complaint? Did that person actually want this taken to arbitration? Isn't it important, for reasons of transparent process, to have an accuser in public—not secretly in e-mail? Is there any precedent for that at all?
6. Involved party?—hey, did anyone think to consult EM about this stuff that is apparently being done on his behalf? What does he think? Does he actually want me taken to arbitration? Previously he expressed a lot of reluctance to even take me to RfC, and that was at the peak of the conflict, some time ago.

I personally feel the above points are pretty important. Everyking 04:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is fair to say you have exhausted the committee's patience. I'm going to respond, very briefly, to some of the points you raise. Point 1 - Despite your attempt to spin it otherwise, you are doing the exact same thing that led to the first two Everyking arbitration cases, and as I just said, our patience with you has run out. Point 2 - As I said to you on my talk page just a few days ago, that exception was *not* created to allow you to move your harassment from the ANI to individual users' talk pages. Point 3 - I drive to work every day and avoid the temptation to run over those skateboarders who are always on Delaware Avenue. If tomorrow I were to run them over, am I to tell the judge to consider all the times I went to work and didn't run the over? Ha, no. Point 4 - Wikilawyering; our clarification applies to the series of cases, not any one in particular. Point 5 - No opposing party is necessary. Point 6 - yes. Raul654 16:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I've exhausted your patience; you've exhausted mine, too, but what am I gonna do about it?

I will post thorough evidence about this if the ArbCom will agree to read and consider it honestly.
It's not harassment, it's criticism of admin actions—the exact thing the exemption was created to allow me to continue doing in a restricted space. Moreover, I have actually done little of this—once every few weeks, maybe? I'll go through and post all the examples I can find, again if the ArbCom will agree to read and consider it honestly.
I haven't run anybody over, to go with your analogy; you haven't pointed to anything I've done that violated the ruling. You've accused me of misbehaving on Ashlee articles, which if true isn't covered by the ruling (and wouldn't even be covered by the old ruling, because even if you guys hadn't freed me from it after two months, it would still have expired long ago) and complaining on admin talk pages, which is protected by the ruling.
Does "wikilawyering" mean "a point of procedure that would benefit the accused and therefore will be disregarded in this case"?
I asked you to provide a precedent for this, and also to explain the inherent unfairness of having the same people as both accuser, prosecutor and judge.
Notably you didn't ask his opinion before starting this thing. In any case, let's now wait and see if he has something to add about this. Everyking 17:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all familiar with this stage of dispute resolution; that said, I think this discussion is appropriate.

Everyking, you reverted me three times at Ashlee Simpson (including an edit that had absolutely nothing to do with removing content) [223] [224] [225] and once at Pieces of Me [226]. The main reasons I chose not to keep restoring my edits was because a) it's better to discuss a dispute rather than repeatedly revert the other party, b) I knew the history of these articles and wanted to make sure the situation wouldn't escalate like it did before, and c) because of the reverts I just listed, and the dispute 18 months ago, I had a feeling you'd keep reverting me. That's one of the reasons why I didn't file an RFC on your behaviour, the others being that I wanted to keep the discussions focussed on the articles and that there wasn't a second party around who was involved enough to be able to certify an RFC. I didn't once consider the possibility that you would follow me across other pages and revert me wholesale (These Boots Are Made for Walkin' (Jessica Simpson song)), which is simply unacceptable, in my opinion. It also indicates your statement about "taking the defensive stance", if true originally, no longer holds much water. Not that I don't care about your "defensive" behaviour either: telling me "it [the info you remove] will be restored, naturally" (Talk:Ashlee Simpson) and comparing me to a film villain (Talk:Pieces of Me) is not appreciated.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3 states "Everyking is required to familiarize himself with the particulars of a situation before commenting on it"; with regard to Tcatron565 (talk · contribs), I don't believe that you did so. Tcatron registered here almost a year ago; as can be seen at user talk:Tcatron565, he's made many edits that violate the guidelines and policies, and has a history of incivility. I'll leave the nitty gritty out for brevity's sake, but I should note that I wasn't even the first user to introduce the possibility of a block to him. I admit I've considered just giving up explaining the policies and guidelines to him, but that's only because comments like "it seems like everytime I make a wrong move, you're all up in my face! ... when I do something wrong, wait for 4 days, then tell me" [227], along with his tendency to continue editing as he was, indicate that such efforts would be pointless. If you're still wondering why I told him he may be blocked, I should refer you to the case of the IP editor 200.138.194.254 (talk · contribs), a seemingly good faith user who nevertheless edited in violation of the policies in guidelines without discussion and was consequently blocked for a week not too long ago. I'm certain that I would have told Tcatron the same thing if I wasn't an admin, so the comment about me "throwing my weight around" as an admin [228] is hardly accurate. Lastly, I am well aware that admins involved in disputes with other users (such as the one I had with Tcatron) aren't supposed to block any of the other parties, and if I thought a block was absolutely necessary in this case I would have started a discussion at WP:ANI. I feel that your comments regarding this were written with the main intention of antagonising me rather than anything to do with Tcatron. Extraordinary Machine 20:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I don't have access to the arbitrators' mailing list, so I don't really know exactly what they are thinking. For all I know what they are saying in private and in public are completely different. But all I can do is focus on what gets written on this page. So let me directly discuss each of the things Raul calls remedies:

This proposes banning me for two weeks for alleged "recent offenses". What recent offenses? Raul has so far only pointed to one somewhat uncivil comment I made about an admin warning I thought was too harsh. Yeah, I shouldn't have used the tone I did, but it was in the midst of a more general conflict that had led to a deepening of animosity on both sides; it didn't come out of the blue. To ban someone for even a single day for a marginally uncivil comment that they've since apologized for seems highly draconian—to ban for two weeks is so far overboard it almost seems insane. Aren't blocks supposed to be staggered somehow, anyway? You don't generally just jump right into such severe blocks for minor offenses. I've never even been blocked for a single 24 hour period in two and a half years on Wikipedia—every one of my blocks has been reconsidered or undone for some reason. Furthermore, as I've said before, I haven't been blocked at all in the last few months. So even if you think I'm in the wrong, does it make sense to jump from blocks lasting a few hours in the relatively distant past to two weeks now?
Rather than try to overreach in arguing this one, considering the depth of the ArbCom's hostile feeling toward me right now, I propose that the ArbCom change this so as to give me an automatic appeal in November of this year (something I have long pleaded for), but a formal duration until November 2007 in case of failure.
Again—for what? What did I do wrong here? I participated in some minor reverting and bickering that has since settled down, and I made several concessions and compromises (and expressed far more willingness to compromise throughout than my opponent did—in fact I think all the compromises were made on my initiative).
I don't have much of an argument for this one; the ArbCom and I simply don't agree about what constitutes harassment and what constitutes reasonable criticism. I will just hope that this penalty is never abusively applied. Everyking 05:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General responses, since this section is a bit too muddled for an indented reply to make sense any more: Everyking, I think your question above as to the definition of "wikilawyering" above (snide musings aside) is answered by your point directly above it, "you haven't pointed to anything I've done that violated the ruling". Also, "the ArbCom ruling specifically granted me the right to discuss admin actions on the relevant admin talk pages. Am I now going to be punished for exercising that right?" and "where is the credit for actually following the ruling as it was spelled out for me?" and "Who is the opposing party here, anyway?" and "I asked you to provide a precedent for this, and also to explain the inherent unfairness of having the same people as both accuser, prosecutor and judge." are all good examples of wikilawyering. Why were you given any of these restrictions in the first place, Everyking? If you can't answer that then I'll support every measure proposed. It was to stop your harassment. When I am faced with the fact that you've used administrators' talk pages for harassment, despite our obvious desire that you cease harasment, I am forced to conclude that you are violating the ruling. I'm weary of it: bans from AN/ANI and from criticism other than on admins' talk pages were meant to get it through to you to stop harassment. If your response is to continue to do so through the only avenue still open after the last case, then the general ban for a short time period is looking reasonable. Was [229] really what you consider reasonable criticism where I see harassment? Note: if the answer is really "no, and I've apologized" don't tell me you haven't violated our decision again. That you have never violated even the letter of the ruling is patently false anyway, as we fouñd out months ago, [230], [231], [232], and also on the occasion where I specifically pointed out to you your violation of the ruling (I am sure you recall, or maybe you decided to make a bold statement like that with no factual backing or double checking?). Despite your efforts to the contrary, you don't have the option to say: "I forgot. I'm sorry." and go on you merry way, only to "forget" again. If I can have no confidence that you cannot stop in the future, I can't object to the three proposals related to it. As for the pop culture remedy, I don't find that issue particularly pressing or interesting right now. Dmcdevit·t 06:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although maybe out of place, "pop music" articles should be better defined. A lot of people see pop music as different things, and it's a little ambiguous. Esteffect 21:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internal spamming/campaigning

There's an ongoing discussion at WP:SPAM about what constitutes acceptable talk page contact between users regarding discussions, votes, polls, etc. Prior rulings that have been pointed to are this prior ruling and this one. Could you offer any more specific information about what is and is not allowed/discouraged, for example: is it the use of mass userbox messaging that is disallowed (if it is), or is internal spamming/campaigning disallowed only if disruptive? Thanks. IronDuke 17:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A general question

What powers does the Arbitration Committee have in respect of a dispute that does not exist? David | Talk 13:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me the appropriate response to this question could vary wildly depending on the context. Could you provide some? As it is, it sounds like some kind of set-up. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be slightly more specific. Let us suppose that two users had a dispute, the dispute was referred to ArbCom, then the two users came to a full agreement on a settlement of the dispute of their own accord. Can the ArbCom 'resurrect' the dispute and continue the case, and if it does, between whom is it arbitrating? David | Talk 21:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David, I would say it would depend upon all of the parties involved. If some sort of an agreement is reached between two parties in a given case that encompasses four parties then obvioulsy the arbitration case would proceed. Is this agreement between all involved parties? (→Netscott) 22:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The most salient context is probably Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Irishpunktom/Proposed_decision, which directly affects Dbiv (talk • contribs) (David). --Christopher Thomas 06:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, although there was a reason I asked the question in the abstract. David | Talk 08:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What powers does the Arbitration Committee have in respect of a dispute that does not exist? David | Talk 13:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say we have the power to do what is necessary to prevent further disruption. What that is would depend on what the two parties had been doing and seem likely to continue to do. Fred Bauder 01:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without unnecessary leading of the witness, if you were convinced that the parties had themselves done enough to prevent further disruption, then that would surely be that? David | Talk 08:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't try to cross-examine the arbitrators. --Tony Sidaway 08:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But your honour, this is a friendly witness - so I am engaging in examination, not cross-examination. David | Talk 08:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem rather silly, in my most humble of opinions. There was a conflict, David proposed a series of resolutions in respect of that conflict. I liked them and agreed to them. Conflict ended, no? Not all of it, there are some serious issues in respect of me for which I expect the appropriate processes, but, for the conflict with David, which is now over. --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pedophilia userbox wheel war

I would like to know if Tony Sidaway's threats at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 8#Template:unblockabuse are valid per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war#SPUI, especially given the comments at [233]. --SPUI (T - C) 17:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highways

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways#Enforcement of moves without consensus states that "If any participant to this dispute moves a state highway page to their preferred convention before a formal policy has been reached, he or she may be blocked for a short time of up to a week for repeated offenses." Say Route 69 is renumbered to Route 31. (This type of whole-route renumbering occurs occasionally.) Is this measure intended to make the obvious move blockable? Or should "from another convention" be added after "to their preferred convention"?

I also note that it specifically mentions state highways. Is Canada fair game, as long as I'm not disruptive? --SPUI (T - C) 19:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also I'd like to know what the duration of the probation is as no set limit was established in the Arbcom. Is this probation indefinite? Or can we appeal it after 3 months? --JohnnyBGood 20:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you are worrying over semantics here. Uncontroversial moves should not be contested, and won't get anybody in trouble. There is a difference from moving something to the correct name and moning something to the preferred convention. That doesn't mean anyone can move to their preferred convention and say it's okay because it's the real name, but Route 69 and Route 31 are not variations of eath other, whereas a move from Route 31 to State Route 31, or Route 31 (State), or whatever, would be a violation. Dmcdevit·t 18:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the last sentence. If someone makes an article at simply "Route 31", which should obviously be a disambiguation page (and it is in this case), what should I do? --SPUI (T - C) 19:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the confusion is here, but I think maybe that it is that the part of the ruling you quote comes from the enforcement. Take a look at the remedy section where the controversial moves are prohibited (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways#Controversial_moves): "Until a formal naming convention policy regarding state highways is reached, no page shall be moved from one controversial name to another". I think that is clear and answers your question. Dmcdevit·t 19:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK - so I can move Route 31 to Route 31 (State), as everyone agrees that Route 31 should be a disambiguation page, so its current location is not controversial? --SPUI (T - C) 20:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this is so, can someone please edit the enforcement to reflect this? --SPUI (T - C) 07:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An appeal is likely to do little. --SPUI (T - C) 12:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probation is indefinite. Fred Bauder 12:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can it be appealled in the future or as SPUI says are we pretty much SOL? --JohnnyBGood 00:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can appeal whenever you want, but you will only be successful if you can demonstrate some new development that will make us change our minds. That may be a while from now. Dmcdevit·t 18:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another question: where do I start on making a "formal policy"? I talked to a policy wonk and he confirmed that naming conventions are typically guidelines. --SPUI (T - C) 13:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking purely for myself, I'd say that the Committee can only urge the community to seek a policy solution to the question of highway naming. The community may well have good reasons to reject this. In which case, you'd probably all better be extra careful about moves, and make sure you don't make any controversial name changes. --Tony Sidaway 10:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AI

Last September, this user was banned indefinitely by the ArbCom for legal threats. He made one edit to his talk page in October, which was subsequently reverted. However, this past May, he has re-emerged, and now seems to be dominating his talk page. In addition, someone placed a one-year block on top of his indefinite block. Has he resolved his legal threats? If not, should his indefinite block stick and/or his talk page protected? Editor88 03:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an enforcement issue. As a Wikipedia administrator I've blanked and protected his user talk page. He remains banned and should not edit. On this occasion I won't reset the ban but any socking will result in a reset. --Tony Sidaway 14:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EffK

This past February, this user was banned one year by the ArbCom. His talk page was protected and then unprotected, and he has used it to engage in dialog with Musical Linguist and Str1977. Is that allowed? If not, should his talk page be reprotected? Editor88 03:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, I don't care if EffK continues to post on his talk page so long as he does not otherwise try to edit. If he becomes disruptive on his talk page, any admin may reprotect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Wikipedia:Banning policy, if I understand it correctly, banned users are not allowed to edit at all and from any account, and all their edits may (should?) be reverted without discussion or analysis. But if it isn't hurting anyone, I don't see the point in enforcing this. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 13:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dyslexic Agnostic

Is the ArbCom probation restricted to article/project pages, or does it extend to talk pages as well? Tito xd^(?!?) 05:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any appropriate page at all, talk pages included. Dmcdevit·t 07:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)

@@ Line 37: / Line 37: @@
 == Current requests ==
+=== [[user|Coolcaesar]] ===
+==== Involved Parties ====
+:[[user:Ericsaindon2]]
+:[[user:Mr.Executive]]
+:[[user:OC31113]]
+:[[user:Decimal10]]
+:[[user:Asbestos]]
+:[[user:Leonard G.]]
+:[[user:Siroxo]]
+:[[user:SleekWeasel]]
+:[[user:ICANN]]
+:[[user:Invitatious]]
+:[[user:ThomasisScholar]]
+:[[user:24.64.223.203]]
+:[[user:Rewinn]]
+:[[user:Preslethe]]
+:[[user:Fahrenheit451]]
+:[[user:Gleng]]
+==== Comfirm all parties are aware of request ====
+:Currently working on;update in a few days
+; Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
+* User has been warned that further consequences will come if his personal attacks don’t cease on numerous occasions [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coolcaesar&diff=63636713&oldid=63495533]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coolcaesar&diff=62843284&oldid=62679613]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coolcaesar&diff=62679613&oldid=62678793]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coolcaesar&diff=51396549&oldid=50672800]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coolcaesar&diff=26545154&oldid=25952509]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coolcaesar&diff=7721381&oldid=7560888]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coolcaesar&diff=7560888&oldid=7143412]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coolcaesar&diff=11449495&oldid=11425352]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coolcaesar&diff=31654910&oldid=31615690]
+*This user tends to use inappropriate language, and uses personal attacks for his own benefit in a situation. Despite the notices of his inappropriate actions (in list above) he continues to bring negative energy to the project, and tends to humiliate other users
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coolcaesar&diff=62510749&oldid=62106446] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Expressway&diff=62511311&oldid=62511235]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Wide_Web&diff=prev&oldid=59238529]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Expressway&diff=62511235&oldid=62471783]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anaheim_Hills%2C_Anaheim%2C_California&diff=prev&oldid=63129762]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coolcaesar&diff=50167155&oldid=49957905]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_Postal_Service&diff=58600451&oldid=58031941]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anaheim_Hills%2C_Anaheim%2C_California&diff=prev&oldid=62802768]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coolcaesar&diff=56867823&oldid=56838790]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Divorce&diff=16103884&oldid=13333405]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Movie_theater&diff=prev&oldid=61336125]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Three_strikes_law&diff=38731686&oldid=38672187]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Decimal10&diff=prev&oldid=62682694]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ICANN&diff=prev&oldid=62139586]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anaheim_Hills%2C_Anaheim%2C_California&diff=prev&oldid=62116025]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Freeway&diff=24871922&oldid=24476225]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States&diff=prev&oldid=61557786]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Raised_pavement_marker&diff=prev&oldid=60358884]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_Wide_Web&diff=prev&oldid=54764349]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ThomasisScholar&diff=prev&oldid=53273877]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coolcaesar&diff=prev&oldid=33442257]
+*This user also tends to leave inappropriate and degrading comments as his edit summary. Since he usually does not back his statements up on talk pages, most of this disruptive behavior is seen in the edit summary.
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walgreens&diff=prev&oldid=61343169]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_defender&diff=prev&oldid=61423746]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Coolcaesar]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Invitatious/Archive_1&diff=prev&oldid=57425837]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Act_of_Congress&diff=prev&oldid=62701886]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Divorce&diff=prev&oldid=62699152]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ICANN&diff=prev&oldid=62139586]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coolcaesar&diff=33442257&oldid=33346404]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Freeway&diff=61891390&oldid=61814933]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freeway&diff=prev&oldid=62419873]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wal-Mart&diff=prev&oldid=62143966]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Use_of_the_word_American&diff=prev&oldid=62109085]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vint_Cerf&diff=prev&oldid=62083678]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Department_of_Transportation&diff=prev&oldid=62063321]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Administrative_law_judge&diff=prev&oldid=62056260]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raised_pavement_marker&diff=prev&oldid=57485826]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Community_college&diff=prev&oldid=61959941]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freeway&diff=prev&oldid=58906273]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990&diff=prev&oldid=61786049]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Casebook_method&diff=prev&oldid=61743959]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Movie_theater&diff=prev&oldid=61336543]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Department_of_Agriculture&diff=prev&oldid=61333593]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Administrative_law_judge&diff=prev&oldid=61333210]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_federal_courts&diff=prev&oldid=61332400]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nethac_DIU&diff=prev&oldid=60715971]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:USLargestCities&diff=prev&oldid=60412238]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Denice_Denton&diff=prev&oldid=60405376]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lawsuit&diff=prev&oldid=60396268]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:California_Court_of_Appeal&diff=prev&oldid=60377502]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U.S._Route_101&diff=prev&oldid=60376040]
+*User misuses the term “vandalism" in its context on a continuous basis
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coolcaesar&diff=9234566&oldid=9234183]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coolcaesar&diff=9300849&oldid=9234566]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_California&diff=prev&oldid=64748975]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=5-1-1&diff=prev&oldid=64394701]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anaheim_Hills%2C_Anaheim%2C_California&diff=prev&oldid=62846447]
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ARPANET&diff=prev&oldid=60718314]
+*This user has a suspected sockpuppet-which he uses primarily to revert the edits of [[user:ericsaindon2]], [[user:OC31113]], and [[user:Mr.Executive]]
+:[[user:anaheimat]]
+==== Statement by [[user:Mr.Executive]] ====
+[[User:Coolcaesar]] has involved himself in many controversial pages in his career at Wikipedia. However, in most cases it is reasonable for two editors to disagree from time to time. This particular user tends to make derogatory comments, misuses the term of vandalism, and degrades the emotions of the people he disagrees with. Over the past two years, over 50 Wikipedians have fallen victim to his cruel comments and harsh reactions to disagreements on a page. He has been notified plenty of times for his egotistic attitude, and strong views, but continues to use his comments in a ruthless and inhumane way. This type of an extremely negative attitude disrupts the other editors who engage in normal conversations. These users do not deserve these comments they receive just for having a different viewpoint, yet find themselves humiliated with his comments in front of many other editors who read these personal attacks. As we all know, this type of editing and commenting does not provide any positive change to the Wikipedia community, and has gone on long enough. One major Wikipedia rule that is probably most shun upon is the devaluing and personal attacks toward new users who are learning their way around Wikipedia. Many users who edit a page for their first time do so incorrectly, but [[user:Coolcaesar]] tends to use personal attacks and their lack of knowledge against them. He is also suspected of having a sockpuppet, [[user:Anaheimat]], which as an experienced Wikipedian, he knows that these are prohibited. Another tendency of this user is to revert edits continuously, as for he claims articles as “his own”, and leaves personal attacks on these edit summaries.
+==== Clerk notes ====
+: (This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)
+==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0) ====
+----
 === Humus sapiens abuse of Administrative Power ===

Revision as of 07:57, 20 July 2006

How to list cases

Current requests

Coolcaesar

Involved Parties

Comfirm all parties are aware of request

Statement by user:Mr.Executive

Clerk notes

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

Humus sapiens abuse of Administrative Power

Involved parties

Statement by party 1

Statement by Humus sapiens

Statement by FrancisTyers ·

Statement by SlimVirgin

Statement by Karimarie

Statement by MSTCrow

Clerk notes

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

A Y Arktos v. 203.54.*.*

Involved parties

Statement by A Y Arktos

Statement by party 2

Comment regarding IP range

Clerk notes

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/1/0/0)

JzG

Involved parties

Statement by Socafan

Statement by User:JzG

Comment by Phil Sandifer

Comment by User:Netscott

Comment by User:Azmoc

Comment by User:Stephen B Streater

Clerk notes

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

Bob Jones University

Involved parties

Statement by nobojo (talk · contribs)

Statement by John Foxe (talk · contribs)

Comment by Will Beback

Comment by Jossi

Comment by user:nobojo

Comment by Rillian

Comment by user:nobojo

Clerk notes

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

CoolKatt number 99999 (talk · contribs)

Involved parties

Statement by Rollosmokes (talk · contribs)

Statement by Kramden4700

Statement by Crossmr (talk · contribs)

Statement by CFIF (talk · contribs)

Statement by CoolKatt number 99999 (talk · contribs)

Statement by Lambertman (talk · contribs)

Comment by Amnewsboy (talk · contribs)

Comment by Morgan Wick (talk · contribs)

Clerk notes

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/0/0/0)

Ericsaindon2 (talk · contribs)

Involved parties

Statement by Coolcaesar (talk · contribs)

Statement by Ericsaindon2 (talk · contribs)

Statement by Will Beback (talk · contribs)

Checkuser request

Statement by OC31113 (talk · contribs)

Clerk notes

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

Requests for clarification

Everyking

Discussion

Internal spamming/campaigning

A general question

Pedophilia userbox wheel war

Highways

AI

EffK

Dyslexic Agnostic

Motions in prior cases

Archives

A Y Arktos v. 203.54..