Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Formeruser-82 (talk | contribs)
15,744 edits
Zeq (talk | contribs)
10,670 edits
Line 173: Line 173:
====Response to Humus sapiens====
====Response to Humus sapiens====
I am not a party to this ArbComm case as I am not a participant in the edit war in question, however as Humus has seen fit to personally attack me I think a response to this alone is in order. Humus makes the point that I "used to be an anti-apartheid activist". Note: I used to be an activist against ''South African'' apartheid. Nevertheless, Humus is arguing that my motivation comes from some failure the debate in [[New anti-Semitism]] but he also thinks it relevent to point out that I used to be an anti-(South African) apartheid activist. The latter suggests that my motivation in creating the articles is, in fact, an interest in the concept of apartheid, not the NAS article. His assertion that I "did not get my way" in NAS is also incorrect. In fact, I am quite satisfied with the outcome of mediation there. Given the incongruence between Humus' argument and reality (and the internal contradictions in his claims) it's clear that his submission is little more than a personal attack. [[User:Homeontherange|Homey]] 06:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not a party to this ArbComm case as I am not a participant in the edit war in question, however as Humus has seen fit to personally attack me I think a response to this alone is in order. Humus makes the point that I "used to be an anti-apartheid activist". Note: I used to be an activist against ''South African'' apartheid. Nevertheless, Humus is arguing that my motivation comes from some failure the debate in [[New anti-Semitism]] but he also thinks it relevent to point out that I used to be an anti-(South African) apartheid activist. The latter suggests that my motivation in creating the articles is, in fact, an interest in the concept of apartheid, not the NAS article. His assertion that I "did not get my way" in NAS is also incorrect. In fact, I am quite satisfied with the outcome of mediation there. Given the incongruence between Humus' argument and reality (and the internal contradictions in his claims) it's clear that his submission is little more than a personal attack. [[User:Homeontherange|Homey]] 06:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

*Homey is the <b>prime</b> participant in the edit war over this subject. [[User:Zeq|Zeq]] 06:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


==== Clerk notes ====
==== Clerk notes ====

Revision as of 06:59, 5 July 2006

Shortcut

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).

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area   6 November 2024 0/6/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Yasuke 13 Nov 2024

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

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



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

Move and revert warring at Israeli Apartheid

Involved parties

Ongoing political controversy which has escalated to out of policy moves, move wars, revert wars, and to some extent a wheel war over move protection.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  1. 00:39, 5 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Humus sapiens (Israeli Apartheid arbitration) (top)diff
  2. 00:35, 5 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Nagle (Israeli Apartheid arbitration) (top)diff
  3. 00:34, 5 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:ChrisO (Israeli Apartheid arbitration) (top)diff
  4. 00:33, 5 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:6SJ7 (Israeli Apartheid arbitration) (top)diff
  5. 00:32, 5 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Homeontherange (Israeli Apartheid arbitration) (top)diff
  6. 00:31, 5 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Bibigon (Israeli Apartheid arbitration) (top)diff
  7. 00:30, 5 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Jayjg (Israeli Apartheid arbitration) (top)diff
  8. 00:28, 5 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:SlimVirgin (Israeli Apartheid arbitration) (top)diff

Nagle (starter) and KimvdLinde (added herself) are aware.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

At various times, the page has been protected, and one user has been banned from editing the article. There is a formal "request for move poll" in progress. There is a discussion page for disputes. I think mediation was tried at one point.

Extensive and dragged out discussions at various talk pages.
Banning of editors for editing the pages in question under previous ArbCom decisions.
RFC diff]
Informal mediation by KimvdLinde failed (sources at various pages).

Statement by Nagle (talk · contribs)

We have a problem with Israeli Apartheid again. As some may recall, activity on this article has generated considerable controversy. A few weeks ago, the page had to be locked for a time, and one user is currently banned from editing it.
One of the several controversial issues pending is whether the article should be moved to Allegations of Israeli apartheid. There's a formal request for move poll in progress on this at Wikipedia talk:Central discussions/Apartheid#Poll: Rename "Apartheid outside of South Africa" article to "Allegations of apartheid outside South Africa" with a start date of 26 June 2006. The poll hasn't yet been closed, and no consensus has emerged.
Today, we have this action: 20:11, 4 July 2006 Humus sapiens (talk · contribs) (moved Israeli apartheid to Allegations of Israeli apartheid: NPOV title). This is a unilateral move while a vote on the move is in progress. That is arguably vandalism. Discussion of the matter can be found at Wikipedia:Central discussions/Apartheid.
This began a move war, with four more renames back and forth. There may have been a wheel war in there, with page protection being turned on and off. (Some of the involved parties are admins). This was then followed by a revert war in the now-renamed article.
This nonsense has to stop. Or be stopped. I would like to ask that the involved users be carefully examined, and where appropriate, banned from editing the article.
Note: Zeq (talk · contribs) was not listed as a party to the arbitration because he is banned from editing the article. He has expressed opinions on it in other places, including here. --John Nagle 04:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Homeontherange (talk · contribs) was listed as a party to the arbitration simply because he had been actively involved in editing during the period of dispute. He was not involved in the move war. --John Nagle 06:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Bibigon (talk · contribs) was listed as a party to the arbitration simply because he had been actively involved in editing during the period of dispute. He was not involved in the move war. --John Nagle 06:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KimvdLinde

I feel the need to add my opinion to this case as I tried unsuccesfully to mediate between the various parties. The case has escalated to revert, move, edit and wheel warring, and is unlikely to stop. Pages have been protected for extended periods, pretty much every possible policy and guideline has been violated, including but not limited to: WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, WP:DISAMBIG, WP:TITLE, WP:LEAD, WP:CON, WP:ISNOT, WP:AGF, and who know which more..... And this included editors pro and contra the article in question.
In my opinion, the page is unmediatable, as various editors are just not willing to see anything different than their own opinion, which is either that it is a very valid term, and deserves its own article, or that it is just allegations that either need a corresponding title, or that the article needs to be deleted alltogether.
To a degree, this is a good example of a content dispute that is not resolvable through normal wikipedia policies, and could serve as a perfect example for the need of a Content ArbCom. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zeq

While I usually have a different view than Kim she have summarezied the real problem:

  1. The article is unmediatable
  2. Every wikipedia policy have been broken in this article. (she give a long but partial list)
The root cause of the problem is that some editors have broken WP:Not and used wikipedia as a tool to propegante political propeganda. Initialy their actions were chalanged (at first by me), but in their push to (mis)use Wikipedia as a vehicle for propegating their POV they continued to break any possible policy (point, NPOV, comitted admin abuse, ignored WP:RS and more). Some of those people are not even mantioned in the involved parties (The eruption of the move revert war was short time ago and they did not took part of this current stage of the "campaign" while they were key participantsd to the edit-war before).
ArbCom should look at the bigger picture:
  1. Can wikipedia have an NPOV article on such issues as the Israeli-palestinian conflict ?
  2. and should Wikipedia be a vehicle for Anti-Israel propeganda ?

PS (ArbCom should also give it's mind on sophisticated use of WP:Sock that occured as part of this and other political campgains by the same group of perpatrators) - some long term editors and admins know how to game the system, including use of AOL accounts, different ISPs and what looks like a very orgenized campaign to use Wikipedia popualrity to achive political goals. Zeq 03:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ChrisO

(This is going to go a bit over the word limit as I'm providing a chronology with diffs for the ArbComm. Apologies in advance.)
I have previously been involved in a minor way in editing this article ([1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7], [8],[9],[10],[11]) and have been keeping an eye on it in case of major trouble breaking out. After Nagle posted a message about the article's move on WP:AN/I ([12]), I reviewed Humus sapiens' actions and found that there had been no consensus in the move poll (a 16-12 vote at that point), nor was the poll closed. I reverted the move ([13]) and left a note about it at the article talk page ([14]) and AN/I ([15]). SlimVirgin and Jayjg subsequently moved the article again, once each ([16] & [17]), and I moved it back again on each occasion ([18] & [19]), reaching the 3RR limit. On the third reversion, I move-protected the page to encourage the movers to discuss rather than move-war. Humus sapiens presumably un-move-protected it and moved it to the new title again ([20]).
There's no dispute that the move took place without consensus. As Nagle notes, the ongoing poll had neither been closed nor resulted in consensus. In deciding to move the page, Humus sapiens acted unilaterally, as he acknowledged here [21]. The subsequent discussion made it clear that he was acting in the personal belief that "we are not going to get [a consensus]" and that he was opposed to "an offensive political slogan". He also claimed that "The polls only served as a magnet for certain editors eager to besmirch Israel. No consensus was possible and no compromise was acceptable." ([22]) This is about as plain a statement of POV as you can get.
In subsequently re-moving the article, SlimVirgin gave no explanation in her edit summary ([23]), and Jayjg stated inaccurately in his summary that "there's good enough consensus" ([24]). An unclosed 16-12 vote is not a consensus by any description and the discussion elsewhere clearly shows that the move didn't enjoy a consensus.
Some additional comments:
1) I had earlier voted to oppose the move as being inconsistent with the way that we treat pejorative political terms and political slogans. This didn't influence my decision to revert the out-of-process move. If the article had been moved without consensus from the title preferred by Humus et al, I would still have reverted the move. My primary concern here is the process (or lack of it in this case).
2) I'm not involved in editing Middle Eastern articles and I don't consider myself a partisan of either side. From my outsider's perspective, there appears to be a very strong POV element to the motives of Humus, SlimVirgin and Jayjg in moving the article. They appear to regard the slogan "Israeli apartheid" as so outrageous that it can't be allowed to stand. However, we have plenty of articles on controversial political slogans and epithets (e.g. "Culture of life", "RINO", "arbeit macht frei"), indeed an entire category of them). Similarly we have articles on would-be or actual political entities which substantial groups of people regard as affronts (e.g. Republic of Macedonia, Turkish Kurdistan). Nonetheless, WP:NPOV enables - and requires - us to describe neutrally the terms and concepts, as well as who uses them, why, where and when. We're not here to pass judgment on their worth.
3) Humus, SlimVirgin and Jayjg have argued that the term "Israeli apartheid" is not used in "reputable sources" and is therefore "unencyclopedic". This is incorrect, as a search on Google News or Lexis-Nexis demonstrates. It's been used thousands of times in the world press and can be traced as far back as the late 1960s. It demonstrably has widespread usage, is well-established and is cited in many respectable outlets. This clearly meets our criteria of notability.
4) I've also seen claims that the article was created for malicious reasons by Homey. However, as an outsider I believe that there is an ongoing POV-based feud between Homey and Humus/SlimVirgin/Jayjg, as this exchange on AN/I indicates. I've not been involved in it, nor do I want to be. Homey's motives in creating the article are irrelevant; the only substantive issues are whether the subject is notable, verifiable, reliably sourced and treated neutrally.
5) Tag-team move reverting is unacceptable, period.
6) In my view, actively short-circuiting an ongoing move poll is unacceptable, especially when it's done to impose a personal POV (as Humus has made clear). I personally don't particularly care where the article ends up. However, as administrators we're effectively in a position of trust. I believe that overriding consensus-building and imposing personal POVs is a betrayal of the trust that we're supposed to enjoy as administrators and the values of community, consensus and neutrality that we're supposed to be promoting. -- ChrisO 02:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bibigon

I'm not quite sure why I'm being brought before the arbitration committee on this, given that I have not engaged in any edit warring on this issue. There have been some contentious edits that I've been involved in with Israeli Apartheid, but none of them had to do with moving the article or anything of the sort. I've posted my thoughts on the matter in the discussion page, but I hadn't done any actual editing on the matter. The contentious edits I've been involved in there have since largely been settled. Homeontherange and I were having a disagreement about the placement of OR tags, but I believe we have made sufficient progress that we will be able to clear that up through talk.

With regards to the dispute ongoing here, this article specifically deals with 'Allegations of Israeli Apartheid.' Nothing more, nothing less. It introduces the idea of Israeli Apartheid, describes the allegations that Israel practices apartheid, and describes the defenses mounted against that allegation. It is not an article on a pejorative term, similar to Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys, quite the contrary, it goes into great detail the merits of the apartheid accusation. Articles on pejorative terms do not deal with the substance of the accusations -- there is no discussion on the Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys page for example as to whether the French are actually what the term claims them to be – pejorative term articles only give a description of the usage of the term, the origins, etc... That is not what this article does.
As a result, I believe perhaps there should be two separate pages. The first to deal with ‘Israeli Apartheid’ the term, which would do no more than detail the term. The second to deal with ‘Allegations of Israeli Apartheid’, which would deal with the substance behind these allegations, and present the various arguments on both sides of this issue.
While I personally did not engage in any movement of the article, I believe that Humus sapiens, Jayjg, and Slimvirgin acted properly in their doing so. There was what I perceived to be a lack of good faith amongst many of the editors opposed to the proposed move, as the case against the move was exceptionally weak, and these are experienced editors and admins involved here. Furthermore, some of the debate on the talk page by the editors opposed similarly suggested a lack of good faith in their edits regarding POV matters and OR matters. Given that, and given the severity of the NPOV violation, as well as the fact that a majority (but perhaps not a consensus), existed to move the article, I believe that all three editors who moved the article were acting in good faith to improve the quality of Wikipedia’s content, and were not merely engaging in edit wars to push their own POV. Bibigon 05:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Humus sapiens

The current flareup began when Homey (who admitted that he "used to be an anti-apartheid activist") did not get his way in whitewashing New anti-semitism. As a WP:POINT on May 28 he created article under offensive title Israeli apartheid. Since then, it has been a subject to failed polls, protections, mediations, etc. I'll be the first one to acknowledge that Process is Important. I think we all agree that in this case, the process failed - we can go into deeper details how and why. I think it was stalled in order to preserve the status quo. For those who favor consensus: that status quo never had any, as a matter of fact despite all the activism it is supported by a minority. I invite ArbCom to read the article and take into consideration that Allegations of Israeli apartheid is a compromise title, while Israeli apartheid is offensively pejorative. Heated discussions about this went on for weeks at Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid, its archives, Wikipedia:Central discussions/Apartheid, its talk, etc. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that Homey is removing himself from this case. That would be very unfortunate because he is the main offender (or one of, if you prefer) and his activity should be in the scope of this case. It was Homey's political activism and obsession with apartheid that inflamed numerous pages across WP. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Humus sapiens

I am not a party to this ArbComm case as I am not a participant in the edit war in question, however as Humus has seen fit to personally attack me I think a response to this alone is in order. Humus makes the point that I "used to be an anti-apartheid activist". Note: I used to be an activist against South African apartheid. Nevertheless, Humus is arguing that my motivation comes from some failure the debate in New anti-Semitism but he also thinks it relevent to point out that I used to be an anti-(South African) apartheid activist. The latter suggests that my motivation in creating the articles is, in fact, an interest in the concept of apartheid, not the NAS article. His assertion that I "did not get my way" in NAS is also incorrect. In fact, I am quite satisfied with the outcome of mediation there. Given the incongruence between Humus' argument and reality (and the internal contradictions in his claims) it's clear that his submission is little more than a personal attack. Homey 06:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Bakunin NPOV

Involved parties

IronDuke; Paki.tv; IlluSionS667; Max rspt; Harrypotter; anonymous. Inclusion of anti-semitic writings in Bakunin entry.
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
I indicated on the discussion page that I would be seeking arbitration. No one has posted a response. I have also posted notices on their Talk boards or sent them emails.
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

This debate over the inclusion of alleged anti-semitic writings of Bakunin in the Bakunin entry has been going on for well over a year. Despite the objections from myself and others over the inclusion of these comments, some people insist on reposting them.

Statement by Robgraham 20:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

To maintain the NPOV status of the Bakunin entry, his anti-semitic comments should not be given the undue prominence that certain people keep insisting on giving them. It is sufficient to note that Bakunin made anti-semitic comments, and then to provide a link to an acceptable original or NPOV secondary source. The current quotations are taken from anti-semitic websites and are of dubious provenance. The first quote (allegedly calling Jews an "exploiting sect," a "people of leeches," etc.) is taken from an "essay" posted on an anti-semitic website: http://library.flawlesslogic.com/jtr_01.htm. This is not an acceptable NPOV secondary source. The second quote is just a lengthier version of the first quote, and is supposedly from an essay attributed to Bakunin entitled "Polemique contre les Juifs." There is no link or other information given that would enable anyone to verify the authenticity of this alleged quotation or the essay it is supposed to be taken from. If you search for it on the internet, it shows up only on anti-semitic websites. I have yet to find a reference to this alleged essay in any library catalog or in any collection of Bakunin's writings. When I posted a "citation needed" note to this second quotation, the Iron Duke simply deleted that, claiming the current citation was adequate. Thus, I object to the inclusion of these particular quotations because they have not been properly authenticated. I also object to more than passing reference to Bakunin's anti-semitism because these lengthy quotations, even if authentic, exaggerate the importance of Bakunin's anti-semitic writings, which formed only a miniscule part of his voluminous literary output (the Archives Bakounine project published 7 large volumes of his writings, and that was not a complete collection; the International Institute for Social History in Amsterdam has since published his complete works on CD ROM. It contains thousands of pages of material).

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.)

Clerk notes

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

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

SCZenz

Involved parties

(Provide links to the user page of each party and to all accounts they have edited with. Briefly summarize case. No details.)

SCZenz violated Wikipedia's block policy by banning Stanfordandson over a content dispute.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
(Provide diffs showing where parties other than the initiating parties have been informed about the request for arbitration.)
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

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

I believe going through mediation would be pointless, as the mediators are not able to officially sanction or censure administrators.

Statement by Stanfordandson

There isn't much to say here. SCZenz was involved in a content dispute with me. I am now convinced that the content I was adding and arguing for was inappropriate for Wikipedia, but it was not the vandalism SCZenz claimed it to be when he banned me because of our dispute. Stanfordandson 01:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SCZenz

Reviewing Special:Contributions/Stanfordandson and User_talk:Stanfordandson should make the actual situation quite clear. These blocks were reviwed by other admins, and upheld in each case. I would have posted to WP:AN/I if I thought there was any chance these (relatively lenient) blocks would be controversial, and that is the more appropriate place to discuss the issue in any case.

Given his history, I intend to continue keeping an eye on Stanfordandson's contributions. If his behavior continues as it has, I intend to continue blocking him for increasing lengths of time in accordance with policy. As always, I will reconsider my actions and/or open them up to community review if I receive comments from another admin who thinks they may have been inappropriate.

Subsequently added:

I fear the situation may not be so clear as I had thought, so let me explain. Stanfordandson is a user who makes deliberately disruptive edits, which are sometimes subtle, and uses a very substantial familiarity with Wikipedia policy to make it more difficult to deal with the disruption. His first dubious edit was his third, where he insists on a misleading caption of a GNAA image (the image, since deleted, was an image from GNAA depicting young people of apparently African descent, and so typical of trolling by the GNAA, whose rubbish I think we can agree is inappropriate to repeat on Wikipedia, especially with the original caption). He repeated his defense of this caption [25], became involved in a messsy dispute on an AfD [26] [27], and was blocked by JzG—all on his first day! He repeated his ridiculous claim that the image was appropriately captioned as "future GNAA members" twice more [28] [29] shortly after his block expired, trying to pass it off as a consensus version, and continued to do so for some time.

My first interaction with him was on June 22, when I removed the image entirely and he responded by claiming to revert vandalism [30]. I explained politely that I had legitimately removed the content and explained my reasons; I was unaware of the full extent of his previous edits, so at the time I thought WP:AGF required this. However I was suspicious (having read some of the top of his talk page), and so I checked subsequently to make sure his edits weren't continuing in this vein. You can see on his talk page that by this time other editors had reached the same conclusions about him.

On June 25, he added an image of a man with a sign saying "gay black men are not hard to reach," which had been uploaded as a "gnaa corporate image" to the article on protest. [31] Since GNAA images of this sort are almost certainly faked in some way, in light of his previous contributions on GNAA I thought it was reasonable to view the edit as deliberate disruption, and I warned him [32]. He re-added the image, so I blocked him. [33]

On June 29, he added an inappropriate and nonsensical race-related comment (with a misleading edit summary) here. I warned him [34], and then blocked him, which I think was appropriate given his history.

In summary, I do not believe there is any content dispute between me and Stanfordandson. I thought this would be clearer from the contribution histories, which was a mistake on my part, but I hope it is clearer now that this is routine handling of a user who makes many, many disruptive edits despite repeated warnings. Blocks for disruption, to my understanding, are quite appropriate within blocking policy; I had not the slightest inkling I had made any errors in this case, and if I am so far wrong then I certainly welcome review and criticism in any forum. -- SCZenz 15:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

  • Sample of a disputed edit
  • 18:00, 27 June 2006 SCZenz blocked Stanfordandson with an expiry time of 31 hours (disruption, repeated addition of GNAA image to other pages, despite warning)
  • 06:59, 1 July 2006 SCZenz blocked Stanfordandson with an expiry time of 31 hours (repeated trolling and vandalism)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/3/0/0)

Alienus

Involved parties

(Provide links to the user page of each party and to all accounts they have edited with. Briefly summarize case. No details.)
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

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

  • Tony Sidaway's opinion, disputed by Alienus, ^^^James^^^ Romarin and SOPHIA, is that Alienus is an inveterate edit warrior prone to making personal attacks. See User:Tony Sidaway/Sandbox/Alienus

Statement by Tony Sidaway

I feel that this case cannot be resolved by the community, and it persists in drawing in good editors and administrators, wasting their time, and reducing the civility of interactions.

In the view of many administrators and users, Alienus is an inveterate edit warrior who is prone to making personal attacks and gratuitously assuming bad faith towards anyone with whom he has a dispute. In the view of Alienus and some of his supporters (he has some), he is a fearless opponent of corrupt and lax administrators. If the former is true, a personal attack parole and revert parole might do the trick. If the latter is true (and the two claims may not be mutually exclusive) then there is a greater problem caused by corrupt (or incompetent) administrators.

Blocking does not seem to significantly improve the situation because of the acrimony that results between a growing snowball of involved administrators and editors.

As involved parties I have listed Alienus and those administrators (including myself) most prominently involved in the dispute. I am engaged in compiling a fairly complete history of Alienus involvement with administrators at User:Tony Sidaway/Sandbox/Alienus. --Tony Sidaway 21:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nandesuka

I concur with Tony's summary of the case.

Alienus is clearly an intelligent and ardent editor who understands Wikipedia policies. From my perspective, the reason he keeps running in to trouble is that he either can not or will not refrain from framing arguments in terms of what he imagines the attitudes, beliefs, and creeds of his fellow editors to be. Numerous editors and administrators have politely requested, asked, cajoled, threatened, demanded, and begged him to address his edits and edit summaries to content instead of to the people he is engaged in disputes with. To date, he has been unable or unwilling to do this. Alienus frequently describes his interactions with Wikipedia administration in hostile terms, and generally rejects any suggestion that his behavior is at issue, instead describing most of his blocks as the result of corrupt or incompetent administrators. I urge Arbcom to accept this case, either to address what I believe is Alienus' severe and continuing misbehavior — especially his constant use of argumentum ad hominem — or to address the conspiracy of administrators that he apparently believes he is the victim of. Nandesuka 22:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jossi

I concur with Nandesuka's assessment.

I recently encountered Alienus when an editor placed a request related to the group of articles about Ayn Rand in one of WP's policy talk pages. After a few days of editing these articles I found Alienus to have a very abrasive and uncivil manner of engaging people that do not concur with his views, resorting to ad hominem attacks when his edits are challenged, thus creating a very toxic environment that is not conducive to collaboration. Requests for civility are routinely ignored by Alienus, based on his own assessment that he is not attacking editors, but stating what he considers to be facts. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alienus

Outside view of jtdirl

I have experienced Alienus's behaviour on a number of the abortion pages. His claim that not all admins have been fair to him has some merit. However he is frequently his own worst enemy, constantly making presumptions as to his own innocence and other users' guilt. He criticises users in stark terms, blaming them for a bias he perceives in their edits even when other users do not spot any bias, while insisting, contrary to the analysis of others, that he is blameless, innocent and utterly neutral. The range of editors he has clashed with suggests that this is not a case of one admin attacking a blameless editor, but of an editor whose actions are the cause of the conflict that seems to follow him. He has routinely ignored appeals from users to show restaint, while perceiving his less than tactful responses and frequent attacks as merely a statement of neutrality and objective facts. I would urge the arbcom to take on this case. It can then decide whether all that is required is merely parole or more broadbased sanctions. Without intervention there appears to be little likelihood that the ungoing problems will stop. Blocks seem simply to add to his belief in his own victimhood so some outside intervention from a neutral body like the arbcom would be wise before the situation spirals out of control. (Al is new to the procedure and so some allowances need to be made for that. Nevertheless the contribution above, as usual, focuses on accusations against his critics, and allegations of bias, than on the substantive issue. Regrettably that it part of a regular pattern.) FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view of ^^James^^

I don't think it's appropriate to offer an opinion on the matter before Alienus has had a chance to make a statement.

I also think it is a gross mischaracterization for Will Beback to state that the various mediations listed below "all represent efforts by a variety of users to resolve problems with Alienus's editing behavior." I think it is a waste of everybodys time to level insubstantial accusations. I encourage everyone to examine these links for themselves, and not to be impressed or intimidated by the sheer number of them.

I would also like to note that Will Beback is the admin who blocked Al for three days for calling Jossi an "edit warrior". This arguably insubstantial charge and disproportionate punishment caused a heated discussion on WP:ANI which ultimately led to this RFA. The block was eventually resolved and lifted. ^^James^^ 18:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Will Beback

Alienus has had eleven blocks placed on his account by nine different admins. The account has been unblocked five times, three of which were to lengthen or change the blocks.

Alienus has been involved in several mediations, and requests for mediation:

In addition, two users have prepared RfCs recently regarding Alienus, although they have't posted them on the RfC page yet.

These all represent efforts by a variety of users to resolve problems with Alienus's editing behavior. -Will Beback 19:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view of SOPHIA

If Al is not being picked on then please explain where the RfC went?

If Al is not being picked on why did Tony Sidaway haunt his talk page jumping at any chance to try to flame the stuation with unacceptable comments [35]? Comments that passed without remark by any admin at all.

If Al is not being picked on why were the same "edit warrior" comments by an admin [36] not the subject of a similar block to the one given Al - infact why wasn't the admin even admonished? And since when did we get so sensitive that people get blocked for 3 days (effectively 4 now due to admin "help") for this level of comment?

If Al is not being picked on can someone please explain why an admin tried to present a new longer block as a radical point in Al's favour?[37]

If Al is not being picked on how does a subpage of selected quotes by an interested party pass as dispute resolution?

If Al is not being picked on would any of you like to be treated as he's been?

Since his last week long block by Jayjg for a disputed PA where admins were outraged that Al would not admit to his "error" - he has made great grounds in being civil. Yes he slips sometimes - but we are supposed to be mature people here and the only way this project will succeed is to cut each other some slack and stop looking for the inevitable errors in others.

Al has gone from being very incivil quite frequently to occasionaly pushing his luck. As he has no luck now and a bevy of admins waiting to jump, these minor incidents get blown out of all proportion. He should be seen as a success story for the mentoring of the community as he has improved considerably and is contributing in a positive way to articles where angels would fear to dread. Certain topics attract very strong POV's and any challenge to the cozy status quo of the incumbent editors is not going to be received well. Such intellectual conflict is absolutely necessary to ensure the article does not degrade into POV trash. It's unfortunate for Al that he picks these topics but fortunate for the integrity of the encyclopedia.

Wikipedia is a continuous learning process for us all. If it can be shown that Al has made no progress in civility and colaborative editing then a ban would be justified. However if you examine his recent treatment at the hands of some admins with whom he has previously clashed you will see a pattern of nit-picking and "supervision" that would drive the best of us to distraction.

Wikipedia has grown enormously recently and edior groups that have "owned" articles are having to make way for a broader POV base that reflects the world outside their narrow area of interest. I have been on the receiving end of the frustration of these established editors and only the training I have had as a professional has stopped me from responding in kind. Maybe Al doesn't have that background - who knows - but he is getting the hang of things - his civility has increased and his challenging approach (with help and guidance) is absolutely essential to the long term health of wikipedia. The current gut reaction seems to be to cleanse the system of this type of person but that is the route that will ultimately lead to the stagnation and extinction of this project as all the intellectual bio-diversity will be gone.

If Al is not being picked on why is this process being speeded along with indecent haste? This case has been accepted before Al is even unblocked and given the chance to respond to his accusers. Sophia 19:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk notes

Tony Sidaway is a party and is thus recused from clerk activities in this case.

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

Christianity

Involved parties

(Provide links to the user page of each party and to all accounts they have edited with. Briefly summarize case. No details.)
User:King_Vegita
User:Str1977
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
(Provide diffs showing where parties other than the initiating parties have been informed about the request for arbitration.)

[38] [39]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

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

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-15 Christianity
Talk:Christianity/Archive_27#Heresy_coming_from_Orthodoxy_or_vice_versa
Talk:Christianity/Archive_30#Orthodoxy_and_Heresy
Talk:Christianity/Archive_31#New_version_of_orthodoxy_and_heresy

Statement by

(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.)
Str has a long history in Christianity and other pages of refusal to compromise in the least, being uncivil, and pushing a sanitized view of Christianity as a whole, removing just about anything that doesn't put it in the light that he sees it from. This is about the paragraph which was in mediation, where Str refused to make any compromises on his work and also refused to forge any compromise version when prompted by the mediator. Despite his unwillingness to compromise and my various concessions in the interest of compromise, his stance is that I am being uncompromising because I dropped out of mediation on June 6th[40] after finding the three week long ordeal completely fruitless. An edit war over the two paragraphs is waging in Christianity right now. My feelings, as outlined in mediation, are that his reverts [41], [42] are in violation of WP:NPOV for whitewashing the history and being an attempt to demonize the "heretics" with clever wordplay that will give the effect of demonizing them while being able to be claimed as NPOV, as discussed in mediation, in violation of WP:V for not being verifiable was cited by citations from PhDs in history and anthropology, and in violation of WP:NOR because he states facts which he refuses to verify, but still states that mine are incorrect despite no contradicting source. These are the three overriding principles of Wikipedia, and are stated to overrule any other policies and even editor consensus.

Statement by party 2

In contrast to what KingVegita says, I have a long history of cooperating and compromising with many editors, and of staying civil in quite heated discussions. However, I am not flawless. My aim was always to protect historical accuracy against revisionists. KV also misrepresents the mediation, where I toiled towards a compromise, while he made only bogus concessions (along the line .. but some believe differently) and didn't reply to the issues I raised (structure, style, POV) In fact I was the last to offer a basis for a compromise, which was greeted by weeks of silence on KV's part. I have to point out that it was he that made massive changes to a long-standing version that was the result of compromise between many editors from many POVs. The accusation of "demonizing" the heretics is just plain silly, given that that heretics were only an issue regarding giving a definition (I yielded in this) and in placing a list already included in a chronologically absurd spot. The one thing I grant KV is that he has references (although before he tried to use pseudo-scholarship as a source). I have no reference at hand, at least not books in English. However, most of my objection were matters of style and of the pre-existant structure of the article (violated by KV) and of the wisdom behind including detailed accounts of single events in an overview section spanning 2000 years of history. No reference can solve these issues for us. I also have tried to include his sources, but he insisted on changing the structure. Finally, I want to add that KV tends to push fringe positions. He also gave an award to a notorious POV warrior [43], which might be indicative of his approach to WP. Str1977 (smile back) 17:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Rejct. This seems to simply be a content dispute, though if evidence was presented to show that it is more than this, I might change my vote. - SimonP 12:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. Both offered versions are of rather low quality, neither adequately addresses the sequence or the complexity of events. I suggest you both do a bit of research. If either of you continues to edit war over this nonsense I would certainly consider accepting a case. Fred Bauder 14:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SPUI probation appeal

Involved parties

SPUI was placed on probation in the Pedophilia userbox wheel war, and requests an appeal.

Statement by SPUI

I have been banned twice under the terms of the probation, both times for non-disruptive actions. Both bans were undone before their scheduled expiration, but not before a significant length of time. This effectively creates a situation in which any admin can block me for about a day for any action they label as disruptive. --SPUI (T - C) 11:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I request that Fred Bauder be recused. In the present arbitration involving me, he has arbitrarily chosen to consider my view as "wrong". He recently said that he "certainly wouldn't lift a finger" if I am blocked under probation, no matter what the reason given by the blocking admin. He has managed to take a side in the conflict, and is thus an involved party. --SPUI (T - C) 03:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by brenneman

I agree that the terms of this probation should be adjusted. In the last instance, it appears very little attempt was made to either understand the history of the page, to investigate the ongoing discussion of the page, or to communicate with SPUI in any way. I haven't seen SPUI do anything so toxic that it had to be killed right now, so is there some reason he doesn't need to be warned before he's blocked? - brenneman {L} 12:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tony Sidaway

Recusing both because I advised SPUI to appeal his probation if he found it too onerous, and because I intervened and imposed the first ban (actually a series of temporary article bans to last for seven days) he discusses after he had reacted in a characteristically defiant and provocative fashion [44] [45] to intervention by another administrator about a spate of many inclusions of the word "fuck" in article edit summaries [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] .

The bans were terminated by me after another administrator had, with my permission, "gone the extra mile" for SPUI, while warning him that he would not intervene in the case of a repetition of provocative or disruptive behavior. [55] --Tony Sidaway 12:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that this application might be dealt with in any of the following ways:
  • a clarification of the intent of the injunction in the pedophilia userbox case;
  • a new motion in that case;
  • merge with the highways case;
  • rejection comments giving brief guidance on the handling of this kind of case;
  • a new arbitration case.
--Tony Sidaway 22:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Physchim62

Support hearing the appeal in order to modify the terms of SPUI's probation. There are disagreements among admins as to how the probation should be interpreted and enforced, and as to what penalties SPUIs behaviour should attract. Clarification would be welcome. Physchim62 (talk) 14:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/1/0)

  • Recuse. I must admit I have lost my patience. Fred Bauder 13:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. I'm not currently of the opinion that the probation itself is inappropriate—the trouble seems to be over enforcement, which short of spelling out every possible case of blockable behavior and the appropriate block length for each I don't think more action by arbcom will solve. (Clarifying note: dear gods, no, I'm not going to try to spell out all the possible blockable offenses.) Disputes over the appropriateness of blocks for specific incidents should probably go to WP:AN/I instead. FWIW, probation is not a "get your whacks in free" card for SPUI's opponents, use your judgment and good sense and warn him first even if you don't have to, and don't dismiss his opinion just because he gets on your nerves. And as for SPUI, don't deliberately test our patience or I won't have any sympathy when you're blocked again. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject, and second everything Mindspillage wrote. - SimonP 12:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. The reason that probation came out of the pedophilia case was because we can't be expected to predict what SPUI will get involved in. However, we do of course expect admins to use proper judgment and interpret disruption according to community norms, subject to review at WP:ANI. There doesn't appear to be a better alternative; removing the probation certainly isn't that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmcdevit (talk • contribs)

Trey Stone appeal

I am taking the initiative of requesting the following appeal upon receiving this inquiry on my user talk page. [56]

In an arbitration case closed in August 2005, Trey Stone (talk · contribs) was baned "for one year from editing articles which concern politics, particularly articles which concern the foreign relations of the United States." [57] At the time, I considered the ban long overdue. I had taken a hard-line against Trey Stone for nearly a year. For example, I even was a critic of Tony Sidaway's earlier attempt to "mentor" Trey Stone, as I considered him an unreformable trouble-maker.

However, since last August, Trey Stone has dramatically changed his behavior, proving to be a constructive contributor more interested in helping Wikipedia than promoting an ideology. He has honored the arbcom restrictions on his edits entirely. I have little doubt that he has stopped his previous pattern of sockpuppet editing. Nor has he been disruptive on the talk pages of any political and historical articles, which he is allowed to edit. Moreover, he has shown himself to be incredibly knowledgeable, well beyond what is usually expected of someone his age (he started his first year at Occidental as recently as last year, I believe). I request that that arbcom revist last year's decision, allowing him to start work on "articles which concern politics" a couple of months early. 172 | Talk 01:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
[58]
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

(Not a dispute)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

Second recusal in a row for me this morning. I did try to reform Trey Stone. I considered him to be a potentially valuable, salvageable editor, and while I won't examine the merits of the appeal at this stage I think it would be inappropriate for me to clerk this case. --Tony Sidaway 12:30, 30 June 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)

Sathya Sai Baba

Involved Parties

Confirmation That All Parties Are Aware Of The Request
Confirmation That Other Steps In Dispute Resolution Have Been Tried
I disagree with this request for arbitration by SSS108, because I do not think that mediation has been fully tried. In the 3rd mediation I followed exactly the same procedure as in the 1st mediation, that is checking whether the mediator was experienced enough before accepting him. I took a wikibreak that lasted only one day which cannot reasonably considered a delaying tactic. I admit that I have been slow in giving answers in the previous mediation which I do not consider a valid reason for refusing mediation and resorting to abritration. The reasons why I was and am slow are as follows. 1. I have never been a single purpose editor and do not want to become one. 2. many often difficult questions were asked to me by the mediator BostonMA. 3. I want to give the right answers. 4. some difficult questions by the mediator BostonMA were very theoretical and non-practical i.e. questions about the reputability of sources that were and would not be used for the article, so I treated them as not urgent. Andries 08:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, Andries had every opportunity to tell Wisden17 or me that he wanted time to check the experience of the mediator. He said nothing. Despite asking Andries for a answer, he gave no answer until after Wisden17 closed the mediation case and arbitration became the only option left. I do not feel that mediation is viable when Andries chooses to answer questions on a time-table that suits his own whimsy and which even brought the former mediation to a standstill. SSS108 talk-email 17:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, checking the experience of the mediator was something that was also done in the case of the previous mediator, so this was business as usual. I do not have to explain every question about something that is business as usual immediatedly. Secondly, I do not intend to answer questions at whim, but already stated that I would take a maximum of one week to answer questions during the mediation. I can understand that one week may make single purpose editors like SSS108 impatient, but I thought and still think that this is an acceptable time-table for Wikipedia standards. Andries 23:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may not be feel that you are obligated to respond to my questions. Nevertheless one would think you would have had some courtesty to respond to Wisden17. You did not respond or give any explanations to Wisden17 and his statements stand as a testament to this fact. Period. SSS108 talk-email 04:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean that I did not respond to Wisden17? Is there any question that he posed me that I did not answer within in a week? I cannot find it. Please show it to me or retract your statement. Thanks. Andries 07:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I already explained myself. I will not do so again. SSS108 talk-email 16:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SSS108, as I said, I think that mediation has not been exhausted, so I think your request for abritration was premature. Will you cooperate if I file a new request for mediation? Thanks. Andries 18:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andries, you had your opportunity for mediation and you trivialized it. Sorry. I do not accept your proposal at filing a new request for mediation when you treated my first two requests with disregard. SSS108 talk-email 04:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement By SSS108

("Sathya Sai Baba" will be referred to as "SSB"): Andries is the webmaster to the largest site opposing SSB on the internet: hetnet.nl/~exbaba. Andries now claims, after a three year period, he is not the webmaster for the site but is the "Main Representative, Supervisor and Contact" for the site (Ref). Therefore, Andries direct involvement with the largest site opposing Sathya Sai Baba is indisputable. I can provide more proof about Andries webmaster status on request. Andries personally compiled the Recovery Section on his website: (View Andries claim: Still online as of June 25th 2006). Andries is associated with (and openly promotes) the Christian Anti-Cult Activist Dr. Johannes Aagaard, founder of the Dialog Center and other Christian organizations. This recovery section not only has a very strong Pro-Christian tone, it also proves that Andries actively promotes an Anti-SSB/Guru/Cult POV. Because of Andries disenfranchisment with SSB, he unremittently attempts to undermine and bias the SSB Wikipedia articles by pushing his Anti-SSB/Guru/Cult POV. Even BostonMA (the former mediator) was confounded on how to approach the ever-multiplying disagreements on the SSB article: Ref. On Wikipedia, Andries has publicly made comments about his involvement in a "cult" (with SSB) and his emotional trauma because of that involvement (Example 1 - Example 2). Outside Wikipedia, on a public forum, Andries claimed he felt "raped" by SSB. These comments suggest that Andries interest in SSB is negative and (in my opinion) he is using Wikipedia as a venting, "therapy" (Andries word) and retaliation forum. I would also like to add that I am not the only person who has problems with Andries. He is a contoversial editor with whom others have many problems as well. See: Guru Talk Page, Post Cult Trauma Talk Page and the Prem Rawat Talk Page. Because of Andries bias, status on the largest Anti-SSB site on the internet, recent controversial edits, reinterpretation of Wikipedia policy, attempts to change Wikipedia policy to push his POV and behavior towards (and in) mediation (as stated in "other steps" listed above), I believe that mediation is no longer a viable option. Therefore, I seek the intervention of the Arbitration Committee to resolve these ongoing disputes, POV pushing and controversial edits that have no end in sight. On A Personal Note: I am not a Wikipedian in the literal sense (nor currently wish to be one) however, since I realize the significance of Wikipedia on the world wide web, my only purpose on Wikipedia is to balance out the SSB articles that have been dominated by Andries for years. SSS108 talk-email 17:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement By Andries

First of all, I oppose this request for arbitration, because mediation has not been fully tried as I explained above. Second, almost all comments that SSS108 makes here are unrelated to the case in question, the article Sathya Sai Baba. The complaints are related to my behavior in general and my off-wiki affilations but then the title of this request for arbitration should be called user:Andries, not Sathya Sai Baba. Andries 09:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You refused to agree to a reasonable time-table for mediation. The complaints stated herein are primarily about your behavior and bias on articles pertaining to Sathya Sai Baba. Of course, your behavior extends deeply into other areas as well and pointing out this behavior makes a clearer case for the bias I believe you systematically and unremittingly push on Wikipedia. SSS108 talk-email 05:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the complaints herein are mostly related to my general behavior. Please either remove all the complaints about me unrelated to Sathya Sai Baba article or re-name this request for arbitration into user:Andries. But please understand that if you re-name this request for arbitration into user:Andries then the request for abritration will probably not be accepted because this is the first time that complaints about my general behavior would be made in a formal manner and other dispute resolutions, normally preceding a request for arbitration, such as wikipedia:request for comment have not been tried. Andries 06:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Andries, no offence, but I would rather act on the advice of the ArbCom. I would also like to point out that you were also wanting to request Arbitration because other avenues were not successful (Ref 01 - Ref 02). The fact that you are now trying to prevent the ArbCom from listening to my requests suggests that you are trying very hard not to be held responsible for your bias and POV pushing. You never attempted to make a reqest for comment and the former references show how you were willing to supercede a request for comment in favor of arbitration. Now you arguing the opposite. SSS108 talk-email 15:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SSS108, I only tried to draw the attention of contributors who had previously shown interest in the article to the problems in it. The reason why I oppose this case for arbitration is because not all other dispute resolutions have been exhausted which is a condition for filing it here. It is not because I am afraid of the arbcom, because you are the one who should be afraid of the arbcom, not me, because your behavior on Sathya Sai Baba was far worse than mine. I did file a request for comment. Andries 18:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Andries, you just said that "wikipedia:request for comment have not been tried". Now you are saying that you did file a request for comment. Where and when did you file the request for comment? What was the result? And if I am the one who should be afraid of ArbCom, then you should have no problem continuing with Arbitration. Now should you? SSS108 talk-email 04:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view of jossi

I have followed this dispute for quite sometime. In fact I solicited mediation on their behalf which they accepted. It is my opinion that further mediation will not result in any substantial movement forward in this dispute between Andries and SSS108, given the long history between these two editors. A user conduct RfC on Andries could be explored, although I doubt that this will resolve the dispute between them. An possible alternative would be that the ArbCom take this case and allow for the evidence phase to take place, in which the community can provide the same type of comments/feedback as it would be raised on a user conduct RfC, with the additional advantage that it could resolve the dispute between them, once and for all. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk Notes

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

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

Requests for Clarification

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

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]

Dyslexic Agnostic

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

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


PoolGuy

"User PoolGuy shall use one user account. That user account may be PoolGuy or a new account which he may create in order to get a fresh start. Should he create a new account he need not disclose its name." [59]

If he's allowed to create a new account without telling anyone, doesn't that make probation rather difficult to enforce? --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing: PG is continuing to request the unblock/unprotection of one of his other accounts, GoldToeMarionette, claiming that no policy violations were cited. Can someone clarify to him that the most important clause of the decision is "...shall use one user account"? 15:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
If he choses to create a new account, and continues with the same problematic behavior we will have no difficulty in identifying him for enforcement of probation. Fred Bauder 20:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently having a conversation with him in which I'm making it clear that "restricted to one account" means he can have one unblocked account, and I don't care which one it is (see User talk:PoolGuy). It's not sinking in as far as I can tell, but that's been his problem all along. --ajn (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In light of his behavior after the RfAr closed, it is my opinion (and I hope an ArbCom member will do this) that the RfAr should be reopened to impose further sanctions. --Nlu (talk) 04:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is making people think I am using more than one account or trying to use more than one account? I just want the original problem that GoldToeMarionette should not of been blocked be remedied. ArbCom would have included the violation in the findings of fact had there been one. There wasn't, the account should be unblocked. I can't believe after all of this, that this is still somehow hard to understand.
Nlu, I am still disappointed in your attack mentality. I am sorry for you that I don't put up with it, but it is extremely unbecoming in an Admin. I still don't understand why ArbCom did not penalize you for your role, especially since I was right in what I posted. How the world would be different if you would remedy rather than attack. PoolGuy 04:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have chosen to use the account "PoolGuy". There is no sense unblocking an account you can't use unless you wish to no longer use "PoolGuy". We are not going back and hashing over a stale matter. Fred Bauder 11:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, it does matter. There are now users out there that think I did something wrong. Unblocking the account will demonstrate that I in fact did not. By leaving the account blocked, users like Nlu will think that they were justified in their treatment of me. What you view as stale, I view as central to why I challenged the block. Some Admins out there think I created multiple accounts to violate Wikipedia policy.
Let me traslate it to the real world. It is like a judge saying, "Since you are now out of jail, we will not complete that DNA test to prove you were in fact not the perpetrator of the crime. Why should you care, you aren't in jail any more."
I do not like that Administrators get to liberally use an iron fist, and despite it being inappropriate, their behavior is encouraged by the opinion of ArbCom. PoolGuy 13:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on this:

--Tony Sidaway 11:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)


Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=62144688"