Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Eternal Equinox (talk | contribs) at 00:17, 26 June 2006 (→‎Statement by Bishonen...: Response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

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

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

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland Motion (orig. case) 21 June 2024
Amendment request: Durova Motion (orig. case) 12 July 2024
Amendment request: Suspension of Beeblebrox Motion none 10 July 2024
Clarification request: Desysoppings none none 12 July 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

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

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. 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

User:Eternal_Equinox

Involved parties

User:Eternal_Equinox (AKA User:Hollow Wilerding [1] & User:Winnermario)
User:HeyNow10029 (initiator)
User:Bishonen
User:Bunchofgrapes
User:FrancisTyers
User:Getcrunk
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
User:Eternal_Equinox
User:Bishonen
User:Bunchofgrapes
User:FrancisTyers
User:Getcrunk


Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Steps taken by User:HeyNow10029

  1. Avoidance: User:Eternal_Equinox is nearly impossible to ignore. When you do try and stay away from her, she'll begin to instigate and make what she calls "improvements" to articles you frequent on your contributions list.[2]. Or removing pictures you've uploaded to a page. (In this instance makes her first edit on a page by removing the only two images on the page that were uploaded by me: [3]) Point is: it’s hard to ignore her, she finds a way to get you to communicate with her since she feeds off of drama.
  2. Talk to the other parties involved: After months of her childish behavior I left a message on her talk page asking her to leave me alone.[4] Which didn't help, because just an hour later she left a message on my talk page telling me she was "not going anywhere" [5] while reverting changes I made on my talk page. I then proceeded to leave her another message on her talk page[6] which was followed by a stern warning from Bunchofgrapes[7] to leave me alone.
  3. Informal mediation: I asked User:Bunchofgrapes to step in.[8]
  4. Finally, I bypassed filing an RFC in favor of an RFAr, because due to User:Eternal_Equinox’s past history, I felt this was the most viable option. Honestly, this user has had enough time to prance around this project and frankly, I believe it’s time something was done. An RFC would just feed the troll and further work in her favor giving her a wider arena, which is exactly what she wants. Plus her shtick of saying she’s leaving soon and she’ll halt further editing is old news. She’s teased us with that one several times before[9] [10][11] [12], and yet in a matter of days, she’s back to her old tricks.

Dispute resolution attempts by Bishonen

It was I who outed Hollow Wilerding (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as abusive FAC sockpuppeteer on New Year's Day 2006 and blocked her for a week and her socks indefinitely, which sent her into a fit of rage and a whirl of abusive activity: read all about it in the WP:ANI archives. She never edited as Hollow Wilerding again after the block, but was frequently seen in the form of IPs from a very large, dynamic range that was in practice unblockable, editing pop music articles, often edit warring, and telling strange mutually inconsistent tales about her true identity.[13] In spite of the outrageous behavior as Hollow Wilerding, it seemed pointless to RFAR her, and I elected to ignore the ongoing low-level disruption. In February, several pop music editors contacted me (presumably because I had been so visible in the case) and pointed to a "new" editor, Eternal Equinox, whose editing patterns were strikingly similar to HW's. I was struck by the username, too—HW had loved astronomy, and loved alliteration: her last sock before she went into IP country had been named Solar Serenity. People complained about EE being difficult to work with, but I checked out the edits and there certainly wasn't anything strikingly bad or abusive at that time. I concluded HW was trying to return, and trying to behave well, and silently wished her luck. However, she started nominating articles on FAC, and gradually became more and more HW-like, attacking objectors to her articles, pushing aggressively, insisting that objections were not actionable. I contacted her by e-mail on February 19 to tell her I knew who she was, and warn her against going further down this road. I assured her I had no interest in outing her, provided she tried to be more civil and collaborative. We reached an understanding. EE soon slipped back from her undertakings, however, and on March 20 I intervened again, to ban her from FAC for three weeks, an action supported by the Featured Article Director and many FAC regulars, and had another e-mail dialogue with her. Again we (eventually) reached an understanding: she undertook to change her demeanour, and I withdrew the ban. Since then she has been going gradually into HW mode again, as HeyNow indicates, and I'm not prepared to do any more negotiating, especially since both her e-mails and wikiposts to me have become increasingly abusive with time. In the last few weeks, I have myself been regrettably snappish and sometimes sarcastic towards her, but would plead long and extreme provocation. Anyway. These have been my two attempts at dispute resolution. Both were temporarily successful, but the solutions brokered did not last. Our contacts mostly took place behind the scenes, but I'll be happy for the ArbCom to read our e-mail dialogue, in confidence, provided EE agrees. Bishonen | talk 23:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
All right, here, I am going to respond and I want you to know that everything I say from here is the truth: please listen, please. I am Hollow Wilerding; yes — now you know. However, I am not Winnermario. Winnermario was a roommate of mine. This is the truth, which concludes that you were partially correct during the "votestacking" portion back in January, and I was intentionally partially incorrect. When I returned, I was doing nothing wrong because I really did just want to edit. I know you knew this, because before I came in contact with you, that is all I did — I just edited. But... I feel as though when you found out who I was was the time I began to become somewhat harsh again. You and your friends were constantly insulting and/or making fun of me on someone's talk page, and even when I was reverting IP address edits (because if they wanted to make an edit, they should have been logged in. How would I have known that was the user editing from an IP addresses?) you assumed that I was attempting to evade objections on FAC. Of course I was not doing that, because that would be ridiculous. At the time, however, there were some votes and/or comments that confused me slightly. I do not know which e-mail you are talking about, but if you verified, then I might come to agreeing the arbitrators (or whomever you want) to read it. However, you must promise me, that if I return in the future, to simply not talk about and to me. That is all I ask of you. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HeyNow10029

User:Eternal_Equinox (edited under the username Hollow_Wilderding from November 2005 to January 2006; previously as Winnermario) is extremely hard to work with, she has had disputes with a number of respected users. [14][15][16][17][18] God help you if you ever end up wanting to make an edit to one of “her” pages, because she reverts edits made to pages she "protects" on a daily basis. Edit wars are common place for her, here are some of her most recent: (edit war on the S. A. Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition of 1897 page [19][20]; policing the Cool (song) page [21]; edit war on the Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 June 3 [22] page in which she claims ownership as the caretaker of the Cool (song) page[23]; even changes other user’s comments [24]) She has also proven to be extremely difficult to work with on the FAC nominations she has initiated for the We Belong Together page. On her first two nominations [25][26] she was accused by multiple users of strong arming oppose votes until they changed their minds. The third nomination was thrown out by User:Raul654, and the fourth nomination ended in User:Eternal_Equinox delisting the nomination and promising “not [to] edit this article any further following this FAC”[27] A promise she broke just recently when she listed the article for a fifth time.[28] She flies in the face of consensus: even when she’s told by multiple users that her edits aren’t helpful and in some instances misleading, she continues to rv changes onto pages she knows little about. [29] [30] If that’s not enough she has a total disrespect for other users who contribute to the project, especially those who disagree with edits she makes, in this post she refers to the Wikipedia community as "bitches" and tells everyone to "fuck off" [31]. In this post, just posted minutes before I submitted this RFAr; User:Eternal_Equinox admits she made past posts, “partly out of vengeance” against User:Bishonen[32] In another post, she threatens to sue User:Bishonen, [33] or rather Adam & Courtni, two people who she claims also use the User:Eternal_Equinox account threatened to sue.
Full disclosure: I am, in no way a Pollyanna. I have in the past let Eternal get the best of me and have succumb to her efforts to antagonize me; including this outburst. [34] But that is one instance during numerous disagreements with User:Eternal_Equinox, in which I have the great majority of the time kept a leveled head.

Statement by Bishonen...

...will be supplied as soon as possible. Meanwhile, I appeal to the ArbCom to not throw this case out merely because EE says below that she'll never edit Wikipedia again. She's always saying that. (On this occasion I was counting.) Bishonen | talk 00:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
That was a month ago when you infuriated me by conducting an edit that was solely based on bad faith; I got over it. Again, I have had that message posted on my talk page for two weeks now: I am not staying and you will clearly see as such. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response by User:Eternal Equinox

I would like to inform the arbitrators that I am leaving Wikipedia tomorrow; I will never edit on this website again. It should be noted to the arbitrators that I believe this RFAr is somewhat peculiar; the parties involved were very much aware that I would be leaving Wikipedia on June 26, so it is certainly interesting to see one opened against me the day before I leave. Here (June 14) I posted the information on my upcoming departure, and since then, Bishonen and Giano had left me a message. I am convinced that they knew about my departure 100%, but I think this may have been a bad faith RFAr. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • HeyNow10029 is an incredibly ignorant Wikipedian who has displayed uncivil behaviour in numerous locations on Wikipedia, most notably on Talk:Kelly Clarkson. If you're interested you should take a look at Talk:Kelly Clarkson#Redundancies where she states the following: You know, Eternal I'm getting really sick and tired of your garbage. You don't own this page, it's not up to you to decide what goes and what stays. She had included four images in the Kelly Clarkson article, which I removed because they lacked fair use rationale. I then added an image that included its sources, however, HeyNow10029 always removed it from the article without good reason. Oftentimes I would have offline-Wikipedia conversations concerning this matter, where the person I would be speaking with felt that she removed it because she wanted her images and only her images in the article. I agreed with this. For making personal attacks, she was given a warning here, and for removing an image that contained fair use rationale, she was told to stop here. Most notably, she was informed here not to reinclude this image in the article. A few months later, I decided to take a short break from Wikipedia; I returned to find the image reinserted (the first image in the diff edit) in the article, even though she was told that it was not a good idea to include it because of copyright issues. HeyNow10029 was clearly ignoring the fair use policy. Here is an edit she made in bad faith, too. Additionally, it should be noted that I never once threathened to sue Bishonen; if anybody wants evidence of this, I can send it to them. (The person who threathened Bishonen via email was a roommate of mine.) In the case of Bishonen and Bunchofgrapes, I have nothing to say — I just want them to forget about me so that they can enjoy editing the encyclopedia. I would like to forget about them too. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I may or may not return to Wikipedia later this year (October/ November). I am currently not at home in Canada, but in Japan. Therefore, I may come back towards the end of the year, or not. I will no longer participate in this situation. If I was acting badly and wrongly, then HeyNow10029 was acting just as wrongly. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now that I have noticed it in HeyNow10029's summary, I think I ought to respond to it: Here I very clearly state the following: I was introduced to several very ignorant Wikipedians who stalked me and followed me around because of a previous relationship that they had experienced [...] Although I would not be surprised if they suddenly popped up and left a message here or on my talk page. As it just so happens, HeyNow10029 a link to the edit I made on the same talk page two minutes later, which can confirm that these users have been constantly looking through my edits and stalking me. Since the users in question are going to want to elaborate on this, I have provided the basis. But, again, I will not be editing after tomorrow, so there is nothing much I can do. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Bunchofgrapes

Eternal Equinox's statement regarding his imminent departure should probably be ignored; we have had similar statements from him many times in the past. (And note that his statement above currently says both "I will never edit on this website again" and "I may or may not return to Wikipedia later this year (October/ November)".) If the account does stop editing, it would be in keeping with past patterns to start up a new sockpuppet: Eternal Equinox is the most recent in a long chain. As for his desire to avoid me or Bishonen, he has an odd way of showing it -- he has edited few pages outside of his core interests of pop music and videogames that aren't articles with significant work done by Bishonen, Giano, or me. In this talk page post, she describes such edits as being "partly out of vegenance" (and partly out of having an obsession -- with alphabetical order in prose -- that has no place at Wikipedia, so far as I know.) Eternal Equinox is a disruptive editor. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, my statement that I will be departing should NOT be ignored because I am leaving — I am not coming back. You have to really stop claiming that I will set up another "sockpuppet". That is not the case; if I return, I will set up a new account, yes, but how does this make it a "sockpuppet"? I do not edit under Hollow Wilerding, so how is Eternal Equinox a sockpuppet? It is simply a new account. But either way, if I do return, then I will edit under Eternal Equinox. The long chain is two: HW and EE. I do not have any other accounts. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned in the last message in my section concerning stalking, Bunchofgrapes adding this sums up my statement. I had made those edits minutes before this RFAr was issued. I would assume stalking. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:12, 26 June 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)

Sathya Sai Baba

Involved Parties

Confirmation That All Parties Are Aware Of The Request
Confirmation That Other Steps In Dispute Resolution Have Been Tried

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

(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 (0/0/0/0)

user:Nagle

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[35]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

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

User refused any type of comunication. this is what this request is about. No DR is possible with users who refuse to comunicate:

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

Statement by user:Zeq

WP:Civility is a core important policy of wikipedia.

WP:Resolving disputes encourage users to communicate in order to resolve disputes. This is a basic first step.

WP:Probation clearly specify that "striking out on user under probation" is not allowed.

WP:NPOV and also good faith attempt to edit only with information known to us as truth (without political POV pushing) are also important pillars of wikipedia.

WP:NOR prevent using un sourced claims on wikipedia. (I am using the word "unsourced" to avoid using "lies" - since we are not arguing here what is true or what is not.)

WP:AGF is a core policy governing how wikipedia editor should treat other editors.

WP:Not clearly state that Wikipedia is not a battle field


The issues outside content dispute. This arbcom request is not about resolving an edit dispute with user:Nagle - it is his behavior that is a violation of civility to a level that require your attention. No other mechanism in wikipedia is able to handle such behaviour.

Facts of the issue

user:Nagle made an edit that either was a gross error or was done in bad faith. I attempted to communicate with him (on his talk page) but he have turned down all attempts at basic, civil communication taking advantage of the fact that I am on probation.

The attempted communication is here: [40]

The reason for the attempted communication (this is not what this arbCom request is about but is described just for completeness was the caption user:Nagle made in this edit [41] .

While the original caption of this image clearly identify this section of the wall as being on the border between Israel and the west bank (and as such a legal place to build a wall – even according to the UN int'l court) the editor has tried to use a different caption to enhance his POV that the wall in the photo demonstrates separation inside Palestinian territory. (His efforts were quickly reverted by another editor here: [42] and he persisted with a different image (same problem) here: [43] (this time with a better caption).

Btw, this was not his first attempt at mis-captioing this photo, see here: [44] and here [45]

But this request is not about his blatant edit-war in pushing this image, nor specifically about the mis-caption but about the lack of basic civility to a user who could not edit the article directly yet was merely trying to communicate with him to correct his error. Zeq 18:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to add that the editor is deliberately trying to misrepresent facts in his edits such as this one:[46] - this is clear political POV pushing that violates WP:Not. (for example there are no "Jewish-only" roads in the west bank as someone who took part in creating the Betslem report he tries to quote (double reference to Israeli settlements I am deeply insulted by his use of the report Btselem issued. But all that is besides the point, it is his violation of WP:Civilitay that stands between me and any attempt to correct his grossly wrong edits in any way - this is where your intervention is needed. Zeq 17:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit [47] Nagle writes: "For Israel, good PR is a survival issue. If the US ever stops supporting Israel, the country will go broke and might go under. This justifies extreme measures on the PR front. Zeq seems to see himself as in the forefront of that battle. " - this edit shows that user:nagle not only accuse me of not operating with good faith (for what ? - for trying to point out his error to him on his talk page ?) but also tell us how he looks at wikipedia (as a battle field) does he think that it is his job to implement change in how the US public see Israel ? Is he using wikipedia for that ? If he is in fact doing (what he accused others of doing) he violates WP:Not as well.

user:nagle is described as civil and I hope he will continue to be this way. I have tried to comunicate with him. He choose to ignore me again and again There is no mechanism in wikipedia (other than Arbitration verdict) that can impose a change in his behaviour (back to his normal "extremely civil and willing to try all forms of dispute resolution". This RfA if asking to make him to engage in comunication and edit according to Wikipedia policies.

Note

The fact that I am allowed to use talk is already part of the ban notice ("The user is not prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page.") - which is the top of the article talk page. clearly anyone who "takes authority" from this ban notice must have read it.

I am not asking ArbCom for any calrification of the ban (or to review the ban itself that is IMHO not in good cause) - I am asking ArbCom (the only possible body which can decide such matters) to induce a change in user:Nagle behaviour toward me and in his edit practice (which violates wikipedia policy) in said article. Zeq 18:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2

According to the large box at the top of Talk:Israeli apartheid, Zeq (talk · contribs) is banned from editing the article Israeli apartheid until March 5, 2007. "The user specified is on probation and has edited this article inappropriately.". So I've been ignoring his comments related to that article. After his comments on my talk page, I put "Edit by banned user ignored. Ref: Talk:Israeli apartheid --John Nagle 17:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)". This is apparently the "uncivil behavior" referred to.

Actually, after some cleanup, the article seems to be getting back on track. Several people are now editing in a reasonably cooperative way. They don't all agree, but the changes are getting smaller and more focused, and there are few reverts now. I've been trying to nudge things towards convergence, with some modest success. Check the edit history and talk page for that article. --John Nagle 18:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(This dispute seems wierd. A banned user is complaining about being ignored. That's the whole point of banning, isn't it? If this goes to arbitration, I'll say more, but for now, enough seems to have been said. Meanwhile, back at the article, things are going moderately well despite some disagreements. This article was locked for a while due to excessive disruption, but with some of the sources of trouble removed, things have calmed down. --John Nagle 20:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Comment by Ideogram

I don't understand this RFAR. In my dealings with John Nagle he has been extremely civil and willing to try all forms of dispute resolution. Ideogram 17:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

The Hunger Project

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:Jcoonrod

User:Smeelgova

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 have engaged in an enormous amount of good faith discussion and applied for mediation on June 8, but escalating actions by Smeelgova lead me to believe that mediation is unlikely to work. Smeelgova has disputed edits by User:Danny (although they are now restored on the page). And my decision to request arbitration was reinforced by comments to Smeelgova on Danny's discussion page by User:BradPatrick, "I'm really not sure what you are up to except grinding an axe."--Jcoonrod 15:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jcoonrod

(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.)

For the past month, user Smeelgova has daily inserted large amounts of negative material to The Hunger Project (THP) and related pages such as Joan Holmes, Robert K. Fuller and others. All of this material has been presented in ways to imply an improper relationship between THP and one of its founders, Werner Erhard. Most of the material consists of references to anti-cult websites which, in itself, casts aspersions on our integrity. We endeavored to negotiate a fair representation of her POV in a criticism section based on the model of the Unicef entry, but Smeelgova insists that only complete listings of every incident of anyone expressing her POV must be included in order to achieve "balance." The Hunger Project has always been an independent organization which has never used its resources for any purpose other than ending hunger, as verified by independent auditors every year of our existence. To state or imply otherwise is false and libelous, and could do material harm to The Hunger Project by raising doubts in the minds of current or potential donors. This issue was litigated in the courts from 1986-1989 (see | press release). The court found the allegations to be false and unfounded and awarded damages to The Hunger Project. We request the arbitrators to establish and freeze accurate and non-defamatory entries on The Hunger Project, Joan Holmes and other individuals associated with The Hunger Project and remove the history and discussion sections. We provide a sample for the arbitrators to consider at my sandbox.--Jcoonrod 15:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Smeelgova

Quoting Wikipedia Administrator --Jmabel :

I realize that I'm not a party to the mediation -- perhaps I should be,

since I seem to be becoming engaged, if only indirectly. The answer is: we're an encyclopedia. The origins of the organization, and what it was 30 years ago, should be of as much relevance as what it has become. The organization was, if anything, higher profile at that time. It was innovative, for better or worse, in being an organization that decided that fighting hunger did not necessarily mean feeding people. It innovatived a tactic on college campuses to get students to fast for a day and donate the money that they otherwise would have spent on food. It was part of a transformation of activist politics away from confrontation and more toward a focus on transforming oneself. I honestly think that the story of the Hunger Project in its first 10 years is of much more significance than its history since, and not in terms of a hatchet job. It was something new, it had its pluses and minuses, it is worth understanding as part of the history of charity and activism. Its present is much less interesting, basically "just another non-profit".

Again, you may feel completely free to quote me, again preferably in full.

  • I have taken the liberty of correcting the spelling in the quotation from me above; it is otherwise accurate (and the misspellings may have been in the original). - Jmabel | Talk 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I see that the context of my remarks is unclear here. This was in answer to a question to the effect of "why should we be interested in things that happened 30 years ago?" - Jmabel | Talk 16:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally resent the negative-faith attacks that Jcoonrod has made against me in the past month. I do apologize for copying a comment from a prior editor back into the article, stating that "The Hunger Project regularly edits Wikipedia." However, I have attempted to utilize reputable sources for all of the historical documentation, and to cite said sources with endnote references and blockquote citations. In this manner, I have tried to let the language used by the sources speak for themselves, rather than paraphrasing my own POV into the mix. As to the relevance of the history of the organization and legality of sources I refer to comment above. Recent debated sourced citations have come from Raising Hell: How the Center for Investigative Reporting Gets the Story, by David Weir and Dan Noyes, published by the Center for Investigative Reporting, and not from The London Times.Smeelgova 15:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Orthomolecular medicine

Withdrawn, reasons: 1st - the editors stopped cutting down the criticism section after I have filed the RfArb (and I hope it will stay like that) and 2nd I could have written a long long article instead of argumenting with them. ackoz 19:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Portal:Taiwan

Involved parties

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

Statement by party 1

There is currently a dispute over the naming of the portal Portal:Taiwan. I want to leave the portal name as it is because the portal name does not suggest a political agenda as to whether Taiwan is part of the Republic of China, People's Republic of China, or Republic of Taiwan. The political opinion of what Taiwan is should be left to the individual visiting the portal. User:Chiang Kai-shek insists on moving the portal to Portal:Republic of China and offered a compromise of Portal:Taiwan Province and Portal:Taiwan Province, Republic of China. I did not accept either suggestions because such a portal name includes "Republic of China" which disrupts the neutrality of the portal name. Also, although "Taiwan Province" is favorable to the governments of ROC and PRC, it is not favorable to people who support Taiwan independence. Hence the portal name Portal:Taiwan avoids these conflicts in political agenda.

Since Chiang Kai-shek and myself won't compromise over the portal name, I have decided to request the Arbitration Committee to settle the portal naming dispute once and for all so that future complaints and conflict over the naming of the portal can be avoided.

Edit: What I understand from User talk:Captain0 is that ROC is not a firm geographic concept because it claims territories controlled by PRC, it can confuse people interested in different time periods of ROC, and the ROC name is disputed by Chinese (PRC, ROC, Independence). I've never pushed a political agenda because I didn't put a PRC flag, ROC flag, nor the Taiwan independence flag on the portal. I've also clearly stated in the portal introduction box that Taiwan is governed as Taiwan Province, Republic of China. But Chiang Kai-shek has said this is not enough because viewers won't understand that Taiwan is a province of the ROC (doesn't make any sense to me because the info box is what people will see first)

However, after I read the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV, in terms of political context "China" and "Taiwan" should not be used to refer to the governments governing the territory (ROC and PRC both claim the territories of China and Taiwan). I suggested a compromise of creating a Portal:China to be a geography portal to match Portal:Hong Kong and Portal:Taiwan, then have Portal:People's Republic of China and create Portal:Republic of China to be the political portals.

This way the political mess can be avoided as China and Taiwan are not political but state clearly which government has jurisdiction, and it can be about other topics: China (about different dynasties; chinese writing; culture; territorial rule by Mongols, Korean (Manchu/Jurchen); inventions, trade (Silk Road); political history (emperor, revolution, semi-colonial/imperialism, republicanism, communism) it can then link to ROC and PRC portals (no bias)

As for Taiwan (about different periods of rule by Dutch, Spanish, Qing, Ming, Japan, ROC; the inhabitants of Chinese and how they view themselves as Taiwanese after 4 centuries history, the different aborigines and their culture; influences by aborigines, Chinese, Dutch, Japanese, American on culture, way of life, etc). Portal:Taiwan (no tagging of "Province", "ROC", "Island") avoids a political bias which is so sensitive to people who have different opinions about it. It is my personal belief that all controversial topics can be within the portal and given equal treatment because those topics are an ongoing reality past and present. It only serves to broaden our understanding and knowledge about the island of Taiwan whereas imposing ROC or other tags to the portal name (in my opinion) suggests ROC-era or invites dispute, which is now happening. (Sorry total word count: 618)

Statement by party 2

For the entire time, Nrtm81 did not wish to compromise at all. I have no idea why he applied for mediation when he did not want to compromise. The mediators and I have come up with various ideas for compromising, however, Nrtm81 has shot down all of them. I was quite flexible on the naming, although I still do not think Portal:Taiwan is appropriate. I came up with Free Area of the Republic of China, Taiwan Province, Republic of China, or Taiwan, Republic of China. They are all acceptable to me. Halo came up with Taiwan Island, which is also accepted by me. None of these compromises worked for Nrtm81, due to the fact that he wanted the name "Taiwan" the whole time, so the mediation debates were pointless.

The simple term, "Taiwan" is a politically sensitive issue. Is it a country? a province? What is it? The status is quite ambiguous. Nrtm81 has stated that he wanted a portal exclusively on all history about Taiwan, from the Dutch/Spanish occupation to the ROC on Taiwan. That can be done. Just the naming has to be correct. So I suggested Taiwan Province, Republic of China or Taiwan, Republic of China. Since right now it is a province of the Republic of China, it should have that name. Nrtm81 said that in history Taiwan was many things (under Dutch/Spanish/Ching rule, etc.) However, The Halo made a point in saying that it's only refering to its present name and that we can still include history under it, no matter what because it's the same thing.

What is so bad about Taiwan Province, ROC? Is it not currently a province administered by the government of the Republic of China? It certainly isn't a independent republic. "Taiwan" is too bland and plain. In general, the majority of people, when thinking about the word Taiwan, believe that it is an independent country. But, it is not. If you said Portal:New Jersey, people know it is a state. You don't have to specify New Jersey State. We need to cut out the ambiguity in the status of Taiwan. Nrtm81 says province favors the ROC/PRC. Well, Taiwan was returned to China (Republic of China) by Japan after World War II. What is so hard to grasp? And don't play the what if guessing game about Taiwan's status. Right now, the flag of the Republic of China is flying over Taipei. And the constitution that the residents of Taiwan abide under is the Constitution of the Republic of China. People born in Taiwan automatically acquire citizenship of the Republic of China. And then he goes on to say that it doesn't satisfy the view of "Republic of Taiwan." Hardly anyone supports that view point. This is just a portal. There is a separate article on the ROT, but we can't politicize Taiwan-independence on a portal.

We should just stick with the name Taiwan Province, ROC or Taiwan, ROC. When the bland term "Taiwan" appears, people start thinking about Taiwan independence or that Taiwan is a separate sovereign country. When Taiwan, ROC or Taiwan Province, ROC is used, the pro-Taiwan independence people might think that is wrong. But, the last time I checked, the state was still called the Republic of China, not "Taiwan." So even if you don't agree with the name, you can't contest it, because it is a living fact. I believe Nrtm81 is attempting to push the pro-Taiwan independence viewpoint. I am just pushing the factual, current, and correct name. What is so wrong with that? I'm not pushing unification or Taiwan independence, only just the facts. -Chiang Kai-shek 00:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Improv

  • I have no strong opinion on the proper resolution of this case, but would like to suggest that our existing NPOV naming policy for articles relating to Taiwan has a very complex potential application to this case. NPOV might be considered to apply, to the extent that portalspace is like articlespace in NPOV requirements. The degree to which NPOV aims to protect the neutrality of the encyclopedia is at least partly at stake here to the degree that Portals act as encyclopedic OR community content. Even if NPOV does not apply directly, if we assume that NPOV is minimally inflammatory to presumably-neutral parties, (it is an interesting question if this is the case) then for the sake of preserving the community, we may wish to nudge for our existing comprimise (if we accept that that comprimise is indeed a suitable embodiment of NPOV, also possibly arguable). The arguments made by party 1 above suggest that he believes that the term "Taiwan" is a proper embodiment of NPOV (a claim presumably at variance with the existing comprimise, but one which I personally am lightly inclined to agree with, as I can't see how "Republic of China" is better, as opposed to much worse, than "Taiwan" to the mainland Chinese perspective). If this case is to be accepted (and not given summary judgement), it would be in effect a review of the status quo on the naming of Taiwan-related articles on Wikipedia. Whether this is the time and place to do so is up to ArbCom. --Improv 22:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:BlueShirts

I like The Halo's idea of ROC (Taiwan). Taiwan (ROC) and Taiwan Island look okay too. Even though party 1 has stressed that the article is about the geographical entity, the layout and the information presented in the portal thus far all point toward a format similar a regular national portal. Right now the Portal:China page is a disambiguation page with specific links to the PRC, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. Thus, for format's sake, I'd say Portal:ROC is better than simply Taiwan. If I want to link stuff from Republican China, where do I put it? Taiwan? I don't think so. So I think renaming the Taiwan portal might be a good idea. BlueShirts 01:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Deryck C.

Compared to other commentors to this article, I've a relatively strong stand that the portal be named either "Taiwan" or "Taiwan Island", because from the suggestions above, only these two refer solely to the island, with or without political POV. Whenever inclusion of "ROC" is made, there would be an ROC-biased sense that Taiwan is an (totally) independent part from mainland; if simply "Republic of China" is used, it would look like a portal about the 1912-1949 China. "Taiwan province", on the other hand, would look as if PRC has already taken over ROC in the administration of the island, as Beijing has always been calling Taiwan a "province".

Every portal about a place has a country layout, because every country is simply a territory in its underlying philosophy. It is proper for the Taiwan portal to take the country layout.

The Wikipedian naming policy concerning disputed territories have always been disputable itself: Senkaku/Pinnacle/Diaoyutai (which the result completely violated the naming policy: Senkaku was made the article name "assuming" that the Japanese military control of the island means it owns the island, despite that the most commonly used English name of the island is Pinnacle), Taiwan/ROC, etc. I've just never thought that some would have the perseverence to argue all the way up till the ArbCom. --Deryck C. 01:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ideogram

This is a delicate political situation. The naming dispute goes back decades and is unlikely to be solved by appealing to a broader audience or verifiable sources. I believe Wikipedia needs to establish a policy and stick to it, although perhaps ArbCom cannot make that policy.

I personally believe the best solution is to have two portals, one named according to User:Chiang Kai-shek's preference, and one named "Taiwan Island". This is a compromise because Chiang Kai-shek prefers only one portal, while User:Nrtm81 prefers two portals with one named "Taiwan". I note that Chiang Kai-shek has already created Portal:Free Area of the Republic of China and is shaping it to his liking.

I must comment that I tried to mediate this case and was unable to succeed due to the fact that Chiang Kai-shek repeatedly accused Nrtm81 of pushing a pro-independence POV even though Nrtm81 readily agreed to changing the color scheme of Portal:Taiwan away from green (the color of the pro-independence party), asserted that he too had originally preferred "Portal:Republic of China", and flat out denied being pro-independence several times. I feel that this failure to assume good faith has made further mediation impossible. Please note that we have also filed a Wikiquette alert here, and asked at the Village Pump here, and User:Cowman109 is willing to continue mediating the case should ArbCom refuse to hear it. Ideogram 06:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Nrtm81 also accused me of doing other things and attacked me viciously as well. It is not NPOV for you to "note" what I did when you made no mention of the other guy's actions. Just because I said you were hardly doing anything as a mediator, doesn't mean you can go around spreading BS about me. -Chiang Kai-shek 15:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded conversation in the area for other people's comments is frowned on. Ideogram 17:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed a compromise of naming it "Portal:Taiwan (island)". This proposal was accepted by Nrtm81 but rejected by Chiang Kai-shek. We are now arguing over two characters. Ideogram 03:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have filed an RFC here. Ideogram 12:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by The Halo

As the current mediator of this issue, I would urge the Arbitrators' to not accept this case. This request was made at a time of high tension on the portal talk, and while I am not saying that this tension and disagreement has gone, I feel that we are now in a place where we can move forward with mediation. Further more, a RfC has been achived, and the Mediation Committee has not yet been brought in to try and resolve this issue.

Thank you very much for your time. The Halo (talk) 11:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/2/0/0)

UCRGrad

Involved parties

List of Dispute Resolution Avenues NOT attempted

Avoidance - NOT DONE (In most cases, editors made blanket reverts or edits without any justification!)

Talk to the other parties involved - NOT DONE I have always had an open dialogue with Amerique and ALL other editors of this article!!!

Informal mediation - NOT DONE

Wikipedia:third Opinion - NOT DONE

WP:Requests for comment - NOT DONE

WP:Straw polls - NOT DONE

Mediation - rejected by one party.

Requesting an Advocate - NOT DONE UCRGrad 00:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This request for arbitration concerns the behavior of UCRGrad (talk · contribs), who primarily posts to the article University of California, Riverside (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). UCRGrad’s conduct with respect to other users and with respect to the article has been considered in violation of Wikipedia principles Assume Good Faith, WP: Civility, WP: No Personal Attacks, WP:POINT, WP: No Legal Threats, and WP:OWN. UCRGrad began posting to the article on 18:46,19 February 2006 and was blocked (for 3 hours) by William M. Connolley 11:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC) for violating the 3 revert rule. Later, on May 1, 2006 Mackensen indefinitely blocked UCRGrad from using confirmed sockpuppet 909er. These attempts and others to resolve disputes with UCRGrad’s posts to the article and to its talk page have failed to resolve ongoing disputes concerning both the neutrality of the article and UCRGrad’s behavior with respect to other editors. UCRGrad has refused to consider RfC or other forms of mediation leaving this editor no choice but to submit this RfA in the interest of all still concerned with the quality of the article.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  1. suggestion from Szyslak to "please consider changing the way you work with others here at Wikipedia."
  2. suggestion from Tifego to "please stop violating WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL ... It is not necessary or helpful" (about this edit)
    • UCRGrad: Refusal to acknowledge: "There is no violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL at all." [53]
Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures

Avoidance

  • 3RR Violation [54]
  • Personal attacks
  • "4) I'm sorry, but I think you're way out of touch with reality here. UCRGrad 17:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad"[55]
  • "However, in the off-chance that you are indeed psychic and a mind-reader, you might consider working for the Psychic Friends Network. Otherwise, please keep your baseless inferences to yourself.64.54.92.76 19:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad"
  • "I therefore question your literary ability and consequently, your aptitude to contribute at all to this article. 64.54.91.177UCRGrad"
  • "Quit whining. 64.54.91.177UCRGrad"
  • "There you go again with your psychic mind reading. 64.54.92.76 19:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad"
  • "You clearly have nothing to contribute here. 64.54.92.76 19:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad" [56]
  • "Quit pussyfooting around and respond to my counterargument. UCRGrad 03:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)" [57]
  • WP:AGF Violation [58]

First step: talk to the other parties involved

  • Ignoring problems brought up by other parties [59] [60]
  • Failure to acknowledge problems after talk:[61]
  1. UCRGrad:"...In particular, numerous people (most recently ElKevbo) have attempted to express why they "feel" that the article is biased, but in the end, none of their arguments really pass basic scrutiny or merit -- this is because there really is no bias, there is only their "opinion" and "gut impression" due to their own personal biases..." UCRGrad 23:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[62]
  2. UCRGrad: "With regard to the lack of a football team, I am appalled that you and another individual do not appreciate how critical it is to mention this. Perhaps you are not in tune with college sports, or you attended an undergraduate institution that did not have a football team."[63]

Discuss with third parties

  • "I've been asked to come back and clarify my third opinion. As DtEW says, the burden of proof lies with the editor that wants the edits to stand. UCRGrad has provided sources for some of their assertations, but not for others - for instance, the nickname, 'University of California, Rejects', undoubtedly exists, but those sources do not show that it is because of the admission critera - this is speculation or original research at best. On a related note, be careful that sources show what you are claiming that they do - the MDapplicants.com one doesn't say anything about the relative merits of the university; you need to do a certain amount of research to figure that out, so it's unacceptable (or at least, that page of it is). --Scott Wilson 13:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)" [64]
  • "Insert-Belltower, please do not revert to the version with the disputed assertions. The burden of proof is on the editor who wishes the edits to stand, and more evidence is still needed. --Scott Wilson 14:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The same goes for you, too UCRGrad - reverting it umpteen different times won't make them any more acceptable to WP:V. You made no attempt to discuss my comments, as well as many of DtEW's before reverting. --Scott Wilson 14:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)" [65]
  1. (Evidence of attempts at Third Party Intervention) David Gerard: "I had a look too and spotted the sockpuppet without prompting from Mackensen. Your pattern is obvious. You appear to have mistaken Wikipedia's tremendous tolerance for stupidity. Please don't assume that if it would fool you it must fool everyone else" - David Gerard 17:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • (Evidence of failure of attempt at Third Party Intervention) UCRGrad: "I don't fricking believe this. And what kind of pattern might this be? Two users who obviously know each other using the same computers back to back? UCRGrad 17:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC) And did you check as far back as the day 909er initially registered (right after my 3-hour "ban")? I understand that it must feel satisfying and rewarding when you think you've "caught" what MUST be a "typical sockpuppeteer," and yeah it probably seems like it first glance, but did it ever occur to you that you might be incorrect??? What type of evidence would it take to prove my case to you?" UCRGrad 17:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[66]

Conduct a survey

  • The following statement suggests UCRGrad's attitude towards surveys:
  • UCRGrad: "The majority opinion is not necessarily the correct one. For instance, in 19th century America, it was majority opinion that Blacks should be slaves. It was only through careful deliberation by justices of the Supreme Court that the CORRECT opinion (that Blacks should NOT be slaves) was enforced over the MAJORITY opinion. Naturally, if 10 freshmen from the A-I dorm decide to "vote" here, you're going to see a natural skewing here." UCRGrad 22:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[67]

Informal Mediation / Mediation

  • "Yo, man. "If you disagree, I invite you to bring this matter up in arbitration or mediation" is a useless response that sidesteps your obligation to justify your statements. I mean, dude, you're basically saying that Alternet is NOT a reliable source per WP:RS, yet the WP:RS page doesn't specifically have any restrictions against Alternet, yo. On the other hand, I'm going to cite WP:RS as NOT specifically mentioning anything that would absolutely make Alternet an inappropriate source. You get a revert, UNLESS you can back it up. Eat it. 909er 02:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)" [68]
  1. (Evidence of attempts to request Mediation, including Request for Comment) ElKevbo: "It's clear there are several disagreements which are not being resolved to anyone's satisfaction. I recommend we call a truce, cease editing the article for a bit, and look into one of the mediation options such as an Request for Comment. What say ye?" --ElKevbo 02:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Evidence of failure of attempt 2) UCRGrad: "I do not agree to mediation, and here's why..." UCRGrad 02:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[69]


I would like the ARBCOM to note. Most all of these comments are several months old. Insert-Belltower 20:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Amerique

I began posting to the University of California, Riverside article in an attempt to mediate between UCRGrad and others involved in long term disputes concerning its quality. I thought I could possibly get parties involved on the same page by promoting a collective initiative to edit the article to featured status. However, this initiative has failed in that UCRGrad has continued to exhibit the same interpersonal behavior and attitude toward the article which has lead to its talk page filling over 6 archives [70] of protests, complaints, and dedicated informal interventions largely against his activities there. UCRGrad's insertions of negative information about UCR, when appropriately referenced, are to this editor not the problem so much as his absolute insistence on phrasing this and otherwise neutral information as a means of casting the worst possible impression of the university. On the article's talk page, he continually makes speculative assertions attacking the personal expertise and qualifications of others to edit even minor points of the article[71], belittles editors he disagrees with as "confused" [72] and makes a rhetorical show of "agreeing" with the suggestions of some editors towards improving the article in order to justify including some items only of importance to his personal agenda[73]. Several editors have ceased working on the article due to UCRGrad's conduct both on the talk page and in the article, and other than some contributions I made to attempt to propel collective development, there has been little progress in the article other than in lateral directions. It seems to some editors, including myself now, that attempts to impartially improve the article further would either be met with outright hostility or else be incorporated as a means of justifying or allowing for UCRGrad's particular point of view of the subject, which in effect becomes rendered as the point of view of Wikipedia. As the likelihood of this situation changing soon without a formal arbitration hearing seems minimal, I hereby request the intervention of the arbitration committee towards resolving this ongoing conflict.--Amerique 15:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Morven's Comments
Regarding Morven's observation that this is not a "one impossible editor" situation, that editors on all sides have been contentious, I would like to point out that while this is clearly true, still the malfesance has been primarily been directed against the activities of two editors, apparantly working in conjunction, the second of whom has involved himself in this RFARB in defense of UCRGrad. A review of the UCR talk page archives will substantiate that these two editors started posting at approximately the same time, have never once disagreed with each other, and have both used abusive sockpuppets against other editors contributing to the article. Several attempts at informal dispute resolution have been made by third parties or newcomers to the case, most notably sustained by Aucaman here[74] before dialogue between all degenerated into contention. From my position as the filer of this RFARB, the Arbitration Committee must take a firm stand against behavior that instigates this sort of long-term, severe contention between editors. Thank you--Amerique 17:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ElKevbo

Definitely proving that UCRGrad has blatantly violated Wikipedia policies may be difficult. However, I believe through his or her edits to the UCR article (the only article that he or she edits) have established a pattern of POV-pushing, article ownership, and uncivility (including several ad hominem attacks). I attempted over the course of several weeks to make good-faith edits to the UCR page and reach consensus with UCRGrad and another editor who exclusively edits that article but my edits were almost uniformly rejected. Attempts to reach compromise were also fruitless as he or she rejected all of my arguments and unilaterally edited the page to reflect his or her views. I also asked if it would be appropriate to use the RFC process to deal with these issues but my query was never answered. I regularly edit several highly contentious and high traffic articles, including many universities and schools, and this is the only article I have removed from my watchlist out of frustration as UCRGrad was completely unwilling to reach consensus (as documented above, he or she even rejected my plea for some form of voluntary mediation, thus rendering nearly all of the options listed by UCR as "Dispute Resolution Avenues NOT attempted" moot). In my interactions with this user I have found him or her to be unwilling to live up to the Wikipedia community's standards of compromise and collegiality. This has resulted in a very POV article about the University of California, Riverside. I think UCR and the Wikipedia community deserve better. --ElKevbo 14:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WHS

After following the progress of both the UCR article and its talk page over the course of the past few months, it appears to me that UCRGrad has continued to violate numerous Wikipedia policies, as referenced by the two above statements. Due to his or her actions, the quality of the article has dropped significantly and many editors have ceased work on it out of frustration. I myself have been reluctant for some time to make any contributions to it since I, after seeing the confrontational attitude displayed by UCRGrad throughout the article's archives, have become convinced that any change which he or she doesn't agree with would just be reverted in any case. Indeed, even tags on the page which indicated that the topic is a heated source of debate or that there is a POVdispute have been removed, presumably to give the reader of the article the impression that edits made by UCRGrad were the consensus of all the editors working on the article. This sort of alienating behavior serves only to the detriment of Wikipedia and its community and should not be allowed to continue. It seems unlikely to me that these transgressions will cease without any formal intervention, and I am therefore concuring with the request for arbitration on this matter. WHS 23:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by calwatch

I agree with the above. Calwatch 02:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Insert-Belltower

I have been editing the UC Riverside article for sometime now and I wish to make a few brief comments on this action take by the above members.

I do NOT think UCRGrad’s actions, comments, or discourse on Wikipedia warrant a Request for Arbitration.

The above comments by Amerique, ElKevbo and WHS, which are intended to indict UCRGrad, present a very slanted view on the situation. More simply, they selectively pick out comments from the discussion and spin them to fit their own intrepretations. One particularly troubling misrepresentation is when ElKevbo says that UCRGrad is “completely unwilling to reach consensus,” a statement that is totally inaccurate based upon the discussion in TALK there has been numerous times when UCRGrad has agreed with other editors 1. In comparison, ElKevbo’s own remarks have been the most profane and confrontational written to date on the TALK, with one such example 2. I would suggest that member look at how his/her own actions are contributing to a lack of consensus, rather than baselessly accusing a single member (UCRGrad) whose only “mistake” is being a careful and thorough editor. Interestingly, Amerique makes the remark that he/she’s intention is to “get parties involved on the same page by promoting a collective initiative to edit the article,” which, after some thought, I think to mean “form a consensus.” Although when he/she didn’t agree with a particular edit, Amerique labels the other editors as “clowns” 3—a remark I find extremely reprehensible and inconsistent with someone who is attempting to promote a “collective initiative.” Another comment by WHS, “tags on the page…that there is a POV dispute have been removed,” is also completely inaccurate because the NPOV tag dispute has been previously discussed with UCRGrad, as well as other editors, and it was agreed upon to be removed. WHS would have not made this comment upon a more thorough investigation of the achives.

After reviewing UCRGrad’s remarks for several months now, I can agree that he/she has unique writing style that is “to-the-point.” This reflects a true commitment for the truth, and a desire to edit articles in an efficient and precise manner. His/her actions and comments do not suggest anything more than this. Indeed, I have NEVER felt intimated or threatened by these his/her comments whenever we disagreed on any issue related to the article.

In light of these observations, including the misrepresentations of the aforementioned USERS, I strongly do NOT support a request for arbitration because it lacks no substantial basis and it would be a waste of time for all members involved. Insert-Belltower 02:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jahamal

In my days before deciding to edit on wikipedia, I was browsing through articles, when I came across the UCR article. I noticed the tag that said it was a hotly disputed, so I checked out the talk page. After about an hour of reading I decided to get involved in the discussion, but before that I read up on all of the archives of past discussions. I came to the conclusion that any edit made at that time would stand the chance of being lost due to a number of editors tendency to revert the entire article. So instead I decided to make myself heard in the discussion. Well, that wasn't a plesent experience. Shortly after I joined, UCRGrad posted a response that basically chastized me for not reading the arguements that had already taken place. He then went on to say he would not repeat his arguement and he had already answered my conceren. Well, I did not feel that he had answered my concern at all, in fact he totally ignored all of the points I tried to make. So I posted back and he again replied in the same manner, claiming victory on all points involved, but yet never answering any point of mine. Well, every post I made was met with equal resitance and/or flat out ignored. I became discouraged and dropped the arguement because it was a waste of time. So when mediation was brought up, I thought that would be a good idea. So I tried to champion that idea. I was met with much of the same resistance as before, UCRGrad ignoring points, and claiming that the arguement had already been resolved. After a long "discussion" with him/her, the only reason I could find against getting mediation from UCRGrad was that he/she did not want to have to reargue all of the arguements, and mor ework on his/her part was unfair. Since then I really have not done much, not having seen the point. I sinery feel something needs to be done to break the giant stalemate on the article, anything. The article just needs to get moving again in any direction. --jahamal 17:21 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Reject for now. I don't see sufficient evidence that this needs to be taken to arbitration, nor do I see much attempt to resolve things in any other way. Furthermore, the contention around the UC Riverside article seems to have produced a pretty decent college article, devoid of a lot of the fluff such articles tend to attract, so I don't think any contention between the editors has damaged the encyclopedia. Being difficult to work with is not sufficient to be brought to arbitration, IMO. Besides, a quick read of the talk pages and article history shows that a number of editors on all sides have been stubborn, hard to work with and contentious; I don't see that this is completely a 'one impossible editor' situation. I would enjoin all parties to work better at assuming some good faith and attempting to write an accurate and neutral article. However, UCRGrad should consider himself warned to never attempt sockpuppetry again; if he does so, then he may indeed find himself on the censured side of an arbcom case. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject, UCRGrad presents a signifcant point of view. Fred Bauder 20:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. - SimonP 18:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Hodge

Involved parties

User:Stephen Hodge
User:RandomCritic

User:Stephen Hodge attempted to invade User:RandomCritic's privacy by posting information that he believed would reveal User:RandomCritic's identity on User talk:RandomCritic.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
User talk:Stephen Hodge#RFAR
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
In the course of discussion at Talk:Anatta#Response to RandomCritic I repeatedly told User:Stephen Hodge that I would not reveal personal information about myself and requested that he cease his demands that I do so. Further details are in the statement below.

Statement by User:RandomCritic

In the course of a content/POV dispute at Talk:Anatta, User:Stephen Hodge began by criticizing my use of Wikipedia handle that was not my actual name:
"On the other hand, as you are one of these people who conveniently chose to hide behind a childish pseudonym..."
I responded by explaining why I did not use my real name:
"I am sorry that you find my handle childish, but it is a matter of no significance at all and I see no reason for you to bring it up. I am disinclined to provide any personal information on Wikipedia, as it easily opens up opportunities for abuse."
User:Stephen Hodge replied:
"I bring up the question of your pseudonym because it conveniently conceals your identity and prevents others from checking your credentials which, as in this instance, you choose not to share. Credentials are important when evaluating a person's articles and critiques thereof -- if one challenges the accuracy of some article, it would be nice to know what a person's qualifications are for doing this. [...] Unless one has real fears of persecution, this habit of using pseudonyms is rather childish in my opinion and more suited to informal chatrooms."
I again rejected his call for my personal information:
"As for your demands for personal information about me and my history, they are impertinent and immaterial, and I have no intention of satisfying your curiosity and opening myself up to hate mail, the entire spectrum of internet harrassment, and other forms of attacks. You may stop asking."
User:Stephen Hodge responded with the following two messages at User talk:RandomCritic:
"I also note from Fanart-Central Net that you and Yoji are known to each other outside of the Wikipedia pages, as well as giving your actual identity and some other interesting information about yourself, if that can be believed.--Stephen Hodge 22:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
"Gosh, got that down quickly -- but it was a only pseudonym ! Don't worry: I won't divulge your real name, though it wasn't too hard to find -- I'm only interested in your Wikipedia input. Still, nice pictures. Have you done any more ?--Stephen Hodge 02:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
As a note of explanation, "Yoji" is User:Stephen Hodge's nickname for User:Vapour, a person entirely unknown to me outside of Wikipedia. The person User:Stephen Hodge discovered at Fanart-Central is not me and is a person unknown to me. However, I do not believe this is relevant to User: Stephen Hodge's attempt to find and publicize personal information about me, which (he believes) is accessible at this site. I note that Wikipedia:Harassment states that posting personal information is harassment, "regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct". I regard this as a form of intended harassment, and I take his message on my talk page as an implicit threat to continue to try to find information about me and publicize it on Wikipedia. And although there is no actual link to any correct information about me, I am concerned that User:Stephen Hodge's message may lead, or may have already led, to harassment of the person he has incorrectly identified as me. Given that this attempted harassment follows my explicit request not to seek personal information about me, I have reason to believe that User:Stephen Hodge will not respond to my own requests to cease his efforts to find and publicize my identity, and therefore request arbitration.RandomCritic 14:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2

This dispute has arisen at the end of a long and acrimonious POV dispute involving a third party. User:RandomCritic made ad hominem attacks on this third party user's Pali language expertise on largely POV grounds. I questioned User:RandomCritic's own linguistic qualifications, since the attacks had a substantial POV slant. The argument then shifted to a question of my own linguistic qualifications. I responded that these may be easily ascertained, as I am reasonably well-known in my field and use my real name, and mentioned that his/her claims to this specialist knowledge cannot be similarly ascertained. To corroborate this, I mentioned results that a Google search would yield on my name. While doing this Google search myself beforehand, I also did a Google search for "RandomCritic" and found mention of a second RandomCritic on a graphics/animé website. I do not believe that this second RandomCritic is the same person, but nevertheless, the minimal amount of purported personal information that may be found there, is a) in the public domain and thus accessible to anybody without restriction and b) is insufficient to identify any actual person.

User:RandomCritic has asserted several times that myself and another user are the joint creators of a certain website, thus:

"both Page and Hodge are co-creators of the Parinirvana Sutra site listed in the External Links list" User:RandomCritic 05:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to which I replied:

"I am categorically not a co-creator and I have nothing whatsoever to do with it, beyond the fact that Dr Page uses material he has paid me to translate for him. Would you please retract that statement ?" User:Stephen Hodge 22:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As no retraction was forthcoming, despite several denials of this from both myself and the other user and a request that this false claim be withdrawn, my messages to User:RandomCritic were intended humorously as a satirical ripostes to this allegation. It is regrettable that these jocular ripostes have been misunderstood.

The suggestion that I might send hate mail to this User:RandomCritic or anybody else is a malicious and unsubstantiated slur.

Prior to posting this RFAR, User:RandomCritic posted the following to my user page:

I pity whatever poor person you have me confused with when you start sending her (or him) hatemail. You really don't have it together, Hodge. I recommend a vacation. User:RandomCritic 12:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been advised that this statement is probably defamatory as I use my true identity. I replied (before reading his RFAR):

For heaven's sake, lighten up ! Do a RandomCritic google and you'll get the joke. As for hate-mail, sorry you wouldn't get any from me even if I knew your address: you might be a bit of a schmuck but hardly hateful. User:Stephen Hodge 15:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe User:RandomCritic's RFAR possibly to be based on a misunderstanding of what was meant as a humorous riposte. But, additionally, because of the sequence of messages, I believe it is possible that this RFAR is a subterfuge to have my editing rights curtailed in an attempt to suppress information from me with which User:RandomCritic disagrees, even if written NPOV, as evidenced by the following:

I wrote previously:

"I am minded to re-write or start anew with this article and produce something that will hopefully be agreeable to most reasonable and fair-minded users"

to which User:RandomCritic replied:

"I have concerns about your ability to present a neutral point of view, as I understand you are not a disinterested party".

Then very recently, User:RandomCritic wrote on User:Vapour's talk page:

"I think the whole page is no good from beginning to end, and I've been endeavouring to put together a version with proper citations and a neutral point of view, but it is likely to be some days or weeks before I can finish it". RandomCritic 05:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

to which I replied:

I see that User:RandomCritic is also writing another version of the anatta page. Let's see how our versions compare -- perhaps they can be merged. I presume you will not include any non NPOV assertions based on Theravadin material and translations. I shall challenge you all the way :) User:Stephen Hodge 22:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is my impression that User:RandomCritic does not relish the idea that his/her contribution will be subjected to NPOV scrutiny. --Stephen Hodge 21:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Añoranza

Involved parties

Añoranza has edited hundreds of Wikipedia articles removing "propaganda terms" and apparently will not rest until they are all gone. He quickly assumes anyone opposing him is engaged in a personal attack. He never accepts no for an answer and always has to have the last word.

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)

Statement by Añoranza

Ideogram's first edit at my talk page was informing me about this request for arbitration.
NSLE blocked me with an absurd summary, then for "evading a block", committed by anonymous IPs signing with my name. Checkuser showed they were unrelated to me. I am very glad an admin behaving like NSLE who never apologized for what he did to me got desysopped.
The countless misdeeds of Zer0faults are noted at his RFC case and started well before the operation name disagreement. As an illustration, of his last 1000 edits more than 5% were at the administrator's noticeboard. I find his continued attempts to discredit me by misrepresenting facts extremely tyring and note that jointly writing an encyclopedia is not about wasting each other's time.
Several users personally attacked me when I noted the obviously propagandistic nature of military operation names like "operation just cause", "operation iraqi freedom" or "operation peace for galilee" that should be avoided for the sake of neutrality. I even got blocked for a 3RR violation that was none by an admin who was in a conflict of interest. He never apologized either and instead invited others to block me. For the sarcastic comment that he should learn to count I got a whole week block while others could vandalize my user page, call me "rabid anti-American", "disgusting", "intolerable troll", "POV pusher" and whatnot without any penalty. As to the admins who allegedly all agree about my naughtiness, please note this: [75]. I see that some people have hot feelings about their military, however, official policy is to avoid propaganda names as article titles, and the explanation as well as the mere policy of NPOV clearly show they should be avoided if possible altogether. Añoranza 23:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Zer0faults

After noticing Anoranza attempting to remove operation names from Wikipedia, I filled an incident report. [76] I was hoping to find out if this was permitted action and to seek clarity. THe whoelsale removal of the term Operation Iraqi Freedom from wikipedia seemed to be a form of censorship, it was also never discussed prior to the action. I filed a second one after it seemed the first wave had ceased and a second had begun, this is after reverting some of the edits and tellnig the user I feel they are doing something they should not. During this time User:Cyde had stated Anoranza edits were overzealous. [77] Another debate took place in that incident report. After the user became aware of the two incident reports they filed a RfC against me. This user has also filed an RFCU against me since then [78] and a 3RR violation report, where I was stopped an anon user from creating a redirect that had not been discussed. [79] The anon aol user has since been banned and continued to evade their block afterwards. I have tried to resolve the RfC with this user [80] but they became hostile and ceased to participate. Myself an admin have asked Anoranza to participate in a discussion regarding the oepration names [81] however they have not yet and continue to cite a guideline that is focused on titles, as proof articles should not contain operation names. I am personally at my wits end, this user does not seem to want to take advice, or even find middleground. I have offered numerous starting points for a compromise, however they have not even taken then into consideration it seems. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:NSLE

User talk:NSLE/Archive 12#Warning for personal attack - shows the user's incivility, as well as unco-operativeness, despite a logical and clear defense of my actions by both Gmaxwell and Ian13. This edit summary shows more of the above. I had blocked Anoranza for personal attacks and incivility for a week (during which the desysopping incident occured), after a complaint had been made to WP:ANI. This user has made absolutely no attempt to get along with others. While I admit "intollerable troll" was incivil on my part, this user needs to stop assuming bad faith.

The way I see it, there are two parts to this request.

  1. The user's constant assumptions of bad faith and incivility.
  2. The user's refusal to co-operate and insistence on making his non-constructive edits.

NSLE 09:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Haizum

Since the editor in question has cited me (disingenuously) in his/her defensive reponse[82], I believe I have a right to comment. Any attempt to question this editor's intent on his/her talk page, or even an article talk page results in bombastic NPA and AGF warning templates and unenforcable blocking threats. Attempting to remove these unwarranted templates has resulted in the reversion of the cleanup and the addition of more templates. This user then weaponized an Incident Report against me[83] that was quickly deleted by an Administrator [84]. The links to my talk page history are as follows: [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] -- Haizum 00:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ecophreek

Actually I have no idea what to write, any disagreement with this user and it immediately starts posting NPA tags everywhere, then when you remove them it gives you empty warnings, that it can't back up because there were no personal attacks to begin with. This was translated into "POV Pusher" which is somehow an "attack", "trolling behaviour" was translated as an "attack", "rvt vandalism by blocked user" was translated into an "attack",... you begin to get the picture? This user is on a "holy crusade" and any infidels in it's way are to be dealt with in an incivil and uncompromising fashion. Once it gets on your nerves so bad by constantly changing your userpage to add crap and useless threats and you DO get a little incivil it starts bemoaning your incivility. Frankly, I'm just tired of the stuff this user starts up. It's day just isn't complete unless it manages to tick someone off. IMHO it should be like it is with English (British) vs English (American) vs et al. Whatever country the subject is dealing with, the article should be in that language, if it's about American operations, it should use American Operation names. (Actually both should be in the article.) If it was written by an American, then the American usage should apply. It's really simple, however this user refuses to reach a compromise. I can guarantee that the discussion the user is involved in below is going nowhere, if it's agenda is not met or the consensus reached does not agree with it's goals it will continue in the same vein it is currently engaged in. And when shown the WikiProject MILHIST guideline/proposal so that it could join in the discussion instead started posting selected parts of it as it's new mantra as you can see above in it's statement as "official policy" when it is no such thing. This has been explained over and over ad nauseum to no effect. That's really all I have to say on the matter, except for the fact that statements like "I am very glad an admin behaving like NSLE who never apologized for what he did to me got desysopped." is typical, even though the user is suddenly pushing the POV that what happened to NSLE was in direct correlation to it rather than what actually happened.← ΣcoPhreek 07:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kirill Lokshin

First, a minor clarification: the "policy" Añoranza refers to is (a) just a WikiProject guideline, with explicit warnings about not applying it blindly and (b) in reference to article titles.

The original cause of the dispute here—that Añoranza had not been willing to discuss the issues with using operational names—seems to have been resolved, since he has joined the ongoing discussion regarding a guideline for their use. While there may indeed be a potential case here based on civility and general behavior issues, I suspect that this affair can be concluded more-or-less amicably if the underlying content dispute is resolved. I would therefore ask that the Committee allow more time for discussion—and possibly Mediation—before allowing this request to proceed. Kirill Lokshin 11:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Habap

Having just been accused of vandalism by Añoranza, I feel compelled to add my name to the list of complainants. I did not remove a dispute tag twice (as the quoted description of types of vandalism states). Importantly, the policy states "Please note that placing or removal of dispute tags does not count as simple vandalism".

Añoranza is quoting a proposed project guideline as Wikipedia policy, which is very deceptive. His edit summaries have been sometimes POV and other times deceptive. I think WP:POINT may be a good read for him. --Habap 04:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ideogram

My attention was drawn to this case by this. Upon examining the RFC I noted a long threaded conversation in defiance of basic RFC policy. In response I created the talk page and posted this. You can also see Anoranza's initial response there.

You can see all the ensuing discussion on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Zer0faults.

My initial impression of Zer0faults was positive, so I posted this to the project page.

I observed that the threaded discussion was continuing, so I posted this.

I also noted that the primary participants seemed to be Zer0faults and Anoranza, so I posted this.

I thought I would drop a comment on User:Gorgonzilla's talk page, and found Anoranza and Zer0faults already there. So I posted this.

In response I received this.

At this point I got curious, so I looked into Anoranza's edit history. I found it very disturbing. Ideogram 14:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Cyde Weys

I haven't looked at Anoranza's edits in detail, but I do agree with him that, in the interests of neutrality, we refer to events by their colloquial names rather than their propaganda names. Notice how 2003 invasion of Iraq isn't located at Operation Iraqi Liberation. Besides being chosen for propaganda purposes, the military opreational names are not used by other countries involved in the conflict and will be almost totally unknown in countries other than the United States. Someone from Australia might reasonably be expected to find Iraq War or 2003 invasion of Iraq. The articles are already located at these appropriately neutral names, so they should be referred to correctly from other articles as well. --Cyde↔Weys 19:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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



Requests for Clarification

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

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]

Article probation remedy for Election

Does the ArbCom intend that Phil Sandifer, a party to the Election case, have the same power to ban other editors from the articles involved that the ArbCom is granting to administrators in general in Remedy 2.1? If not, could that please be made explicit? I am concerned about the chilling effect on editors such as myself who wish to continue editing the articles but do not agree with Phil in certain respects which could invite the abuse of this new remedy. I'm not opposed to the remedy for other admins in general; nor am I suggesting that Phil would likely ever take part in such a clear conflict of interest. It's just that I, and I think others, would be more likely to help improve the articles if this unlikely possibility were considerably more remote. 71.132.140.65 08:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators involved in a conflict are never supposed to use their adminship to gain the upper hand in the conflict. If he were to, arbcom decision or no, it would be wrong. I don't see any reason to make a specific remedy to this effect, especially since there has been no evidence presented of him abusing adminship in this case. Dmcdevit·t 15:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Phil did threaten to block me for disagreeing with him, describing my conduct erroneously as 'vandalism', on a related article (the 3rd, aborted VfD, if I recall) on which he was an editor. I believe that diff was presented. However, since he didn't actually follow thru on his threat, I guess that's been taken to mean that there's been no evidence presented. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:56, 24 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." [90]

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]

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=60571732"