Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

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.

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

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

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

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

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

• Arbitration policy
• Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
• Developer help needed
• Arbitration template
• Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How to present a case - Recommended reading: An (unofficial) guide to presenting effective Arbitration cases.

Purge the server cache

How to list cases

Under the Current requests section below:

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

Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template

Current requests

2004 Election Controversy

• 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities (edit | [[Talk:Talk:2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Involved parties

• Phil_Sandifer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• RyanFreisling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Noosphere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kevin_Baas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tbeatty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

All parties have been informed. Phil Sandifer 06:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

RfCs have been filed on this article, and the mediation cabal has been called in. The fact of the matter is, this article has been a problem for 18 months and has shown no signs of improvement. If there were going to be a breakthrough, there would be one by now - but the discussion can't even get past the question of whether a dispute has actually been raised, and those who complain about the article are being written off as trolls. The Wiki method in all of its nice forms has spectacularly failed. Unfortunately, this requires the intervention of the less nice forms. Phil Sandifer 06:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Phil, could you please provide links to these attempts? Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Phil Sandifer

For some time, 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities and its eight sub-articles have been a hotbed of POV pushing, abominable sourcing, and the sort of reckless expansionism that goes on with current events topics as they appear in the news, coupled with the reluctance to edit that often takes place in the months following. Unlike articles about living people, which tend to generate helpful complaints to the office that get these problems fixed, the election articles have sat basically untouched. Every attempt to take care of the problem over the past 18 months has been met by the most basic refusal to engage the issues – NPOV tags are removed saying that no dispute has been raised [1], complaints about giving undue weight to minority points of view are shot down as not being based in policy [2], and attempts to detail the appalling sourcing are met with requests to repeat an hour’s work, only this time with links to make it clearer [3]. The expectation on the part of other editors – most egregiously Ryan and Noosphere – is that those who object to the article must fix it themselves instead of adding dispute tags [4]. The tactics point towards a clear desire to keep the article in its current form, and some of the proponents of its current form have explicitly stated their goal of representing under-represented viewpoints. And all of this is done with a healthy dose of assumptions of bad faith [5]. The result is a series of articles that leans entirely on the partisan press and blogs for a story that was never widely reported. The problem is analogous to obscure pseudosciences where there is next to no material against them because nobody ever took them seriously enough to refute – or, alternatively, to LaRouche.

A quick comment regarding Xed's statement... absolutely all of it is completely untrue. Phil Sandifer 15:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted, lest this be seen as me raising Xed 3, Xed is not actually involved in this dispute. Phil Sandifer 17:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Xed

The request revolves around a content dispute. Content disputes are not covered by "Requests for arbitration" as far as I know. Throughout the process Sandifer has been in the minority in regards to views on the future direction of the article. The progression of this issue is as follows:

1. Without discussing any issues, Phil Sandifer adds NPOV tags to the article
2. When asked to provide specific reasons for adding these tags, he refuses
3. Phil Sandifer declares himself "baffled" that he is being accused of adding tags without discussion
4. He is asked that "if you have a problem with a specific citation just point it out, and give us a specific reason why. "
5. Sandifer declines
6. Sandifer is asked again
7. Sandifer relents and explains his opposition is based on the fact that the information is from local newspapers
8. Sandifer starts to remove sources
9. Sandifer says, "Who is Greg Palast, and why is his POV being reported?". Palast is a notable BBC journalist.
10. Sandifer compares article to LaRouche and pseudoscience (see above)

-Xed 11:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by tbeatty

I have been an editor of this article. Phil's statement and concerns are absolutely correct. Certain editors feel they "own" the article, notably RyanFreisling. There is not one, but two separate NPOV Dispute sections in the talk page. The editor/owners somehow dispute that there is a dispute about NPOV which is illogical on it's face. The article needs be rewritten (or merged and deleted into the 2004 election article). The NPOV tag serves as creating a flag for other editors to fix the POV issues with this article.

The outcome of the RfA should be to ban the offending editors from editing this article as their attempted "ownership" of it is disruptive. This will allow other editors to fix the POV issues without having to fight over small things such as tagging the article. --Tbeatty 17:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I see I have been added as a party. I was not originally listed. I haven't been involved in the article for very long (I haven't been through the RfC or the deletion votes) but my comments above speak for themselves. The editor/owners of this article have used content disputes with other editors as precursors to threats of banning, other RfA's and other administrative action. --Tbeatty 23:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by RyanFreisling

Ever since Snowspinner / Phil Sandifer posted his attack message to the wiki-en mailing list titled "So what do we do about this?" in October 2005, in which he threw up his hands, absolved himself of personal editorial responsibility and began howling for the heads of the article's editors, It has been abundantly clear to me that his objection to this article is NOT about the neutrality of the assertions in the article, nor the origin or objectivity of the sources cited in those assertions. Phil says:

"The articles are, needless to say, utter crap - full of conspiracy theory rantings and POV, they read like the collected waste products of a month of blogging, which is, not coincidentally, exactly what they are." {...} We need some sort of system that's going to untangle this kind of mess - something that doesn't rely on enough people with a whit of common sense watchlisting the articles and being willing to angrily revert the stupid, because, quite frankly, that obviously didn't work here." [6]

Phil has stridently declared ever since that 'editing the article is impossible', and that it represents a 'stunning failure of Wikipedia process'.

In refusing to participate, it's quite clear to me that the failure is not Wikipedia - it is in fact Phil who has failed. He has failed to engage in basic productive editing. He has failed to convince others in good faith of the veracity and depth of his complaints. He has failed to implement his vision of 'what he should do about this' in anything other than a threatening and disrespectful way. With his email's title, Phil makes plain that he is the one who has the true 'ownership' obsession with the article(s).

Whether due to laziness or an abject lack of specific domain knowledge, Beyond 'angrily reverting the stupid', Phil has utterly failed to participate in good faith to improve the article and sees his failure as being the result of the actions of others, who despite his protestations have been engaging as editors in good faith.

As an illustration of my behavior, please refer to the links in Phil's statement. Each example Phil provided, alleging to substantiate claims of my 'egregious conduct', is an edit of which I am in fact proud. In each specific instance I believe I acted in good faith towards the community and consensus, and with the best interests of the article in mind.

Xed's summary of Phil's behavior is indeed accurate in my eyes.

Moreover, when a user trusted with powers of an administrator stands up and claims the Wikipedia process has failed miserably, he had better be certain he's tried everything in the book to follow the process first - including addressing content issues in good faith - otherwise, he's willingly engaging in a lasting and damaging violation of WP:POINT.

Please reinforce Wikipedia process, and turn this case over to effective mediation. Tbeatty and Phil Sandifer both chose not to engage the mediator and have a not made a good-faith effort at conflict resolution, nor productively addressing real content issues. Such is not the Wikipedia way. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Recusal request: In light of this post on the Wiki-en mailing list, I feel it is unlikely this case will be heard objectively by Fred Bauder, who has already accused some of the editors here himself, in hardly objective terms:

"Exactly, excellent parallel {LaRouche}; although, this POV bunch is a bit bigger and better organized. And intimidating."

With all due respect, I'd like to ask him to recuse on the grounds that he has expressed a specific bias against this specific article's specific editors, and for the complainant. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Noosphere

I support Xed's summary.

But just to give anyone new to this controversy some perspective, this article has been a hotbed of controversy ever since it began around the time of the 2004 US Presidential elections. The debate on the article is clearly polarized in to two camps. In the camp that has consistently maintained that the artilce is notable, worth keeping, and tracks a real controversy in a NPOV way are myself, RyanFreisling, Kevin Baas, and a number of less regular editors. The other camp are Phil Sandifer, Tbeatty, Merecat, Arkon, and other currently less frequent editors, who seem to believe the opposite.

This article was nominated twice for deletion, with a result of keep both times.[7][8] If you look at these deletion debates you'll see basically the same arguments against this article being made.

The most recent dispute occured when Phil Sandifer mass tagged this article and its sub-articles with the rationale "I have placed an NPOV tag on this article due to its flagrant violation of the "undue weight" provision of WP:NPOV."[9]

When his tagging was challenged Phil replied contemptuously and refused to give details as to which specific parts of the article he thought were in violation of which parts of policy and why.[10] After more pressure to give specific details Phil replied that the reason he thought it violated the undue weight provision of WP:NPOV is because it's long relative to other articles.[11] WP:NPOV in fact says nothing about length relative to other articles, and as an administrator Phil should know better than to make a spurious claim that it does. Phil also claimed it used "local news stories", a claim he would repeat later. In fact, again, there is nothing in WP:NPOV that forbids using local news stories as sources. And again, as an adminitrator Phil should have known better.

After more pressure to name specifics about the article Phil listed a dozen sources, describing the problem he had with most of them with single words, mostly "local" or "POV".[12] Again I pointed out that local news sources were admissable according to WP:NPOV, as were sources that contained POV. WP:NPOV does not forbid sources expressing POV, in fact it allows for a plurality of POV, not just the most popular ones, as long as they are properly cited. Once again, as an admin Phil should have known better.

Eventually Phil decided that instead of discussing further he would "return to ignoring everything you say"[13]

This is just a small sample of what went on. In general Phil's approach to the article went as follows: he starts by making vague generalizations and unsubstantiated allegations, hours and dozens of pleas for specifics later he provides a slightly less vague accusation and a thoroughly misinterpreted policy justification. Then when it's pointed out to him that there's nothing in the policy that justifies what he maintains, he insists that it is really the spirit of the policy that is being violated, and then he returns to step one with the vague and unsubstantiated generalizations.

I should also mention that Phil has made a blatantly false accusation in this RfA itself when he said I'd claimed that "those who object to the article must fix it themselves instead of adding dispute tags", and I challenge him to find a single edit of mine that to substantiate this allegation.

Another misrepresentation of his is that mediation has been tried in this dispute. In fact, the only attempt at mediation on this page I'm aware of was when I had called in the Mediation Cabal two months ago myself.[14] But it was for a completely unrelated dispute. Phil was not even around. The only people involved were Arkon, me, RyanFreisling, Kevin baas, and three anonymous editors. And it had nothing to do with what's happening now.

Yet another misrepresentation of the facts is Phil's claim that "the election articles have sat basically untouched" and that we have "the most basic refusal to engage the issues". In fact, even during this very dispute I personally deleted a source he had problems with.[15] And when he mass-fact-tagged dozens of sentences in the article[16] dozens of citations were added by myself and RyanFreisling the very next day after many hours of work[17]. We've also engaged every issue he's brought up. The real problem has been that his allegations are many, his substantiations of those allegations are very few.

As for the other editors, Arkon and Tbeatty have chimed in in support of Phil's allegations and edits during this dispute, but have generally kept to the sidelines. The dispute has mostly been between Phil, Kevin Baas, RyanFreisling, and myself.

It is also worth mentioning that it appears the 2nd (Dec 2004) VfD was started by Phil/Snowspinner himself, who seems to have lost none of the contempt he had for the article then, when he claimed it was "the equivalent of listing every person who's ever claimed to be abducted by aliens on Alien Abduction, with spin-off pages for what color they said the aliens were."[18] The two VfDs didn't accomplish what he wanted, it's unlikely that another VfD would result in a different outcome, and his attempts to delete the article through other means have failed so it appears he hopes to get this accomplished through the arbitration committee.

Finally, I would like to say that this is my first AfD, so please correct me if I've messed up in the procedure of posting this statement or something. -- noosphere 02:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Kevin Baas

I find it a bit ironic that an administrator (Phil Sandifer) proposes that other editors be banned from editing the article, then accuses them of having ownership agendas. Kevin Baas^talk 14:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Accept. Charles Matthews 22:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Accept Fred Bauder 22:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Request to reopen hearing 'Rex071404_4'

Request for reopening of closed Rex071404_4 RfAr [19], for violation of remedies therein. Request ArbCom extends existing blocks on Rex (and known socks) to an indefinite ban for deceptive and disruptive behavior (using sockpuppets to circumvent ArbComm rulings). -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

Rex071404 (talk · contribs) (a/k/a Merecat (talk · contribs), Anon Texan (talk · contribs), 70.84.56.166 (talk · contribs)

Prior petitioners:

• Mr. Tibbs (talk · contribs)
• JamesMLane (talk · contribs)
• Woohookitty (talk · contribs)
• Derex (talk · contribs)
• Jtdirl (talk · contribs)
• Szyslak (talk · contribs)
• Kizzle (talk · contribs) (involved but not submitting evidence)
• Dmcdevit (talk · contribs)

ArbCom members who accepted the original case:

• Kelly Martin (talk · contribs)
• The Epopt (talk · contribs)
• Mindspillage (talk · contribs)
• Jayjg (talk · contribs)
• Fred Bauder (talk · contribs)

RyanFreisling (talk · contribs) (requesting reopening)

Additional petitioners:

• Kevin Baas (talk · contribs)

Brief summary

As Rex071404 (talk · contribs) (a/k/a Merecat (talk · contribs), Anon Texan (talk · contribs), 70.84.56.166 (talk · contribs)) this editor has been banned from editing John Kerry. In the recent sockpuppet guise of 'Merecat' ([20], [21], [22]) he has violated ArbCom's ban by making 20 separate edits to the article. [23], (URL to diffs is below). In addition Merecat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in, and received numerous blocks for) disruptive editing across a number of politically charged articles, and has been the subject of an RfC. Accordingly, I request that the prior hearing be reopened in light of these new, more egregious violations (using sockpuppets to circumvent a permanent ban in particular, and disruptive editing), and appropriate remedies applied.

Note, Merecat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s initial block was lifted at my request, in order to permit him to respond here [24]. He chose not to, and has since been indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing and instructed to email an arbitrator [25] in order to have the block lifted to permit him a response here. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[26], [27]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

4 prior ArbCom hearings, most notably this one [28]. One RfC [29].

Statement by party 1

User:Rex071404 has violated his ArbComm permanent ban on article John Kerry.

In direct violation of a prior permanent ban on editing the John Kerry article, Rex071404 (talk · contribs), the subject of 4 prior RfA's, has taken on the sockpuppet ([30], [31], [32]) Merecat (talk · contribs), and in that guise, has willingly violated the ban.

None of his edits to the John Kerry article are disruptive. However, according to the enforcement term of the hearing, Rex has violated the term that permanently banned him from editing the article.

Merecat's edits to the John Kerry article are available here [33].

The Checkuser report for Merecat / Anon Texan / 70.84.56.166 / Rex is here: [34]. Mackensen further commented on this here: [35]

In addition, there are numerous examples of trollish techniques (shifting arguments, personal attacks, rhetorical devices, aggressiveness, parrotting, vote stacking, undiscussed article moves, ignoring or deleting talk page requests, deleting other users' comments from article and user talk pages, revert warring, accusations against others of vandalism, 3RR violations, anon avoidance of blocks, etc.) displayed in his edit history that violate the remedy in that same RfAr allowing additional blocks for disruptive editing on other articles. I will provide diffs for that conduct if appropriate, but that conduct is not central to this specific issue.

In light of this specific violation of specific RfAr remedies, I request that his prior ArbCom hearing be reopened, and his behavior assessed against the history, decisions and remedies made there by the ArbCom.

Update: Note that Merecat chose not to directly respond to my question about the likelihood / reasonable conclusion that he is Rex, but instead asked me to use an alternate page and to 'be more specific'. I see this behavior as atypical of one wrongly accused of being a sock of a blocked/banned user. He appears to not wish to respond to this RfAr request. In addition, given Tbeatty's comments below representing the POV that none of Merecat's edits were disruptive, I guess I'll have to go further and gather all the specific examples of disruptive behavior as mentioned above for addition to this RfAr.

The articles that Merecat disrupted have suffered as a direct result of his behavior. And now there's no reasonable doubt that he is Rex - a well-known troll - deliberately evading his prior ArbComm remedies. Such conduct is wrong whatever the political POV of the miscreant - and I did not participate in the prior RfAr's. To cause this much disruption is really wrong and really shouldn't be tolerated by a responsible community.

I ask that it be considered that 4 or more ArbCom hearings may in fact be more than enough time and effort already taken from the work of the encyclopedia to address the proven bad faith of one troll, and that enough is in fact enough. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

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

Statement by Tbeatty (talk · contribs)

Since it's stipulated that none of the edits are disruptive, isn't it proof that Merecat was acting in Good Faith and therefore contributing positiviely to the project. Regardless of whether the "Merecat" account was a sock puppet or not, he has positively contributed to Wikipedia for at least 5 13 months, and in the end isn't this what matters? Ryan's account of Merecat's "violations" are already outlined on an RfC and as far as I can tell the RfC would end in Merecat's favor. Ryan has attempted to stifle dissent to his POV by endlessly attacking this user and using the processes of Wikipedia to essentially prevent people from contributing. Merecat's only violations was of recruiting users to vote on an AfD. He should be blocked for 24 hours. If he is indeed a sock puppet of Rex, his sock puppet should be disabled and he should be warned about using sock puppets. Further, Ryan should be banned from bringing any further ArbCom or RfC actions against Merecat and vice versa. THis is a waste of time for everyone involved. Spending time trying to ban a user who is not disruptive is against the principles of wikipedia. This request should be closed with prejudice.--Tbeatty 01:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Here are stats on the account being accused of being a "sockpuppet" and a "troll":

Username	Merecat
Total edits	2302
Image uploads	4 (4 cur, 0 old)
Distinct pages edited	323
Edits/page (avg)	7.13
First edit	2005-04-13 01:55:13

And here's rex's stats (accused of being a 'known troll'). Simply amazing.

Username	Rex071404
Total edits	6978
Image uploads	11 (8 cur, 3 old)
Distinct pages edited	488
Edits/page (avg)	14.30
First edit	2004-07-21 19:16:46

I have also read with interest those persons arguing for a permanent ban for an infraction (editing the John Kerry page) the ArbCom committee has already concluded should only be for a week. --Tbeatty 03:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Since Merecat is blocked, he will be unable to respond. An administrator has decided an indefinite ban is in order even though over a week has passed since nothing was done about the alleged sockpuppet account and there has been no disruptions by Merecat. --Tbeatty 21:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher131 (talk · contribs)

I am conflicted about this RFAR. I believe Merecat (talk · contribs) has been ganged up on by a group of editors who do not like the fact that he has been editing articles like Rationales to impeach George W. Bush and Movement to impeach George W. Bush from a Republican POV, trying to steer the articles to some sense of neutrality. The RFA filed by Prometheuspan (talk · contribs) and the RFC filed by Nescio (talk · contribs) are examples of this behavior; in the RFC, the overwhemling majority of outside views either support Merecat or place the blame for the conflict equally on Merecat and his opponents. However, the revelation that he was posting from anonymous IPs to avoid a block for disruption, and was likely both the "Anon Texan" and Rex071404 (talk · contribs) are deeply troubling. I urge Arbcom to examine the entire situation, including edit warring, disruptive behavior and personal attacks made by all the parties.

A brief history.

I became aware while editing Killian documents that an anonymous user who was obviously a Republican was making edits from a number of IP addresses that resolve to two Texas ISPs, Everyone's Internet and The Planet. Stbalbach at first identified these edits as coming from the banned user Shran, but we realized the the Anon Texan (for lack of a better name) was a different user. See User:Stbalbach/anontexan for a list of IP addresses. From my experience the Anon Texan was aggressive in eliminating anti-Republican bias, and made edits without respecting consensus, but his edits were not overtly pro-Republican, and a case can be made that when most of the editors working on a highly political article share the same POV, respecting consensus will not eliminate that POV. At the same time, Merecat was involved in editing other political articles including Movement to impeach George W. Bush. I did not edit those articles but I gather his behavior was similar; aggressive removal of what he saw as anti-Bush bias. This resulted in the filing of the aforementioned RFC and RFAR.

On May 2, Rationales to impeach was nominated for Afd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination)). Merecat, Morton devonshire (talk · contribs) and Nescio all sent out messages to users who had edited the article or voted in the first AfD, urging them to vote in the second ("talk page spamming"). The Afd was marred by blanking of votes and other disruptions (including personal attacks by Prometheuspan) and was closed the next day by Cyde (talk · contribs) acting out of process. The closure was overturned at DRV and the article listed a 3rd time. Nescio, Morton Devonshire and Merecat were all blocked for 24 hours for "vote stacking" but since this is an unwritten policy and none of them was warned first, the block on Nescio and Morton was oveturned by another admin. Merecat's block was left in place, possibly because he was blocked by a different admin, who other admins were less willing to overturn, but it is also true that Merecat began sending out talk messages for the 3rd Afd while Morton D and Nescio did not.

During Merecat's block, two of the IPs previously used by the anon Texan resumed talk page spamming regarding the third AfD, and another Texas IP posted a complaint about Merecat's block to the admin who had unblocked the other two editors. So Merecat basically outed himself as the Anon Texan. A checkuser request was made [36] and Mackensen confirmed that Merecat was evading his block and was also likely to be Rex071404. RyanFreisling (talk · contribs), who has been involved in diputes with Merecat over a number of political articles, began posting requests at WP:ANI and this RFAR to have Merecat/Rex071404 permanently banned from wikipedia for violating his ban against editing John Kerry, even though he acknowledges that Merecat's edits to John Kerry have not been disruptive, and that the Arbcom remedy should Rex resume editing John Kerry was stated to be a week's block.

I hope this summary is useful and I urge the Arbcom to accept the case to examine the behavior of all the involved parties. Thatcher131 02:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Woohookitty (talk · contribs)

I was one of the prior petitioners in this case. I don't really want to become involved in this again outside of this statement. To me, it's pretty simple. If it can be proven that Merecat is Rex, then he should be blocked because he's in violation of his arbcom decision. "Positively contributed for 5 months" isn't really an issue. Letting someone get around a block should and cannot be tolerated. --Woohookitty^(meow) 03:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Nescio (talk · contribs)

Although only involved in discussions (monologues by him is a better word) with Merecat (talk · contribs) I feel the need to respond to Tbeatty and Thatcher131. Tbeatty points out that the RFC on Merecat is not entirely supported. This is true, but what he does not say is the reason. As is the case in his statement here, on the RFC editors misrepresent the facts or simply ignore what Merecat has done. For details and evidence of Merecat's behaviour see his RFC. Above Thatcher131 states that "Merecat, Morton devonshire (talk · contribs) and Nescio all sent out messages to users who had edited the article or voted in the first AfD, urging them to vote in the second ("talk page spamming")." This fails to mention that I responded (which was of course stupid of me) to the clear attempt at disrupting this 2nd AFD by two editors with opposing views. Nuance changes the message he is sending out. Then "Nescio, Morton Devonshire and Merecat were all blocked for 24 hours for "vote stacking" but since this is an unwritten policy and none of them was warned first, the block on Nescio and Morton was oveturned by another admin." Again, this is incorrect. Merecat was not blocked for what Morton and I did, related to the 2n AFD. His block was the result of him again starting the recruitment procedure in the 3rd AFD for which he must have noticed the mess that had been created, and the blocks following the 2nd AFD. That is why his block started later, and while the block on Morton and myself was lifted, the block for a different reason, on Merecat was continued.

This technique of leaving out details, or overtly misrepresenting the facts, is exactly what is wrong with the RFC on Merecat. In stead of addressing the presented case people respond by pointing fingers, as can be seen in Thatcher131's response here. Even if Merecat is guilty of what the RFC says, he argues that others are guilty too (paraphrasing what I think Thatcher131 is saying). By that logic no RFC, or RfAr can be filed since this argument of those without sin throwing the first stone applies always. Simply stated, the number of people commenting on my behaviour, but not on Merecat(!), while they have never discussed with me, or even took part in the disruptive behaviour by Merecat is worrysome.

Further, it is evident that whatever the intentions, if any editor violates policy, rulings, et cetera, his actions and not his intentions should be discussed. Just as in the RFC on Merecat, the logic presented here is that even if editors are violating ArbComm rulings we should ignore that because he is a good fellow and edits in the best of intentions. Clearly, having an ArbComm has become pointless if we adopt that rationale. Aside from that, I do not understand how using sock-puppets in this disruptive manner can be considered a good faith edit, and a positive contribution to Wikipedia.

Last, the suggestion, by Thatcher131, to investigate all participants on Merecat's RFC, and the relevant AFD's, is highly incendiary. Having seen the havoc in both AFD's mentioned above, for which the sockpuppetery was used, trying to spread the mess by implicating as much editors as possible in this debacle is not a very good example of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Nomen Nescio 09:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by mailer_diablo (talk · contribs)

I am not involved in the prior disputes, but I am the one who restarted the 2nd AfD (current) and made the checkuser request.

There's current AfD is in a whole lot of mass due to User:70.84.56.166 and User:67.15.76.187 mass-stacking user talkpages. The pattern of edits and the alleged sockpuppet tags on 70.84.56.166 and its "puppetmasters" were very fishy (in particular two users BigDaddy777 and Rex071404), hence me running through the checkuser process.

There is also a large amount of disagreement on whether merecat's actions are simply "notification of editors on important issues", or to try and "swing the consensus through vote-stacking", as we can see from the incident of Cyde's early closure that is recorded at admin's noticeboard. I would be very interested to hear how the ArbCom judges his actions on this, because I certainly think this constitutes the disruption of the AfD process.

I urge the ArbCom to accept this case mainly to :

1. Confirm if Merecat is indeed the re-incarnation of Rex071404/BigDaddy777
2. If (1) concludes to be otherwise, to determine if Merecat's actions (esp. on the AfD) require any form of remedies.

- Mailer Diablo 13:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Mr. Tibbs

In Rex071404's last arbitration case, I was the one who presented the majority of the evidence.[37] As such I am very familiar with Rex's modus operandi. And I feel there is no doubt that Merecat is indeed a sockpuppet of Rex071404.

For example:
Creating obscure User pages for the sole purpose of "dialoguing" with a specific person is an extremely unusual behavior. But both Rex071404[38] and Merecat[39] have done this.

Another example:
Compare the argument style of Rex071404 on the John Kerry talk page[40] with the argument style of Merecat on the 2003 Invasion of Iraq talk page[41]. Both make an entire new section and fill it with "rebuttals" of their opponents. Notice the long, winding writing style. Both writers very clearly love to hear themselves talk and seem to want to wear down their opponents by sheer volume of text.

Yet Another example:
Creating "hidden" UserTalk pages is an extremely unusual behavior. But Both Rex071404[42][43] and Merecat[44] have done this. ((Added as afterthought -- Mr. Tibbs 21:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)))

I could continue presenting evidence, but frankly, I shouldn't have to. The identical behavior patterns and CheckUser results[45] are more than enough to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Merecat is in fact Rex071404. Consequently, there is no need for an entire arbitration case regarding this issue. Merecat should be indefinitely banned for attempting to evade previous ArbCom rulings,[46][47] and any user in the future who's CheckUser turns out to be Rex071404 should be indefinitely banned as well.
-- Mr. Tibbs 21:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Prometheuspan 18:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

To claim that Merecat was ever working for neutrality is in my opinion a bald faced lie. Merecat was full of ad hominems, straw man arguments, and abusive behavior towards Nescio, and the failure of Wikipedia to adress the seriously abusive behavior on the part of merecat is in fact what convinced me to become involved in the first place. Merecats abusiveness against me personally is a subject of the arbcom i filed, which was previusly mentioned. (though fallaciously invalidated.) Merecat was an obstructionist pov warrior, who cheated, lied, gamed the system, was abusive, deleted materials without due cause or justification, deleted materials solely for the purpose of strengthening his arguments from the discussion pages, stacked votes in vfds, stacked votes for rfcs, and etc. Merecat is patently and obviously acting in bad faith, which was evident to me (and should be evident to anybody) reading the rationales to impeach discussion page and its archives. This user should be banned permanently, and any socks discovered should be banned also. Prometheuspan 18:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Kevin Baas^talk 17:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think any remedy should carefully consider the question: "How can a repeat of this be prevented?" That is, "How can the remedy be well enforced?" Kevin Baas^talk 17:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Ral315

Katefan0 just blocked Merecat indefinitely. As long as community support is behind this block (and it appears it's headed that way), I see no reason to re-open the case unless to impose additional sanctions upon Rex for sockpuppeting. Ral315 (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

(Note: I know I'm involved in a dispute elsewhere with some of the participants here - if anyone feels like I should recuse as a clerk, please do feel free and I'll move this to a straight statement. That said, I remind that I also was one of the first admins to block Rex, and I believe my block of him was my first ever block, so I'd say I break impartial. YMMV, please feel free to object)

Summary: Merecat appears to be Rex. Merecat has edited articles Rex is banned from, though not particularly disruptively. Merecat is, however, being trollish and disruptive.

Comment: If Merecat is a sock of Rex, he can be shot without arbcom ruling. If the Rex ruling needs to be extended to a ban, that seems to me a straightforward motion in prior cases. In either eventuality, I suspect much sanity can be preserved without this going through to a full case, since it looks like a massive train wreck of a case based on the number of comments already submitted. Phil Sandifer 05:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

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

• Accept, but want to see some proof Fred Bauder 23:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Recuse. Neutrality^talk 03:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• If he's already been blocked indef. for disruption, and he is indeed a sock of Rex, the block may as well stick. I'm not actually opposed to banned users coming back in such a way that we can't tell who they are because they're not editing disruptively, but it doesn't look like this is the case. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

---

SPUI vs JohnnyBGood, PHenry and Rschen7754 and various other editors

Involved parties

SPUI vs JohnnyBGood, PHenry, Rschen7754 and various other editors

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• JohnnyBGood
• SPUI
• PHenry
• Rschen7754

Various solutions tried

Mediation (1 month ago), various discussions on AN and an RfC in addition to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California State Highways.

Brief summary of dispute

In short, this dispute involves move warring over the naming of various state roads. Various attempts to mediate has not been suscessful and SPUI has refused an offer I have made for third party binding arbitration due to the fact that he insists he is right "I'm very leery of binding arbitration, as I know I'm correct. Thus I'll have to say no. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 19:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)." In the past, SPUI has made changes to the naming of the pages, and JohnnyBGood has reverted them pending lack of consensus. I attempted to offer mediation but various users have stated that after previous attempts it is almost pointless and ArbCom is the only way to settle this dispute -- Tawker 00:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not filing a statement in this party as I am not in dispute, I am only trying to find a solution here and it has come down to this. -- Tawker 00:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by party 1

I guess I'm party 1? I have move warred. Maybe I shouldn't have. But nothing else was working. My arguments were clearly detailed at Talk:State Route 2 (California). I still don't understand the arguments of the other side. Maybe it would have gone better if I did, but I really don't. The majority of people I've talked to, or that have commented out of the blue, agree with my names, but there are several editors that keep moving them back to "California State Route X", even claiming that that is somehow not only the correct disambiguation method, but also the correct name in real life. But that's all a content dispute, and outside the ArbCom's mandate. Which is why this will probably not result in a solution any more than the previous attempts.

For a specific example: State Route 66 (California). I was working on U.S. Route 66-related stuff, and saw that U.S. Route 66 in California was a double redirect - JohnnyBGood never cleans them up. I had two choices - either fix the double redirects to what I knew to be the wrong name, or move it back. I chose the option that I knew would make the encyclopedia better.

Another example, this time by Rschen7754 - [48].

Again, this is all content dispute stuff. So whatever. I move warred, because nothing else was working, and I knew I had consensus from real life and disambiguation conventions. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 01:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

A few months ago, SPUI moved the Massachusetts, Florida, New Jersey, and other pages to what he considers to be the proper disambiguation standard: "State Route/Road/Highway x (State)". He was not opposed there. A few months ago, SPUI removed the {{routeboxca2}} infobox from California State Route 15. He then proceeded to move the page to State Route 15 (California). He was reverted. He reverted back. He ignored discussions. He then proceeded to move all of the California State Route pages (over 200), and reverted after he was reverted, with no consensus for his position at WP:NC/NH. He then tried to massively redo {{routeboxca2}}. He was reverted. He tried to TFD {{routeboxca2}}. No consensus for deletion. He created his own {{Infobox CA Route}} and changed many articles to it. He was reverted. He reverted back. He spread this dispute to other states such as Washington and Rhode Island. He was reverted. He reverted back. In short, all 2,500+ articles are subject to become part of this edit war. Something must be done.

This is not a personal attack against SPUI by the way. He is a good contributor. We just don't approve of his methods sometimes. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:PHenry

I regret that this unbelievably stupid dispute has come to this, but I think it's been inevitable for a long time and I am certain that it will continue until some kind of binding decision is made. During the course of this unpleasantness, I have found that every participant on either side that I've tried to communicate with has been interested in working toward a mutual common-sense solution with the sole exception of SPUI. If he were not involved, I have no doubt whatsoever that any dispute would have been settled quickly a long time ago. Unfortunately, SPUI doesn't "do" discussion—his preferred method of operation is to wear more-reasonable editors down through warring, hostility, and abusive behavior, until they give up and he gets his way.

I honestly don't care that much about which naming standard is settled upon. I have been a reluctant participant in these edit wars because I believe very strongly that one user should not be allowed to steamroll over everyone else simply because he's willing to be more obnoxious than everyone else. My opinions and contributions are valid, goddammit, and so are Rschen7754's and JohnnyBGood's and Atamir's and yours and those of every other good-faith editor on Wikipedia. And SPUI, who is generally a very valuable contributor, is not more valid than anyone else, and certainly does not have a license to disregard the process of consensus building through polite discussion and negotiation without which Wikipedia cannot survive. I've revert-warred with SPUI in defense of a position that I didn't even agree with, because the matter had gone through a deletion debate that his (and my) position lost, yet he refused to accept it. That's how strongly I feel about the necessity of respecting other people's input and contributions.

I urge—no, I beg the ArbCom to take this matter up, while apologizing for my part in dragging you into what our children's children will remember as one of the lamest edit wars ever. Under normal circumstances, there would be no need for a formally binding decision to be made here, but as SPUI made clear to me,[49] he doesn't intend to stop warring, ever, not until he gets his way. This attitude needs to be stopped here and now. --phh (^t/_c) 03:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Locke Cole

I've been somewhat involved with this (and am a little dismayed that I was not informed this had been moved to arbitration). Specifically, I was involved in part of the California dispute, and also involved in the Washington State dispute. SPUI's behavior is, I think, understandable. Relatively new administrators such as Rschen7754 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) had been trying to enforce a "rule" they believe they created on WP:AN/I (the rule stating that there are to be no page moves of highway related articles). Rschen7754, who was involved in a dispute with me at the time, blocked me and refused to unblock me unless I promised to not move pages away from his preferred naming. I believe this behavior is, in part, why SPUI may have given up on discussion (not to mention the lack of interest by the opposing parties to listen to what he has to say).

To quote the Blocking policy, specifically, "When blocking may not be used", it states: Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. That is, sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute.

• 2006-03-31 05:03:31 – Rschen7754 demonstrates his involvement in the content dispute.
• 2006-03-31 06:24:30 – Rschen7754 reverts List of Washington State Routes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to his preferred names with the edit summary rv to version that does not link to 100 redirects.
• 2006-03-31 06:33:30 – Rschen7754 threatens me with a block for moving (renaming) pages to names he doesn't prefer, citing WP:ANI as "stating" that "any mass moves of highway pages are grounds for being blocked". He finishes with: "Move any more pages and you will be blocked."
• 2006-03-31 06:45:07 – Rschen7754 blocks me with the reason per WP:ANI- user was mass moving road pages with no consensus, was warned explicitly.
• 2006-03-31 06:47:21 – Rschen7754 leaves a note saying he blocked me claiming it is unbiased.
• 2006-03-31 06:58:21 – Rschen7754 offers to unblock if I promise not to move pages away from his preferred names "until this is resolved".

I urge the ArbCom to accept this case to look at the abuse of sysop powers by Rschen7754 and how this may have affected peoples interest in opposing his point of view. As per Raul654's suggestion below, having a binding decision on the content dispute might also prove useful, but I believe there's a deeper problem that needs to be addressed. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by JohnnyBGood

Just a thought, why don't we keep this confined to the naming dispute. If you have an issue with any actions of Rschen let's keep it seperate as all parties involved in this dispute have done things that violate policy in some form or another and bringing one in will lead them all to be dumped here, which will just cloud the core issue that needs to be resolved here. JohnnyBGood t c 20:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

While there may or may not be other policy violations, I'm concerned with the chilling effect Rschen7754's actions may have had on people who may have spoken up in favor of SPUI or been more open to changing their mind. The landscape of any dispute changes drastically when someone abuses sysop powers like this. I don't believe any other policy violations rise to this level in this dispute, and I believe this dispute may have been shaped differently had Rschen7754 not abused his powers. (Rschen7754 has also blocked SPUI, for the record). —Locke Cole • t • c 23:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well by the same token I could bring up how chilling and outright disturbing it is that SPUI, even when rightly blocked has been getting himself unblocked in under 15 minutes because he seems to have so many people with admin powers in his back pocket. I count no less then 6 times he was unblocked prematurely without acceptable cause in the first 7 listed here. Now THAT is chilling, especially when other users, myself included, who are blocked for the same infractions are either unable to get them lifted or it takes hours or days, rather then minutes as it does for SPUI. If Rschen is to be sanctioned then all of those admins who seem to be helping SPUI by wheel warring habitually should suffer the same fate as they also seem to have a conflict of interest. JohnnyBGood t c 17:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Response

First off please link to the page that provides the ruling: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive84. Secondly, you were blocked for a whopping 15 minutes. Thirdly, JohnnyBGood is right. None is circumspect here, probably. Take this to RFC or somewhere else if you're upset over a fifteen-minute block. Fourthly, I am not a person who intimidates people. Rather, the reverse. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal by Raul654

I have an idea - would it be acceptable to both parties if, instead of accepting this case, we (the committee) simply offered binding decision as to the naming dispute? That is to say, both SPUI and JohnnyBGood give us a BRIEF explination for why their naming scheme is the correct one and the other guy's is not, and we come down in favor of one or the other. Raul654 01:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

That was in short what I was thinking ArbCom would do in this case. Placing sanctions on any of the parties involved does not make much sense, I offered to do this in a non formal non ArbCom situation and it was rejected, hence it came here. I don't think a conduct case makes much sense here and would be a waste of ArbCom's time, I just want some way of stopping the move warring so we don't have to go through it all again -- Tawker 02:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

As much as I'd assume the ArbCom is smart and would pick the correct naming, I don't like the possibility of the wrong one being chosen. That's probably one reason the ArbCom doesn't get involved in content disputes - it would have to apply to all editors to be worth anything. Thus, even if the four of us, or everyone currently in this dispute, agreed to make it binding, that's not going to keep someone in the future from moving them. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 01:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"I don't like the possibility of the wrong one being chosen." I think that pretty much says it all, honestly. --phh (^t/_c) 03:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

We avoid content disputes (emphasis on the word content) because we are not a panel of experts. That is to say, we lack the expertise to determine if a given sentence or paragraph is true, false, mistated, 'etc. On the other hand, it does not take a panel of experts to decide what the naming scheme should be. Raul654 18:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This seems reasonable, and I think SPUI could do a good job at explaining the situation. Though, like SPUI, I also have reservations about the binding nature of any decision like this. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I would be amenable to either approach, and offer to help JohnnyBGood create his explanation if he likes. --phh (^t/_c) 15:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with either approach. JohnnyBGood t c 18:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup. I think that someone else should give the argument though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Who would you suggest? --phh (^t/_c) 02:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Could we have a temporary ban on moving state highway pages until this is resolved? (For all parties involved) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

As per an AN discussion (its somewhere in the archives) move warring is a blockable offence, no need for an official ArbCom ruling IMHO -- Tawker 20:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I would agree, if SPUI and myself hadn't been unblocked repeatedly for move warring after only 15 minutes. I think in this case we need it clearly spelled out until this arbcom is complete.JohnnyBGood t c 17:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought too, until Locke Cole complained. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

So what is going to happen? We need a solution since SPUI has shown signs of wanting to move the Utah pages. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't approve of the Committee offering a ruling as the Arbitration Committee on the correct naming style. But if all parties are willing to let an uninvolved party such as Raul654 make the call and then promise to abide by it, I'd be perfectly happy to drop this case. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Northenglish

IMHO, and the keyword there is my humble opinion, as I am quite new to Wikipedia, and have not been involved in any of the move warring, I would prefer to see the articles in question located at Washington State Route 3 (for example). I agree with SPUI in the sense that the legal name for such a road is State Route 3, and that people in the state of Washington refer to that road as "State Route 3". I agree with Rschen7754 and company when they state that people outside the state of Washington would refer to it as "Washington State Route 3", but SPUI claims that people who refer to the road as such are using a sort of disambiguation, and I agree with SPUI there as well. SPUI's main reasoning for titling articles as "State Route 3 (Washington)" is that it is the proper format for disambiguation on Wikipedia, and he is correct for the most part. Every article on a city that I have found is disambiguated with a comma, not parentheses--"Philadelphia, Pennsylvania", not "Philadelphia (Pennsylvania)"--matching conventional disambiguation outside of Wikipedia to ease Wikipedia users in searching for the articles. I think state route articles is another perfect case to use the disambiguation convention from outside Wikipedia. -- Northenglish 22:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

As another outside party, I have just received this e-mail from WSDOT:

Thank you for your e-mail to the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) asking about the official name of a state highway in Washington State. I do apologize for the delay in responding to your e-mail.

The official name is State Route #, not Washington State Route #

Again, I am very sorry for this late response. We do appreciate you taking the time to write to us.

Kimberly Colburn Customer Service WSDOT Communications PO Box 47322 Olympia, WA 98504-7322 (360) 705-7438 hqcustomerservice@wsdot.wa.gov

atanamir 23:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I agree that the official legal name of a state route is "State Route X" without the state name. (For some states, it might be "State Highway X".) But unlike SPUI, I don't think that's the only factor that needs to be taken into account when titling articles. -- Northenglish 17:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Accept for the purpose of binding arbitration regarding the style issue Fred Bauder 21:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Requests for Clarification

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

Lou franklin: "Ineffective editor"

This is a matter of curiosity rather than confusion, but what was meant by "this grossly ineffective request for arbitration"? Being the one who brought that request, I naturally wonder whom/what that bit was directed at. Sorry for this rather belated request (I could have asked this weeks ago if I'd been paying attention in class). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Lou stated on his talk page that he will "raise the red flag" about that article. Do you think this would eventually lead to additional sanctions and/or long-term blocks/bans? 16:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression, a gross error, that Lou franklin initiated the arbitration. We will not be changing the finding of fact, despite the error. Fred Bauder 14:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Crotalus horridus

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway

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

Hmm, we (I?) didn't do that too well. The options are to remove the enforcement from Remedy 1 or to specify that the enforcement only applies to Remedies 2 and 3. I support the former. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

<ping>. I guess it's not especially important since Ch appears to be abiding by it, but it's at least untidy to let it lie. -Splash^talk 23:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman - Topical ban

Aucaman has made the following query on my talk page. I've given him my interpretation but it occurs to me that it would best be clarified by the arbitrators who voted on the motion in question. --Tony Sidaway 17:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you tell me how this is going to work? I have these specific questions:

1. How am I supposed to know which articles I can edit? Some articles under question: Kurds, Kurdistan, Middle East, Najis, Geber, al-Khwarizmi.
2. Those articles I cannot edit, can I still edit the talk page and participate in any (possible) mediation?

You can answer these questions directly or refer me to some literature/examples that illustrate how these bans work. Thanks, Aucaman^Talk 05:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Whether an article is related to Iran or Persians is to be decided by administrators, who have instructions that "relatedness is to be interpreted broadly so as to prevent gaming." Of the articles you list above, I'd say you can probably only edit Middle East without breaching the ban, and then only if you avoid the subject of Iran and Persians.

You can still use the talk pages, participate in mediation, etc. -Tony Sidaway 11:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony's interpretation is correct. Basically if there is any doubt, don't. However, I think you could probably edit Turquoise which while related to Persia, is not about ethnic or political issues. Fred Bauder 14:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al

Since the conclusion of the Arbitration case, StrangerInParadise (talk · contribs) has continued to assume bad faith and make disruptive edits with the StrangerInParadise account while maintaining a separate, older, user account. Thus, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al is modified to include the following remedy:

StrangerInParadise restricted to one user account

StrangerInParadise is restricted to one user account. Any sockpuppet accounts will be blocked indefinitely and the main account blocked for up to 48 hours if this is violated.

Support:

1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 14:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
3. ➥the Epopt 14:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
4. James F. (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Charles Matthews 15:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Archives

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests (unofficial)