Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:54, 5 July 2006

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

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

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions		10 May 2024	0/4/0

[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. If your case is accepted for arbitration, the arbitrator or clerk will create an evidence page that you can use to provide more detail. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person against whom you lodge a complaint.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arbitrators' votes to accept/reject/recuse/other. Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after four accept votes are cast. When a case is opened, a notice that includes a link to a newly created evidence page will be posted to each participant's talk page. See the Requests section of the arbitration policy page for details.

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

See also

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

Purge the server cache

How to list cases

Under the Current requests section below:

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

Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template

Current requests

Move and revert warring at Israeli Apartheid

Involved parties

Humus sapiens (talk · contribs)
SlimVirgin (talk · contribs)
Jayjg (talk · contribs)
~~Bibigon (talk · contribs)~~ was not involved in this edit war
Homeontherange (talk · contribs) aka Homey
6SJ7 (talk · contribs)
ChrisO (talk · contribs)
Nagle (talk · contribs)
KimvdLinde (talk · contribs)
Bhouston (talk · contribs)
There are several other editors involved, but they refrain from edit warring etc.

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

Note about involved parties

There are more involved parties not listed above. Some of those who have been deeply involved in this issue are no 'washing their hands" as if they are not involved. ArbCom should first make a rulling on the question:

Who are the involved parties to this dispute ? Zeq 07:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

00:39, 5 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Humus sapiens (Israeli Apartheid arbitration) (top)diff
00:35, 5 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Nagle (Israeli Apartheid arbitration) (top)diff
00:34, 5 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:ChrisO (Israeli Apartheid arbitration) (top)diff
00:33, 5 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:6SJ7 (Israeli Apartheid arbitration) (top)diff
00:32, 5 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Homeontherange (Israeli Apartheid arbitration) (top)diff
00:31, 5 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Bibigon (Israeli Apartheid arbitration) (top)diff
00:30, 5 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Jayjg (Israeli Apartheid arbitration) (top)diff
00:28, 5 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:SlimVirgin (Israeli Apartheid arbitration) (top)diff

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

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

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

Extensive and dragged out discussions at various talk pages.

Banning of editors for editing the pages in question under previous ArbCom decisions.

RFC diff]

Informal mediation by KimvdLinde failed (sources at various pages).

Statement by Nagle (talk · contribs)

We have a problem with Israeli Apartheid again. As some may recall, activity on this article has generated considerable controversy. A few weeks ago, the page had to be locked for a time, and one user is currently banned from editing it.

One of the several controversial issues pending is whether the article should be moved to Allegations of Israeli apartheid. There's a formal request for move poll in progress on this at Wikipedia talk:Central discussions/Apartheid#Poll: Rename "Apartheid outside of South Africa" article to "Allegations of apartheid outside South Africa" with a start date of 26 June 2006. The poll hasn't yet been closed, and no consensus has emerged.

Today, we have this action: 20:11, 4 July 2006 Humus sapiens (talk · contribs) (moved Israeli apartheid to Allegations of Israeli apartheid: NPOV title). This is a unilateral move while a vote on the move is in progress. That is arguably vandalism. Discussion of the matter can be found at Wikipedia:Central discussions/Apartheid.

This began a move war, with four more renames back and forth. There may have been a wheel war in there, with page protection being turned on and off. (Some of the involved parties are admins). This was then followed by a revert war in the now-renamed article.

This nonsense has to stop. Or be stopped. I would like to ask that the involved users be carefully examined, and where appropriate, banned from editing the article.

Note: Zeq (talk · contribs) was not listed as a party to the arbitration because he is banned from editing the article. He has expressed opinions on it in other places, including here. --John Nagle 04:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Homeontherange (talk · contribs) was listed as a party to the arbitration simply because he had been actively involved in editing during the period of dispute. He was not involved in the move war. --John Nagle 06:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Bibigon (talk · contribs) was listed as a party to the arbitration simply because he had been actively involved in editing during the period of dispute. He was not involved in the move war. --John Nagle 06:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Some edit warring is still going on in the article, the out-of-policy move is still in effect, and the text of the article is being edited to be consistent with the out-of-policy move. Some protection until arbitration is concluded may be appropriate. --John Nagle 17:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KimvdLinde

I feel the need to add my opinion to this case as I tried unsuccesfully to mediate between the various parties. The case has escalated to revert, move, edit and wheel warring, and is unlikely to stop. Pages have been protected for extended periods, pretty much every possible policy and guideline has been violated, including but not limited to: WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, WP:DISAMBIG, WP:TITLE, WP:LEAD, WP:CON, WP:ISNOT, WP:AGF, WP:SOCK, and who know which more..... And this included editors pro and contra the article in question.

In my opinion, the page is unmediatable, as various editors are just not willing to see anything different than their own opinion, which is either that it is a very valid term, and deserves its own article, or that it is just allegations that either need a corresponding title, or that the article needs to be deleted alltogether.

To a degree, this is a good example of a content dispute that is not resolvable through normal wikipedia policies, and could serve as a perfect example for the need of a Content ArbCom. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To add, if the focus will be narrow to the last move war, this problem does not get resolved, and as such, I urge the ArbCom to consider the wider context of the dragged out edit/move/revert/wheel war dealing with all involved editors, which actually might result in adding several more editors. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The large influx of voters on the polls are due to posting at Wikipedia:Islam and Judaism controversies noticeboard and Wikipedia:Notice board for Palestine-related topics, which might selectively attracked editors. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zeq

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

The article is unmediatable
Every wikipedia policy have been broken in this article. (she give a long but partial list)

The root cause of the problem is that some editors have broken WP:Not and used wikipedia as a tool to propegante political propeganda. Initialy their actions were chalanged (at first by me), but in their push to (mis)use Wikipedia as a vehicle for propegating their POV they continued to break any possible policy (point, NPOV, comitted admin abuse, ignored WP:RS and more). Some of those people are not even mantioned in the involved parties (The eruption of the move revert war was short time ago and they did not took part of this current stage of the "campaign" while they were key participantsd to the edit-war before).

ArbCom should look at the bigger picture:

Can wikipedia have an NPOV article on such issues as the Israeli-palestinian conflict ?
and should Wikipedia be a vehicle for Anti-Israel propeganda ?

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

I, as well as other not listed, are involved parties. Although I made a total of about 3 edits to this article (mostly minor edits but also one larger edit in which I removed clear non-WP:RS propeganda source) this minor involvment was enough for Homey to block me indefently (although he was a party to the edit dispute - which means he comited Admin Abuse. He blocked me while he himslef was already blocked for 3RR violation on this article - a complaint I filled) . Later, when this unjustified 'indfeinete block' was overturned Homey was able to get me banned from the article (for no good cause).

As noted, I have also have complained several times on edit wars in this article which resulted in Homey getting several blocks for 3RR violations. Lately he adopted a Modus Operandy of reverting exactly 3 times a day to avoid such 3RR blocks (but this is still a violation of WP:Point#gaming the system).

ArbCom need to decide who is or is not a party to this dispute. Surly in an article that has reverts and edit wars from day one, an article that was "protected" for over 3 weeks because lack of consensus, surly in such article the issue is not just the move of the name - the dispute and offending behaviour went for long time. The move/name is just the tip of the iceberg

I admit that having done about 3 edits in this article (article which has 1000s of edits already, in short time - an avg of hundred edit per each day it is not protected) - my involvment can surly be seen as a minor one.

As always, ArbCom is encouraged to review: How come all wkipedia WP:NPOV (and WP:RS mechanisms fail in this article as well despite the fact that some editors still have the basic fainess and comonsense (such as this one:[1]

In previous ArbCom case I was involved in the promise was to maediate the article after the case to bring it to NPOV state but that promise was no kept - an anqdote on the NPOV is issue is that once I quoted on the article talk page the words of Jimbo Wales from the WP:NPOV policy (but forgot to show the source) - the immidiate response from Homey and his edit war gang was that my arguments are not accapetable...:-) Zeq 10:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ChrisO

(This is going to go a bit over the word limit as I'm providing a chronology with diffs for the ArbComm. Apologies in advance.)

I have previously been involved in a minor way in editing this article ([2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8], [9],[10],[11],[12]) and have been keeping an eye on it in case of major trouble breaking out. After Nagle posted a message about the article's move on WP:AN/I ([13]), I reviewed Humus sapiens' actions and found that there had been no consensus in the move poll (a 16-12 vote at that point), nor was the poll closed. I reverted the move ([14]) and left a note about it at the article talk page ([15]) and AN/I ([16]). SlimVirgin and Jayjg subsequently moved the article again, once each ([17] & [18]), and I moved it back again on each occasion ([19] & [20]), reaching the 3RR limit. On the third reversion, I move-protected the page to encourage the movers to discuss rather than move-war. Humus sapiens presumably un-move-protected it and moved it to the new title again ([21]).

There's no dispute that the move took place without consensus. As Nagle notes, the ongoing poll had neither been closed nor resulted in consensus. In deciding to move the page, Humus sapiens acted unilaterally, as he acknowledged here [22]. The subsequent discussion made it clear that he was acting in the personal belief that "we are not going to get [a consensus]" and that he was opposed to "an offensive political slogan". He also claimed that "The polls only served as a magnet for certain editors eager to besmirch Israel. No consensus was possible and no compromise was acceptable." ([23]) This is about as plain a statement of POV as you can get.

In subsequently re-moving the article, SlimVirgin gave no explanation in her edit summary ([24]), and Jayjg stated inaccurately in his summary that "there's good enough consensus" ([25]). An unclosed 16-12 vote is not a consensus by any description and the discussion elsewhere clearly shows that the move didn't enjoy a consensus.

Some additional comments:

1) I had earlier voted to oppose the move as being inconsistent with the way that we treat pejorative political terms and political slogans. This didn't influence my decision to revert the out-of-process move. If the article had been moved without consensus from the title preferred by Humus et al, I would still have reverted the move. My primary concern here is the process (or lack of it in this case).

2) I'm not involved in editing Middle Eastern articles and I don't consider myself a partisan of either side. From my outsider's perspective, there appears to be a very strong POV element to the motives of Humus, SlimVirgin and Jayjg in moving the article. They appear to regard the slogan "Israeli apartheid" as so outrageous that it can't be allowed to stand. However, we have plenty of articles on controversial political slogans and epithets (e.g. "Culture of life", "RINO", "arbeit macht frei"), indeed an entire category of them). Similarly we have articles on would-be or actual political entities which substantial groups of people regard as affronts (e.g. Republic of Macedonia, Turkish Kurdistan). Nonetheless, WP:NPOV enables - and requires - us to describe neutrally the terms and concepts, as well as who uses them, why, where and when. We're not here to pass judgment on their worth.

3) Humus, SlimVirgin and Jayjg have argued that the term "Israeli apartheid" is not used in "reputable sources" and is therefore "unencyclopedic". This is incorrect, as a search on Google News or Lexis-Nexis demonstrates. It's been used thousands of times in the world press and can be traced as far back as the late 1960s. It demonstrably has widespread usage, is well-established and is cited in many respectable outlets. This clearly meets our criteria of notability.

4) I've also seen claims that the article was created for malicious reasons by Homey. However, as an outsider I believe that there is an ongoing POV-based feud between Homey and Humus/SlimVirgin/Jayjg, as this exchange on AN/I indicates. I've not been involved in it, nor do I want to be. Homey's motives in creating the article are irrelevant; the only substantive issues are whether the subject is notable, verifiable, reliably sourced and treated neutrally.

5) Tag-team move reverting is unacceptable, period.

6) In my view, actively short-circuiting an ongoing move poll is unacceptable, especially when it's done to impose a personal POV (as Humus has made clear). I personally don't particularly care where the article ends up. However, as administrators we're effectively in a position of trust. I believe that overriding consensus-building and imposing personal POVs is a betrayal of the trust that we're supposed to enjoy as administrators and the values of community, consensus and neutrality that we're supposed to be promoting. -- ChrisO 02:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bibigon

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

With regards to the dispute ongoing here, this article specifically deals with 'Allegations of Israeli Apartheid.' Nothing more, nothing less. It introduces the idea of Israeli Apartheid, describes the allegations that Israel practices apartheid, and describes the defenses mounted against that allegation. It is not an article on a pejorative term, similar to Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys, quite the contrary, it goes into great detail the merits of the apartheid accusation. Articles on pejorative terms do not deal with the substance of the accusations -- there is no discussion on the Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys page for example as to whether the French are actually what the term claims them to be – pejorative term articles only give a description of the usage of the term, the origins, etc... That is not what this article does.

As a result, I believe perhaps there should be two separate pages. The first to deal with ‘Israeli Apartheid’ the term, which would do no more than detail the term. The second to deal with ‘Allegations of Israeli Apartheid’, which would deal with the substance behind these allegations, and present the various arguments on both sides of this issue.

While I personally did not engage in any movement of the article, I believe that Humus sapiens, Jayjg, and Slimvirgin acted properly in their doing so. There was what I perceived to be a lack of good faith amongst many of the editors opposed to the proposed move, as the case against the move was exceptionally weak, and these are experienced editors and admins involved here. Furthermore, some of the debate on the talk page by the editors opposed similarly suggested a lack of good faith in their edits regarding POV matters and OR matters. Given that, and given the severity of the NPOV violation, as well as the fact that a majority (but perhaps not a consensus), existed to move the article, I believe that all three editors who moved the article were acting in good faith to improve the quality of Wikipedia’s content, and were not merely engaging in edit wars to push their own POV. Bibigon 05:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Humus sapiens

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

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

Response to Humus sapiens by Homeontherange

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

As for what happened and why, I suggest editors and arbitrators look at this exchange in which Humus announces his decision to arbitrarily move the article despite there being no consensus to do so. It's unfortunate that rather than use his submission above to explain this action he has tried to distract from it by launching into a personal attack on me. Homey 15:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SlimVirgin

I would ask the Committee not to accept the case at this time. ChrisO and I have been in touch by e-mail since just before the RfAr was posted, exchanging ideas for a solution, and we are making some progress. The situation was started a few weeks by a series of apartheid-related articles, not just this one, started by User:Homeontherange. Since then, there have been disagreements on various pages about titles, with Israeli apartheid as the biggest stumbling block, and with multiple polls on several pages until everyone's head was spinning. What is needed is some coordination of the dispute and some sensible proposals, and I think we're about to get those organized. I was also planning today to discuss with ChrisO whether a Request for Mediation would be appropriate. It would therefore be helpful if the Committee could either reject this request, or put it on ice for a few days to allow these other avenues to be explored first. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to second SlimVirgin's request. IMO, her latest suggestions could provide a basis for moving forward on this issue. (SlimVirgin, I owe you a reply - I'll drop you a line tomorrow when I'm a bit less tired!). -- ChrisO 22:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jayjg

This appears to be a tempest in a teapot. A half dozen page moves (of which I made exactly one), and no formal attempts at mediation, does not make an Arbitration case. It's not even (contrary to some claims) a "wheel-war", since any editor (not just admins) can move a page. I haven’t been overly involved in User:Homeontherange’s “Israeli apartheid” article itself (a couple dozen edits out of almost 800, many of them fairly minor in nature), but it appears to me that the issue here is mostly about content anyway; one group of editors feels the term is merely a political epithet, and feels the subject should be dealt with briefly, as that, and another group feels the article should be a rather lengthy examination of whether or not Israel does indeed practice “apartheid”. The number of polls about this and related articles were confusing and seemingly endless, but at least a majority of editors (28 to 15 at last count) approved the move to a more neutral name, as a compromise between the positions. Indeed, this seemed to me a reasonable way of defusing a situation where one side essentially felt the article shouldn’t exist, while the other side felt it should be a lengthy examination of Israel’s actions and policies. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Avillia

Short summarization:

At the time of the move, there were 16 for a move to "Allegations", and 12 against. Not a supermajority, not consensus.
Numerous administrators have acted, regardless of intentions or supporting policies, in a wheel-war over the location of this article without seeking mediation.
From viewing the limited discussion at WP:ANI, taking the case to the MedCom was suggested by both uninvolved and (I think) involved parties. For the purposes of evaluation, it should be assumed that mediation was declined.
This entire situation has caused considerable friction in the community and has resulted in over five pages of controversial discussion at WP:ANI.
A member of the ArbCom has been active in the discussion and the wheel-warring of this article.
Almost all parties involved have made what could be seen as incivil commentary to other parties. Some of this commentary could be seen as a personal attack.

Unless a request for mediation is quickly filed and all parties consent, the case should be accepted. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 23:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bhouston

My statement is pretty simple. I think the article Israeli Apartheid, alternatively renamed as Allegations of Israeli Apartheid is strong enough to stand on its own. I have mostly contributed by creating solid (at least in my mind) contextual articles such as John Dugard, Crime of apartheid and Uri Davis -- these contributions have been of themselves non-controversial -- and I do believe they helped clarify a lot of confusion with regards to warring parties. In particular, many individuals (for example Jayjg) initially did not believe that there was a crime of apartheid but after my article on the topic this misconception disappeared from the debate. Many individuals, such as Humus Sapiens and KimvdLinde, have referred to my contribution of the crime of apartheid article as good. My position is pro-human rights and thus I view documentation of the credible sources of allegations as useful -- lets present the reputable information on both sides and ensure the reader is informed of the contents of the debate. I am for accurate articles, even if they are about contentious subjects. --Ben Houston 23:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Szvest

This is not the first time this article goes through this [26]. I had contacted User:IZAK regarding that move and received this answer which was explicative but not conveincing. Now we are facing the same issue (though titles are different) and witnessing unilateral moves w/o any kind of consensus. I've commented to contributors in Islamofascism about a similar move but it went in vain! I am asking about any guideline or policy to be established to sprt put this dilemma. Cheers -- Szvest 23:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Accept Fred Bauder 00:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC) I would be happy to support mediation if it can be arranged. Fred Bauder 23:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Dmcdevit·t 04:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept (as always, to consider conduct rather than content). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bakunin NPOV

Involved parties

IronDuke; Paki.tv; IlluSionS667; Max rspt; Harrypotter; anonymous. Inclusion of anti-semitic writings in Bakunin entry.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request: I indicated on the discussion page that I would be seeking arbitration. No one has posted a response. I have also posted notices on their Talk boards or sent them emails.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

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

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

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

Statement by Harrypotter 19:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The question of Bakunin's anti-semitism should not be in doubt by anyone who has familiarised themselves with his career. Google Bakunin and anti-semitism and you will get plenty of websites to read and ponder about (this or this. Whilst it is true that Robgraham does not want the reference removed, we have been faced with a series of naive anarchist militants whose political education falls far short of their enthusiam, and thanks to the intellectual dishonesty which is rife amongst anarchist circles (see however this and this for interesting articles on an anarchist sites), imagine that reference to his anti-semitism and nationalism constitute slanders! On the one hand they ask for proof, but when chapter and verse is quoted, they say it gives the issue to much prominence. I can't help feeling that Robgraham is being disengenuous. Yes it would be much better give references to sites which are not anti-semitic, e.g. The Non-Jewish Question quotes from the Historia Judaica 1952, and does not go to the original sources. So and go and find those other references, go do the work. For instance, google "Polemique contre les juifs" and you well get mostly anti-semitic sources, and a confusion of the dates (1869 or 1872). But you will also find references to une étude sur les juifs allemands, google that and you'll find Profession de foi d’un démocrate socialiste russe précédé d’une étude sur les juifs allemands (Lettre au Le Réveil, Paris, 1869) in a Bakunin Bibliography.

I am fed up with having to put with the ideological assaults of a various anarchists seeking to turn certain pages into blatant propaganda (see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-01-07 Anarchism). Clearly the emergence of anarchism, through Bakunin and Proudhon in particular, is linked to their nationalism, anti-semitism and eurocentrism. Yet any attempt to deal with these issues is met by attempts to censure the issue. Sometimes, for instance the removal of all links to Lala Hardayal from the anarchism page simply smacked of white supremacism. But do not fear: I shall not allow the racist sentiments of a few unreflective anarchists put me off from helping to develop wikipedia as a NPOV encyclopedia. Rather it is a case of slowly and methodologically moving through the material. Sometimes it is necessary to step back from the fray, as has happened with Lala hardayal, until a book I have ordered is shipped from abroad arrives. The repressive deletions of authoritarian "anarchist" editors attempting to stamp out any critical comments about their cherished faith will eventually give way to reasoned argument and cited sources. Of course it is somewhat depressing having to deal with the continual racist attacks, but, hey, that's the norm living in a world dominated by European cultural values - and I have long outworn any sense of suprise that anarchists are any different from other polticians.Harrypotter 19:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 3

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

Clerk notes

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

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

Reject for now, please request mediation Fred Bauder 00:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reject per Fred. Dmcdevit·t 04:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SCZenz

Involved parties

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

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

SCZenz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Stanfordandson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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.)

SCZenz's talk page.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

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

Stanfordandson has attempted to with discuss the edits with SCZenz.
Stanfordandson has attempted to involve neutral parties in the dispute by using {{unblock}} unsuccessfully.

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

Statement by Stanfordandson

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

Statement by SCZenz

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

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

Subsequently added:

I fear the situation may not be so clear as I had thought, so let me explain. Stanfordandson is a user who makes deliberately disruptive edits, which are sometimes subtle, and uses a very substantial familiarity with Wikipedia policy to make it more difficult to deal with the disruption. His first dubious edit was his third, where he insists on a misleading caption of a GNAA image (the image, since deleted, was an image from GNAA depicting young people of apparently African descent, and so typical of trolling by the GNAA, whose rubbish I think we can agree is inappropriate to repeat on Wikipedia, especially with the original caption). He repeated his defense of this caption [27], became involved in a messsy dispute on an AfD [28] [29], and was blocked by JzG—all on his first day! He repeated his ridiculous claim that the image was appropriately captioned as "future GNAA members" twice more [30] [31] shortly after his block expired, trying to pass it off as a consensus version, and continued to do so for some time.

My first interaction with him was on June 22, when I removed the image entirely and he responded by claiming to revert vandalism [32]. I explained politely that I had legitimately removed the content and explained my reasons; I was unaware of the full extent of his previous edits, so at the time I thought WP:AGF required this. However I was suspicious (having read some of the top of his talk page), and so I checked subsequently to make sure his edits weren't continuing in this vein. You can see on his talk page that by this time other editors had reached the same conclusions about him.

On June 25, he added an image of a man with a sign saying "gay black men are not hard to reach," which had been uploaded as a "gnaa corporate image" to the article on protest. [33] Since GNAA images of this sort are almost certainly faked in some way, in light of his previous contributions on GNAA I thought it was reasonable to view the edit as deliberate disruption, and I warned him [34]. He re-added the image, so I blocked him. [35]

On June 29, he added an inappropriate and nonsensical race-related comment (with a misleading edit summary) here. I warned him [36], and then blocked him, which I think was appropriate given his history.

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

Clerk notes

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

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

Reject. Try just getting a couple neutral parties to talk this one over with you, if you truly are interested in editing constructively. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. Both parties did not behave ideally, but this is not a matter for arbitration. - SimonP 12:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept to clarify blocking policy Fred Bauder 14:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. Not ready for arbitration. Dmcdevit·t 04:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alienus

Involved parties

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

Alienus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Tony_Sidaway (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Nandesuka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Will_Beback (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
jossi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

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

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

Statement by Tony Sidaway

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

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

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

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

Statement by Nandesuka

I concur with Tony's summary of the case.

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

Statement by Jossi

I concur with Nandesuka's assessment.

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

Statement by Alienus

At this point, an RfAr seem premature and is not likely to be at all productive. Therefore, I'm petitioning that those who filed for an RfAr allow the pending RfC to continue. Al 08:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view of jtdirl

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

Outside view of ^^James^^

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

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

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

I agree with James that Will Beback's use of participation in mediation - some of which Al actually logged - as some sort of "black mark" is a worrying mischaracterisation of both Al and the mediation process. As ^^James^^ says - please review the details - don't just go by weight of numbers. Sophia 10:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, I haven't gotten around to commenting on it directly, but some of these RfM's involved me only peripherally and others were launched by me. Once again, the truth is not going to be found by zooming out and taking a head count. Al 10:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Will Beback

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

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

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

User talk:DavidBailey/RfC: Alienus
User:Jakew/Alienus RFC (though never posted, it nonetheless gained a second certifier, a response from Alienus, and input from nine users)

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

Outside view of SOPHIA

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

If Al is not being picked on why did Tony Sidaway haunt his talk page jumping at any chance to try to flame the stuation with unacceptable comments [37]? Comments that passed without remark by any admin at all.

If Al is not being picked on why were the same "edit warrior" comments by an admin [38] not the subject of a similar block to the one given Al - infact why wasn't the admin even admonished? And since when did we get so sensitive that people get blocked for 3 days (effectively 4 now due to admin "help") for this level of comment?

If Al is not being picked on can someone please explain why an admin tried to present a new longer block as a radical point in Al's favour?[39]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't know much about the specific situation that has led to this RfAr, but I can definitely agree with Sophia on one point: since I first encountered Alienus on Wikipedia, he has definitely shown improvement in civility. Has it been enough improvement? I don't know and I really don't want to be involved in that decision. But, improvement there has been. Kasreyn 10:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Randall Brackett

On June 16, 2006 I made a note on Alienus's behavior in comparison with his involvement with a currently banned editor:

On another note, a smilar editor, Alienus may warrent a investigation from the committee. He/she commonly engages in the boderline commentary of trolling and unwanted behavior. I've no idea if this is a result of previous history or if its justly good faith. However, I've noted this editor never fails to defend the actions of disruptive users that comprimise the well-being of the encyclopedia on discussion pages, and this has given me great case for concern (see the comment below for elaboration). This along with comments of administrators and the false accusations of policy violation is something that I did not appreciate. -Zero^Talk 17:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still endorse every word I said. This editor's abuse is quite serious. Also see the discussion on User talk:Randall Brackett. -Randall Brackett 08:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a update, I really dispute the ideal that this editor is a consistent or indefinite block canidate. His contributions have been constructive and I note a indescriminate pattern of competent behavior. However, I would suspect that such remedies as attack parole and possibly other restrictions would assist in curbing the situation. -Randall Brackett 09:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view of Romarin

First of all, I would like to express my concern at both the direction and the speed that this is going. I quote from the top of this page:

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

The fact that this case has already been accepted in spite of this statement is highly troubling, and makes me seriously question the intentions of those who will carry it out. If you are so quick to take on a case that has by no means exhausted other avenues (two RfCs were begun, but have not been allowed to come to fruition), could it be that you have already made up your minds? Could it be that you have assumed guilt where you have seen accusation? I sincerely hope that the answer to these questions is negative, and that the reasoning behind this RfA case will soon be made clear.

I have heard various admins mention, during the course of this case, that it is the editing that is important, that building Wikipedia is what we are all trying to do. Will Beback, the latest blocking admin, stated, “Here, our overarching concern is writing an encyclopedia. If we have to ignore all of the rules in order to do so, we will [40]." This is a slap in the face for Alienus, and for the rest of us who see the work that he does as just that. Alienus is concerned with writing an encyclopedia, and as he has demonstrated, he can “ignore all of the rules” when it comes to removing POV. Yes, he has been through edit wars. (How many among us haven’t?) He has broken 3RR. But if you would look closely at the instances of this, graciously presented to us by Tony Sidaway, you will see that it was not for the fun of it, it was not to be disruptive or mean-spirited: it was because he saw an opportunity to remove POV and make an article more neutral, because he saw personal biases that were interfering with the facts of a controversial topic, because he knew what he had to do to make it better. This is exactly what Will is referring to, is it not? That sometimes we have to break the rules for the good of Wikipedia. I see no difference in Alienus’ actions.

Please consider the evidence carefully, please look behind the accusations and inflammatory statements (of both parties) to examine the heart of the matter. That is where the truth lies. roma rin [talk ] 15:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Jakew

I have had a significant amount of contact with Alienus. He is, as the arbitrators will have gathered, an extremely aggressive editor who has a long history of incivility and personal attacks.

I have never seen Alienus admit that he was in the wrong. An example is the draft RfC that I put together some months ago, listing several examples of inappropriate behaviour. Though it was never filed, Alienus decided to respond. Rather than address the issues raised, he made a variety of accusations, stated that "In short, I pissed them off, and I'm proud of it," and "In the end, I invoke WP:IAR in my defense for all of my actions."

I recently raised this point at User talk:Randall Brackett#Your comment at Alienus' RfAr, asking again for Alienus to address the issues. He evaded the question. As I said to him: "... if you ignore the evidence presented the first time, what is the point in presenting it again? One has to conclude that presenting you with evidence of your inappropriate behaviour simply does not work. I'm reluctant to agree with your call for an RfC for that reason."

I have seen this time and time again - his talk page makes for interesting reading - and the pattern is the same. Alienus is always innocent, in his assessment. How, then, can he change? Jakew 21:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/1/0/0)

Accept. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Accept Fred Bauder 14:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]
Accept Charles Matthews 16:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. - SimonP 18:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Dmcdevit·t 04:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reject, please try an RfC Fred Bauder 20:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity

Involved parties

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

User:King_Vegita

User:Str1977

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

[41] [42]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

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

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-15 Christianity

Talk:Christianity/Archive_27#Heresy_coming_from_Orthodoxy_or_vice_versa

Talk:Christianity/Archive_30#Orthodoxy_and_Heresy

Talk:Christianity/Archive_31#New_version_of_orthodoxy_and_heresy

Statement by

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

Str has a long history in Christianity and other pages of refusal to compromise in the least, being uncivil, and pushing a sanitized view of Christianity as a whole, removing just about anything that doesn't put it in the light that he sees it from. This is about the paragraph which was in mediation, where Str refused to make any compromises on his work and also refused to forge any compromise version when prompted by the mediator. Despite his unwillingness to compromise and my various concessions in the interest of compromise, his stance is that I am being uncompromising because I dropped out of mediation on June 6th[43] after finding the three week long ordeal completely fruitless. An edit war over the two paragraphs is waging in Christianity right now. My feelings, as outlined in mediation, are that his reverts [44], [45] are in violation of WP:NPOV for whitewashing the history and being an attempt to demonize the "heretics" with clever wordplay that will give the effect of demonizing them while being able to be claimed as NPOV, as discussed in mediation, in violation of WP:V for not being verifiable was cited by citations from PhDs in history and anthropology, and in violation of WP:NOR because he states facts which he refuses to verify, but still states that mine are incorrect despite no contradicting source. These are the three overriding principles of Wikipedia, and are stated to overrule any other policies and even editor consensus.

Statement by party 2

In contrast to what KingVegita says, I have a long history of cooperating and compromising with many editors, and of staying civil in quite heated discussions. However, I am not flawless. My aim was always to protect historical accuracy against revisionists. KV also misrepresents the mediation, where I toiled towards a compromise, while he made only bogus concessions (along the line .. but some believe differently) and didn't reply to the issues I raised (structure, style, POV) In fact I was the last to offer a basis for a compromise, which was greeted by weeks of silence on KV's part. I have to point out that it was he that made massive changes to a long-standing version that was the result of compromise between many editors from many POVs. The accusation of "demonizing" the heretics is just plain silly, given that that heretics were only an issue regarding giving a definition (I yielded in this) and in placing a list already included in a chronologically absurd spot. The one thing I grant KV is that he has references (although before he tried to use pseudo-scholarship as a source). I have no reference at hand, at least not books in English. However, most of my objection were matters of style and of the pre-existant structure of the article (violated by KV) and of the wisdom behind including detailed accounts of single events in an overview section spanning 2000 years of history. No reference can solve these issues for us. I also have tried to include his sources, but he insisted on changing the structure. Finally, I want to add that KV tends to push fringe positions. He also gave an award to a notorious POV warrior [46], which might be indicative of his approach to WP. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

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

SPUI probation appeal

Involved parties

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

Statement by SPUI

I have been banned twice under the terms of the probation, both times for non-disruptive actions. Both bans were undone before their scheduled expiration, but not before a significant length of time. This effectively creates a situation in which any admin can block me for about a day for any action they label as disruptive. --SPUI (T - C) 11:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I request that Fred Bauder be recused. In the present arbitration involving me, he has arbitrarily chosen to consider my view as "wrong". He recently said that he "certainly wouldn't lift a finger" if I am blocked under probation, no matter what the reason given by the blocking admin. He has managed to take a side in the conflict, and is thus an involved party. --SPUI (T - C) 03:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by brenneman

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

Statement by Tony Sidaway

Recusing both because I advised SPUI to appeal his probation if he found it too onerous, and because I intervened and imposed the first ban (actually a series of temporary article bans to last for seven days) he discusses after he had reacted in a characteristically defiant and provocative fashion [47] [48] to intervention by another administrator about a spate of many inclusions of the word "fuck" in article edit summaries [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] .

The bans were terminated by me after another administrator had, with my permission, "gone the extra mile" for SPUI, while warning him that he would not intervene in the case of a repetition of provocative or disruptive behavior. [58] --Tony Sidaway 12:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that this application might be dealt with in any of the following ways:

a clarification of the intent of the injunction in the pedophilia userbox case;
a new motion in that case;
merge with the highways case;
rejection comments giving brief guidance on the handling of this kind of case;
a new arbitration case.

--Tony Sidaway 22:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Physchim62

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

Clerk notes

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

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

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

Trey Stone appeal

I am taking the initiative of requesting the following appeal upon receiving this inquiry on my user talk page. [59]

In an arbitration case closed in August 2005, Trey Stone (talk · contribs) was baned "for one year from editing articles which concern politics, particularly articles which concern the foreign relations of the United States." [60] At the time, I considered the ban long overdue. I had taken a hard-line against Trey Stone for nearly a year. For example, I even was a critic of Tony Sidaway's earlier attempt to "mentor" Trey Stone, as I considered him an unreformable trouble-maker.

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request: [61]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

(Not a dispute)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

Second recusal in a row for me this morning. I did try to reform Trey Stone. I considered him to be a potentially valuable, salvageable editor, and while I won't examine the merits of the appeal at this stage I think it would be inappropriate for me to clerk this case. --Tony Sidaway 12:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Accept Fred Bauder 01:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. - SimonP 12:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Dmcdevit·t 03:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sathya Sai Baba

Involved Parties

SSS108 (talk · contribs)
Andries (talk · contribs) also known as Omniscient (talk · contribs)

Confirmation That All Parties Are Aware Of The Request

Available Here

Confirmation That Other Steps In Dispute Resolution Have Been Tried

Unfruitful Request For Wikipedia:Third opinion by Andries: View Request — View Talk Page
1st Request For Mediation Accepted By BostonMA
BostonMA's Inability To Mediate Due To Personal Involvements
2nd Request For Mediation, after BostonMA — View Andries Talk Page: Andries did not to sign this request so it was closed.
3rd Request For Mediation After BostonMA — View Andries Talk Page: Although Andries agreed to this request, Andries stated he had not yet accepted Wisd e n17 as the mediator: View Andries Comments. Andries refused to accept Wisd e n17 as the mediator for 6 days and this request for mediation was closed by Wisd e n17. View Wisden17's Reasons For Closing 2nd Mediation Request. After mediation was closed, Andries privately emailed Wisd e n17 and accepted mediation but rejected a reasonable time-table to respond to questions (which was a major issue in 1st mediation with BostonMA).

Statement By SSS108

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

Statement By Andries

~~First of all, I oppose this request for arbitration, because mediation has not been fully tried as I explained above.~~ SSS108 refuses further mediation [62], so I think that based on this, though I think that mediation is not exhausted and creating thus what I see as unnecessary work for the arbitration committee, abritration can no longer be avoided. Second, almost all comments that SSS108 makes here are unrelated to the case in question, the article Sathya Sai Baba. The complaints are related to my behavior in general and my off-wiki affilations but then the title of this request for arbitration should be called user:Andries, not Sathya Sai Baba. Andries 09:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I request SSS108 either remove all the complaints about me unrelated to the Sathya Sai Baba article or re-name this request for arbitration into user:Andries. But please understand that if SSS108 re-names this request for arbitration into user:Andries then the request for abritration will probably not be accepted because this is the first time that formal complaints about my general behavior would be made and other dispute resolutions regarding me, normally preceding a request for arbitration, such as wikipedia:request for comment have not been tried. Andries 20:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that I am one of the main author for the article, but it is untrue that it was a bad article before SSS108 intervened. Proof is that the German ZDF Television station with its often thoroughly researched documentaries referred to the Sathya Sai Baba article, as mentioned in the Wikipedia:Wikipedia_as_a_press_source_2004

"Botschaften aus dem Jenseits Göttliche Gaben oder Betrug?" (Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen, Germany August 4, 2004) Recommends the Wikipedia article on Sathya Sai Baba." (version of 4 Aug. 2004).

Also, if you can read German then you will see that the statement there by the ZDF is heavily critical, just like almost all other recently published reputable sources, such as the BBC (documentary Secret Swami), The Times (Suicide Sex and the guru), salon.com (Sai Baba untouchable). It is my opinion that the article should reflect what these reputable sources say and yes, then the article will turn out to be heavily critical about Sathya Sai Baba which SSS108 does not like and opposes. Andries 20:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also the comment by user User:M_Alan_Kazlev on his off-wikipedia website about my involvement in Sathya Sai Baba related articles in Wikipedia

"The second is his and Lisa's wikipedia paranoia, already referred to (including posting long complaints on Wikipedia, but not actually doing something regarding editing the page in question in a Neutral Point of View manner, because they believe that Wikipedia (or at least the Sai Baba pages) are under the control of an ex-baba and anti-cult activist, Andries Krugers Dagneaux. I have however found Andries to be very willing to present a neutral point of view, and where criticised he acknowledges and tries to improve the content (see e.g. this discussion This shows an admirable openness). "

Andries 21:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view of jossi

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

Clerk Notes

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

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

Accept. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept for both editors. Dmcdevit·t 03:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for clarification

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

Highways

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

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

Also I'd like to know what the duration of the probation is as no set limit was established in the Arbcom. Is this probation indefinite? Or can we appeal it after 3 months? JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AI

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

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

EffK

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

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

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

Dyslexic Agnostic

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

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

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." [63]

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

Another thing: PG is continuing to request the unblock/unprotection of one of his other accounts, GoldToeMarionette, claiming that no policy violations were cited. Can someone clarify to him that the most important clause of the decision is "...shall use one user account"? 15:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If he choses to create a new account, and continues with the same problematic behavior we will have no difficulty in identifying him for enforcement of probation. Fred Bauder 20:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently having a conversation with him in which I'm making it clear that "restricted to one account" means he can have one unblocked account, and I don't care which one it is (see User talk:PoolGuy). It's not sinking in as far as I can tell, but that's been his problem all along. --ajn (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In light of his behavior after the RfAr closed, it is my opinion (and I hope an ArbCom member will do this) that the RfAr should be reopened to impose further sanctions. --Nlu (talk) 04:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is making people think I am using more than one account or trying to use more than one account? I just want the original problem that GoldToeMarionette should not of been blocked be remedied. ArbCom would have included the violation in the findings of fact had there been one. There wasn't, the account should be unblocked. I can't believe after all of this, that this is still somehow hard to understand.

Nlu, I am still disappointed in your attack mentality. I am sorry for you that I don't put up with it, but it is extremely unbecoming in an Admin. I still don't understand why ArbCom did not penalize you for your role, especially since I was right in what I posted. How the world would be different if you would remedy rather than attack. PoolGuy 04:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

With all due respect, it does matter. There are now users out there that think I did something wrong. Unblocking the account will demonstrate that I in fact did not. By leaving the account blocked, users like Nlu will think that they were justified in their treatment of me. What you view as stale, I view as central to why I challenged the block. Some Admins out there think I created multiple accounts to violate Wikipedia policy.

Let me traslate it to the real world. It is like a judge saying, "Since you are now out of jail, we will not complete that DNA test to prove you were in fact not the perpetrator of the crime. Why should you care, you aren't in jail any more."

I do not like that Administrators get to liberally use an iron fist, and despite it being inappropriate, their behavior is encouraged by the opinion of ArbCom. PoolGuy 13:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on this:

23:03, 21 March 2006 Hall_Monitor (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked GoldToeMarionette (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) with an expiry time of indefinite (sockpuppet used by User:PoolGuy per WP:RFCU results; please select one username, then email me to have the block removed)

16:16, 25 June 2006 Andrew_Norman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked PoolGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) with an expiry time of indefinite (Exhausted community's patience - see WP:AN)

Discussion on WP:AN

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

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)

@@ Line 230: / Line 230: @@
 ==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/0/0/0) ====
-*Accept [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 00:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
+*Accept [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 00:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC) I would be happy to support mediation if it can be arranged. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 23:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 *Accept. [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 04:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 *Accept (as always, to consider conduct rather than content). [[User:Mindspillage|Mindspillage]] [[User talk:Mindspillage|(spill yours?)]] 07:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)