Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CheeseDreams (talk | contribs) at 19:04, 17 December 2004 (→‎Response to Fred Bauder by CheeseDreams (on the Slrubenstein RfAr)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

Template:ArbComElection

Arbitration Committee proceedings
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
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

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

The last step of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is Arbitration. Please review the Dispute resolution for other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request for Arbitration 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.

See Wikipedia:Arbitration policy, Wikipedia:Arbitrators, /Admin enforcement requested, /Standing orders, /Template

Structure of this page

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. Important points:

  • Be brief - put a quick list of the nature of the complaints. Link to detailed evidence elsewhere if you need to.
  • You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person you lodge a complaint against.
  • Please sign and date at least your original submission with '~~~~'.
  • New requests to the top, please.

The numbers in the Comments and votes by Arbitrators (0/0/0/0) section corresponds to Accept/Reject/Recuse/Other.

Current requests for Arbitration

Ciz

Request for Arbitration

An article which requires some delicacy due to strong views, and has for the most part been well run in a civil manner, has been disrupted the past 2 months by User:Ciz?. Having run the gamut of reasonable discussion, contributors to the page in question request arbitration and a long term full wikipedia ban. In the meantime Ciz continues to engage in large scale vandalism, inappropriate editing, and ranting.

This request is a summary, see main page for full evidence and history of vandalism, action to date, and other issues, including history links: User:FT2/Arbitration re Ciz

Ciz is also: 24.61.31.36 and 66.30.122.120

Votes for referral (with request for full wikipedia ban):

  1. FT2
  2. Schneelocke
  3. Fubar Obfusco ("FOo")
  4. Premeditated Chaos
  5. Paranoid
  6. Zetawoof
  7. JAQ
  8. GRider

Votes for referral (view on wikipedia ban not known or against):

  1. Sillydragon (view on ban not known)
  2. ContiE (wants ArbCom to decide what action is appropriate)

Votes against referral:

(None)


Notes:

  • Votes for referral do not count views expressed for removal of Ciz on other pages.
  • There is further evidence being complied, mostly of Ciz' actions and personal attacks on the talk page. However we believe the above is certainly complete as it stands for a decision to accept or recuse, and probably for a decision to be made as well.
  • Last - please check history of main evidence page and this request prior to review. Ciz has a track record of vandalising complaints against him.

Ciz' actions on Wikipedia

The Zoophilia (talk) article is a reference used by those seeking to understand this affinity or attraction (dictionary.com) between humans/animals, in both its sexual and nonsexual form. There is a great deal of formal research, law and history on the social, legal and psychological aspects of these subjects, and since it is factual and sourced, NPOV has seemingly been reached some time ago on most of it.

It seems Ciz is willfully attempting to polarise the article and use it as an advocacy article against the one topic of bestiality, by entirely ignoring all discussion to the contrary regarding the actual article or its subject.

The article has gone through reverts, vandalism, serious personal attacks, deletion and editing of others views, slanderous accusations, putting words in others mouths, VIP, RFC, RfM, and has now been voted pretty unanimously by every current contributor plus a few lurkers for ArbCom.

Both the RFC, and the vote re ArbCom referral (on the talk page), were also vandalised by Ciz, as was the Adolph Hitler article.

Since that vote, Ciz has persisted. He has posted the article to VfD (unanimous keep, 2 votes to delete Ciz), and continued to vandalise the article and also the ArbCom evidence page on multiple occasions.

I am unaware at present of any significant contribution made by Ciz to any topic other than this one topic, and as described above, and in two cases his contributions were edits related to his furry/zoophilia obsession with respect to Sonic the hedgehog and friends. In essense, he has acted as a vandal with a single viewpoint who has proven unable or uninterested in the wiki approach or policies, and has little interest in anything beyond his own view.

We feel that should he develop a significant personal interest in a different article, these same issues will probably arise there too, as fundamentally he does not want to contribute collaboratively and has at no time shown the slightest ability or care for doing so. Indeed his idea of collaboration is insults and slander, often on highly spurious grounds.

Accordingly it is the majority sense of those presenting this request that a total and long term ban from Wikipedia is appropriate, and this is what is requested.

We ask the ArbCom to agree that we have acted with appropriate patience and reserve, but despite much patience, many flames, and much time, there is just no sign whatsoever of any intent to change, nor any significant indication Ciz wants to change enough to participate appropriately in Wikipedia for the foreseeable future.

Failing which a ban at least from this article, and other tangential or related pages and issues.

(Full details, evidence and supporting links can be found at User:FT2/Arbitration re Ciz)

This request posted by: FT2 21:53, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Comments by Ciz

(none at this time)

Comments by others

(none at this time)

Votes and Comments by Arbitrators (2/0/0/0)

  • I am willing to accept, as attempts at dispute resolution have proved so fruitless that mediation would be an obvious waste of energy and time. Sorry, I missed that mediation had already been attempted without success -- wholehearted support, then. Jwrosenzweig 22:14, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Accept, and recommend a temp injunction while under consideration [[User:The Epopt|➥the Epopt of the Cabal]] 22:30, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rienzo and his sockpuppets

Rienzo has in the past committed homophobic vandalism to various user's talk pages

  • This resulted in an RfC (last July) - A
  • Toward the end of the RfC, Rienzo promised to cease such attacks to an admin (as recorded in the RfC)

Rienzo (who claims to be from Sweden) has since created (at least) the following sockpuppets

The following issues then arose

  • "Lady" Tara has predominantly engaged in homophobic and religious personal attacks
  • Nasse/Piglet has predominantly engaged in childish taunts
  • Baffinisland's only edit to date is personal attack vandalism
  • Rienzo has attempted to fake evidence at an RfC
  • 148.136.141.172 has only edited so as to cause homophobic user talk page vandalism

Connecting these sockpuppets is a consistent phraseology, including the use of the term "cheesycake", and "This is your funeral, ha ha ha, etc...", including consistent choice of victims

I request the arbitration committee deal with this problem user, and enact steps to permanently prevent any continued act of this form CheeseDreams 01:33, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good luck, C(Cispyl) D(Dumris)! :-D Lady Tara 04:17, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
For the benefit of Jwrosenzweig

As stated elsewhere,

  • This resulted in an RfC (last July) - A
  • Toward the end of the RfC, Rienzo promised to cease such attacks to an admin (as recorded in the RfC)

Please note that he has not ceased such attacks.

On my talk page, you will find confrontation with the issue, which, as you will see further down this page (in the Slrubensteing RfAr), the sock puppet of the day is completely ignoring, and continuing to misbehave.

The action by this particular sock puppet was so severe that a comment made by it on my talk page resulted in a ban.

Further virtually 100% of its edits are of this kind. Also the other sock puppets, in particular, Baffinisland, and the IP, engage in total vandalism.

An important thing is to for you to read the contributions lists for each sock puppet to see the severe extent to which this raises.

No, I do not think Jwrosenzweig is an "interested party" in this issue, and see no reason for him to recuse. Unless Lady-Tara/Nasse/Piglet/Baffinisland/Rienzo does?

You're so cute, CheesyFlissy! Please sign your "comments" next time, sweety! Lady Tara 02:08, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Votes and Comments by Arbitrators (0/0/0/1)

  • Before I vote (and I'm not sure whether you would consider me an interested party in this dispute -- if you would, I'll recuse), I would like to know what attempts at dispute resolution have already been made. (i.e., have the sockpuppets been confronted, has mediation been requested, etc.?) Jwrosenzweig 22:17, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Slrubenstein

When people contest Slrubenstein's opinions, by producing valid counter arguments, Slrubenstein resorts to personal attacks
e.g. "Amgine is simply revealing his ignorance", "Amgine has amply demonstrated that this good faith is ill-deserved", "Amgine, you simply don't know what you are talking about and are in no poisition to judge content", (with respect to the version Amgine supports) "pompous and ridiculous", (to Amgine) "You have made your own ignorance clear", (to Amgine) "You have not contributed anything of value, and have only gotten in the way", "You must live in a dark wolrd[sic] indeed", "Your claim ... is frankly one of the stupidest things I have ever heard.", "they are both moronic so I must be misreading you", "he is incapable of intelligent contributions or discussion", "CheeseDreams, FT2 and Amgine actually need mentoring on how to work in Wikipedia", "hasn't done any research, used a crappy, non-authoritative quote", "FT2 is partisan and resents criticism", "Next time, a little research before you write in an article would be in order.", "your reasoning is specious and ignorant"

(Amgine, apart from having been a journalist, has remained civil throughout)

Slrubenstein has an inflated opinion of his own worth as a purveyor of historic fact in contrast to his view of the validity of those who might oppose him
e.g. "These are historical facts, don't change them", "I deleted the short paragraph on Messianic movements because it is not based on critical historical scholarship", "This is a superior -- more precise, more accurate -- version", "It seems like lousy scholarship and inappropriate to boot", "Give up the delusion that whatever "you" think is "the consensus."", ""FT2, Amgine, and CheeseDream ... are mistaken and ignorant about many things", "I had explained to FT2 what his mistake was, and corrected him"
Slrubenstein acts in a manner designed to wear out his opponents
e.g. Massively verbose responses to small questions which are easily answered
Slrubenstein exhibits elements of hypocritical control freakness
e.g. moving a summary by one contributer that that contributer considers important to an archive but resurrecting his own text from the archive
Slrubenstein has no interest in consensus
e.g. FT2 produced a version of an article for discussion, for the very purpose of avoiding an edit war, which Slrubenstein proceeded to completely overwrite and radically restructure in a manner not acceptable to at least 2 of the other editors, when the edits Slrubenstein made were taken account of, and integrated into the FT2 version of the article by FT2, Slrubenstein reverted back to his version. On the discussion of a single paragraph, a suggested version was made, Slrubenstein made criticisms, the paragraph was re-written to take account, Slrubenstein made more criticisms, the paragraph was re-written once again, Slrubenstein produced his own proposal, the other version was re-written yet again to take it into account, Slrubenstein criticised it, yet more re-writing, Slrubenstein re-stated his proposal without change, etc..

This is but a small selection - see Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus#Archives

This is in addition to an accusation Slrubenstein made of racism that not only did he refuse to retract, but restated more forcefully

Mediation has failed between CheeseDreams+Amgine and Slrubenstein. The mediator was Llyrwch (whose name is probably spelt wrongly).

I request an arbitration to prevent such an editor from abusing the ideas of wiki, good faith, consensus, reportage, NPOV, and of civility. CheeseDreams 01:33, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments on the above by a variety of related parties

Well, honey! You have already abused "the ideas of wiki, good faith, consensus, reportage, NPOV, and of civility" over and over again. You are hardly the right person to speak about these things... Don't bite off more than ya can chew, darling Gorgonzola! Lady Tara 04:27, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Remember, every personal attack you make counts as evidence against you. See the RfAr against you above. CheeseDreams 19:35, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Ooooohhhh, I'm so scared, cheesyfläns! Are you a man or a woman or an animal, animal? Lady Tara 00:14, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Although not anyone formal on wikipedia, I have been heavily involved as a sort of informal mediator between these parties. They have tried (in my feeling) enough ways to get on, and enough others have tried and failed, that arbitration is what is needed. There have been some wrongs on both sides, but a decision needs to be made, not mediated. FT2 07:40, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
Although there is justification for an RfA against User:Slrubenstein on abuse of administrative privileges, I do not support or condone this RfA against Slrubenstein on my behalf. - Amgine 08:04, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It is not on your behalf. CheeseDreams 19:35, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Clarification

This is not brought on behalf of Amgine. It is on behalf of wiki. And in my name.

I merely used quotes from Slrubenstein referring to Amgine and FT2 to show that it is a general problem with Slrubenstein intrinsically related to his reaction to proper argument, rather than to me.

CheeseDreams 19:40, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments on the above by Pedant

I'd like to go on record by saying I don't think Amgine is part of the problem, more like someone who tried to help and got sucked into an argument. ... I think neither SLRubenstein nor CheeseDreams have been faultless in this whole feud, but that CheeseDreams was the more provocative and inflammatory of the two by a fairly wide margin throughout. ... I feel that SLRubenstein's research was more accurate in many instances, and he has supplied references for his research. ... FT2 gave a very good attempt at consensus-building but was unsuccessful, I don't think it was FT2's fault. ... CheeseDreams "did some weird stuff" with the summarising and archiving (apparently attempting to slant things). I don't think it was inappropriate for SLRubenstein to 'resurrect his text' from the archive, rather, it was more likely archived prematurely by CheeseDreams.
(the above is, according to the edit history, Pedant)

Response to Pedant

I would like to point out to pedant that

(Point 1):

  • read the comments Slrubenstein made to FT2 or Amgine, how have Amgine or FT2 more inflammitary?

(Point 2):

  • This is not about Slrubenstein's comments to me. This is about his general attitude to commenting to people who oppose him.
  • I explicitely did not include comments in the above made by Slrubenstein to me, so that claims such as "CheeseDreams was more inflammitory" are irrelevant.

(Point 3):

  • the issue I raised is not that Slrubenstein's resurrection of text from the archive was wrong, but to do so and then claim that resurrecting a summary from the archive is wrong. This is commonly referred to as hypocrisy

(Point 4):

  • References are no good if they are from bad authors. References are no indication of validity. E.g. tony blair - "weapons of mass distruction capable of being used within 45 minutes of the order being given". The reference is "tony blair", but that doesn't make the content accurate.

(Point 5):

  • I could go "no, there were no weapons of that sort", without backing it up. That doesn't make me wrong. In fact, the evidence in this instance suggests I am correct. As does the scholarly opinion. It is unnecessary to back up every single word.
  • Scholars in the field of early Christianity (or for that matter Physics, or anything else (except linguistics of course)) do not go "X says this, but Y says this" in their normal conversation, it sounds idiotic. They go "this was the case, and such and such, which is what most people think".

(Point 6):

  • If the summary was biased, then dispute the points, check them. Go on, don't make wild accusations. A space was made for disputations, no one filled it in. Further, I made no attempt to hide that I had written the summary, or that people may dispute it. Read it again, check it before you accuse me of trying to distort things.
CheeseDreams 20:03, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pedant's ad-hominem response to CheeseDreams

(Point 1): Irrelevant red herring, typical of CheeseDreams style of argumentation: I never said in any way that Amgine or FT2 were in any way inflammatory or that I in any way found any fault with any of Amgine or FT2's statements anywhere ever.Pedant

(Point 2): First you set up a statement I did not make and then you argue against it. These comments by CheeseDreams are typical CheeseDreams style: trying to drag others into arguing with each other. That itself is inflammatory. I stand by the statement that CheeseDreams has consistently appeared to me to try to inflate arguments and to create discord. Pedant 21:39, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

(Point 3): CheeseDreams should never have taken it upon itself to summarise the sections he summarised, and to archive the discussion while it was still active and points that were archived were still under active discussion. Another abuse of wikipedia processes. user was apparently trying to distort the facts towards CheeseDreams' POV. CheeseDreams is more interested in provoking arguments than in making contributions of actual value. User's comments on my comments are typical of this stylePedant 21:39, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

(Point 4): "References are no good if they are from bad authors" <--- that is ad Hominem, if you want a good example. Pedant 21:39, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

(Point 5): I'm sorry but the above two comments are gibberish, I can't even understand what you are trying to sayPedant 21:39, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

(Point 6): I accuse you of trying to distort things, your entire edit history is awash with distortions and manipulations You have twisted every incident and abused every process available to make it seem as if you were blameless, but I think that you deliberately picked the most controversial article you could find and then intentionally provoked a fight. You seem to me to be starved for attention. There are better ways to get attention that don't disrupt the wikipedia community. I suggest you try writing an article instead of arguing about one. Pedant

On this issue, I am finding myself of the "two wrongs don't make a right" school of thought. CheeseDreams has been provocative, and acted without courtesy indeed. Nonetheless the points raised by CheeseDreams have a validity too and are short and to the point. They need backing up but that's a matter of form, I doubt they are invented, though some may be slightly out of context. I am at a loss to find significant fault with the overall point made. This is why I feel the CheeseDreams-SIrubenstein issue needs arbitration. FT2 21:17, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Response to Fred Bauder by CheeseDreams (on the Slrubenstein RfAr)

I am not going to add it to my case.

Slrubenstein is not me.
You are guilty of encouraging Ad hominem attacks.
How does Slrubenstein's guilt affect my own?
You have already demonstrated an unwillingness to approach findings of fact on the issues that I myself have risen, or provided evidence for. You have also demonstrated lack of neutrality in your choice of 90 days ban for removing text by a non-party (they are not listed in the parties section of the case) from the arbitration case (as you yourself requested that I do on my talk page, remember? (though not in respect to this non-party)), in comparison to only 30 days for TBSDY for the (originally alleged by you) editing of my comments.
I am of the impression that you exhibit horrific bias. And formally raise the question of the CONFLICT OF INTEREST BY FRED BAUDER. If you are a fundamentalist/literalist Christian (or for that matter, particularly devout any other kind), there is a clear conflict of interest in this case. What is your religion? and why should we believe you
CheeseDreams 19:35, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, your shotgun blast didn't hit any of my soft parts. I have a mild interest in liberal Christianity. As to why you should believe me: I have a long record of posting under my own name on the internet. If you google my name you will receive 12,700 hits dating back to the 1980's. A few are for my grandfather and for a Fred Bauder who lives in Texas, but almost all are me. Intensive study of those 12,000 internet links will give you a somewhat incomplete but still rather extensive picture of the matters that have exercised me over the last 15 years. Fred Bauder 12:38, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

I have looked up Fred Bauder on google (as suggested by Fred Bauder), this is what I found
  • Fred Bauder sells 2nd hand books. The Christian content of his collection for sale consists mainly of Low Church texts.
It is odd that he has few, if any, that are critical, or High Church. The low church have a tendency to being touchy about the historicity of Jesus. The high church, on the other hand, generally don't exhibit any care, and tend to be quite open to the issue.
  • I consider this evidence that Fred Bauder has the conflict of interest I specified above.
  • Fred Bauder is known for being a right wing POV warrier.
Particularly with respect to communism. He has inserted into articles such as one about "the definition of a communist state" paragraphs about stalinist death camps, and totalitarianism. This is despite the fact that in order for X to be called a "communist state", it not a requirement that X set up stalinist death camps or totalitarianism. No-one goes "we want to be a communist state, so we really ought to have some stalinist death camps darling". Many editors have complained about this action.
  • I consider this evidence that Fred Bauder is unfit to judge whether someone acts predominantly NPOV or is a POV warrier.
  • Fred Bauder has, in real life, at least once, been banned from carrying out the practice of law for at least a month.
  • I consider this evidence that Fred Bauder does not act in accordance with the interests of proper process of law.
CheeseDreams 19:04, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Votes and Comments by Arbitrators (0/2/1/0)

  • Reject, CheeseDreams is already involved in an arbitration case in which Slrubenstein is one of the other participants. Please state your complaint there. Fred Bauder 13:47, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Recuse. In response to CD's comments to Fred, I will note that when two parties enter arbitration, it is acceptable Wikipedia practice for both to air their grievances with each other....in other words, if you added evidence against Slr to your own case as Fred suggests, it would not be seen as an ad hominem attack by any arbitrator, but rather as a way of establishing much-needed context for behavior. Jwrosenzweig 22:23, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Reject, agree with Fred and James. James F. (talk) 15:24, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Arminius and Darrien

It is bad enough that Wikipedia has overwhelming American bias, without it being enforced.

Darrien, as well as generally trying to Americanise the project as much as possible and being thoroughly obnoxious in all his dealings ("rv vandalism" in the edit summary is his favourite way of changing something he disagrees with), has specifically got on my nerves by reverting the seemingly uncontroversial page Apple pie three times to a POV version. I was going to have to reason with him on the talk page, but then in stepped Arminius, who agreed with Darrien's POV and abused his sysop powers to freeze it as Darrien's version. This is bigotry. All non-American Wikipedians need to combat this sort of thing.

The story about the edits is basically that the pie article was written from a US viewpoint. It mentioned how to make it, it included the expression "as American as apple pie", and it had a picture of an apple pie next to baseball gear on a Stars and Stripes. This is all OK in itself, but needs balancing. For example, I put the caption "Apple pie presented as All-American", because I think it's OK to present it like that as long as it is pointed out — it shouldn't be implied that it is the normal way of showing such a pie. I also changed the general implication that apple pie is American (it's European), and offered a possible explanation of what the "American as apple pie" expression would therefore mean. I was of course open to the explanation being balanced and refined. I am not open to it being reverted and the revert being protected.

This is the only channel I am aware of to have pages unprotected. Ideally, those two would be blocked too. Chameleon 11:57, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think you should be more conciliatory, actually. What mostly is required on the page is some segregation of apple pies (global), from the American view. Charles Matthews 12:35, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I can't be conciliatory because the page is blocked. That's the problem, and that's what I'm trying to sort out here. Chameleon 12:43, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have been referred to this dispute by Chameleon. This is clearly a prima facie misuse of sysop powers and is entirely unacceptable. The article anterior to the intervention of Chameleon was woeful and systemically biased, and wholly devoid of the remotest vestige of NPOV in its alignment. I do not however think this is a case for arbitration, rather it is a case of submitting this page for clean up and flagging it as NPOV. We probably need a mechanism here, however, for issue resolution when an admin oversteps the mark. My golden rule regarding page protection is simple: protection only as an absolute and final last resort (except in the case of drive-by vandalism where a temporary protect may be necessary). All admins should in my opinion bear this firmly in mind. Sjc 14:48, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Request modification of the article. The problem is not bias, per se, but exceptionally poor structuring. The article should 1) present a proper history of the dish from Chaucer (and earlier if known) to the modern day; 2) present an consideration off the dish in different nations, including a discussion of its metaphorical power in modern America. (Look up Dutch apple dishes); 3) present a list of cultural and literary references.Icundell 12:35, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


[Re. attempting previous steps in the dispute resolution process]

But I can't. I started to discuss it on Arminius's talk page and he just reverted it. They cannot be reasoned with, so it is necessary for me to call in external help (especially since few people are watching that article). You are the external help. Chameleon 12:31, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to suggest that the two parties agree to a factual correction to one statement, so that it reads as follows: "As American as apple pie" is a common saying <in the United States> due to this association.
The article as it stands is fine except for the incorrect implication that "As American as apple pie" is something that a non-American might say, or that apple pies, of all things, are generally regarded as having anything to do with America. Indeed the phrase most usually appears as "As American as mom and apple pie." I think we can all agree that the statement is even more puzzling in this form, unless interpreted in an ironic sense. Moms are not particularly American. Well mine isn't.
Having said that, I think Charles Matthews has hit the nail on the head. How about moving all the American stuff into a section titled "Apple pie in American culture."
I don't think Arminius should have reverted the last-but-one version, which provided a pretty good analysis of a puzzling saying that always bemuses non-Americans: "As American as apple pie" is a common saying, which could be seen as ironic, given that apple pie is not particularly American. It may be that "American" in this context does not mean "invented in America" or suchlike, but instead "apple pie" is used as a symbol of what is folksy and wholesome, and therefore "American". This could be compared to the use of the expression "that's not Christian", which should not be taken literally but instead means "that is cruel or immoral behaviour". Has he explained why he reverted that and then protected the page? (I'm not an arbitrator, for what it's worth) --Minority Report 13:01, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I concur with Icundell's suggestion the the draft Talk:Apple pie/draft be used as the new page.
@ Minority Report. It's the spelling of the word(s) (mom/mommy)that's American, not that all mothers are American by default :) Martin TB 14:30, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I get a sense that there is some more history on other pages in this case. Looking at the page on 27 Oct before Chameleon's first edit, I would have to agree that the article was pretty poor with remarkably strong American bias. Chameleon's edits look essentially correct (not sure I like the Christianity analogy) and Darrien's revert flagged as minor and labelled NPOV is clearly wrong. But my biggest problem is quite why Arminius jumped in reverting and blocking the page - this looks like an abuse of administrator power. Chameleon may not have been too courteous, but note that Arminius' explanation on the Talk:Apple pie (which are also obviously wrong) only occur a couple of hours after blocking the page and after he had ignored Chameleon's complaint on his talk page.
Quite why things escalated so quickly I don't know. Non of the parties seem to have taken any of the other normal steps in dispute resolution. I'm guessing there have been some tussels between these parties on other pages. Fortunately the apple pie page looks a lot better now. -- Solipsist 15:36, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree that it did seem to escalate rather quickly. To my knowledge I have never encountered any of the other participants, however, except Theresa Knott. Chameleon asked me to put my opinion on this page, presumably because I have quite often internationalized pages by insertion of phrases like "in the USA" in entries where a writer has written from an American viewpoint, and has apparently either assumed that his statement applies globally or was not aware that the English language edition is likely to have a predominantly non-American readership.
I think Chameleon became unnecessarily abusive, but Arminius could have handled the dispute more fairly prior to that. --Minority Report 18:33, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:24, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)) I was asked to comment, by C. But... I'm a bit late, because the page now looks fine now, due to other editors getting involved. Its a shame that it took a r-f-a to get the page interenationalised. Could it have been listed on cleanup instead?


Votes and Comments by Arbitrators (1/3/0/0)

  • Reject. Please try dicussing this matter with the other parties on their talk pages and on the talk page of the article, if you are unable to work out an agreement between yourselves unaided, please request mediation. If mediation fails, this matter (or rather the problems which underlie this matter) may be referred to arbitration by the mediation committee. Fred Bauder 12:23, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Reject; attempt ealier steps first. However, a quick glance at the talk page reveals no comments at all from either side - nor, indeed, from the protecting sysop. Do better. James F. (talk) 12:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Reject ----the Epopt 16:52, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Accept. Arminius's behavior not acceptable (it seems), grounds for arbitration committee action. The Cunctator 00:03, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Matters currently in Arbitration

/Template

Rejected requests

  • John69 - Rejected - text archived at user talk:John69
  • Avala vs various users - Rejected - try other forms of dispute resolution first, please. Discussion moved to User talk:Avala
  • Matter of Hephaestos - Rejected - due to lack of community desire or allegations. Case referred by Jimbo Feb 19, 2004, rejected Feb 26, 2004. Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Hephaestos.
  • Wheeler vs 172 - Rejected - please try mediation first. Discussion moved to user talk:WHEELER
  • Cheng v. Anonymous and others - Rejected - refer to wikipedia:username for name change policy. For content dispute, try other forms of dispute resolution first, please. Discussion moved to User talk:Nathan w cheng.
  • WikiUser vs. unspecified others - Rejected due to lack of a specific request.
  • Simonides vs. "everyone" - Rejected - referred to the Mediation Committee.
  • Sam Spade vs. Danny - Withdrawn
  • Sam Spade vs. AndyL - Withdrawn
  • Raul654 vs Anthony DiPierro - Withdrawn after agreement of both parties (see standing order).
  • RickK - Rejected - referred to the Mediation Committee.
  • Mike Storm - Rejected - please try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process.
  • Lir (IRC blocking claims) - Rejected due to either a lack of jurisdiction (the IRC channels are not official), or a failure to follow earlier steps.
  • Sam Spade vs. 172 - Rejected - please try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process.
  • User:JRR Trollkien 2 - Inconclusive deadlock: 3 votes to reject, none to accept. Archived at User talk:JRR Trollkien
  • Tim Starling - Rejected.
  • VeryVerily - Rejected - please try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process.
  • Xed vs. Jimbo Wales - Rejected - lack of jurisidiction over Jimbo, private email, lack of initial litigant's involvment, and various other reasons.
  • Emsworth vs. Xed - Rejected
  • Gene Poole vs. Gzornenplatz - Rejected - please try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process.
  • Mintguy - Rejected
  • VeryVerily vs Gzornenplatz - Rejected
  • Request to re-open Anthony DiPierro - Rejected - October 27, 2004, see discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro
  • Chuck_F, 203.112.19.195 and 210.142.29.125 - Rejected, consolidated with /Reithy
  • RickK - Rejected
  • Aranel - Rejected
  • Jayjg - Rejected by 6 arbitrators, 1 recusal, 10 Nov 2004.
  • UninvitedCompany - Rejected, our temporary injunction holds.
  • CheeseDreams - Rejected , please make requests precise, clear, and focussed.
  • Quadell - Rejected, please follow the dispute resolution procedure rather than trying to taking this straight to Arbitration

Completed requests

  • /Theresa knott vs. Mr-Natural-Health - Decided on 11th February 2004 that Mr-Natural-Health would be banned from editing for 30 days (i.e., until 12 Mar 2004). The vote was 6-2 in favor of banning, with 2 explicit and 1 de-facto abstention.
  • /Plautus satire vs Raul654 - Decided on 11th March 2004 that Plautus satire is to be banned for one year, up to and including March 11 2005. The vote was unanimous with 8 votes in favour and 1 de-facto abstention; a further vote in favour of extending the ban indefinitely was held but not met.
  • /Wik - Decided on 15th March 2004 that Wik would have a three month probation during which he may be temp-banned in certain circumstances. There were six votes in favour, three opposed, and one de-facto abstention. Further decisions and minority opinions can be read at /Wik.
  • /Irismeister - Decided on 31st March 2004 that Irismeister would be banned from editing all pages for ten days, and banned from editing Iridology indefinitely. Decision can be found at /Irismeister/Decision.
  • /Anthony DiPierro - Decided on 25th April 2004 to instruct Anthony with regards to his VfD edits, and refer other issues to mediation. The vote was unanimous with 6 votes in favour and 4 de-facto abstentions. Note that the case was accepted solely to investigate use of VfD.
  • /Paul Vogel - Decided on 10 May 2004 to ban Vogel for one year. Further discussion and proposals are available at /Paul Vogel/Proposals.
  • /Wik2 - Decided at /Wik2/Decided on 21 May 2004.
  • /Irismeister 2 - Decided on 03 July 2004 to apply a personal attack parole. For discussion and voting on this matter see /Irismeister 2/Proposed decision.
  • /Mav v. 168 - Closed on 03 July 2004 with an open verdict.
  • /Cantus - Decided on 01 Aug 2004, apply a revert parole to Cantus and other remedies.
  • /Lir - Decided on 23 Aug 2004, blocked for 15 days, revert parole applied, and other remedies.
  • /Mr-Natural-Health - Decided on 26 Aug 2004. There was an earlier partial decision on 25 June.
  • /User:Guanaco versus User:Lir - Decided on 30 Aug 2004.
  • /Lyndon LaRouche (Herschelkrustofsky, Adam_Carr, John_Kenney, and AndyL) - Decided on 12 Sep 2004.
  • /User:PolishPoliticians - Decided on 18 Sep 2004, personal attack parole applied to PolishPoliticians and all new accounts on affected pages.
  • /ChrisO and Levzur Closed on 20 Sep 2004 with an open verdict; no ruling necessary, as Levzur has ceased contributing to Wikipedia.
  • /K1 - Closed on 28 Sep 2004 with an open verdictafter.
  • /Kenneth Alan - Decided October 1, 2004, User:Kenneth Alan banned for one year. Enforcement provisions may be added before case is formally closed.
  • /JRR Trollkien - Closed October 2, 2004, with no findings of fact or decision. JRR Trollkien has long since left.
  • /Orthogonal - Closed October 14, 2004, following his departure from Wikipedia. Subject to reactivation should he return.
  • /RK - Decided October 14, 2004. RK is banned from Wikipedia for 4 months. Further, he is banned from all articles directly or indirectly related to Judaism for 1 year.
  • /RickK vs. Guanaco (ab initio "The Matter of Michael") - Jimbo unbanning Michael made the matter mostly moot. The only remedy was to award Guanaco for creative problem solving.
  • /Jimmyvanthach - Decided on 12 November, 2004.
  • /Rex071404 - Decided on 12 November, 2004.
  • /Lance6wins - Decided on 12 November, 2004.
  • /Rex071404 2 - Decided on 16 November, 2004.
  • /Avala - Decided on 17 November, 2004.
  • /Irismeister 3 - Decided on 20 November, 2004.
  • /Cantus vs. Guanaco - Decided on 24 November, 2004. Cantus is limited to one revert per article per day and prohibited from editing Siberia or Clitoris. Guanaco must re-apply for adminship.
  • /Reithy Closed without action taken on 3 December, 2004, temporary injunction expires that date.
  • /Arminius Closed without action takenon 16 December, 2004, after all participants requested the matter dropped.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=8529538"