Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anthonyhcole (talk | contribs) at 15:42, 26 May 2012 (→‎Comment by Anthonyhcole: Clarify.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Fæ   23 May 2012 {{{votes}}}
<Antony Price>   26 May 2012 {{{votes}}}
[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.

Fæ

Initiated by MBisanz talk at 21:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

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

Statement by MBisanz

Hello. Today I bring a matter to the Committee regarding fellow administrator Fæ. I bring this matter under clauses 1 and 3 of WP:AP#Scope_and_responsibilities, as the community has been unable to resolve issues raised regarding Fæ's conduct and I believe his poor conduct and tendency towards disruption renders him unfit to hold adminstrative access. Specifically, I cite Wikipedia:ADMIN#Accountability, Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying_incivility, Wikipedia:Harassment#What_harassment_is_not, Wikipedia:NPA#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F, Wikipedia:Etiquette#Principles_of_Wikipedia_etiquette, Wikipedia:Canvas#Stealth_canvassing, Wikipedia:No legal threats as policies and guidelines I believe Fæ has violated via his generally disruptive conduct and refusal to engage those who question his conduct.

Fæ has rendered himself unquestionable and unaccountable regarding his conduct because he responds in an extremely rude manner that personally attacks those who question him. This includes the broad mischaracterization of comments regarding his on-wiki conduct as harassment. See Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive118#F.C3.A6_and_MBisanz, RFAR, talk page. While it's clear that Fae has been treated poorly by some users off-wiki (and possibly on), he now responds so violently to any commentary about him on-wiki, whether well-intentioned or not - that his behavior has become the issue itself. He also acted in an unacceptably rude and nasty manner when a technical correction was brought to his attention here. These actions are part of a broader pattern of unacceptable conduct and refusal to discuss that is evidenced in this response to an AFD notification and this AN thread.

His conduct has been discussed by the community to a stalemate at RFC (see also RFClose stalemate) and AN and he has been banned by User:Jimbo Wales from his talk page for his deception and poor conduct. His use of deception and mischaracterization has also been cited by myself and AGK in the prior RFAR.

As aggravating factors to his poor conduct, I cite his private canvassing of me regarding my participation in his RFC. I also cite his refusal to be held accountable for content he added under a prior account, in violation of the policy regarding failed clean starts. Wikipedia:CleanStart#Editing_after_a_clean_start

As a third aggravating factor, under line three of Wikipedia:AP#Jurisdiction, I cite his broad invocation of external legal authorities at commons:User_talk:Fæ/2012#Threats as a violation of WP:NLT because it is conduct designed to chill those who jointly edit EN.WP and Commons from questioning his conduct, lest they be investigated by the police at his behest.

This sort of conduct—the deception in his clean start RFA and since then in mischaracterizing comments, the gross assumptions of bad faith and harassment, the unwillingness to discuss mattes and conduct, particularly his blank refusal to comment at his RFC, and the continued disruption of numerous areas of the project, is unacceptable conduct for an administrator and warrants Arbcom intervention. MBisanz talk 21:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Fæ

Fæ is mischaracterizing things, again. 1. I have never spoken to or met with Eric Barbour. User:Alison ,however, claims she met him in the recent past. 2. I have made three contributions to Wikipediocracy 1, 2, 3. They dealt with possibly meeting Greg Kohs in connection with his travels to DC for Wikimania, my cable television service provider whom he works for, that I think Greg's behavior is still incompatible with Wikipedia, and that I have no interest in involving Greg with my complaint against Fæ. I assume SBJohnny can attest to my non-use of Wikipediocracy's message system and I can see if Greg is willing to let me put the email followup I had with him regarding my television service on-wiki. Why Fæ believes my personal travel plans and my cable television provider are relevant to this complaint about his conduct is something I cannot understand. MBisanz talk 01:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Themfromspace

This confrontation stems from Fae's controversial RFA and subsequent user RFC. Views at the RFC were divided over the legitamacy of Fae's adminship when it was alleged that heleft his previous account "under a cloud". Questions were raised about the scope of ArbCom's involvement in the RFA (Fae stated that it was sanctioned by ArbCom; John Vandenberg stated that Fae was mistaken and that only he endorsed the RFA). Compounding the difficulty of the situation are allegations of harrassment, outing, and tendentious editing. I think there have been more than enough attempts at dispute resolution, documented above by MBisanz, to warrant an in-depth look. The committee should accept the case to examine the procedure of Fae's original RFA and post-RFA behaviour, as well as general user conduct in the dispute resolution process. ThemFromSpace 23:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Moreschi

In my spare time I have delved into this a fair amount. It is fairly clear that had all the information been available at the time that the original RFA would not have passed, but then again the original RFA voters also knew that something was up and still passed it anyway. This was probably an error of judgment on their part, just as Fae and John V erred in judgment in not fully disclosing Fae's history, but errors in judgment do happen, and, well, it's hard to see how a mutual balls-up is cause for desysopping.

The broader issue seems to be that Fae feels persecuted by the WR crowd, who now seem to have migrated to Wikipediocracy (although Wikipediocracy does seem like a significant step up from WR). I can sympathise, as I've had Paul Wehage aka one half of User:Musikfabrik (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jean-Thierry Boisseau) aka the fieryangel aka oscarlechien opening threads in these various places criticizing my every decision for 4 years, and calling me some rather nasty names in the bargain, almost regardless of whether what I was doing had any merit or not. It doesn't feel terribly pleasant, particularly when your fellow Wikipedians are apt to show a distinct lack of DefendEachOther. As a result, Fae seems to react extremely badly, causing large dramaboard threads where Fae and various Wikipediocracy posters (many of whom edit here in all good faith) snipe at each other. This is not helped by the ongoing controversy over the toxic culture and content at Commons, with which Fae seems to have become associated.

Now, it is my impression that although in quite a few of these dramaboard threads Fae is behaving quite badly, and too often resorts to a kind of catty tone that's both provoking, patronising, and not conducive to a collegial atmosphere, this does not really rise to the level of a desysopping, and I think that if ArbCom takes this case all they will do is succeed in giving Fae a slap on the wrists, which hardly seems worth the time and drama of a full case. IMHO the thing to do is pass a couple of open motions telling Fae to calm the bleep down and react much more coolly, and in a manner more befitting a sysop, to questions about his actions, even if he feels the questioners may not be acting in the best of good faith.

My own advice to Fae is this: 50 percent of what people say about you at WR et al is simply driven by hurt vanity: 40 percent is based on misinformation provided by those of the hurt vanity, and 10 percent (at best) might be fair criticism of some validity. If you can't filter out the white noise it's better not to read the threads at all, and just keep working quietly here without starting vast drama-filled BADSITES AN threads in which you then go make yourself look awful. Moreschi (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Cla68: I'd forgotten that, but yes, that is true and does put this up a level in the seriousness stakes. Too many people have been called homophobes for no particularly good reason. That said I do not think the scope of this case should be widened beyond Fae and his conduct.
@Casliber and Courcelles; there are of course a lot of problems with doing this by motion, but I can easily foresee a case becoming extremely ugly if the evidence and workshop are not strictly policed. My feeling is that this only 60 percent about Fae and is perhaps 30 percent BADSITES case No. 1,989,472.5 and 10 percent Enwiki vs Commons, Case No.1 <?>. Historically arbcom has not done well with cases that purport to be about one individual's conduct but are actually to do with - at least in part - sitewide cultural issues that the community itself is split on (i.e a number of the various Giano cases). I guess you probably do have to take this case, on reflection, as if not it will be back here in a couple of months, but I would give the clerks licence to kill on evidence/workshop stuff that goes offtopic (i.e doesn't really relate to Fae). Otherwise this could be quite teh dramafest. Moreschi (talk) 10:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relaying a message from Fae

--Guerillero | My Talk 00:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request from Cla68

If this case is accepted, could the scope please be set to include editors who made ad hominem and other personal attacks during the Fae RfC and in other forums in support of Fae? Some of the behavior from involved editors has really crossed the line, and I think should be examined. Cla68 (talk) 01:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Moreschi's comment: I think much of Moreschi's analysis is true and on target, with one key omission, and that is the ad hominem accusations or insinuations of homophobia that Fae and some of his supporters have lobbed at people who disagree with them. Accusing or insinuating that others are offering criticism or disagreement with you because they are motivated by some kind of prejudice or hatred (unless it can be backed-up with clear evidence) is unnacceptable. I'm sure that most of us have observed this occur in certain topic areas and would, perhaps, agree that there are few behaviors by Wikipedia participants that are more unhelpful, divisive, hurtful, dishonest and contrary to a spirit of congenial cooperation, collaboration, and compromise. Cla68 (talk) 04:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MZMcBride

I'll repeat what I wrote in the discussion following my attempted redirect of User:Ash to User:Fæ:

I don't necessarily have an issue with clean starts. There are certainly legitimate reasons one might need a clean start. But if it's truly a clean start and you've left your old account for being an asshat, it shouldn't be possible for others to figure out who your old account was or want to associate you with it. If it is possible or they do, it's almost certain you're still being an asshat. And that indicates that you need to either leave or start again. If you choose the latter, you have to change your behavior in the next reincarnation so that nobody is able to figure out who your former nasty self was and it's truly a clean start.

As true then as now. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Peter Cohen

I've noticed drama in a few places on wiki which might be more suited for the evidence page. However, the events on Jimbo's talk page leading up to this post should be worth delving into. I don't always agree with Jimbo but the opinion he expresses there tallies with the one I have independently formed of Fae's actions.--Peter cohen (talk) 04:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by SB_Johnny

While Fae has always been quite civil and collegial when addressing me individually, he does seem to have a bad habit of assuming bad faith on the part of people who associate with people whom he feels have done him wrong (his initial response to this case is a very good and current example).

A minor thing that bothers me about Fae is his insistence that we as a community must forget what he did as "Ash", because I don't see anything wrong with owning up to personal growth, and simply acknowledging that your opinions have "evolved". The major thing that bothers me about Fae is that he's very quick to accuse people who disagree with him of having a homophobic agenda. The other major thing that bothers me about him is that he doesn't intervene when his "defenders" are clearly being unfair and inappropriate.

This all comes down to a question of "conduct becoming of an administrator"... admins should (at least in my idealistic view) try to keep drama to a minimum, because drama distracts from the mission (writing and improving an encyclopedia). Admins should not create dramas that distracts from the mission, full stop.

There is also a simmering and seething undercurrent involved here, because apparently more than a few people believe that there was something deceptive about Fae's RfA. That issue really needs to be addressed here, because (if I understand correctly) ArbCom was perceived to have endorsed the view that "what happened before was no biggie", but it's pretty clear now that the "no biggie" would have been a serious issue for some of the RfA voters. I realize that the comment in question was just a committee member voicing his own opinion of the matter, but perhaps in the future the members of the committee might resolve to discuss such issues privately, and not comment as individuals on such matters unless there is some consensus on the matter (or offer a "minority opinion" if a committee member feels strongly that they need to speak against the majority). I understand the committee's reluctance to expand the case, but I really do think that it should expand it in this direction.

As far as results go, I would like to urge the committee to force Fae to do a "redo" of his RfA, in the interests of putting that part of the issue behind us. FWIW, I would vote in his favor, because I absolutely trust him not to use the buttons inappropriately. Let's have closure and move on, please. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 20:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Anthonyhcole

Please only accept this case if you, the committee, are prepared to fiercely curate the case pages for relevance and civility. I see several issues:

  1. Fæ dropped his earlier account name and claimed to be leaving the project in the middle of an RfC/U that looked likely to sanction him in the area of BLPs. ArbCom agreed to a clean start. In his subsequent RfA Fæ said he'd changed his name after an RfC/U[1] and that he'd never been blocked or sanctioned under the earlier name.[2] This implied, to the !voters at his RfA, that an RfC/U had found nothing sanctionable. There is some likelihood that he would not have passed RfA if !voters had known that he left in the middle of an RfC/U that was calling for sanctions.

    You may want to address Fæ's fitness to edit BLPs, which is still an open question.

    Perhaps ArbCom should have insisted he return and complete the RfC/U before agreeing to a clean start.

    The obvious right thing to do, given his (possibly inadvertent) misleading evidence at his RfA, would be for Fæ to ask the community to reconfirm his adminship. It is argued that the value he adds to the project as an admin is too great to jeopardise with a reconfirmation RfA. You'll have to decide this.

  2. It is claimed that Fæ and his supporters have accused critics of homophobia. This is a serious charge and you should call for (a) evidence of accusations of homophobia, as well as (b) evidence supporting such accusations. If Wikipedia users can reliably be associated with homophobic comments those users should be site banned. If unfounded attributions of homophobia have been made, the record should be put straight, and those making such accusations should be sanctioned.

Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Lankiveil

I am of the school of thought that while obviously the diffs cited in this case are less than ideal, that Fae has done nothing wrong or actionable, and is being hounded far more than other editors who do exactly the same thing. With that said, I urge the ArbCom to take this case and resolve it quickly, which will hopefully lance the drama boil and clear the air sufficiently that everyone can get back to writing articles and creating content, rather than stirring up drama and being internet detectives. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Comment by Wnt

This proceeding is the outcome of a widespread political conflict in Wikipedia over whether "offensive" and especially sexual topics should be covered, which governs everything from what the Ash RfC was about to why many of these accusers have been calling for the destruction of Wikimedia Commons on Jimbo Wales' home page. Cla68 and Anthonyhcole have called for a narrow focus on Fae and those making accusations of homophobia. But a proper arbitration should examine both sides with equal scrutiny, including WP:Harassment#Off-wiki harassment itself, WP:OUTING of Fae based on WHOIS sleuthing, WP:CANVASSING of editors on off-wiki sites, even the violation of WP:Child protection by false allegations that Ash kept an image of a naked child on his page, a situation curiously occurring by the alteration of a Commons file a few days after that account ceased editing. I do not want it to be that Wikipedia editors' first consideration, even above Wikipedia policy, should be to think of how it will look for their name to be plastered all over the Internet next to a selection of anything embarrassing that can be extracted from their entire editing history by a few dozen editors dedicated to suppressing coverage of certain topics - nonetheless that is absolutely so, and it will continue to be the case unless ArbCom makes some wise and seemingly unexpected choices as this proceeding progresses. Wnt (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ReverendWayne

To me the important question is this: can an administrator ignore dispute resolution processes, or otherwise fail to answer community concerns, and still keep the bit? I think the answer ought to be no. Fæ offered no substantive response to the (admittedly messy) RFC. On his talk page, I raised a particular concern to give him an opportunity to address it outside the context of the RFC, but he chose not to reply. Admins must be accountable; that's policy. This is sufficient grounds for a desysop. ReverendWayne (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

Inserting for reference my comment at the RFC/U:

The issues regarding the prior account, the RFC/U closing, and the new account then applying at RfA are real and substantial. Those indicating a concern have evinced no anti-gay, homophobic or other concerns here at all. This is not a "deletionist" vs. "inclusionist" debate at all, it is a discussion about whether Wikipedia procedures have been fully and properly complied with. Nor is this a venue to discuss abrogating WP:BLP or any other fundamental policy of Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And my summary of the entire RFC/U at [3] which I regard as accurate in all respects. Collect (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • Recuse - Tiptoety talk 00:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will be mostly inactive starting 1 June - 28 July --Guerillero | My Talk 01:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The clerks have been advised to hold back on opening a case until 2359 UTC on 28 May 2012, should the usual net-4 acceptance level be reached more than 24 hours before that time, to permit Fae to respond, and arbitrators holding their acceptance/decline vote to have the opportunity to read and consider his statement. Those commenting on this request may wish to bear this in mind. Risker (talk) 02:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse, I have previously been vocal in my support for Fae, and will most likely continue to do so. That obviously precludes me from any involvement as a clerk in this case. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/0/2/5)

  • Recuse. AGK [•] 22:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awaiting statements. Statements should focus primarily (if not exclusively) on Fae's editing of this wiki and reference off-wiki communications, if at all, only to the extent they directly affect this wiki. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In view of the comment from Fae above, just posted, I do not plan to vote until well after Fae's return to editing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awaiting statements also. Note that according to this edit Fae won't be available 24/25 May. PhilKnight (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept I am aware that concerns have been raised regarding Fae. I'm also aware that Fae feels harassed at times. I feel a case looking into the issues would be worthwhile, and it would be useful to get a range of statements to map out the parameters of the case. Statements should focus on conduct on Wikipedia as that is the only place where the Arbitration Committee has jurisdiction. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. I have been keeping an eye on this unfortunate situation ever since the last time this case was before the Committee. There, we declined to hear a case because the matter presented to the Committee (supposed misconduct of someone with advanced permissions) had not went through DR (informal, formal, or specialized like AUSC). Since then, the conflicts have raged both off the en-WP site (which we couldn't necessarily control) to on the english Wikipedia site. This matter is both unduly divisive amongst the community (see the RfC) and has been through the prior steps of dispute resolution. Therefore, the Committee must accept this case, in my opinion. SirFozzie (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse. Kirill [talk] 01:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awaiting Fae's statement, but leaning acceptance, as I think a lot of what SirFozzie says is spot-on. One thing I wonder is this, we we decline this case, it should be with the expectation that there won't be a third such request here this time next month. I'd like to see statements urging decline to spend time on convincing that a decline is a step towards resolution, rather than delaying. Courcelles 01:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also awaiting Fae's statement and leaning toward acceptance. As to Cla68's request, I am hesitant to expand the scope of any case to matters that were better addressed more temporally, but should the case be accepted there is little doubt that the RFC in itself will be in evidence. Risker (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept Leaning Acceptance - Moreschi has a view which we may end up agreeing with and we may very well come to the same conclusions. However, we'll need to look at the issue longitudinally firsthand to come to the same conclusion. Many of us are familiar with segments of this, I can't see how that can be done by motion unless a quorum of other arbs feel confident enough to do so. Should have learnt from last time we proposed complex motions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think this can be dealt with in one or two motions unless they're large "omnibus" type motions, and as someone said on a request last year, paraphrased, when you get to that man motions, you don't have motions, you have a case. If accepted, we might get to PD ad find Moreschi right, we also just as likely could find him well off base once the evidence is in, but I'm skeptical a small number of true motions (as opposed to "PD-in-form-of-motions") can resolve this. The idea of looking at this longitudinally is important, because almost all surely have heard some aspects of this issue, ad a case rather than motions, lets us have the time/space/outside input to do that. Long winded a of saying I'll be voting either accept or decline when all the statements come in, not to a solution by motion. (Not really directed at Cas, sorry for the indentation, but general thoughts on solving this by motions stuck down here just because Cas is the first one to comment on the idea) Courcelles 03:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept given the scope and issues, there is simply nothing Fae could say which would convince me that a case is unnecessary. We tried to defer this earlier, without apparent success; I do not see a credible argument that we can continue to do so. Jclemens (talk) 03:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

<Antony Price>

Initiated by Gaslett (talk) at 09:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to Wikipedia and I am in connection with the Fashion Designer Antony Price.

The article that was on previously for Antony Price from 2008-2012 was inaccurate and was using Antony Price to advertise their own product.

I created a new article based on facts about Antony Price's career and edited the inaccurate article in April 2012. Like I stated I am new to Wikipedia. After one month this article was edited and when I asked the editor why and to not edit it because the information was not accurate I got aggressive responses from the editor Sarahj2107. I did feel bullied however I did not know all the Wikipedia guidelines. However the inaccurate version of Antony Price's article remains. Having studied more now Wikipedia guidelines there are cases of articles being not biased even though the person writing the article may know the person involved. I assure you we are want only facts on there and I am trying to create an article that fits in Wikipedias policies.

However I feel I'm being bullied by Jac16888 as this person keeps leaving inaccurate assumptions about my participation on Wikipedia and also makes false allegations that I spam and vandalise. I'm furious and I resent an administrator using their administrator rights peversely. I've directed Jac16888 to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers but Jac16888 keeps being very rude and does not make constructive comments to help a newcomer. I am using material in MY sandbox to create an article. This administrator has no right to make an allegation and assumption that I'm doing so for promotional material when the article has not even been submitted. Frankly, I do not think this administrator is up to it and is deleting my sandbox and in my view has no right to do so and make allegations. This administrator needs to "butt out".

I paste what Jac16888 states below:

________________________________________________________________

Thank you for unblocking me. Apologies to all.

You were not unblocked, your block expired because it was set at 31 hours. Any repeat of your previous behaviour will result in an immediate, and this time indefinite, block. I suggest you read our policies and guidelines closely before you go any further--Jac16888 Talk 20:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Hello, Gaslett. You have new messages at Sarahj2107's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ERROR: Please enter the username parameter when using the {{Talkback}} template - thus {{Talkback|<username>}}. or ERROR: Please enter the username parameter when using the {{Talkback}} template - thus {{Talkback|<username>}}. template. Hey, Jac16888, I have been reading through the guidelines more and I don't appreciate your judgement. I'm new on Wikipedia and I made a mistake that I owned upto. I suggest you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers - Don't wade into other people's disputes is a general rule in life if not Wikipedia. Behaviour? Yours leads alot to be desired i.e. going around condemning others. Go and aim that at yourself.

When you come onto wikipedia and start spamming it is my business, and since you are apparently still adding promotional content which I just removed from User:Gaslett/sandbox, it's clear you haven't learned from your mistake at all, nor have you read our policies yet. If you continue as you are, your ability to edit Wikipedia will be removed--Jac16888 Talk 14:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC) My sandox is for my own edits and it is not an article as I understand it. To make an asumption and an accusation like that is OUT OF ORDER. So again read : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers . I'm so fed up with your comments I'm reporting you to Wikipedia for bullying.

It doesn't matter whether its your sandbox or not, promotional content is not allowed. Anywhere. Well I'm fed up with spammers thinking they can just come here and promote things without consequences, it's not bullying I'm trying to make you understand your current behaviour of adding promotional content will not be tolerated, because if it continues you will be blocked --Jac16888 Talk 19:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gaslett&oldid=494359951"

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • Diff. 1
  • Diff. 2
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • Link 1
  • Link 2

Statement by {Party 1}

Statement by {Party 2}

Statement by {Party 3}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=494477317"