Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Leyasu (talk | contribs)
2,797 edits
Line 341: Line 341:


That is factual. The concept of “bragging” doesn’t come into it, if I felt the need to address the 1RR part of it then I would have said so, but simply I never even made mention of "1RR". Again... asume good faith. - [[User:Deathrocker|Deathrocker]] 08:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
That is factual. The concept of “bragging” doesn’t come into it, if I felt the need to address the 1RR part of it then I would have said so, but simply I never even made mention of "1RR". Again... asume good faith. - [[User:Deathrocker|Deathrocker]] 08:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

: My arbcom Parole only says that im on Personal Attack Parole and 1 Revert Parole. That means that either way you were bragging because im on parole and you are not.

: Please provide a diff for it saying im 'Owning' articles.

: It also says that my next ban is legibable for one year. Please explain to me how a one year ban is a permenant ban from Wikipedia. Also please remember telling other users to '''assume good faith''' when you are the one being warned for Incivility could be counted as a [[WP:NPA|personal attack]], and i ask you to refrain from making them any further. [[User:Leyasu|Ley Shade]] 09:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


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

Revision as of 09:19, 1 May 2006

Shortcut

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

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

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

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

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



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

Deathrocker

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
[1]
[2]
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Sceptre

Deathrocker has been acting rather incivil during his block on his talk page. This first started when I blocked him for four days to stop both Leyasu and Deathrocker edit-warring, which had me labelled as abusive, and that policy demanded he should be unblocked. This had actually been discussed on the admins' noticeboard, and there was a consensus that he should be blocked for disruption.

Now his block has expired, Deathrocker has been watching Leyasu, accusing him/her of sockpuppetry (Admins' notceboard post, Arbcom Enforcement post), which has regenerated this argument. This is getting beyond a joke with Deathrocker assuming bad faith on the Admins' noticeboard. I'd like to see this dispute resolved once and for all. Will (E@) T 21:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deathrocker

This case by Sceptre has already been thrown out once before, since that time I have made no violations of any Wikipedia policy or been disruptive at all since.

Origins

Originally over a month Sceptre blocked me for 4 days for violating WP:3RR, Leyasu recieved the same length ban, even thought that user was violating ArbCon ruling... I requested to be unblocked on my user page... as this was in clear violation of WP:3RR which states users may only be blocked for up to 24 hours for 3RR, somebody looked at the case and without showing me anywhere to dsipute my claim, removed the tag claiming policies that do not exist as "official", while refusing to show me where..... convinently the user then suggest I would be blocked for a month for disrupting, which in itself was a violation of Wikipedia policies and ridiculous... if you view my block log... 6 of those are merely change in time duration for the one incident or making sure that single block stuck. (An incident which was over a month ago and has already been rejected here)

It was during my one month ban that Sceptre tried to slap me with this before... it was REJECTED unanimously.

He then tried to flog a dead horse (at the time he even said himself "I hope this is not flogging a dead horse") with a RfC on the same case, as it was redundant and already been rejected I saw no need to participate and told him, I was done with the case as it had already been thrown out... and now its seems his good friend Leyasu (the same Leyasu who has violated ArbCon parole 5 times) has asked him to bring the same case up again and have another go. Regardless of the fact that I've made no violations since. In the past Sceptre has admitted been bias in Leyasu's favour.

Helping Wikipedia community, by reporting "highly likely" socks

Since returning from my block as mentioned, I haven't once violated any Wiki policies, or the 3RR that I was blocked for, I've made sure not to break the boundries of that...

I have however reported two suspected socks of Leyasu on the incidents board in the last week (anonymous IP's that only operate while Leyasu has been blocked, on that users prime articles that they had been recently blocked for warring with various users on) as their IP's were very similar to ones which were reported by highly respect admin; user:Idont Havaname and found to be "highly likely" socks of Leyasu [3] by user:Jayjg.. I was doing a service to Wikipedia reporting a recurring problem... is that bad faith?... no its common sense.

Personal Attacks and Defamatory lies against myself

Leyasu however did show up and personally attack me on the incidents board once their latest block was up... claiming I’d impersonated him, bragged about it and been warned, which is a total crock of lies... I have NEVER impersonated ANYBODY on Wikipedia or been warned for such a thing... the user also claimed I was nearly permanently blocked and that I was blocked from editing the Gothic Metal article... which was NEVER the case... I don’t see how this is “good faith” by Leyasu, spreading malicious lies.

Sceptre then showed up on the same incident reporting and told me "not to be uncivil" even though all I was doing was reporting a "highly likely" [4] suspected sock. Whereas his good buddy Leyasu was attacking me, of course not a word was said about that. Sceptre also claimed I was "close to a permanent block" a month ago, which as stated was NEVER the case if you look on the previous ArbCon attempt by this so called admin Sceptre, a case which as mentioned before was rejected unanymously.

user:Deiz told me previous to Sceptre's reply on the incidents board, about cases against Leyasu for the same thing here WP:AE and suggested I detailed the latest suspected case... to which I obliged. How this makes me viable for ArbCon is beyond me.

Suggestion

It would actually be nice to see Sceptre’s admin powers removed atleast for a trial period, he doesn’t seem to use any logic while putting things like this up... has admitted been bias infavour of users before.. yet he is allowed to continue putting things like this out for them

And I suspect bias against me and anybody who reports Leyasu for suspectedly violating parole. This seems to be the only administrator who has a problem with me at present, as I have even been working with other admins recently to help improve Wikipedia. Is a child really the best person to handle an admin possition? It seems rather odd to me?

Sceptre is actually in violation of Wikipedia:Resolving disputes policies with this request.. it states that Arbitration is the last course of action... his current problem seems to be that I've reported suspected sockpuppets (something which numerous users other than myself have suspected recently too) [5]

There was no attempt at discussing why this was a problem in his eyes, other than bringing it straight here and leaving a message on my page saying a comment was needed... I suspect that he is still sore that a month old triad against me was reject... hense the bringing up of old, solved, irrelevent disputed.

How anybody can be up for ArbCon parole for reporting suspected sockpuppets (suspected by numerous other members too) is entirely ludicrous. - Deathrocker 05:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update

The information Leyasu has provided is exactly the same from over a month ago... adding nothing new, this was used in the previous ArbCon case which was rejected/thrown out as it was found that most of the so called "evidence" Leyasu provided was untruthful... this is the sort of thing which make it hard for so many users to work with Leyasu, when he spreads defamatory lies and personal attacks towards them, which if you actually click on the diffs he has provided, you will find many do not even contain the things he claims.

For example; I have never "admitted baiting Leyasu into breaking parole", this is the kind of defamatory lie I'm talking about... go ahead click the diff provided by Leyasu [6] tell me where am I baiting?.... Simple answer, I'm not. If you actually read this over a month old diff, you will find its actually in discussion of Leyasu returning from a 42 hour ban straight back into a revert war... this was over a month ago, of no relevence to this case and is just Leyasu presuming that people who judge the case won't look into the diffs provided.. because most of them do not contain the things he claims.

I have also never "threatened admins Rory and Tawker for abusing admin power"... simply because they didn't have admin powers to abuse a month ago when the incident occured (aparently Tawker has since become an admin, acording to Sceptre), I didn't mistake them as admins, as you can see by Sceptre's edit [7] Leyasu seems to think they were admins. If you read the diffs I don't "attack" either Rory or Tawker anyway.

I made a reply to the original claims/attacks by Leyasu (including a couple mentioned in the last two paragraphys) here over a month ago; User:Deathrocker/BringingDownTheShrine during that time.

The user was also warned in their ArbCon ruling about fasley claiming content disputes as "vandalism" [8] and been uncivil to people [9], he contiunes to violate this even on this page.

The user has offered nothing new that has any relevence to this case at hand. - Deathrocker 06:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tawker was given admin powers on April 10 (his RfA) Will (E@) T 11:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, and that was after I was banned over a month ago, so my point still stands. - Deathrocker 21:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update Pt. 2

Leyasu claimed I was "Wikipedia:Wikilawyering", which in itself is a personal attack against myself. It states that Wikilayering is "inappropriate use of legal technicalities with respect to Wikipedia's policy", stating the fact that this Arbitration case violates Wikipedia policy, because whatever current issues Sceptre seem to have, no attempt was made at Meditation or discussion before bringing it here, which is stated is official wikipedia policy to do so Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes is perfectly reasonable and not "inappropriate" use. See here for the comment; [10]

Also a person attack against myself claiming I was "snide", when mentioning how this is Sceptre's current triad against myself, which if you read the entire case, as mentioned Sceptre has admitted bias before and has tried to ressurect issues that have been thrown out before, so it is in my eyes a "triad".

Statement by User:Tony Sidaway

I've been involved in enforcement of arbitration remedies on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu, to wit, a seven-day block for his fifth violation of his revert parole [11], so I recuse as clerk.

Leyasu claims that he has been impersonated, and there is some circumstantial evidence to support this [12]. A week or so ago, on the other hand, there was a request for a sock check on some claimed socks of Leyasu, and Jayjg then replied that it is "highly likely" that the IP addresses are him [13].

For the moment I am watching closely but, because of Leyasu's civil and apparently good-faith responses, taking his word for it that he is not socking. Despite errors, he appears to be making an honest effort to stick to his revert parole since his return, and is asking me to deal with what he perceives as vandalism on Children of Bodom. This is an encouraging sign and I have lifted a ban, which I imposed earlier today under his probation. on editing Black metal. I will be investigating this on my own account with a view to taking necessary action to enable normal dispute resolution to proceed on that particular article. --Tony Sidaway 22:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upon examination, Leyasu's complaint is about what appears to my inexpert eye to be a nuance of heavy metal subgenre [14]. Whilst I am not qualified to make judgements on heavy metal, it has the appearance of disputed content (and perhaps a rather contentious edit war) rather than vandalism that can be fixed by the techniques to which Leyasu has resorted. --Tony Sidaway 01:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Leyasu

Gothic Music and Nu Metal (Banned By Admin Sceptre)

This was a problem i had with Deathrocker who was openly vandalisng musical articles including blanking, reverting any edit made to articles, POV pushing, ignoring WP:NPOV, personal attacks in edit summaries, and possible internet trolling.

Below is a revert war i had been involved in with this user, [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48].

I stopped during this point to make comment twice on the articles talk page to the user, asking for co-operation and discussion of changes in line with Wikipedia policys, and also provided the NPOV tutorial and explained deliberatly blanking pages is vandalism, [49], [50].

I went on to make several minor edits to the article over an hour to make it less biased to any view, the cumulation of those efforts being here [51]. Immediatly the user went back to vandalisng the page starting another revert war, using the edit summaries for personal attacks, [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60].

The user then went on to try to delete the article by claiming a merger when there was no dispute on this, which i reverted due to it being vandalism [61], [62]. This was a bad veiling though as the user never merged the articles, and instead redirected Goth Music to Goth Rock instead [63].

This user did not stop at the Gothic Music article though, he also went on to incite a revert war on the Nu Metal article, removing sourced information that User:WesleyDodds, a respectable and highly experienced user involved with the article reverted. [64], [65], [66], [67]. This user then went on to vandalise the page using blanking and internet trolling methods, ignoring NPOV, and i quote in this paticulat edit summary saying You are a prick to myself [68], the edit war is on these diffs, [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80].

Deathrocker ignored all offers to work peacefully and was instistant on blanking articles that dont agree solely with his POV, and then Deleting them through a paper trail of redirects when admins pointed out he cannot force his POV on them.

Second Ban By Sceptre
Gothic Metal

The anon reverted the revert on the article which Deathrocker performed after he was unbanned after 12 hours [81].

Deathrocker reverted it, claiming the newbie as a sock puppet, yet offered no proof [82].

The anon reverted this noting that Deathrocker was biting noobs [83].

Deathrocker also persisted in a revert war on Gothic Metal, violating 3RR here as well [84], the reason for removing it being 'lack of sources', even though the information is cited several times in the article.

These reverts and removel of citations continue, despite his 3RR ban, on the note of Deathrocker 'disliking' gothic metal,[85], [86], [87].

Heavy Metal Music

Deathrocker decided to vandalise the Heavy metal music article, which has been a featured article, declaring that 'his POV is the true POV and all others are disallowed' [88], [89].

This was noted by WesleyDodds, a English Major and user who works with me, Spearhead, and the Wikiproject Metal, to improve metal articles, with Deathrocker deciding to start a revert war with anon's and the Wikiproject Metal users, [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96]. Despite all the reverting, the user Loudenvier said that Deathrocker was POV pushing and starting a revert war on a featured article, [97]. Another user noted that Deathrocker was violting WP:NPOV, as well, [98]. Deathrockers basic response to this was to say that everyone else is wrong, he is the only person who is right, and that Wikipedia's three core policys (WP:CITE, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR) dont apply to him, [99].

Admittance To Baiting Into Violating 1RR

Here Deathrocker admits to pushing myself to violate my parole so he can have me banned from Wikipedia, [100].

Userpage Vandalism

Deathrocker also attemped to vandalise comments on Admin Sceptre's talk page, [101], due to Sceptre having previously banned Deathrocker for his serial violations of policy across articles.

Deathrocker also vandalised my user page (Leyasu), [102].. Admin Sceptre reverted this himself, pointing out to Deathrocker that he cannot attack as being a 'sock puppeter' simply because Deathrocker cannot force his POV onto all articles, [103].

After Sceptre had removed it, Deathrocker readded it, claiming everyone was 'vandalising', [104].

Threatening Admins

After being blocked by admin Sceptre for a period of four days, the user Deathrocker chose to request an Unblock [105].

This was answered nicely by Rory096 telling Deathrocker he wasnt able to get an unblock without a reason, [106].

Deathrocker responced by Wikilawyering on the 3 Revert Rule policy of Wikipedia, and accusing admin Sceptre of abusing his administrator powers for blocking him [107].

Admin Tawker then told Deathrocker that this was another 3RR block in a short period of time, and that he was welcome to edit constructly when the block expired [108]. Rory also seconded this, pointing out it was Deathrockers seventh ban for 3RR in a month and the extended block was justified [109].

Deathrocker responded again by trying to Wikilwayer phttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deathrocker&diff=next&oldid=44288932].

Admin Tawker politly told Deathrocker it was at the discrection of the Admin, and to just wait the 4 days to be unblocked, and removing the unblock tag[110].

Deathrocker refuted this, Wikilarywering and accusing Rory and Tawker of abusing their administrator powers, readding the unblock tag, [111].

Tawker again removed the unblock, telling Deathrocker that after Wikilawyering and accusing the admins of abusing their powers, he wasnt going to get an unblock, [112].

Deathrocker then readded the the tag, telling Tawker he wasnt allowed to remove it 'without his permission', and accusing admin Sceptre of abusing his powers again, [113].

Tawker then went on to tell Deathrocker that making personal attacks at the Admins wasnt going to get him an unblock either, [114].

At this point Admin Essjay answered the unblock, telling Deathrocker that it has been noted by many admins that he has tried to Wikilawyer his unblock, tried to personally attack and threaten admins into unblocking him, and has engaged in multiple attempts at disrupting Wikipedia. Admin Essjay also noted that if this behaviour continued, that he would extended the block by a week, while the ANI considered a permenant block, [115].

Deathrocker didnt learn from this and continued Wikilawyering and making personal attacks, now directing this behaviour at admin Essjay, [116].

Deathrocker then erased all the notices, openly violating policy on not removing admin warnings from user pages on his claim that 'policies dont affect me', [117].

Admin Freakofnature then reverted the removel per policy, [118].

Deathrocker then reverted admin Freakofnature, claiming vandalism and abuse of administrator powers by admin Freak, [119].

The admin reverted this again, [120].

Deathrocker then reverted again, claiming he is allowed to 3RR on his talk page, and that Freak was abusing admin powers,[121].

Freak didnt respond and just reverted again, [122].

Deahtrocker then reverted again, removing the information to try for another Unblock attempt, [123].

Sceptre reverted this, [124], which Deathrocker reverted again, [125].

Freak reverted, [126], Deathrocker pursued a revert war while claiming he should be unbanned from his serial 3RR ban, [127].

This revert war between Deathrocker and various admins as such continued, with Deathrocker repeatedly claiming abuse of administrator powers and ownership of the talk page, [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133].

Harrasment And Impersonation

User Deathrocker posted an abusive comment on the Gothic Metal talk page directed at myself claiming, Now that you are back and no longer sneak reverting under anons [134].

Deathrocker also spent time setting up a complaint about me on the ANI board, making personal attacks including its time to pull the plug [135]. When i posted a response, [136], Deathrocker proceeded to make personal attacks at me [[137], including Nice try but as usual your lying, more typical BS from you and what any of your garbage lies has to do with this incident, is beyond me.

Admin Sceptre, a wholey respected Admin, responded to Deathrocker [138], warning him to stop being incivil.

After this Deathrocker went and then tried the same thing the AE board, [139].

Personal Attacks And Wikilawyering On ArbCom

Deathrocker has user his comment space the ArbCom case to make personal attacks against both myself and Admin Scepte [140], including He then tried to flog a dead horse, and Sceptre doesnt use any logic when putting things like this up.

User Deathrocker also recently attempted to Wikilawyer on the arbirrition talk page into having the case against him annuled, also making a snide and incivil comment about sceptre "Sceptre's current triad", [141]. Deathrocker also makes claim i am using sockpuppets, even though a Check user showed that i wasnt, and the fact Deathrocker is under suspicion for using anons to impersonate me. Ley Shade 21:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is simply too much falsification to deal with at once in this comment, but I'll stick to the last part...
A check user result showed that you were "highly likely" of using socks [142] by user:Jayjg.. fact. The current ones that I reported "suspecting" they were your socks had very similar IP's to the ones you were found "highly likely" of using... though the latest one that this debate is centered around hasn't been checked yet, perhaps it should.
Second, the only person I have seen say I'm "under suspicion for using anons to impersonate" you... is guess who? YOU. I don't have the time or the patience to mess around impersonating of all people you, I have no need or desire to... it is a ridiculous claim on your part, and one that is of course false. - Deathrocker 09:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide diffs proving "it is a ridiculous claim on your part, and one that is of course false". Ley Shade 09:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Idont Havaname

As you probably recall, I was a party in Leyasu's arbcom case. I'm not sure if I should be one in this case or not, but I do recall a lot of the interactions and difficulties that Leyasu and Deathrocker have had here. I'm assuming that since the others have posted rather lengthy statements here, they've included most of the diffs for the comments that I'll be discussing. So I'll just post my thoughts.

First, several things I've noticed since the Leyasu/Danteferno case:

  • Leyasu has still been calling good-faith edits and edits by non-admins "vandalism" and seems to have a shaky understanding of what vandalism is or is not.
  • Leyasu has broken revert parole at least 6 times for which he has been punished, plus I think at least one time for which he was not punished (through an anon which was "highly likely" to be him, per the CheckUser).
  • To his credit, the most recent block caused Leyasu to take better steps at preventing another violation of his revert parole.
  • The most recent block for Leyasu was for a week. Leyasu (probably) used anons to evade the block once and continue reverting, as the CheckUser results stated.
  • Enter Deathrocker. Both Leyasu and Deathrocker had set up user subpages that were not linked to their user pages and that were essentially ready-made to post to RFAR evidence pages. These are still up at User:Deathrocker/BringingDownTheShrine and User:Leyasu/Deathrocker. Leyasu had a similar page for Gothic Hero (talk · contribs) at User:Leyasu/Evidence of Gothic Hero's Suck Puppetry. After Leyasu's April 20 block and Deathrocker's March 20 block concluded, Deathrocker started personally attacking Leyasu and using Leyasu's arbcom decision against him. There was some incivility on both sides, mainly Deathrocker's.
  • However, Leyasu has made efforts to prevent himself from violating 1RR since then, which gives me a more favorable impression of him, just as it has for Tony Sidaway.
  • Danteferno has only made less than 50 edits since the first arbcom case concluded. Most of his edits have been directly or indirectly related to Leyasu, and in this diff [143], he says that Leyasu should have been banned rather than blocked. Hopefully, the case hasn't caused Danteferno to lose interest in Wikipedia, since he did do some good work before he got tangled up in revert wars with Leyasu and others, as were addressed in the last arbcom case.

Having seen a general lack of enforcement of the 1RR in Leyasu's case, I've been watching Leyasu and Danteferno (talk · contribs) following the case to try to make sure that their revert paroles were enforced properly, by reporting them at ANI and AE when necessary. (Although, I haven't been placing the blocks myself to try to avoid conflict of interest.) I remember noticing last month that Deathrocker had received a one-month block and thinking that that seemed harsh. However, since Deathrocker came back from his block, I've noticed that he's been little more than a thorn in the side of Leyasu. This became especially apparent when I've been watching WP:AE, a very underwatched (by admins) page given the serious need for arbcom decisions to be enforced (and the fact that WP:AE is the place to report violations of those decisions). Granted, I haven't seen a basis in fact for all of what Leyasu has told Deathrocker (e.g. the mention that a motion to permanently ban Deathrocker was in place), but even in Deathrocker's WP:AE posting, Deathrocker made personal attacks against Leyasu, after a warning against incivility following his nasty second comment to Leyasu on AN/I.

We already have rulings to hold Leyasu in check, and although they haven't worked as well as we would like them to (given the block log) at least they are there. However, since the first case against Deathrocker was rejected, we have no formal measures from the ArbCom to hold Deathrocker's behavior in check; and we definitely do need them - especially since Deathrocker has been openly bragging about the ruling against Leyasu. I strongly recommend hearing this case to analyze the changes in both users' behavior since Leyasu's case and to put some ruling on Deathrocker.

--Idont Havaname (Talk) 21:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Please show me diffs of where I have been "openly braging" about Leyasu's 1RR?... this is the kind of thing that angers me, actually READ the diffs where Leyasu is claiming such a thing and you'll see that nowhere am I "bragging that Leyasu is on 1RR" its a cheap trick, and you don't seem to have bothered to view the diff... I'm challenging you on that basis, please show me ANY evidence of me bragging about that.
Also the post on AE, which was suggested I do by another user, was posted (16:59, 29 April 2006) BEFORE any message from Sceptre on the Incidents board (21:06, 29 April 2006), check the times instead of just taking Leyasu's word for it. Regardless of the fact that Leyasu personally attacked me on the incidents board... he was not warned, which further goes to show the (admitted) bias of Sceptre. The case is in clear violation of Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, so its heresay anyway. - Deathrocker 04:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I interpreted edits like this one [144] as bragging that you (Deathrocker) were not on 1RR, whereas Leyasu was ("although you are on your final warning from your ArbCon parole after breaking it 5 times"). At minimum, there was a lot of incivility in that edit. Several other comments from Deathrocker, most of which were brought up by Leyasu, from WP:AE and WP:AN/I showed the same sort of incivility and personal attacks, such as this personal attack through an edit summary, using a "vandal" template twice in conjunction with Leyasu, and this incivil comment about incivility. Your edit suggesting "pulling the plug" on Leyasu may have violated WP:CIVIL as well, since for one thing there had been no CheckUser to see if the anon was Leyasu, and for another, calling for blocks and bans violates WP:CIVIL. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 05:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification (hopefully): Asking for a routine block for a clearly blockable offense (repeated obvious vandalism such as "I JUST HAX0RED YOUR SIGHT!!! LOL", 3RR violations, arbcom ruling violations, etc.) is one thing. Requesting admins to "pull the plug" on a user with whom you've been arguing is a different matter, since that kind of language implies, "I don't like this user, so once he does something out of line, I want you to indefinitely block him." See WP:CIVIL#Examples for more examples of incivility. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 05:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a diff for the claim of me making any personal attack at you on the ANI board. Ley Shade 05:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly, here we are, [145]

Personal Attack #1 When referring to a content dispute we had from over a month ago, (Which had no relevence to what I was reporting) you claimed I vandalised an article (you have been told, hundreds of times that content disputes are not vandalism, and are not to be marked as so) I believe that is even part of your parole.

I was told that if its debatable as vandalism, it isnt typically considered vandalism. Since then i have been talking to Tony concerning parts of the policy i have been confused on, and how best to deal with those situations.

Personal Attack #2 You claimed I was banned from an article (Gothic Metal) and violating a ban on it, which is a deception and an untruth.

If you werent then thats my mistake, as i had assumed that you had been banned from the article after your one month block.

Personal Attack #3 You claimed I had vandalised your page over a month ago, you were suspected of using a sock at the time by another user, and the tag was showing that... that is not "vandalism", that is a "content dispute", as you disputed whether it should be on or not... you may actually want to look up what "vandalism" means first and not violate the terms of your parole, which clearly states content disputes are not vandalism.

The tag was added by yourself. The tag was also removed by Admin Sceptre. You also offered no proof for the accusation and refused to perform RFCU. You also expressed what seemed to be the reason for the tag as a means to slander and deform my userpage.

Personal Attack #4 You claimed I was currently pending "permanent ban" something which you still continue to do on this talk page, even 10 minutes ago, this has NEVER been the case, even a month ago where a case for Arb against myself was rejected, mark this one down as another deception.

This wasnt a decption when im repeating what Sceptre has in his ArbCom statement, and what was discussed on the ANI board during the time you were blocked.

Personal Attack #5 You claimed that I had been banned for "impersonating you before"... this is another blatant untruth... not only have I never impersonated you, I have also never been "warned or banned" for such a thing as you claim, clear deception.

Please provide a diff for when i claimed you wered banned for impersonating me. I noted you have been suspected multiple times for using anons to impersonate me, and that i thought you had been warned for it, but i do not recall mentioning anything about you being banned for it. Again, please provide actuall diffs where i have made these edits. Ley Shade 07:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's five personal attacks clearly pointed out in your post on the incidents board, you are welcome.- Deathrocker 05:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I interpreted edits like this one [143] as bragging that you (Deathrocker) were not on 1RR, whereas Leyasu was ("although you are on your final warning from your ArbCon parole after breaking it 5 times").

In what sense is that bragging?... it doesn't even mention Leyasu been on 1RR basis, or that I'm not. It factually states that Leyasu is on their final warning from ArbCom parole (Which has numerous conditions not just the 1RR basis) after breaking it five time (that is factually correct, am I right?), in reply to a comment that Leyasu falsely claimed that I was been considered for a "permanent ban"... there is no sense of "brag" in the comment... as you can see I don't even mention his 1RR condition at all, so to "presume" I'm bragging about that, when I didn't even mention it in the first place, is quite a gigantic strech. - Deathrocker 06:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The diff shows you specifically making the comment "although you are on your final warning from your ArbCon parole after breaking it 5 times". My arbcom parole is my 1RR, so to now say that you never mentioned it is folly. Ley Shade 07:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The conditions of your ArbCom parole are vast, the 1RR is a small part of it true, but if you actually read [146].... part of it is also... you are on personal attacks parole... it specifies in the case that, edit warring is harmful, that you have to start citing sources, it also tells you what vandalism is not and shouldn't be labelled as, also warns you that you shouldn't attempt to "own" articles on Wikipedia, etc...

That far outstretches just the 1RR part of it... the comment was a reply to your untruth where you claimed "I was nearly permanently banned"... it served to show, that according to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu in the block log part at the bottom, that it is actually you who are approaching long-time/permanent ban for violating ArbCom.

That is factual. The concept of “bragging” doesn’t come into it, if I felt the need to address the 1RR part of it then I would have said so, but simply I never even made mention of "1RR". Again... asume good faith. - Deathrocker 08:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My arbcom Parole only says that im on Personal Attack Parole and 1 Revert Parole. That means that either way you were bragging because im on parole and you are not.
Please provide a diff for it saying im 'Owning' articles.
It also says that my next ban is legibable for one year. Please explain to me how a one year ban is a permenant ban from Wikipedia. Also please remember telling other users to assume good faith when you are the one being warned for Incivility could be counted as a personal attack, and i ask you to refrain from making them any further. Ley Shade 09:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sam Spade (talk · contribs)

Involved parties

Summary: Sam Spade edit wars on many articles, fails to respect consensus, is uncivil, and accuses everyone who disagrees with him of bad faith and shabby agendas. Bishonen | talk 03:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
[147]
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
Details of attempts at dispute resolution before Sam Spade's RfC was brought are given in the RfC itself.[148] Several quite elaborate fresh attempts were then carried out on the talkpage of the RfC, notably by User:Silence here and here.

Statement by User:Bishonen

Sam Spade wages POV war designed to wear down opposition, even where he is in a minority of one, by sheer unreasonable persistence in the face of consensus, as detailed by numerous editors in the "Statement of the dispute" in the RfC mentioned. I have not myself edited any of "Sam's" pages in a long time — I frankly can't stand it — but I remember what it was like. Depressingly, the RfC shows that the experience is still exactly the same. I think it's urgent for the sake of the encyclopedia and the community that the old dog finally does learn new tricks, as editors are still being stressed out and giving up on "Sam's" pages, the way I was and did. In an Outside view on the RfC that was signed by 29 people, I wrote specifically about Sam's imputations of bad faith and the lack of human respect he shows for those who disagree with him: "I've never seen him not impugn the motives of a critic. That sounds terrible, and I'm not saying it couldn't happen, I certainly don't watch him or anything, especially not since I gave up trying to edit those articles which he owns and guards. (Ah, sweet relief.) But in the interaction I've had he has always moved briskly away from the matter at hand and on to the bad motives and secret agendas of anybody who tries to argue with him." His attitudes and debating techniques can also be studied in his name-calling and self-righteous attacks in the RfC itself. Bishonen | talk 03:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by User:Infinity0

I am currently involved with an arbitration case of my own, so I regret that I will not be able to contribute much to this RfAr. However, I endorse and agree with what Bishonen has written, which also seems to be the general consensus of the people signing Sam Spade's RfC. I will provide evidence of disputed behaviour when needed. -- infinity0 11:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Cadr

I have not been directly involved with a page Sam has been editing for a few months, but in my 3 years on Wikipedia I've been involved in edit wars with him on at least two occasions (mostly relating to articles on Augusto Pinochet and Nazism/Socialism). I have looked carefully at the evidence presented in the recent RfC, and I endorse the two statements above. Sam could potentially be a very valuable contributor, but his attitude towards those who disagree with him has made it impossible for others to work with him constructively in many cases. He has made noises about calming down a little, but he has not really admitted to having done anything wrong, and given his past performance, there is little reason to believe that his behaviour will change in the long run, IMO. Cadr 15:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Mel Etitis

Like Bishonen, much experience with Sam Spade has led me, as far as possible, to avoid articles which he has pretty well taken over, such as Nazi mysticism, and those which he attempts to dominate, such as Human. The recent RfC demontsrated pretty conclusively, first, that his behaviour has remained the same since I first encountered him in 2004 (and discussion at the time, as well as earlier RfCs, indicated that he alrady had a long history of similar behaviour), and secondly, that he refuses to acknowledge community concerns. As he made clear there, and as he's made clear in his editing elsewhere, his view is that he's right, those who disagree with him are wrong (and are acting in bad faith, are "hoodlums", need to have the dirt on them dug, etc.), and that's all that needs to be said. When other editors disagree with him, he (often aggressively) cites the need for consensus (e.g., [149], [150], [151]); when consensus is clearly against him, he ignores it, and even explicitly sets himself against it ("The majority is usually wrong", as he puts it). While "consensus" doesn't merely equal "majority", all consensus is majority opinion.
I don't know what the solution is, but I do know that the problem that he poses is genuine and serious. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

I am not personally much involved with Sam Spade, apart from his RfC. When that was raised I reviewed his edit history and confirmed my existing view from what previous interactions I've had with him that he has strong convictions, and when policy runs counter to these convictions it is clearly his view that his convictions should always prevail. He only cares about consensus when it supports him. Few editors have been around for as long as Sam without learning when to let an overhwlming majority view prevail, he WP:OWNs several articles as detailed above and pushes a view which, even if it were a majority within the USA, which is debatable, is undoubtedly not representative of the world at large. In particular several of his edits go directly against the consensus view of pretty much the entire scientific community. Just zis Guy you know? 20:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ElC

After so many failed mediation attempts with SS on the part of various people, Fred Bauder's seemingly highly selective use of a Mediation Committee referal serving as a condition for a acceptance is as preplexing as it is potentially revealing. El_C 20:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"You may want to use the less formal (and more open) Requests for Comment instead" from Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. "in·stead (ĭn-stĕd') adv. 1. In the place of something previously mentioned; as a substitute or an equivalent: Having planned to drive, we walked instead. 2. In preference; as an alternative: yearned instead for a home and family." from Answers. WAS 4.250 20:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have already certified Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sam Spade. And this is not a conversation thread, User:WAS 4.250. El_C 20:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For my own failed mediation attempt with SS, please refer to my advocate, Wally, and to our mediator, Danny. El_C 21:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by NatusRoma

Based on a statement that User:Sam Spade made on his talk page ([152]), it is quite likely that he will not be able to participate in this arbitration case for at least a week's time. The Arbitration Committee should consider deferring this case until Sam Spade is available to defend himself. NatusRoma | Talk 05:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

infinity0

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[153] [154]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Been disputing with him for months and months. Too complicated, believe me. RJII 19:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC) Here an administrator tried to informally mediate the issue of him citing a non-credible, non-published internet source: Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources (under "FAQs") but he still continues to cite the source.[reply]

Statement by party 1

infinity0 is extremely disruptive. Not in good way, as in bringing in new information that may be controversial but is relevant and notable, but in a bad way. He fights against credible and notable information. He fights against credible sourced information by deleting the information and deletes sources in order to maintain whatever false reality he wants to maintain in an article. Conversely, he fights to keep sources that are not credible in articles (unpublished internet postings by no-name self-proclaimed experts). In addition he engages in personal attacks, harrassment, and stalking by following me around to articles that he doesn't ordinarily deal with to delete my edits simply because they are mine (I can say this with certainty because he admitted to it). Others have witnessed his disruptions as well, as can be seen in his failed attempt at adminship.

Also, I must note he uses my vague "probation" against me for "tendentious editing" in a very unethical way. He keeps making complaints to adminstrators on Noticeboards in hope that an adminstrator will see that I'm on "probation," assume that I'm a bad guy, and consider any given edit of mine "tendentious" and ban me from Wikipedia. You can see a few failed attempts here: [155] He has been warned to stop bugging the adminstrators about me and was warned by one: "stop using RJII's probation as a weapon against him." (jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC) -Adminstrators Noticeboard/Incidents. So, don't be surprised if he tries to do that here as well. Please do not fall for it. I edit very controversial articles in politics and economics and it's very easy to claim that I am engaging in "tendentious editing" but I am always enter information that can be sourced by credible sourced, write in an NPOV manner, and most always attach the source to the edit. I've don't usually considerit worth the trouble to file an arbitration case. I'm not that vindictive. I'm more concerned about the content than the person. But, in this case, infinity0 has been on a persistent mission to try to get me banned from Wikipedia and if something is not done about his disruptiveness, eventually an administrator will fall for his claims that I'm engaging in "tendentious editing" and I will be banned simply for fighting to maintain Wikipedia policy standards for credible sources and NPOV. I've contribued a wealth of information to the encyclopedia and I would like to continue doing so, but it's very difficult with someone determined to fight against NPOV policy and sourcing policy by any means necessary.

  • Example of personal attacks:

"In all honesty, you were being a dick. Let's forget that though. What headings do you suggest for the article? -- infinity0 20:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)" [156]

    • Simultaneous personal attack and assuming bad faith:

[157]

  • Admits to stalking me after I confront him about it (following me around to articles that he has never edited before and deleting my edits simply because they're mine), then proceeding to lie by claiming that I have been stalking him (I'm trying to avoid him, but no matter where I go he comes to harrass me):

[158]

  • Example of deleting credible sources:

[159]

    • These sources were added because someone requested a source for the claim that "many" consider..... I informed him of this after he deleted them [160] and he proceeded to delete them again [161] calling it "spamming" when he knows good and well that more controversial claims need the most sources.
  • Example of fighting to keep non credible, non-published, sources IN articles:

[162] Keeps putting them back in after the policy is stated to him that that is it an unpublished internet source. [163] Here an administrator tried to informally mediate the issue of him citing a non-credible, non-published internet source: Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources (under "FAQs") but he still continues to cite the source.

  • He most recently filed an RFC against me, which was deleted because he could not find anyone else to agree to sign on with him: [164] The majority of "observers" endoresd an observer's comment that said said "RJII's edits to An Anarchist FAQ were in generally in accordance with WP:NPOV and the edits of infinity0 and his associates generally were not" I saved the page before it was deleted, so I can provide record of this RFC upon request. The RFC is saved at [165] before the input was made by other Wikipedians (again, I have the complete RFC saved with input from Wikipedians, if it is requested). Addendum: the RFC page has fortunately been restored for evidence. [166] Take a look at the diffs for things that he is complaining about --there is nothing improper about those edits and discussion. It really leaves one wondering what the why the RFC was filed. It's just another phase of his harrassment of me and desperation to drive me off, or get me banned from, Wikipedia --so that he doesn't have to deal with my insistence on credibly sourced NPOV content.
  • Keeps violating the 3RR rule:

[167] [168] [169]

  • Has been fighting for months to keep it from being noted in the article An Anarchist FAQ that it was written be "social anarchists" when it says right in the FAQ "Lastly, to put our cards on the table, the writers of this FAQ place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism." Here is is deleting a direct primary source quote: [170] At first he wouldn't allow it to say "social anarchists" at all, then after months of dispute he allowed "mostly" but obviously that's misleading --"mostly" implies that some of the writers are individualist anarchists --which is not the case.
  • He just made an additional personal attack after his phony "apology" below, by calling me "paranoid." [171] RJII 20:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2 (Vision Thing)

I agree with arguments RJII presented and I only wish to add following. infinity0 keeps removing relevant links that express criticism to socialism, trying to create the impression that pro-socialists ideas are dominant (1, 2, 3, 4 on the Socialism article and now he started the same thing on the Marxism 5). First dispute (on Socialism) ended with other user cutting number of pro-socialist links 6 & 7, but, not surpassingly, infinity0 immediately added several back 8, without attempt to discuss it 9. Also, on "An Anarchist FAQ" article, after an edit war, consensus was reached about term "reject" 10 but infinity0 soon deleted consensual sentence replacing it with his own 11, without mentioning it on the talk page even though there was discussion in progress just about that paragraph 12. He was also deleting comments on talk page 13, 14 and 15.

Just as I was writing this, he again started potential edit war by adding POV in POV tag 16 (claim that the FAQ is an open document) even though both RJII and I expressed our concern about "openness" of the FAQ 17. -- Vision Thing -- 21:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 3 (ElectricRay)

Statement by party 4 (infinity0)

Note to arbitrators: I would like to greatly reduce my wikipedia usage from today as I have exams over the next two months. If at all possible, please consider accepting/rejecting this case by 20:00 UTC 2006-04-31, as I will not check wikipedia regularly after that. If this case is accepted after then, and I am not available, my evidence and responses are at User:Infinity0/Drafts. Thank you.

  • I point arbitrators to User:Infinity0/Drafts, containing evidence of RJII's behaviour.
    • RJII is the disruptive one, as other users testify: [172].
    • He has been involved in numerous disputes with many other editors: [173] [174] [175] [176]
    • RJII has personal problems with An Anarchist FAQ, going as far as to lie about what it actually is [177].
    • RJII is currently on probation, and by the way he aggressively edits it seems like he has ignored this completely. That is why I have reported him so many times. According to him, all the times (about 5-6 IIRC) he has been blocked during probation it was because I am trying to get him banned. Not because he has done something wrong.
    • When I complain about his attitude, he says it will never change. [178]
  • Vision Thing has made almost completely POV edits - eg, inserting of multiple links to one website, on multiple pages, and comments like this: [179]

I have no time to participate in this arbitration. Sorry, but I have exams. All I can say is that both RJII and Vision Thing have done nothing but insert POV into articles. -- infinity0 19:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My response has become long winded, and from the comments I have come across it seems most people don't have any views on the dispute between me and RJII. If this arbitration is accepted I will post evidence of RJII and my behaviour and my responses to the accusations made against me above.

However, most people seem interested in An Anarchist FAQ, and from their comments I feel they have gotten the wrong impression about it.

A note about An Anarchist FAQ

"An Anarchist FAQ" is a very widely-distributed document , and is immensely influential - see An Anarchist FAQ#Influence. It is mirrored on hundreds of websites and linked to on many many more. It is a very well known source.

I understand concerns about it being used as a secondary source, and I agree with most of them. However, in the vast majority of cases it has been cited, it has been used as a primary source as an example of what anarchists think. I hope this type of usage will not be blocked, because of the above reasons, namely that "An Anarchist FAQ" is a very important resource for anarchists.

As for concerns about the FAQ's neutrality: the FAQ editors are social anarchists but it has been complimented by individualist anarchists too [180]. The FAQ makes a good faith attempt to explain individualist anarchism. It makes arguments against individualist anarchism, but the authors make it known these are only social anarchists' views.

The FAQ is only biased against anarcho-capitalism, and the sections against it take up less than 1/8 of the whole FAQ [181].

The FAQ says "the writers [are] social anarchists". However, the FAQ is also open to contributions [182] I have interpreted from this that that sentence is the main editors calling themselves as social anarchists, but anarchists of all types may have contributed content to the FAQ, since the editors make a good faith attempt to try to be neutral. My main concern is that RJII makes it sound like the FAQ is purely the work of social anarchists, and from this the reader infers that it is social anarchist doctrine, which it is anything but.

An Anarchist FAQ *will* be published by AK Press - I have confirmation; feel free to email AK Press if you don't believe me.

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Accept to consider edit warring and possible harassment, and maybe revisit RJII. Dmcdevit·t 21:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject, no referral from Mediation Committee Fred Bauder 19:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. James F. (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nlu v. User:PoolGuy

Involved parties

*User:Nlu
*User:PoolGuy, who has also edited as (at least) User:AMatchingPair, User:AlmostThere, User:AvoidingAvoidance, User:BringItTogether, User:CallingAllCars, User:DifficultToCommunicate, User:ExplorerLuver, User:FriendlyFriend, User:GettingRightToIt, User:GoldToeMarionette, User:GreatTerriffic, User:HereIsFIVE, User:HereIsFOUR, User:HereIsONE, User:HereIsTHREE, User:HereIsTWO, User:InterestingSituation, User:JustPassingThrough, User:KeepExplaining, User:Legitimiser, User:LookingForInformation, User:MiddleOfTheRoad, User:NinetyNinePercentGood, User:OriginalOne, User:PunchingBag, User:ReallyTryingHere, User:SeeingClearly, User:SpecificityIsBest, User:TheBringerOfPeace,User:ThePuddingHasTheProof, User:TryingToDoWhatsRight, User:UnderstandingUser, User:WaitingForAReason, User:WhyDontTheyCiteAPolicy, User:WillTryAnyway, User:Xtension, and User:YouDontGetIt.
Sockpuppetry continues. Newest one spotted is User:Zappada.
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

I (Nlu), as well as other admins, have repeatedly explained to PoolGuy (talk · contribs) why his sockpuppetry and spamming was why he was blocked, and he refuses to listen -- and in response, when blocked for violation of WP:NPA and WP:SPAM, resorted to much more egregious sockpuppetry (see above), with WP:POINT-violative user names and edits, to evade the block, as well as continuing to harass me and other admins. All attempts by me and others to explain what policies have been violated have hit a brick wall, as he continues to claim not only that he has not violated any policies, but that no policies have been cited. There is no likelihood that user will ever reform his behavior involving other steps of dispute resolution.

Statement by party 1

PoolGuy (talk · contribs)'s violation of policy started when he edit-warred over the article Pet peeve (a dispute I was not involved in) and used the sockpuppet GoldToeMarionette (talk · contribs) to spam other users to influence the AfD process over List of pet peeves. When his sockpuppetry was proven (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/Archive/March_2006), rather than apologize, he insisted that what he did was not violative of any policies. He was then blocked, and then proceeded to create a long list of sockpuppets to harass me and to evade the block. Initially, I reset the block whenever a new sockpuppet emerged, but because during the block, he promised that if he was ever unblocked he would edit productively, I let the final block slide. Since block expired, he has tried to remove {{sockpuppeteer}} (not placed by me) from his user page, and I protected his user page; in response, he has resumed his harassment. See User talk:Nlu and its history. Despite promise to edit productively, he has also not made a single productive edit since the block expired. It is clear that user is using his Wikipedia account as a personal gratification device, not for productive participation in the community.
I am requesting that the ArbCom instate a lengthy ban and permit enforcement by indefinite block of both user and IP, to prevent the further creation of abusive sockpuppets. --Nlu (talk) 06:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PoolGuy

A few users stated that they did not like the illustrative examples on Pet peeve [184]. Over sixty users contributed to the development of the illustrative examples [185]. PoolGuy simply restored content that concensus appeared to support. User:GoldToeMarionette notified [186] [187] the article contributors that the illustrative examples were the subject of an AfD [188]. The AfD went smoothly without controversy. User:HereToCleanup removed the posts at the completion of the AfD [189] [190] in accord with a verifiable Wikipedia Guideline Wikipedia:Spam#Internal_spamming that states "Clean up your mess. For example, after engaging in cross-posting to promote some election, be sure to remove those cross-posts after the election is complete."
Despite strictly following the Guideline on Wikipedia:Spam#Internal_spamming, User:Android79 submitted a Check User Request [191] on User:GoldToeMarionette and User:PoolGuy [192]. Despite there being no basis for completion of that request User:Jayjg based on the policy and procedure [193] for completing an WP:RFCU.
User:GoldToeMarionette did try to demonstrate there was no basis for the RFCU, however User:Hall_Monitor indefinitely blocked [194] GoldToeMarionette simply for being a sockpuppet. GoldToeMarionette never violated Wikipedia Policy or Guidelines [195], and no one has ever been able to find or cite a violation. Having a sockpuppet is not a violation of Policy according to Jimbo Wales [196], so Hall Monitor should never have blocked, especially without any warnings or other administrative actions toward User:GoldToeMarionette or User:PoolGuy.
User:Hall_Monitor never responded to email communication seeking to unblock the account. User:Hall_Monitor left Wikipedia shortly thereafter [197]. User:Nlu had denied [198] the unblock request on User talk:GoldToeMarionette. Nlu protected the page [199] to prevent additional communication by GoldToeMarionette. Other accounts [200] attempted to communicate this very simple issue to other Admins. Nlu prevented all other attempts to communicate through blocking [201]. There has never been any abuse or harassment, just attempts to engage in dialogue about the basis for User:GoldToeMarionette being blocked. Despite Nlu's claims above he has never cited a single policy violation. He has laid false claims of WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT which User:Lbmixpro tried to identify [202] however after PoolGuy demonstrated that none of that could be a basis for administrative action User:Lbmixpro unprotected [203] the PoolGuy talk page to allow communication to resume there.
Nlu claims above that PoolGuy has harassed him, however the contrary is actually the case [204] [205]. Nlu has pursued PoolGuy in the efforts to find an Admin who is reasoned enough to see that the administrative action against GoldToeMarionette was unjustified and worked to prevent the communication [206] [207]. He even tried to ridicule [208]. Just because a sockpuppet was used does not mean something was done in violation of policy. No sock ever violated 3RR, voted, vandalized, or other prohibited behavior. It simply has not happened. Evidence can be provided for everything stated. There are several false statements made by Nlu above (and elsewhere) those can be demonstrated. The unjustified account blocks, page protection, and tags claiming the user is abusive need to be removed. Thank you. PoolGuy 05:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2

I am not in active dispute with PoolGuy but came across this via WP:AN.
The user page of PoolGuy's admitted sock User:GoldToeMarionette is a clear indication that he is conducting a breaching experiment. As far as I can tell, that violates WP:POINT right there. He is also engaged in wikilawyering and various other disputatious nonsense. The mature thing to do would have been to put his hands up when caught trying to astroturf the AfD; instead he complains that this was not explicitly forbidden by guidelines (ignoring long precedent and the fact that we have a policy against disruption).
There is ample precedent for blocking users who are clearly and knowingly gaming the system, which establishes that simply running a sock farm in and of itself is considered disruptive and rapidly leads to exhaustion of the community's patience. We don't need a policy making it a blocking offence to act like a dick, and listing every possible example of dickish behaviour, WP:BP already allows for blocking of users who are being disruptive. Pool Guy seems to be engaged in an experiment to try to prove that his particular disruption is not disruptive because it is not explicitly listed. I would invite PoolGuy to see what has happened to previous sockpuppeteers before complaining that his sockpuppetry is acceptable. Right now he is simply begging for an indefinite block and a block-on-sight policy for all current and future sockpuppets. Mass sockpuppetry has nothing whatsoever to do with building an encyclopaedia. Just zis Guy you know? 12:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Party 3

I have numerous experiences with this individual, and I request to be included in this arbitration hearing. My first experience with Poolguy was on March 28, 2006, with User:HereIsTwo issuing an unblock request which I found RC patrolling. As usual, I read his reason and assumed he was autoblocked. [209]. However, I became suspicious since his talk page mentioned that he was a sockpuppet. I asked him what he was going to do with the sockpuppet account. [210] Shortly after, Nlu mentions on my talk page about the sock [211]. Based on that information, I refused to unblock him and left the situation alone.

I inadevertanly encountered him again while RC patrolling, as he blanked a section at BJAODN stating it wasn't funny. [212] Without reading the actual section and only its title, I though it was funny and reverted. [213] As a result, another one of his socks issued me an npa notice. [214]. I sent my reply to him, assuming this was part on an unrelated issue, but later found out it wasn't. [215] He responded to my reply on my talk page using another sockpuppet [216] . I shortened the BJAODN page to just the header to respect the whole situation, [[217]; but he deleted it anyway. [218]

Shortly after, another one of his socks asks me to help him find a reason why he was being blocked [219] . I stated my findings with him as well as advised him to sit out the block. [220] . He refuted stating most of the violations were already taken care of and reqested for me to unblock his socks. [221] I turned to Nlu for advice on what to do from that point on, [222], as well as asked Fred Bauder to investigate. [223] I also denied his unblock since he did make the sockpuppet to evade a block [224].

Later he notices there was no response from Bauder and suggests someone else to step in [225]. I soon find out that this whole issue is expressed at the admin's noticeboard, where he was complaining about the actions of the admins. I repeated my warnings and advice to him as well as asked him of how useful his socks are. He once again ignores me and creates yet another sock and apologizes that I wasn't able to help him. [226] I blocked his account [227] and he came back using another sock stating his blocks weren't justified. [228].

Realising that he will not stop creating these sockpuppets, I unprotected PoolGuy's main talk page in hopes he'll stop the socks, [229][230] then blocked the sock acct he was using. [231]. I voice my intentions to Nlu [232]

That was the last action I made before learning about this RfAr. I would like to see a final resolution to this whole issue, in hopes that PoolGuy can understand and accept the policies he has violated. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 07:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Uninterested Party

I personally had brief run-ins with both User:PoolGuy as well as User:Nlu. User:PoolGuy is the one who I felt at the time, was mistreated by Nlu. This incident ultimately caused Nlu to block me http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nlu&diff=prev&oldid=44002646#Relax and was one of the reasons that caused me to file an arbitration against Nlu and Jiang after the block expired. In the arbitration, I included PoolGuy's name in the list of involved parties, however he refused to participate. The arbitration was eventually rejected. It is clear that PoolGuy did more HARM than good to wikipedia and such users are not fit to be in such a great project like wikipedia. Nlu is a little rough and uncivil to new users at times and his temperament is below average; however, he, without a doubt, is an exceleent admin who makes tons of useful contributions. Recently, PoolGuy posted an NPA tag on my user talkpage, which was later removed by Nlu. I don't believe there is any wrongdoing in this and such an uncivil user should definitely be penalized by the arCom. Note that users with less violations such as User:Thousandsons, also had their talkpage protected, therefore their voices are completely blocked. I also want to be included in this hearing because of my interaction experience with every single users above.--Bonafide.hustla 23:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)--Freestyle.king[reply]

Expression of annoyance by Mackensen

PoolGuy maintains the largest sock farm this side of the Mississippi [233]. Mackensen (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Tobias Conradi

Abusive and disruptive in the following content areas:

Involved parties

  1. William Allen Simpson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), petitioner
  2. Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), respondent
  3. John_Reid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), third party
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by party 1

This list is a sample, there are too many to give a complete accounting in a few hundred words. With respect to petitioner William Allen Simpson, these have taken place over a period of 5+ months.

Folks are reminded that 4 months ago, the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tobias Conradi#Proposed Solution by William Allen Simpson asked for a suspension:

"Please quickly suspend this user for several months, to prevent massive ongoing damage, and provide time to analyze and repair recent damage. I'd have asked for permanent banishment, but the general thing seems to be for some limited period of time.
"Conradi should be prohibited from future alteration of such placenames, and/or related templates and categories.
"I never imagined that a single user could do so much damage so quickly without prompt action, and would continue after warning! In the mundane world, there'd be a torte action and permanent injunction.
"This kind of extreme behaviour and lack of comity is the very thing that gives Wikipedia a bad name among professionals, along with the unreliable content among educators. It should result in the strictest sanctions, especially as s/he has been around awhile."

Site search indicates discussions of edit warring on the German sister project all the way back to 2004, where Tobias Conradi has been previously blocked, and "This user became closed" after his (Google translated) 19:44, 17 February 2006 edit summary "If your brain so for a long time needs is that not my problem. Go perhaps to your delete policeman coffee drinking...." Apparently, not tolerated there!

Conradi has on many occasions violated policy Wikipedia:No personal attacks:

Conradi has on many occasions violated policy Wikipedia:Civility:

Nor are these merely isolated instances pertaining to a single party. Conradi has also attacked Golbez (talk · contribs), John Reid (talk · contribs), and TexasAndroid (talk · contribs) in edit comments and commentary content:

Conradi has on a number of occasions violated policy Wikipedia:Three-revert rule:

Conradi repeatedly violates policy Wikipedia:Ownership of articles:

Conradi repeatedly violates policy Wikipedia:No original research:

Most recently, Conradi twice disrupted the CfD process, confusing the issues by interjecting copious commentary, usually without name and date, and by recruiting several editors at the last moment with "urgent" pleas, garnering just enough to prevent the 2:1 consensus:

The original responders include regular category patrollers, political experts, and elected officials. An actual count of unbiased responders shows a clear consensus by a large margin in favor of administrative divisions.

Background: This issue came to my attention upon the complaints of professors in our local universities, whose students have begun to use "Wikipedian" terminology instead of the standard terms of art.

During the past year or so, the naming conventions for political geography have been altered from the standard terms of art to a nomenclature that is not widely accepted. Administrative divisions have been renamed to "subdivisions", "subnational entities", and during recent debate, renamed again to "country subdivisions". These are fundamental structural and organizational issues that affect the entire English encyclopedia in this field.

Many/most of these changes from "administrative division" to "subdivision" and "subnational entity" were done by a single person, Tobias Conradi. For example, France.

The now well-established consensus regarding these naming conventions was recorded at the proper Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) guideline. In particular, these govern selecting terms, the order of terms, and capitalization of terms.

For many months, Conradi has refused to follow the guidelines, even after the most recent RfCs, and moves the entries back to his prefered scheme over redirects, sometimes with long caustic edit commentary. See the many recent moves.

Statement by party 2

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

Statement by party 3 - John Reid

I seem to have run afoul of Mr. Conradi by daring to venture an opinion on a relatively insignificant subject: TfD of yet another giant catch-all navigational template. I may have been intemperate in my comment [234] but I stand behind it all the same. My opposition is not a matter of fact but of opinion. Mr. Conradi demanded I defend my comment [235]. As a rule I think this kind of defense is a pointless distraction and I don't elect to fight a pitched battle over every comment I make. I have gone so far as to write a short essay explaining this meta-opinion. Mr. Conradi appears to have taken grave exception to my refusal:

  • It is not a matter of opinion. You claim something untrue. You were notified of this. So you spread false claims. Do you like this? Do you like lying? [236]
  • I did not read it, because false claims are not a matter of opinion. You may read lie . [237]
  • So you still spread false claims after being made aware of it. What is the diff to lieing? [238]

I attempted to warn Mr. Conradi, politely, that accusations of lying may violate WP:CIVIL and run the risk of annoying other editors [239]. His response was decidedly uncivil [240] [241] [242]. Mr. Conradi has provided his own summary of this dispute on his user page [243]:

  • Some people say something that is not true. This is not necessarily a lie. It's not easy to prove lies, but it's easy to prove that claims are wrong. Yes, and some people stick to their claims, even if they could know better....

At this point I determined to respond no further and as Mr. Conradi appeared to turn his attention elsewhere I hoped the matter was at an end.

Accusations of sockpuppetry are not to be bandied about lightly, especially without evidence. Thus I state clearly that I simply do not know who is responsible for the recent spate of vandalism to my user and user talk pages, mostly from my own imposters:

I repeat that I have no evidence linking these edits to Mr. Conradi other than proximity in time (all date from after my involvement with this user); that I have been involved in no remotely similar conflict with any other user; and wholly subjective impressions of general style. I do suggest CheckUser may be appropriate.

Meanwhile even a quick glance at Mr. Conradi's talk page shows that he is consistently disruptive to this project and uncivil to other editors as a rule. I firmly believe in WP:AGF and have been more than willing to give this editor the benefit of the doubt. But at this point I feel this user is beyond salvage. John Reid 07:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This may possibly be, at least in part, a misfiled request for comment or policy proposal. --Tony Sidaway 14:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Reject. This is a content dispute. Arbitration is not for content disputes. Sorry. James F. (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject, no referral from the Mediation Committee Fred Bauder 19:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user:merecat

Involved parties

User:Prometheuspan user:merecat (and others) Merecat has been illegally deleting my comments, repeatedly, to a talk page Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

I have left a message for merecat on his talk page. I'm not sure what a "dif" is, or, how to "show" one, but i will look at the examples below and try. User talk:Merecat [Here is the diff]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Request for comment has allready been tried. Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Merecat Request for mediation is apparently Voluntary, and as near as I can tell, Merecat has no intention of submitting to mediation. Further, I am informed that Mediation carries no consequences, and as far as I am concerned, this looks like grounds for banning. More importantly, it is clear to me that without real consequences, this behavior would continue, and it is extremely abusive.

Statement by party 1

User talk:prometheuspan/ArbcomCase

Merecat has repeatedly deleted my comments to a talk page, has lied and misrepresented doing so, and is gaming the system to keep the article stalled. Please just go look at the edit History, I think that more than prooves the facts, and says as much as needs to be said.

The rebutal by merecat focuses on events that transpired after the first few times that merecat deleted things illegally. I did put a lot of information up that was poorly formatted; it was copies of things he had illegally deleted. Under those circumstances, it is hardly reasonable to assume that it is fair to assume that i should go off into some closet with him. The rebutal is frankly more lies. Also, the copyright violation was alleged, i contacted the editor and have permission. And, merecat did not only delete the article, but deleted the link to the article, AND my comments. Prometheuspan 00:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC) I hope that this is the propper way to do this, somebody told me i have to be the one to present the evidence. I wish i knew how to shrink the things down, but i am a total newbie with extreme dyslexia so you will have to forgive me. This is a partial list, I will continue to search the history when i have the time. [290] [291] [292] [293] [294] Prometheuspan 03:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[295] [296]

[297] Christopher parham now joins Merecat in illegal deletions.

[298] my first post of the argument to write article.

[299] my post of valerie plame

[300]

[301]

[302]

[303]

[304] This may be the one time that Merecats actions were not clearly biased.

[305]

I have gone far back enough now in the edit history to show that this is a pattern of merecats. [306]


I would also like to add that merecats illegal deletions are not limited to me, and include deletions of other editors, including Nescio. Prometheuspan 20:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2

Prometheuspan is a late comer to the ongoing difficult dialog at Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. Granted the dialog there has been slow lately, but the enormous amount of garbled talk page information Prometheuspan posted there has not helped. I have been very explicit in my willinginess to talk with Prometheuspan. However, what I asked him to do was organize his bulky concerns onto a sub page which I had created (since deleted by somenone) and to which, I had posted a link on talk. Also, one of the things Prometheuspan had posted which I did delete (rather than attempt to organize) was an "ad" for an MSN broswer bar [307] (that deleted MSN ad originally arrived as part of a much larger posting by Prometheuspan).

I am uncertain what Prometheuspan's complaint is, other than he's suffered the passing indignity of my attempt to organize his concerns so as to talk with him about them. As soon as it became apparent that Prometheuspan had no intention of utilizing the sub page which I created for his bulky material, I desisted from advancing that idea.

Frankly, I would not be surpised if Prometheuspan is actually a sleeper sock who has sprung into action trying to cause chaos on this article's talk page. This article has been the focus of considerable dialog and also an RFC, which if you read the full details of, you'd see there is only limited support for those who are doing most of the complaining. I do not feel that Prometheuspan's interaction has been extensive enough to warrant this complaint.

It's clear that no lasting harm has befallen either Prometheuspan or the talk dialog as a result of my attempt to address his concerns onto a sub page. Prometheuspan could easily shrug this off and post some actual questions to me (regarding the article), one at a time, on that talk page. Instead, what we got was an enormous data dump by Prometheuspan and his needlessly shrill reaction to my efforts to address it.

If Prometheuspan is not in fact a sock or talk page vandal and has been offended by my edit summary asserting there was vandalism, then I apologize. He too though, must make efforts to actually dialog, not just post reams and reams of disorganized material. This case should be remanded for dialog between Prometheuspan and myself - aimed at specific concerns which he has about specific edits or point I've raised in regards to edits at Rationales to impeach George W. Bush.

As it stands right now, the whole cloth of Prometheuspan's complaint here is that he's rushed in with an enormous data dump on a talk page and has made no realistic effort to manage the consequences of that - other than to extensively complain about me.

One final note: when posting this RfA, Prometheuspan said "I wish i knew how to shrink the things down, but i am a total newbie with extreme dyslexia so you will have to forgive me." [308] and when posting a talk page comment elsewhere said "In fact, an interesting side point, I have asperger syndrome, and dishonesty is sort of like nearly incomprehensible to me." [309] I ask that the veracity of those two statements be measured by the extremely concise and cogent posting left by Promethusepan recently on Jimbo's talk page, here. Merecat 13:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Christopher Parham

Although Merecat has occasionally overstepped the bounds of appropriate behavior, his conduct regarding Rationales to impeach George W. Bush has generally been acceptable, though not very helpful in resolving the continuing content dispute. The RFC against Merecat was related to that content dispute, and not the evidence presented above. Regarding this dispute, the comments of Prometheuspan's that were removed by Merecat were somewhat disrupting the talk page by their poor formatting and enormous length -- Prometheuspan was initially unreceptive to suggestions that he use a subpage, rather than the main talk page, to create new drafts of the article. He has since moved his work to a subpage of his user space.

In one of the diffs Prometheuspan provides, Merecat was legitimately removing the full text of a copyrighted news article from the talk page. In the other diffs, Merecat's action was inappropriate -- especially the edit summaries -- but this is a minor dispute that does not warrant Arbcom attention at the moment. It can probably be resolved peacefully in time if someone neutral is keeping an eye on the situation. I urge rejection. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Reject. Seems premature so far; doesn't rise to the level of the arbitration. Dmcdevit·t 08:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject, no referral from the Mediation Committee Fred Bauder 19:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Lou Dobbs

Involved parties

Case Summary: Disagreement on the neutrality and usefulness of links involving the Lou Dobbs article. Two of the editors refuse to follow the guidelines set forth by Wikipedia regarding WP:EL and have shown extreme bias.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

A formal and public notice regarding the arbitration was made on the talk page located here Talk:Lou Dobbs diffs available at the following [310]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

I've tried disputing NPOV and allowing for other editors to comment. Before any time summarily passes the links in question are readded, the editors in question cite reasons and agreement made between themselves or no one at all. They claim threats have been made but when asked what threats? There is simply no response or the discussion topic is switched. This is all available on the talk page of the article in question. I've had no choice but to refer to the guidelines repeatedly and i'm now here to find some civility.

Statement User:216.254.126.222

I've said all I have regarding this matter on the talk page. To summarize I believe that external links linking to a person should adhere to the guidelines set forth here WP:EL. I also believe that no matter how much one may disagree with a person. Linking to a site that does nothing but lambast the individual without any fact, partiality, neutrality or general deceny should not be tolerated. Wikipedia isn't a magazine. Based on the statement below I must update this statement. Concensus has never been agreed upon because the guidelines have not been followed; therefore, we've never been able to come to, or arrive at any general common sense. Furthermore, this is clearly something that is devolving into a revert war. I'd rather a specific guideline be created when dealing with external links to figures in the public and their relation to the articles in question (As WP:EL has guidelines as to what it appropriate and not I don't see the issue). Or at the very least a statement of arbitration on the article in question. So that others who see the links and disagree with them being in the article will have this to refer to in the advent that this request is summarily declined. I'm doing my best to avert future reverts on the article in question while also placating the parties in disagreement.

Statement by User:Will Beback

This is a content issue. The question is whether a couple of critical external links should be included. The consensus of other editors is that the links are legitimate. Reasonable people may differ. This should be resolved through discussion between engaged editors (more are welcome). -Will Beback 08:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of Wizardry Dragon

This user has been continually reverting the links disputed despite talk page consensus that the links are legitmate and should be included. He has been warned continually of the Three-Revert Rule and of Wikipedia editing policies but has persisted. It would seem that he is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, something I have warned him(/her?) about twice now.

The someone stressful issue is that (s)he would continually cite Wikipedia policies while failing to follow them himself, as I've noted above, (s)he seems in breach of both the Three-Revert Rule and of the guideline against disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point.

I've tried to be as civil as possible, despite the fact (s)he's tried my patience - if anyone has suggestions as to anything I could do differently or better, I'm open to them. -- Wizardry Dragon 21:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Avillia

This extends far beyond the simple content issue. The person in question has been threatened twice by administrators for removing the links. Threatened with blocking for vandalism. Over a editing dispute. If nothing else, this needs to be investigated. Also, as to the removal: What happened to WP:Bold?

Statement by User:Postdlf

I watched the talk page discussion for awhile without getting involved (I had previously contributed a good deal of the article's content,[311] though not the links in question), and finally stepped in only to counter an obviously solitary flouting of consensus because one person is upset that he is not getting his way. After the editor kept unilaterally removing the links, I threatened to block him first for vandalism, and I finally did block one of the above IPs for violating the three-revert rule after four separate editors (including myself) had restored the links. Arbitration is inappropriate because the underlying content issue was already discussed and resolved, and this is only an attempt to avoid that resolution because one editor does not like the outcome.

Statement by non-involved user Stifle

This does not appear to have been posted to WP:RFC yet. I recommend trying that first. Stifle (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Reject, trivial content dispute Fred Bauder 20:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject, this is not an issue for arbcom. Dmcdevit·t 03:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject, as per Fred. Please consider earlier (much earlier) steps in the dispute resolution mechanism. James F. (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal for leniency on behalf of User:Rgulerdem

Involved parties

Case summary: Indefinite blocking of User:Rgulerdem by User:Cyde and User:NSLE (who acted with approval from WP:ANI). User:Johntex is appealing the block at the request of User:Rgulerdem, who is indefinitely blocked with a protected talk page.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Johntex has informed the other 3 parties. [312], [313], [314]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Johntex has posted to WP:ANI asking if there might be room for some leniency in this matter.[315] This did not result in any change to the blocking. Johntex unprotected Rgulerdem's Talk page so that he could detail his positive contributions. This resulted in no change in heart by the blocking admins, and Rgulerdem was accused of continuing to be uncivil. His talk page was reprotected. Given the history between Rgulerdem and the blocking admins, I don't think continued discussion will help. NSLE has posted to Johntex that the next step should be to give the Arbitration Committee a chance to reveiw the situation.[316]

Statement by User:Johntex

I believe there is room for leniency in this case:

  1. Upon joining Wikipedia, Rgulerdem made good edits and engaged in good discussion. [317], [318], [319]
  2. He got into trouble because about showing the cartoons at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy: [320]. Although he did made mistakes (Eg. 3RR violations), he also engaged in many attempts to help others understand how some people feel hurt by these images.
  3. He started on a proposed policy called Wikipedia:Wikiethics. This has not been a popular proposal, and there has been incivility both by Rgulerdem and towards Rgulerdem.
  4. User:NicholasTurnbull gave Rgulerdem what he called a "final warning"[321] but he did not provide specific examples of problem behavior.
  5. Rgulerdem questioned whether Wikipedia has a "final warning".[322]
  6. User:NSLE gave a link to a policy that does not mention a final warning.[323], so it did not answer Rgulerdem's question.
  7. User:NSLE protected Rgulerdem’s page with the statement that Rgulerdem was engaging in trolling and incivility on his talk page.[324] I don’t agree these actions were trolling or uncivil.
  8. User:Cyde indefinitely blocked Rgulerdem, without providing any specific cause.[325]
  9. Rgulerdem contacted me by e-mail and asked me to unblock him. I declined to remove the block.[326], but I did unprotect his talk page so that he could speak about his positive contributions.[327]
  10. Rgulerdem provided information about his positive. Unfortunately, he also made complaints about those who have blocked him, although I had specifically asked him to “… not make any remarks which could possibly be construed as personal attacks, or which could possibly be seen as being uncivil..." I do not think anything he said was a personal attack or uncivil, though he was argumentative when I had specifically asked him to stick to the positive.
  11. Rgulerdem then spoke directly to NSLE saying "Please note that, I am not editing here in Wiki based on your mercy. If I were you I would quit this threatening-style talks as it does not work.". At this point, NLSE re-protected the page.

I do believe that Rgulerdem has behaved badly in the past, but he has served his penalties for those actions. I agree he has tested the community's patience and caused many people to spend a lot of time on him.
On the other hand, he has made some positive contributions. He has worked hard and in good faith on a proposed policy that is important to him. He has suffered insults and incivility on the parts of people who oppose his ideas.
Most importantly to me, the "final warning" and "indefinite block" came about without a specific cause. I have no doubt the blocking admins feel Rgulerdem is a time-sink at best and a hazzard at worst. Also, there was little opposition to the block at WP:ANI. However, I wonder if readers at WP:ANI were able to hear both sides of the issue, since the user was blocked and had his page protected at least part of the time. I ask for the block to be reduced to

Statement by User:Aaron Brenneman

This seems just a little bit early for ArbCom. Either the block stands (i.e. no ArbCom involvment) or it gets lifted (no ArbCom until when/if something else goes pear-shaped.) I'd suggest a pseudo-mentorship: He's clearly passionate, if more than a little bit rough around the edges. *snort* 11R violation *snort*
brenneman{L} 05:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Cyde

Rgulerdem's block log speaks for itself. It was hardly just me who felt the ban was justified. I urge the ArbCom not to bother taking this case. In addition, this is my response to the post by Netpari (talk · contribs · count) below:

Rgulerdem was blocked for being persistently disruptive over the span of many months. May I point out that it is ludicrous to (1) compare him to Socrates and (2) suggest that I should be more lenient on him because he is a Muslim. Socrates is a non-sequitur and I practice a strict policy of separation of church and unblock.

--Cyde Weys 02:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:NSLE

Resid has previously been blocked for incivility, disruption, 3RR, WP:OWN and sockpuppetry. I once blocked him 50 hours for sockpuppetry. For some reason, a glitch in the system allowed him to resume editing, and I reblocked him. He then claimed I was biased and had an agenda, claiming I blocked him for no reason, and later claiming that since the glitch unblocked him he should be free to edit.

After his 50-hour block expired, he went back to revert warring at Wikipedia talk:Wikiethics. He then accused someone else of vandalism, which violates WP:AGF, and when I reverted his edit, and User:Netscott his next revert, he listed us both, as well as innocent user User:Rory096, at WP:AN/3RR, and I blocked him 15 minutes on disruption of 3RR vio page as there was no 3RR.

He has been downright disruptive and I see no reason why the ArbCom shouldaccept this case to lift a block on someone who's obviously not here to contribute cohesively and conducively. NSLE (T+C) at 08:51 UTC (2006-04-21)

This is not Resid's first block, and in the past when we've unblocked him he's just continued to be incivil and disruptive, and I don't forsee that changing. When the block was posted to ANI (link above) many admins and non-admins alike agreed with the block. Resid's complaint to the mailing list received similar responses. NSLE (T+C) at 01:20 UTC (2006-04-22)

Clerk notes

This appears to be a case of a community-imposed indefinite block resulting from extensive discussion [328] [329]. If the block is to be reversed, this can be done by further discussion; there seems to be no suggestion that Wikipedia policy is being breached, and the paths of dispute resolution appear to be open and operating to the full. --Tony Sidaway 01:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of a mentorship offer made by Johntex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and endorsed by discussion on WP:AN/I, rgulerdem has been unblocked.

--Tony Sidaway 16:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Raphael1

I hope, that nobody minds, that I leave a personal note here. I am very sorry for Rgulerdems block since he has been a very thoughtful and passionate editor, who never exhausted my patience. Raphael1 20:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Recuse, as one of those that blocked him, though I'm still unclear why this can't just be worked out by abministrators on WP:ANI... Dmcdevit·t 22:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept on the principle that any indefinite block made by an administrator may be reconsidered by the Arbitration Committee. Fred Bauder 19:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject; this is a community ban, and the ball is really in their court - agree completely with Aaron's comment. James F. (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject per James. Charles Matthews 15:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject ➥the Epopt 20:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Requests for Clarification

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


Crotalus horridus

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway

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

Hmm, we (I?) didn't do that too well. The options are to remove the enforcement from Remedy 1 or to specify that the enforcement only applies to Remedies 2 and 3. I support the former. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<ping>. I guess it's not especially important since Ch appears to be abiding by it, but it's at least untidy to let it lie. -Splashtalk 23:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

Lyndon LaRouche 2

Despite involvement in 3 arbitrations, two of which found and prohibited continued advocacy, Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs) has continued to violate his arbitration remedies, continued advocacy, continued edit warring, and continued incivility and assmptions of bad faith (see for example [330]). The background for the most recent ban is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive91#HK_enforcement. Accordingly, I propose that Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 be modified to include the following remedy:

Herschelkrustofsky banned

For violations of his parole, and continued disruption by advocacy, edit warring, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith, Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 19:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 19:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 20:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al

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

StrangerInParadise restricted to one user account

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

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 14:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 15:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=51021606"