Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fred Bauder (talk | contribs) at 20:56, 30 October 2005 (→‎Gabrielsimon: request for tighter restrictions: resolved). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

The last step of dispute resolution is a request for 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
Ongoing problems surrounding Yasuke   16 September 2024 4/0/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Historical elections 13 Sep 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) Motion (orig. case) 26 July 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) Motion (orig. case) 17 August 2024
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 8 September 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

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 you lodge a complaint against.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arb Com member votes to accept/reject/recuse/other.

This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

Current requests

Template

Involved parties

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

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless

Statement by party 1

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Statement by party 2

Please limit your statement to 500 words

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

Silverback

Involved parties

172 (talk · contribs) -- Concern over Silverback's conduct related to the deletion of Categories:Totalitarian dictators, Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, and his own RfC

Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs) -- Concern over Silverback's conduct related to Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda

Silverback (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Notice on his talk page. [1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Documented in and attempted in conjunction with Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Silverback. All attempts to get Silverback to focus on content, not contributors he dislikes, have failed.

Csloat pleaded with him to stop the nonsense with posts to his talk page here and here.

Also, his violations of the 3RR were reported here (the result was he was blocked) and after his block he came back and made 4 reverts, so he was reported a second time (though this second report was never commented on by admins).

Statement by 172

For further details see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Silverback.

In the past several weeks, Silverback has been exceedingly argumentative on talk pages. He has made it tedious to keep arguing with him, as he offers weak (but vehement) defenses in talk that usually ignore the overwhelming evidence brought to his attention by other editors.

Silverback has repeatedly engaged in revert wars and disruptive arguments on talk pages while ignoring the three revert rule, Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Harassment, and Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Most disruptively, he insults fellow editors who disagree with his opinions, often implying that they are "immoral," "unethical," or engaging in "abuses of power" with no basis, and drags fellow editors into endless circular arguments on Talk pages, most notably over his personal issues with other editors. Silverback generally does not play well with others. Lately I have been his principal target of harassment.

Each day Silverback's denouncements of me on pages completely unrelated to my edits become more extreme. His pattern personal attacks and incivility was clearly articulated by User:Bishonen, who relayed to Silverback on 00:12, 15 October 2005, "You've made it clear that you dislike not only his editing, but his ideology, himself, and what you guess or believe about his private life. So what, really? You're an experienced editor, you know Wikipedia is no place for airing opinions about those things. "Comment on content, not on the contributor." [2] When the advise apparently fell on deaf ears, Bishonen stated to Silverback on 00:12, 15 October 2005, "I don't know him, but I don't see anything in your specific accusations to warrant any attacks on his 'character' whatsoever. I don't see why he should put up with continuous abuse from you, either. Just stop it." [3] That comment was made before some of Silverback's most egregious behavior on his own RfC.

Concurrently, Silverback remains involved in a POV war on pages unrelated to the Categroy:Totalitarian dictators dispute. On 18:08, 13 October 2005, Csloat noted on that his conduct has been shown similar patterns on Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda: "[H]e's doing the same sort of thing on Talk:Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda and has been for several weeks now. It's tedious to keep arguing with him and he steamrolls edits of the page itself (and reversions) with deceptive edit summaries, offering weak (but vehement) defenses in talk that usually ignore the most significant edits he makes. [4]

While a long-term ban might not be in order, Silverback is in clear need of a personal attack probation. His behavior with respect to me has also been extreme enough to warrant the kinds of restrictions that have been applied to Everyking with respect to Snowspinner.

Statement by Silverback

It should be noted that User:Redwolf24 has already unilaterally handled this "dispute" by blocking Silverback for 24 hours, essentially preempting action by the ARBCOM. See the RfC/Silverback for details.

172 has made no attempt to settle this dispute. I've made offers which he has refused or ignored. He started the RfC/user:Silverback, and that is not complete, in fact, he has had his say, and I am only beginning mine. But he didn't like what I was writing. So he is trying to shortcut the process again. He refused mediation, he thinks we are irreconcilable.

The strange thing: This is not even an active dispute. It was over once I lost the vote for undelete. I had no intention of engaging 172 on anything. We only got into this because of his misconduct on the vote for deletion of Category:Totalitarian dictator. And I have documented my decision to let that slide, until 172 also went after the article by the same name, and the previous deletion caused by his misconduct was being used as a speedy delete excuse. I consider the whole affair over. And I don't think anything will ever happen between us again, unless he interferes with the operation of the system again. I believe that those who abuse the system should exposed. I guess if the arbcom takes this up, it should consider some sanction against 172, but I am not seeking that, although his unwillingness to participate in the dispute resolution process that he felt a need to initiate is frustrating.

I recommend against taking this up. And if 172 wants to drop the RfC, I am willing to drop that too.--Silverback 08:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

addition to Statement by Silverback

Csloat's "pleas" on my talk page are nothing more than self serving mischaracterizations of what was going on. His report of the alleged 3RR violation that no admin has commented on, was deceptively reported to you above. Perhaps the reason that no admin acted is that they had the assistance of my responses to the report, which csloat chose not to include in his link. [5]. It wasn't a 3RR violation, and csloat's failure to be able to understand that is probably more responsible for his frustration than anything I a have done. These two are trying to short circuit the dispute resolution process, and have never tried to resolve the same dispute (their disputes are different) by doing anything other than normal editing in response.

In response to csloat's "2003 invasion of iraq" allegation against me of a single revert (yes, one) is that the agreement he reached with one other editor on that page means nothing. That page needs many more for a true consensus. Csloat is used to a much less busy page, spending most of his time guarding his "Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda" territory.

So, if they are jumping ahead to the arbitration case, what is the status of the still only partially worked RfC? Is it officially still active pending a possible acceptance of this for arbitration? Or does their request for arb represent an abandonment of the RfC? --Silverback 00:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by csloat

For a while Silverback has constantly steamrolled the page Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda with edits that have been refuted in talk. He is rude, disruptive, and refuses to engage in discussion about it; he simply makes his points in an imperial manner and makes his changes. When I or others resist this and present further arguments in talk he simply repeats his position and then engages in personal attacks. He reverts his changes - frequently violating the 3RR, and even once being blocked for it - in spite of arguments against those changes. He did the same to 2003 invasion of Iraq as well. He sometimes makes major changes including massive deletions in order to make a point rather than in order to improve the entry. He also utilizes deceptive edit summaries -- for example he will make a minor grammatical correction along with a major substantive change, while his edit summary will only account for the grammatical correction. When this is pointed out in talk he will defend himself on the grammatical correction but pretend he doesn't know what you mean about the major substantive change. This behavior is annoying and disruptive and makes it impossible to assume good faith. I have elaborated on this in the RfC but will outline just a few pieces of evidence of his conduct here:

  1. here is an example of deceptive edit summaries -- summary states that "the most recently discussed quote appears to be properly attributed" yet the dispute there was not about attribution of the quote at all, but its propriety to a particular section of the article. More recently, see this edit and this one and note the edit summaries -- in both cases he deceptively only addresses one word of the article in his edit summaries, while his edits delete the information in a whole sentence. My reversions of those edits point this out in the summaries and I discussed this in talk at this location.
  2. here the user has made many reversions and deletions on this page with cryptic explanations at best. The example linked here shows him blanking some 80% of the page, including most of the relevant information, in order to make some kind of point about the significance of Able Danger. He's been pushing this point over and over, despite it being refuted, and sometimes engages in bizarre edits of unrelated material in order to make a point. See his edit summaries in for October 3-5 along with the edits (and reversions by myself and others) for more evidence of this sort of behavior.
  3. 2003 Invasion of Iraq: Here he makes a revert to an earlier version, eliminating rewrites that had been discussed and justified in talk (see here) as a result of an argument between myself and another user. Silverback stepped into this debate by reverting to the other user without addressing these arguments.
  4. His personal attacks are scattered throughout the talk page of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda and the Archive of that discussion page; see for example this section or this one or my attempts to address his deceptive edit summaries here.
  5. (New example added 10/22/05):Silverback has already been taken to task by others for removing their words on discussion pages as well as on the RfC page. I noticed he did this to my response to him on the RfC page recently in order to make it seem like I had not responded to him and that I was responding to another user. Here he deleted my comments and then he "restored" them here, in a place where they do not make any sense and where I seem to be responding to another user's comments (I notice he specifically chose a user who had proposed an "agreement" which my first sentence seems to refer to after Silverback's changes). This is an obvious attempt to undermine the RfC process by creating confusion and by making it seem as if his "agreement" proposal was ignored.--csloat 20:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Addendum to statement by csloat

Silverback alleges above that I do not understand the 3RR and then accuses me of deception. I linked my entry on the 3RR page through diffs; no attempt was made to hide the fact that Silverback and I had an exchange on that page that followed. As you can see from the exchange, Silverback asserts that he did not violate the 3RR but he is simply wrong. What he did was revert with a minor change in order to try to skate around the 3RR, but substantively his change was still a reversion (this was noted by an admin the previous time he violated the 3RR as he made roughly the same argument there; this time he added the bizarre comment that the 3RR process was "immoral" but otherwise made the same claim). Nevertheless, this is only one of the many problems with his conduct I noted above. User 172 and I did not sign this page due to violations of the 3RR; we did so because of larger problems with this user's conduct on these pages. His 3RR violations were a symptom of these problems, not the problem itself. A much bigger problem is his frequent use of personal attacks to substitute for argument and discussion, and that problem is displayed in his addendum above -- e.g. dismissing my attempts to resolve the issue by commenting on his user talk page (as is wikipedia policy) by calling those attempts "nothing more than self serving mischaracterizations" -- this is sheer namecalling that he never backs up with any evidence or analysis of the claims at issue. He then discusses the 2003 invasion of Iraq edits I linked above (ignoring many of the other examples I offered, as per his usual style) and claims that my edits were some sort of violation of consensus. Yet he should be well aware that the issue there was not consensus - Wikipedia editors are encouraged to "be bold." What I did was make substantive changes to the page and justify each of those changes with an elaborate explanation that can be found in this diff which I also linked above. Silverback went in and reverted my changes without so much as a comment on the arguments I developed on that talk page. The issue is not the number of times he reverts a page; the issue is the way he steamrolls these edits while paying no attention whatsoever to the arguments made justifying alternative wordings.--csloat 01:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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


Copperchair

Involved parties

Summary
  • Edit warring
  • 3RR violation
  • Deceptive edit summaries
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

User talk:Copperchair and his talk archive have numerous attempts to talk to Copperchair and get him to stop reverting, and his the RFC against him (for reverting and user talk blanking) succeeded in getting him to archive instead of blanking his user talk page, but failed to produce any results when it comes to reversions. (This page has a handful of examples of his undiscussed and often deceptive reverts.)

I attempted to open a request for mediation over several style disputes in the Star Wars articles, including the ones Copperchair was involved in. (It is archived here.) It never really coalesced, however, because, while the other users were willing to abide by Redwolf24's proposed voluntary revert parole, Copperchair gave his parole but continued to revert. Three of the other involved users took this as a sign of bad faith, and pulled out. (Technically, User:Philwelch didn't pull out but declined to be involved because of what he saw as Copperchair's bad faith.) - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 1

I have not violated consensus, as I never received an answer as to what it was ([6]). Regarding the "gentle" requests on my talk page, those which I blanked were bulling and accused my of vandalism for my good faith edits, which are backed by the movies’ end credits. I have discussed the matter on [7]. In my edits, I have been using an objective parameter (the movies' end credits, but limited to those that Coffee suggested in [8]), while others have used a subjective one (they include the ones they think are important). It is obvious that the filmmakers are the ones who decide who’s important and who’s not in the end credits, and I feel that if Wikipedia is to be accurate, as it should be being it an encyclopedia, we should follow the filmmakers’ decision. No matter how much discussion there is on the subject, the answer is right there in the end credits. Consensus on this matter is irrelevant. So the issue comes down to this: do you prefer the articles to be accurate or to be determined by consensus?

As for my so-called “deceptive edit summaries”, they aren’t, because I say what I changed since my previous edit, which I consider to be the correct version, and which hasn’t been proved wrong since no decision was made on the Rfc filed against me, and no mediation was made. Also, note that in all articles I have kept all the good edits made by others since my last edit.

As for A Link to the Past’s accusation of me calling him a “loser”, I accept I did, but not before he called me that ([9]). All I have been doing is trying to make Wikipedia accurate. Copperchair 01:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Philwelch's hypocrital statements about my "blunt personal attacks", I would like to add that it is HE who has called me a "dick" and an "asshole" [10]. Regarding the "consensus", there is no mention to it in my talk page, as he falsely claims (follow the link he provided to see that he is lying). As for consensus, is it correct for an encyclopaedia to ignore FACTS just because there is consensus about it? Lastly, I would like to add that he has "hijacked" the Darth Vader article, using it as if it was his, edit warring and not following any consensus, but his will. See the history page of that article to see the countless reverts he has arbitrarily made to other's contributions, as well as its Talk page to see his constant questioning of other’s edits.

Finally, what is wrong about the comments about awaiting a decision on the matter in my edit summaries, which A Man In Black mentions? Isn't it true that there is a decision pending? Copperchair 08:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2

I'll keep mine very brief. Basically, I agree with everything A Man in Black said. I'd just like to point out that Copperchair's user page reflects the POV that A Man in Black speculates (basically, that Copperchair believes the 1997 versions are The One True Version), and that the deceptive edit summaries -- which are often outright lies -- are driving me absolutely batty. He refuses to engage, has been entirely unreasonable for far too long, and has yet to demonstrate anything resembling "good faith" after being gently (and not-so-gently) chided to change his behaviour.--chris.lawson 04:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't that much else to say that hasn't already been said - deceptive edit summaries, refusal to cooperate on anything, demanding that Lucas' POV be used in the article over what was decided on in consensus, he even called me a loser (which he argues is in response to me calling him a sore loser, which is not the same thing). :< - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning to stay out of this, but, now he has went too far. He is now calling all my reverts to his edits vindictive, when they are only per consensus. As seen: here here here here and all the main star wars film articles. The Wookieepedian 02:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copperchair is possibly the most uncivil, impossible-to-work-with editor I have ever encountered on Wikipedia. He has claimed, falsely, at various points in time that (a) consensus does not matter, (b) the views of others do not matter, and, oddly enough, (c) that he was either following consensus or that there was no consensus in those cases where he is editing blatantly contrary to consensus. However, it's not his bizarre inconsistencies and idiosyncratic views that trouble me. It's the fact that he acts upon these idiosyncratic views with no concern for other editors, alternatively using blunt personal attacks, blatant dishonesty, subtle deception, and outright revert-warring to put those views into practice. Although Copperchair has claimed that he never knew what the consensus was regarding, say, the inclusion of Wedge Antilles in the credits for various Star Wars films, one of his own talk page links [11] shows that myself, A Link to the Past, and Clawson all agree Wedge should be included, which at least provides a rough consensus. The fact that Copperchair's attempts to add Wedge have been reverted, at various times, by just about all parties listed as "Party 2" in this RfAr and then some also demonstrates a consensus. As for Copperchair's assertions that "we should follow the filmmakers’ decision" and that, in that respect, "consensus is irrelevant", Copperchair is demonstrating a severe disagreement with the policy of Consensus. Copperchair is of course free to disagree with some Wikipedia policies, so long as he does not violate those policies to the detriment of the community and the Wikipedia. — Phil Welch 16:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved party

I'm the initiating party, but I'm not actually an involved party as far as I can tell; the extent of my involvement is blocking Copperchair for 3RR and occasionally reverting his edits when they qualified as unexplained blanking.

The issue of style in the various Star Wars articles (including Star Wars, A New Hope, Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, and Revenge of the Sith) has been contentious for quite a while, but User:Copperchair has been making things even worse, particularly lately, by constantly reverting to his preferred version. I'm not entirely sure, but it seems like he's pushing the POV that the 1997 versions of the Star Wars movies are the "definitive" ones, and often removes or changes cast credits or other information pertaining to other versions of the movies. Additionally, he pushes a unilateral POV that Star Wars should not contain information about non-canon fanworks, by blanking the section without explaination on the talk page.

Were it only his revert warring, I would not bring this to the Arbcom, as, up until recently, these articles have been the subject of revert wars by multiple users, over multiple disputes. After administrator intervention and some informal moderation, however, many of these revert wars have cooled down, as the other involved users have stopped reverting and started talking on talk pages. Copperchair, however, seems to have escalated; his recent edit summaries include comments like "The administrators will decide that" and "Awaiting decision on Rfc and mediation". He's also made an occasional practice of making deceptive edit summaries.

I don't want to see sanctions against Copperchair, but I don't see anything that I or any other editor or administrator can do to get his attention to stop this reverting. I've blocked him on three separate occasions for 3RR violation, and I know other admins have blocked him, as well.

In the interest of completeness, I'd like to point out that there have been occasional personal attacks on both sides (one example). I don't think it's the real issue here, but it has been going on. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much agree with the above. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly urge the Arbcom to intervene, if only to put a stop to the slow-mo edit wars going on in Star Wars and other articles. An entire section of the article in Star Wars is blanked and replaced on a daily basis. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 20:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of party that might be involved

I'm not sure how involved I am - I was involved in a revert war for a couple days on the Star Wars III page (although I only had one or two reverts myself). The thing that never ceases to amaze me is the determination copperchair has to keep it to "his version" - as literally every day I see a revert on the star wars article then reverted by an admin or someone else. There is an unfortunate trait of an unwillingness to comprise here. I basically echo the statements of the man in black and party 2 otherwise. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of lightly involved party

In my duties as an administrator and between watching WP:AN/3RR then subsequently watching Star Wars as well as many other related pages due to ongoing edit wars I would just like to note that many times I have had to deal with 3RR violations, and despite the fact that the editors involved (mainly in my encounters Philwelch and Wookiepedian (both now and as Adamwankenobi)) repeatedly in the heat of the moment violated 3RR, 4RR, 5RR, etc... despite pledging to attempt to work on this and even though they are doing a much better job avoiding edit wars and dealing with issues on talk pages I think that this should also be looked into by the arbcom. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 00:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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


Requests for Clarification

If you need to clarify the precise meaning of a previous decision of the Arbitration Committee, your request should go here.



User:Gavin the Chosen

Gavin the Chosen was blocked for a month as part of a recent arbitration decision, but I'm concerned that this hasn't stopped him from continuing his harassment against me. One of the findings in that case was that he followed me around, posting insulting comments, and doing things to try to interfere with my normal editing here (such as jumping onto articles he had never touched before specifically to undo whatever I had done or to egg fights on).

Even though he is blocked I am still getting harassing emails from him through the WIikipedia email link, which I hesitate to disable as it is a way for people to contact me directly about issues related to the encyclopedia. Furthermore I have run across a number of editors recently who after a single disagreement have escalated into very mean-spirited attacks, claiming that they had been privately emailed and "warned" about my behavior by an editor who wished to give them all the details of my supposed campaigns to destroy articles, etc. which is all the same nonsense Gabriel/Gavin would try to tell people. These editors then pick up the campaign of insults on various talk pages.

The month block was intended to be a way for Gabriel to take a break and think about his actions here, but instead his harassment still continues. He apparently still watches all the articles he was involved in emotional disputes with earlier, as he mentions what has happened recently on them in his emails.

I would request that his account be disabled outright so he cannopt access emails (and since the RfA finding said he should come back under a different name after his block expired, there's no reason for his current one to be active) or that his month long block be reset so that his activities here are completely stopped for the agreed upon month. DreamGuy 21:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It only says he may choose another username, but this is very disturbing and I agree that the block should be reset in addition to disabling his account or something of that sort. I haven't received any emails yet; want to send me one now, Gavin? ~~ N (t/c) 14:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you filter his emails with your email software and complain to his mail provider about harrassment? User:Zoe|(talk) 05:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He has sent me the following three messages. ~~ N (t/c) 22:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the requested response

Unfortunatly, it would seem to me that dreamGuy's accusation revenge for the arbitration process that he is undergoing. I have kept my word , as for the end of the baqrgain that is my arbitration. I have sent him nothing, larghely becaseu i wish him to have no contact with me ( frankly hes aggravating) It is my beleif that this unfounded accusaton prooves the accusation i have placed against him in the matter of his methods and bad faitrh in his operating style here on wikipedia. I ame accross this message to s end ytou a message becase u my watchlist contains the RFAr page, (along with many others)

and as for the detaqils about mean spirited attacks, it se ems that the attacks were perpatrated by dfreamGuy, just look at the edit history of his talk page...

Also it would stand to reason if I have been gone for a month and others, some of whoim ive had zero contact with are saying what i was saying about how dreamguy opwerates on wikipedia, then it cant be a coincidance. perhaps this is farther proof of his defamitory adgenda on some articles such as Otherklin and Therianthropy, and his general, totally incurable lack of civillity towards other users in general.


This is the reason why i grew tired of him, and his wayhs of acusations and atte mpting to play the system and fiegn victim status.

in the light that i have done nothing that he accuses me of, i would ask you to disregard his lies, and possibly add attampting to file a false RFAr against me as a revenbge tactic to the eviance page of his RFAr IN that mnatter, my hands are tied, but i w ould appreciate it greatly if you and the other arbitreators would be so kind as to disregard his accusations against me, because they are fabrications.

(i find it intersting how hes trying to have my account destoryed... interesting way of going about it, making false accusations and suich, isnt it?) sorry if i got a little long woinded or a little repetative, but this is being written as the first trhing after i got here from work.

thanks, and feel free to send this message to other arbitrators, or to contact me for conversation at [email protected] on MSN or filmbuff42 on YIM.

thanks for listening.

For some little reason, I'm inclined to believe DreamGuy here. Do the developers have any way of logging/checking use of Special:Emailuser? I have asked him what a false RfAr is - does he mean this request for clarification? ~~ N (t/c) 22:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: "sorry, i thought it was an RFAr. in any case, the reast of it apllies, i think,. his accusations are totoaly false. i beleive this attempt at deception on his part to be typical of his rather childish behaviour and overall lack of maturity and civillity on this site."

addendum

hew also said that the find9ing of the case was that i followed him around. this is blatently false. its the complete op[posite in fact. but im not trying to be vindictive, only accurate.

thanks for listening again

Um, no, Gabe. I just checked the RfAr, and I didn't see the arbitrators say anything about anyone following anyone around. ~~ N (t/c) 22:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

afterthoughts

i do not see the harm in looking at pages and ar ticles while im gone... i already he some changes i plan to make when im back...

i cant see the harm...

No, there's no harm, just don't email people harassing things! ~~ N (t/c) 22:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...

(after I had posted the above)

i still maintain the truith of the matter. i have not and shall not email iuser dreamguym simply because hes not worth my time. his antics have gone on a long, long time, and ecasue he hides behind police, and then goes and beats other people with them, as would a cave dweller bludgeon prey.

it does puzzell me w hy you posted my response though.

Because it's your word against DreamGuy's, and while you both have had civility problems in the past I consider him to be far more trustworthy. DreamGuy, it might help if you posted some evidence, like links to the attacks from users you think Gabriel had been emailing. ~~ N (t/c) 22:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, was mostly gone for the weekend. I no longer have he emails in question, as I deleted them in disgust (and now that I think of it, I thought I had blocked his email address because of other harassing emails previously, so I don't know if something about the forward process doesn't work with my filter or if it came from another similar account/email that happened to use Gabriel's language style and so forth, which is pretty distinct). Talk:Urban legend is full of the tirades of an editor claiming that an editor emailed him to "warn" him about me. I believe User:Khaosinfire was the other main one talking about "email warnings" on his/my talk page. There was someone else too, but there are a variety of editors who like to play the same style game of troll accusations so that they hope to prevail (User:Lightbringer maybe? I know he's gone off the deep end lately) but keeping track of which ones claim they got email warnings and which ones are just bad editors in general without that claim can be rough.
I think I'll just not worry about it anymore at this point, as if he does it again (or there are similar accusations from others) there should be plenty enough evidence to hang him, and if he doesn't do it again he's learned that he'll be caught doing this too. like he was caught with all his other nonsense (sockpuppets, anon IP to try to get around 3RR, etc.). And of course his responses above show absolutely no improvement, so I suspect that when he comes back he'll just continue on with his nonsense and get blocked for multiple months, and knowing his history will cntinue to do so until it becomes effectively permanent. DreamGuy 23:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy you need not even bring up my name about this for one I do not send people email on Wikipedia. I may have had multiple disputes with you, but like I said before I am not going to debate you anymore because it's not even worth my time, I am rarely even here anymore because I found Wikinfo. Furthermore if your going to even try to accuse me of being involved, you better have some evidence..........So put your evidence were your mouth is........that is all Khaosinfire 01:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't say you emailed anybody, he said Gabrielsimon emailed you. In fact... did he? ~~ N (t/c) 14:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

=+==Again===+

Now Gabriel has started up the harassing emails yet again from the same email address as before (even though he has a new user name (User:Gimmiet), and magically there is also other problem editors yet again trying to justify their policy-violating edits because they were "warned" that I was a problem editor (see Anti-Mason editor User:Lightbringer's comments here.

Gabriel's actions repeatedly egg other editors on into doing bad behavior, and his claims above that he wouldn't email me to harass me or email other people to cause more mischief are false, specifically because I have more mail sitting right here. I was willig to drop it above if he stopped, but he's escalating his mischief. This editor has never contributed anything of any value to thisproject that I can see, and quite to the opposite has caused an exceedingl large number of problems. DreamGuy 23:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing this notice he has yet again emailed to toss out insults (and yet claims it's not harassment, because of course nothing he ever does he considers harassment) and admits to contacting multiple editors to "warn" them about me, leading to more disputes and here. He is on yet another 24-hour block, his second since his one month block ended just a couple of days ago. DreamGuy 04:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And it continues with a third... I'm saving them this time in case somebody wants them as proof. DreamGuy 02:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it's even possible to get an account disabled like this. Even if it were whats to stop him from creating a new account and email from that. My advice is to ignore his emails, or better yet, get your filters working. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 16:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mlorrey

This user has emailed me and requested that his block be lifted, claiming that there are no legal proceedings between himself and either Meelar or Firebug. The AC decision appears to conclude that there is at least the appearance of a legal threat. Therefore, I have asked Mlorrey to affirm on his talk page that no legal action is underway, and to clarify the meaning of the purported "injunction" on the RFC page, as preconditions for removing the block. I invite AC members and the Wikipedia community in general to review this action and comment or amend as they see fit. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have repeatedly stated that I never initiated any legal proceedings in any court against Meelar or Firebug, despite their clear abuse of accepted standards of arbitration process. I initiated my injunction just as they were making things up and railroading me through a process without seeking to negotiate or discuss anything, all the while making me look like the bad guy. This episode is a clear example of how NPOV ISN'T, when people act in bad faith and learn to write with NPOV language while pursuing a biased agenda in attempting to suppress facts they dislike. I do not plan on initiating proceedings against anybody provided my own rights begin to be respected, which they have not. The wiki arbitration process violates so many commonly accepted principles of arbitration and jurisprudence I don't know even where to start, but I can start with this ban you put on me: your groups action in banning me for exercising my human rights to legal process is itself a violation of my rights under international legal conventions. Your flawed process allows a small cadre of insiders to suppress individuals they disagree with or whose statements they do not like, and THAT is most definitely, not NPOV, and violates the spirit of wikipedia.Mlorrey 21:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
The above does not make me confident that this user can be civil and will not continue legal threats if unblocked so I must say that I am against the unblocking of this user due to the fact that his attitude does not seem to have changed at all. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
From above: I do not plan on initiating proceedings against anybody provided my own rights begin to be respected, which they have not. My reading of this is that it is a renewed threat of legal action, albeit one with a rather hollow ring to it. The difficulty with legal threats on Wikipedia is that they poison the working environment even when they are baseless, and cartooney, and even when there is a transparent lack of willingness and/or ability to follow through with actual litigation. In light of this, I conclude that Mlorrey is continuing the behavior for which he was banned, and I therefore decline to lift the block at this time. As always, I welcome comments from others. In particular, I think I'll leave a note for Meelar and Firebug to see if they believe that any legal action is now resolved. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As the legal dispute has been resolved, by the terms of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mlorrey#Editing_ban the ban ought to be lifted. In retrospect perhaps it was just a misunderstanding caused by an unhappy choice of language. In response to Jtkiefer, problems may remain, but the hope is that the experience has been productive in terms of encouraging Mlorrey to do better. Fred Bauder 14:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, perhaps this legal dispute: "The wiki arbitration process violates so many commonly accepted principles of arbitration and jurisprudence I don't know even where to start, but I can start with this ban you put on me: your groups action in banning me for exercising my human rights to legal process is itself a violation of my rights under international legal conventions." ought to be resolved first before the ban is lifted. Fred Bauder 18:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Fred; we'd want that to be looked at that first.
James F. (talk) 13:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have gotten several emails from this user requesting an unblocking and my replies have been the same as what pretty much everyone else is saying which is that he has shown that he will continue to threaten and make personal attacks against other users if unblocked and even his recent comments on his talk page. At this point I would be extremely uncomfortable with him being unblocked. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 20:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cool Cat

Cool Cat has raised one or two questions concerning the remedies that apply to him.

  • Coolcat prohibited from mediating
    • 1) Due to lack of community support, Cool Cat (talk • contribs) is prohibited from holding himself out as a mediator or attempting to serve as a mediator of any dispute, ... This ban shall continue in effect until such time as he is officially appointed to the Mediation Committee.
      I do not see how this works, I cannot be a member of Mediation Committee unless I demonstrate I can mediate. --Cool Cat Talk 03:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coolcat prohibited from restructuring
    • 4) Cool Cat (talk • contribs) is prohibited from moving the comments of others around on the talk page of any article or any user talk page other than his own. Additionally he is not permitted to archive any talk page other than his own. Cool Cat may make no edit to a talk page which is not at the end of a section unless he begins a new section at the bottom of the page. This restriction shall last for one year.
      What exaclty does this mean? I dont have a history of "restructuring". I just moved embedded convos into my post on that instance (I also forgot about this). I cannot abide by the "Cool Cat may make no edit to a talk page which is not at the end of a section unless he begins a new section at the bottom of the page" as that would mean I cannot respond people in votes for example. I also dont see the purpose it serves. --Cool Cat Talk 03:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's got a point about Mediation, but presumably if Mediation Committee ever decide that he displays the qualities that could be useful in a mediator, they can decide for themselves to apply to Arbitration Committee for the ban to be lifted pending his application.

On restructuring, I think he's got a legitimate worry about being forbidden to participate in straw polls by the very strict, but understandable, terms of the decision. Perhaps some clarification might help. --Tony SidawayTalk 04:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On the first point, it refers to mediation, not Mediation. Cool Cat is prohibited from acting as an informal mediator. If the Mediation Committee is satisfied that he is sufficiently able to mediate that he can Mediate, if you see what I mean, then we defer to their judgement on that.
James F. (talk) 11:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The way I see it, pardon me if I am beeing blunt, I will need to demonstrate mediation skills with out mediating which makes little sense. This ruling appears to be indefinate hence by nature is restricting me from mediating forever. --Cool Cat Talk 12:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding mediation: you can take some classes in mediation, workshops, practice mediation outside the context of Wikipedia; get good at it. Learn how to do it well first, then approach the mediation committee. What you cannot do is set yourself up as The mediator with respect to an article when the other editors have neither asked nor accepted you as a mediator. Fred Bauder 12:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding refactoring: voting in a poll is not refactoring. Other actions ought to be interpreted in light of the purpose of the restriction, avoiding re-arranging of talk pages to the point where by what you do you make others comments incomprehensible. Basically, don't move other folks' comments around. Fred Bauder 12:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mentorship -- undefined

I've created a stub on the subject of Mentorship because I feel that a definition is in order. Please see (and expand): Wikipedia:Mentorship. — Davenbelle 07:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on Davenbelle and CoolCat?

Davenbelle (talk · contribs), Stereotek (talk · contribs), and Fadix (talk · contribs) are counseled to let other editors and administrators take the lead in monitoring Cool Cat (talk · contribs). If subsequent proceedings which involve Cool Cat show that he has been hounded by them, substantial penalties may be imposed.

To me it would seem like opposing an RFA for Cool Cat within ten minutes of its creation and notice on Cool Cat's page, is ... well, somewhat hounding behavior. I think it would be obvious to most that Cool Cat would turn down the RFA, and that if he didn't he wouldn't come near passing at this time. The impression Davenbelle's action gave me is that he was just looking for a chance to give Cool Cat another kick. Regardless of his intentions I think he should avoid giving such an impression. Is this acceptable behavior in light of the Arbcom decision? --Gmaxwell 17:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May I state though that Fadix never opposed, but Davenbelle and Karl Meier (a.k.a. Stereotek) did, and pretty damn fast too. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have already commented on this. (also) — Davenbelle 11:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Davenbelle and Karl Meier need to realise it's a really, really big wide Wikipedia out there and spend time on the bits that don't have Cool Cat on them. I realise it's difficult to let go of a long-standing obsession, but doing so is necessary to not ending up at RFAr over the matter again. It's not clear what part of "let off with a caution" is ambiguous to them - David Gerard 10:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Stevertigo's RfA

Taking on board the comments from the community. I propose we remove his RFA and deal with the matter ourselves. Do any of my fellow arbitrators agree? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 14:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archive

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=26910509"