Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RJII (talk | contribs) at 19:12, 5 May 2006 (→‎Statement by RJII in regard to comment by Bishonen). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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
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 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

User:kitteneatkitten vs. user:RJII

Involved parties

User_talk:RJII

User_talk:kitteneatkitten

brief summary

I think the classical liberalism article, before I edited it, suffered from libertarian bias that pervaded nearly every paragraph, and made changes that I believe rendered the article neutral.

RJII disagrees with many or all of these changes, and thinks that I turned a neutral article into a biased one.

Kitteneatkitten 04:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

attempts at resolution

After many edits and discussion of the issue on the Talk page, I indicated that we ought to arbitrate this issue to RJII. He is aware of my desire to arbitrate.

RJII has requested mediation, however I am quite certain that mediation would be fruitless and should not be used for the following reasons:

1. The issues we are disputing are rather binary in nature and not subject to a compromise. Specifically, I contend that the phrase "classical liberal" cannot be used to describe modern libertarian political writers or their ideas in a neutral manner, while RJII disagrees.

2. RJII's user page indicates he feels very strongly about certain libertarian/anarchist issues and that he is not one who is inclined to compromise on them. In a previous arbitration that he was involved in the arbitrators found that he had repeatedly engaged in personal attacks, including saying such things as "go blow it out your ***."

He wrote this in response to a two-week general ban: "Whatever. Power freaks. I've done nothing wrong. I have nothing to consider. Might as well make it a lifetime ban. You administrators have don't have a clue of what you're doing. You've defaulted on your main mission --to keep information from being supressed. I've been relentless in bringing information to Wikipedia that has been supressed. You're part of the problem."

He has begun to display this uncivil attitude toward me in this dispute, though I will not burden you here with the gory details.

3. While RJII has requested mediation (to which I have not agreed) rather than arbitration, his request seems to indicate that he thinks this step is 100% necessary before arbitration, even if it would be fruitless.

4. I strongly believe the best course of action is to merge the "classical liberalism" article with the articles on "liberalism" and "libertarianism."

I did not do this because I knew it would greatly provoke the many libertarians who are very active in defending their points of view here and elsewhere on the Internet. I agree with the Wikipedia article on systemic bias "The Wikipedia project has a systemic bias that grows naturally out of the demographic of its contributors." WP:CSB It is pretty well documented and well known that libertarians are very active Internet users compared to their numbers in the population of English-speaking countries.

With this in mind, the changes I made were as modest as I possibly could go. I did not make the Wikipedia as good as I thought I could make it. Rather I made what I consider to be a modest attempt to reduce the libertarian bias that pervades almost every article that has anything to do with libertarians.


In other words, I have already compromised all I am willing to compromise by not making major structural changes to several of the articles dealing with liberalism.

5. An admin, user:jmabel, noted on the CL talk page: "From what I've seen in the literature of political science, most political scientists would hesitate to use the term "classical liberalism" to refer to anything much later than the mid-19th century". He/She and several other users have raised objections to the article in the talk page akin to mine, going back for several months.

6. Finally, in requesting this I would like to note that I have spent about twelve hours on this issue already, and going through both a fruitless mediation and then arbitration would be quite a burden on me. I care about this issue, but eventually devoting more than an entire waking day to it is a bit much!

Kitteneatkitten 04:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 1

Libertarians often call themselves “classical liberals.” They say they do this because modern liberals have deviated from the legacy of early liberal thinkers, while they (libertarians) have not.

In my view, in which of course I am not alone, libertarians are not liberals, “classical” or otherwise, and any resemblance between libertarians and early liberals is insignificant and/or superficial. In my view, if libertarians are “classical” anything, they are classical conservatives, bearing a great deal of resemblance to conservative figures in history such as Frederic Bastiat and Herbert Hoover. For example, it is a standard libertarian belief that private racial discrimination ought to be legal. Thus they would object to the government prohibiting a restaurant from only serving blacks in a segregated back room, or making them sit on the back of a private bus. They also would not object to a private employer firing an employee only for being gay, or having a policy of not hiring women with children as secretaries. To me, these viewpoints are reactionary and manifestly illiberal, and certainly would not be the view of someone like Voltaire or Thomas Paine were they here today. They also believe that all roads and educational institutions should be private, a view that the founder of the University of Virginia, who presided over substanial public road building as President, would find reactionary and bizarre.

I view their use of the term “classical liberal” as far from neutral, but rather an attempt to co-opt and wrap themselves in the legacy of great historical figures such as John Locke and Thomas Jefferson. For this reason I think the entry on “classical liberalism” must note and discuss the fact that it is primarily a phrase used by libertarians. Calling Locke, Jefferson, Paine and Bentham on one hand and Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, and Murray Rothbard on the other hand all “classical liberals” is just not neutral. It would be one thing if we lacked neutral words to describe them, but we don’t. The first set of figures can be called “early liberals” and the second set “libertarians.”

To allow libertarians to use “classical liberal” as they would like I believe is akin to allowing loaded words such as “anti-choice” and “partial-birth abortion” to be used in articles discussing abortion.

Kitteneatkitten 04:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(about 350 words)

Statement by party 2

This is a bit ridiculous. "Classical liberalism" is a real term for a real philosophy. It's not a "libertarian" term. And, it's not identical to libertarianism. And, it's really shady to bring up things I said, such as "blow it out your ass" a long time ago to someone else, which have already been dealt with in a previous arbitration. I don't understand why he wants to make this personal. Well, of course I do. If one can get the other editor banned then he's more likely to get his way in editing. I tried to take this to mediation but he refuses [1] [2] And, how convenient of him to "leave out the gory details" of me being "uncivil" with him, because it never happened. This is a content dispute; this is what he wants to do to the artice: [3] (note he also deletes credible sources). And, as he pointed out above, if he had his way, he would get rid of the article altogether. He doesn't think there is any such thing as "classical liberalism." Others on the Talk page there think he's wrong as well: [4] Finally, it's very interesting how an editor who has only had his account for just a few weeks is so familiar with Wikipedia processes and my history. I can't help but admire his spotless record. How can I get a whitewash? RJII 16:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Max rspct

RJII should be banned indefinitely... even if just 4 what is on his userpage. This is not justice! max rspct leave a message 22:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

withdraw

I withdraw my request, thank you for your consideration Kitteneatkitten 06:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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


SPUI vs JohnnyBGood, PHenry and Rschen7754 and various other editors

Involved parties

SPUI vs JohnnyBGood, PHenry, Rschen7754 and various other editors
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


Various solutions tried

Mediation (1 month ago), various discussions on AN and an RfC in addition to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California State Highways.

Brief summary of dispute

In short, this dispute involves move warring over the naming of various state roads. Various attempts to mediate has not been suscessful and SPUI has refused an offer I have made for third party binding arbitration due to the fact that he insists he is right "I'm very leery of binding arbitration, as I know I'm correct. Thus I'll have to say no. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 19:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)." In the past, SPUI has made changes to the naming of the pages, and JohnnyBGood has reverted them pending lack of consensus. I attempted to offer mediation but various users have stated that after previous attempts it is almost pointless and ArbCom is the only way to settle this dispute -- Tawker 00:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not filing a statement in this party as I am not in dispute, I am only trying to find a solution here and it has come down to this. -- Tawker 00:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 1

I guess I'm party 1? I have move warred. Maybe I shouldn't have. But nothing else was working. My arguments were clearly detailed at Talk:State Route 2 (California). I still don't understand the arguments of the other side. Maybe it would have gone better if I did, but I really don't. The majority of people I've talked to, or that have commented out of the blue, agree with my names, but there are several editors that keep moving them back to "California State Route X", even claiming that that is somehow not only the correct disambiguation method, but also the correct name in real life. But that's all a content dispute, and outside the ArbCom's mandate. Which is why this will probably not result in a solution any more than the previous attempts.

For a specific example: State Route 66 (California). I was working on U.S. Route 66-related stuff, and saw that U.S. Route 66 in California was a double redirect - JohnnyBGood never cleans them up. I had two choices - either fix the double redirects to what I knew to be the wrong name, or move it back. I chose the option that I knew would make the encyclopedia better.

Another example, this time by Rschen7754 - [5].

Again, this is all content dispute stuff. So whatever. I move warred, because nothing else was working, and I knew I had consensus from real life and disambiguation conventions. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 01:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2

A few months ago, SPUI moved the Massachusetts, Florida, New Jersey, and other pages to what he considers to be the proper disambiguation standard: "State Route/Road/Highway x (State)". He was not opposed there. A few months ago, SPUI removed the {{routeboxca2}} infobox from California State Route 15. He then proceeded to move the page to State Route 15 (California). He was reverted. He reverted back. He ignored discussions. He then proceeded to move all of the California State Route pages (over 200), and reverted after he was reverted, with no consensus for his position at WP:NC/NH. He then tried to massively redo {{routeboxca2}}. He was reverted. He tried to TFD {{routeboxca2}}. No consensus for deletion. He created his own {{Infobox CA Route}} and changed many articles to it. He was reverted. He reverted back. He spread this dispute to other states such as Washington and Rhode Island. He was reverted. He reverted back. In short, all 2,500+ articles are subject to become part of this edit war. Something must be done.

This is not a personal attack against SPUI by the way. He is a good contributor. We just don't approve of his methods sometimes. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:PHenry

I regret that this unbelievably stupid dispute has come to this, but I think it's been inevitable for a long time and I am certain that it will continue until some kind of binding decision is made. During the course of this unpleasantness, I have found that every participant on either side that I've tried to communicate with has been interested in working toward a mutual common-sense solution with the sole exception of SPUI. If he were not involved, I have no doubt whatsoever that any dispute would have been settled quickly a long time ago. Unfortunately, SPUI doesn't "do" discussion—his preferred method of operation is to wear more-reasonable editors down through warring, hostility, and abusive behavior, until they give up and he gets his way.

I honestly don't care that much about which naming standard is settled upon. I have been a reluctant participant in these edit wars because I believe very strongly that one user should not be allowed to steamroll over everyone else simply because he's willing to be more obnoxious than everyone else. My opinions and contributions are valid, goddammit, and so are Rschen7754's and JohnnyBGood's and Atamir's and yours and those of every other good-faith editor on Wikipedia. And SPUI, who is generally a very valuable contributor, is not more valid than anyone else, and certainly does not have a license to disregard the process of consensus building through polite discussion and negotiation without which Wikipedia cannot survive. I've revert-warred with SPUI in defense of a position that I didn't even agree with, because the matter had gone through a deletion debate that his (and my) position lost, yet he refused to accept it. That's how strongly I feel about the necessity of respecting other people's input and contributions.

I urge—no, I beg the ArbCom to take this matter up, while apologizing for my part in dragging you into what our children's children will remember as one of the lamest edit wars ever. Under normal circumstances, there would be no need for a formally binding decision to be made here, but as SPUI made clear to me,[6] he doesn't intend to stop warring, ever, not until he gets his way. This attitude needs to be stopped here and now. --phh (t/c) 03:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Locke Cole

I've been somewhat involved with this (and am a little dismayed that I was not informed this had been moved to arbitration). Specifically, I was involved in part of the California dispute, and also involved in the Washington State dispute. SPUI's behavior is, I think, understandable. Relatively new administrators such as Rschen7754 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) had been trying to enforce a "rule" they believe they created on WP:AN/I (the rule stating that there are to be no page moves of highway related articles). Rschen7754, who was involved in a dispute with me at the time, blocked me and refused to unblock me unless I promised to not move pages away from his preferred naming. I believe this behavior is, in part, why SPUI may have given up on discussion (not to mention the lack of interest by the opposing parties to listen to what he has to say).

To quote the Blocking policy, specifically, "When blocking may not be used", it states: Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. That is, sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute.

  • 2006-03-31 05:03:31 – Rschen7754 demonstrates his involvement in the content dispute.
  • 2006-03-31 06:24:30 – Rschen7754 reverts List of Washington State Routes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to his preferred names with the edit summary rv to version that does not link to 100 redirects.
  • 2006-03-31 06:33:30 – Rschen7754 threatens me with a block for moving (renaming) pages to names he doesn't prefer, citing WP:ANI as "stating" that "any mass moves of highway pages are grounds for being blocked". He finishes with: "Move any more pages and you will be blocked."
  • 2006-03-31 06:45:07 – Rschen7754 blocks me with the reason per WP:ANI- user was mass moving road pages with no consensus, was warned explicitly.
  • 2006-03-31 06:47:21 – Rschen7754 leaves a note saying he blocked me claiming it is unbiased.
  • 2006-03-31 06:58:21 – Rschen7754 offers to unblock if I promise not to move pages away from his preferred names "until this is resolved".

I urge the ArbCom to accept this case to look at the abuse of sysop powers by Rschen7754 and how this may have affected peoples interest in opposing his point of view. As per Raul654's suggestion below, having a binding decision on the content dispute might also prove useful, but I believe there's a deeper problem that needs to be addressed. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought, why don't we keep this confined to the naming dispute. If you have an issue with any actions of Rschen let's keep it seperate as all parties involved in this dispute have done things that violate policy in some form or another and bringing one in will lead them all to be dumped here, which will just cloud the core issue that needs to be resolved here. JohnnyBGood t c 20:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal by Raul654

I have an idea - would it be acceptable to both parties if, instead of accepting this case, we (the committee) simply offered binding decision as to the naming dispute? That is to say, both SPUI and JohnnyBGood give us a BRIEF explination for why their naming scheme is the correct one and the other guy's is not, and we come down in favor of one or the other. Raul654 01:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was in short what I was thinking ArbCom would do in this case. Placing sanctions on any of the parties involved does not make much sense, I offered to do this in a non formal non ArbCom situation and it was rejected, hence it came here. I don't think a conduct case makes much sense here and would be a waste of ArbCom's time, I just want some way of stopping the move warring so we don't have to go through it all again -- Tawker 02:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I'd assume the ArbCom is smart and would pick the correct naming, I don't like the possibility of the wrong one being chosen. That's probably one reason the ArbCom doesn't get involved in content disputes - it would have to apply to all editors to be worth anything. Thus, even if the four of us, or everyone currently in this dispute, agreed to make it binding, that's not going to keep someone in the future from moving them. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 01:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't like the possibility of the wrong one being chosen." I think that pretty much says it all, honestly. --phh (t/c) 03:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This seems reasonable, and I think SPUI could do a good job at explaining the situation. Though, like SPUI, I also have reservations about the binding nature of any decision like this. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would be amenable to either approach, and offer to help JohnnyBGood create his explanation if he likes. --phh (t/c) 15:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with either approach. JohnnyBGood t c 18:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

User:Simonapro vs. User:Viritidas and User:InShaneee

Involved parties

User:Simonapro User:Viritidas User:InShaneee

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simonapro&redirect=no This is mytalk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Viriditas Viriditas mytalk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:InShaneee InShaneee mytalk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s_Stairway (first dispute) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis#Species (wikistalking)

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Viriditas#Arbitration_with_regards_to_User:_Simonapro http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:InShaneee#Arbitration_with_regards_to_User:_Simonapro

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s_Stairway. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simonapro&redirect=no

Statement by party 1

In the process of this dispute I have been called a troll twice by Viriditas. Once at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Heaven%27s_Stairway#Ownership_of_Overgrow.com_web_site_in_dispute and the second time again after he apologised the first time at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Heaven%27s_Stairway. However I would not be here if it was not for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Simonapro at the bottom where even though a dipute is going on Viritidas is now wikistalking me on another article. See lower section on mytalk page "Avoid duplicate links on a page".

InShaneee has already banned me for 24 hours for editing my own talk page. He also says that I have no right to stop Viritidas from editing a discussion page and removing my posts on the discussion. He also says that I have no right to accuse Viriditas of stalking me. I believe that InShaneee is wrong. I have a right not be called a troll (I acknowledge that eventually InShanee agreed this was wrong the first time, but thinks the second one is good faith). I also have a right not to be called a troll by InShanee. I have never had problems like this in the past with anyone. I am working with the mediator on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Heaven%27s_Stairway to move things forward for a better article. Being 'Civil' does not mean enduring repeated attacks and harrasement. I am working on other articles with other contributors and have NEVER experienced these kind of major distruptions to my overall enjoyment of wikipedia. :)

I also have a right not to be wikistalked. I also have a right to point out that my discussions should not be edited from a discussion page. I believe I am allowed to state my case without been banned for doing so. I just want the attacks and harrasement to stop. User:InShaneee has not been helpful and I believe neither parties are now acting in good faith. Good faith would be to recognize that you are already in a dispute and not to start another dispute with the same person over another wiki article. Banning me was not helpful and is one of the many reasons why I have had to come here. I have been told by Inshanne that even Requests for arbitration are considered attacks (insulting and threatening). I don't believe I should be abused and cornered and told to keep shut about it. I believe that my reason for coming here should be taken in 'good faith' and not as some kind of a ploy. I also shouldn't have to come here and do this. The bottom line is that I want the attacks and harrasement to stop. Thank you for your time.

Statement by User:InShaneee

First of all, I don't have any stake in the dispute these other two users are in, nor do I plan to get involved with it in the least. My only involvement was to block User:Simonapro for repeated incivility, and then to continue to warn him when he now refuses to stop (which, incidentally, I intend to continue, if no one has any objections, since this user appears to be filing this RfA instead of showing any signs of attempting to work with other users civilly). Secondly, as the above links show, there has been no outside attempts at dispute resolutions whatsoever, and this is in fact a bad faith RfA, as I do believe Simon's talk page demonstrates. Not only that, but this has only happened in the last month, and even then over the course of a few comments, so I hardly thinks it's worthy of Arbitration. Thirdly, I'll summarize my comment on Simon's talk page for you to review here: Viriditas was a little uncivil in the past, but has now been working to improve his behavior. Simon, on the other hand, has done nothing but troll (primarily on Talk:Heaven's Stairway, reverting anyone he disagrees with, and insulting and threatening anyone who attempts to open a diolouge with him (this being the latest result of that). I certainly hope the abitrators agree that this is all just a scare tactic and that Simon needs to learn to be respectful to other users after this case is thrown out. --InShaneee 18:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Statement by uninvolved user Stifle

This does not appear to have visited WP:RFC. I would recommend taking it there first. Stifle (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Freestyle.king vs. User:Jiang

Involved parties

User:Jiang

User:Freestyle.king

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
(Provide diffs showing where parties other than the initiating parties have been informed about the request for arbitration.)
  • User:Jiang [7] (note scroll to the bottom of his talkpage, there are two headings called arbitration currently on his talkpage)
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • [[8]] (Note: This attempt of negotiation results in a block from User:Nlu)
  • [[9]] discussion (very little feedbacks and result in personal attack from User:Henry Flower)
  • [[10]] (Jiang refused to mediate, he suggested to submit the issue to village pump policy, see below)
  • [[11]]

Statement by party 1

Jiang was reverting his user page and talk page to a state that called disruption of Wikipedia. (See [12].) I am tempted to revert it, but I might very likely be block by either Jiang or User:Nlu. However, I would like arbitrators' inputs on this. Should his preferred version be allowed to stand? Is it communist propganda to justify its claim over Taiwan? (Note that Taiwan-China relation is already a delicate topic on wikipedia) Is it a personal attack (albeit against a group (specifically an ethic group, not an individual), deserving severe consequences? Accusations on these 2 images are targeting at Dalai Lama, Taiwanese President Chen Shui-Bian, 319 Shooting Incident, among others. One must wonder, as a sysop himself, Jiang is often zealous in reverting/editing Taiwanese-Chinese related articles and such a radical view in this political matter is not of the benefit of such a great project like wikipedia. Note that Jiang often ignores other users effort to communicate and sometimes "gang up" with other admins to block out users voice before they can settle content disputes in the above articles and/or topics related to images on his talkpage/userpage.--Bonafide.hustla 06:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2

Once again, as I have stated in the arbitration request this same user filed earlier (which was promptly rejected), I have never been told by anyone, other than User:Freestyle.king, that the images on my user and user talk pages are too offensive to stay and need to be removed. If enough people tell me that the images are inappropriate, or convince me that they are against wikipedia policy, then I will remove them. But Freestyle.king has failed to persuade anyone (his repeated postings at AN/I and elsewhere have only received scorn), and has failed to convince me that I am violating policy. It is clear from Freestyle.king's accusations against me (i.e. that there is somehow racism involved) that he cannot read and understand the Chinese characters, which are intended as a form of extreme sarcasm easily understood by those familiar with the language and topic (I have explicitly stated that I do not endorse the message contained therein). There is a point where repeated postings of the same topic, especially by a user whose record is far from satisfactory, becomes extremely disruptive. This is called trolling.--Jiang 03:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ElC

I sumbitt that the user(s?) behind this arbitration be taken to task in a clear and non-single word manner for edit warring and disruption regarding Jiang's userpage, and for the truly puzzling terms outlined in the first statement, which of course, fails to account for the attempt to forcefuly, and without any mandate whatsoever, censor Jiang from expressing his views on the Political status of Taiwan in his userpage. El_C 06:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Deathrocker

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
[13]
[14]
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 [15] 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" [16] 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) [17]

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 [18] 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 [19] 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" [20] and been uncivil to people [21], 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; [22]

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 [23], so I recuse as clerk.

Leyasu claims that he has been impersonated, and there is some circumstantial evidence to support this [24]. 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 [25].

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 [26]. 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, [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60].

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, [61], [62].

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 [63]. Immediatly the user went back to vandalisng the page starting another revert war, using the edit summaries for personal attacks, [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72].

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 [73], [74]. This was a bad veiling though as the user never merged the articles, and instead redirected Goth Music to Goth Rock instead [75].

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. [76], [77], [78], [79]. 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 [80], the edit war is on these diffs, [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92].

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 [93].

Deathrocker reverted it, claiming the newbie as a sock puppet, yet offered no proof [94].

The anon reverted this noting that Deathrocker was biting noobs [95].

Deathrocker also persisted in a revert war on Gothic Metal, violating 3RR here as well [96], 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,[97], [98], [99].

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' [100], [101].

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, [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108]. Despite all the reverting, the user Loudenvier said that Deathrocker was POV pushing and starting a revert war on a featured article, [109]. Another user noted that Deathrocker was violting WP:NPOV, as well, [110]. 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, [111].

Admittance To Baiting Into Violating 1RR

Here Deathrocker admits to pushing myself to violate my parole so he can have me banned from Wikipedia, [112].

Userpage Vandalism

Deathrocker also attemped to vandalise comments on Admin Sceptre's talk page, [113], due to Sceptre having previously banned Deathrocker for his serial violations of policy across articles.

Deathrocker also vandalised my user page (Leyasu), [114].. 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, [115].

After Sceptre had removed it, Deathrocker readded it, claiming everyone was 'vandalising', [116].

Threatening Admins

After being blocked by admin Sceptre for a period of four days, the user Deathrocker chose to request an Unblock [117].

This was answered nicely by Rory096 telling Deathrocker he wasnt able to get an unblock without a reason, [118].

Deathrocker responced by Wikilawyering on the 3 Revert Rule policy of Wikipedia, and accusing admin Sceptre of abusing his administrator powers for blocking him [119].

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 [120]. Rory also seconded this, pointing out it was Deathrockers seventh ban for 3RR in a month and the extended block was justified [121].

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[122].

Deathrocker refuted this, Wikilarywering and accusing Rory and Tawker of abusing their administrator powers, readding the unblock tag, [123].

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, [124].

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, [125].

Tawker then went on to tell Deathrocker that making personal attacks at the Admins wasnt going to get him an unblock either, [126].

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, [127].

Deathrocker didnt learn from this and continued Wikilawyering and making personal attacks, now directing this behaviour at admin Essjay, [128].

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', [129].

Admin Freakofnature then reverted the removel per policy, [130].

Deathrocker then reverted admin Freakofnature, claiming vandalism and abuse of administrator powers by admin Freak, [131].

The admin reverted this again, [132].

Deathrocker then reverted again, claiming he is allowed to 3RR on his talk page, and that Freak was abusing admin powers,[133].

Freak didnt respond and just reverted again, [134].

Deahtrocker then reverted again, removing the information to try for another Unblock attempt, [135].

Sceptre reverted this, [136], which Deathrocker reverted again, [137].

Freak reverted, [138], Deathrocker pursued a revert war while claiming he should be unbanned from his serial 3RR ban, [139].

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, [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145].

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 [146].

Deathrocker also spent time setting up a complaint about me on the ANI board, making personal attacks including its time to pull the plug [147]. When i posted a response, [148], Deathrocker proceeded to make personal attacks at me [[149], 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 [150], warning him to stop being incivil.

After this Deathrocker went and then tried the same thing the AE board, [151].

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 [152], 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", [153]. 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]

Deathrocker went on to make more personal attacks including "it is a ridiculous claim on your part, and one that is of course false" [154].

After apologising to Deathrocker for coming across uncivil [155], and asking him not to make personal attacks [156], Deathrocker carried on claiming that my ArbCon statement is a personal attack and "instead of trying to pull me up, on your "interpretations", and "this is the BS I get for my efforts to help", "Again your favourite hobby taking my words out of context" and "it isn't my responsibility if you have an inability to stick to the terms of paroles" [157].

I notified the involved admins of these personal attacks and asked for help and advice, as i felt that Deathrocker was probally making the attacks to bait me into responding in a distastefull manner back [158], [159], [160]. Tony responded and noted that Deathrocker was attempting to bait me into violating my parole, and that i was to avoid responding [161]. Since then i have moved Deathrocker's comments from my statement to his own and discountined connection with the user, apart from contributing to my Statement has incidents involving Deathrocker and Myself happen Ley Shade

Deathrocker has also been incivil to myself and Sceptre on the Abirrition talk page [162] where he makes comments such as, "you and you're buddy are confused", and attempts to further disrupt the Arbirrition case through Wikilawyering claiming that because Sceptre did not follow the exact policy the case is void and against policy "Thus making the current case a violation of Wikipedia policies".

After removing Deathrockers comments from my Statement to his own, Deathrocker replaced them [163] as an attempt to bait me into violating my parole as noted already by Tony.

Deathrocker then proceeded to make more Personal Attacks on my Statement, defacing it [164]. Some of the Personal Attacks include:

  • "This whole episode with you is becoming very childish. (Deathrocker made this comment even though myself and three admins have put in statements against Deathrocker).
  • "'you don't see how that is utterly ridiculous?? ". (Deathrocker has made claim about the arbirittion case being null several times, this one denoting the case as ridiculous)
  • "Just to clarify for anybody still keeping up with this sham of a case, that is still in violation of Wikipedia policies". (Here Deathrocker openly branches his personal attacks out to include the arbirrition committe)
  • "As already stated the bulk of what Leyasu was trying to "attack" me". (Here Deathrocker explicitly states that my Statement is a Personal Attack in violation of my Parole)
  • "A "grasp at straws" attempt to get something against me". (Deathrocker here claims my statement is a 'Grasp At Straws' to find things to blame him for, even though all diffs have been provided)
  • "the BS comment was in relation to all o this that has happened from me trying to HELP Wikipedia". (Here Deathrocker claims that my Statement is 'Bullshit' and that by making personal attacks at me and trying to have me banned he is 'helping' Wikipedia)
  • "An apology which after the latest onslaught by Leyasu". (Here Deathrocker claims by statement is an Onslaught, possibly another selective choice of words to infer a personal attack)
  • "I suggest whoever is looking at the case actually read the full conversation". (Here Deathrocker openly attacks the Abrittion Committe again, infering that there is a cabal against him)
  • "Regarding Leyasu's false claim that I was once "up for permanent ban". (Deathrocker again claims this isnt true even though both myself and Sceptre have provided diffs for this in our statements)
  • "Most of this is irrelevent to the case, and seems to be an attempt at a few cheap stabs". (Here Deathrocker claims that my statement is 'irrelevant' and is nothing but 'a few cheap stabs')

After this Sceptre warned Deatrocker for being uncivil [165], however Deathrocker does not appear to care, continuing defacing my Statement and making Personal Attacks, [166] [167], including:

  • "Grow up, stop trying to cause trouble". (Here Deathrocker explicitly states i am a child and my statement is an 'attempt' to cause trouble)
  • "Lie #6: This an admittance by Leyasu that he was indeed the sockpuppet that I reported". (Here Deathrocker claims i am a liar, and that i am a sockpuppet even though he has refused to do a RFCU)
  • "Leyasu attempted to Vandalise this article, removing information I had wrote in an attempt to cover up the refutal of his lies". (This is because i removed his comments from my statement based on Tonys advice as an admin. Deahtrocker chose then to deface my statement leading to his warning by Sceptre)
  • "Leyasu then childishly (yes childishly, right a novel about it, I don't care, you're acting like a child)". (Here Deathrocker explicity makes a personal attack calling me a child, and then makes further uncivil remarks despite being warner by Sceptre).
  • "The word "truth" is an entirely foreign concept to Leyasu". (Deathrocker deliberatly makes the personal attack that i do not know the meaning of the word Truth)
  • "Until Leyasu starts acting civily and stops Personally attacking me, they are in violation of their parole'". (Here Deathrocker explicitly claims that by making a statement i am violating my parole)
  • "Although this case is ridiculous and indeed against wikipedia policy". (Deathrocker attacking the arbirrition case and Wikilawyering again)
  • "Leyasu is just attepting to maliciously cause trouble with things like this now". (Deathrocker again claiming my statement is a personal attack)
  • "Grow up, stop trying to cause trouble". (Deathrocker telling me to 'grow up' and remove my statement from the Abirittion Case)
  • "its been made pretty obvious Leyasu's intentions (to stir trouble, the assumption of bad faith)" (Deathrocker again calling my statement a personal attack, despite having been warned by Sceptre for uncivlity and personal attacks)

After this Deathrocker then proceeded to again make more personal attacks, [168] [169]:

  • "Perhaps if Sceptre had done his job correctly and went through the correct paths" (Deathrocker here attacks Sceptre for being an admin and filing the RFA)
  • "Leyasu attempted to Vandalise this article, (blanking is indeed vandalism) removing information I had wrote without my permission". (Deahtrocker here claims it is ok for him to deface others statements and that Admins and other users have to have 'his permission' to edit the board)
  • "I'm tired of having to reveal the truth, fending off each attack agaisnt myself by the user, it is getting very boring". (Here Deathrocker claims that im 'a liar' and claims again my statement is a personal attack)

Deathrocker has made continious personal attacks using the RFA board, as shown in this edit [170]:

  • "As recent as today; Leyasu bit a noob". [I provided the user with a final warning http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:220.239.75.26&diff=prev&oldid=51179164], who has used several sock puppets to violate WP:33R and vandalise my talk page. The user was also warned by two admins and other members of the WP:HMM project and has had the policys clearly stated to them. The user is also going through an RFCU to check if this account is Deathrocker, due to Deathrocker's use of sockpuppets to bait me before)
  • "The anon doesn't vandalise at all as you can see, though a personal attack was made against them by Leyasu, who labeled them as a vandal". (After being shown a sockpuppet of User:Mike5193 who has had two admin warnings, had several sock puppets blocked, and has vandalised my user page and the user pages of other users in WP:HMM, this was vandalism)
  • "The user is allowed to get away with such violations and uses the fact that they are on ArbCom parole as an excuse" (I have not done anything to get away with, considering the user is a known sockpuppet of a known vandal)
  • "'How such violations are allowed to happen, after the user has violated there parole 5 times is a mystery". (Deathrocker here again demands my statement is annulled on the basis i am on Parole. This has been a recurring theme with Deahtrockers threats to have me banned one way or another)

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 [171], 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 [172] 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]

Again you are "implying" how about work on the basis of things I've actually said for once?... if you call me out for something I've actually said then I'd gladly discuss it. But you're expecting me to defend a point of view in which the comment wasn't said in the first place, that is impossible.. instead of trying to pull me up, on your "interpretations"/spin.... stick to bare faced, black and white fact of what it says please.... If I wanted to say what you implied I would have straight out said it bluntly, alas..

When I said "pull the plug" if you look. It was when I was reporting a suspected sock (correct?)... suggesting that it may be time for an admin "pull the plug" on a sock, to stop the vandalism in proccess (yes vandalism, if you look here [173], that is the suspected sock vandalising, which you pointed out here; [174])... at the time I said those exact words, Leyasu was already blocked for warring with other users... there was no "plug to pull" at that time apart from the sock. Unless you are saying its OK to use socks?

What this says to me is if I see somebody using socks, or vandalising Wikipedia, then theres no point in reporting it, if this is the BS I get for my efforts to help. - Deathrocker 12:42, 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, [175]

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 [176].... 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]

Again your favourite hobby taking my words out of context... here in your Arb case it tells you that you do not own Wikipedia articles Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Leyasu#Consensus_and_ownership_of_articles You're welcome...

Perhaps if you actually took the time to read the entire Arb case terms against yourself, maybe you wouldn't violate it so much?

There was still no "bragging" either... it isn't my responsibility if you have an inability to stick to the terms of paroles and other set out terms, that are stated in the link provided. That is down to you and you alone.

Asking you to "assume good faith" when you are attacking me... is a "personal attack"? Wow, thats a pretty warped perspective and you wonder why some users have had a hard time working with you.

I've already to asked you to desist with lies against myself over a month ago... yet you continue on this very page numerous times, that is not an assumption of "good faith" by any stretch of the imagination on your part. Perhaps you should actually read what a "personal attack" is, before think about posting untruths about myself in future? kthanks - Deathrocker 12:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to claims by Leyasu Pt.1

This is regarding untruths [177]... the rest of Leyasu's claims were already found to be false in the last ArbCom case.

Regarding the first comment in that section

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 [178] 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]

Reply to claims by Leyasu, Pt 2
  • sigh* sad, sad, sad.

This whole episode with you is becoming very childish... after you made an apology I thought you'd actually stick by your word... I guess I was wrong to presume you would.

Lets review shall we....

Yes, you apologised and I accepted your apology... I thought some head way would be made from that..

But then you come straight back here... selectively quote lines from a reply I made to user:Idont_Havaname [179].. NOT you... I know you can read so, that shouldn't be too hard to figure out, yet somehow you claim that I'm "attacking" you??.... when I was even talking to you?.... you don't see how that is utterly ridiculous??

Just to clarify for anybody still keeping up with this sham of a case, that is still in violation of Wikipedia policies...

As already stated the bulk of what Leyasu was trying to "attack" me on was a reply to user:Idont_Havaname, where I was trying to clarify a few issues, as can be seen here [180]... whether this was a genuine confusion by Leyasu, thinking I was addressing him or a "grasp at straws" attempt to get something against me, I do not know... I'll assume good faith and reserve judgement on that count.

As you can see if you read that link.. the BS comment was in relation to all o this that has happened from me trying to HELP Wikipedia by reporting a suspected sock, I stated in future, that this tells me not to bother as "this is the BS I get for my efforts to help".

The second part; "Again your favourite hobby taking my words out of context" and "it isn't my responsibility if you have an inability to stick to the terms of paroles" is a very selective two part quote of "There was still no "bragging" either... it isn't my responsibility if you have an inability to stick to the terms of paroles and other set out terms, that are stated in the link provided. That is down to you and you alone."

Which was in regards to Leyasu's breaking of parole 5 times... saying how it isn't my responsibility to make sure he doesn't break it. Keep in mind this was made BEFORE, I'd read and replied to Leyasu's apology, accepting it.

An apology which after the latest onslaught by Leyasu, doesn't seem to have had any conviction behind it now. Also regarding to the last part, I suggest whoever is looking at the case actually read the full conversation, not just the selective quoting from Leyasu, as I suggested that perhaps Leyasu and Sceptre were confused, regarding Leyasu's false claim that I was once "up for permanent ban"... which is a flase claim, again most of this is irrelevent to the case, and seems to be an attempt at a few cheap stabs.

Perhaps if Sceptre had done his job correctly and went through the correct paths (IE - Meditation, or made an effort to disucss whatever issues he has first) before creating this violative case, all this wouldn't have happened? - Deathrocker 14:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt by Leyasu to vandalise Arbitration board

Leyasu attempted to Vandalise this article, (blanking is indeed vandalism) removing information I had wrote without my permission, in an attempt to cover up the correction of his lies [181]... (they've now been re-added)

Leyasu then childishly (yes childishly, right a novel about it, I don't care, you're acting like a child), after I have attempted to act with good faith (which believe me, when dealing with this user takes one hell of an effort). This user has tested my patience and I no longer have any for him, baiting me with ridiculous comnments twisting more statements I made, diliberately and made yet more false claims the word "truth" is an entirely foreign concept to Leyasu.

I will now disect each lie, until Leyasu starts acting civily and stops Personally attacking me, they are in violation of their parole... I've tried assuming good faith, as I said, this user refuses to do the same...

Lie #1 After removing Deathrockers comments from my Statement to his own, Deathrocker replaced them [182] as an attempt to bait me into violating my parole as noted already by Tony.

Leyasu vandalised the article that is true as you can see here [183]though there are no diffs to show me "attempting to bait" this user into violating parole, this is a personal attack against myself to claim so... Tony also made no comment.

Lie #2 "This whole episode with you is becoming very childish. (Deathrocker made this comment even though myself and three admins have put in statements against Deathrocker).

Three admins haven't put in statements "against" myself at all.. three admins have made statements, Idont_Havaname's seems somewhat neautral although needed some things clairfying, Tony's doesn't mention me... so that leaves Sceptre and Leyasu, surprise, surprise.

Lie #3 "'you don't see how that is utterly ridiculous?? ". (Deathrocker has made claim about the arbirittion case being null several times, this one denoting the case as ridiculous)

Although this case is ridiculous and indeed against wikipedia policy, that isn't what the comment was in regards to... the comment was in regards to Leyasu, claiming I had personally attacked him when I wasn't even addressed him at the time... I stated how he doesn't see "how that is utterly ridiculous"...read this in reply Pt. 2. Leyasu is well aware of exactly what this was refering to , and is just attepting to maliciously cause trouble with things like this now.

Lie #4 "Just to clarify for anybody still keeping up with this sham of a case, that is still in violation of Wikipedia policies". (Here Deathrocker openly branches his personal attacks out to include the arbirrition committe)

Grow up, stop trying to cause trouble. No personal attack is made against anybody (that is blatantly clear)... the case is a sham because it is in violation of Wikipedia policies. Nobody on the arbitration commity was even mentioned... you are well aware of this, and just attempting to stir trouble claiming I'm attacking people that I've not even made mention of. You've been told to assume good faith by admins, yet you contiune not to. Creating slander against myself.

Lie #5 "Regarding Leyasu's false claim that I was once "up for permanent ban". (Deathrocker again claims this isnt true even though both myself and Sceptre have provided diffs for this in our statements)

After been warned by an Admin for lying about this on this very page, Leyasu persists with a false claim... there are no diffs to show that I was "up for permanent ban" ever, because I simply never was, something the other admins in this case are aware of... read the last ArbCom case, it makes no mention of such thing.... again more malicious lies by Leyasu. Which he has already been warned about fasely claiming.

Lie #6 the BS comment was in relation to all o this that has happened from me trying to HELP Wikipedia". (Here Deathrocker claims that my Statement is 'Bullshit' and that by making personal attacks at me and trying to have me banned he is 'helping' Wikipedia)

This was CLEARLY in regards to this comment; "What this says to me is if I see somebody using socks, or vandalising Wikipedia, then theres no point in reporting it, if this is the BS I get for my efforts to help." which was a discussion with Idont_Havaname [184]

Again Leyasu is all too aware of this, and knows exactly what he is doing. The comment I made to Idont_Havaname was regading a sockpuppet, and Leyasu claims that "trying to have me banned he is 'helping' Wikipedia"... is this an admittance by Leyasu that he was indeed the sockpuppet that I reported?... it seems like that is what he is admitting with that comment.

I could go onto disect the others but I think its been made pretty obvious Leyasu's intentions (to stir trouble, the assumption of bad faith... after I assumed good faith with him, persistant personal attacks against myself, slander and defemation of character) Leyasu will most likely return and twist great sections of this in a moment (as has been seen multiple times here already)... wait and see. - Deathrocker 18:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update

After (not before as Leyasu fasely states) my last edit on here, Sceptre then to leave a message on my page... but not on Leyasu's page, to which I questioned him [185]...yet Sceptre failed to reply adaquetly... though this was indeed AFTER I'd made my last edit on here.

Though I had noticed that Leyasu left an obscene message on Sceptre's page, a couple of hours before mine, Leyasu threated to "tell him to go F**k Himself" [186]... which I find totally unacceptable behvaiour.

I don't think theres any need to address Leyasu's latest edits on here... as you can see what the intent seemingly is of them after I disected the others here. This section seems to be a target, as Leyasu has moved it twice and blanked parts once. [187]

I'm tired of having to reveal the truth, fending off each attack agaisnt myself by the user, it is getting very boring and makes one jaded.

Thanks - Deathrocker 05:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't just me who Leyasu has assumed bad faith with and attacked claiming content disputes as vandalism.. as recent as today; Leyasu bit a noob [188] made a threat to ban them for vandalism [189].. even though he isn't even an admin, when the the post history of the n00b is checked, it showed they had only one edit on the Children of Bodom article, which Leyasu is known to be in disputes with numerous editors in regards to content, check the articles history... the noobs only post was; [190] ... the anon doesn't vandalise at all as you can see, though a personal attack was made against them by Leyasu, who labeled them as a "vandal". [191]

The user is allowed to get away with such violations and uses the fact that they are on ArbCom parole as an excuse, when violating often claims other users are "baiting" him. When that never seems to be the case... how such violations are allowed to happen, after the user has violated there parole 5 times is a mystery. Explinations as to why this is allowed to happen are welcome. - Deathrocker 18:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* "As recent as today; Leyasu bit a noob". [I provided the user with a final warning http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:220.239.75.26&diff=prev&oldid=51179164], who has used several sock puppets to violate WP:33R and vandalise my talk page. The user was also warned by two admins and other members of the WP:HMM project and has had the policys clearly stated to them. The user is also going through an RFCU to check if this account is Deathrocker, due to Deathrocker's use of sockpuppets to bait me before)

Here Leyasu claims the noob has vandalised talkpages before, even though if you check its history this was the anons first edit.... a clear attempt by Leyasu to worm his way out of a personal attack and biting a random noob.

Leyasu has a past of claiming other editors on Wikipedia are me, after disputing with them, he once claimed Danterferno was me (even though we don't even share the same interests and he has messaged me months before Leyasu claimed such a thing).... it was found out that myself and Danterferno are not the same person.

After Leyasu's current attack at an anon, he is now claiming on the sockpuppets board, that I'm not only Mike but the anons too... he can't make his mind up.

Leyasu then went on to break the law and Wikipedia policies by commiting Slander against myself. [192], to which I notified an admin for assistance as this is one step too far.

Leyasu also went on to personally attack me claiming that I'd used anons to bait him in the past.... check the history on the sock puppets board... you will see out of the two of us, only Leyasu has been found guilty of using sock puppets to attack users and edit while blocked [193]. The user has once again attacked me on an administrators page, using the words "go f**k himself" [194] again, unacceptable. Why admins are not doing anything about that is a mystery. - Deathrocker 08:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary action taken by Sceptre

I've blocked both users for 72 hours for constantly bickering on my talk page. If possible, the block should be lifted once the case has either been delisted or opened. (Deathrocker's sockpuppet has been blocked as I allowed it to make a statement in the older RfAr) Will (E@) T 10:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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


infinity0

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[195] [196]

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: [197] 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)" [198]

    • Simultaneous personal attack and assuming bad faith:

[199]

  • 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):

[200]

  • Example of deleting credible sources:

[201]

    • These sources were added because someone requested a source for the claim that "many" consider..... I informed him of this after he deleted them [202] and he proceeded to delete them again [203] 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:

[204] Keeps putting them back in after the policy is stated to him that that is it an unpublished internet source. [205] 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: [206] 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 [207] 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. [208] 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:

[209] [210] [211]

  • 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: [212] 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.

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)

I don't think Infinity0's interactions on the Anarchism related pages have been particularly helpful recently. He has resorted to a number of fairly uncalled-for tactics particularly against RJII (such as opening an RfC against him), and - I suspect through youthful inexperience - he appears to not to have grasped a number of tenets of Wikipedia activity - in particular about sourcing and verifiability, about not owning articles, and about not being a dick. ElectricRay 22:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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: [215].
    • He has been involved in numerous disputes with many other editors: [216] [217] [218] [219]
    • RJII has personal problems with An Anarchist FAQ, going as far as to lie about what it actually is [220].
    • 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. [221]
  • Vision Thing has made almost completely POV edits - eg, inserting of multiple links to one website, on multiple pages, and comments like this: [222]

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 [223]. 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 [224].

The FAQ says "the writers [are] social anarchists". However, the FAQ is also open to contributions [225] 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 in 2007 [226].

Statement by Bishonen

After my experience today of trying to get RJII to stop posting intrusive speculations about Infinity's private concerns on I's page while I's on a wikibreak, I'd be most interested to see ArbCom take stock of this user's way of interacting with fellow editors. Here's the thread on Infinity's page (look left, scroll down); ElectricRay is also in there, but he backed down when I insisted. By contrast, here's RJII's charming response to my plea for letting a 16-year-old take his exams in peace. Bishonen | talk 18:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by RJII in regard to comment by Bishonen

A note was left on infinity0's user page saying he wasn't going to be around, but it was left by someone other than infinity0 (unless it's a sockpuppet, which is possible since the edit explanation was written in 1st person). I'm competely justified in trying to determine if the information is accurate, since we are trying to pursue this arbitration case against him. I don't know how a case can go on when the person isn't around. And, if it's a sockpuppet, then that needs to be found out as well. Bishonen is quite unjustified in accusing me of "trolling." I suggest he review our Wikipedia:Personal_attacks policy as well as our Assume_Good_Faith policy. RJII 18:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC) Also, Bishonen blanked out a section on infinity0's talk page. [227] I'd like to advise him that reverting vandalism is great, but to not delete information from someone else's Talk page just because he doesn't like what's on it. RJII 19:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

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 [228] 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 [229]. 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? [230]
  • I did not read it, because false claims are not a matter of opinion. You may read lie . [231]
  • So you still spread false claims after being made aware of it. What is the diff to lieing? [232]

I attempted to warn Mr. Conradi, politely, that accusations of lying may violate WP:CIVIL and run the risk of annoying other editors [233]. His response was decidedly uncivil [234] [235] [236]. Mr. Conradi has provided his own summary of this dispute on his user page [237]:

  • 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. CheckUser has been performed, which suggests that Mr. Conradi is not the actor [284].

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)

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. [285] [286] [287] [288] [289] Prometheuspan 03:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[290] [291]

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

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

[294] my post of valerie plame

[295]

[296]

[297]

[298]

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

[300]

I have gone far back enough now in the edit history to show that this is a pattern of merecats. [301]


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 [302] (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." [303] 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." [304] 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 (0/3/0/0)

Requests for Clarification

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

Lou franklin: "Ineffective editor"

This is a matter of curiosity rather than confusion, but what was meant by "this grossly ineffective request for arbitration"? Being the one who brought that request, I naturally wonder whom/what that bit was directed at. Sorry for this rather belated request (I could have asked this weeks ago if I'd been paying attention in class). --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 [305]). 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]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:27, 4 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]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Archives
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=51721962"